draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-03.txt   draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-04.txt 
Network Working Group C. Pignataro Network Working Group C. Pignataro
Internet-Draft N. Kumar Internet-Draft N. Kumar
Obsoletes: 4379 (if approved) Cisco Obsoletes: 4379 (if approved) Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track S. Aldrin Intended status: Standards Track S. Aldrin
Expires: March 31, 2016 Google Expires: April 5, 2016 Google
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
September 28, 2015 October 3, 2015
Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures
draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-03 draft-smack-mpls-rfc4379bis-04
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism that can be This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism that can be
used to detect data plane failures in Multi-Protocol Label Switching used to detect data plane failures in Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). There are two parts to this (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). There are two parts to this
document: information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo document: information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo
reply" for the purposes of fault detection and isolation, and reply" for the purposes of fault detection and isolation, and
mechanisms for reliably sending the echo reply. mechanisms for reliably sending the echo reply.
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 5, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 5, line 11 skipping to change at page 5, line 11
can be used for fault detection and isolation. The scope of this can be used for fault detection and isolation. The scope of this
document also is to address various updates to MPLS LSP Ping, document also is to address various updates to MPLS LSP Ping,
including: including:
1. Updates to all references and citations. Obsoleted RFCs 2434, 1. Updates to all references and citations. Obsoleted RFCs 2434,
2030, and 3036 are respectively replaced with RFCs 5226, 5905, 2030, and 3036 are respectively replaced with RFCs 5226, 5905,
and 5036. Additionally, these three documents published as RFCs: and 5036. Additionally, these three documents published as RFCs:
RFCs 4447, 5085, and 4761. RFCs 4447, 5085, and 4761.
2. Incorporate all outstanding Errata. These include Erratum with 2. Incorporate all outstanding Errata. These include Erratum with
IDs: 108, 1418, 1714, 1786, 3399, 742, and 2978. IDs: 108, 1418, 1714, 1786, 3399, 742, and 2978.
3. Replace EXP with Traffic Class (TC), based on the update from RFC
5462.
1.5. ToDo 1.5. ToDo
This section should be empty, and removed, prior to publication. This section should be empty, and removed, prior to publication.
ToDos: ToDos:
1. Evaluation of which of the RFCs that updated RFC 4379 need to be 1. Evaluation of which of the RFCs that updated RFC 4379 need to be
incorporated into this 4379bis document. Specifically, these incorporated into this 4379bis document. Specifically, these
RFCs updated RFC 4379: 5462, 6424, 6425, 6426, 6829, 7506, and RFCs updated RFC 4379: 6424, 6425, 6426, 6829, 7506, and 7537.
7537. RFCs that updated RFC 4379 and are incorporated into this RFCs that updated RFC 4379 and are incorporated into this
4379bis, will be Obsoleted by 4379bis. 4379bis, will be Obsoleted by 4379bis.
2. Review IANA Allocations 2. Review IANA Allocations
3. Fix pending figure mis-alignments 3. Fix pending figure mis-alignments
2. Motivation 2. Motivation
When an LSP fails to deliver user traffic, the failure cannot always When an LSP fails to deliver user traffic, the failure cannot always
be detected by the MPLS control plane. There is a need to provide a be detected by the MPLS control plane. There is a need to provide a
tool that would enable users to detect such traffic "black holes" or tool that would enable users to detect such traffic "black holes" or
misrouting within a reasonable period of time, and a mechanism to misrouting within a reasonable period of time, and a mechanism to
skipping to change at page 26, line 14 skipping to change at page 26, line 14
Downstream Label(s) Downstream Label(s)
The set of labels in the label stack as it would have appeared if The set of labels in the label stack as it would have appeared if
this router were forwarding the packet through this interface. this router were forwarding the packet through this interface.
Any Implicit Null labels are explicitly included. Labels are Any Implicit Null labels are explicitly included. Labels are
treated as numbers, i.e., they are right justified in the field. treated as numbers, i.e., they are right justified in the field.
A Downstream Label is 24 bits, in the same format as an MPLS label A Downstream Label is 24 bits, in the same format as an MPLS label
minus the TTL field, i.e., the MSBit of the label is bit 0, the minus the TTL field, i.e., the MSBit of the label is bit 0, the
LSBit is bit 19, the EXP bits are bits 20-22, and bit 23 is the S LSBit is bit 19, the Traffic Class (TC) bits are bits 20-22, and
bit. The replying router SHOULD fill in the EXP and S bits; the bit 23 is the S bit. The replying router SHOULD fill in the TC
LSR receiving the echo reply MAY choose to ignore these bits. and S bits; the LSR receiving the echo reply MAY choose to ignore
Protocol these bits. Protocol
The Protocol is taken from the following table: The Protocol is taken from the following table:
Protocol # Signaling Protocol Protocol # Signaling Protocol
---------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------
0 Unknown 0 Unknown
1 Static 1 Static
2 BGP 2 BGP
3 LDP 3 LDP
4 RSVP-TE 4 RSVP-TE
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 12 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/