draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv-03.txt   rfc7885.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force V. Govindan Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) V. Govindan
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro Request for Comments: 7885 C. Pignataro
Updates: 5885 (if approved) Cisco Updates: 5885 Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track April 28, 2016 Category: Standards Track July 2016
Expires: October 30, 2016 ISSN: 2070-1721
Seamless BFD for VCCV Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)
draft-ietf-pals-seamless-vccv-03 for Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)
Abstract Abstract
This document extends the procedures and Connectivity Verification This document defines Seamless BFD (S-BFD) for VCCV by extending the
(CV) types already defined for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection procedures and Connectivity Verification (CV) types already defined
(BFD) for Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) to define for Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Virtual Circuit
Seamless BFD (S-BFD) for VCCV. This document updates RFC 5885, Connectivity Verification (VCCV).
extending the CV Values and the Capability Selection.
Status of This Memo This document updates RFC 5885 by extending the CV Type values and
the capability selection.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2016. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7885.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Background ......................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. S-BFD Connectivity Verification .................................3
2. S-BFD Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Co-existence of S-BFD and BFD Capabilities .................4
2.1. Co-existence of S-BFD and BFD Capabilites . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. S-BFD CV Operation .........................................4
2.2. S-BFD CV Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.1. S-BFD Initiator Operation ...........................4
2.2.1. S-BFD Initiator Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.2. S-BFD Reflector Operation ...........................5
2.2.2. S-BFD Reflector Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.2.1. Demultiplexing .............................5
2.2.2.1. Demultiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.2.2. Transmission of Control Packets ............5
2.2.2.2. Transmission of Control Packets . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2.2.3. Advertisement of Target
2.2.2.3. Advertisement of Target Discriminators Using LDP 5 Discriminators Using LDP ...................5
2.2.2.4. Advertisement of Target Discriminators Using L2TP 5 2.2.2.4. Advertisement of Target
2.2.2.5. Provisioning of Target Discriminators . . . . . . 6 Discriminators Using L2TP ..................6
2.3. S-BFD Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.2.5. Provisioning of Target Discriminators ......6
2.4. S-BFD CV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. S-BFD Encapsulation ........................................6
3. Capability Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Capability Selection ............................................7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations .........................................7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV . 7 5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV ....8
5.2. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP . . . . . . . 8 5.2. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP ................8
5.3. PW Associated Channel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. PW Associated Channel Type .................................9
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References ......................................................9
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References .......................................9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Informative References ....................................10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgements ..................................................11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Contributors ......................................................11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses ................................................11
1. Background 1. Background
BFD for VCCV [RFC5885] defines the CV types for BFD using VCCV, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Virtual Circuit
protocol operation and the required packet encapsulation formats. Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5885] defines the CV Types for
This document extends those procedures, CV type values to enable BFD using VCCV, protocol operation, and the required packet
S-BFD [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base] operation for VCCV. encapsulation formats. This document extends those procedures and
CV Type values to enable Seamless BFD (S-BFD) [RFC7880] operation
for VCCV.
The new S-BFD CV Types are Pseudowire (PW) demultiplexer-agnostic, The new S-BFD CV Types are Pseudowire (PW) demultiplexer agnostic and
and hence applicable for both MPLS and Layer Two Tunneling Protocol hence are applicable for both MPLS and Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
version 3 (L2TPv3) pseudowire demultiplexers. This document concerns version 3 (L2TPv3) PW demultiplexers. This document concerns itself
itself with the S-BFD VCCV operation over single-segment pseudowires with the S-BFD VCCV operation over Single-Segment PWs (SS-PWs). The
(SS-PWs). The scope of this document is as follows: scope of this document is as follows:
This specification describes procedures only for S-BFD o This specification describes procedures for S-BFD asynchronous
asynchronous mode. mode only.
S-BFD Echo mode is outside the scope of this specification. o S-BFD Echo mode is outside the scope of this specification.
S-BFD operation for fault detection and status signaling is o S-BFD operation for fault detection and status signaling is
outside the scope of this specification. outside the scope of this specification.
This document specifies the use of a single S-BFD discriminator per This document specifies the use of a single S-BFD Discriminator per
Pseudowire. There are cases where multiple S-BFD discriminators per PW. There are cases where multiple S-BFD Discriminators per PW can
PW can be useful. One such cases is using different S-BFD be useful. One such case involves using different S-BFD
discriminators per Flow within a FAT PW [RFC6391]; however, the Discriminators per Flow within a Flow-Aware Transport (FAT) PW
mapping between Flows and discriminators is a prerequisite. FAT PWs [RFC6391]; however, the mapping between Flows and discriminators is a
can be supported as described in Section 7 of [RFC6391]. prerequisite. FAT PWs can be supported as described in Section 7 of
[RFC6391], which details Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
1.1. Requirements Language (OAM) considerations for FAT PWs.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119]. [RFC2119].
2. S-BFD Connectivity Verification 2. S-BFD Connectivity Verification
S-BFD protocol provides continuity check services by monitoring the The S-BFD protocol provides continuity check services by monitoring
S-BFD control packets sent and received over the VCCV channel of the the S-BFD Control packets sent and received over the VCCV channel of
PW. The term "Connectivity Verification" is used throughout this the PW. The term "Connectivity Verification" (CV) is used throughout
document to be consistent with [RFC5885]. this document to be consistent with [RFC5885].
This section defines the CV types to be used for S-BFD. It also This section defines the CV Types to be used for S-BFD. It also
defines the procedures for the S-BFD reflector and S-BFD Initiator defines the procedures for the S-BFD reflector and S-BFD initiator
operation. operation.
Two CV Types are defined for S-BFD. Table 1 summarizes the S-BFD CV Two CV Types are defined for S-BFD. Table 1 summarizes the S-BFD
Types, grouping them by encapsulation (i.e., with versus without IP/ CV Types, grouping them by encapsulation (i.e., with IP/UDP headers,
UDP headers) for fault detection only. S-BFD for fault detection and without IP/UDP headers) for fault detection only. S-BFD for fault
status signaling is outside the scope of this specification. detection and status signaling is outside the scope of this
specification.
+----------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+ +-----------------------------------------+-----------+-------------+
| | Fault | Fault | | | Fault | Fault |
| | Detection | Detection | | | Detection | Detection |
| | Only | and Status | | | Only | and Status |
| | | Signaling | | | | Signaling |
+----------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+ +-----------------------------------------+-----------+-------------+
| S-BFD, IP/UDP Encapsulation (with | TBD1 | N/A | | S-BFD IP/UDP encapsulation (with IP/UDP | 0x40 | N/A |
| IP/UDP Headers) | | | | headers) | | |
| | | | | | | |
| S-BFD, PW-ACH Encapsulation when using | TBD2 | N/A | | S-BFD PW-ACH encapsulation when using | 0x80 | N/A |
| MPLS PW or L2-Specific Sublayer (L2SS) | | | | MPLS PW or S-BFD L2-Specific Sublayer | | |
| Encapsulation when using L2TP PW | | | | (L2SS) encapsulation when using L2TP PW | | |
| (without IP/UDP Headers) | | | | (without IP/UDP headers) | | |
+----------------------------------------+-----------+--------------+ +-----------------------------------------+-----------+-------------+
Table 1: Bitmask Values for BFD CV Types Table 1: Bitmask Values for S-BFD CV Types
Two new bits are requested from IANA to indicate S-BFD operation. IANA has assigned two new bits to indicate S-BFD operation.
2.1. Co-existence of S-BFD and BFD Capabilites 2.1. Co-existence of S-BFD and BFD Capabilities
Since the CV types for S-BFD and BFD are unique, BFD and S-BFD Since the CV Types for S-BFD and BFD are unique, BFD and S-BFD
capabilities can be advertised concurrently. capabilities can be advertised concurrently.
2.2. S-BFD CV Operation 2.2. S-BFD CV Operation
2.2.1. S-BFD Initiator Operation 2.2.1. S-BFD Initiator Operation
The S-BFD Initiator SHOULD bootstrap S-BFD sessions after it learns The S-BFD initiator SHOULD bootstrap S-BFD sessions after it learns
the discriminator of the remote target identifier. This can be the discriminator of the remote target identifier. This can be
achieved, for example but not limited to, through one or more of the achieved, for example, through one or more of the following methods.
following methods: (This list is not exhaustive.)
1. Advertisements of S-BFD discriminators made through a PW 1. Advertisements of S-BFD Discriminators made through a
signaling protocol, for example AVP/TLVs defined in L2TP/LDP. PW signaling protocol -- for example, AVPs/TLVs defined in
L2TP/LDP.
2. Provisioning of S-BFD discriminators by manual configuration of 2. Provisioning of S-BFD Discriminators by manual configuration of
the PE/LCCEs. the Provider Edge (PE) or L2TP Control Connection Endpoints
(LCCEs).
3. Assignment of S-BFD discriminators by a controller. 3. Assignment of S-BFD Discriminators by a controller.
4. Probing remote S-BFD discriminators through a mechanism such as 4. Probing remote S-BFD Discriminators through a mechanism such as
S-BFD Alert discriminators [I-D.akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim] S-BFD Alert Discriminators [SBFD-ALERT-DISCRIM].
S-BFD Initiator operation MUST be according to the specifications in The S-BFD initiator operation MUST be done as specified in
Section 7.2 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base]. Section 7.3 of [RFC7880].
2.2.2. S-BFD Reflector Operation 2.2.2. S-BFD Reflector Operation
When a pseudowire signaling protocol such as LDP or L2TPv3 is in When a PW signaling protocol such as LDP or L2TPv3 is in use, the
use, the S-BFD Reflector can advertise its target discriminators S-BFD reflector can advertise its target discriminators using that
using that signaling protocol. When static PWs are in use the signaling protocol. When static PWs are in use, the target
target discriminator of S-BFD needs to be provisioned on the S-BFD discriminator of S-BFD needs to be provisioned on the S-BFD
Initiator nodes. initiator nodes.
All point to point pseudowires are bidirectional, the S-BFD All point-to-point PWs are bidirectional; the S-BFD reflector
Reflector therefore reflects the S-BFD packet back to the therefore reflects the S-BFD packet back to the initiator using the
Initiator using the VCCV channel of the reverse direction of the VCCV channel of the reverse direction of the PW on which it was
PW on which it was received. received.
It is observed that the reflector has enough information to The reflector has enough information to reflect the S-BFD Async
reflect the S-BFD Async packet received by it back to the S-BFD packet received by it back to the S-BFD initiator using the PW
initiator using the PW context (e.g., fields of the L2TPv3 context (e.g., fields of the L2TPv3 headers).
headers).
S-BFD Reflector operation for BFD protocol fields MUST be The S-BFD reflector operation for BFD protocol fields MUST be
according to the specifications of [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base]. performed as specified in [RFC7880].
2.2.2.1. Demultiplexing 2.2.2.1. Demultiplexing
Demultiplexing of S-BFD is achieved using the PW context, following Demultiplexing of S-BFD is achieved using the PW context, following
the procedures in Section 7.1 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base]. the procedures in Section 7.1 of [RFC7880].
2.2.2.2. Transmission of Control Packets 2.2.2.2. Transmission of Control Packets
The procedures of S-BFD Reflector described in S-BFD reflector procedures as described in [RFC7880] apply for S-BFD
[I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base] apply for S-BFD using VCCV. using VCCV.
2.2.2.3. Advertisement of Target Discriminators Using LDP 2.2.2.3. Advertisement of Target Discriminators Using LDP
The advertisement of the target discriminator using LDP is left for The advertisement of the target discriminator using LDP is left for
further study. It should be noted that S-BFD can still be used with further study. It should be noted that S-BFD can still be used with
signaled PWs over an MPLS PSN, by provisioning of the S-BFD signaled PWs over an MPLS Packet Switched Network (PSN) by
discriminators or by learning the S-BFD discriminators by other provisioning the S-BFD Discriminators or by learning the S-BFD
means. Discriminators via some other means.
2.2.2.4. Advertisement of Target Discriminators Using L2TP 2.2.2.4. Advertisement of Target Discriminators Using L2TP
The S-BFD Reflector MUST use the AVP The S-BFD reflector MUST use the AVP defined in [RFC7886] for
[I-D.ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator] defined for advertising its advertising its target discriminators using L2TP.
target discriminators using L2TP.
2.2.2.5. Provisioning of Target Discriminators 2.2.2.5. Provisioning of Target Discriminators
S-BFD target discriminators MAY be provisioned when static PWs are S-BFD target discriminators MAY be provisioned when static PWs
used. are used.
2.3. S-BFD Encapsulation 2.3. S-BFD Encapsulation
Unless specified differently below, the encapsulation of S-BFD Unless specified differently below, the encapsulation of S-BFD
packets is identical to the method specified in Section 3.2 [RFC5885] packets is identical to the method specified in Section 3.2 of
and in [RFC5880] for the encapsulation of BFD packets. [RFC5885] and in [RFC5880] for the encapsulation of BFD packets.
o IP/UDP BFD Encapsulation (BFD with IP/UDP Headers) o IP/UDP BFD encapsulation (BFD with IP/UDP headers):
* The destination UDP port for the IP encapsulated S-BFD packet * The destination UDP port for the IP-encapsulated S-BFD packet
MUST be 7784 [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip]. MUST be 7784 [RFC7881].
* The encapsulation of the S-BFD header fields MUST be according * The contents of the S-BFD Control packets MUST be set according
to Section 7.3.2 of [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base]. to Section 7.3.2 of [RFC7880].
* The Time to Live (TTL) (IPv4) or Hop Limit (IPv6) is set to * The Time to Live (TTL) (IPv4) or Hop Limit (IPv6) is set
255. to 255.
o PW-ACH/ L2SS BFD Encapsulation (BFD without IP/UDP Headers) o PW-ACH/L2SS BFD encapsulation (BFD without IP/UDP headers):
* The encapsulation of S-BFD packets using this format MUST be * The encapsulation of S-BFD packets using this format MUST be
according to Section 3.2 of [RFC5885] with the exception of the performed according to Section 3.2 of [RFC5885], with the
value for the PW-ACH/L2SS type. exception of the value for the PW-ACH/L2SS type.
* When VCCV carries PW-ACH/ L2SS-encapsulated S-BFD (i.e., "raw"
S-BFD), the PW-ACH (pseudowire CW's) or L2SS' Channel Type MUST
be set to TBD3 to indicate "S-BFD Control, PW-ACH/ L2SS-
encapsulated" (i.e., S-BFD without IP/UDP headers; see
Section 5.3). This is to allow the identification of the
encased S-BFD payload when demultiplexing the VCCV control
channel.
2.4. S-BFD CV Types * When VCCV carries PW-ACH/L2SS-encapsulated S-BFD (i.e., "raw"
S-BFD), the Channel Type of PW-ACH (the PW Control Word (CW))
or L2SS MUST be set to 0x0008 to indicate "S-BFD Control,
PW-ACH/L2SS-encapsulated" (i.e., S-BFD without IP/UDP headers;
see Section 5.3). This is done to allow the identification of
the encapsulated S-BFD payload when demultiplexing the VCCV
control channel.
3. Capability Selection 3. Capability Selection
When multiple S-BFD CV Types are advertised, and after applying the When multiple S-BFD CV Types are advertised, and after applying the
rules in [RFC5885], the set that both ends of the pseudowire have in rules in [RFC5885], the set that both ends of the PW have in common
common is determined. If the two ends have more than one S-BFD CV is determined. If the two ends have more than one S-BFD CV Type in
Type in common, the following list of S-BFD CV Types is considered in common, the following list of S-BFD CV Types is considered in order,
the order of the lowest list number CV Type to the highest list from the lowest list number CV Type to the highest list number
number CV Type, and the CV Type with the lowest list number is used: CV Type, and the CV Type with the lowest list number is used:
1. TBD1 - S-BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only. 1. 0x40 - S-BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, for PW Fault Detection only.
2. TBD2 - S-BFD PW-ACH/ L2SS-encapsulated (without IP/UDP headers), 2. 0x80 - S-BFD PW-ACH/L2SS-encapsulated (without IP/UDP headers),
for PW Fault Detection only. for PW Fault Detection only.
The order of capability selection between S-BFD and BFD is defined as The order of capability selection between S-BFD and BFD is defined as
follows: follows:
+----------------------------+---------+----------+-----------------+ +---------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------------+
| Advertised capabilities of | BFD | SBFD | Both S-BFD and | | Advertised capabilities | BFD | S-BFD | Both S-BFD and |
| PE1/ PE2 | Only | Only | BFD | | of PE1/PE2 | Only | Only | BFD |
+----------------------------+---------+----------+-----------------+ +---------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------------+
| BFD Only | BFD | None | BFD Only | | BFD Only | BFD | None | BFD Only |
| | | | | | | | | |
| S-BFD Only | None | S-BFD | S-BFD only | | S-BFD Only | None | S-BFD | S-BFD Only |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Both S-BFD and BFD | BFD | S-BFD | Both SBFD and | | Both S-BFD and BFD | BFD | S-BFD | Both S-BFD and |
| | only | only | BFD | | | Only | Only | BFD |
+----------------------------+---------+----------+-----------------+ +---------------------------+---------+-----------+-----------------+
Table 2: Capability Selection Matrix for BFD and S-BFD Table 2: Capability Selection Matrix for BFD and S-BFD
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Security considerations for VCCV are addressed in Section 10 of Security considerations for VCCV are addressed in Section 10 of
[RFC5085]. The introduction of the S-BFD Connectivity Verification [RFC5085]. The introduction of the S-BFD CV Types does not present
(CV) Types introduces no new security risks for VCCV. any new security risks for VCCV. Implementations of the additional
Implementations of the additional CV Types defined herein are subject CV Types defined herein are subject to the same security
to the same security considerations as defined in [RFC5085] as well considerations as those defined in [RFC5085] as well as [RFC7880].
as [I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base].
The IP/UDP encasulation of S-BFD makes use of the TTL/Hop Limit The IP/UDP encapsulation of S-BFD makes use of the TTL / Hop Limit
procedures described in the Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) procedures described in the Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM)
[RFC5082]) as a security mechanism. specification [RFC5082] as a security mechanism.
This specification does not raise any additional security issues This specification does not raise any additional security issues
beyond these. beyond these.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV 5.1. MPLS CV Types for the VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV
The VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV codepoint is defined in The VCCV Interface Parameters Sub-TLV codepoint is defined in
[RFC4446], and the VCCV CV Types registry is defined in [RFC5085]. [RFC4446], and the "MPLS VCCV Connectivity Verification (CV) Types"
registry is defined in [RFC5085].
This section lists the new BFD CV Types. This section lists the new S-BFD CV Types.
IANA has augmented the "MPLS VCCV Connectivity Verification (CV) IANA has augmented the "MPLS VCCV Connectivity Verification (CV)
Types" registry in the Pseudowire Name Spaces reachable from Types" registry in the "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)" registry
[IANA-PWE3]. These are bitfield values. CV Type values are [IANA-PWE3]. These are bitfield values. CV Type values are
specified in Section 2 of this document. specified in Section 2 of this document.
MPLS Connectivity Verification (CV) Types: MPLS VCCV Connectivity Verification (CV) Types:
Bit (Value) Description Reference Bit (Value) Description Reference
=========== =========== ============== =========== =========== ==============
TBD1(0xY) S-BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, This document 6 (0x40) S-BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, RFC 7885
for PW Fault Detection only for PW Fault Detection only
TBD2(0xZ) S-BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, This document
7 (0x80) S-BFD PW-ACH-encapsulated, RFC 7885
for PW Fault Detection only for PW Fault Detection only
5.2. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP 5.2. L2TPv3 CV Types for the VCCV Capability AVP
This section lists the new requests for S-BFD "L2TPv3 Connectivity This section lists the new S-BFD "L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification
Verification (CV) Types" to be added to the existing "VCCV Capability (CV) Types" that have been added to the existing "VCCV Capability AVP
AVP" registry in the L2TP name spaces. The Layer Two Tunneling (Attribute Type 96) Values" registry in the "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol "L2TP" Name Spaces are reachable from [IANA-L2TP]. IANA is Protocol 'L2TP'" registry [IANA-L2TP]. IANA has assigned the
requested to assign the following L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification following L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification (CV) Types in the "VCCV
(CV) Types in the VCCV Capability AVP Values registry. Capability AVP (Attribute Type 96) Values" registry.
VCCV Capability AVP (Attribute Type 96) Values VCCV Capability AVP (Attribute Type 96) Values
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification (CV) Types: L2TPv3 Connectivity Verification (CV) Types:
Bit (Value) Description Reference Bit (Value) Description Reference
=========== =========== ============== =========== =========== ==============
TBD1(0xY) S-BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, This document 6 (0x40) S-BFD IP/UDP-encapsulated, RFC 7885
for PW Fault Detection only for PW Fault Detection only
TBD2(0xZ) S-BFD L2SS-encapsulated, This document
7 (0x80) S-BFD L2SS-encapsulated, RFC 7885
for PW Fault Detection only for PW Fault Detection only
5.3. PW Associated Channel Type 5.3. PW Associated Channel Type
As per the IANA considerations in [RFC5586], IANA is requested to As per the IANA considerations in [RFC5586], IANA has allocated a
allocate the following Channel Types in the "MPLS Generalized Channel Type in the "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh)
Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types" registry: Types (including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry
[IANA-G-ACh].
IANA has reserved a new Pseudowire Associated Channel Type value as IANA has assigned a new Pseudowire Associated Channel Type value, as
follows: follows:
Registry: Value Description Reference
TLV ------ ---------------------------------- ---------------
Value Description Follows Reference 0x0008 S-BFD Control, PW-ACH/L2SS RFC 7885
------ ---------------------------------- ------- ---------------
TBD3 S-BFD Control, PW-ACH/L2SS No [This document]
encapsulation encapsulation
(without IP/UDP Headers) (without IP/UDP Headers)
6. Acknowledgments 6. References
The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya, Stewart Bryant, Greg
Mirsky, and Pawel Sowinski, Yuanlong, Andrew Malis, and Alexander
Vainshtein for providing input to this document and for performing
thorough reviews and useful comments.
7. Contributors
Mallik Mudigonda
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: mmudigon@cisco.com
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-base]
Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Bhatia, M., and J.
Networks, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-09 (work in
progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-bfd-seamless-ip]
Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., and D. Ward, "Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6
and MPLS", draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-04 (work in
progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator] 6.1. Normative References
Govindan, V. and C. Pignataro, "Advertising Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Discriminators
in Layer Two Tunneling Protocol, Version 3 (L2TPv3)",
draft-ietf-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator-05 (work in
progress), April 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge [RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C. [RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007, (GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual [RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A
Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, DOI 10.17487/RFC5085, Control Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085,
December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>. DOI 10.17487/RFC5085, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional [RFC5885] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC5885, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5885>.
8.2. Informative References [RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
[I-D.akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim] [RFC7881] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., and N. Akiya, "Seamless
Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., and D. Ward, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6,
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Alert and MPLS", RFC 7881, DOI 10.17487/RFC7881, July 2016,
Discriminator", draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim-03 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7881>.
(work in progress), October 2014.
[RFC7886] Govindan, V. and C. Pignataro, "Advertising Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Discriminators
in the Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)",
RFC 7886, DOI 10.17487/RFC7886, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7886>.
6.2. Informative References
[IANA-G-ACh]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "MPLS Generalized
Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types (including Pseudowire
Associated Channel Types)",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters>.
[IANA-L2TP] [IANA-L2TP]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Layer Two Tunneling Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol "L2TP"", May 2015, Protocol 'L2TP'",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/l2tp-parameters>.
[IANA-PWE3] [IANA-PWE3]
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Pseudowire Name Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Pseudowire Name
Spaces (PWE3)", January 2016, Spaces (PWE3)",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters>.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., [RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011, RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.
[SBFD-ALERT-DISCRIM]
Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., and D. Ward, "Seamless
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Alert
Discriminator", Work in Progress,
draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-alert-discrim-03, October 2014.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya, Stewart Bryant, Greg
Mirsky, Pawel Sowinski, Yuanlong Jiang, Andrew Malis, and Alexander
Vainshtein for providing input to this document, performing thorough
reviews, and providing useful comments.
Contributors
Mallik Mudigonda
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: mmudigon@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Vengada Prasad Govindan Vengada Prasad Govindan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: venggovi@cisco.com Email: venggovi@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
 End of changes. 75 change blocks. 
255 lines changed or deleted 259 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/