Skip to main content

Ping and Traceroute with Evidence Collection in Photonic Networks
draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-lsp-ping-traceroute-01

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Expired & archived
Authors Zafar Ali , University Milan , University Milan , Roberto Cassata , University Milan , University Milan , University Milan
Last updated 2008-02-25
RFC stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:

Abstract

Z. Ali, et Al. Expires August 2008 [page 1] Internet-Draft draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-lsp-ping-traceroute-01.txt Nov.07 [RFC4379] describes procedures for ping and tracerouting for LSPs with PSC (packet switch capable) transit switching capability. An important implication of using transparent (non-PSC) nodes in GMPLS network is that LSP Ping solution described in [RFC4379] are not applicable to LSP with non-PSC switching capability. Another important difference between PSC and non-PSC switching technologies is the data and control plan separation in the latter case. An implication of the separation of data and control planes in GMPLS networks is that LSP traceroute procedures described in [RFC4379] are not directly applicable to GMPLS networks with separation of data and control planes. The scope of this draft is cases where data plane does not provide the OAM functions addressed by this draft. This document is assumed that OAM mechanisms provided by the underlying data plan technology MUST be used, whenever possible. E.g., G.709 addresses the problem of trace routing in DWDM network. However, G.709 OAM mechanisms are only applicable to OEO (Optical-Electrical-Optical) capable node. This document fills in such gaps; in particular it addresses GMPLS OAM functionality in optical networks with wavelength routers, ROADMs nodes, etc. with no OEO conversion capability. For this purpose, the draft relies on control plan mechanism to provide required OAM functions. Specifically the proposed solutions are based on Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204] and RSVP-TE [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and do not require any extension to the data plan. Conventions used in this document In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server respectively. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.

Authors

Zafar Ali
University Milan
University Milan
Roberto Cassata
University Milan
University Milan
University Milan

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)