Ping Path Consistency over SRv6
draft-gong-spring-ping-path-consistency-over-srv6-03
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Liyan Gong , Changwang Lin , Yuanxiang Qiu | ||
| Last updated | 2025-01-22 (Latest revision 2024-07-22) | ||
| RFC stream | (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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
In the SRv6 network, the headend node could use Ping (ICMPv6 Echo) to detect the connectivity of the SRv6 path to implement path switching. When a headend use Ping to detect the segment list/CPath of SRv6 Policy, the forward path of ICMPv6 Echo Request message is indicated by segment list, the reverse path of ICMPv6 Echo Reply message is via the shortest path from the destination node to the source as determined by routing. The forward path and reverse path of ICMPv6 message are likely inconsistent going through different intermediate nodes or links. This document describes how to ensure the consistency of the forward path and the reverse path when using ICMPv6 Echo messages to detect SRv6 Policy.
Authors
Liyan Gong
Changwang Lin
Yuanxiang Qiu
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)