Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs
draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 6829.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mach Chen , Ping Pan , Carlos Pignataro , Rajiv Asati | ||
| Last updated | 2012-05-29 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 6829 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-00
Network Working Group M. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan
Intended status: Standards Track Infinera
Expires: November 30, 2012 C. Pignataro
R. Asati
Cisco
May 29, 2012
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs
draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-00
Abstract
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
and Traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate
data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs.
The PW LSP Ping and Traceroute elements, however, are not specified
for IPv6 address usage.
This document extends the PW LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms so
they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379.
Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
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
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping May 2012
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping May 2012
1. Introduction
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
and Traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. These mechanisms can be
used to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). The PW LSP Ping
and Traceroute elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address
usage.
Specifically, the PW FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP
Ping and Traceroute mechanism are defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge
(PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6
addresses. Three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class
(FEC) sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated,
FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections
3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These sub-TLVs contain the
source and destination addresses of the target LDP session, and
currently only IPv4 target LDP session is covered. Despite the fact
that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV
definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths
of the Sender's/Remote PE Address fields, or calculating the Length
of the sub-TLVs (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). When an IPv6 target
LDP session is used, these existing sub-TLVs can not therefore be
used since the addresses will not fit. Additionally, all other sub-
TLVs are defined in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not
the PW sub-TLVs.
This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constraint the existing
PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions, and extends the PW LSP Ping to
IPv6 LDP sessions (i.e., when IPv6 LDP sessions are used to signal
the PW, the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses are IPv6 addresses).
This is done by renaming the existing PW sub-TLVs to say "IPv4", and
also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire
sub-TLV and IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV) to extend the
application of PW LSP Ping and Traceroute to the IPv6 usage when an
IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is used to signal the
Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined
for IPv6 in this document.
2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs
This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10
of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Section 4 and Section 6.
This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity, confusion, and
backwards compatibility issues.
Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping May 2012
state:
"FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
"FEC 128" Pseudowire
"FEC 129" Pseudowire
These names and titles are now changed to:
IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, these three
sections state:
Sender's PE Address
Remote PE Address
These are now updated to say:
Sender's PE IPv4 Address
Remote PE IPv4 Address
3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs
3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV
IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC
128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of [RFC4379].
The encoding of IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV is as follows:
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping May 2012
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 FEC 128 PW Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire
IPv6 FEC 128 PW: TBD.
Length: it defines the length in octets of the value field of the
sub-TLV and its value is 38.
Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
LDP session.
Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
LDP session.
PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379].
PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379].
3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV
IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC
129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379].
The encoding of IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire is as follows:
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping May 2012
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 FEC 129 PW Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ AGI Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire
IPv6 FEC 129 PW: TBD.
The Length of this TLV is 40 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII
length. Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4;
the length of the padding is not included in the Length field.
Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
LDP session.
Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
LDP session.
The other fields are same as FEC 129 Pseudowire [RFC4379].
4. Summary of Changes
Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target
FEC Stack. Per the change described in Section 2 and Section 3, the
table would show the following:
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping May 2012
Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ -----------
...
9 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (deprecated)
10 14 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
11 16+ IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
...
TBD 38 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
TBD 40+ IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
5. Operation
This document does not define any new procedures. The process
described in [RFC4379] MUST be used.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to perform the following assignments in the "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping
Parameters" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry.
[RFC Editor: To be REMOVED prior to publication. This registration
should take place at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#mpls-lsp-ping-parameters-7>]
Update the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding the "IPv4"
qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to point to this
document:
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 9 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
1 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
1 11 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
Create two new entries for the Sub-Type field of Target FEC TLV (see
Section 3):
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 TBD1 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
1 TBD2 IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping May 2012
7. Security Considerations
This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security
mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim,
Tom Petch, and Spike Curtis.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6]
Pignataro, C., Asati, R., Papneja, R., and V. Manral,
"Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-06
(work in progress), January 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District
Beijing 100085
China
Email: mach@huawei.com
Ping Pan
Infinera
US
Email: ppan@infinera.com
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping May 2012
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
7025-6 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Chen, et al. Expires November 30, 2012 [Page 9]