datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-07

Document type: Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2014-04-10 (latest revision 2014-03-24)
Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

IETF State: Submitted to IESG for Publication
Consensus: Unknown
Document shepherd: Loa Andersson
Shepherd Write-Up: Last changed 2013-10-24

IESG State: Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed
IANA Review State: IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA Action State: None
Responsible AD: Adrian Farrel
Send notices to: mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv@tools.ietf.org

Network Working Group                                       Sami Boutros
INTERNET-DRAFT                                            Siva Sivabalan
Intended Status: Standards Track                          George Swallow
                                                          Shaleen Saxena
                                                           Cisco Systems

                                                          Vishwas Manral
                                                     Hewlett Packard Co.

                                                              Sam Aldrin
                                               Huawei Technologies, Inc.

Expires: September 25, 2014                               March 24, 2014

        Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms 
                draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-07.txt

Abstract

   LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and
   Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present
   form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a
   segment of a Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW) from any node on the
   path of the MS-PW. This document defines a TLV to address this
   shortcoming.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
 

Boutros                Expires September 25, 2014               [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT              Lsp-ping-ttl-tlv              March 24, 2014

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3. Time To Live TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1. TTL TLV Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1. Traceroute mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2. Error scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     8.1  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

 

Boutros                Expires September 25, 2014               [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT              Lsp-ping-ttl-tlv              March 24, 2014

1.  Introduction

   A MS-PW may span across multiple service provider networks. In order
   to allow Service Providers (SP) to verify segments of such MS-PW from
   any node on the path of the MS-PW, any node along the path of the MS-
   PW, should be able to originate an LSP-Ping echo request packet to
   any another node along the path of the MS-PW and receive the
   corresponding echo reply. If the originator of the echo request is at
   the end of a MS-PW, the receiver of the request can send the reply
   back to the sender without knowing the hop-count distance of the
   originator. The reply will be intercepted by the originator
   regardless of the TTL value on the reply packet. But, if the

[include full document text]