Return Path Specified LSP Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-11

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2012-10-22 (latest revision 2012-10-21)
Replaces draft-chen-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed
Telechat date
Responsible AD Adrian Farrel
IESG note Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the document shepherd.
Send notices to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping@tools.ietf.org
Network Working Group                                            M. Chen
Internet-Draft                                                    W. Cao
Intended status: Standards Track            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Expires: April 25, 2013                                          S. Ning
                                                     Tata Communications
                                                               F. Jounay
                                                               Orange CH
                                                               S. Delord
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                        October 22, 2012

                     Return Path Specified LSP Ping
         draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-11.txt

Abstract

   This document defines extensions to the failure-detection protocol
   for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
   known as "LSP Ping" that allow selection of the LSP to use for the
   echo reply return path.  Enforcing a specific return path can be used
   to verify bidirectional connectivity and also increase LSP ping
   robustness.  It may also be used by Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection (BFD) for MPLS bootstrap signaling thereby making BFD for
   MPLS more robust.

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 April 25, 2013.

Chen, et al.             Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Return Path Specified LSP Ping         October 2012

Copyright Notice

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Problem Statements and Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Limitations of Existing Mechanisms for Bidirectional
           LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Limitations of Existing Mechanisms for Handling
           Unreliable Return Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Reply Via Specified Path mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Reply Path (RP) TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Reply Path sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.3.1.  IPv4 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.3.2.  IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.3.3.  Static Tunnel sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.4.  Reply TC TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Theory of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.1.  Sending an Echo Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.2.  Receiving an Echo Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.3.  Sending an Echo Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.4.  Receiving an Echo Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.1.  Temporary assigned TLV and New TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Show full document text