Skip to main content

Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Segment Routing (SR) Path Segment Identifier with MPLS Data Planes
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Authors Xiao Min , Shaofu Peng , Liyan Gong , Rakesh Gandhi , Carlos Pignataro
Last updated 2024-11-11
Replaces draft-xp-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Tarek Saad
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to tsaad@cisco.com
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-03
MPLS Working Group                                                X. Min
Internet-Draft                                                   S. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track                               ZTE Corp.
Expires: 15 May 2025                                             L. Gong
                                                            China Mobile
                                                               R. Gandhi
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            C. Pignataro
                                         North Carolina State University
                                                        11 November 2024

  Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Segment Routing (SR) Path Segment
                    Identifier with MPLS Data Planes
              draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-path-sid-03

Abstract

   Path Segment is a type of Segment Routing (SR) segment, and a Path
   Segment Identifier (PSID) is used to identify an SR path.  Path
   Segment can be used in an SR over MPLS (SR-MPLS) data plane.  This
   document provides Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack TLV
   and sub-TLV definitions for PSID.

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 https://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 15 May 2025.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Path Segment ID Sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  SR Policy's PSID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  SR Candidate Path's PSID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  SR Segment List's PSID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  PSID FEC Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Path Segment is a type of Segment Routing (SR) segment, and a Path
   Segment Identifier (PSID) is used to identify an SR path.  PSID in
   MPLS-based segment routing networks is defined in [RFC9545].

   As specified in [RFC9545], PSID is a single label inserted by the
   ingress node of the SR path, and then processed by the egress node of
   the SR path.  The PSID is placed within the MPLS label stack as a
   label immediately following the last label of the SR path.  The
   egress node MUST pop the PSID.

   This document provides Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
   Stack TLV and sub-TLV definitions for PSID.  Procedures for LSP Ping
   as defined in [RFC8287] and [RFC8690] are applicable to PSID as well.
   Note that LSP Traceroute is left out of this document because the
   transit node is not involved in PSID processing.

2.  Conventions

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

2.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC3031], [RFC8402],
   and [RFC8029], readers are expected to be familiar with those terms.

3.  Path Segment ID Sub-TLVs

   Analogous to what's defined in Section 5 of [RFC8287] and Section 4
   of [I-D.ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam], three new sub-TLVs are defined for the
   Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 1), the Reverse-Path Target FEC Stack TLV
   (Type 16), and the Reply Path TLV (Type 21).

        Sub-Type    Sub-TLV Name
        --------    -----------------------------
         TBD1       SR Policy's PSID
         TBD2       SR Candidate Path's PSID
         TBD3       SR Segment List's PSID

   As specified in Section 2 of [RFC9545], a PSID is used to identify a
   segment list, some or all segment lists in a Candidate path or an SR
   policy, so three different Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs need to be
   defined for PSID.  When a PSID is used to identify an SR Policy, the
   Target FEC Stack sub-TLV of the type "SR Policy's PSID" would be used
   to validate the control plane to forwarding plane synchronization for
   this PSID; When a PSID is used to identify an SR Candidate Path, the
   Target FEC Stack sub-TLV of the type "SR Candidate Path's PSID" would
   be used to validate the control plane to forwarding plane
   synchronization for this PSID; When a PSID is used to identify a
   Segment List, the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV of the type "SR Segment
   List's PSID" would be used to validate the control plane to
   forwarding plane synchronization for this PSID.  Note that the three
   new Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs are mutual exclusive and they wouldn't
   be present in one message simultaneously.

3.1.  SR Policy's PSID

   The format of SR Policy's PSID sub-TLV is specified as below:

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Type = TBD1          |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                     Headend  (4/16 octets)                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Color  (4 octets)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                    Endpoint  (4/16 octets)                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 1: SR Policy's PSID sub-TLV

   Type

      This field is set to the value (TBD1) which indicates that it's an
      SR Policy's PSID sub-TLV.

   Length

      This field is set to the length of the sub-TLV's Value field in
      octets.  If Headend and Endpoint fields are in IPv4 address format
      which is 4 octets long, it MUST be set to 12; If Headend and
      Endpoint fields are in IPv6 address format which is 16 octets
      long, it MUST be set to 36.

   Headend

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

   Color

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

   Endpoint

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

3.2.  SR Candidate Path's PSID

   The format of SR Candidate Path's PSID sub-TLV is specified as below:

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Type = TBD2          |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                     Headend  (4/16 octets)                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Color  (4 octets)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                    Endpoint  (4/16 octets)                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Protocol-Origin|                    Reserved                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                  Originator  (20 octets)                      |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Discriminator  (4 octets)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 2: SR Candidate Path's PSID sub-TLV

   Type

      This field is set to the value (TBD2) which indicates that it's an
      SR Candidate Path's PSID sub-TLV.

   Length

      This field is set to the length of the sub-TLV's Value field in
      octets.  If Headend and Endpoint fields are in IPv4 address format
      which is 4 octets long, it MUST be set to 40; If Headend and
      Endpoint fields are in IPv6 address format which is 16 octets
      long, it MUST be set to 64.

   Headend

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

   Color

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

   Endpoint

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

   Protocol-Origin

      The same as defined in Section 2.3 of [RFC9256].  The value of
      this field follows the IANA registry requested in Section 6.5 of
      [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp].

   Originator

      The same as defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC9256].

   Discriminator

      The same as defined in Section 2.5 of [RFC9256].

3.3.  SR Segment List's PSID

   The format of SR Segment List's PSID sub-TLV is specified as below:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Type = TBD3          |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                     Headend  (4/16 octets)                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Color  (4 octets)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                    Endpoint  (4/16 octets)                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Protocol-Origin|                    Reserved                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                  Originator  (20 octets)                      |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Discriminator  (4 octets)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Segment-List-ID  (4 octets)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 3: SR Segment List's PSID sub-TLV

   Type

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

      This field is set to the value (TBD3) which indicates that it's an
      SR Segment List's PSID sub-TLV.

   Length

      This field is set to the length of the sub-TLV's Value field in
      octets.  If Headend and Endpoint fields are in IPv4 address format
      which is 4 octets long, it MUST be set to 44; If Headend and
      Endpoint fields are in IPv6 address format which is 16 octets
      long, it MUST be set to 68.

   Headend

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

   Color

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

   Endpoint

      The same as defined in Section 2.1 of [RFC9256].

   Protocol-Origin

      The same as defined in Section 2.3 of [RFC9256].  The value of
      this field follows the IANA registry requested in Section 6.5 of
      [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp].

   Originator

      The same as defined in Section 2.4 of [RFC9256].

   Discriminator

      The same as defined in Section 2.5 of [RFC9256].

   Segment-List-ID

      This field identifies an SR path within the context of a candidate
      path of an SR Policy.  The segment-list-id is a 4-octet identifier
      of a segment list.

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

4.  PSID FEC Validation

   The MPLS LSP Ping procedures may be initiated by the headend of the
   Segment Routing path or a centralized topology-aware data plane
   monitoring system as described in [RFC8403].  For the PSID, the
   responder nodes that receive echo request and send echo reply MUST be
   the endpoint of the Segment Routing path.

   When an endpoint receives the LSP echo request packet with top FEC
   being the PSID, it MUST perform validity checks on the content of the
   PSID FEC Stack sub-TLV.  The basic length check should be performed
   on the received FEC.

       SR Policy's PSID
       ------------------
       Length = 12 or 36 octets

       SR Candidate Path's PSID
       ------------------
       Length = 40 or 64 octets

       SR Segment List's PSID
       ------------------
       Length = 44 or 68 octets

   If a malformed FEC Stack sub-TLV is received, then a return code of
   1, "Malformed echo request received" as defined in [RFC8029] SHOULD
   be sent.  The below section augments Section 7.4 of [RFC8287].

      4a.  Segment Routing PSID Validation:

      If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV at
      FEC-stack-depth is TBD1 (SR Policy's PSID sub-TLV), {

      -  Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not
         the given label at stack-depth <RSC>" if any below conditions
         fail (the notation <RSC> refers to the Return Subcode):

         o  Validate that the PSID is signaled or provisioned for the SR
            Policy {

            +  Validate that the signaled or provisioned headend, color,
               and endpoint, for the PSID, matches with the
               corresponding fields in the received SR Policy's PSID
               sub-TLV.

            }

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

         }

      -  If all the above validations have passed, set the return code
         to 3 "Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth
         <RSC>".

      -  Set FEC-Status to 1 and return.

      }

      Else, if the Label-stack-depth is 0 and the Target FEC Stack sub-
      TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD2 (SR Candidate Path's PSID sub-TLV),
      {

      -  Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not
         the given label at stack-depth <RSC>" if any below conditions
         fail:

         o  Validate that the PSID is signaled or provisioned for the SR
            Candidate Path {

            +  Validate that the signaled or provisioned headend, color,
               endpoint, originator, and discriminator, for the PSID,
               matches with the corresponding fields in the received SR
               Candidate Path's PSID sub-TLV.

            }

         }

      -  If all the above validations have passed, set the return code
         to 3 "Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth
         <RSC>".

      -  Set FEC-Status to 1 and return.

      }

      Else, if the Label-stack-depth is 0 and the Target FEC Stack sub-
      TLV at FEC-stack-depth is TBD3 (SR Segment List's PSID sub-TLV), {

      -  Set the Best-return-code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not
         the given label at stack-depth <RSC>" if any below conditions
         fail:

         o  Validate that the PSID is signaled or provisioned for the SR
            Segment List {

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

            +  Validate that the signaled or provisioned headend, color,
               endpoint, originator, discriminator, and segment-list-id,
               for the PSID, matches with the corresponding fields in
               the received SR Segment List's PSID sub-TLV.

            }

         }

      -  If all the above validations have passed, set the return code
         to 3 "Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth
         <RSC>".

      -  Set FEC-Status to 1 and return.

      }

   When a sub-TLV defined in this document is carried in Reverse-Path
   Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 16) or Reply Path TLV (Type 21), it MUST
   be sent by an endpoint in an echo reply.  The headend MUST perform
   validity checks as described above without setting the return code.
   If any of the validations fail, then the headend MUST drop the echo
   reply and SHOULD log and/or report an error.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document defines additional MPLS LSP Ping sub-TLVs and follows
   the mechanisms defined in [RFC8029].  All the security considerations
   defined in [RFC8029] will be applicable for this document and, in
   addition, the MPLS LSP Ping sub-TLVs defined in this document do not
   impose any additional security challenges to be considered.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign three new sub-TLVs from the "Sub-TLVs for
   TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" sub-registry in the "TLVs" registry of the
   "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
   Ping Parameters" name space.  The Standards Action range that
   requires an error message to be returned if the sub-TLV is not
   recognized (range 0-16383) should be used.

     Sub-Type   Sub-TLV Name                Reference
     --------   -------------------------   ------------
      TBD1      SR Policy's PSID            Section 3.1
      TBD2      SR Candidate Path's PSID    Section 3.2
      TBD3      SR Segment List's PSID      Section 3.3

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Loa Andersson, Detao Zhao, Ben
   Niven-Jenkins, Greg Mirsky, and Ketan Talaulikar for their thorough
   review and very helpful comments.

   The authors would like to acknowledge Yao Liu and Quan Xiong for the
   very helpful f2f discussion.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
              Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H.
              Bidgoli, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
              (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy
              Candidate Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-18, 14 October 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-
              segment-routing-policy-cp-18>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8287]  Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
              N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
              Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
              IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
              Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.

   [RFC8690]  Nainar, N., Pignataro, C., Iqbal, F., and A. Vainshtein,
              "Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287",
              RFC 8690, DOI 10.17487/RFC8690, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8690>.

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

   [RFC9256]  Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Voyer, D., Bogdanov,
              A., and P. Mattes, "Segment Routing Policy Architecture",
              RFC 9256, DOI 10.17487/RFC9256, July 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9256>.

   [RFC9545]  Cheng, W., Ed., Li, H., Li, C., Ed., Gandhi, R., and R.
              Zigler, "Path Segment Identifier in MPLS-Based Segment
              Routing Networks", RFC 9545, DOI 10.17487/RFC9545,
              February 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9545>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam]
              Hegde, S., Srivastava, M., Arora, K., Ninan, S., and X.
              Xu, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment
              Routing (SR) Egress Peer Engineering Segment Identifiers
              (SIDs) with MPLS Data Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-
              Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-sr-epe-oam-19, 28 July 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-sr-
              epe-oam-19>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

   [RFC8403]  Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N.
              Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane
              Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>.

Authors' Addresses

   Xiao Min
   ZTE Corp.
   Nanjing
   China
   Phone: +86 18061680168
   Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            LSP Ping for SR PSID             November 2024

   Shaofu Peng
   ZTE Corp.
   Nanjing
   China
   Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn

   Liyan Gong
   China Mobile
   Beijing
   China
   Email: gongliyan@chinamobile.com

   Rakesh Gandhi
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Canada
   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com

   Carlos Pignataro
   North Carolina State University
   United States of America
   Email: cpignata@gmail.com, cmpignat@ncsu.edu

Min, et al.                Expires 15 May 2025                 [Page 13]