Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP Prefix and Adjacency SIDs with MPLS Data-plane
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-11
| The information below is for an old version of the document | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG) | |
| Last updated | 2017-10-12 (latest revision 2017-09-27) | ||
| Replaces | draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Loa Andersson | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2017-08-21) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
Needs 4 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping@ietf.org | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
Network Work group N. Kumar, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: March 31, 2018 G. Swallow
Southend Technical Center
N. Akiya
Big Switch Networks
S. Kini
Individual
M. Chen
Huawei
September 27, 2017
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP Prefix
and Adjacency SIDs with MPLS Data-plane
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-11
Abstract
A Segment Routing architecture leverages source routing and tunneling
paradigms and can be directly applied to use of a Multi Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. A node steers a packet through a
controlled set of instructions called segments, by prepending the
packet with a Segment Routing header.
The segment assignment and forwarding semantic nature of Segment
Routing raises additional consideration for connectivity verification
and fault isolation for an LSP within a Segment Routing architecture.
This document illustrates the problem and defines extensions to
perform LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP Prefix and
Adjacency SIDs with a MPLS data plane.
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."
Kumar, et al. Expires March 31, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS September 2017
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 31, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(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 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. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Challenges with Existing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Path validation in Segment Routing networks . . . . . . . 4
5. Segment ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. IGP-Adjacency Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Extension to Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . 8
7. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. FECs in Target FEC Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. FEC Stack Change sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. Segment ID POP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.4. Segment ID Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.5. TTL Consideration for traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Backward Compatibility with non Segment Routing devices . . . 16
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.3. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Show full document text