P2MP Policy Ping
draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-14

Network Working Group                                    H. Bidgoli, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Z. Ali
Expires: 30 January 2026                                    Cisco System
                                                                Z. Zhang
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                           A. BudhirajaC
                                                                D. Voyer
                                                            Cisco System
                                                            29 July 2025

                            P2MP Policy Ping
                   draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-14

Abstract

   Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint (SR-P2MP) Policies are used to
   define and manage explicit P2MP paths within a network.  These
   policies are typically calculated via a controller-based mechanisms
   and installed via a Path Computation Element (PCE).  In other cases
   these policies can be installed manually via YANG models or CLI.
   They are used to steer multicast traffic along optimized paths from a
   Root to a set of Leaf routers.

   This document defines extensions to Ping and Traceroute mechanisms
   for SR-P2MP Policy with MPLS encapsulation to provide OAM
   (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) capabilities.  The
   proposed extensions enable operators to verify connectivity, diagnose
   failures and troubleshoot forwarding issues within P2MP Policy
   multicast trees.

   By introducing new mechanisms for detecting failures and validating
   path integrity, this document enhances the operational robustness of
   P2MP multicast deployments.  Additionally, it ensures that existing
   MPLS and SR-based OAM tools can be effectively applied to networks
   utilizing P2MP Policies.

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/.

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

   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 30 January 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  MPLS P2MP Policy Ping and Traceroute  . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Applicability of current RFC to SR P2MP Policies  . .   4
       3.1.2.  Conformance to Existing Procedures and Additional
               Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.1.3.  Considerations for Interworking with Unicast SR
               Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Packet format and new TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  Identifying a P2MP Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
         3.2.1.1.  P2MP Policy CP FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Limiting the Scope of Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Nokia Implementation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  IANA Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

1.  Introduction

   Each P2MP Policy can have multiple Candidate Paths (CPs).  The CP
   with highest preference is designated as the active CP, while all
   other CPs are the backup CPs.  To enable seamless global optimization
   a CP MAY consist of multiple Path Instances (PIs), allowing for Make-
   Before-Break (MBB) procedures between an active PI and a newly
   established, optimized PI.  A PI is the actual P2MP tunnel set up
   from the root to a set of leaves via transit routers.  A PI is
   identified on the Root node by the rootID which is the Root's node IP
   address, treeID and PI's instance ID.

   To ensure reliable network operation, it is essential to verify end-
   to-end connectivity for both active and backup CPs, as well as all
   associated PIs.  This document specifies a mechanism for detecting
   data plane failures within a P2MP Policy CP and its associated PIs,
   enabling operators to monitor and troubleshoot multicast path
   integrity.

   This specification applies exclusively to Replication Segments
   (Replication SIDs) that use MPLS encapsulation for forwarding and
   does not cover Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6).  The mechanisms
   described herein build upon the concepts established in [RFC6425] for
   P2MP MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM).  All
   consideration and limitations described in section 6 of [RFC6425]
   applies to this document as well.

1.1.  Terminology

   [RFC9524] section 1.1 defines terms specific to SR Replication
   Segment and also explains the Node terminology in a Multicast domain,
   including the Root Node, Leaf Node and a Bud Node.

   [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] section 2, defines terms and concepts
   specific to SR P2MP Policy including the CP and the PI.

2.  Conventions used in this document

   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.

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

3.  Motivation

   A P2MP Policy and its corresponding Replication Segments are
   typically provisioned via a centralized controller or configured
   statically using YANG models or CLI.  The root and the leaves are
   discovered in accordance with [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] and the
   multicast tree is computed from the root to the leaves.  However,
   there is no underlay signaling protocol to distribute the P2MP Policy
   from the root to the leaf routers.  Consequently, when a P2MP tree
   fails to deliver user traffic, identifying the failure can be
   challenging without ping and traceroute mechanisms to isolate faults
   along the tree.

   To address this challenge, P2MP Policy ping and traceroute can be
   utilized to detect and localize faults within the P2MP tree and its
   associated Replication Segments, as defined in [RFC9524].  These OAM
   tools enable periodic ping operations to verify connectivity between
   the root and the leaves.  In cases where a ping fails, a traceroute
   can be initiated to determine the point of failure along the tree.
   This diagnostic process can be initiated from the node responsible
   for establishing the P2MP Policy, ensuring proactive monitoring and
   rapid fault detection.

3.1.  MPLS P2MP Policy Ping and Traceroute

   Ping/Traceroute packets are forwarded on the P2MP Policy, on a
   specific CP and its PIs toward the designated leaf routers.  These
   packets are replicated at the replication point based on the
   Replication Segment forwarding information on the corresponding
   router.

   This document specifically addresses Replication Segments that use
   MPLS encapsulation.  Future documents will extend support for
   Replication Segments using SRv6 encapsulation.  Packets are processed
   based on the standard behavior when their Time-to-Live (TTL) expires
   or when they reach the egress (leaf) router.  The appropriate respond
   is sent back to the root node following the procedures outlined in
   [RFC6425].

3.1.1.  Applicability of current RFC to SR P2MP Policies

   The procedures in [RFC6425] define fault detection and isolation
   mechanisms for P2MP MPLS LSPs.  These mechanisms extend the LSP ping
   techniques described in [RFC8029] such that they may be applied to
   P2MP MPLS LSPs, ensuring alignment with existing fault management
   tools.  [RFC6425] emphasizes the reuse of existing LSP ping
   mechanisms designed for Point-to-Point P2P LSPs, adapting them to
   P2MP MPLS LSPs to facilitate seamless implementation and network

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

   operation.

   The fault detection procedures specified in [RFC6425] are applicable
   to all P2MP MPLS protocols, including P2MP RSVP-TE and Multicast LDP
   and now P2MP SR Policy.  While [RFC6425] highlights specific
   differences for P2MP RSVP-TE and Multicast LDP, this document
   introduces considerations unique to P2MP SR Policies, including:

   1.  Egress Address P2MP Responder Sub-TLVs: Multicast LDP, as per
       section 3.2.1 of [RFC6425], does not allow for the inclusion of
       Egress Address P2MP Responder Sub-TLVs, as upstream LSRs lack
       visibility into downstream leaf nodes.  Similarly, P2MP SR
       Policies often rely on a Path Computation Element (PCE) for
       programming transit routers, meaning these routers do not have
       knowledge of the leaf nodes.  Only the Root node, where the P2MP
       SR Policy is programmed, may have visibility into the leaf nodes.
       Consequently, these Sub-TLVs SHOULD NOT be used when an echo
       request carries a P2MP Policy MPLS Candidate Path FEC.

   2.  End of Processing for Traceroutes: In Multicast LDP LSPs, the
       initiating LSR may not always be aware of all egress nodes,
       unlike P2MP RSVP-TE.  In the case of P2MP SR Policies, the Root
       of the tree may have full visibility into the egress nodes if the
       P2MP SR Policy is PCC-initiated.  If the P2MP SR Policy is PCE-
       initiated, the Root may or may not have visibility into the
       egress nodes, as this depends on the specific implementation and
       configuration of the PCE.  Based on this, a P2MP SR Policy SHOULD
       follow the recommendations in Section 4.3.1 of [RFC6425],
       depending on the level of visibility the Root has into the egress
       nodes.  For example, in a PCC-initiated P2MP SR Policy, the Root
       can learn egress node identities through Next-Generation MVPN
       procedures and BGP, as described in [RFC6514].  In contrast, for
       a PCE-initiated P2MP SR Policy, the PCE may not provide the
       egress node information to the Root, making this process optional
       and implementation-specific.

   3.  Identification of the LSP under test: [RFC6425], in Section 3.1,
       defines distinct identifiers for P2MP RSVP-TE and Multicast LDP
       when identifying an LSP under test.  As each protocol has its own
       identifier, this document introduces a new Target FEC Stack TLV
       specific to P2MP SR Policies to uniquely identify their Candidate
       Paths (CPs) and Path Instances (PIs).  These modifications ensure
       that P2MP Policy OAM mechanisms are properly aligned with
       existing MPLS ping and traceroute tools while addressing the
       specific operational characteristics of P2MP SR Policies.

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

3.1.2.  Conformance to Existing Procedures and Additional Considerations

   In addition to major differences outlined in the previous section,
   P2MP SR Policies SHOULD adhere to the common procedures specified in
   [RFC6425] for P2MP MPLS LSPs.  Furthermore, this specification reuses
   the same destination UDP port as defined in [RFC8029] for consistency
   with existing MPLS OAM mechanism.

   Implementations MUST account for the fact that a P2MP Policy may
   contain multiple CPs, and each CP may consist of multiple PIs.  As
   such, implementations SHOULD support the ability to individually test
   each CP and its corresponding PI using Ping and Traceroute
   mechanisms.  The Ping and Traceroute packets MUST be forwarded along
   the specified CP and its PI, traversing the associated Replication
   Segments.  When a downstream node receives a Ping or Traceroute
   packet, it MUST process the request and generate a response even if
   the CP and its PI are not currently the active path.

3.1.3.  Considerations for Interworking with Unicast SR Domains

   In certain deployments, two Replication Segments may be
   interconnected via an intermediate Unicast SR domain.  In such
   scenarios, proper TTL handling is required based on the hierarchical
   MPLS TTL mode being used (e.g., Pipe Mode vs. Uniform Mode).  For
   example, when a P2MP Policy Ping or Traceroute packet enters an
   Unicast SR domain, it MUST be processed on the two interconnecting
   Replication Segments, based on the Replication SID and its TTL value.
   The SR domain itself SHOULD be treated as a single hop, meaning that
   the Replication SID TTL MUST be decremented by one before pushing the
   Unicast SR SIDs onto the Replication SID stack.  Failure detection
   within the SR domain itself is considered out of scope for this
   document.

3.2.  Packet format and new TLVs

   The packet format used in this specification follow section 3 of
   [RFC8029].  However, additional TLVs and sub-TLVs are required to
   support the new functionality introduced for P2MP Policies.  These
   extensions are described in the following sections.

3.2.1.  Identifying a P2MP Policy

   [RFC8029] defines a standardized mechanism for detecting data-plane
   failures in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs).  To correctly identify the Replication Segment associated
   with a given Candidate Path (CP) and Path Instance (PI), the Echo
   Request message MUST include a Target FEC Stack TLV that explicitly
   specifies the Candidate Path and Path Instance under test.

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

   This document introduces a new sub-TLV, referred to as the P2MP
   Policy MPLS Candidate Path sub-TLV, which is defined as follows:

   Sub-Type       Length            Value Field
   --------       ------            -----------
       41        Variable          P2MP Policy MPLS Candidate Path

   Further details regarding the structure and processing of this sub-
   TLV are provided in subsequent sections.

3.2.1.1.  P2MP Policy CP FEC Stack Sub-TLVs

   The P2MP Policy MPLS Candidate Path sub-TLV value field follows the
   format specified in Section 2 of [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy].
   The structure of this sub-TLV is illustrated in the figure 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Address Family         | Address Length|   Reserved    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                            Root                               ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Tree-ID                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Instance-ID               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   *  Address Family: (2 octets) containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY
      NUMBERS in [IANA-AF] , indicating the address family of the Root
      Address.

   *  Address Length: (1 octets) specifying the length of the Root
      Address in octets (4 octets for IPv4, 16 octets for IPv6).

   *  Root: (variable length depending on the address family field) The
      root node of the P2MP Policy, as defined in
      [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]

   *  Tree-ID: (4 octets) A unique identifier for the P2MP tree, as
      defined in [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]

   *  Instance-ID: (2 octets) identifies the specific Path-Instance as
      defined in[draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

3.3.  Limiting the Scope of Response

   As specified in section 3.2 of [RFC6425] , four sub-TLVs are used
   within the P2MP Responder Identifier TLV included in the echo request
   message.

   The Sub-TLVs for IPv4 and IPv6 egress addresses of P2MP responder are
   aligned with section 3.2.1 of [RFC6425].

   The sub-TLVs for IPv4 and IPv6 node addresses of the P2MP responder
   are aligned with Section 3.2.2 of [RFC6425]

   These mechanisms ensure that responses are appropriately scoped to
   limit unnecessary processing and improve the efficiency of P2MP OAM
   procedures.

4.  Implementation Status

   Note to the RFC Editor: please remove this section before
   publication.  This section records the status of known
   implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the
   time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal
   described in RFC7942 .  The description of implementations in this
   section is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in
   progressing drafts to RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any
   individual implementation here does not imply endorsement by the
   IETF.  Furthermore, no effort has been spent to verify the
   information presented here that was supplied by IETF contributors.
   This is not intended as, and must not be construed to be, a catalog
   of available implementations or their features.  Readers are advised
   to note that other implementations may exist.  According to RFC7942,
   "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due
   consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code,
   which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback
   that have made the implemented protocols more mature.  It is up to
   the individual working groups to use this information as they see
   fit".

4.1.  Nokia Implementation

   Nokia has implemented [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy] and [RFC9524].
   In addition, Nokia has implemented P2MP policy ping as defined in
   this draft to verify the end to end connectivity of a P2MP tree in
   segment routing domain.  The implementation supports SR-MPLS
   encapsulation and has all the MUST and SHOULD clause in this draft.
   The implementation is at general availability maturity and is
   compliant with the latest version of the draft.  The documentation
   for implementation can be found at Nokia help and the point of

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

   contact is hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com.

5.  IANA Consideration

   IANA has assigned the following code points TEMPORARY for sub-type
   values to the following sub-TLVs under TLV type 1 (Target FEC Stack)
   from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry.
   This sub-type value is assigned from the standards Action of range
   0-16383 for TLV type 1 (Target FEC Stack)

   41: P2MP Policy MPLS Candidate Path

6.  Security Considerations

   Overall, the security needs for P2MP policy ping is same as
   [RFC8029].  The P2MP policy ping is susceptible to the same three
   attack vectors as explained in RFC8029 section 5.  The same
   procedures and recommendations explained in [RFC8029] section 5
   should be taken and implemented to mitigate these attack vectors for
   P2MP policy Ping as well.

7.  Acknowledgments

8.  Normative References

   [draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy]
              "D. Yoyer, C. Filsfils, R.Prekh, H.bidgoli, Z. Zhang,
              "draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy"", July 2025.

   [IANA-AF]  "IANA Assigned Port Numbers,
              "http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers"".

   [RFC2119]  "S. Brandner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels"", March 1997.

   [RFC6425]  "S. Saxena, G. Swallow, Z. Ali, A. Farrel, S. Yasukawa,
              T.Nadeau "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in Point-to-
              Multipoint MPLS"", November 2011.

   [RFC6514]  "R.Aggarwal, E. Rosen, T. Morin, Y. Rekhter "BGP Encodings
              and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs"",
              February 2012.

   [RFC8029]  "K. Kompella, G. Swallow, C. Pgnataro, N. kumar, S. Aldrin
              M.  Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS)
              Data-Plane Failures.", February 2006.

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              P2MP Policy Ping                   July 2025

   [RFC8174]  "B. Leiba, "ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words"", May 2017.

   [RFC9524]  "D. Voyer, C. Filsfils, R. Parekh, H. Bidgoli, Z. Zhang,
              "Segment Routing Replication for Multipoint Service
              Delivery"", February 2024.

Authors' Addresses

   Hooman Bidgoli (editor)
   Nokia
   Ottawa
   Canada
   Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com

   Zafar
   Cisco System
   San Jose,
   United States of America
   Email: zali@cisco.com

   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks
   Boston,
   United States of America
   Email: zzhang@juniper.net

   Anuj Budhiraja
   Cisco System
   San Jose,
   United States of America
   Email: abudhira@cisco.com

   Daniel Voyer
   Cisco System
   Montreal
   Canada
   Email: davoyer@cisco.com

Bidgoli, et al.          Expires 30 January 2026               [Page 10]