Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane
draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2014-01-03
Replaced by rfc8287, draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Work group                                              N. Kumar
Internet-Draft                                                G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track                            C. Pignataro
Expires: July 6, 2014                                           N. Akiya
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                 S. Kini
                                                                Ericsson
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        January 02, 2014

Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using
                             MPLS Dataplane
                draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-00

Abstract

   Segment Routing architecture leverages the source routing and
   tunneling paradigm and can be directly applied to MPLS dataplane.  A
   node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions called
   segments, by prepending the packet with Segment Routing header.

   The segment assignment and forwarding semantic nature of Segment
   Routing raises additional consideration for connectivity verification
   and fault isolation in LSP with Segment Routing architecture.  This
   document illustrates the problem and describe a mechanism to perform
   LSP Ping and Traceroute on Segment Routing network over MPLS
   dataplane.

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 July 6, 2014.

Kumar, et al.             Expires July 6, 2014                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         January 2014

Copyright 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Challenges with Existing mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Path validation in Segment Routing networks . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Service Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Segment Routing Sub-TLV Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  IPv4 Prefix Node Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  IPv6 Prefix Node Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  IGP Adjacency Segment ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Extension to Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  FECs in Target FEC Stack TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  FEC Stack Change TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  PHP, Adjacency SID Pop, Implicit NULL . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.4.  Segment Protocol Check  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.5.  TTL Consideration for traceroute  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Issues with non-forwarding labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
Show full document text