PMS/Head-end based MPLS Ping and Traceroute in Inter-domain SR Networks
draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Authors Shraddha Hegde  , Kapil Arora  , Samson Ninan  , Mukul Srivastava  , Nagendra Nainar 
Last updated 2020-05-07 (latest revision 2020-05-06)
Replaces draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state Candidate for WG Adoption
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Routing area                                                    S. Hegde
Internet-Draft                                                  K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track                   Juniper Networks Inc.
Expires: November 7, 2020                                       S. Ninan
                                                  Individual Contributor
                                                           M. Srivastava
                                                   Juniper Networks Inc.
                                                                N. Kumar
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                             May 6, 2020

PMS/Head-end based MPLS Ping and Traceroute in Inter-domain SR Networks
              draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-00

Abstract

   Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and
   tunneling paradigms and can be directly applied to the use of a
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane.  A network may
   consist of multiple IGP domains or multiple ASes under the control of
   same organization.  It is useful to have the LSP Ping and traceroute
   procedures when an SR end-to-end path spans across multiple ASes or
   domains.  This document describes mechanisms to facilitae LSP ping
   and traceroute in inter-AS/inter-domain SR networks in an efficient
   manner with simple OAM protocol extension which uses dataplane
   forwarding alone for sending Echo-Reply.

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 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."

Hegde, et al.           Expires November 7, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Inter-as-OAM                      May 2020

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 7, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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.  Inter domain networks with multiple IGPs  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Reverse Path Segment List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Reverse Path Segment List TLV definition  . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.1.  Segment sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  SRv6 Dataplane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Detailed Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Sending an Echo-Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  Receiving an Echo-Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  Sending an Echo-Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Detailed Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Procedures for Segment Routing LSP ping . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Procedures for Segment Routing LSP Traceroute . . . . . .  13
   6.  Building Reverse Path Segment List TLV dynamically  . . . . .  13
     6.1.  The procedures to build the reverse path  . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Details with example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
Show full document text