Egress TLV for Nil FEC in Label Switched Path Ping and Traceroute Mechanisms
draft-rathi-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Deepti Rathi  , Kapil Arora  , Shraddha Hegde 
Last updated 2020-09-29
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) 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)
Routing area                                                    D. Rathi
Internet-Draft                                                  K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track                                S. Hegde
Expires: April 2, 2021                             Juniper Networks Inc.
                                                      September 29, 2020

   Egress TLV for Nil FEC in Label Switched Path Ping and Traceroute
                               Mechanisms
               draft-rathi-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec-00

Abstract

   Segment routing supports the creation of explicit paths using
   adjacency- sids, node-sids, and anycast-sids.  The SR-TE paths are
   built by stacking the labels that represent the nodes and links in
   the explicit path.  A very useful Operations And Maintenance (OAM)
   requirement is to be able to ping and trace these paths.  A simple
   mpls ping/traceroute mechanism comprises of ability to traverse the
   SR-TE path without having to validate the control plane state.  This
   document describes mpls ping and traceroute procedures using Nil FEC
   with additional extensions.

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.

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 April 2, 2021.

Rathi, et al.             Expires April 2, 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           Egress TLV for Nil FEC           September 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Problem with Nil FEC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Egress TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Sending Egress TLV in MPLS Echo Request . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Receiving Egress TLV in MPLS Echo Request . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  New TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   MPLS ping and traceroute mechanism as described in [RFC8029] and
   related extensions for SR as defined in [RFC8287] is very useful to
   precisely validate the control plane and data plane synchronization.
   It also provides ability to traverse multiple ECMP paths and validate
   each of the ECMP paths.

   In certain usecases, the traffic engineered (TE) paths are built
   using mechanisms described in
   [I.D-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy].  When the TE paths are
   built by the controller, the head-end routers may not have the
   complete database of the network and may not be aware of the FEC
   associated with labels that are used in the label stack.  In such
   cases, it is useful to have ability to traverse the paths using ping

Rathi, et al.             Expires April 2, 2021                 [Page 2]
Show full document text