Network Working Group M. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan
Intended status: Standards Track Infinera
Expires: February 17, 2012 C. Pignataro
R. Asati
Cisco
August 16, 2011
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs
draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-01
Abstract
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
and Traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate
data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs.
The PW LSP Ping and Traceroute elements, however, are not specified
for IPv6 address usage.
Specifically, the Pseudowire FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in
the LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanism are implicitly defined only for
IPv4 Provider Edge (PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case
where PEs use IPv6 addresses. There is, additionally, a degree of
potential ambiguity in the specification of these sub-TLVs since the
address family is not explicitly specified but it is to be inferred
from the sub-TLV length.
This document updates RFC4379 to explicitly constraint these existing
PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions, and extends Pseudowire LSP
Ping to the IPv6 scenario where an IPv6 LDP session is used to signal
the Pseudowire (i.e., where the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses
are IPv6 addresses.) This is done by defining two new LSP Ping sub-
TLVs for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs.
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
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011
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 February 17, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011
1. Introduction
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
and Traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. This mechanism can be used
to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). Currently, three PW
related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) sub-TLVs (FEC 128
Pseudowire-Deprecated, FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129
Pseudowire) are defined (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). These sub-
TLVs contain the source and destination addresses of the target LDP
session, and currently only IPv4 target LDP session is covered.
Despite the fact that the IP address family is not explicit in the
sub-TLV definition, this can be inferred indirectly only calculating
the Length of the sub-TLVs. When IPv6 target LDP session is used,
these existing sub-TLVs can not therefore be used. Additionally, all
other sub-TLVs are defined in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for
IPv6, and not for PW sub-TLVs.
This document updates [RFC4379] to make explicit the IPv4 nature of
the existing PW sub-TLVs, and also defines two new Target FEC sub-
TLVs (IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV and IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire
sub-TLV) to extend the application of PW LSP Ping and Traceroute to
the IPv6 usage when an IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is
used to signal the Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire
(Deprecated) is not defined for IPv6 in this document.
2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs
This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10
of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Section 4 and Section 6.
This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity, confusion, and
backwards compatibility issues.
Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and
state:
"FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
"FEC 128" Pseudowire
"FEC 129" Pseudowire
These names and titles are now changed to:
IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011
IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, these three
sections state:
Sender's PE Address
Remote PE Address
These are now updated to say:
Sender's PE IPv4 Address
Remote PE IPv4 Address
3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs
3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV
IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC
128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of [RFC4379].
The encoding of IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 FEC 128 PW Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire
IPv6 FEC 128 PW: TBD.
Length: it defines the length in octets of the value field of the
sub-TLV and its value is 38.
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011
Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
LDP session.
Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
LDP session.
PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379].
PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379].
3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV
IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC
129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379].
The encoding of IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 FEC 129 PW Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ AGI Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire
IPv6 FEC 129 PW: TBD.
The Length of this TLV is 40 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII
length. Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4;
the length of the padding is not included in the Length field.
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011
Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
LDP session.
Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
LDP session.
The other fields are same as FEC 129 Pseudowire [RFC4379].
4. Summary of Changes
Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target
FEC Stack. Per the change described in Section 2 and Section 3, the
table would show the following:
Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ -----------
...
9 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (deprecated)
10 14 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
11 16+ IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
...
TBD 38 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
TBD 40+ IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
5. Operation
This document does not define any new procedures. The process
described in [RFC4379] MUST be used.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to update the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs,
adding the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2):
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 9 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
1 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
1 11 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
IANA is requested to create two new entries for the Sub-Type field of
Target FEC TLV (see Section 3):
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 TBD1 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
1 TBD2 IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
7. Security Considerations
This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security
mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6]
Manral, V., Papneja, R., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro,
"Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-04
(work in progress), May 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District
Beijing 100085
China
Email: mach@huawei.com
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011
Ping Pan
Infinera
US
Email: ppan@infinera.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
7025-6 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Chen, et al. Expires February 17, 2012 [Page 9]