Network Working Group George Swallow
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: May 2009
Vanson Lim
Cisco Systems, Inc.
November 3, 2008
Proxy LSP Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
This document defines a means of remotely initiating Multiprocal
Label Switched Protocol Pings on Label Switched Paths. A proxy
ping request is sent to any Label Switching Routers along a Label
Switched Path. The primary motivations for this facility are
first to limit the number of messages and related processing when
using LSP Ping in large Point-to-Multipoint LSPs, and second to
enable leaf to root tracing.
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Conventions ............................................... 4
2 Proxy Ping Overview ....................................... 4
3 Proxy MPLS Echo Request / Reply Pprocedures ............... 5
3.1 Procedures for the initiator .............................. 5
3.2 Procedures for the proxy LSR .............................. 6
3.2.1 Sending an MPLS proxy ping reply .......................... 7
3.2.2 Sending the MPLS echo requests ............................ 8
4 Proxy Ping Request / Reply Messages ....................... 9
4.1 Proxy Ping Request / Reply Message formats ................ 9
4.2 Proxy Ping Request Message contents ....................... 11
4.3 Proxy Ping Reply Message Contents ......................... 11
5 Object formats ............................................ 12
5.1 Proxy Echo Parameters Object .............................. 12
5.1.1 Next Hop sub-Object ....................................... 14
5.2 Reply-to Address Object ................................... 15
5.3 Previous Hop Address Object ............................... 15
6 Security Considerations ................................... 16
7 IANA Considerations ....................................... 17
8 References ................................................ 18
8.1 Normative References ...................................... 18
8.2 Informative References .................................... 18
9 Authors' Addresses ........................................ 18
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
1. Introduction
It is anticipated that very large Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) will exist. Further it is anticipated that
many of the applications for P2MP tunnels will require OAM that is
both rigorous and scalable.
Suppose one wishes to trace a P2MP LSP to localize a fault which is
affecting one egress or a set of egresses. Suppose one follows the
normal procedure for tracing - namely repeatedly pinging from the
root, incrementing the TTL by one after each three or so pings. Such
a procedure has the potential for producing a large amount of pro-
cessing at the P2MP-LSP midpoints and egresses. It also could pro-
duce an unwieldy number of replies back to the root.
One alternative would be to begin sending pings from points at or
near the affected egress(es) and working backwards toward the root.
The TTL could be held constant as say two, limiting the the number of
responses to the number of next-next-hops of the point where a ping
is initiated.
This document defines protocol extensions to MPLS ping [RFC4379] to
allow a third party to remotely cause an MPLS echo request message to
be sent down a Label Switched Path (LSP) or part of an LSP. The pro-
cedure described in the paragraphs above does require that the ini-
tiator know the previous-hop node to the one which was pinged on the
prior iteration. This information is readily available in [P2MP-TE].
This also document provides a means for obtaining this information
for [mLDP].
While the motivaton for this document came from multicast scaling
concerns, its applicability may be wider. However other uses of this
facility are beyond the scope of this document. In particular, the
procedures defined in this document only allow testing of a FEC stack
consisting of a single FEC. It also does not allow the initiator to
specify the label assigned to that FEC, nor does it allow the initia-
tor to cause any additional labels to be added to the label stack of
the actual MPLS echo request message. Further the discussion is
cauched in terms of multipoint LSPs.
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
1.1. Conventions
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 [KeyWords].
The term "Must Be Zero" (MBZ) is used in object descriptions for
reserved fields. These fields MUST be set to zero when sent and
ignored on receipt.
Based on context the terms leaf and egress are used interchangeably.
Egress is used where consistency with [RFC4379] was deemed appropri-
ate. Receiver is used in the context of receiving protocol messages.
[Note (to be removed after assignments occur): <tba> = to be assigned
by IANA]
2. Proxy Ping Overview
This document defines a protocol interaction between a first node and
a node which is part of an LSP to allow the first node to remotely
initiate a an LSP ping for the LSP. Two new LSP Ping messages are
defined for remote pinging, the MPLS proxy ping request and the MPLS
proxy ping reply.
A remote ping operation on a P2MP LSP involves at least three LSRs;
in some scenarios none of these are the ingress (root) or an egress
(leaf) of the LSP.
We refer to these nodes with the following terms:
Initiator - the node which initiates the ping operation by sending
an MPLS proxy ping request message
Proxy LSR - the node which is the destination of the MPLS proxy
request message and potential initiator of the MPLS
echo request
Receiver(s) - the receivers of the MPLS echo request messages
The initiator formats an MPLS proxy ping request message and sends it
to the proxy LSR, a node it believes to be on the path of the LSP.
This message specifies the MPLS echo request to be sent inband of the
LSP. It may also request the proxy LSR to acknowledge the receipt of
the proxy ping request message and/or respond with the address of the
previous hop, i.e. the LSR upstream of it on this LSP.
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
The proxy LSR validates that it has a label mapping for the specified
FEC and that it is authorized to send the specified MPLS echo request
on behalf of the initiator. Depending on the Reply Mode carried in
the header of the proxy ping request message and the above results an
MPLS remote echo reply message might be sent back to the initiator.
This message may also communicate the address of the previous hop.
If the proxy LSR has a label mapping for the FEC and and all autho-
rization checks have passed, the proxy LSR formats an MPLS echo
request. If the source address of the IP packet is not the initia-
tor, it includes a Reply-to Address object containing the initiator's
address. It then sends it inband of the LSP.
The receivers process the MPLS echo request as normal, sending their
MPLS echo replies back to the initiator.
3. Proxy MPLS Echo Request / Reply Pprocedures
3.1. Procedures for the initiator
The initiator creates an MPLS proxy ping request message.
The message MUST contain a Target FEC Stack that describes the FEC
being tested.
The message MUST contain a Proxy Echo Parameters object. In that
object, the address type is set to either IPv4 or IPv6. The Destina-
tion IP Address is set to the value to be used in the MPLS echo
request packet. If the Address Type is IPv4, an address from the
range 127/8. If the Address Type is IPv6, an address from the range
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104.
The Reply mode and Global Flags of the Proxy Echo Parameters object
are set to the values to be used in the MPLS echo request message
header. The Source UDP Port is set to the value to be used in the
MPLS echo request packet. The TTL is set to the value to be used in
the outgoing MPLS label stack. See section 5.2.2.2 for further
details.
If the previous hop address and/or a downstream mapping object from
the proxy LSR is needed the corresponding flag in the Flags field of
the Proxy Echo Parameters object is set.
A list of Next Hop IP Addresses MAY be included to limit the next
hops towards which the MPLS echo request message will be sent. These
are encoded as Next Hop sub-objects and included in the Proxy Echo
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
Parameters object.
Any of following objects MAY be included; these objects will be
copied into the MPLS echo request messages:
Pad
Vendor Enterprise Number
Reply TOS Byte
P2MP Egress Identifier [McstPing]
Echo Jitter TLV [McstPing]
Vendor Private TLVs
Downstream Mapping objects MAY be included. These objects will be
matched to the next hop address for inclusion in those particular
MPLS echo request messages.
The message is then encapsulated in a UDP packet. The source UDP
port is chosen by the sender; the destination UDP port is set to
3503. The IP header is set as follows: the source IP address is a
routable address of the sender; the destination IP address is a
routable address of the midpoint. The packet is then sent with the
IP TTL is set to 255.
3.2. Procedures for the proxy LSR
A proxy LSR that receives an MPLS proxy ping request message, parses
the packet to ensure that it is a well-formed packet. It checks that
the TLVs that are not marked "Ignore" are understood. If not, it
sets the Return Code set to "Malformed echo request received" or "TLV
not understood" (as appropriate), and the Subcode set to zero. If
the Reply Mode of the message header is not 1, an MPLS proxy ping
reply message SHOULD be sent as described below. In the latter case,
the misunderstood TLVs (only) are included in an Errored TLVs object.
The header fields Sender's Handle and Sequence Number are not exam-
ined, but are saved to be included in the MPLS proxy ping reply and
MPLS echo request messages.
The proxy LSR validates that it has a label mapping for the specified
FEC, it then determines if it is an egress, transit or bud node and
sets the Return Code as appropriate.
The proxy LSR then determines if it is authorized to send the speci-
fied MPLS echo request on behalf of the initiator. An LSR MUST be
capable of filtering addresses to validate initiators. Other filters
on FECs or MPLS echo request contents MAY be applied. If a filter
has been invoked (i.e. configured) and an address does not pass the
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
filter, then an MPLS echo request message MUST NOT be sent, and the
event SHOULD be logged. An MPLS proxy ping reply message MAY be sent
with a Return Code of <tba>, "Remote Ping not authorized".
The destination address specified in the Proxy Echo Parameters object
is checked to ensure that it conforms to the address allowed IPv4 or
IPv6 address range. If not, it sets the Return Code set to "Mal-
formed echo request received" and the Subcode set to zero. If the
Reply Mode of the message header is not 1, an MPLS proxy ping reply
message SHOULD be sent as described below.
If the "Request for Previous Hop" flag is set, a Previous Hop Address
Object is formatted for inclusion in the MPLS proxy ping reply. If
the previous HOP is unknown or ambiguous the Address Type is set to
"No Address Supplied".
If there are Next Hop sub-objexts in the Proxy Echo Parameters
object, each address is examined to determine if it is a next hop for
this FEC. If any are not, those sub-objects are from the Proxy Echo
Parameters object. The updated object is included in the MPLS proxy
ping reply.
If the "Request for Downstream Mapping" flag is set the LSR formats a
Downstream Mapping object for each interface over which the MPLS echo
request will be sent.
If the Reply Mode of the message header is 1 or is 5 and no errors or
modificatons have occurred no MPLS proxy ping reply is sent. Other-
wise an MPLS proxy ping reply message SHOULD be sent as described
below.
3.2.1. Sending an MPLS proxy ping reply
The Reply mode, Sender's Handle and Sequence Number fields are copied
from the proxy ping request message. The objects specified above are
included. The message is encapsulated in a UDP packet. The source
IP address is a routable address of the proxy LSR; the source port is
the well-known UDP port for LSP ping. The destination IP address and
UDP port are copied from the source IP address and UDP port of the
echo request. The IP TTL is set to 255.
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
3.2.2. Sending the MPLS echo requests
A base MPLS echo request is formed as decribed in the next section.
The section below that describes how the base MPLS echo request is
sent on each interface.
3.2.2.1. Forming the base MPLS echo request
A Next_Hop_List is created as follows. If Next Hop sub-objects were
included in the received Proxy Parameters object, the Next_Hop_List
created from the address in those sub-ojects as adjusted above. Oth-
erwise, the list is set to all the next hops to which the FEC would
be forwarded.
The proxy LSR then formats an MPLS echo request message. The Global
Flags and Reply Mode are copied from the Proxy Echo Parameters
object. The Return Code and Return Subcode are set to zero.
The Sender's Handle and Sequence Number are copied from the remote
echo request message.
The TimeStamp Sent is set to the time-of-day (in seconds and
microseconds) that the echo request is sent. The TimeStamp Received
is set to zero.
A Reply-to Address object containing the initiator's address is
included.
The following objects are copied from the MPLS proxy ping request
message. Note that of these, only the Target FEC Stack is REQUIRED
to appear in the MPLS proxy ping request message.
Target FEC Stack
Pad
Vendor Enterprise Number
Reply TOS Byte
P2MP Egress Identifier [McstPing]
Echo Jitter TLV [McstPing]
Vendor Private TLVs
The message is then encapsulated in a UDP packet. The source UDP
port is copied from the Proxy Echo Parameters object. The destina-
tion port copied from the proxy ping request message.
The source IP address is set to a routable address of the proxy LSR.
Per usual the TTL of the IP packet is set to 1.
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
If the Explicit DSCP flag is set, the Requested DSCP byte is exam-
ined. If the setting is permitted then the DSCP byte of the IP
header of the MPLS Echo Request message is set to that value. Other-
wise the DSCP byte is set to a default value. In this case the MPLS
Proxy Echo Parameters with the Explicit DSCP flag cleared MUST be
included in any MPLS proxy ping reply message. The return code MUST
be set to <tba>, "Proxy ping parameters modified". The DSCP field of
the MPLS Proxy Echo Parameters SHOULD be set to the actual value
used.
3.2.2.2. Per interface sending procedures
The proxy LSR now iterates through the Next_Hop_List modifying the
base MPLS echo request to form the MPLS echo request packet which is
then sent on that particular interface.
For each next hop address, the outgoing label stack is determained.
The TTL for the label corresponding to the FEC specified in the FEC
stack is set such that the TTL on the wire will be one less than the
TTL specified in the Proxy Echo Parameters. If any additional labels
are pushed onto the stack, their TTLs are set to 255.
If the MPLS proxy ping request message contained Downstream Mapping
objects, they are examined. If the Downstream IP Address matches the
next hop address that Downstream Mapping object is included in the
MPLS echo request.
The packet is then transmitted on this interface.
4. Proxy Ping Request / Reply Messages
This document defines two new LSP Ping messages, the MPLS proxy ping
request and the MPLS proxy ping reply.
4.1. Proxy Ping Request / Reply Message formats
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
Except where noted, the definitions of all fields in the messages are
identical to those found in [RFC4379]. The messages have the follow-
ing format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version Number | MUST Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code | Return Subcode|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLVs ... |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version Number
The Version Number is currently 1. (Note: the Version Number
is to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the
ability of an implementation to correctly parse or process an
MPLS echo request/reply. These changes include any syntactic
or semantic changes made to any of the fixed fields, or to any
TLV or sub-TLV assignment or format that is defined at a
certain version number. The Version Number may not need to be
changed if an optional TLV or sub-TLV is added.)
Message Type
Type Message
---- -------
5 MPLS proxy ping request
6 MPLS proxy ping reply
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
Reply mode
The reply modes are the same as [RFC4379] with the addtion of
value 5. For completeness, the full list of reply modes
follows:
Value Meaning
----- -------
1 Do not reply
2 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet
3 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert
4 Reply via application level control channel
5 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet only if the proxy
request is not fulfilled or is modified
4.2. Proxy Ping Request Message contents
The MPLS proxy ping request message MAY contain the following
objects:
Type Object
---- -----------
1 Target FEC Stack
2 Downstream Mapping
3 Pad
5 Vendor Enterprise Number
10 Reply TOS Byte
tba Proxy Echo Parameters
tba P2MP Egress Identifier [McstPing]
tba Echo Jitter TLV [McstPing]
Vendor Private TLVs
4.3. Proxy Ping Reply Message Contents
The MPLS proxy ping reply message MAY contain the following objects:
Type Object
---- -----------
1 Target FEC Stack
2 Downstream Mapping
5 Vendor Enterprise Number
9 Errored TLVs
tba Proxy Echo Parameters
tba Previous Hop Address
Vendor Private objects
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
5. Object formats
5.1. Proxy Echo Parameters Object
The Proxy Echo Parameters object is a TLV that MUST be included in an
MPLS Proxy Echo Request message. The length of the TLV is 12 + K +
S, where K is the length of the Destination IP Address field and S is
the total length of the sub-objects.
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 Type | Flags | Reply mode | TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rqst'd DSCP | Must be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source UDP Port | Global Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Destination IP Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: :
: Sub-Objects :
: :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Type
The type and length of the address found in the in the
Destination IP Address and Next Hop IP Addresses fields.
The type codes appear in the table below:
Address Family Type Length
IPv4 1 4
IPv6 3 16
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
Flags
Request for Previous Hop 0x01
When set this requests that the proxy LSR supply the
previous hop address in the MPLS proxy ping reply message
Request for Downstream Mapping 0x02
When set this requests that the proxy LSR supply a
Downstream Mapping object in the MPLS proxy ping reply
message
Explicit DSCP Request 0x04
When set this requests that the proxy LSR supply a use
the supplied DSCP byte in the echo request message
Reply mode
The reply mode to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request message; the
values are as specified in [RFC4379]
TTL
The TTL to be used in the label stack entry corresponding to
the topmost FEC in the in the MPLS Echo Request packet
Requested DSCP
This field is valid only if the Explicit DSCP flag is set. If
not set, the field MUST be zero on transmission and ignored on
receipt. When the flag is set this field contains the DSCP
value to be used in the MPLS echo request packet IP header.
Source UDP Port
The source UDP port to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request packet
Global Flags
The Global Flags to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request messge
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
Destination IP Address
If the Address Type is IPv4, an address from the range 127/8;
If the Address Type is IPv6, an address from the range
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104
Sub-Objects
A TLV encoded list of sub-objects. Currently one is defined.
Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ -----------
1 8+ Next Hop
5.1.1. Next Hop sub-Object
This sub-object is used to describe a particular next hop towards
which the Echo Request packet should be sent. If the topmost FEC in
the FEC-stack is a multipoint LSP, this sub-object may appear multi-
ple times.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Addr Type | MUST be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop IP Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Interface (0, 4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Type
Type Type of Next Hop Addr Length IF Length
1 IPv4 Numbered 4 4
2 IPv4 Unnumbered 4 4
3 IPv6 Numbered 16 16
4 IPv6 Unnumbered 16 4
5 IPv4 Protocol Adj 4 0
6 IPv6 Protocol Adj 16 0
Note: Types 1-4 correspond to the types in the DS Mapping
object. They are expected to populated with information
obtained through a previously returned DS Mapping object.
Types 5 and 6 are intended to be populated from the local
address information obtained from a previously returned
Previous Hop Address Object.
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
Next Hop IP Address
A next hop address that the echo request message is to
be sent towards
Next Hop Interface
Identifier of the interface through which the echo request
message is to be sent
5.2. Reply-to Address Object
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Type | MUST be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Reply-to Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Type
A type code as specified in the table below:
Type Type of Address
1 IPv4
3 IPv6
5.3. Previous Hop Address Object
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|PHOP Addr Type |Local Addr Type| MUST be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Previous Hop Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Local Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
PHOP Addr Type; Local Addr Type
These two fields determine the type and length of the
respective addresses. The codes are specified in the table
below:
Type Type of Address Length
0 No Address Supplied 0
1 IPv4 4
3 IPv6 16
Previous Hop Address
The address of the immediate upstream neighbor for the topmost
FEC in the FEC stack. If protocol adjacency exists by which
the label for this FEC was exchanged, this address MUST be the
address used in that protocol exchange.
Local Address
The local address used in the protocol adjacency exists by
which the label for this FEC was exchanged.
6. Security Considerations
The mechanisms described in this document are intended to be used
within a Service Provider network and to be initiated only under the
authority of that administration.
If such a network also carries internet traffic, or permits IP access
from other administrations, MPLS proxy ping message SHOULD be dis-
carded at those points. This can be accomplished by filtering on
source address or by filtering all MPLS ping messages on UDP port.
Any node which acts as a proxy node SHOULD validate requests against
a set of valid source addresses. An implementation MUST provide such
filtering capabilities.
MPLS proxy ping request messages are IP addressed directly to the
Proxy node. If a node which receives an MPLS proxy ping message via
TTL expiration, it MUST NOT be acted upon.
MPLS proxy ping requests are limited to making their request via the
specification of a FEC. This ensures that only valid MPLS echo
request messages can be created. No label spoofing attacks are
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
possible.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes the following assigments (pending IANA action):
LSP Ping Message Types
Type Value Field
---- -----------
tba MPLS proxy ping request message
tba MPLS proxy ping reply
Objects and Sub-Objects
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
tba Proxy Echo Parameters
1 Next Hop
tba Reply-to Address
tba Previous Hop Address
Return Codes
Value Meaning
----- -------
tba Remote ping not authorized
tba Proxy ping parameters modified
Reply Modes [pending IANA assignment]
Value Meaning
----- -------
5 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet only if the
proxy request is not fulfilled or is modified
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[KeyWords] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[McstPing] Farrel, A. et al, "Detecting Data Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Traffic Engineering -
Extensions to LSP Ping",
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-07.txt, September 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[P2MP-TE] Aggarwal, R., et al., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for
Point-to-Multipoint TE LSPs", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[mLDP] Minei, I., et. al., "Label Distribution Protocol
Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths"
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-05.txt, May 2008.
9. Authors' Addresses
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Vanson Lim
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
Email: vlim@cisco.com
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-03.txt November 2008
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the
rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Swallow & Lim Standards Track [Page 19]
