Network Working Group N. Bahadur
Internet-Draft R. Aggarwal
Updates: 4379 (if approved) Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Boutros
Expires: December 17, 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc.
E. Gray
Ericsson
June 15, 2011
MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-04
Abstract
LSP-Ping is an existing and widely deployed OAM mechanism for MPLS
LSPs. This document describes extensions to LSP-Ping so that LSP-
Ping can be used for On-demand Connectivity Verification of MPLS-TP
LSPs. This document also clarifies procedures to be used for
processing the related OAM packets. Further, it describes procedures
for using LSP-Ping to perform Connectivity Verification and Route
Tracing functions in MPLS-TP networks. Finally this document updates
RFC 4379 by adding a new address type and requesting a registry.
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 December 17, 2011.
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
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. On-demand CV for MPLS-TP LSPs using IP encapsulation . . . 4
1.3. On-demand CV for MPLS-TP LSPs using non-IP
encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. LSP-Ping Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. New address type for Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1. DSMAP/DDMAP Non-IP Address Information . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Source/Destination Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Source/Destination Identifier TLV Format . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2. Source Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.3. Destination Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Identifying Statically provisioned LSPs and PWs . . . . . 8
2.3.1. Static LSP Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.2. Static Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Performing On-demand CV over MPLS-TP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. LSP-Ping with IP encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. On-demand CV with IP encapsulation, over ACH . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Non-IP based On-demand CV, using ACH . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Reverse Path Connectivity Verification . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.1. Requesting Reverse Path Connectivity Verification . . 12
3.4.2. Responder Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.3. Requester Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5. P2MP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6. Operation of On-demand CV with Static MPLS-TP . . . . . . 13
3.7. GAL Label Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Performing on-demand Route Tracing over MPLS-TP LSPs . . . . . 14
4.1. On-demand LSP Route Tracing with IP encapsulation . . . . 14
4.2. Non-IP based On-demand LSP Route Tracing, using ACH . . . 14
4.2.1. Requester procedure for sending echo request
packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.2. Requester procedure for receiving echo response
packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.3. Responder procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. P2MP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. ECMP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. New Source and Destination Identifier TLVs . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.3. New Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.4. New Pseudowire Associated Channel Type . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.5. New RFC 4379 Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
1. Introduction
LSP-Ping [RFC4379] is an OAM mechanism for MPLS LSPs. This document
describes extensions to LSP-Ping so that LSP-Ping can be used for on-
demand monitoring of MPLS-TP LSPs. It also clarifies the procedures
to be used for processing the OAM packets. This document describes
how LSP-Ping can be used for on-demand Connectivity Verification
(Section 3) and Route Tracing (Section 4) functions required in
[RFC5860] and specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework].
1.1. Conventions used in this document
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 [RFC2119].
There is considerable opportunity for confusion in use of the terms
"on-demand connectivity verification" (CV), "on-demand route tracing"
and "LSP-Ping." In this document, we try to use the terms
consistently as follows:
o LSP-Ping: refers to the mechanism - particularly as defined and
used in referenced material;
o On-demand CV: refers to on-demand connectivity verification and -
where both apply equally - on-demand route tracing, as implemented
using the LSP-Ping mechanism extended for support of MPLS-TP;
o On-demand route tracing: used in those cases where the LSP-Ping
mechanism (as extended) is used exclusively for route tracing.
From the perspective of on-demand CV and traceroute, we use the
concepts of "Requester" and "Responder" as follows:
o Requester: Originator of an OAM Request message,
o Responder: Entity responding to an OAM Request message.
Since - in this document - all messages are assumed to be carried in
an LSP, all Request messages would be injected at the ingress to an
LSP. A Responder may or may not be at the egress of this same LSP,
given that it may receive Request messages as a result of TTL expiry.
If a Reply is to be delivered via a reverse path LSP, the message
would again be inserted at the ingress of that LSP.
1.2. On-demand CV for MPLS-TP LSPs using IP encapsulation
LSP-Ping requires IP addressing on responding LSRs for performing OAM
on MPLS signaled LSPs and pseudowires. In particular, in these cases
LSP-Ping packets generated by a Requester are encapsulated in an IP/
UDP header with the destination address from the 127/8 range and then
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
encapsulated in the MPLS label stack ([RFC4379] , [RFC5884]). A
Responder uses the presence of the 127/8 destination address to
identify OAM packets and relies further on the UDP port number to
determine whether the packet is a LSP-Ping packet. It is to be noted
that this determination does not require IP forwarding capabilities.
It requires the presence of an IP host stack which enables responding
LSRs to process packets with a destination address from the 127/8
range. [RFC1122] allocates the 127/8 range as "Internal host
loopback address" and [RFC1812] states that "a router SHOULD NOT
forward, except over a loopback interface, any packet that has a
destination address on network 127".
1.3. On-demand CV for MPLS-TP LSPs using non-IP encapsulation
In certain MPLS-TP deployment scenarios IP addressing might not be
available or it may be preferred to use some form of non-IP
encapsulation for On-demand CV, route tracing and BFD packets. In
such scenarios, On-demand CV and/or route tracing SHOULD be run
without IP addressing, using the ACH channel type specified in
Section 3.
Section 3.3 and Section 4.2 describe the theory of operation for
performing On-demand CV over MPLS-TP LSPs with any non-IP
encapsulation.
2. LSP-Ping Extensions
2.1. New address type for Downstream Mapping TLV
[RFC4379] defines the Downstream Mapping (DSMAP) TLV.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap] further defines the
Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV. This document defines the
following new address type which MAY be used in any DSMAP or DDMAP
TLV included in an On-demand CV message:
Type # Address Type K Octets
------ -------------- --------
5 Non IP 12
Figure 1: Downstream Mapping TLV new address type
The new address type indicates that no address is present in the
DSMAP or DDMAP TLV. However, IF_Num information (see definition of
"IF_NUM" in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers]) for both Requester and
Responder interfaces, as well as multipath information is included in
the format and MAY be present.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
IF_Num values of zero indicate that no IF_Num applies in the field in
which this value appears.
Multipath type SHOULD be set to 0 (no multipath) when using this
address type.
When this address type is used, on receipt of a LSP-Ping echo
request, interface verification MUST be bypassed. Thus the receiving
node SHOULD only perform mpls label control-plane/data-plane
consistency checks. Note that these consistency checks include
checking of included identifier information.
The new address type is also applicable to the Detailed Downstream
Mapping (DDMAP) TLV defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap].
2.1.1. DSMAP/DDMAP Non-IP Address Information
If the DSMAP (or DDMAP) TLV is included when sending On-demand CV
packets using ACH, without IP encapsulation, the following
information MUST be included in any DSMAP or DDMAP TLV that is
included in the packet. This information forms the address portion
of the DSMAP TLV (as defined in [RFC4379]) or DDMAP TLV (as defined
in [I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap] using one of the address
information fields defined in [RFC4379] and extended to include
non-IP identifier types in this document).
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MTU | Address Type | DS Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Requester IF_Num (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Responder IF_Num (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multipath Type| Depth Limit | Multipath Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: New DSMAP/DDMAP Address Format
Address Type will be 5 (as shown in Section 2.1 above.
Multipath type SHOULD be set to 0 (no multipath) when using this
address type.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
2.2. Source/Destination Identifier TLV
2.2.1. Source/Destination Identifier TLV Format
The format for the identifier TLV is the same for both Source and
Destination Identifier TLVs (only the type is different). The format
is as specified in the figure below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global_ID (4 Octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Node_ID (4 Octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: New Source/Destination Identifier Format
Type will be one of either TBD-SRC or TBD-DST, depending on whether
the TLV in question is a Source or Destination Identifier TLV.
Global_ID is as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers].
Node_ID is as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers].
2.2.2. Source Identifier TLV
When sending On-demand CV packets using ACH, without IP
encapsulation, there MAY be a need to identify the source of the
packet. This source identifier will be specified via the Source
Identifier TLV, using the Identifier TLV defined in Section 2.2.1,
containing the information specified above.
An On-demand CV packet MUST NOT include more than 1 Source Identifier
TLV. The Source Identifier TLV MUST specify the identifier of the
originator of the packet. If more than 1 such TLV is present in an
On-demand CV request packet, then an error of 1 (Malformed echo
request received, Section 3.3 [RFC4379]) MUST be returned, if it is
possible to unambiguously identify the source of the packet.
2.2.3. Destination Identifier TLV
When sending On-demand CV packets using ACH, without IP
encapsulation, there MAY be a need to identify the destination of the
packet. This destination identifier will be specified via the
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
Destination Identifier TLV, using the Identifier TLV defined in
Section 2.2.1, containing the information specified above.
An On-demand CV packet MUST NOT include more than 1 Destination
Identifier TLV. The Destination Identifier TLV MUST specify the
destination node for the packet. If more than 1 such TLV is present
in an On-demand CV Request packet, then an error of 1 (Malformed echo
request received, Section 3.3 [RFC4379]) MUST be returned, if it is
possible to unambiguously identify the source of the packet.
2.3. Identifying Statically provisioned LSPs and PWs
[RFC4379] specifies how an MPLS LSP under test may be identified in
an echo request. A Target FEC Stack TLV is used to identify the LSP.
In order to identify a statically provisioned LSP and PW, new target
FEC stack sub-TLVs are being defined. The new sub-TLVs are assigned
sub-type identifiers as follows, and are described in the following
sections.
Type # Sub-Type # Length Value Field
------ ---------- ------ -----------
1 22 24 Static LSP
1 23 24 Static Pseudowire
Figure 4: New target FEC sub-types
2.3.1. Static LSP Sub-TLV
The format of the Static LSP sub-TLV value field is specified in the
following figure. The value fields are taken from the definitions in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Tunnel Number | LSP Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Tunnel Number | Must be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
Figure 5: Static LSP FEC Sub-TLV
The Source global ID and Destination Global ID MAY be set to 0. When
set to zero, the field is not applicable.
2.3.2. Static Pseudowire Sub-TLV
The format of the Static PW sub-TLV value field is specified in the
following figure.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AGI (MSW) |
+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -+
| AGI (LSW) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source AC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination AC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Static PW FEC Sub-TLV
Attachment Group Identifier (AGI) is included in the first two words,
in most-significant, least-significant word order, as shown.
The Source global ID and Destination Global ID MAY be set to 0. When
set to zero, the field is not applicable.
The AGI, Global ID and Node ID fields are defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers]. The AC-ID fields are defined in
[RFC5003].
3. Performing On-demand CV over MPLS-TP LSPs
This section specifies how On-demand CV can be used in the context of
MPLS-TP LSPs. The On-demand CV function meets the On-demand
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
Connectivity Verification requirements specified in [RFC5860],
section 2.2.3. This function SHOULD NOT be performed except in the
on-demand mode. This function SHOULD be performed between End Points
(MEPs) and Intermediate Points (MIPs) of PWs and LSPs, and between
End Points of PWs, LSPs and Sections. In order for the On-demand CV
packet to be processed at the desired MIP, the TTL of the MPLS label
should be set such that it expires at the MIP to be probed.
[RFC5586] defines an ACH mechanism for MPLS LSPs. The mechanism is a
generalization of Associated Channel mechanism that [RFC4385] defined
for use with Pseudowires. As a result, a single Associated Channel
Type may be used for either an LSP or Pseudowire.
A new Pseudowire Associated Channel Type (type TBD-2) is defined for
use in performing On-demand Connectivity Verification. Its use is
described in the following sections.
Except as specifically stated in the sections below, message and TLV
construction procedures for On-demand CV messages are as defined in
[RFC4379].
3.1. LSP-Ping with IP encapsulation
LSP-Ping packets, as specified in [RFC4379], are sent over the MPLS
LSP for which OAM is being performed and contain an IP/UDP packet
within them. The IP header is not used for forwarding (since LSP
forwarding is done using MPLS label switching). The IP header is
used mainly for addressing and can be used in the context of MPLS-TP
LSPs. This form of On-demand CV OAM MUST be supported for MPLS-TP
LSPs when IP addressing is in use.
The On-demand CV echo response message MUST be sent on the reverse
path of the LSP. The reply MUST contain IP/UDP headers followed by
the On-demand CV payload. The destination address in the IP header
MUST be set to that of the sender of the echo request message. The
source address in the IP header MUST be set to a valid address of the
replying node.
3.2. On-demand CV with IP encapsulation, over ACH
IP encapsulated On-demand CV packets MAY be sent over the MPLS LSP
using the control channel (ACH). IP ACH type specified in [RFC4385]
MUST be used in such a case. The IP header is used mainly for
addressing and can be used in the context of MPLS-TP LSPs.
The On-demand CV echo response message MUST be sent on the reverse
path of the LSP. The response in this case SHOULD use ACH and SHOULD
be IP encapsulated.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
If IP encapsulated, the destination address in the IP header MUST be
set to that of the sender of the echo request message, and the source
address in the IP header MUST be set to a valid address of the
replying node.
3.3. Non-IP based On-demand CV, using ACH
The OAM procedures defined in [RFC4379] require the use of IP
addressing, and in some cases IP routing, to perform OAM functions.
When the ACH header is used, IP addressing and routing is not needed.
This section describes procedures for performing on-demand CV without
a dependency on IP addressing and routing.
In the non-IP case, when using On-demand CV via LSP-Ping with the ACH
header, the LSP-Ping Reply mode [RFC4379] in the LSP-Ping echo
request SHOULD be set to 4 (Reply via application level control
channel).
Note that the application level control channel in this case is the
reverse path of the LSP (or Pseudowire) using ACH.
The requesting node MAY attach a Source Identifier TLV (Section 2.2)
to identify the node originating the request.
If the Reply mode indicated in an On-demand CV Request is 4 (Reply
via application level control channel), the On-demand CV reply
message MUST be sent on the reverse path of the LSP using ACH. The
On-demand CV payload MUST directly follow the ACH header (and any ACH
TLVs) and IP and/or UDP headers MUST NOT be attached. The responding
node MAY attach a Source Identifier TLV to identify the node sending
the response.
If a node receives an MPLS echo request packet over ACH, without IP/
UDP headers, with a reply mode of 4, and if that node does not have a
return MPLS LSP path to the echo request source, then the node SHOULD
drop the echo request packet and not attempt to send a response.
If a node receives an MPLS echo request with a reply mode other than
4 (reply via application level control channel), and if the node
supports that reply mode, then it MAY respond using that reply mode.
If the node does not support the reply mode requested, or is unable
to reply using the requested reply mode in any specific instance, the
node MUST drop the echo request packet and not attempt to send a
response.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
3.4. Reverse Path Connectivity Verification
3.4.1. Requesting Reverse Path Connectivity Verification
A new global flag, Validate Reverse Path (R), is being defined in the
LSP-Ping packet header. When this flag is set in the echo request,
the Responder SHOULD return reverse path FEC information, as
described in Section 3.4.2.
The R flag MUST NOT be set in the echo response. If it is set in the
echo response, it SHOULD be ignored.
The Global Flags field is now a bit vector with the following format:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |R|T|V|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Global Flags Field
The V flag is defined in [RFC4379]. The T flag is defined in P2MP-
LSP-PING. The R flag is defined in this draft.
The Validate FEC Stack (V) flag MAY be set in the echo response when
reverse path connectivity verification is being performed.
3.4.2. Responder Procedures
When the R flag is set in the echo request, the responding node
SHOULD attach a Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV in the echo
response. The requesting node (on receipt of the response) can use
the Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV to perform reverse path
connectivity verification. For co-routed bi-directional LSPs, the
Reverse-path Target FEC Stack used for On-demand CV will be the same
in both the forward and reverse path of the LSP. For associated bi-
directional LSPs, the target FEC stack MAY be different for the
reverse path.
The format of the Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV is the same as
that of the Target FEC stack TLV defined in [RFC4379]. The rules for
creating a Target FEC stack TLV also apply to the Reverse-path Target
FEC Stack TLV.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
Value TLV
-------- ------------------------------------
TBD-1 Reverse-path Target FEC Stack
Figure 8: Reverse-Path Target FEC Stack TLV Type
3.4.3. Requester Procedures
On receipt of the echo response, the requesting node MUST perform the
following checks:
1. Perform interface and label-stack validation to ensure that the
packet is received on the reverse path of the bi-directional LSP
2. If the Reverse-Path Target FEC Stack TLV is present in the echo
response, then perform FEC validation.
The verification in this case is performed as described for Target
FEC Stack in section 3.6 of [RFC4379].
If any of the validations fail, then the requesting node MUST drop
the echo response and report an error.
3.5. P2MP Considerations
[I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping] describes how LSP-Ping can be used for
OAM on P2MP LSPs with IP encapsulation. This MUST be supported for
MPLS-TP P2MP LSPs when IP addressing is used. When IP addressing is
not used, then the procedures described in Section 3.3 can be applied
to P2MP MPLS-TP LSPs as well.
3.6. Operation of On-demand CV with Static MPLS-TP
Support for static MPLS-TP LSP, or Pseudowire, usage and on-demand
CV, requires manageable objects necessary to, for instance, configure
operating parameters such as duration and periodicity of an on-demand
connectivity test.
The specifics of this manageability requirement are out-of-scope in
this document and SHOULD be addressed in an appropriate management
specification.
3.7. GAL Label Processing
At the Requester, when encapsulating the LSP echo request (LSP Ping)
packet (with the IP ACH, or the non IP ACH, codepoint), a GAL label
MUST be added before adding the MPLS LSP label, and sending the LSP
Ping echo request packet in-band in the MPLS LSP.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
The GAL label MUST NOT be considered as part of the MPLS label stack
that requires verification by the Responder. For this reason, a NIL
FEC Stack TLV MUST NOT be added or associated with the GAL label.
GAL Label MUST NOT be included in DSMAP or DDMAP TLVs.
Interface and label stack TLV MUST include the whole label stack
including the GAL label.
4. Performing on-demand Route Tracing over MPLS-TP LSPs
This section specifies how On-demand CV traceroute can be used in the
context of MPLS-TP LSPs. The On-demand CV traceroute function meets
the Route Tracing requirement specified in [RFC5860], section 2.2.4.
This function SHOULD be performed on-demand. This function SHOULD be
performed between End Points and Intermediate Points of PWs and LSPs,
and between End Points of PWs, LSPs and Sections.
When performing On-demand CV traceroute, the requesting node inserts
a Downstream Mapping TLV to get the downstream node information and
to enable LSP verification along the transit nodes. The Downstream
Mapping TLV can be used as is for performing the traceroute. If IP
addressing is not in use, then the Address Type field in the
Downstream Mapping TLV can be set to "Non IP" (Section 2.1). The
Downstream Mapping TLV address type field can be extended to include
other address types as need be.
4.1. On-demand LSP Route Tracing with IP encapsulation
The mechanics of On-demand CV traceroute are similar to those
described for ping in Section 3.1. On-demand Route Tracing packets
sent by the Requester MUST follow procedures described in [RFC4379].
This form of On-demand CV OAM MUST be supported for MPLS-TP LSPs,
when IP addressing is used.
4.2. Non-IP based On-demand LSP Route Tracing, using ACH
This section describes procedures for performing LSP traceroute when
using LSP-Ping with the ACH header and without any dependency on IP
addressing. The procedures specified in Section 3.3 with regards to
Source Idenfier TLV apply to LSP traceroute as well.
4.2.1. Requester procedure for sending echo request packets
On-demand Route Tracing packets sent by the Requester MUST adhere to
the format described in Section 3.3. MPLS-TTL expiry (as described
in [RFC4379]) will be used to direct the packets to specific nodes
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
along the LSP path.
4.2.2. Requester procedure for receiving echo response packets
The On-demand CV traceroute responses will be received on the LSP
itself and the presence of an ACH header with channel type of On-
demand CV is an indicator that the packet contains On-demand CV
payload.
4.2.3. Responder procedure
When a echo request reaches the Responder, the presence of the ACH
channel type of On-demand CV will indicate that the packet contains
On-demand CV data. The On-demand CV data, the label stack and the
destination identifier should be sufficient to identify the LSP
associated with the echo request packet. If there is an error and
the node is unable to identify the LSP on which the echo response
would to be sent, the node MUST drop the echo request packet and not
send any response back. All responses MUST always be sent on a LSP
path using the ACH header and ACH channel type of On-demand CV.
4.3. P2MP Considerations
[I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping] describes how LSP-Ping can be used for
OAM on P2MP LSPs. This MUST be supported for MPLS-TP P2MP LSPs when
IP addressing is used. When IP addressing is not used, then the
procedures described in Section 4.2 can be applied to P2MP MPLS-TP
LSPs as well.
4.4. ECMP Considerations
On-demand CV using ACH SHOULD NOT be used when there is ECMP (equal
cost multiple paths) for a given LSP. The addition of the additional
ACH header may modify the hashing behavior for OAM packets which may
result in incorrect monitoring of path taken by data traffic.
5. Applicability
The procedures specified in this document for non-IP encapsulation
apply only to MPLS-TP Transport paths. This includes LSPs and PWs
when IP encapsulation is not desired. However, when IP addressing is
used, as in non MPLS-TP LSPs, procedures specified in [RFC4379] MUST
be used.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
6. Security Considerations
The draft does not introduce any new security considerations. Those
discussed in [RFC4379] are also applicable to this document.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. New Source and Destination Identifier TLVs
IANA is requested to assign the following TLV types from the "Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" Registry, "TLVs and sub-
TLVs" sub-registry (from "Standards Action" TLV type range):
Length
Type # TLV Name Octets Reference
------ -------------------- ------ ------------------------
TBD-SRC Source ID TLV 8 this document (sect 2.2)
TBD-DST Destination ID TLV 8 this document (sect 2.2)
Figure 9: New Source/Destination Identifier TLV Type
7.2. New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs
Section 2.3 defines 2 new sub-TLV types for inclusion within the LSP
Ping [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV.
IANA is requested to assign sub-type values to the following sub-TLVs
from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-
TLVs" sub-registry.
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------------------------- --------------------------
22 Static LSP sub-TLV this document (sect 2.4.1)
23 Static Pseudowire sub-TLV this document (sect 2.4.2)
7.3. New Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV
Section 3.4.2 defines a new TLV type for inclusion in the LSP-Ping
packet.
IANA is requested to assign a type value to the TLV from the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-
registry.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
Value Meaning Reference
----- -------------------------- ------------------------
TBD-1 Reverse-path Target FEC this document (sect 3.4)
Stack TLV
The sub-TLV space and assignments for this TLV will be the same as
that for the Target FEC Stack TLV. Sub-types for the Target FEC
Stack TLV and the Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV MUST be kept the
same. Any new sub-type added to the Target FEC Stack TLV MUST apply
to the Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV as well.
7.4. New Pseudowire Associated Channel Type
On-demand Connectivity Verification requires a unique Associated
Channel Type. IANA is requested to assign a PW ACh Type from the
"Pseudowire Associated Channel Type Registry" as describe below:
Value Description TLV Follows Reference
------ ------------- ----------- ----------------------
TBD-2 On-Demand CV No this document (sect 3)
7.5. New RFC 4379 Registry
[RFC4379] defined several registries. It also defined some value
assignments without explicitly asking for IANA to create a registry
to support additional value assingments. One such case is in
defining address types associated with the Downstream Mapping (DSMAP)
TLV.
This document extends RFC 4379 by defining a new address type for use
with the Downstream Mapping and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLVs.
Recognizing that the absence of a registry makes it possible to have
collisions of "address-type" usages, IANA is requested to establish a
new registry - associated with both [RFC4379] and this document -
that initially allocates the following assignments:
Type # Address Type K Octets Reference
------ ------------ -------- --------------------------
1 IPv4 Numbered 16 RFC 4379
2 IPv4 Unnumbered 16 RFC 4379
3 IPv6 Numbered 40 RFC 4379
4 IPv6 Unnumbered 28 RFC 4379
5 Non IP 12 this document (sect 2.1.1)
Downstream Mapping Address Type Registry
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
Because the field in this case is an 8-octet field, the basis for all
future allocations SHOULD be "Standards Based."
8. Contributing Authors
The following individuals also contributed to this document:
o Thomas D. Nadeau, CA Technologies
o Nurit Sprecher, Nokia Siemens Networks
o Yaacov Weingarten, Nokia Siemens Networks
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap]
Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels",
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-09 (work in
progress), May 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping]
Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Nadeau,
T., and S. Saxena, "Detecting Data Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) -
Extensions to LSP Ping", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-16
(work in progress), March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers]
Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS-TP
Identifiers", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-05 (work in
progress), June 2011.
[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.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework]
Allan, D., Busi, I., Niven-Jenkins, B., Fulignoli, A.,
Hernandez-Valencia, E., Levrau, L., Sestito, V., Sprecher,
N., Helvoort, H., Vigoureux, M., Weingarten, Y., and R.
Winter, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance
Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-11 (work in progress),
February 2011.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto,
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Nitin Bahadur
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Phone: +1 408 745 2000
Email: nitinb@juniper.net
URI: www.juniper.net
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification June 2011
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Phone: +1 408 745 2000
Email: rahul@juniper.net
URI: www.juniper.net
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Phone:
Fax:
Email: sboutros@cisco.com
URI:
Eric Gray
Ericsson
900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851
US
Phone: +1 978 275 7470
Fax:
Email: eric.gray@ericsson.com
URI:
Bahadur, et al. Expires December 17, 2011 [Page 20]
