Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Networks Using Entropy Labels (ELs)
RFC 8012
Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(November 2016; No errata)
Updates RFC 6790
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Nobo Akiya , George Swallow , Carlos Pignataro , Andy Malis , Sam Aldrin | ||
Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
Replaces | draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Loa Andersson | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2016-06-16) | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 8012 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
Send notices to | (None) | ||
IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Akiya Request for Comments: 8012 Big Switch Networks Updates: 6790 G. Swallow Category: Standards Track C. Pignataro ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco A. Malis Huawei Technologies S. Aldrin Google November 2016 Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Networks Using Entropy Labels (ELs) Abstract Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) paths. Ping is known as a connectivity-verification method and traceroute is known as a fault-isolation method, as described in RFC 4379. When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described in RFC 6790, the ability for LSP ping and traceroute operations to discover and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where Label Switching Routers (LSRs) apply different load-balancing techniques. One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL-based load balancing while other LSRs apply load balancing that is not EL based (e.g., IP). Another scenario is when an EL-based LSP is stitched with another LSP that can be EL based or not EL based. This document extends the MPLS LSP ping and traceroute multipath mechanisms in RFC 6424 to allow the ability of exercising LSPs that make use of the EL. This document updates RFC 6790. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8012. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................3 1.1. Terminology ................................................5 1.1.1. Requirements Language ...............................6 1.2. Background .................................................6 2. Multipath Type {9} ..............................................7 3. Pseudowire Tracing ..............................................7 4. Entropy Label FEC ...............................................8 5. DS Flags: L and E ...............................................9 6. New Multipath Information Type {10} ............................10 7. Initiating LSR Procedures ......................................12 8. Responder LSR Procedures .......................................14 8.1. IP-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL ..........15 8.2. IP-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL .................15 8.3. Label-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL .......16 8.4. Label-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL ..............17 8.5. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR ............................18 9. Supported and Unsupported Cases ................................18 10. Security Considerations .......................................20 11. IANA Considerations ...........................................21 11.1. Entropy Label FEC ........................................21 11.2. DS Flags .................................................21 11.3. Multipath Type ...........................................21 12. References ....................................................22Show full document text