Definition of P2MP PW TLV for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping Mechanisms
RFC 8339
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (March 2018; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Parag Jain , Sami Boutros , Sam Aldrin | ||
| Last updated | 2018-03-13 | ||
| Replaces | draft-jain-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Andy Malis | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2017-05-01) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8339 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | Andrew Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Jain, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8339 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track S. Boutros
ISSN: 2070-1721 VMWare, Inc.
S. Aldrin
Google Inc.
March 2018
Definition of P2MP PW TLV for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping Mechanisms
Abstract
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping is a widely deployed Operation,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks.
This document describes a mechanism to verify connectivity of Point-
to-Multipoint (P2MP) Pseudowires (PWs) using LSP Ping.
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
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8339.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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.
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Identifying a P2MP PW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. P2MP Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Encapsulation of OAM Ping Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Controlling Echo Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
1. Introduction
A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Pseudowire (PW) emulates the essential
attributes of a unidirectional P2MP Telecommunications service such
as P2MP ATM over a Public Switched Network (PSN). Requirements for
P2MP PWs are described in [RFC7338]. P2MP PWs are carried over a
P2MP MPLS LSP. The procedures for P2MP PW signaling using BGP are
described in [RFC7117]; LDP for single segment P2MP PWs is described
in [RFC8338]. Many P2MP PWs can share the same P2MP MPLS LSP; this
arrangement is called an "Aggregate P2MP Tree". An Aggregate P2MP
Tree requires an upstream-assigned label so that on the Leaf PE
(L-PE), the traffic can be associated with a Virtual Private Network
(VPN) or a Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) instance. When a P2MP
MPLS LSP carries only one VPN or VPLS service instance, the
arrangement is called an "Inclusive P2MP Tree". For an Inclusive
P2MP Tree, the P2MP MPLS LSP label itself can uniquely identify the
VPN or VPLS service being carried over the P2MP MPLS LSP. The P2MP
MPLS LSP can also be used in the Selective P2MP Tree arrangement to
carry multicast traffic. In a Selective P2MP Tree arrangement,
traffic to each multicast group in a VPN or VPLS instance is carried
by a separate unique P2MP LSP. In an Aggregate Selective P2MP Tree
arrangement, traffic to a set of multicast groups from different VPN
or VPLS instances is carried over the same shared P2MP LSP.
The P2MP MPLS LSPs are setup using either P2MP RSVP-TE [RFC4875] or
Multipoint LDP (mDLP) [RFC6388]. Mechanisms for fault detection and
isolation for data-plane failures for P2MP MPLS LSPs are specified in
[RFC6425]. This document describes a mechanism to detect data-plane
failures for P2MP PW carried over P2MP MPLS LSPs.
This document defines a new P2MP Pseudowire sub-TLV for the Target
Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack for P2MP PWs. The P2MP
Pseudowire sub-TLV is added in the Target FEC Stack TLV by the
originator of the echo request at the Root PE (R-PE) to inform the
receiver at the Leaf PE (L-PE) of the P2MP PW being tested.
Support for multi-segment PWs is out of scope of this document.
2. Terminology
2.1. Specification of Requirements
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.
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
2.2. Abbreviations
ACH: Associated Channel Header
AGI: Attachment Group Identifier
ATM: Asynchronous Transfer Mode
CE: Customer Edge
FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
GAL: Generic Associated Channel Label
LDP: Label Distribution Protocol
L-PE: Leaf PE (one of many destinations of the P2MP MPLS LSP,
i.e., egress PE)
LSP: Label Switched Path
LSR: Label Switching Router
mLDP: Multipoint LDP
MPLS-OAM: MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
P2MP-PW: Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire
PE: Provider Edge
PSN: Public Switched Network
PW: Pseudowire
R-PE: Root PE (ingress PE, PE initiating P2MP PW setup)
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
TE: Traffic Engineering
TLV: Type, Length, Value
VPLS: Virtual Private LAN Service
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
3. Identifying a P2MP PW
This document introduces a new LSP Ping Target FEC Stack sub-TLV, the
P2MP Pseudowire sub-TLV, to identify the P2MP PW under test at the
P2MP Leaf PE (L-PE).
3.1. P2MP Pseudowire Sub-TLV
The P2MP Pseudowire sub-TLV has the format shown in Figure 1. This
TLV is included in the echo request sent over P2MP PW by the
originator of the request.
The Attachment Group Identifier (AGI), as described in Section 3.4.2
of [RFC4446], in P2MP Pseudowire sub-TLV identifies the VPLS
instance. The Originating Router's IP address is the IPv4 or IPv6
address of the P2MP PW root. The address family of the IP address is
determined by the IP Addr Len field.
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 Type | AGI Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
~ AGI Value ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Addr Len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
~ Originating Routers IP Addr ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: P2MP Pseudowire Sub-TLV Format
For Inclusive and Selective P2MP Trees, the echo request is sent
using the P2MP MPLS LSP label.
For Aggregate Inclusive and Aggregate Selective P2MP Trees, the echo
request is sent using a label stack of [P2MP MPLS LSP label, upstream
assigned P2MP PW label]. The P2MP MPLS LSP label is the outer label
and the upstream assigned P2MP PW label is the inner label.
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
4. Encapsulation of OAM Ping Packets
The LSP Ping echo request packet is encapsulated with the MPLS label
stack as described in previous sections, followed by one of the two
encapsulation options:
o GAL [RFC6426] followed by an IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057) type
Associated Channel Header (ACH) [RFC4385]
o PW ACH [RFC4385]
To ensure interoperability, implementations of this document MUST
support both encapsulations.
5. Operations
In this section, we explain the operation of the LSP Ping over a P2MP
PW. Figure 2 shows a P2MP PW PW1 setup from Root PE R-PE1, to Leaf
PEs (L-PE2, L-PE3, and L-PE4). The transport LSP associated with the
P2MP PW1 can be mLDP P2MP MPLS LSP or P2MP TE tunnel.
|<--------------P2MP PW---------------->|
Native | | Native
Service | |<--PSN1->| |<--PSN2->| | Service
(AC) V V V V V V (AC)
| +-----+ +------+ +------+ |
| | | | P1 |=========|L-PE2 |AC3 | +---+
| | | | .......PW1.........>|-------->|CE3|
| |R-PE1|=========| . |=========| | | +---+
| | .......PW1........ | +------+ |
| | . |=========| . | +------+ |
| | . | | . |=========|L-PE3 |AC4 | +---+
+---+ |AC1 | . | | .......PW1.........>|-------->|CE4|
|CE1|------->|... | | |=========| | | +---+
+---+ | | . | +------+ +------+ |
| | . | +------+ +------+ |
| | . |=========| P2 |=========|L-PE4 |AC5 | +---+
| | .......PW1..............PW1.........>|-------->|CE5|
| | |=========| |=========| | | +---+
| +-----+ +------+ +------+ |
Figure 2: P2MP PW
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
When an operator wants to perform a connectivity check for the P2MP
PW1, the operator initiates an LSP Ping echo request from Root PE
R-PE1, with the Target FEC Stack TLV containing the P2MP Pseudowire
sub-TLV in the echo request packet. For an Inclusive P2MP Tree
arrangement, the echo request packet is sent over the P2MP MPLS LSP
with one of the following two encapsulation options:
o {P2MP LSP label, GAL} MPLS label stack and IPv4 or IPv6 ACH.
o {P2MP LSP label} MPLS label stack and PW ACH.
For an Aggregate Inclusive Tree arrangement, the echo request packet
is sent over the P2MP MPLS LSP with one of the following two
encapsulation options:
o {P2MP LSP label, P2MP PW upstream assigned label, GAL} MPLS label
stack and IPv4 or IPv6 ACH.
o {P2MP LSP label, P2MP PW upstream assigned label} MPLS label stack
and PW ACH.
The intermediate P routers do MPLS label swap and replication based
on the incoming MPLS LSP label. Once the echo request packet reaches
L-PEs, L-PEs use the GAL and the IPv4/IPv6 ACH Channel header or PW
ACH as the case may be, to determine that the packet is an OAM
Packet. The L-PEs process the packet and perform checks for the P2MP
Pseudowire sub-TLV present in the Target FEC Stack TLV as described
in Section 4.4 in [RFC8029] and respond according to the processing
rules in that document.
6. Controlling Echo Responses
The procedures described in [RFC6425] for preventing congestion of
Echo Responses (Echo Jitter TLV in Section 3.3 of [RFC6425]) and
limiting the echo reply to a single L-PE (Node Address P2MP Responder
Identifier TLV in Section 3.2 of [RFC6425]) should be applied to P2MP
PW LSP Ping.
7. Security Considerations
The proposal introduced in this document does not introduce any new
security considerations beyond those that already apply to [RFC6425].
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
8. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new sub-TLV type included in the Target FEC
Stack TLV (TLV Type 1) [RFC8029] in LSP Ping.
IANA has assigned the following sub-TLV type value from the "Sub-TLVs
for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" sub-registry within the "Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
registry:
37 P2MP Pseudowire
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A.,
Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane
Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP
Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425>.
[RFC6426] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS
On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing",
RFC 6426, DOI 10.17487/RFC6426, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6426>.
[RFC7117] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., Rekhter, Y., and
C. Kodeboniya, "Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS)", RFC 7117, DOI 10.17487/RFC7117, February 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7117>.
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8338] Boutros, S., Ed. and S. Sivabalan, Ed., "Signaling Root-
Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire Using LDP",
RFC 8338, DOI 10.17487/RFC8338, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8338>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.
[RFC7338] Jounay, F., Ed., Kamite, Y., Ed., Heron, G., and M. Bocci,
"Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint
Pseudowires over MPLS Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7338,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7338, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7338>.
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8339 P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping March 2018
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Shaleen Saxena, Greg Mirsky, Andrew
G. Malis, and Danny Prairie for their valuable input and comments.
Authors' Addresses
Parag Jain (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, ON K2K-3E8
Canada
Email: paragj@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
VMWare, Inc.
United States of America
Email: sboutros@vmware.com
Sam Aldrin
Google Inc.
United States of America
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Jain, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]