draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-13.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-14.txt 
Network Working Group S. Saxena, Ed. Network Working Group S. Saxena, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended Status: Standards Track A. Farrel Intended Status: Standards Track A. Farrel
Updates: 4379 (if approved) Old Dog Consulting Updates: 4379 (if approved) Old Dog Consulting
Expires: May 7, 2011 S. Yasukawa Expires: July 24, 2011 S. Yasukawa
NTT Corporation NTT Corporation
November 08, 2010 January 25, 2011
Detecting Data Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Detecting Data Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping Label Switching (MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-13.txt draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-14.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
fault detection and isolation commonly referred to as "LSP Ping". fault detection and isolation commonly referred to as "LSP Ping".
The scope of this document is fault detection and isolation for P2MP The scope of this document is fault detection and isolation for P2MP
MPLS LSPs. This documents does not replace any of the mechanisms of MPLS LSPs. This documents does not replace any of the mechanisms of
LSP Ping, but clarifies their applicability to MPLS P2MP LSPs, and LSP Ping, but clarifies their applicability to MPLS P2MP LSPs, and
extends the techniques and mechanisms of LSP Ping to the MPLS P2MP extends the techniques and mechanisms of LSP Ping to the MPLS P2MP
environment. environment.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Contents Contents
skipping to change at page 3, line 6 skipping to change at page 3, line 6
4.2.1.3. Responses from Bud Nodes................................. 18 4.2.1.3. Responses from Bud Nodes................................. 18
4.3. Special Considerations for Traceroute........................ 20 4.3. Special Considerations for Traceroute........................ 20
4.3.1. End of Processing for Traceroutes.......................... 20 4.3.1. End of Processing for Traceroutes.......................... 20
4.3.2. Multiple responses from Bud and Egress Nodes............... 21 4.3.2. Multiple responses from Bud and Egress Nodes............... 21
4.3.3. Non-Response to Traceroute Echo Requests................... 21 4.3.3. Non-Response to Traceroute Echo Requests................... 21
4.3.4. Use of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV in Echo Request..... 21 4.3.4. Use of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV in Echo Request..... 21
4.3.5 Cross Over Node Processing.................................. 22 4.3.5 Cross Over Node Processing.................................. 22
5. Non-compliant Routers.......................................... 22 5. Non-compliant Routers.......................................... 22
6. OAM Considerations............................................. 23 6. OAM Considerations............................................. 23
7. IANA Considerations............................................ 23 7. IANA Considerations............................................ 23
7.1. New Sub-TLV Types............................................ 23 7.1. New Sub-TLV Types............................................ 24
7.2. New TLVs..................................................... 24 7.2. New TLVs..................................................... 24
8. Security Considerations........................................ 24 8. Security Considerations........................................ 24
9. Acknowledgements............................................... 24 9. Acknowledgements............................................... 25
10. References.................................................... 25 10. References.................................................... 25
10.1. Normative References........................................ 25 10.1. Normative References........................................ 25
10.2. Informative References...................................... 25 10.2. Informative References...................................... 25
11. Authors' Addresses............................................ 26 11. Authors' Addresses............................................ 26
12. Full Copyright Statement...................................... 27 12. Full Copyright Statement...................................... 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Simple and efficient mechanisms that can be used to detect data plane Simple and efficient mechanisms that can be used to detect data plane
failures in point-to-point (P2P) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) failures in point-to-point (P2P) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
skipping to change at page 15, line 25 skipping to change at page 15, line 25
As described in Section 2.2, it may be desirable to restrict the As described in Section 2.2, it may be desirable to restrict the
operation of P2MP ping or traceroute to a single egress. Since echo operation of P2MP ping or traceroute to a single egress. Since echo
requests are forwarded through the data plane without interception by requests are forwarded through the data plane without interception by
the control plane, there is no facility to limit the propagation of the control plane, there is no facility to limit the propagation of
echo requests, and they will automatically be forwarded to all echo requests, and they will automatically be forwarded to all
reachable egresses. reachable egresses.
However, a single egress may be identified by the inclusion of a P2MP However, a single egress may be identified by the inclusion of a P2MP
Responder Identifier TLV. The details of this TLV and its Sub-TLVs Responder Identifier TLV. The details of this TLV and its Sub-TLVs
are in section 3.2. There are two main types of sub-TLV in the P2MP are in section 3.2. There are two main types of sub-TLV in the P2MP
Responder Identifier TLV: Egress Address sub-TLV and Node Address Responder Identifier TLV: Node Address sub-TLV and Egress Address
sub-TLV. sub-TLV.
These sub-TLVs limit the responses either to the specified router These sub-TLVs limit the responses either to the specified router
only or to any router on the path to the specified router. The only or to any router on the path to the specified router. The
former capability is generally useful for ping mode, while the latter former capability is generally useful for ping mode, while the latter
is more suited to traceroute mode. An initiating router may indicate is more suited to traceroute mode. An initiating router may indicate
that it wishes all egresses to respond to an echo request by omitting that it wishes all egresses to respond to an echo request by omitting
the P2MP Responder Identifier TLV. the P2MP Responder Identifier TLV.
4.1.2. Jittered Responses to Echo Requests 4.1.2. Jittered Responses to Echo Requests
skipping to change at page 23, line 47 skipping to change at page 23, line 47
- A MIB module is required for the control and management of LSP - A MIB module is required for the control and management of LSP
Ping operations, and to enable the reported information to be Ping operations, and to enable the reported information to be
inspected. inspected.
There is no reason to believe this should not be a simple There is no reason to believe this should not be a simple
extension of the LSP Ping MIB module used for P2P LSPs. extension of the LSP Ping MIB module used for P2P LSPs.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
[Note - to be removed before publication.] The values suggested in
this section have already been assigned using the IANA early
allocation process [RFC4020].
7.1. New Sub-TLV Types 7.1. New Sub-TLV Types
Four new sub-TLV types are defined for inclusion within the LSP Ping Four new sub-TLV types are defined for inclusion within the LSP Ping
[RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV type 1). [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV type 1).
IANA is requested to assign sub-type values to the following sub-TLVs IANA is requested to assign sub-type values to the following sub-TLVs
under TLV type 1 (Target FEC Stack) from the "Multiprotocol Label under TLV type 1 (Target FEC Stack) from the "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters
- TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry. - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry.
skipping to change at page 26, line 16 skipping to change at page 26, line 20
Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths", Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths",
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp, work in progress. draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp, work in progress.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and Swallow, G., [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and Swallow, G.,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010 Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010
[IANA-PORT] IANA Assigned Port Numbers, http://www.iana.org [IANA-PORT] IANA Assigned Port Numbers, http://www.iana.org
[RFC4020] Kompella, K., Zinin, A., "Early Allocation of Standard
Code Points", RFC 4020, February 2005.
11. Authors' Addresses 11. Authors' Addresses
Seisho Yasukawa Seisho Yasukawa
NTT Corporation NTT Corporation
(R&D Strategy Department) (R&D Strategy Department)
3-1, Otemachi 2-Chome Chiyodaku, Tokyo 100-8116 Japan 3-1, Otemachi 2-Chome Chiyodaku, Tokyo 100-8116 Japan
Phone: +81 3 5205 5341 Phone: +81 3 5205 5341
Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/