idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC4379, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2002-03-27) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 26, 2012) is 4140 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4379 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-07 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Chen 3 Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 4 Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan 5 Intended status: Standards Track Infinera 6 Expires: May 30, 2013 C. Pignataro 7 R. Asati 8 Cisco 9 November 26, 2012 11 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Pseudowire FECs Advertised over IPv6 12 draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-04 14 Abstract 16 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping 17 and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate 18 data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including LSPs used for each 19 direction of an MPLS Pseudowire (PW). The LSP Ping and traceroute 20 elements used for PWs, however, are not specified for IPv6 address 21 usage. 23 This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so 24 they can be used with PWs that are setup and maintained using IPv6 25 LDP sessions, and updates RFC 4379. 27 Requirements Language 29 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 30 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 31 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 33 Status of this Memo 35 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 36 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 38 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 39 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 40 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 41 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 43 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 44 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 45 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 46 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2013. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 2. Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 3. Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 3.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 3.2. FEC 129 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 78 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 79 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 80 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 82 1. Introduction 84 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping 85 and traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. These mechanisms can be 86 used to detect data plane failures in all MPLS Label Switched Paths 87 (LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). The PW LSP Ping and traceroute 88 elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage. 90 Specifically, the PW FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP 91 Ping and traceroute mechanism are defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge 92 (PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6 93 addresses. Three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class 94 (FEC) sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated, 95 FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections 96 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These sub-TLVs contain the 97 source and destination addresses of the LDP session, and currently 98 only an IPv4 LDP session is covered. Despite the fact that the PE IP 99 address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV definition, this can be 100 inferred indirectly by examining the lengths of the Sender's/Remote 101 PE Address fields, or calculating the Length of the sub-TLVs (see 102 Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). When an IPv6 LDP session is used, 103 therefore these existing sub-TLVs can not be used since the addresses 104 will not fit. Additionally, all other sub-TLVs are defined in pairs, 105 one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not the PW sub-TLVs. 107 This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constrain the existing 108 PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions, and extends the PW LSP Ping to 109 IPv6 LDP sessions (i.e., when IPv6 LDP sessions are used to signal 110 the PW, the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses are IPv6 addresses). 111 This is done by renaming the existing PW sub-TLVs to say "IPv4", and 112 also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 113 sub-TLV and FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV) to extend the 114 application of PW LSP Ping and traceroute to the IPv6 usage when an 115 IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is used to signal the 116 Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined 117 for IPv6 in this document. 119 2. Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs 121 This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 122 of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Section 4 and Section 6. 123 This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity and confusion, and to 124 clarify that these TLVs carry only IPv4 addresses. Note that the 125 changes are limited to the names of fields; there are no semantic 126 changes. 128 Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and 129 state: 131 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) 133 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 135 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 137 These names and titles are now changed to: 139 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated) 141 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 143 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4 145 Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, these three 146 sections state: 148 Sender's PE Address 150 Remote PE Address 152 These are now updated to say: 154 Sender's PE IPv4 Address 156 Remote PE IPv4 Address 158 3. Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs 160 3.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire 162 FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC 163 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of [RFC4379]. 164 The encoding of FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV is as follows: 166 0 1 2 3 167 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 1 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 | FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type | Length | 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 ~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~ 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 ~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~ 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | PW ID | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 | PW Type | Must Be Zero | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 180 Figure 1: FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv6 182 FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type: TBD1. 2 octets. 184 Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub- 185 TLV and its value is 38. 2 octets. 187 Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 188 LDP session. 16 octets. 190 Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 191 LDP session. 16 octets. 193 PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379]. 195 PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379]. 197 3.2. FEC 129 Pseudowire 199 FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC 200 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]. 201 The encoding of FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 is as follows: 203 0 1 2 3 204 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 1 205 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 206 | FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type | Length | 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 208 ~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~ 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 210 ~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~ 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 | PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length | 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 ~ AGI Value ~ 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 216 | AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value | 217 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 218 ~ SAII Value (continued) ~ 219 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 220 | AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value | 221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 222 ~ TAII Value (continued) ~ 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 | TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding | 225 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 227 Figure 2: FEC 129 Pseudowire - IPv6 229 FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type: TBD2. 2 octets. 231 Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub- 232 TLV. 2 octets 234 The length of this TLV is 40 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII 235 length. Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4; 236 the length of the padding is not included in the Length field. 238 Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 239 LDP session. 16 octets. 241 Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 242 LDP session. 16 octets. 244 The other fields are same as FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379]. 246 4. Summary of Changes 248 Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target 249 FEC Stack. Per the change described in Section 2 and Section 3, the 250 table would show the following: 252 Sub-Type Length Value Field 253 -------- ------ ----------- 254 ... 255 9 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (deprecated) 256 10 14 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 257 11 16+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4 258 ... 259 TBD1 38 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6 260 TBD2 40+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6 262 5. Operation 264 This document does not define any new procedures. The process 265 described in [RFC4379] MUST be used. 267 6. IANA Considerations 269 IANA is requested to perform the following assignments in the "Multi- 270 Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping 271 Parameters" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry. 273 [RFC Editor: To be REMOVED prior to publication. This registration 274 should take place at ] 278 The following Sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two 279 additions, are made for the TLV Type 1 "Target FEC Stack" in the 280 aforementioned sub-registry. 282 Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding 283 the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to 284 also point to this document: 286 Type Sub-Type Value Field 287 ---- -------- ----------- 288 1 9 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated) 289 1 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 290 1 11 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4 292 Create two new entries for the Sub-Type field of Target FEC TLV (see 293 Section 3): 295 Type Sub-Type Value Field 296 ---- -------- ----------- 297 1 TBD1 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6 298 1 TBD2 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6 300 7. Security Considerations 302 This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security 303 mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here. 305 8. Acknowledgements 307 The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim, 308 Tom Petch, Spike Curtis, Loa Andersson, and Kireeti Kompella. 310 9. References 312 9.1. Normative References 314 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 315 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 317 [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol 318 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, 319 February 2006. 321 9.2. Informative References 323 [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] 324 Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro, 325 "Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-07 326 (work in progress), June 2012. 328 Authors' Addresses 330 Mach(Guoyi) Chen 331 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 332 No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District 333 Beijing 100085 334 China 336 Email: mach@huawei.com 337 Ping Pan 338 Infinera 339 US 341 Email: ppan@infinera.com 343 Carlos Pignataro 344 Cisco Systems 345 7200-12 Kit Creek Road 346 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 347 US 349 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 351 Rajiv Asati 352 Cisco Systems 353 7025-6 Kit Creek Road 354 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 355 US 357 Email: rajiva@cisco.com