idnits 2.17.1 draft-cui-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-id-00.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 == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (February 24, 2012) is 4443 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Z. Cui 2 Internet-Draft R. Winter 3 Intended status: Standards Track NEC 4 Expires: August 27, 2012 February 24, 2012 6 Using ITU-T-based IDs for MPLS-TP On-demand Connectivity Verification 7 draft-cui-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-id-00 9 Abstract 11 This document defines how to use ICC-based MPLS-TP identifiers for 12 on-demand connectivity verification (CV) analogous to RFC 6426. New 13 TLVs are defined to support on-demand CV based on identifiers 14 following ITU-T conventions. 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2012. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. ICC_Operator_ID-based TLV Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3.1. ICC_Operator_ID-based Source/Destination Identifier 54 TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 3.2. ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP/PW Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 5 56 3.2.1. ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 5 57 3.2.2. ICC_Operator_ID-based Static PW Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . 6 58 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 1. Introduction 65 MPLS On-Demand Connectivity Verification (CV) and Route Tracing 66 [RFC6426] is an on-demand monitoring mechanism for the MPLS Transport 67 Profile (MPLS-TP). [RFC6426] defines a set of Global_ID-based TLVs 68 to support on-demand CV and route tracing for MPLS-TP LSPs, including 69 PWs and Sections which follow the IP/MPLS conventions. 71 In transport networks however, the ITU Carrier Code (ICC) is 72 traditionally used to identify a carrier/service provider. Instead 73 of using the Global_ID, which is derived from the AS number of the 74 service provider, this document defines source/destination TLVs and 75 static LSP/PW Sub-TLVs based on the ICC_Operator_ID as specified in 76 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers] for use in CV. 78 2. Requirements notation 80 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 81 "SHOULD","SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 82 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 84 3. ICC_Operator_ID-based TLV Definitions 86 In ICC-based transport network, the Global_ID might not be available 87 for on-demand CV and route tracing. In such environments it might be 88 necessary to perform CV and route tracing using the ICC_Operator_ID 89 as specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers]. 91 The ICC_Operator_ID consists of the Country Code (CC) followed by the 92 ITU carrier code (ICC). The Country Code (alpha-2) is a string of 93 two alphabetic characters, and the ICC itself is a string of one to 94 six left-justified characters, each character being either alphabetic 95 (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9). 97 This section provides the definition for a number of ICC_Operator_ID- 98 based TLV objects. In order to simplify implementations, the length 99 of ICC_Operator_ID field has a fixed length independent of the ICC 100 length. Therefore, zero padding will be used in cases where the ICC 101 length is less than 6 octets long. The total length of the 102 ICC_Operator_ID therefore amounts to 8 octets as shown in Figure 1. 104 0 1 2 3 105 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 1 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 107 | CC (2 Octets) | | 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + 109 | ICC (fixed to 6 octets ) | 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 112 Figure 1: ICC_Operator_ID Format 114 3.1. ICC_Operator_ID-based Source/Destination Identifier TLVs 116 The Source and Destination Identifier TLVs follow the same format 117 their only difference being the type. The format is shown below. 119 0 1 2 3 120 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 1 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 122 | Type | Length = 16 | 123 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 | | 125 + ICC_Operator_ID (8 Octets) + 126 | | 127 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 128 | Node_ID (4 Octets) | 129 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 Figure 2: ICC_Operator_ID-based Source/Destination Identifier TLV 132 Format 134 The format of the ICC_Operator_ID is defined in 135 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers]. The encoding of the ID is 136 depicted in Figure 1. 138 The format of the Node_ID is defined in [RFC6370]. 140 Type will be one of either TBD-SRC or TBD-DST. The TLV structure is 141 therefore as follows: 143 Type # Length Value Field 144 ------ ------ ----------- 145 TBD-SRC 16 ICC_Operator_ID-based Source Identifier TLV 146 TBD-DST 16 ICC_Operator_ID-based Destination Identifier TLV 148 Figure 3: ICC_Operator_ID-based Source/Destination Identifier types 150 3.2. ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP/PW Sub-TLV 152 The new sub-TLVs are assigned sub-type identifiers as follows, and 153 are described in the following sections. 155 Type # Sub-Type # Length Value Field 156 ------ ---------- ------ ----------- 157 1 24 28 ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP 158 1 25 36 ICC_Operator_ID-based Static Pseudowire 160 Figure 4: ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP/PW Sub-types 162 3.2.1. ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP Sub-TLV 164 The format of the ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP Sub-TLV is 165 specified in the following figure. The value fields are taken from 166 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers]. 168 0 1 2 3 169 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 1 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | | 172 + Source ICC_Operator_ID + 173 | | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | Source Node ID | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 | Source Tunnel Number | LSP Number | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 179 | | 180 + Destination ICC_Operator_ID + 181 | | 182 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 183 | Destination Node ID | 184 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 185 | Destination Tunnel Number | Must be Zero | 186 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 188 Figure 5: ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP Sub-TLV Format 190 The ICC_Operator_ID MAY be set to zero. Note however that such use 191 is limited to entities contained within a single operator and MUST 192 NOT be used across an NNI. However, the other fields without the 193 padding field MUST be set to non-zero values. 195 3.2.2. ICC_Operator_ID-based Static PW Sub-TLV 197 The format of the ICC_Operator_ID-based Static PW Sub-TLV is 198 specified in the following figure. The value fields are taken from 199 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers]. 201 0 1 2 3 202 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 1 203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 | | 205 + Service Identifier + 206 | | 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 208 | | 209 + Source ICC_Operator_ID + 210 | | 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 | Source Node ID | 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 | Source AC-ID | 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 216 | | 217 + Destination ICC_Operator_ID + 218 | | 219 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 220 | Destination Node ID | 221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 222 | Destination AC-ID | 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 225 Figure 6: ICC_Operator_ID-based Static PW Sub-TLV Format 227 The ICC_Operator_ID MAY be set to zero. Note that such use is 228 limited to entities contained within a single operator and MUST NOT 229 be used across an NNI. However, The other fields MUST be set to non- 230 zero values. 232 4. Security Considerations 234 TBD 236 5. IANA Considerations 238 TBD 240 6. Normative References 242 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers] 243 Winter, R., Gray, E., Helvoort, H., and M. Betts, "MPLS-TP 244 Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions", 245 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-02 (work in 246 progress), October 2011. 248 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 249 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 251 [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport 252 Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011. 254 [RFC6426] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS 255 On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing", 256 RFC 6426, November 2011. 258 Authors' Addresses 260 Zhenlong Cui 261 NEC 263 Email: c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com 265 Rolf Winter 266 NEC 268 Email: Rolf.Winter@neclab.eu