< draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-02.txt		draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-03.txt >
	BESS Workgroup P. Jain, Ed.		BESS Workgroup P. Jain, Ed.
	Internet-Draft S. Salam		Internet-Draft S. Salam
	Intended status: Standards Track A. Sajassi		Intended status: Standards Track A. Sajassi
	Expires: January 3, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.		Expires: February 14, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.
	S. Boutros		S. Boutros
	Ciena		Ciena
	G. Mirsky		G. Mirsky
	ZTE Corporation.		ZTE Corporation.
	July 2, 2020		August 13, 2020
	LSP-Ping Mechanisms for EVPN and PBB-EVPN		LSP-Ping Mechanisms for EVPN and PBB-EVPN
	draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-02		draft-ietf-bess-evpn-lsp-ping-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and		LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and
	Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. This document		Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. This document
	describes mechanisms for detecting data-plane failures using LSP Ping		describes mechanisms for detecting data-plane failures using LSP Ping
	in MPLS based EVPN and PBB-EVPN networks.		in MPLS based EVPN and PBB-EVPN networks.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 14, 2021.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 32 ¶
	6.2. Inclusive Multicast Data-plane Connectivity Checks . . . 8		6.2. Inclusive Multicast Data-plane Connectivity Checks . . . 8
	6.2.1. Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.2.1. Ingress Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.2.2. Using P2MP P-tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.2.2. Using P2MP P-tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.2.3. Controlling Echo Responses when using P2MP P-tree . . 11		6.2.3. Controlling Echo Responses when using P2MP P-tree . . 11
	6.3. EVPN Aliasing Data-plane connectivity check . . . . . . . 11		6.3. EVPN Aliasing Data-plane connectivity check . . . . . . . 11
	6.4. EVPN IP Prefix (RT-5) Data-plane connectivity check . . . 11		6.4. EVPN IP Prefix (RT-5) Data-plane connectivity check . . . 11
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.1. Sub-TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8.1. Sub-TLV Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. Proposed new Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8.2. Proposed new Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[RFC7432] describes MPLS based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) technology. An		[RFC7432] describes MPLS based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) technology. An
	EVPN comprises CE(s) connected to PE(s). The PEs provide layer 2		EVPN comprises CE(s) connected to PE(s). The PEs provide layer 2
	EVPN among the CE(s) over the MPLS core infrastructure. In EVPN		EVPN among the CE(s) over the MPLS core infrastructure. In EVPN
	skipping to change at page 12, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 16 ¶
	The proposal introduced in this document does not introduce any new		The proposal introduced in this document does not introduce any new
	security considerations beyond that already apply to [RFC7432],		security considerations beyond that already apply to [RFC7432],
	[RFC7623] and [RFC6425].		[RFC7623] and [RFC6425].
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	8.1. Sub-TLV Type		8.1. Sub-TLV Type
	This document defines 4 new sub-TLV type to be included in Target FEC		This document defines 4 new sub-TLV type to be included in Target FEC
	Stack TLV (TLV Type 1) [RFC8029] in LSP Ping.		Stack TLV (TLV Type 1, 16 and 21) [RFC8029] in Echo Request and Echo
			Reply messages in EVPN and PBB-EVPN network.
	IANA is requested to assign a sub-TLV type value to the following		IANA is requested to assign lowest 4 free values for the four sub-
	sub-TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched		TLVs listed below from the Standards Track" (0-16383) range, in the
	Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub- TLVs" sub-		"Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" sub-registry, in the "TLVs"
	registry:		registry in the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
			Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" name space:
	o EVPN MAC route sub-TLV		o EVPN MAC route sub-TLV
	o EVPN Inclusive Multicast route sub-TLV		o EVPN Inclusive Multicast route sub-TLV
	o EVPN Auto-Discovery Route sub-TLV		o EVPN Auto-Discovery Route sub-TLV
	o EVPN IP Prefix Route sub-TLV		o EVPN IP Prefix Route sub-TLV
	8.2. Proposed new Return Codes		8.2. Proposed new Return Codes
	[RFC8029] defines values for the Return Code field of Echo Reply.		[RFC8029] defines values for the Return Code field of Echo Reply.
	This document proposes two new Return Codes, which SHOULD be included		This document proposes two new Return Codes, which SHOULD be included
	in the Echo Reply message by a PE in response to LSP Ping Echo		in the Echo Reply message by a PE in response to Echo Request message
	Request message:		in EVPN and PBB-EVPN network.
	1. The FEC exists on the PE and the behavior is to drop the packet		IANA is requested to assign 2 lowest free values for the 2 Retuen
	because of not DF.		Codes listed below from the Return Codes" registry in the
			"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
			Ping Parameters" name space:
	2. The FEC exists on the PE and the behavior is to drop the packet		o The FEC exists on the PE and the behavior is to drop the packet
	because of Split Horizon Filtering.		because of not DF.
			o The FEC exists on the PE and the behavior is to drop the packet
			because of Split Horizon Filtering.
	9. Acknowledgments		9. Acknowledgments
	The authors would like to thank Patrice Brissette and Weiguo Hao for		The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Patrice Brissette and
	their comments.		Weiguo Hao for their valuable comments.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement]		[I-D.ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement]
	Rabadan, J., Henderickx, W., Drake, J., Lin, W., and A.		Rabadan, J., Henderickx, W., Drake, J., Lin, W., and A.
	Sajassi, "IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN", draft-ietf-		Sajassi, "IP Prefix Advertisement in EVPN", draft-ietf-
	bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11 (work in progress), May		bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-11 (work in progress), May
	2018.		2018.
End of changes. 11 change blocks.
	18 lines changed or deleted		25 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/