< draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-05.txt   draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-06.txt >
SPRING Working Group G. Mirsky SPRING Working Group G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura Intended status: Standards Track J. Tantsura
Expires: September 2, 2018 Nuage Networks Expires: February 24, 2019 Nuage Networks
I. Varlashkin I. Varlashkin
Google Google
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
March 1, 2018 August 23, 2018
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) in Segment Routing Networks
Using MPLS Dataplane Using MPLS Dataplane
draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-05 draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-06
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages the paradigm of source
routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching routing. It can be realized in the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is (MPLS) network without any change to the data plane. A segment is
encoded as an MPLS label and an ordered list of segments is encoded encoded as an MPLS label, and an ordered list of segments is encoded
as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is as a stack of labels. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is
expected to monitor any kind of paths between systems. This document expected to monitor any existing path between systems. This document
defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap and control defines how to use Label Switched Path Ping to bootstrap a BFD
path in reverse direction of a BFD session on the Segment Routing session, control path in reverse direction of the SR-MPLS tunnel and
static MPLS tunnel and applicability of BFD Demand mode to SR-MPLS applicability of BFD Demand mode in the SR-MPLS domain.
domain.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted 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). 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 September 2, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 24, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Bootstrapping BFD session over Segment Routed tunnel . . . . 3 2. Bootstrapping BFD Session over Segment Routed Tunnel with
3. Use BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel . . 4 MPLS Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Use Non-FEC Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Use BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel . . 5
4. Use Non-FEC Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel with 5. BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel with
Dynamic Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Dynamic Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Applicability of BFD Demand Mode in SR-MPLS Domain . . . . . 6 6. Applicability of BFD Demand Mode in SR-MPLS Domain . . . . . 7
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Non-FEC Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Non-FEC Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5880], [RFC5881], and [RFC5883] established the Bidirectional [RFC5880], [RFC5881], and [RFC5883] defined the operation of
Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol for IP networks. [RFC5884] and Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol between the two
[RFC7726] set rules of using BFD Asynchronous mode over Multiprotocol systems over IP networks. [RFC5884] and [RFC7726] set rules for
using BFD Asynchronous mode over point-to-point (p2p) Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP). These latter Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP). These latter
standards implicitly assume that the egress BFD peer, which is the standards implicitly assume that the egress BFD peer, which is the
egress Label Edge Router (LER), will use the shortest path route egress Label Edge Router (LER), will use the shortest path route
regardless of the path the ingress LER uses to send BFD control regardless of the path the ingress LER uses to send BFD Control
packets towards it. packets towards it.
This document defines use of LSP Ping for Segment Routing networks This document defines the use of LSP Ping for Segment Routing
over MPLS dataplane [RFC8287] to bootstrap and control path of a BFD networks over MPLS data plane [RFC8287] to bootstrap and control path
session from the egress to ingress LER using static MPLS tunnel. of a BFD session from the egress to ingress LER using Segment Routing
tunnel with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).
1.1. Conventions used in this document 1.1. Conventions
1.1.1. Terminology 1.1.1. Terminology
BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
SR-MPLS Segment Routing with MPLS data plane SR-MPLS Segment Routing with MPLS data plane
LSP: Label Switching Path LSP: Label Switched Path
LER: Label Edge Router LSR Label Switching Router
LER Label Edge Router
p2p Point-to-point
SID Segment Identifier
SR Segment Routing SR Segment Routing
1.1.2. Requirements Language 1.1.2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. Bootstrapping BFD session over Segment Routed tunnel 2. Bootstrapping BFD Session over Segment Routed Tunnel with MPLS Data
Plane
As demonstrated in [RFC8287] introduction of Segment Routing network Use of an LSP Ping to bootstrap BFD over MPLS LSP is required, as
domains with an MPLS data plane requires three new sub-TLVs that MAY documented in [RFC5884], to establish an association between a fault
be used with Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) TLV. detection message, i.e., BFD Control message, and the Forwarding
Section 6.1 addresses use of the new sub-TLVs in Target FEC TLV in Equivalency Class (FEC) of a single label stack LSP in case of
LSP ping and LSP traceroute. For the case of LSP ping the [RFC8287] Penultimate Hop Popping or when the egress Label Switching Router
states that: (LSR) distributes the Explicit NULL label to the penultimate hop
router. The Explicit NULL label is not advertised as a Segment
Identifier (SID) by an SR node but, as demonstrated in section 3.1
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] if the operation at the
penultimate hop is NEXT; then the egress SR node will receive an IP
encapsulated packet. Thus the conclusion is that LSP Ping MUST be
used to bootstrap a BFD session in SR-MPLS domain.
Initiator MUST include FEC(s) corresponding to the destination As demonstrated in [RFC8287], the introduction of Segment Routing
segment. network domains with an MPLS data plane requires three new sub-TLVs
that MAY be used with Target FEC TLV. Section 6.1 addresses use of
the new sub-TLVs in Target FEC TLV in LSP ping and LSP traceroute.
For the case of LSP ping, the [RFC8287] states that:
Initiator, i.e. ingress LSR, MAY include FECs corresponding to The initiator, i.e., ingress LSR, MUST include FEC(s)
some or all of segments imposed in the label stack by the ingress corresponding to the destination segment.
LSR to communicate the segments traversed.
The initiator MAY include FECs corresponding to some or all of
segments imposed in the label stack by the ingress LSR to
communicate the segments traversed.
It has been noted in [RFC5884] that a BFD session monitors for It has been noted in [RFC5884] that a BFD session monitors for
defects particular <MPLS LSP, FEC> tuple. [RFC7726] clarified how to defects particular <MPLS LSP, FEC> tuple. [RFC7726] clarified how to
establish and operate multiple BFD sessions for the same <MPLS LSP, establish and operate multiple BFD sessions for the same <MPLS LSP,
FEC> tuple. Because only ingress edge router is aware of the SR- FEC> tuple. Because only ingress edge router is aware of the SR-
based explicit route the egress edge router can associate the LSP based explicit route, the egress edge router can associate the LSP
ping with BFD Discriminator TLV with only one of the FECs it ping with BFD Discriminator TLV with only one of the FECs it
advertised for the particular segment. Thus this document clarifies advertised for the particular segment. Thus this document clarifies
that: that:
When LSP Ping is used to bootstrap a BFD session the FEC When LSP Ping is used to bootstraping a BFD session for SR-MPLS
corresponding to the destination segment to be associated with the tunnel the FEC corresponding to the segment to be associated with
BFD session MUST be as the very last sub-TLV in the Target FEC the BFD session MUST be as the very last sub-TLV in the Target FEC
TLV. TLV.
If the target segment is an anycast prefix segment
([I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments]) the corresponding Anycast
SID MUST be included in the Target TLV as the very last sub-TLV.
Also, for BFD control packet the ingress SR node MUST use precisely
the same label stack encapsulation, especially Entropy Label
([RFC6790]), as for the LSP ping with the BFD Discriminator TLV that
bootstrapped the BFD session. Other operational aspects of using BFD
to monitor the continuity of the path to the particular Anycast SID,
advertised by a group of SR-MPLS capable nodes, will be considered in
the future versions of the document.
Encapsulation of a BFD Control packet in Segment Routing network with Encapsulation of a BFD Control packet in Segment Routing network with
MPLS dataplane MUST follow Section 7 [RFC5884] when IP/UDP header MPLS data plane MUST follow Section 7 [RFC5884] when the IP/UDP
used and MUST follow Section 3.4 [RFC6428] without IP/UDP header header used and MUST follow Section 3.4 [RFC6428] without IP/UDP
being used. header being used.
3. Use BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel 3. Use BFD Reverse Path TLV over Segment Routed MPLS Tunnel
For BFD over MPLS LSP case, per [RFC5884], egress LER MAY send BFD For BFD over MPLS LSP case, per [RFC5884], egress LER MAY send BFD
control packet to the ingress LER either over IP network or an MPLS control packet to the ingress LER either over IP network or an MPLS
LSP. Similarly, for the case of BFD over p2p segment tunnel with LSP. Similarly, for the case of BFD over p2p SR-MPLS tunnel, the
MPLS data plane, the ingress LER MAY route BFD control packet over IP egress LER MAY route BFD control packet over the IP network, as
network, as described in [RFC5883], or transmit over a segment described in [RFC5883], or transmit over a segment tunnel, as
tunnel, as described in Section 7 [RFC5884]. In some cases there may described in Section 7 [RFC5884]. In some cases, there may be a need
be a need to direct egress BFD peer to use specific path for the to direct egress BFD peer to use specific path for the reverse
reverse direction of the BFD session by using the BFD Reverse Path direction of the BFD session by using the BFD Reverse Path TLV and
TLV and following all procedures as defined in following all procedures as defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed].
[I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed].
4. Use Non-FEC Path TLV 4. Use Non-FEC Path TLV
For the case of MPLS dataplane, Segment Routing Architecture For the case of MPLS data plane, Segment Routing Architecture
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] explains that "a segment is encoded [RFC8402] explains that "a segment is encoded as an MPLS label. An
as an MPLS label. An ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack ordered list of segments is encoded as a stack of labels." YANG Data
of labels." YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs Model for MPLS Static LSPs [I-D.ietf-mpls-static-yang] models
[I-D.ietf-mpls-static-yang] models outgoing MPLS labels to be imposed outgoing MPLS labels to be imposed as leaf-list [RFC6020], i.e., as
as leaf-list [RFC6020], i.e., as array of rt-types:mpls-label array of rt-types:mpls-label [RFC8294].
[RFC8294].
This document defines new optional Non-FEC Path TLV. The format of This document defines new optional Non-FEC Path TLV. The format of
the Non-FEC Path TLV is presented in Figure 1 the Non-FEC Path TLV is presented in Figure 1
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Non-FEC Path TLV Type | Length | | Non-FEC Path TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Non-FEC Path ~ ~ Non-FEC Path ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Non-FEC Path TLV Format Figure 1: Non-FEC Path TLV Format
Non-FEC Path TLV Type is 2 octets in length and has a value of TBD1 Non-FEC Path TLV Type is two octets in length and has a value of TBD1
(to be assigned by IANA as requested in Section 7.1). (to be assigned by IANA as requested in Section 7.1).
Length field is 2 octets long and defines the length in octets of the Length field is two octets long and defines the length in octets of
Non-FEC Path field. the Non-FEC Path field.
Non-FEC Path field contains a sub-TLV. Any Non-FEC Path sub-TLV Non-FEC Path field contains a sub-TLV. Any Non-FEC Path sub-TLV
(defined in this document or to be defined in the future) for Non-FEC (defined in this document or to be defined in the future) for Non-FEC
Path TLV type MAY be used in this field. None or one sub-TLV MAY be Path TLV type MAY be used in this field. None or one sub-TLV MAY be
included in the Non-FEC Path TLV. If no sub-TLV has been found in included in the Non-FEC Path TLV. If no sub-TLV has been found in
the Non-FEC Path TLV, the egress BFD peer MUST revert to using the the Non-FEC Path TLV, the egress BFD peer MUST revert to using the
reverse path selected based on its local policy. If there are more reverse path selected based on its local policy. If there is more
than one sub-TLV, then the Return Code in echo reply MUST be set to than one sub-TLV, then the Return Code in echo reply MUST be set to
value TBD3 "Too Many TLVs Detected" (to be assigned by IANA as value TBD3 "Too Many TLVs Detected" (to be assigned by IANA as
requested in Table 4). requested in Table 4).
Non-FEC Path TLV MAY be used to specify the reverse path of the BFD Non-FEC Path TLV MAY be used to specify the reverse path of the BFD
session identified in the BFD Discriminator TLV. If the Non-FEC Path session identified in the BFD Discriminator TLV. If the Non-FEC Path
TLV is present in the echo request message the BFD Discriminator TLV TLV is present in the echo request message the BFD Discriminator TLV
MUST be present as well. If the BFD Discriminator TLV is absent when MUST be present as well. If the BFD Discriminator TLV is absent when
the Non-FEC Path TLV is included, then it MUST be treated as the Non-FEC Path TLV is included, then it MUST be treated as
malformed Echo Request, as described in [RFC8029]. malformed Echo Request, as described in [RFC8029].
This document defines Static Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV that MAY be This document defines Static Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV that MAY be
used with the Non-FEC Path TLV. The format of the sub-TLV is used with the Non-FEC Path TLV. The format of the sub-TLV is
presented in Figure 2. presented in Figure 2.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SR MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Type | Length | | SR MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Entry 1 | | Label Entry 1 (Top Label) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Entry 2 | | Label Entry 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~ ~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Entry N | | Label Entry N (Bottom Label) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Figure 2: Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV
The Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Type is two octets in length, The Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Type is two octets in length,
and has a value of TBD2 (to be assigned by IANA as requested in and has a value of TBD2 (to be assigned by IANA as requested in
Section 7.1). Section 7.1).
The egress LSR MUST use the Value field as label stack for BFD The egress LSR MUST use the Value field as label stack for BFD
control packets for the BFD session identified by the source IP control packets for the BFD session identified by the source IP
skipping to change at page 7, line 9 skipping to change at page 7, line 30
mode; mode;
o once BFD session is Up, the ingress node switches the egress BFD o once BFD session is Up, the ingress node switches the egress BFD
node into the Demand mode by setting D field in BFD Control packet node into the Demand mode by setting D field in BFD Control packet
it transmits; it transmits;
o if the egress BFD node detects the failure of the BFD session, it o if the egress BFD node detects the failure of the BFD session, it
sends its BFD control packet to the ingress over the IP network sends its BFD control packet to the ingress over the IP network
with Poll sequence; with Poll sequence;
o if the ingress node receives BFD control packet from remote node o if the ingress node receives a BFD control packet from the remote
in Demand mode with Poll sequence and Diag field indicating the node in a Demand mode with Poll sequence and Diag field indicating
failure, the ingress transmits BFD control packet with Final over the failure, the ingress transmits BFD control packet with Final
IP and switches the BFD over SR-MPLS back into Async mode, sending over IP and switches the BFD over SR-MPLS back into Async mode,
BFD Control packets one per second. sending BFD Control packets one per second.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Non-FEC Path TLV 7.1. Non-FEC Path TLV
IANA is requested to assign new TLV type from the from Standards IANA is requested to assign new TLV type from the from Standards
Action range of the registry "Multiprotocol Label Switching Action range of the registry "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters -
TLVs" as defined in the Table 1. TLVs" as defined in Table 1.
+-------+------------------+---------------+ +-------+------------------+---------------+
| Value | TLV Name | Reference | | Value | TLV Name | Reference |
+-------+------------------+---------------+ +-------+------------------+---------------+
| TBD1 | Non-FEC Path TLV | This document | | TBD1 | Non-FEC Path TLV | This document |
+-------+------------------+---------------+ +-------+------------------+---------------+
Table 1: New Non-FEC Path TLV Table 1: New Non-FEC Path TLV
IANA is requested to create new Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry for the IANA is requested to create new Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry for the
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
| 32768-49161 | Standards | This range is for optional TLVs | | 32768-49161 | Standards | This range is for optional TLVs |
| | Action | that can be silently dropped if not | | | Action | that can be silently dropped if not |
| | | recognized. | | | | recognized. |
| 49162-64511 | Specification | Experimental RFC needed | | 49162-64511 | Specification | Experimental RFC needed |
| | Required | | | | Required | |
| 64512-65535 | Private Use | | | 64512-65535 | Private Use | |
+-------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+ +-------------+---------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 2: Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry Table 2: Non-FEC Path sub-TLV registry
IANA is requested to allocate following values from the Non-FEC Path IANA is requested to allocate the following values from the Non-FEC
sub-TLV registry as defined in Table 3. Path sub-TLV registry as defined in Table 3.
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document | | 0 | Reserved | This document |
| TBD2 | Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV | This document | | TBD2 | Segment Routing MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV | This document |
| 65535 | Reserved | This document | | 65535 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+-------------------------------------+---------------+
Table 3: New Segment Routing Tunnel sub-TLV Table 3: New Segment Routing Tunnel sub-TLV
7.2. Return Code 7.2. Return Code
IANA is requested to create Non-FEC Path sub-TLV subregistry for the IANA is requested to create Non-FEC Path sub-TLV sub-registry for the
new Non-FEC Path TLV. assign a new Return Code value from the "Multi- new Non-FEC Path TLV and assign a new Return Code value from the
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Parameters" registry, "Return Codes" sub-registry, as follows using a Ping Parameters" registry, "Return Codes" sub-registry, as follows
Standards Action value. using a Standards Action value.
+--------+-------------------------+---------------+ +--------+-------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+--------+-------------------------+---------------+ +--------+-------------------------+---------------+
| X TBD3 | Too Many TLVs Detected. | This document | | X TBD3 | Too Many TLVs Detected. | This document |
+--------+-------------------------+---------------+ +--------+-------------------------+---------------+
Table 4: New Return Code Table 4: New Return Code
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726], Security considerations discussed in [RFC5880], [RFC5884], [RFC7726],
and [RFC8029] apply to this document. and [RFC8029] apply to this document.
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgments
TBD TBD
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed] [I-D.ietf-mpls-bfd-directed]
Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen, Mirsky, G., Tantsura, J., Varlashkin, I., and M. Chen,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Directed Return
Path", draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-08 (work in progress), Path", draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-09 (work in progress),
December 2017. August 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14
in progress), January 2018. (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand] [I-D.mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand]
Mirsky, G., "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS Mirsky, G., "BFD in Demand Mode over Point-to-Point MPLS
LSP", draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand-02 (work in progress), LSP", draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand-03 (work in progress),
October 2017. June 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010, (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 22 skipping to change at page 10, line 48
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-static-yang] [I-D.ietf-mpls-static-yang]
Saad, T., Raza, K., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., and V. Beeram, "A Saad, T., Raza, K., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., and V. Beeram, "A
YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls- YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-
static-yang-05 (work in progress), February 2018. static-yang-05 (work in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-segments]
Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., and M. Horneffer, "Anycast Segments in MPLS
based Segment Routing", draft-ietf-spring-mpls-anycast-
segments-02 (work in progress), January 2018.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC8294] Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger, [RFC8294] Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
"Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294, "Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8294, December 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8294, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8294>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8294>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Greg Mirsky Greg Mirsky
ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp.
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
95 lines changed or deleted 142 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/