idnits 2.17.1 draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03.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 (December 5, 2011) is 4523 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references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4379 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) == Outdated reference: A later version (-17) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-05 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--).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: June 7, 2012 C. Pignataro 7 R. Asati 8 Cisco 9 December 5, 2011 11 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs 12 draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03 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 Pseudowire (PW) LSPs. 19 The PW LSP Ping and Traceroute elements, however, are not specified 20 for IPv6 address usage. 22 This document extends the PW LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms so 23 they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379. 25 Requirements Language 27 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 28 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 29 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 31 Status of this Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 7, 2012. 48 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the Simplified BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 74 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 79 1. Introduction 81 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping 82 and Traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. These mechanisms can be 83 used to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS Label 84 Switched Paths (LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). The PW LSP Ping 85 and Traceroute elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address 86 usage. 88 Specifically, the PW FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP 89 Ping and Traceroute mechanism are defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge 90 (PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6 91 addresses. Three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class 92 (FEC) sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated, 93 FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections 94 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These sub-TLVs contain the 95 source and destination addresses of the target LDP session, and 96 currently only IPv4 target LDP session is covered. Despite the fact 97 that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV 98 definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths 99 of the Sender's/Remote PE Address fields, or calculating the Length 100 of the sub-TLVs (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). When an IPv6 target 101 LDP session is used, these existing sub-TLVs can not therefore be 102 used since the addresses will not fit. Additionally, all other sub- 103 TLVs are defined in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not 104 the PW sub-TLVs. 106 This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constraint the existing 107 PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions, and extends the PW LSP Ping to 108 IPv6 LDP sessions (i.e., when IPv6 LDP sessions are used to signal 109 the PW, the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses are IPv6 addresses). 110 This is done by renaming the existing PW sub-TLVs to say "IPv4", and 111 also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire 112 sub-TLV and IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV) to extend the 113 application of PW LSP Ping and Traceroute to the IPv6 usage when an 114 IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is used to signal the 115 Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined 116 for IPv6 in this document. 118 2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs 120 This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 121 of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Section 4 and Section 6. 122 This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity, confusion, and 123 backwards compatibility issues. 125 Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and 126 state: 128 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) 130 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 132 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 134 These names and titles are now changed to: 136 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) 138 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 140 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 142 Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, these three 143 sections state: 145 Sender's PE Address 147 Remote PE Address 149 These are now updated to say: 151 Sender's PE IPv4 Address 153 Remote PE IPv4 Address 155 3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs 157 3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV 159 IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC 160 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of [RFC4379]. 161 The encoding of IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV is as follows: 163 0 1 2 3 164 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 1 165 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 166 | IPv6 FEC 128 PW Type | Length | 167 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 168 ~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~ 169 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 170 ~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~ 171 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 172 | PW ID | 173 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 174 | PW Type | Must Be Zero | 175 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 Figure 1: IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire 179 IPv6 FEC 128 PW: TBD. 181 Length: it defines the length in octets of the value field of the 182 sub-TLV and its value is 38. 184 Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 185 LDP session. 187 Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 188 LDP session. 190 PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. 192 PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. 194 3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV 196 IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC 197 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]. 198 The encoding of IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire is as follows: 200 0 1 2 3 201 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 1 202 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 203 | IPv6 FEC 129 PW Type | Length | 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 ~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~ 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 ~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~ 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 ~ AGI Value ~ 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 | AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value | 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 215 ~ SAII Value (continued) ~ 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 | AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value | 218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 219 ~ TAII Value (continued) ~ 220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 221 | TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding | 222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 Figure 2: IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire 226 IPv6 FEC 129 PW: TBD. 228 The Length of this TLV is 40 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII 229 length. Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4; 230 the length of the padding is not included in the Length field. 232 Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 233 LDP session. 235 Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 236 LDP session. 238 The other fields are same as FEC 129 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. 240 4. Summary of Changes 242 Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target 243 FEC Stack. Per the change described in Section 2 and Section 3, the 244 table would show the following: 246 Sub-Type Length Value Field 247 -------- ------ ----------- 248 ... 249 9 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (deprecated) 250 10 14 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 251 11 16+ IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 252 ... 253 TBD 38 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 254 TBD 40+ IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 256 5. Operation 258 This document does not define any new procedures. The process 259 described in [RFC4379] MUST be used. 261 6. IANA Considerations 263 IANA is requested to perform the following assignments in the "Multi- 264 Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping 265 Parameters" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry. 267 [RFC Editor: To be REMOVED prior to publication. This registration 268 should take place at ] 272 Update the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding the "IPv4" 273 qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to point to this 274 document: 276 Type Sub-Type Value Field 277 ---- -------- ----------- 278 1 9 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) 279 1 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 280 1 11 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 282 Create two new entries for the Sub-Type field of Target FEC TLV (see 283 Section 3): 285 Type Sub-Type Value Field 286 ---- -------- ----------- 287 1 TBD1 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 288 1 TBD2 IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 290 7. Security Considerations 292 This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security 293 mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here. 295 8. Acknowledgements 297 The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim, 298 Tom Petch, and Spike Curtis. 300 9. References 302 9.1. Normative References 304 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 305 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 307 [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol 308 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, 309 February 2006. 311 9.2. Informative References 313 [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] 314 Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro, 315 "Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-05 316 (work in progress), August 2011. 318 Authors' Addresses 320 Mach(Guoyi) Chen 321 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 322 No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District 323 Beijing 100085 324 China 326 Email: mach@huawei.com 328 Ping Pan 329 Infinera 330 US 332 Email: ppan@infinera.com 333 Carlos Pignataro 334 Cisco Systems 335 7200-12 Kit Creek Road 336 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 337 US 339 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 341 Rajiv Asati 342 Cisco Systems 343 7025-6 Kit Creek Road 344 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 345 US 347 Email: rajiva@cisco.com