idnits 2.17.1 draft-dong-pwe3-mpls-tp-li-lb-06.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 date (April 21, 2014) is 3630 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-01) exists of draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-oam-config-00 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-03 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3985 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4447 (Obsoleted by RFC 8077) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5659 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6371 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Dong 3 Internet-Draft M. Chen 4 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies 5 Expires: October 23, 2014 G. Mirsky 6 Ericsson 7 April 21, 2014 9 LDP Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback of Pseudowire in MPLS 10 Transport Profile 11 draft-dong-pwe3-mpls-tp-li-lb-06 13 Abstract 15 This document specifies extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol 16 (LDP) to support the provisioning of lock instruct (LI) and loopback 17 (LB) mechanisms for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) pseudowires 18 (PWs). 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 24 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 23, 2014. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. LDP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2.1. Extensions to MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV . . . . . 3 63 2.2. Extensions to PW Status TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 3. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3.1. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 3.2. Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 74 1. Introduction 76 The requirements for Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) are 77 specified in [RFC5860], and the framework of LI and LB is specified 78 in [RFC6371]. [RFC6435] defines management plane based LI and LB 79 mechanisms, and LI OAM message is defined for additional lock 80 coordination between the Maintenance Entity Group End Points (MEPs). 81 Management plane based LI and LB are suitable for scenarios where 82 dynamic control plane is not available. 84 When a dynamic control plane is used for establishing MPLS-TP 85 pseudowires (PWs), it's natural to use and extend the control plane 86 protocol for the provisioning of LI and LB functions. Unlike other 87 OAM mechanisms, LI and LB would modify the forwarding plane of PW, 88 thus without the involvement of control plane this may result in 89 inconsistency between control plane and data plane. Besides, control 90 plane based mechanism does not need to rely on the TTL expiration to 91 make the OAM requests reach particular Maintenance Entity Group 92 Intermediate Point (MIP) or MEP. 94 There are some existing control plane based OAM provisioning 95 mechanisms for MPLS-TP PWs. For example, 97 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-oam-config] specifies the LDP extensions for 98 the configuration of proactive OAM functions for MPLS-TP PWs when 99 control plane is used. 101 This document defines mechanisms similar to 102 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-oam-config] for the provisioning of LI and LB 103 functions for MPLS-TP PWs when MPLS-TP control plane is used. The 104 mechanisms defined in this document are complementary to [RFC6435]. 106 2. LDP Extensions 108 2.1. Extensions to MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV 110 Two new flags (Lock bit and Loopback bit) are defined in MPLS-TP PW 111 OAM Administration TLV [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-oam-config]. 113 The format of the extended MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV is as 114 below: 116 0 1 2 3 117 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 1 118 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 |0|0| Type (TBD) | Length | 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 121 |I|A|K|B| Reserved | 122 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 Lock (K): When this bit is set, it indicates that the T-PE needs to 125 enable "Lock" function for this PW. 127 Loopback (B): When this bit is set, it indicates that the target node 128 of this message SHOULD enable loopback function for this PW. 130 2.2. Extensions to PW Status TLV 132 Two new Status bits are defined in PW Status TLV: 134 Bit Mask Description 135 ==================================================================== 136 TBD1 Pseudowire in Lock Mode [this document] 137 TBD2 Pseudowire in Loopback Mode [this document] 139 3. Operations 141 The control plane based LI and LB functions are applicable to both 142 Single-Segment Pseudowire (SS-PW) [RFC3985] [RFC4447] and Multi- 143 Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) [RFC5659] [RFC6073]. 145 3.1. Lock Instruct 147 When a PE/T-PE intends to put a PW into lock mode, it MUST send a 148 Mapping message with the Lock (K) bit in the MPLS-TP PW OAM 149 Administration TLV set. 151 For SS-PW, when the Mapping message arrives at the remote PE, the 152 receiving PE SHOULD try to take the PW out of service. If the 153 receiving PE locks the PW successfully, it SHOULD send a Notification 154 message with PW status "Pseudowire in Lock Mode". Otherwise, it 155 SHOULD send a Notification message with the LDP Status code set to 156 "PW Lock Failure". 158 For MS-PW, when the Mapping message arrives at a downstream S-PE, the 159 receiving S-PE SHOULD forward this Mapping message with the K bit 160 unchanged towards the remote T-PE. When the Mapping message arrives 161 at the remote T-PE, the receiving T-PE node SHOULD try to take the PW 162 out of service. If the receiving T-PE locks the PW successfully, it 163 SHOULD send a Notification message with PW status "Pseudowire in Lock 164 Mode" to the upstream S-PE. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a Notification 165 message with the LDP Status code set to "PW Lock Failure". On 166 receipt of the Notification message, the S-PEs would know whether the 167 MS-PW is in lock mode or not, and the S-PEs SHOULD forward the 168 Notification message back to the Source T-PE. 170 When the PE/T-PE intends to take the PW out of the lock mode, it MUST 171 send a Mapping message with the Lock (K) bit in the MPLS-TP PW OAM 172 Administration TLV cleared. The receiving PE/T-PE SHOULD try to 173 unlock the PW. If the PW is unlocked successfully, the receiving PE/ 174 T-PE SHOULD send a Notification message with PW status bit 175 "Pseudowire in Lock Mode" cleared. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a 176 Notification message with the LDP Status code set to "PW Unlock 177 Failure". 179 3.2. Loopback 181 When a PE/T-PE intends to put the remote PE/T-PE of a PW into 182 loopback mode, it MUST send a Mapping message with both the Lock (K) 183 bit and Loopback (B) bit in the MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV 184 set. When a T-PE intends to put a particular S-PE of the MS-PW into 185 loopback mode, it MUST send a Mapping message with both the Lock (K) 186 bit and Loopback (B) bit set, and an Explicit Route Hop TLV(ER-Hop 187 TLV) [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mspw-er] identifying the Target S-PE node MUST be 188 carried in the Mapping message. The L flag in the ER-Hop TLV SHOULD 189 be cleared. To ensure that the ER-Hop TLV identifies a single node 190 as the Target S-PE, the PreLen field in the IPv4 prefix ER-Hop TLV 191 SHOULD be set to 32, the PreLen field in the IPv6 prefix ER-Hop TLV 192 SHOULD be set to 128, and the PreLen field in the L2 PW Address ER- 193 Hop TLV SHOULD be set to 96. Information of the S-PE node may be 194 collected using the SP-PE TLVs [RFC6073]. 196 When the Mapping message arrives at the remote PE/T-PE, the receiving 197 PE SHOULD try to put the PW in loopback mode. If the receiver node 198 puts the PW into loopback mode successfully, it SHOULD send a 199 Notification message with PW status "Pseudowire in Loopback Mode". 200 Otherwise, it SHOULD send a Notification message with the LDP Status 201 code set to "PW Enter Loopback Failure". 203 When a Mapping message with an ER-Hop TLV arrives an S-PE, the S-PE 204 SHOULD check the ER-Hop TLV to see if it is the target S-PE of the 205 message. If not, the S-PE SHOULD forward the message with the K and 206 B bit unchanged to the next hop S-PE. When the Mapping message 207 arrives at the target S-PE, the S-PE SHOULD parse the MPLS-TP PW OAM 208 Administration TLV and try to put the PW into loopback mode. If the 209 S-PE puts the PW into loopback mode successfully, it SHOULD send a 210 Notification message with PW status set to "Pseudowire in Loopback 211 Mode". An SP-PE TLV [RFC6073] identifying the S-PE in loopback mode 212 SHOULD also be carried in the Notification message. If the S-PE 213 fails to put the PW into loopback mode, it SHOULD send a Notification 214 message with the LDP Status code set to "PW Enter Loopback Failure". 215 An SP-PE TLV identifying this S-PE SHOULD also be carried in the 216 Notification message. 218 When the PE/T-PE intends to take the remote PE/T-PE out of the 219 loopback mode, it MUST send a Mapping message with the Lock (K) bit 220 set and Loopback (B) bit cleared. When the T-PE intends to take a 221 particular S-PE out of loopback mode, the message MUST also carry an 222 ER-Hop TLV to identify the target S-PE. If the PW is taken out of 223 loopback mode successfully on the receiving PE/T-PE/S-PE, it SHOULD 224 send a Notification message with PW status bit "Pseudowire in 225 Loopback Mode" cleared. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a Notification 226 message with the LDP Status code set to "PW Exit Loopback Failure". 227 For the S-PE case, An SP-PE TLV identifying this S-PE node SHOULD 228 also be carried in the Notification message. 230 4. IANA Considerations 232 Two bits "Lock" (K) and "Loopback" (B) as defined in section 2.1 need 233 to be allocated in the MPLS-TP PW OAM Administration TLV. 235 Two new PW Status bits as defined in section 2.2 need to be allocated 236 by IANA in the "Pseudowire Status Codes" registry. 238 Four new LDP status codes need to be assigned by IANA in the LDP 239 "Status Code Name Space" registry: 241 Range/Value E Description 242 TBA 0 PW Lock Failure 243 TBA 0 PW Unlock Failure 244 TBA 0 PW Enter Loopback Failure 245 TBA 0 PW Exit Loopback Failure 247 5. Security Considerations 249 This document introduces no new security considerations over 250 [RFC5036], [RFC4447] and [RFC6073]. 252 6. References 254 6.1. Normative References 256 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-oam-config] 257 Zhang, F., Bo, W., and E. Bellagamba, "Label Distribution 258 Protocol Extensions for Proactive Operations, 259 Administration and Maintenance Configuration of Dynamic 260 MPLS Transport Profile PseudoWire", draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls- 261 tp-oam-config-00 (work in progress), January 2012. 263 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mspw-er] 264 Dutta, P., Bocci, M., and L. Martini, "Explicit Path 265 Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowires", draft- 266 ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-03 (work in progress), March 2014. 268 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 269 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 271 [RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to- 272 Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005. 274 [RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. 275 Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label 276 Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. 278 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP 279 Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. 281 [RFC5659] Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "An Architecture for Multi- 282 Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge", RFC 5659, 283 October 2009. 285 [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for 286 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS 287 Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. 289 [RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M. 290 Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073, January 2011. 292 [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and 293 Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", 294 RFC 6371, September 2011. 296 6.2. Informative References 298 [RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M., 299 and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and 300 Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011. 302 Authors' Addresses 304 Jie Dong 305 Huawei Technologies 306 Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. 307 Beijing 100095 308 China 310 Email: jie.dong@huawei.com 312 Mach(Guoyi) Chen 313 Huawei Technologies 314 Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. 315 Beijing 100095 316 China 318 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 320 Greg Mirsky 321 Ericsson 323 Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com