idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) 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 (August 22, 2010) is 4995 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references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4379 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) == Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-02 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 N. Bahadur, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft R. Aggarwal, Ed. 4 Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward, Ed. 5 Expires: February 23, 2011 Juniper Networks, Inc. 6 T. Nadeau 7 BT 8 N. Sprecher 9 Y. Weingarten 10 Nokia Siemens Networks 11 August 22, 2010 13 LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation over ACH 14 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-01 16 Abstract 18 LSP-Ping and BFD for MPLS are existing and widely deployment OAM 19 mechanisms for MPLS LSPs. This document describes an ACH 20 encapsulation for LSP-Ping, that would enable use of LSP-Ping for 21 networks where IP addressing is not in use. This document also 22 clarifies the use of BFD for MPLS LSPs using ACH encapsulation, when 23 IP addressing may not be available and/or it may not be desirable to 24 encapsulate BFD packets in IP. 26 Status of this Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 33 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 34 Drafts. 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 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 42 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 44 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 45 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 47 This Internet-Draft will expire on February 23, 2011. 49 Copyright Notice 51 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 52 document authors. All rights reserved. 54 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 55 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 56 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 57 publication of this document. Please review these documents 58 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 59 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 60 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 61 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 62 described in the BSD License. 64 Table of Contents 66 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 1.2. LSP-Ping and BFD over ACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 2. LSP-Ping extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 2.1. LSP-Ping packet over ACH for LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 2.2. LSP-Ping packet over ACH for PWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 2.3. Source Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 2.4. MEP and MIP Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 3. Running BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 5.1. New ACH Channel Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 79 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 80 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 83 1. Introduction 85 LSP-Ping [RFC4379] and BFD for MPLS [RFC5884] are OAM mechanisms for 86 MPLS LSPs. This document describes an ACH encapsulation for LSP-Ping 87 for networks that do not use IP addressing. When IP addressing is in 88 use, the LSP-Ping procedures specified in [RFC4379] apply as is. 89 This document also clarifies the use of BFD for MPLS LSPs using ACH 90 encapsulation [RFC5586], when IP addressing may not be available 91 and/or it may not be desirable to encapsulate BFD packets in IP. 93 1.1. Conventions used in this document 95 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 96 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 97 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 99 1.2. LSP-Ping and BFD over ACH 101 In certain MPLS-TP deployment scenarios IP addressing might not be 102 available or it may be preferred to use non-IP encapsulation for LSP- 103 Ping and BFD packets. The remainder of this document defines 104 extensions to LSP-Ping and procedures for using BFD, for such 105 scenarios. 107 Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 describe a new ACH code-point for 108 performing LSP-Ping over ACH. Section 3 describes procedures for 109 using BFD over ACH. 111 2. LSP-Ping extensions 113 2.1. LSP-Ping packet over ACH for LSPs 115 [RFC5586] defines an ACH mechanism for MPLS LSPs. This document 116 defines a new ACH channel type for LSP-Ping, when IP addressing is 117 not in use, for LSP-Ping over associated bi-directional LSPs and co- 118 routed bi-directional LSPs. ACH TLVs MAY be associated with this 119 channel type. 121 0 1 2 3 122 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 2 123 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | LSP-Ping Channel Type | 125 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 127 Figure 1: LSP-Ping ACH Channel Type 129 When ACH header is used, an LSP-Ping packet will look as follows: 131 0 1 2 3 132 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 2 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 134 | MPLS Label stack | 135 | | 136 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 137 | GAL | 138 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 139 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | LSP-Ping Channel Type | 140 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 141 | ACH TLV Header | 142 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 143 | ACH TLVs | 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 145 | | 146 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 147 | LSP-Ping payload | 148 | | 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 151 Figure 2: LSP-Ping packet with ACH 153 When using LSP-Ping over the ACH header, the LSP-Ping Reply mode 154 [RFC4379] in the LSP-Ping echo request MUST be set to 4 (Reply via 155 application level control channel). 157 2.2. LSP-Ping packet over ACH for PWs 159 [RFC4385] defines an PW-ACH mechanism for pseudowires. The ACH 160 channel type for LSP-Ping defined in Section 2.1 will be re-used for 161 pseudowires so that IP addressing is not needed when using LSP-Ping 162 OAM over pseudowires. 164 2.3. Source Address TLV 166 When sending LSP-Ping packets using ACH, without IP encapsulation, 167 there MAY be a need to identify the source address of the packet. 168 This source address will be specified via the Source Address TLV, 169 being defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv]. No more than 1 source 170 address TLV MAY be present in a LSP-Ping packet. The source address 171 MUST specify the address of the originator of the packet. If more 172 than 1 such TLV is present in a LSP-Ping request packet, then an 173 error code of 1 (Malformed echo request received), [ Section 3.1 174 [RFC4379]], SHOULD be returned. If more than 1 source address TLV is 175 present, then the packet SHOULD be dropped without further 176 processing. 178 2.4. MEP and MIP Identifier 180 When sending LSP-Ping packets using ACH, there MAY be a need to 181 identify the maintenance end point (MEP) and/or the maintenance 182 intermediate point (MIP) being monitored 183 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone]. The MEP/MIP identifiers defined in 184 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers] MAY be carried in the ACH TLVs 185 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv] for identification. 187 3. Running BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs 189 [RFC5884] describes how BFD can be used for Continuity Check of MPLS 190 LSPs. The procedures described in [RFC5884] MUST be used when IP 191 encapsulation is in use. This section clarifies the usage of BFD in 192 the context of MPLS-TP LSPs when it is not desirable to use IP 193 encapsulation. When using BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs, the BFD 194 discriminator MUST either be signaled via LSP-Ping or be statically 195 configured. The BFD packets MUST be sent over ACH when IP 196 encapsulation is not used. 198 This document defines a new ACH channel type for BFD over G-ACH, when 199 IP addressing is not in use, for running BFD over associated bi- 200 directional LSPs and co-routed bi-directional LSPs. ACH TLVs MAY be 201 associated with this channel type. 203 0 1 2 3 204 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 2 205 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 206 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | BFD over G-ACH Channel Type | 207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 Figure 3: BFD over G-ACH Channel Type 211 BFD packets, for both directions, MUST be sent over the MPLS-TP LSP 212 and IP forwarding SHOULD NOT be used for the reverse path. The 213 format of a BFD packet when using it as an OAM tool for MPLS-TP LSPs 214 SHOULD be as follows: 216 0 1 2 3 217 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 2 218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 219 | MPLS Label stack | 220 | | 221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 222 | GAL | 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 224 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | BFD over G-ACH Channel Type | 225 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 226 | ACH TLV Header | 227 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 228 | ACH TLVs | 229 | | 230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 231 | BFD payload | 232 | | 233 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 235 Figure 4: BFD packet over MPLS-TP LSPs 237 [RFC5885] specifies how BFD can be used over MPLS PWs. One MAY use 238 BFD over G-ACH channel type to run BFD over PWs if ACH TLV support is 239 needed. 241 BFD supports continuous fault monitoring and thus meets the pro- 242 active Continuity Check and verification requirement specified in 243 [RFC5860]. BFD SHOULD be run pro-actively. This function SHOULD be 244 performed between End Points (MEPs) of PWs, LSPs and Sections. For 245 point to multipoint Continuity Check, there is work in progress on 246 using BFD for P2MP MPLS LSPs ( [I-D.katz-ward-bfd-multipoint]) and 247 this can be leveraged for MPLS-TP LSPs as well. Failure of a BFD 248 session over a LSP can be used to trigger protection switching or 249 other fault remedial procedures. 251 When sending BFD packets using ACH, there MAY be a need to identify 252 the maintenance end point (MEP) being monitored. The MEP identifier 253 defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers] can be carried in the ACH 254 TLVs [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv] for identification. 256 4. Security Considerations 258 The draft does not introduce any new security considerations. Those 259 discussed in [RFC4379] are also applicable to this document. 261 5. IANA Considerations 263 5.1. New ACH Channel Types 265 New Channels type are defined in Section 2.1 and Section 3. IANA is 266 requested to assign new values from the "PW Associated Channel Type" 267 registry, as per IETF consensus policy. 269 Value Meaning 270 ----- ------- 271 TBD Associated Channel carries LSP-Ping packet 272 TBD Associated Channel carries BFD over G-ACH 274 6. References 276 6.1. Normative References 278 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 279 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 281 [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol 282 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, 283 February 2006. 285 [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, 286 "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for 287 Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006. 289 6.2. Informative References 291 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv] 292 Boutros, S., Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., Swallow, G., Ward, 293 D., and V. Manral, "Definition of ACH TLV Structure", 294 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-02 (work in progress), 295 March 2010. 297 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers] 298 Bocci, M. and G. Swallow, "MPLS-TP Identifiers", 299 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-02 (work in progress), 300 July 2010. 302 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone] 303 Sprecher, N., "A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in 304 Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) 305 drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport Network 306 Recommendations.", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-02 307 (work in progress), May 2010. 309 [I-D.katz-ward-bfd-multipoint] 310 Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for Multipoint Networks", 311 draft-katz-ward-bfd-multipoint-02 (work in progress), 312 February 2009. 314 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic 315 Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. 317 [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for 318 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS 319 Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. 321 [RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, 322 "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label 323 Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010. 325 [RFC5885] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding 326 Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit 327 Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June 2010. 329 Authors' Addresses 331 Nitin Bahadur (editor) 332 Juniper Networks, Inc. 333 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 334 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 335 US 337 Phone: +1 408 745 2000 338 Email: nitinb@juniper.net 339 URI: www.juniper.net 341 Rahul Aggarwal (editor) 342 Juniper Networks, Inc. 343 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 344 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 345 US 347 Phone: +1 408 745 2000 348 Email: rahul@juniper.net 349 URI: www.juniper.net 350 David Ward (editor) 351 Juniper Networks, Inc. 352 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 353 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 354 US 356 Phone: +1 408 745 2000 357 Fax: 358 Email: dward@juniper.net 359 URI: www.juniper.net 361 Thomas D. Nadeau 362 BT 363 BT Centre 364 81 Newgate Street 365 London EC1A 7AJ 366 United Kingdom 368 Email: tom.nadeau@bt.com 370 Nurit Sprecher 371 Nokia Siemens Networks 372 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B 373 Hod Hasharon 45241 374 Israel 376 Phone: +972-9-775 1229 377 Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com 379 Yaacov Weingarten 380 Nokia Siemens Networks 381 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B 382 Hod Hasharon 45241 383 Israel 385 Phone: +972-9-775 1827 386 Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com