idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-00.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 7 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5085], [RFC6428], [RFC5885]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (April 03, 2013) is 4034 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in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5882' is defined on line 280, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4447 (Obsoleted by RFC 8077) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group G. Mirsky 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Standards Track April 03, 2013 5 Expires: October 05, 2013 7 VCCV MPLS-TP Connectivity Verification (CV) Capability Advertisement 8 draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-cv-adv-00 10 Abstract 12 This document specifies how use of proactive Connectivity 13 Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the 14 MPLS Transport Profile [RFC6428] affects operation and management 15 function election for PW VCCV [RFC5085], [RFC5885]. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 05, 2013. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 1.1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. MPLS-TP CC-CV on Pseudowires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2.1. VCCV Extended CV Advertisement sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . 3 57 2.2. MPLS-TP CC-CV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.3. MPLS-TP CC-CV Type Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 2.4. CV Type Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.1. VCCV Extended CV Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 1. Introduction 71 Proactive Connectivity Verification (CV), Continuity Check (CC), and 72 Remote Defect Indication (RDI) for the MPLS Transport Profile 73 [RFC6428] is applicable to all constructs of the MPLS-TP, including 74 pseudowires (PWs). If Control Plane is used to operate and manage PW 75 then procedure defined in [RFC5085] and [RFC5885] should be used to 76 select proper type of Control Channel and corresponding type of 77 Connectivity Verification. This document specifies how signaling and 78 selection process modified to ensure backward compatibility and allow 79 use of proactive CV-CC-RDI over MPLS-TP PWs. 81 1.1. Conventions used in this document 83 1.1.1. Terminology 85 BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 87 CC: Continuity Check 89 CV: Connectivity Verification 91 PE: Provider Edge 93 VCCV: Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification 95 VCCV CC: VCCV Control Channel 97 1.1.2. Requirements Language 99 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 100 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 101 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 102 [RFC2119]. 104 2. MPLS-TP CC-CV on Pseudowires 106 PW VCCV can support several CV Types. Ability to support arbitrary 107 combination of CV modes advertised in CV Types field of VCCV 108 Interface Parameter sub-TLV [RFC4446], [RFC4447]. Currently six 109 types of CV been defined for PW VCCV out of eight bit long field. 110 This document introduces four new CV types and to accommodate them a 111 new VCCV Extended CV parameter for PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV is 112 defined. 114 2.1. VCCV Extended CV Advertisement sub-TLV 116 The format of VCCV Extended CV Advertisement is a TLV where: 118 0 1 2 3 119 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 1 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 121 | Type = 0x19 | Length | CV Type | Reserved | 122 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 Figure 1: VCCV Extended CV parameter format 126 Length - the length of the sub-TLV, including type and the Length 127 field itself. Minimum length is 4. It it isrecommended that 128 extensions to the sub-TLV be done in 4 bytes increments with Reserved 129 field being set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt. 131 Reserved field must be set to zeroes on transmit and ignored on 132 receive. 134 CV Type field is a bitmask that lists types of CV monitoring that a 135 PE is capable to support. VCCV Extended CV parameter sub-TLV must 136 appear in combination with VCCV parameter sub-TLV. If VCCV parameter 137 sub-TLV is missing then VCCV Extended CV parameter sub-TLV should be 138 ignored. 140 2.2. MPLS-TP CC-CV Types 142 The [RFC6428] defines coordinated and independent modes of monitoring 143 point-to-point bi-directional connection that can be applied to 144 monitoring PWs. At the same time [RFC6310] defines how BFD-based OAM 145 can map and be mapped to status of an Attachment Circuit. Thus there 146 could be four MPLS-TP CV types as combination of modes and 147 functionality: 149 +--------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+ 150 | Modes | Fault Detection | Fault Detection and | 151 | | Only | Status Signalling | 152 +--------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+ 153 | Independent Mode | 0x01 | 0x02 | 154 | Coordinated Mode | 0x04 | 0x08 | 155 +--------------------+-------------------+--------------------------+ 157 Table 1: Bitmask Values for MPLS-TP CV Types 159 2.3. MPLS-TP CC-CV Type Operation 161 Connectivity verification according to [RFC6428] is part of MPLS-TP 162 CC/CV operation that can be used with VCCV Control Channel Types 1 163 [RFC5085] or Type 4 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal]. If VCCV CC Type 1 164 or Type 4 selected, then PEs might select one of MPLS-TP CC-CV types 165 as VCCV CV mechanism to be used for this PW. 167 2.4. CV Type Selection 169 CV selection rules that have been defined in Section 7 of [RFC5085] 170 and updated Section 4 of [RFC5885] are augmented in this document. 172 If VCCV Control Channel Type 1 or Type 4 is chosen according to 173 Section 7 [RFC5085] or Section 4 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal] and 174 common set of proactive CV types advertized by both PEs includes 175 MPLS-TP CC-CV types and some BFD CV types, then MPLS-TP CC-CV takes 176 precedence over any type of BFD CV. If multiple MPLS-TP CV types 177 advertised by both PEs, then following list sorted in descending 178 priority order is used: 180 1. 0x08 - coordinated mode for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault 181 Status Signaling 183 2. 0x04 - coordinated mode for PW Fault Detection only 185 3. 0x02 - independent mode for PW Fault Detection and AC/PW Fault 186 Status Signaling 188 4. 0x01 - independent mode for PW Fault Detection only 190 3. IANA Considerations 192 The PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV registry defined in [RFC4446]. 194 IANA is requested to reserve a new PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV 195 type as follows: 197 +---------------+-----------+-----------------------+---------------+ 198 | Parameter ID | Length | Description | Reference | 199 +---------------+-----------+-----------------------+---------------+ 200 | 0x19 | 4 | VCCV Extended CV | This document | 201 | | | Parameter | | 202 +---------------+-----------+-----------------------+---------------+ 204 Table 2: New PW Interface Parameters Sub-TLV 206 Parameter ID Length Description Reference 208 0x19 4 VCCV Extended CV parameter This document 210 3.1. VCCV Extended CV Types 212 IANA is requested to set up a registry of ?VCCV Extended CV Types?. 213 These are 8 bitfield values. Extended CV Type values 0x01, 0x02, 214 0x04 and 0x08 are specified in Section 2.2 of this document. The 215 remaining bitfield values (0x10 through 0x80) are to be assigned by 216 IANA using the "IETF Consensus" policy defined in [RFC2434]. A VCCV 217 Extended Control Verification Type description and a reference to an 218 RFC approved by the IESG are required for any assignment from this 219 registry. 221 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+ 222 | Bit(Value) | Description | 223 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+ 224 | Bit 0 (0x01) | Independent mode for PW Fault Detection only | 225 | Bit 1 (0x02) | Independent mode for PW Fault Detection and | 226 | | AC/PW Fault Status Signaling | 227 | Bit 2 (0x04) | Coordinated mode for PW Fault Detection only | 228 | Bit 3 (0x08) | Coordinated mode for PW Fault Detection and | 229 | | AC/PW Fault Status Signaling | 230 | Bit 4 (0x10) | Reserved | 231 | Bit 5 (0x20) | Reserved | 232 | Bit 6 (0x40) | Reserved | 233 | Bit 7 (0x80) | Reserved | 234 +------------------+------------------------------------------------+ 236 Table 3: MPLS Connectivity Verification (CV) Types 238 4. Security Considerations 240 Routers that implement the additional CV Type defined herein are 241 subject to the same security considerations as defined in [RFC5085], 242 [RFC5880], [RFC5881], and [RFC6428]. This specification does not 243 raise any additional security issues beyond these. 245 5. Acknowledgements 247 The author gratefully acknowledges the thoughtful review, comments, 248 and explanations provided by Dave Allan, and by Carlos Pignataro. 250 6. References 252 6.1. Normative References 254 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal] 255 Martini, L. and T. Nadeau, "A Unified Control Channel for 256 Pseudowires", draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal-00 (work in 257 progress), January 2012. 259 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 260 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 262 [RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge 263 Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446, April 2006. 265 [RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. 266 Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label 267 Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. 269 [RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit 270 Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for 271 Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007. 273 [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 274 (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010. 276 [RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection 277 (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881, June 278 2010. 280 [RFC5882] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Generic Application of 281 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)", RFC 5882, June 282 2010. 284 [RFC5885] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding 285 Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit 286 Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June 2010. 288 [RFC6310] Aissaoui, M., Busschbach, P., Martini, L., Morrow, M., 289 Nadeau, T., and Y(J). Stein, "Pseudowire (PW) Operations, 290 Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Message Mapping", 291 RFC 6310, July 2011. 293 [RFC6428] Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive 294 Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote 295 Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 296 6428, November 2011. 298 6.2. Informative References 300 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H.T. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 301 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 302 October 1998. 304 Author's Address 306 Greg Mirsky 307 Ericsson 309 Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com