idnits 2.17.1 draft-jain-pwe3-p2mp-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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 4 longer pages, the longest (page 1) being 59 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 98 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 characters in excess of 72. 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 (June 17, 2014) is 3591 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: 'RFC5085' is defined on line 271, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4379 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-05 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Parag Jain, Ed. 3 Internet Draft Sami Boutros 4 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. 5 Expires: December 18, 2014 6 Sam Aldrin 7 Huawei Technologies 9 June 17, 2014 11 Definition of P2MP PW TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms 12 draft-jain-pwe3-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03.txt 13 Abstract 15 LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and 16 Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. This document 17 describes a mechanism to verify connectivity of Point-to-Multipoint 18 (P2MP) Pseudowires (PW) using LSP Ping. 20 Status of this Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 27 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 28 Drafts. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 31 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 32 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 33 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 36 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 38 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 39 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2011. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2011 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 53 respect to this document. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction 2 58 2. Conventions used in this document 3 59 3. Terminology 3 60 4. Identifying a P2MP PW 3 61 4.1. FEC 130 Pseudowire Sub-TLV 4 62 5. Operations 4 63 6. Echo Reply using Downstream Assigned Label 6 64 7. Controlling Echo Responses 6 65 8. Security Considerations 6 66 9. IANA Considerations 6 67 10. References 6 68 10.1. Normative References 6 69 10.2. Informative References 7 70 11. Acknowledgments 7 72 1. Introduction 74 A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Pseudowire (PW) emulates the essential 75 attributes of a unidirectional P2MP Telecommunications service such 76 as P2MP ATM over PSN. Requirements for P2MP PW are described in 77 [PPWREQ]. P2MP PWs are carried over P2MP MPLS LSP. The Procedure for 78 P2MP PW signaling using LDP for single segment P2MP PWs are 79 described in [PPWPWE3]. Many P2MP PWs can share the same P2MP MPLS 80 LSP and this arrangement is called Aggregate P-tree. The aggregate 81 P2MP trees require an upstream assigned label so that on the tail of 82 the P2MP LSP, the traffic can be associated with a VPN or a VPLS 83 instance. When a P2MP MPLS LSP carries only one VPN or VPLS service 84 instance, the arrangement is called Inclusive P-Tree. For Inclusive 85 P-Trees, P2MP MPLS LSP label itself can uniquely identify the VPN or 86 VPLS service being carried over P2MP MPLS LSP. The P2MP MPLS LSP can 87 also be used in Selective P-Tree arrangement for carrying multicast 88 traffic. In a Selective P-Tree arrangement, traffic to each 89 multicast group in a VPN or VPLS instance is carried by a separate 90 unique P-tree. In Aggregate Selective P-tree arrangement, traffic to 91 a set of multicast groups from different VPN or VPLS instances is 92 carried over a same shared P-tree. 94 The P2MP MPLS LSP are setup either using MLDP [RFC6388] or P2MP RSVP-TE 95 [RFC4875]. Mechanisms for fault detection and isolation for data 96 plane failures for P2MP MPLS LSPs are specified in [RFC6425]. This 97 document describes a mechanism to detect data plane failures for 98 P2MP PW carried over P2MP MPLS LSPs. 100 This document defines a new FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV for Target 101 FEC Stack for P2MP PW. The FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV is added in 102 Target FEC Stack TLV by the originator of the echo request to inform 103 the receiver at P2MP MPLS LSP tail, of the P2MP PW being tested. 105 Multi-segment Pseudowires support is out of scope of this document 106 at present and may be included in future. 108 2. Conventions used in this document 110 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 111 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 112 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 114 The term "FEC-Type" is used to refer to a tuple consisting of . 117 3. Terminology 119 ATM: Asynchronous Transfer Mode 121 LSR: Label Switching Router 123 MPLS-OAM: MPLS Operations, Administration and Maintenance 125 P2MP-PW: Point-to-Multipoint PseudoWire 127 PW: PseudoWire 129 TLV: Type Length Value 131 4. Identifying a P2MP PW 133 This document introduces a new LSP Ping Target FEC Stack sub-TLV, 134 FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV, to identify the P2MP PW under test at 135 the P2MP LSP Tail/Bud node. 137 4.1. FEC 130 Pseudowire Sub-TLV 139 The FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV fields are taken from P2MP PW FEC 140 Element (FEC Type 0x82) defined in [PPWPWE3]. The PW Type is a 15- 141 bit number indicating the encapsulation type. It is carried right 142 justified in the field below PW Type with the high-order bit set to 143 zero. All the other fields are treated as opaque values and copied 144 directly from P2MP PW FEC Element (FEC Type 0x82) format. 146 The FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the format shown in Figure 1. 147 This TLV will be included in the echo request sent over P2MP PW by 148 the originator of request. 150 0 1 2 3 151 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 1 152 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 153 |0| PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length | 154 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 155 ~ AGI Value ~ 156 | | 157 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 158 | AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value | 159 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 160 ~ SAII Value (continued) ~ 161 | | 162 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 163 Figure 1: FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV format 165 For Inclusive and Selective P2MP MPLS P-trees, the echo request will 166 be sent using the P2MP MPLS LSP label. 168 For Aggregate Inclusive and Aggregate Selective P-trees, the echo 169 request will be sent using a label stack of . The P2MP MPLS P-tree label is the 171 outer label and upstream assigned P2MP PW label is inner label. 173 5. Operations 175 In this section, we explain the operation of the LSP Ping over P2MP 176 PW. Figure 2 shows a P2MP PW PW1 setup from T-PE1 to remote PEs (T- 177 PE2, T-PE3 and T-PE4). The transport LSP associated with the P2MP PW1 178 can be MLDP P2MP MPLS LSP or P2MP TE tunnel. 180 |<--------------P2MP PW---------------->| 181 Native | | Native 182 Service | |<--PSN1->| |<--PSN2->| | Service 183 (AC) V V V V V V (AC) 184 | +-----+ +------+ +------+ | 185 | | | | P1 |=========|T-PE2 |AC3 | +---+ 186 | | | | .......PW1.........>|-------->|CE3| 187 | |T-PE1|=========| . |=========| | | +---+ 188 | | .......PW1........ | +------+ | 189 | | . |=========| . | +------+ | 190 | | . | | . |=========|T-PE3 |AC4 | +---+ 191 +---+ |AC1 | . | | .......PW1.........>|-------->|CE4| 192 |CE1|------->|... | | |=========| | | +---+ 193 +---+ | | . | +------+ +------+ | 194 | | . | +------+ +------+ | 195 | | . |=========| P2 |=========|T-PE4 |AC5 | +---+ 196 | | .......PW1..............PW1.........>|-------->|CE5| 197 | | |=========| |=========| | | +---+ 198 | +-----+ +------+ +------+ | 200 Figure 2: P2MP PW 202 When an operator wants to perform a connectivity check for the P2MP 203 PW1, the operator initiate a LSP-Ping request with the Target FEC 204 Stack TLV containing FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV in the echo request 205 packet. The echo request packet is sent over the P2MP MPLS LSP using 206 the P2MP MPLS LSP label for Inclusive P-tree or with a label stack 207 with Upstream assigned P2MP PW label as bottom label and P2MP MPLS 208 LSP label as the top label. The intermediate P router will do swap 209 and replication based on the MPLS LSP label. Once the packet reaches 210 remote terminating PEs, the T-PEs will process the packet and perform 211 checks for the FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV present in the Target FEC 212 Stack TLV as described in Section 4.4 in [RFC4379] and respond 213 according to [RFC4379] processing rules. 215 6. Echo Reply using Downstream Assigned Label 217 Root of a P2MP PW may send an optional downstream assigned p2p MPLS 218 label in the LDP Label Mapping message for the P2MP PW signaling. If 219 the root of a P2MP PW expects leaf to send echo reply using the 220 downstream assigned label signaled in the Label Mapping message of 221 the P2MP PW message, the Reply Mode value of 4 "Reply via 222 application level control channel" should be used in Reply Mode 223 field described in Section 3 in [RFC4379] in echo request message 224 for the P2MP PW. 226 7. Controlling Echo Responses 228 The procedures described in [RFC6425] for preventing congestion of 229 Echo Responses (Echo Jitter TLV) and limiting the echo reply to a 230 single egress node (Node Address P2MP Responder Identifier TLV) can 231 be applied to P2MP PW LSP Ping. 233 8. Security Considerations 235 The proposal introduced in this document does not introduce any new 236 security considerations beyond that already apply to [RFC6425]. 238 9. IANA Considerations 240 This document defines a new sub-TLV type to be included in Target 241 FEC Stack TLV (TLV Type 1) [RFC4379] in LSP Ping. 243 IANA is requested to assign a sub-TLV type value to the following 244 sub-TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 245 Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub- 246 TLVs" sub-registry. 248 FEC 130 Pseudowire sub-TLV (See Section 3). Suggested value 24. 250 10. References 252 10.1. Normative References 254 [RFC4379] K. Kompella, G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label 255 Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 256 2006. 258 [PPWPWE3] Martini, L. et. al, "Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to- 259 Multipoint Pseudowires using LDP", draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp- 260 pw-04.txt, Work in Progress, March 2012. 262 [RFC6425] Saxena, S et. Al, "Detecting Data Plane Failures in Point- 263 to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) - 264 Extensions to LSP. RFC 6425, November 2011 266 10.2. Informative References 268 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 269 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997. 271 [RFC5085] T. Nadeau, et. al, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit 272 Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for 273 Pseudowires ", RFC 5085, December 2007. 275 [RFC6388] Wijnands, I., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and Thomas, B., 276 "LDP Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to- 277 Multipoint Label Switched Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011. 279 [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and Yasukawa, S., 280 "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol" Traffic 281 Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label 282 Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. 284 [PPWREQ] F. Jounay, et. al, "Requirements for Point to Multipoint 285 Pseudowire", draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-05.txt, 286 Work in Progress, September 2011. 288 11. Acknowledgments 290 The authors would like to thank Shaleen Saxena, Michael Wildt, 291 Tomofumi Hayashi, Danny Prairie for their valuable input and 292 comments. 294 This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. 296 Authors' Addresses 298 Parag Jain 299 Cisco Systems, Inc., 300 2000 Innovation Drive, 301 Kanata, ON K2K3E8, Canada. 302 E-mail: paragj@cisco.com 303 Sami Boutros 304 Cisco Systems, Inc. 305 3750 Cisco Way, 306 San Jose, CA 95134, USA. 307 E-mail: sboutros@cisco.com 309 Sam Aldrin 310 Huawei Technologies, co. 311 2330 Central Express Way, 312 Santa Clara, CA 95051, USA. 313 E-mail: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com