idnits 2.17.1 draft-manral-mpls-tp-lmp-test-02.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 5 pages 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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (March 30, 2012) is 4403 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2205' is defined on line 154, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group V. Manral 2 Internet-Draft Hewlett Packard Co. 3 Intended status: Standards-Track March 30, 2012 4 Expires: September 30, 2012 6 Encapsulating LMP Test message over MPLS-TP 7 draft-manral-mpls-tp-lmp-test-02 9 Abstract 11 LMP Test Message is transmitted over the Data Link and is used to 12 verify the data link connectivity. In most cases these messages are 13 transmitted over UDP. This document clarifies the use of LMP Test 14 messages over MPLS LSP's when the IP addressing of test messages may 15 not be available or may not be desireable. 17 Requirements Language 19 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 21 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2012. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. LMP Test message over ACH for LSP's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 1. Introduction 69 Except for LMP test messages all other LMP messages are sent in the 70 control channel over UDP encapsulation as defined in RFC 4204 71 [RFC4204]. The test messages are sent over the individual data links 72 and can be used for data plane discovery, interface_id exchange and 73 physical connectivity verification. 75 In certain MPLS-TP deployment scenarios IP addressing might not be 76 available in the data plane or it may be preferred to use non-IP 77 encapsulation for LMP-Test packets. 79 To enable re-use of LMP Test techniques provided by LMP in such 80 networks, rest of this document defines extensions to LMP Test 81 messages and procedures for using LMP for the same. 83 2. LMP Test message over ACH for LSP's 85 RFC5586 [RFC5586] defines an ACH mechanism for MPLS LSPs. This 86 document defines a new ACH channel type for LMP Test messages, when 87 IP addressing is not in use in the data plane, for LMP Test message 88 over associated bi-directional LSPs and co-routed bi-directional 89 LSPs. 91 0 1 2 3 92 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 93 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 94 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | LMP-Test Channel Type | 95 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 97 Figure 1: LMP-Test ACH Channel Type 99 When ACH header is used, an LMP-Test packet will look as follows: 101 0 1 2 3 102 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 2 103 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 104 | MPLS Label stack | 105 | | 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 107 | GAL | 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | LMP-Test Channel Type | 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 | ACH TLVs | 112 | | 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | LMP-Test payload | 115 | | 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 Figure 2: LMP-Test packet with ACH 120 3. IANA Considerations 122 A new Channel type is defined in Section 2.1. IANA is requested to 123 assign a new value from the "PW Associated Channel Type" registry, as 124 per IETF consensus policy. 126 Value Meaning 127 ----- ------- 128 TBD Associated Channel carries LMP-Test packet 130 4. Security Considerations 132 This document raises no new security issues. 134 5. Acknowledgements 136 This document derives a lot of its text and content from "LSP-Ping 137 and BFD encapsulation over ACH" draft and the authors of that are 138 duly acknowledged. 140 6. References 141 6.1. Normative References 143 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 144 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 146 [RFC4204] Lang, J., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204, 147 October 2005. 149 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic 150 Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. 152 6.2. Informative References 154 [RFC2205] Braden, B., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- 155 Version 1 Functional Specification", September 1997. 157 Author's Address 159 Vishwas Manral 160 Hewlett-Packard Co. 161 19111 Pruneridge Ave. 162 Cupertino, CA 95014 163 USA 165 Phone: 408-447-0000 166 Fax: 167 Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com 168 URI: