idnits 2.17.1 draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-02.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 (February 16, 2010) is 5183 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references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4379 (Obsoleted by RFC 8029) == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-04 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: August 20, 2010 Juniper Networks, Inc. 6 T. Nadeau 7 BT 8 N. Sprecher 9 Y. Weingarten 10 Nokia Siemens Networks 11 February 16, 2010 13 LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation over ACH 14 draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-02 16 Abstract 18 LSP-Ping and BFD for MPLS are existing and widely deployment OAM 19 mechanisms for MPLS LSPs. This document describes ACH encapsulation 20 for LSP-Ping, to enable use of LSP-Ping when IP addressing is not in 21 use. This document also clarifies the use of BFD for MPLS LSPs using 22 ACH encapsulation, when IP addressing may not be available and/or it 23 may not be desirable to encapsulate BFD packets in IP. 25 Status of this Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 32 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 33 Drafts. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 41 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 43 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 44 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 20, 2010. 48 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 1.2. LSP-Ping and BFD over ACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2. LSP-Ping extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 2.1. LSP-Ping packet over ACH for LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 2.2. LSP-Ping packet over ACH for PWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 2.3. Source Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 2.4. MEP and MIP Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 3. Running BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 5.1. New ACH Channel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 77 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 78 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 81 1. Introduction 83 LSP-Ping [RFC4379] and [I-D.ietf-bfd-mpls] are OAM mechanisms for 84 MPLS LSPs. This document describes ACH encapsulation for LSP-Ping, 85 to enable use of LSP-Ping when IP addressing is not in use. When IP 86 addressing is in use, procedures specified in [RFC4379] apply as is. 87 This document also clarifies the use of BFD for MPLS LSPs using ACH 88 encapsulation, when IP addressing may not be available and/or it may 89 not be desirable to encapsulate BFD packets in IP. 91 1.1. Conventions used in this document 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 95 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 97 1.2. LSP-Ping and BFD over ACH 99 In certain MPLS-TP deployment scenarios IP addressing might not be 100 available or it may be preferred to use non-IP encapsulation for LSP- 101 Ping and BFD packets. To enable re-use of OAM techniques provided by 102 LSP-Ping and BFD in such networks, rest of this document defines 103 extensions to LSP-Ping and procedures for using BFD. 105 Sections Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 describe a new ACH code-point 106 for performing LSP-Ping over ACH. Section Section 3 describes 107 procedures for using BFD over ACH. 109 2. LSP-Ping extensions 111 2.1. LSP-Ping packet over ACH for LSPs 113 [RFC5586] defines an ACH mechanism for MPLS LSPs. This document 114 defines a new ACH channel type for LSP-Ping, when IP addressing is 115 not in use, for LSP-Ping over associated bi-directional LSPs and co- 116 routed bi-directional LSPs. 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 2 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 121 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | LSP-Ping Channel Type | 122 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 124 Figure 1: LSP-Ping ACH Channel Type 126 When ACH header is used, an LSP-Ping packet will look as follows: 128 0 1 2 3 129 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 2 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 | MPLS Label stack | 132 | | 133 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 134 | GAL | 135 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 136 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | LSP-Ping Channel Type | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 | ACH TLVs | 139 | | 140 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 141 | LSP-Ping payload | 142 | | 143 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 145 Figure 2: LSP-Ping packet with ACH 147 When using LSP-Ping over the ACH header, the LSP-Ping Reply mode 148 [RFC4379] in the LSP-Ping echo request MUST be set to 4 (Reply via 149 application level control channel). 151 2.2. LSP-Ping packet over ACH for PWs 153 [RFC4385] defines an PW-ACH mechanism for pseudowires. The ACH 154 channel type for LSP-Ping defined in Section 2.1 will be re-used for 155 pseudowires so that IP addressing is not needed when using LSP-Ping 156 OAM over pseudowires. 158 2.3. Source Address TLV 160 When sending LSP-Ping packets using ACH, without IP encapsulation, 161 there MAY be a need to identify the source address of the packet. 162 This source address will be specified via the Source Address TLV, 163 being defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv]. Only 1 source address 164 TLV MUST be present in a LSP-Ping packet. The source address MUST 165 specify the address of the originator of the packet. If more than 1 166 such TLV is present in a LSP-Ping request packet, then an error of 167 "Malformed echo request received" SHOULD be returned. If more than 1 168 source address TLV is present, then the packet SHOULD be dropped 169 without further processing. 171 2.4. MEP and MIP Identifier 173 When sending LSP-Ping packets using ACH, there MAY be a need to 174 identify the maintenance end point (MEP) and/or the maintenance 175 intermediate point (MIP) being monitored. The MEP/MIP identifiers 176 defined in [I-D.swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers] can be carried in the 177 ACH TLVs [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv] for identification. 179 3. Running BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs 181 [I-D.ietf-bfd-mpls] describes how BFD can be used for Continuity 182 Check for MPLS LSPs. When IP addressing is in use, the procedures 183 described in [I-D.ietf-bfd-mpls] apply as is. This section clarifies 184 the usage of BFD in the context of MPLS-TP LSPs when it is not 185 desirable to use IP encapsulation. When using BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs, 186 the BFD descriminator MAY either be signaled via LSP-Ping or be 187 statically configured. The BFD packets MUST be sent over ACH when IP 188 encapsulation is not used. The ACH Channel type MUST be set to the 189 value specified in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd]. BFD packets, for both 190 directions, MUST be sent over the MPLS-TP LSP and IP forwarding 191 SHOULD NOT be used for the reverse path. The format of a BFD packet 192 when using it as an OAM tool for MPLS-TP LSPs SHOULD be as follows: 194 0 1 2 3 195 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 2 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 | MPLS Label stack | 198 | | 199 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 200 | GAL | 201 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 202 |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | Channel Type | 203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 204 | ACH TLVs | 205 | | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 | BFD payload | 208 | | 209 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 Figure 3: BFD packet over MPLS-TP LSPs 213 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd] specifies how BFD can be used over MPLS PWs. 215 BFD supports continuous fault monitoring and thus meets the pro- 216 active Continuity Check and verification requirement specified in 217 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements]. BFD SHOULD be run pro-actively. 218 This function SHOULD be performed between End Points (MEPs) of PWs, 219 LSPs and Sections. For point to multipoint Continuity Check, there 220 is work in progress on using BFD for P2MP MPLS LSPs ( 222 [I-D.katz-ward-bfd-multipoint]) and this can be leveraged for MPLS-TP 223 LSPs as well. Failure of a BFD session over a LSP can be used to 224 trigger protection switching or other fault remedial procedures. 226 When sending BFD packets using ACH, there MAY be a need to identify 227 the maintenance end point (MEP) and/or the maintenance intermediate 228 point (MIP) being monitored. The MEP/MIP identifiers defined in 229 [I-D.swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers] can be carried in the ACH TLVs 230 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv] for identification. 232 4. Security Considerations 234 The draft does not introduce any new security considerations. Those 235 discussed in [RFC4379] are also applicable to this document. 237 5. IANA Considerations 239 5.1. New ACH Channel Type 241 A new Channel type is defined in Section 2.1. IANA is requested to 242 assign a new value from the "PW Associated Channel Type" registry, as 243 per IETF consensus policy. 245 Value Meaning 246 ----- ------- 247 TBD Associated Channel carries LSP-Ping packet 249 6. References 251 6.1. Normative References 253 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 254 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 256 [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol 257 Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, 258 February 2006. 260 [RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson, 261 "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for 262 Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006. 264 6.2. Informative References 266 [I-D.ietf-bfd-mpls] 267 Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow, 268 "BFD For MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 (work in 269 progress), June 2008. 271 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv] 272 Boutros, S., Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., Swallow, G., and 273 D. Ward, "Definition of ACH TLV Structure", 274 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-01 (work in progress), 275 February 2010. 277 [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements] 278 Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for 279 OAM in MPLS Transport Networks", 280 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements-04 (work in progress), 281 December 2009. 283 [I-D.ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd] 284 Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding 285 Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit 286 Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", 287 draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-07 (work in progress), July 2009. 289 [I-D.katz-ward-bfd-multipoint] 290 Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for Multipoint Networks", 291 draft-katz-ward-bfd-multipoint-02 (work in progress), 292 February 2009. 294 [I-D.swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers] 295 Bocci, M. and G. Swallow, "MPLS-TP Identifiers", 296 draft-swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers-02 (work in progress), 297 October 2009. 299 [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic 300 Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. 302 Authors' Addresses 304 Nitin Bahadur (editor) 305 Juniper Networks, Inc. 306 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 307 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 308 US 310 Phone: +1 408 745 2000 311 Email: nitinb@juniper.net 312 URI: www.juniper.net 314 Rahul Aggarwal (editor) 315 Juniper Networks, Inc. 316 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 317 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 318 US 320 Phone: +1 408 745 2000 321 Email: rahul@juniper.net 322 URI: www.juniper.net 324 David Ward (editor) 325 Juniper Networks, Inc. 326 1194 N. Mathilda Avenue 327 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 328 US 330 Phone: +1 408 745 2000 331 Fax: 332 Email: dward@juniper.net 333 URI: www.juniper.net 335 Thomas D. Nadeau 336 BT 337 BT Centre 338 81 Newgate Street 339 London EC1A 7AJ 340 United Kingdom 342 Email: tom.nadeau@bt.co 343 Nurit Sprecher 344 Nokia Siemens Networks 345 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B 346 Hod Hasharon 45241 347 Israel 349 Phone: +972-9-775 1229 350 Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com 352 Yaacov Weingarten 353 Nokia Siemens Networks 354 3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B 355 Hod Hasharon 45241 356 Israel 358 Phone: +972-9-775 1827 359 Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com