Network Working Group M. Chen Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan Intended status: Standards Track Infinera Expires: April 27, 2013 C. Pignataro R. Asati Cisco October 24, 2012 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-03 Abstract Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs. The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage. This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2013. Copyright Notice Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping October 2012 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping October 2012 1. Introduction Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. These mechanisms can be used to detect data plane failures in all MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage. Specifically, the PW FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP Ping and traceroute mechanism are defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge (PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6 addresses. Three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated, FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These sub-TLVs contain the source and destination addresses of the target LDP session, and currently only IPv4 target LDP session is covered. Despite the fact that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths of the Sender's/Remote PE Address fields, or calculating the Length of the sub-TLVs (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). When an IPv6 target LDP session is used, therefore these existing sub-TLVs can not be used since the addresses will not fit. Additionally, all other sub- TLVs are defined in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not the PW sub-TLVs. This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constrain the existing PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions, and extends the PW LSP Ping to IPv6 LDP sessions (i.e., when IPv6 LDP sessions are used to signal the PW, the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses are IPv6 addresses). This is done by renaming the existing PW sub-TLVs to say "IPv4", and also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV and IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV) to extend the application of PW LSP Ping and traceroute to the IPv6 usage when an IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is used to signal the Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined for IPv6 in this document. 2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Section 4 and Section 6. This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity and confusion, and to clarify that these TLVs carry only IPv4 addresses. Note that the changes are limited to the names of fields; there are no semantic changes. Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping October 2012 Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and state: "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) "FEC 128" Pseudowire "FEC 129" Pseudowire These names and titles are now changed to: IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, these three sections state: Sender's PE Address Remote PE Address These are now updated to say: Sender's PE IPv4 Address Remote PE IPv4 Address 3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs 3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of [RFC4379]. The encoding of IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV is as follows: Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping October 2012 0 1 2 3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv6 FEC 128 PW Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PW ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PW Type | Must Be Zero | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 FEC 128 PW Type: TBD1. 2 octets. Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub- TLV and its value is 38. 2 octets. Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. 16 octets. Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. 16 octets. PW ID: Same as IPv4 FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. PW Type: Same as IPv4 FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV is applicable to be a sub-TLV for inclusion in the Reply Path TLV [I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] for expressing a specific return path. 3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]. The encoding of IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire is as follows: Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping October 2012 0 1 2 3 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv6 FEC 129 PW Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ AGI Value ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ SAII Value (continued) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ TAII Value (continued) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 FEC 129 PW Type: TBD2. 2 octets. Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub- TLV. 2 octets The length of this TLV is 40 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII length. Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4; the length of the padding is not included in the Length field. Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. 16 octets. Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. 16 octets. The other fields are same as IPv4 FEC 129 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV is applicable to be a sub-TLV for inclusion in the Reply Path TLV [I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] for expressing a specific return path. Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping October 2012 4. Summary of Changes Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack. Per the change described in Section 2 and Section 3, the table would show the following: Sub-Type Length Value Field -------- ------ ----------- ... 9 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (deprecated) 10 14 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 11 16+ IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire ... TBD1 38 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire TBD2 40+ IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 5. Operation This document does not define any new procedures. The process described in [RFC4379] MUST be used. 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to perform the following assignments in the "Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry. [RFC Editor: To be REMOVED prior to publication. This registration should take place at ] The following Sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two additions, are made for two TLV Types in the aforementioned sub- registry: TLV Type 1 for "Target FEC Stack", and TLV Type 21 for "Reply Path". Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to also point to this document: Type Sub-Type Value Field ---- -------- ----------- 1 9 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) 1 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 1 11 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping October 2012 Create two new entries for the Sub-Type field of Target FEC TLV (see Section 3): Type Sub-Type Value Field ---- -------- ----------- 1 TBD1 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 1 TBD2 IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 7. Security Considerations This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here. 8. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim, Tom Petch, Spike Curtis, Loa Andersson, and Kireeti Kompella. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro, "Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-07 (work in progress), June 2012. [I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., JOUNAY, F., and S. DeLord, "Return Path Specified LSP Ping", draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-11 (work in progress), October 2012. Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping October 2012 Authors' Addresses Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District Beijing 100085 China Email: mach@huawei.com Ping Pan Infinera US Email: ppan@infinera.com Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems 7200-12 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US Email: cpignata@cisco.com Rajiv Asati Cisco Systems 7025-6 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US Email: rajiva@cisco.com Chen, et al. Expires April 27, 2013 [Page 9]