Network Working Group M. Chen Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan Intended status: Standards Track Infinera Expires: March 31, 2012 C. Pignataro R. Asati Cisco September 28, 2011 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-02 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. Specifically, the Pseudowire FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanism are implicitly defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge (PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6 addresses. There is, additionally, a degree of potential ambiguity in the specification of these sub-TLVs since the address family is not explicitly specified but it is to be inferred from the sub-TLV length. This document updates RFC4379 to explicitly constraint these existing PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions, and extends Pseudowire LSP Ping to the IPv6 scenario where an IPv6 LDP session is used to signal the Pseudowire (i.e., where the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses are IPv6 addresses.) This is done by defining two new LSP Ping sub- TLVs for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs. 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 Chen, et al. Expires March 31, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping September 2011 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 March 31, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 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. Chen, et al. Expires March 31, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping September 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 March 31, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping September 2011 1. Introduction Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. This mechanism can be used to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). Currently, three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) sub-TLVs (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated, FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire) are defined (see Section 3.2 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 IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV definition, this can be inferred indirectly only calculating the Length of the sub-TLVs. When IPv6 target LDP session is used, these existing sub-TLVs can not therefore be used. Additionally, all other sub-TLVs are defined in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, and not for PW sub-TLVs. This document updates [RFC4379] to make explicit the IPv4 nature of the existing PW sub-TLVs, and also defines 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, confusion, and backwards compatibility issues. 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) Chen, et al. Expires March 31, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping September 2011 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: 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: TBD. Length: it defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-TLV and its value is 38. Chen, et al. Expires March 31, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping September 2011 Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. 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: 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: TBD. 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. Chen, et al. Expires March 31, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping September 2011 Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. The other fields are same as FEC 129 Pseudowire [RFC4379]. 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 ... TBD 38 IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire TBD 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 ] Update the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to point to this document: Chen, et al. Expires March 31, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping September 2011 Type Sub-Type Value Field ---- -------- ----------- 1 9 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) 1 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 1 11 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire 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 and Tom Petch. 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-ipv6-05 (work in progress), August 2011. Chen, et al. Expires March 31, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping September 2011 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 March 31, 2012 [Page 9]