Network Working Group M. Chen Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan Intended status: Standards Track Infinera Expires: February 5, 2012 C. Pignataro Cisco August 4, 2011 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-00 Abstract The Pseudowire FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP Ping mechanism are implicitly defined for IPv4 Provider Edge (PEs) routers. There is, however, a degree of potential ambiguity in the specification of these sub-TLVs since the address family is not specified but could be inferred from the length. This document updates RFC4379 to explicitly constraint these 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 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 February 5, 2012. Chen, et al. Expires February 5, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011 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. 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. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Chen, et al. Expires February 5, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011 1. Introduction Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping is defined in [RFC4379]. It can be used to detect data path failures in all MPLS LSPs and 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. 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. This document updates [RFC4379] to make explicit the IPv4 nature of the 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 to the IPv6 scenario where an IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is used to signal the Pseudowire. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) will not be considered in this document. 2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs This document updates Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Section 5. This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity, confusion, and backwards compatibility issues. Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] state: "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) "FEC 128" Pseudowire "FEC 129" Pseudowire These titles are now changed to: IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire Additionally, these three sections state: Chen, et al. Expires February 5, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011 Sender's PE Address Remote PE Address These are now changed 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 | 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. 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]. Chen, et al. Expires February 5, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011 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 | 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. 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]. Chen, et al. Expires February 5, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011 4. Operation This document does not define any new procedures. The process described in [RFC4379] MUST be used. 5. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to update the Value fields of these two Sub-TLVs, adding the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2): Type Sub-Type Value Field ---- -------- ----------- 1 9 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) 1 10 IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire 1 11 IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire IANA is requested to 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 6. Security Considerations This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here. 7. Acknowledgements 8. References 8.1. 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. Chen, et al. Expires February 5, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft IPv6 PW LSP Ping August 2011 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] Manral, V., Papneja, R., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-04 (work in progress), May 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 Chen, et al. Expires February 5, 2012 [Page 7]