LSPPing extensions for MPLSTP draftnitinbmplstplsppingextensions00 Nitin Bahadur Sami Boutros Rahul

1
LSP-Ping extensions for MPLS-TP
draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions-00Niti
n Bahadur Sami Boutros Rahul
Aggarwal Eric Gray
2
Background

• This draft specifies extensions to LSP-Ping so
  that LSP- Ping can be used to perform OAM on
  MPLS-TP LSPs in the absence of IP encapsulation.
• LSP-Ping ping function meets the Connectivity
  Verification, Adjacency and Route Tracing
  requirements specified in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-
  requirements.

3
LSP-Ping/trace-route for MPLS-TP LSPs.

• Two modes of operations to run over Bidirectional
  MPLS-TP LSPs-
• 1- Using IP encapsulation.
• Using IP/UDP header RFC4379.
• The Reply mode MUST be via application level
  control channel (4).
• IP/UDP response message MUST be sent on the
  reverse path.
• IP addresses are used for identification.
• 2- Using non-IP encapsulation.
• Using ACH channel type in draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-ls
  p-ping-bfd-procedures.
• The Reply mode MUST be via application level
  control channel (4).
• Ingress node MAY attach a Source/destination
  Address TLVs for identification.

4
LSP-Ping/trace-route extensions
Define New address type for Downstream Mapping
TLV RFC4379 Type 0 Address Type N/A (In
the absence of IP addressing). K Octets 8 -
SHOULD only perform mpls label control-plane/data-
plane consistency checks. Applicable to
Detailed Downstream Mapping TLV in draft-
mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap. Downstream
Mapping TLV is used to get the downstream node
information and to enable LSP verification along
the transit nodes when performing traceroute.
5
LSP-Ping/trace-route extensions without IP
encapsulation

• Source/Destination Address TLVs
• Identify source/destination addresses as defined
  in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv.
• Only one Source Address TLV can exist in the
  packet.
• One or more of Destination Address TLVs MAY be
  included.
• MEP and MIP Identifier
• Identify maintenance end point (MEP) and/or
  maintenance intermediate point (MIP) as defined
  in draft-swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers.
• Only one identifier (MEP or MIP) may be present
  in a packet.

6
P2MP Considerations

• Follows draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping when IP
  addressing is used.
• Use ACH when IP addressing is not used.

7
Future Enhancements

• Define new Target FEC stack for MPLS-TP LSP,
  specifying src, dst, tun-id and LSP-ID.
• Define new Target FEC stack for static PW.
• Define new TLV to specify the sender of hops to
  be able to send the inband reply with the correct
  TTL.
• In LSP-Ping without IP encapsulation, close on
  sender/destination node addresses and
  ME-ID/MEP-ID/MIP-ID formats.

8
Next Steps

• Looking for comments/ feedback on the document.
• Would like the document to be accepted as a WG
  document.