Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7743.
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Luo Jian , Lizhong Jin , Thomas Nadeau , George Swallow | ||
Last updated | 2015-04-28 | ||
Replaces | draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-10)
by Joel Halpern
Ready w/issues
|
||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
Associated WG milestone |
|
||
Document shepherd | Loa Andersson | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2014-10-13 | ||
IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7743 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
Send notices to | mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@ietf.org | ||
IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed |
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-08
IDR Working Group R. Raszuk, Ed. Internet-Draft Bloomberg LP Intended status: Standards Track C. Cassar Expires: July 11, 2016 Cisco Systems E. Aman TeliaSonera B. Decraene S. Litkowski Orange K. Wang Juniper Networks January 8, 2016 BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR) draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-11 Abstract This document proposes a solution for BGP route reflectors to allow them to choose the best path their clients would have chosen under the same conditions, without requiring further state or any new features to be placed on the clients. This facilitates, for example, best exit point policy (hot potato routing). This solution is primarily applicable in deployments using centralized route reflectors. The solution relies upon all route reflectors learning all paths which are eligible for consideration. Best path selection is performed in each route reflector based on a configured virtual location in the IGP. The location can be the same for all clients or different per peer/update group or per peer. Best path selection can also be performed based on user configured policies in each route reflector. 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 Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 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 July 11, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Existing/Alternative Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Proposed Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Client's Perspective IGP Based Best Path Selection . . . 5 2.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection . . 6 2.3. Solution Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. CPU and Memory Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Advantages and Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1. Introduction There are three types of BGP deployments within Autonomous Systems today: full mesh, confederations and route reflection. BGP route reflection [RFC4456] is the most popular way to distribute BGP routes between BGP speakers belonging to the same Autonomous System. In some situations, this method suffers from non-optimal path selection. Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 1.1. Problem Statement [RFC4456] asserts that, because the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) cost to a given point in the network will vary across routers, "the route reflection approach may not yield the same route selection result as that of the full IBGP mesh approach." One practical implication of this assertion is that the deployment of route reflection may thwart the ability to achieve hot potato routing. Hot potato routing attempts to direct traffic to the best AS exit point in cases where no higher priority policy dictates otherwise. As a consequence of the route reflection method, the choice of exit point for a route reflector and its clients will be the exit point best for the route reflector - not necessarily the one best for the RR clients. Section 11 of [RFC4456] describes a deployment approach and a set of constraints which, if satisfied, would result in the deployment of route reflection yielding the same results as the iBGP full mesh approach. This deployment approach makes route reflection compatible with the application of hot potato routing policy. In accordance with these design rules, route reflectors have traditionally often been deployed in the forwarding path and carefully placed on the POP to core boundaries. The evolving model of intra-domain network design has enabled deployments of route reflectors outside of the forwarding path. Initially this model was only employed for new address families, e.g. L3VPNs and L2VPNs. This model has been gradually extended to other BGP address families including IPv4 and IPv6 Internet using either native routing or 6PE. In such environments, hot potato routing policy remains desirable. Route reflectors outside of the forwarding path can be placed on the POP to core boundaries, but they are often placed in arbitrary locations in the core of large networks. Such deployments suffer from a critical drawback in the context of best path selection: A route reflector with knowledge of multiple paths for a given prefix will typically pick its best path and only advertise that best path to its clients. If the best path for a prefix is selected on the basis of an IGP tie break, the path advertised will be the exit point closest to the route reflector. But the clients will be in a different place in the network topology than the route reflector. In networks where the route reflectors are not in the forwarding path, this difference will be even more acute. Beside this, there are also deployment scenarios where service providers want to have more control of choosing the exit points for clients based on other factors like traffic type, traffic load, etc. Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 This further complicated the issue and makes it less likely for the route reflector to select the best path from the client's perspective. It follows that the best path chosen by the route reflector is not necessarily the same as the path which would have been chosen by the client if the client had considered the same set of candidate paths as the route reflector. 1.2. Existing/Alternative Solutions One possible valid solution or workaround to the best path selection problem requires sending all domain external paths from the RR to all its clients. This approach suffers the significant drawback of pushing a large amount of BGP state to all edge routers. Many networks receive full Internet routing information in a large number of locations. This could easily result in tens of paths for each prefix that would need to be distributed to clients. Notwithstanding this drawback, there are a number of reasons for sending more than just the single best path to the clients. Improved path diversity at the edge is a requirement for fast connectivity restoration, and a requirement for effective BGP level load balancing. In practical terms, add/diverse path deployments are expected to result in the distribution of 2, 3 or n (where n is a small number) 'good&Luo, et al. Expires October 30, 2015 [Page 11] Internet-Draft MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply April 2015 5. LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply Example Considering the inter-AS scenario in Figure 4 below. AS1 and AS2 are two independent address domains. In the example, an LSP has been created between PE1 to PE2, but PE1 in AS1 is not reachable by P2 in AS2. +-------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | PE1 +---+ P1 +---+ ASBR1+---+ ASBR2+---+ P2 +---+ PE2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ <---------------AS1-------------><---------------AS2------------> <--------------------------- LSP -------------------------------> Figure 4: Example Inter-AS LSP When performing LSP traceroute on the LSP, the first Echo Request sent by PE1 with outer-most label TTL=1, contains the Relay Node Address Stack TLV with PE1's address as the first relayed address. After processed by P1, P1's interface address facing ASBR1 without the K bit set will be added in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV address list following PE1's address in the Echo Reply. PE1 copies the Relay Node Address Stack TLV into the next Echo Request when receiving the Echo Reply. Upon receiving the Echo Request, ASBR1 checks the address list in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV, and determines that PE1's address is the next relay address. Then deletes P1's address, and adds its interface address facing ASBR2 with the K bit set. As a result, there would be PE1's address followed by ASBR1's interface address facing ASBR2 in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV of the Echo Reply sent by ASBR1. PE1 then sends an Echo Request with outer-most label TTL=3, containing the Relay Node Address Stack TLV copied from the received Echo Reply message. Upon receiving the Echo Request message, ASBR2 checks the address list in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV, and determines ASBR1's interface address is the next relay address in the stack TLV. ASBR2 adds its interface address facing P2 with the K bit set. Then ASBR2 sets the next relay address as the destination address of the Relayed Echo Reply, and sends the Relayed Echo Reply to ASBR1. Luo, et al. Expires October 30, 2015 [Page 12] Internet-Draft MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply April 2015 Upon receiving the Relayed Echo Reply from ASBR2, ASBR1 checks the address list in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV, and determines that PE1's address is the next relay node. Then ASBR1 sends an Echo Reply to PE1. For the Echo Request with outer-most label TTL=4, P2 checks the address list in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV, and determines that ASBR2's interface address is the next relay address. Then P2 sends an Relayed Echo Reply to ASBR2 with the Relay Node Address Stack TLV containing four addresses, PE1's, ASBR1's interface address, ASBR2's interface address and P2's interface address facing PE2 in sequence. Then according to the process described in section 4.4, ASBR2 sends the Relayed Echo Reply to ASBR1. Upon receiving the Relayed Echo Reply, ASBR1 sends an Echo Reply to PE1. And as relayed by ASBR2 and ASBR1, the Echo Reply would finally be sent to the initiator PE1. For the Echo Request with outer-most label TTL=5, the Echo Reply would relayed to PE1 by ASBR2 and ASBR1, similar to the case of TTL=4. The Echo Reply from the replying node which has no IP reachable route to the initiator is thus transmitted to the initiator by multiple relay nodes. 6. Security Considerations The Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping creates an increased risk of DoS by putting the IP address of a target router in the Relay Node Address Stack. These messages then could be used to attack the control plane of an LSR by overwhelming it with these packets. A rate limiter SHOULD be applied to the well-known UDP port on the relay node as suggested in [RFC4379]. The node which acts as a relay node SHOULD validate the relay reply against a set of valid source addresses and discard packets from untrusted border router addresses. An implementation SHOULD provide such filtering capabilities. If an operator wants to obscure their nodes, it is RECOMMENDED that they may replace the replying node address that originated the Echo Reply with NIL address entry in Relay Node Address Stack TLV. A receiver of an MPLS Echo Request could verify that the first address in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is the same address as the source IP address field of the received IP header. Other security considerations discussed in [RFC4379], are also applicable to this document. Luo, et al. Expires October 30, 2015 [Page 13] Internet-Draft MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply April 2015 7. Backward Compatibility When one of the nodes along the LSP does not support the mechanism specified in this document, the node will ignore the Relay Node Address Stack TLV as described in section 4.2. Then the initiator may not receive the Relay Node Address Stack TLV in Echo Reply message from that node. In this case, an indication should be reported to the operator, and the Relay Node Address Stack TLV in the next Echo Request message should be copied from the previous Echo Request, and continue the ping process. If the node described above is located between the initiator and the first relay node, the ping process could continue without interruption. 8. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to assign one new Message Type, one new TLV and one Return Code. 8.1. New Message Type This document requires allocation of one new message type from "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, the "Message Type" registry: Value Meaning ----- ------- TBD MPLS Relayed Echo Reply The value should be assigned from the "Standards Action" range (0-191), and using the lowest free value within this range. 8.2. New TLV This document requires allocation of one new TLV from "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, the "TLVs" registry: Type Meaning ---- -------- TBD Relay Node Address Stack TLV A suggested value should be assigned from "Standards Action" range (32768-49161) as suggested by [RFC4379] Section 3, using the first free value within this range. Luo, et al. Expires October 30, 2015 [Page 14] #x27; paths rather than all domain external paths. While the route reflector chooses one set of n paths and distributes those same n paths to all its route reflector clients, those n paths may not be the right n paths for all clients. In the context of the problem described above, those n paths will not necessarily include the best exit point out of the network for each route reflector client. The mechanisms proposed in this document are likely to be complementary to mechanisms aimed at improving path diversity. 2. Proposed Solutions The goal of this document is to allow a route reflector to choose the best path the client would have chosen had the client considered the same set of candidate paths the reflector has available. For purposes of route selection, the perspective of a client can differ from that of a route reflector or another client in two distinct ways: it can, and usually will, have a different position in the IGP topology, and it can have a different routing policy. These correspond to the issues described earlier. Accordingly, we propose two distinct modifications to the best path algorithm, to address these two distinct factors. A route reflector can implement either or both of the modifications, as needed in order to allow it to Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 choose the best path the client would have chosen had the client considered the same set of candidate paths. Both modifications rely upon all route reflectors learning all paths which are eligible for consideration. In order to satisfy this requirement, path diversity enhancing mechanisms such as ADD-PATH/ diverse paths may need to be deployed between route reflectors. A significant advantage of these approaches is that the RR clients do not need to run new software or hardware. 2.1. Client's Perspective IGP Based Best Path Selection The core of this solution is the ability for an operator to specify on a per route reflector basis or per peer/update group basis or per peer basis the virtual IGP location placement of the route reflector. This enables having a given group of clients receive routes with optimal distance to the next hops from the position of the configured virtual IGP location. This also provides for freedom of route reflector location and allows transient or permanent migration of such network control plane function to optimal location. The choice of specific granularity is left to the implementation decision. An implementation is considered compliant with the document if it supports at least one listed grouping of virtual IGP placement. In this document we refer to optimal as the decision made during best path selection at the IGP metric to BGP next hop comparison step. This approach does not apply to path selection preference based other policy steps and provisions. The computation of the virtual IGP location with any of the above described granularity is outside of the scope of this document. The operator may configure it manually, implementation may automate it based on specified heuristic or it can be computed centrally and configured by an external system. The solution does not require any BGP or IGP protocol changes as required changes are contained within the RR implementation. The solution applies to NLRIs of all address families which can be route reflected. Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 2.2. Client's Perspective Policy Based Best Path Selection Optimal route reflection based on virtual IGP location could reflect the best path to the client from IGP cost perspective. However, there are also cases where the client might want best path from perspectives beyond IGP cost. Examples include, but not limited to: o Select the best path for the clients from a traffic engineering perspective. o Dedicate certain exit points for certain ingress points. The solution proposed here is to allow the user to apply a general policy to select a subset of exit points as the candidate exit points for its clients. For a given client, the policy should also allow service providers to select different candidate exit points for different address families. Regular path selection, including client's perspective IGP based best path selection stated above, will be applied to the candidate paths to select the final paths to advertise to the clients. The policy is applied on the route reflector on behalf of its clients. This way, the route reflector will be able to reflect only the optimal paths to the clients. An additional advantage of this approach is that configuration need only be done on a small number of route reflectors rather than a significantly larger number of clients. 2.3. Solution Interactions Depending on the actual deployment scenarios, service providers may configure IGP based optimal route reflection or policy based optimal route reflection. It's also possible to configure both approaches together. In that case, policy based optimal route reflection will be applied first to select the candidate paths. Subsequently, IGP based optimal route reflection will be applied on top of the candidate paths to select the final path to advertise to the client. The expected use case for optimal route reflection is to avoid reflecting all paths to the client because the client either does not support add-paths or does not have the capacity to process all of the paths. Typically the route reflector would just reflect a single optimal route to the client. However, the solutions MUST NOT prevent reflecting more than one optimal path to the client; the client may want path diversity for load balancing or fast restoration. In case add-path and optimal route reflection are configured together, the route reflector MUST reflect n optimal paths to a client, where n is the add-path count. Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 The most complicated scenario is where add-path is configured together with both IGP based and policy based optimal route reflection. In this scenario, the policy based optimal route reflection will be applied first to select the candidate paths. Subsequently, IGP based optimal route reflection will be applied on top of the candidate paths to select the best n paths to advertise to the client. In IGP based optimal route reflection, even though the virtual IGP location could be specified on a per route reflector basis or per peer group basis or per peer basis, in reality, it's most likely to be specified per peer group basis. All clients with the same or similar IGP location can be grouped into the same peer group. A virtual IGP location is then specified for the peer group. The virtual location is usually specified as the location of one of the clients from the peer group or an ABR to the area where clients are located. Also, one or more backup virtual location SHOULD be allowed to be specified for redundancy. Implementations may wish to take advantage of peer group mechanisms in order to provide for better scalability of optimal route reflector client groups with similar properties. 3. CPU and Memory Scalability For IGP based optimal route reflection, determining the shortest path and associated cost between any two arbitrary points in a network based on the IGP topology learned by a router is expected to add some extra cost in terms of CPU resources. However SPF tree generation code is now implemented efficiently in a number of implementations, and therefore this is not expected to be a major drawback. The number of SPTs computed is expected to be of the order of the number of clients of an RR whenever a topology change is detected. Advanced optimizations like partial and incremental SPF may also be exploited. The number of SPTs computed is expected to be higher but comparable to some existing deployed features such as (Remote) Loop Free Alternate which computes a (r)SPT per IGP neighbor. For policy based optimal route reflection, there will be some overhead to apply the policy to select the candidate paths. This overhead is comparable to existing BGP export policies therefore should be manageable. By the nature of route reflection, the number of clients can be split arbitrarily by the deployment of more route reflectors for a given number of clients. While this is not expected to be necessary in existing networks with best in class route reflectors available today, this avenue to scaling up the route reflection infrastructure would be available. Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 If we consider the overall network wide cost/benefit factor, the only alternative to achieve the same level of optimality would require significantly increasing state on the edges of the network. This will consume CPU and memory resources on all BGP speakers in the network. Building this client perspective into the route reflectors seems appropriate. 4. Advantages and Deployment Considerations The solutions described provide a model for integrating the client perspective into the best path computation for RRs. More specifically, the choice of BGP path factors in either the IGP cost between the client and the nexthop (rather than the distance from the RR to the nexthop) or user configured policies. These solutions can be deployed in traditional hop-by-hop forwarding networks as well as in end-to-end tunneled environments. In the networks where there are multiple route reflectors and hop-by-hop forwarding without encapsulation, such optimizations should be enabled in a consistent way on all route reflectors. Otherwise clients may receive an inconsistent view of the network and in turn lead to intra-domain forwarding loops. With this approach, an ISP can effect a hot potato routing policy even if route reflection has been moved from the forwarding plane and hop-by-hop switching has been replaced by end-to-end MPLS or IP encapsulation. As per above, these approaches reduce the amount of state which needs to be pushed to the edge of the network in order to perform hot potato routing. The memory and CPU resource required at the edge of the network to provide hot potato routing using these approaches is lower than what would be required in order to achieve the same level of optimality by pushing and retaining all available paths (potentially 10s) per each prefix at the edge. The proposals allow for a fast and safe transition to a BGP control plane with centralized route reflection without compromising an operator's closest exit operational principle. This enables edge-to- edge LSP/IP encapsulation for traffic to IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes. Regarding the client's IGP best-path selection, it should be self evident that this solution does not interfere with policies enforced above IGP tie breaking in the BGP best path algorithm. Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 5. Security Considerations No new security issues are introduced to the BGP protocol by this specification. 6. IANA Considerations This document does not request any IANA allocations. 7. Acknowledgments Authors would like to thank Keyur Patel, Eric Rosen, Clarence Filsfils, Uli Bornhauser, Russ White, Jakob Heitz, Mike Shand, Jon Mitchell, John Scudder, Jeff Haas, and Martin Djernaes for their valuable input. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. [RFC4360] Sangli, S., Tappan, D., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP Extended Communities Attribute", RFC 4360, DOI 10.17487/RFC4360, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4360>. [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>. 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-idr-add-paths] Walton, D., Retana, A., Chen, E., and J. Scudder, "Advertisement of Multiple Paths in BGP", draft-ietf-idr- add-paths-13 (work in progress), December 2015. [RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>. Raszuk, et al. Expires July 11, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft bgp-optimal-route-reflection January 2016 [RFC1998] Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC1998, August 1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1998>. [RFC4384] Meyer, D., "BGP Communities for Data Collection", BCP 114, RFC 4384, DOI 10.17487/RFC4384, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4384>. [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>. [RFC4893] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-octet AS Number Space", RFC 4893, DOI 10.17487/RFC4893, May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4893>. [RFC5283] Decraene, B., Le Roux, JL., and I. Minei, "LDP Extension for Inter-Area Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5283, DOI 10.17487/RFC5283, July 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5283>. [RFC5668] Rekhter, Y., Sangli, S., and D. Tappan, "4-Octet AS Specific BGP Extended Community", RFC 5668, DOI 10.17487/RFC5668, October 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5668>. [RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>. [RFC6774] Raszuk, R., Ed., Fernando, R., Patel, K., McPherson, D., and K. Kumaki, "Distribution of Diverse BGP Paths", RFC 6774, DOI 10.17487/RFC6774, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6774>. Internet-Draft MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply April 2015 8.3. MTU Exceeded Return Code This document requires allocation of MTU Exceeded return code from "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, the "Return Codes" registry: Value Meaning ----- ------- TBD One or more TLVs not returned due to MTU size The value should be assigned from the "Standards Action" range (0-191), and using the lowest free value within this range. 9. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Carlos Pignataro, Xinwen Jiao, Manuel Paul, Loa Andersson, Wim Henderickx, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin, Gregory Mirsky, Nobo Akiya and Joel M. Halpern for their valuable comments and suggestions. 10. Contributors Ryan Zheng JSPTPD 371, Zhongshan South Road Nanjing, 210006, China Email: ryan.zhi.zheng@gmail.com 11. References 11.1. 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. 11.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz, M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft- ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014. Luo, et al. Expires October 30, 2015 [Page 15] Internet-Draft MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply April 2015 Authors' Addresses Jian Luo (editor) ZTE 50, Ruanjian Avenue Nanjing, 210012, China Email: luo.jian@zte.com.cn Lizhong Jin (editor) Individual Shanghai, China Email: lizho.jin@gmail.com Thomas Nadeau (editor) Lucidvision Email: tnadeau@lucidvision.com George Swallow (editor) Cisco 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough , MASSACHUSETTS 01719, USA Email: swallow@cisco.com Luo, et al. Expires October 30, 2015 [Page 16]