Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane failures
draft-kumar-nvo3-overlay-ping-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Nagendra Kumar Nainar , Carlos Pignataro , Dhananjaya Rao | ||
| Last updated | 2013-07-15 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-kumar-nvo3-overlay-ping-00
nvo3 N. Kumar
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro
Intended status: Standards Track D. Rao
Expires: January 16, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 15, 2013
Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane failures
draft-kumar-nvo3-overlay-ping-00
Abstract
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism to perform
L2 or L3 VN Context validation and to detect any data plane failures
in IPv4 or IPv6 based overlay network providing L2 or L3 virtualized
network.
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 January 16, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Return Code and Return Subcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Target Object TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Downstream Detailed Mapping Extension . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.3. Multipath Information Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. NVO3 Echo Packet Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. When the core is IPv6 network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. When the core is IPv4 network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Sending NVO3 Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Receiving NVO3 Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2.1. Transit Node procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2.2. Edge Node procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Sending NVO3 Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. Receiving NVO3 Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. Dealing with Equal-Cost-Multi-Path (ECMP) . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Message Types, Reply Modes, Return Codes . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
I.D-ietf-nvo3-framework [I-D.ietf-nvo3-framework] specifies a
framework that defines mechanism to support large scale network
virtualization by connecting L2 or L3 virtualized network over L3
tunnels. Various tunneling options like IPv4, IPv6 or MPLS can be
used in underlying network.
Section 3.8 of [I.D-ietf-nvo3-dataplane-requirement] specifies the
requirement of OAM tool that performs connectivity verification and
fault isolation along with revealing ECMP paths between NVE nodes.
While the mechanism described in RFC4379 [RFC4379] helps with
satisfying this OAM requirement when MPLS tunnel is used, there is no
native way to acheive the same when IPv4 or IPv6 is used as tunneling
option.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism to perform
L2 or L3 VN Context validation and to detect any data plane failures
in IPv4 or IPv6 overlay network by re-purposing and extending MPLS
Ping mechanism defined in RFC4379 [RFC4379]. This document also
describes the mechanism to reveal all available paths (multi path)
between any ingress and egress NVE nodes.
2. Requirements notation
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 [RFC2119].
3. Terminology
L2 VN: Layer 2 Virtual Network
L3 VN: Layer 3 Virtual Network
NVE: Network Virtualization Edge
ECMP: Equal Cost multiple path
4. Packet Format
NVO3 PATH Ping packet is a IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet and the basic
structure of the packet remains the same as mentioned in Section 3 of
RFC4379 [RFC4379].
This document introduces a new flag in Global Flags field defined in
RFC4379 [RFC4379]. The new format of the Global Flags field is:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |N|T|V|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The V flag is described in RFC4379 [RFC4379] and T flag is described
in RFC6425 [RFC6425].
The N flag (NVO3 PATH Ping) MUST be set in echo request and reply
packet only when it is used to validate NVO3 Path.
The Message Type is one of the following:
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
Value Meaning
----- -------
11 NVO3 Echo Request
12 NVO3 Echo Reply
The Reply Mode can be one of the following:
Value Meaning
----- -------
11 Do not Reply
12 Reply via IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet
Return codes and Subcodes are described in section 4.1.
The Sender's Handle, Sequence Number, TimeStamp sent and TimeStamp
Received field are as mentioned in Section 3 of RFC4379 [RFC4379].
The TLV format is same as mentioned in [RFC4379] and this document
introduce a new TLV described later.
4.1. Return Code and Return Subcode
Responder uses Return code field to reply with validity check or any
error message to Initiator. It doesnt carry any meaning in Echo
Request and should be set as zero.
The Return Code can be one of the following:
Value Meaning
----- -------
100 No Return Code
101 Malformed Echo Request Received
102 One or more TLVs not understood
103 Egress for the Target
104 No control plane mapping for the Target Object <RSC>
105 Downstream Detailed Mapping mismatch
108 Packet-Forward-OK
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
The Return Subcode contains the pointer in Target Object TLV for
which the Replying node doesnt have a control plane mapping. For
example, when NVE receives Target Object TLV with multiple Sub-TLVs
and if NVE doesnt have an entry for second Sub-TLV should include 2
as RSC value.
4.2. TLV Format
The document introduces the below list of TLVs used in NVO3 Echo
packets:
Type Value Field
------ -----------
101 Target Object
4.2.1. Target Object TLV
Target Object TLV is a list of Sub-TLVs that carries the element
against which the path or control plane validation is done.
This document defines the below Target Object Sub-TLVs:
Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ -----------
1 5 IPv4 prefix
2 17 IPv6 Prefix
3 variable L2 VN ID
4 variable L3 VN ID
NVO3 ECHO Request MUST have a Target Object TLV with atleast one Sub-
TLV which describe the egress node about the element to be validated.
For example, if NVE X wanted to verify that MAC M1 is associated with
VN ID VN1, it carries relevant information like VN ID and the MAC
address in Sub-TLV type 3 and send to egress NVE. Egress NVE on
receiving NVO3 Echo Request will validate the Target Object and will
reply back with respective Return Code.
New Sub-TLVs can be proposed as and when required in future.
4.2.2. Downstream Detailed Mapping Extension
This document extends the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV defined in
Section 3.3 of RFC6424 [RFC6424] to be used in NVO3 scenarios with
IPv4 or IPv6 based core network. This document introdues a new DS
flag and the format is as below:
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Rsvd(MBZ)|P|I|N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
P Set when used in NVO3 Ping
The P flag (NVO3 Path ping) MUST be set in Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV only when it is used in NVO3 scenarios. When P flag is
set, I flag MUST NOT be set.
For simplicity, The DDMAP with N flag set in DS flag will be referred
as NVO3 DDMAP in this document.
This document also defines the below new multipath types to be used
in NVO3 Path ping.
Type Meaning Multipath information
-------- -------------- -----------------------
11 UDP Port Mask UDP Port and bit mask
12 Flow Label Mask IPv6 Flow label and bit mask
Multipath Information
UDP port or IPv6 Flow label range encoded according to the
Multipath type. The next section explains the encoding details.
4.2.3. Multipath Information Encoding
Based on the Multipath type, the Multipath Information encodes Flow
label range or UDP port range that will excercise each path. The
Multipath encoding follows the same procedure specifies in
Section 3.3.1 of RFC4379 [RFC4379]. For completeness, it is
explained in this document with UDP port range and IPv6 FLow label
range.
Multipath type 1 encodes UDP port range. The UDP prefix is formatted
as a base UDP port value with non-prefix low-order bits set to zero.
Since the UDp port is 16 bits, the leading 16 bits are set as zeros.
The maximum prefix (including leading zeros) length can be 27.
Following the prefix is a mask of length 2^(32-prefix-length) bits.
Each bit set to one represents a valid UDP port. UDP port values of
all the odd numbers between 32704 and 3267 would be encoded as below:
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Multipath type 2 encoded IPv6 Fow label range. The formatting is as
mentioned above for UDP port range except that the leading zeros are
set for leading 8 bits.
If the received Multipath Information is non-null, the UDP ports or
IPv6 Flow labels MUST be picked from the set provided. if the range
in received set cannot be mapped to a particular downstream
interface, the type MUST be set to 0 for that interface while
replying. If the received Multipath type is null, the type MUST be
set to 0 while replying.
5. NVO3 Echo Packet Indicator
Unlike MPLS LSP Echo, the IP destination address in NVO3 Echo packet
will be the actual destination of egress node and this raises a need
to have an OAM indicator that can be used by transit nodes to
differentiate between NVO3 Echo packet and data packet. This
document explains the same as below:
5.1. When the core is IPv6 network
This document proposes the below IPv6 Extension header and the format
is as below:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len |R|R|R|R|R|R|R|R|R|R|R|R|R|R|R|N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. Sub-TLVs .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
N flag
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
NVO3 OAM Indicator
Any node on initiating NVO3 Echo Request MUST include IPv6 OAM
Extension Header with NVO3 OAM flag set. Any node on replying back
with NVO3 Echo Reply MUST include IPv6 OAM Extension Header with NVO3
OAM flag set. Any transit node on receiving IPv6 destinated packet
with TTL=1 SHOULD interpret the payload as NVO3 ECHO packet if IPv6
OAM Extension header is present.
5.2. When the core is IPv4 network
Any transit node on receiving IPv4 destinated packet with TTL=1
SHOULD interpret the payload as NVO3 ECHO packet if UDP port is 3503.
6. Theory of Operation
NVO3 Echo Request and Reply packet are UDP packet with destination
port as 3503. This section describes the procedure in Initiating and
responding nodes.
6.1. Sending NVO3 Echo Request
Initiator MUST include the respective Sub-TLV for the target(s) to be
validated (L2 or L3 VNI or NVE address) in Target Object TLV. It
also MUST set the N flag in Global Flags (Section 4) and set the
message type as 11. The Reply mode is set to the desired mode ( type
11 or 12); Return code and Return Subcode are set to zero. The
Sender's Handle and Sequence number are set by Initiator.
The source UDP port can be choosen by the Initiator and the
destination UDP port is set to 3503. The IP header is set as
follows: the source IP address is a routable address of the sender;
the destination IP address is the target egress NVE address. When
the core is IPv6 network, Initiator MUST include IPv6 OAM Extension
header.
In ping mode (Connectivity check), the IP TTL is set to 255. In
traceroute mode (Fault isolation), the IP TTL is set successively
from 1 and MUST stop sending the Request if it receives a reply with
Return code 103 or 104.
6.2. Receiving NVO3 Echo Request
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
Sending an NVO3 Echo Request to control plane for payload processsing
is done by IP TTL expiration in case of IPv4 and a combination of IP
TTL expiration and IPv6 OAM Extension header incase of IPv6. The
control plane further identifies it as NVO3 Echo packet by a
combination of UDP destion port 3503 and N flag in Global flag field
(Section 4).
Any node on receiving NVO3 Echo Request MUST send Echo Reply with
Return code "Malformed Echo Request received" to Initiator if the
packet fails sanity check. If the sanity check for NVO3 Echo Request
is fine, Any node should store the below temporary variables:
o Interface-I: Interface over which Echo Request is received.
o Address-A: Local address on Interface-I.
o Index-I: Interface Index for upstream node interface connected to
Interface-I.
o Destination-D: Destination address of the NVO3 Echo Request.
6.2.1. Transit Node procedure
Any transit node on receiving NVO3 Echo Request should perform the
below:
1. Transit node MUST only check the first (or top) Sub-TLV and MUST
NOT iterate to other Sub-TLVs beneath. Ideally the first Sub-TLV
will be IPv4 prefix or IPv6 prefix Sub-TLV on which the transit
node is required to act upon. It MUST set the Return code as
"One or more TLVs not understood" if the first (or top) Sub-TLV
in Target Object TLV is not understood.
2. If the TLV is understood, Tranit node MUST perform longest match
lookup in its local forwarding table and set the Return code as
"Replying node has no control plane mapping for the Target
Object" and Return Subcode as 1, if there is no matching entry
for the prefix in Sub-TLV in its local forwarding table.
3. If the received NVO3 Echo Request has NVO3 Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV MUST set the Return code as "Downstream Detailed
Mapping mismatch" if any of the below fails:
* When Address Type is 1, Address-A SHOULD match Downstream
Interface Index and Router ID or Address-A SHOULD match
Downstream Address.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
* When Address Type is 2 or 4, Index-I SHOULD match Downstream
Interface Index and Router ID SHOULD match Downstream Address.
* When Address Type is 3, Address-A SHOULD match Downstream
Interface Index and Router ID SHOULD match Downstream Address.
4. If the IP prefix in Sub-TLV matches any entry in local forwarding
table and if step 4 satisfies the received NVO3 DDMAP or if there
is no NVO3 DDMAP received in Echo Request, Transit node MUST set
the Return code as "Packet-Forward-OK" and set DDMAP field for
each available multipath egress interface in forwarding table.
5. If the received NVO3 Echo Request has Multipath information sub-
TLV in NVO3 DDMAP, Transit node MUST reply as mentioned section
5.5.
6.2.2. Edge Node procedure
Any Edge node (NVE) on receiving NVO3 Echo Request should perform the
below:
1. If the sanity check is fine, NVE MUST check all the Sub-TLVs and
MUST set the Return code as "One or more TLVs not understood" if
any of the TLV is not understood.
2. If the TLVs are understood, NVE node MUST send Echo Reply with
Return code "Replying node has no control plane mapping for the
Target Object" and Return Subcode as 1, if there is no matching
entry in local forwarding table to take a forwarding decision.
3. NVE node MUST set the Return code as "Replying node is the egress
for the Target" if the IP address in first (or top) Sub-TLV in
Target Object TLV is locally configured to this node and there is
no further sub-TLV in Target Object TLV
4. If the Target Object TLV have more than one Sub-TLV, NVE MUST
validate all the Sub-TLVs and set the Return code as "Replying
node has no control plane mapping for the Target Object" and
Return Subcode as pointer of the Sub-TLV which fails the
validation.
5. If the received Echo Request has NVO3 Downstream Detailed Mapping
TLV MUST check as mentioned in step 4 of section 6.2.1.
6. If the validation for all Sub-TLVs in Target Object TLV is fine,
NVE MUST set Return code as "Replying node is the egress for the
Target" and SHOULD NOT include NVO3 DDMAP.
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
6.3. Sending NVO3 Echo Reply
NVO3 Echo Reply is a UDP packet and MUST be sent only in response to
received NVO3 Echo Request. The format of NVO3 Echo Reply is same as
Echo request.
Responder MUST fill the DDMAP field, Return Code and Return Subcode
from previous section. It MUST also set the N flag in Global Flags
and set the message type as 12. The Sender's Handle, Sequence Number
field MUST be copied from the received Echo Request.
The source UDP port is set to 3503 and the source UDP port of
received Echo Request is copied to destination UDP port of Echo
Reply. The IP header is set as follows: the source IP address is a
routable address of the responder; the destination IP address is
coped from source address of Echo Request and IP TTL is set to 255.
When the core is IPv6 network, Responder MUST include IPv6 OAM
Extension Header.
6.4. Receiving NVO3 Echo Reply
Any node should receive NVO3 Echo Reply only in response to an NVO3
Echo Request that it sent. Initiator MUST drop the packet if it
fails sanity check. If the sanity check is fine, the Echo Reply
should be mapped with the respective Echo Request using the
destination port and Sender's Handle. if there is no match, the Echo
Reply MUST be ignored. Else, it checks the Sequence Number to match
the iteration.
In traceroute mode, If the Echo Reply contains NVO3 DDMAP, it SHOULD
copy the same to subsequent Echo Request(s).
6.5. Dealing with Equal-Cost-Multi-Path (ECMP)
For redundancy and load balancing purpose, It is common to see
multiple equal cost paths between ingress and egress NVE and it is a
local matter to transit node to decide the egress interface based on
local hashing algorithm. It is common to see deployment with routers
that support load-balancing based on UDP ports or based on IPv6 Flow
label. So it is useful to have the OAM tool to exercise all possible
paths between ingress and egress NVEs.
This can be achieved using Multipath Information Sub-TLV in NVO3
DDMAP. This can be used as follows:
o When the core is IPv6 network, the Initiator will send Echo
Request in traceroute mode (start with TTL as 1 and increment for
subsequent message) with Multipath type set to 2. Any transit
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
node will include multipath encoding for each downstream interface
in a way that the local hashing decision based on IPv6 flow label
will use the respective downstream path. Initiator will then send
NVO3 Echo Request with respective Flow label to excercise these
paths.
o When the core is Ipv4 network, the Initiator will send Echo
Request in traceroute mode with Multipath type set to 1. Any
transit node will include multipath encoding for each downstream
interface in a way that local hashing decision based on UDP port
will use the respective downstream path. initiator will then send
NVO3 Echo Request with respective UDP port as source port to
excercise these paths.
7. IANA Considerations
This document reuse UDP port 3503 for NVO3 Echo packets.
7.1. Message Types, Reply Modes, Return Codes
This document request to assign the Message Types and Reply mode
mentioned in Section 4 and Return code mentioned in Section 4.1
7.2. TLVs
The TLVs and Sub-TLVs requested by this document for IANA
consideration are the following:
Type Sub-Type Value Field
------- -------- -----------
101 Target Object
1 IPv4 Prefix
2 IPv6 Prefix
3 L2 VN ID
4 L3 VN ID
8. Security Considerations
The security consideration for NVO3 Ping is similar to ICMP or LSP
Ping. AS like ICMP or LSP ping, NVO3 may be exposed to Denial-of-
service attacks and it is RECOMMENDED to regulate the NVO3 Ping
packet flow to control plane. A rate limiter SHOULD be applied to
avoid any attack
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
As like ICMP or LSP Ping, a traceroute can be used to obtain network
information. It is RECOMMENDED that the implementation check the
source address of the Echo messages against any local secured list
like access list before processing the message further
9. Acknowledgement
This draft is prepared with xml2rfc tool
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-framework]
Lasserre, M., Balus, F., Morin, T., Bitar, N., and Y.
Rekhter, "Framework for DC Network Virtualization", draft-
ietf-nvo3-framework-03 (work in progress), July 2013.
[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.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa,
S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping", RFC
6425, November 2011.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
Authors' Addresses
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, KARNATAKA 560108
INDIA
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Detecting NVO3 Overlay Data Plane Failures July 2013
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Dhananjaya Rao
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95138
US
Email: dhrao@cisco.com
Kumar, et al. Expires January 16, 2014 [Page 14]