PMS/Head-end based MPLS Ping and Traceroute in Inter-AS SR Networks
draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam-02

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-11-04
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Routing area                                                    S. Hegde
Internet-Draft                                                  K. Arora
Intended status: Standards Track                                S. Ninan
Expires: May 6, 2020                                       M. Srivastava
                                                   Juniper Networks Inc.
                                                                N. Kumar
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        November 3, 2019

  PMS/Head-end based MPLS Ping and Traceroute in Inter-AS SR Networks
                draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam-02

Abstract

   Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and
   tunneling paradigms and can be directly applied to the use of a
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane.  Segment Routing
   also provides an easy and efficient way to provide inter connectivity
   in a large scale network as described in [RFC8604].  [RFC8287]
   illustrates the problem and defines extensions to perform LSP Ping
   and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency
   Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane.  It is useful to
   have the LSP Ping and traceroute procedures when an SR end-to-end
   path spans across multiple ASes.  This document describes mechanisms
   to facilitae LSP ping and traceroute in inter-AS SR networks in an
   efficient manner with simple OAM protocol extension which uses
   dataplane forwarding alone for sending Echo-Reply.

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 https://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

Hegde, et al.              Expires May 6, 2020                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Inter-as-OAM                 November 2019

   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 May 6, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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.  Reverse Path Segment List TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Reverse Path Segment List TLV definition  . . . . . . . .   5
       2.1.1.  Segment sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  SRv6 Dataplane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   3.  Detailed Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.  Sending an Echo-Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.2.  Receiving an Echo-Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Sending an Echo-Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Detailed Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.1.  Procedures for Segment Routing LSP ping . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  Procedures for Segment Routing LSP Traceroute . . . . . .  12
   5.  Building Reverse Path Segment List TLV dynamically  . . . . .  12
     5.1.  The procedures to build the reverse path  . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Details with example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
Show full document text