LSP Ping/Traceroute for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
draft-xiao-mpls-lsp-ping-ioam-conf-state-03
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xiao Min , Greg Mirsky | ||
| Last updated | 2024-03-25 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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-xiao-mpls-lsp-ping-ioam-conf-state-03
MPLS Working Group X. Min
Internet-Draft ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky
Expires: 26 September 2024 Ericsson
25 March 2024
LSP Ping/Traceroute for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities
draft-xiao-mpls-lsp-ping-ioam-conf-state-03
Abstract
This document describes the MPLS Node IOAM Information Query
functionality, which uses the MPLS echo request/reply messages,
allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM
capabilities of each IOAM transit and decapsulating node.
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
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 26 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IOAM Capabilities Query TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Examples of the IOAM Capabilities Query . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IOAM Capabilities Response TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. IOAM Capabilities Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Examples of IOAM Capabilities Response TLV . . . . . . . 5
5. Return Code Field Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. TLV and Sub-TLV Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Namespace-ID Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
As specified in [RFC9359], the echo request/reply can be used by the
In-situ OAM (IOAM) encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM
capabilities at IOAM transit and decapsulating nodes.
[RFC8029] defines a probe message called "MPLS echo request", and a
response message called "MPLS echo reply" for returning the result of
the probe.
This document describes the MPLS Node IOAM Information Query
functionality, which uses the MPLS echo request/reply messages,
allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM
capabilities of each IOAM transit and decapsulating node.
[RFC8029] specifies "ping" and "traceroute" modes. In "ping" mode,
the ingress LSR sends a single MPLS echo request with the TTL in the
outermost label set to 255. The MPLS echo request is intended to
reach the end of the path and only the egress LSR is expected to
respond with the MPLS echo reply. In "traceroute" mode, the ingress
LSR transmits a sequence of MPLS echo requests with the TTL value
being set in successive probe packets to 1, 2, and so on. Using TTL
expiration as the exception mechanism, each LSR is expected to
respond by transmitting an MPLS echo reply.
In an MPLS network, the ingress LSR may also act as the IOAM
encapsulating node. In such a case, a transit LSR acts as the IOAM
transit node, and the egress LSR acts as the IOAM decapsulating node.
Usually, the trace option of IOAM data is needed, the IOAM
encapsulating node requires to query the enabled IOAM capabilities of
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
each IOAM transit and decapsulating node, then the "traceroute" mode
can be used. In case that only the edge to edge option of IOAM data
is needed, the IOAM encapsulating node requires to query the enabled
IOAM Capabilities of only the IOAM decapsulating node, then the
"ping" mode can be used.
The mechanism specified in this document applies to both point-to-
point (P2P) MPLS LSP and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS LSP.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. IOAM Capabilities Query TLV
The IOAM Capabilities Query TLV presented in Figure 1 is carried as a
TLV of the MPLS Echo Request message:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Query Type (TBA1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of IOAM Namespace-IDs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IOAM Capabilities Query TLV
Type: Indicates the IOAM Capabilities Query TLV. The value is TBA1.
Length: The length of the TLV's Value field in octets.
The Value field is a List of IOAM Namespace-IDs, which is also called
IOAM Capabilities Query Container Payload in Section 3.1 of
[RFC9359].
3.1. Examples of the IOAM Capabilities Query
The format of an IOAM Capabilities Query can vary from deployment to
deployment.
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the IOAM
Capabilities Query is depicted as the following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Query Type (TBA1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Zero-padded |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IOAM Capabilities Query of the Default IOAM Namespace
In a deployment where two Namespace-IDs (Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-
ID2) are used, the IOAM Capabilities Query is depicted as the
following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Query Type (TBA1) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID1 | Namespace-ID2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: IOAM Capabilities Query of the Two IOAM Namespaces
4. IOAM Capabilities Response TLV
The IOAM Capabilities Response TLV presented in Figure 4 is carried
as a TLV of the MPLS Echo Reply message:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IOAM Capa. Response Type (TBA2)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of IOAM Capabilities Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: IOAM Capabilities Response TLV
Type: Indicates the IOAM Capabilities Response TLV. The value is
TBA2.
Length: The length of the TLV's Value field in octets.
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
The Value field is a List of IOAM Capabilities Objects, which is also
called IOAM Capabilities Response Container Payload in Section 3.2 of
[RFC9359]. Each IOAM Capabilities Object is encoded in a sub-TLV
format.
4.1. IOAM Capabilities Sub-TLVs
All IOAM Capabilities sub-TLVs (aka Objects) are encapsulated in an
IOAM Capabilities Response TLV of an MPLS Echo Reply message.
Each IOAM Capabilities sub-TLV has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IOAM Capabilities Object Payload .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: IOAM Capabilities Sub-TLV
Sub-type: Indicates the IOAM Capabilities sub-TLVs. The values are
listed as the following:
Value Sub-type Name
----- -----------
TBA3 IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities Object
TBA4 IOAM Incremental Tracing Capabilities Object
TBA5 IOAM Proof of Transit Capabilities Object
TBA6 IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities Object
TBA7 IOAM DEX Capabilities Object
TBA8 IOAM End-of-Domain Object
Length: The length of the sub-TLV's Value field in octets.
The Value field is the IOAM Capabilities Object Payload, which is
defined respectively in Section 3.2.1, Section 3.2.2, Section 3.2.3,
Section 3.2.4, Section 3.2.5 and Section 3.2.6 of [RFC9359].
4.2. Examples of IOAM Capabilities Response TLV
The format of an IOAM Capabilities Response can vary from deployment
to deployment.
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the IOAM
Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities and IOAM Proof of Transit
Capabilities are enabled at an IOAM transit node, if that IOAM
transit node received an MPLS echo request containing IOAM
Capabilities Query TLV, then the IOAM Capabilities Response TLV
contained in an MPLS echo reply is depicted as the following:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IOAM Capa. Response Type (TBA2)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA3) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA5) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Example 1 of IOAM Capabilities Response TLV
In a deployment where two Namespace-IDs (Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-
ID2) are used, for both Namespace-ID1 and Namespace-ID2 the IOAM Pre-
allocated Tracing Capabilities and IOAM Proof of Transit Capabilities
are enabled at an IOAM transit node, if that IOAM transit node
received an MPLS echo request containing IOAM Capabilities Query TLV,
then the IOAM Capabilities Response TLV contained in an MPLS echo
reply is depicted as the following:
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IOAM Capa. Response Type (TBA2)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA3) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID1 | Ingress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA5) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID1 | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA3) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID2 | Ingress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA5) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID2 | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Example 2 of IOAM Capabilities Response TLV
Note that multiple sub-TLVs with the same sub-type may be present in
an IOAM Capabilities Response TLV, as long as the Namespace-IDs in
these sub-TLVs are all different.
In a deployment where only the default Namespace-ID is used, the IOAM
Pre-allocated Tracing Capabilities, IOAM Proof of Transit
Capabilities and IOAM Edge-to-Edge Capabilities are enabled at the
IOAM decapsulating node, if that IOAM decapsulating node received an
MPLS echo request containing IOAM Capabilities Query TLV, then the
IOAM Capabilities Response TLV contained in an MPLS echo reply is
depicted as the following:
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IOAM Capa. Response Type (TBA2)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA3) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM-Trace-Type | Reserved |W|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | Ingress_MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress_if_id (short or wide format) ...... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA5) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | IOAM-POT-Type |SoP| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IOAM Capa. Sub-type (TBA6) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Namespace-ID | IOAM-E2E-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|TSF| Reserved | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Example 3 of IOAM Capabilities Response TLV
5. Return Code Field Processing
The Return Code field in the MPLS echo reply MUST be set to (TBA9) No
Matched Namespace-ID if any of the following conditions applies:
* The IOAM Capabilities Query TLV does not include any Namespace-ID.
* None of the contained list of IOAM Namespace-IDs is recognized.
* None of the contained list of IOAM Namespace-IDs is enabled.
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. TLV and Sub-TLV Allocation
IANA maintains the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, and within that
registry a sub-registry for TLVs and sub-TLVs.
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
IANA is requested to allocate a new IOAM Capabilities Query TLV (Type
TBA1) and a new IOAM Capabilities Response TLV (Type TBA2) from the
Standards Action range (0-16383), and sub-TLVs as follows from sub-
registry presented in Table 1, called "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBA2".
Registration procedures for Sub-TLVs from ranges 0-16383 and
32768-49161 are by Standards Action. Ranges 16384-31739 and
49162-64507 are through RFC Required.
+======+==========+============================+===============+
| Type | Sub-type | Value Field | Reference |
+======+==========+============================+===============+
| TBA1 | | IOAM Capabilities Query | This document |
+------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+
| TBA2 | | IOAM Capabilities Response | This document |
+------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+
| | TBA3 | IOAM Pre-allocated Tracing | This document |
| | | Capabilities Object | |
+------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+
| | TBA4 | IOAM Incremental Tracing | This document |
| | | Capabilities Object | |
+------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+
| | TBA5 | IOAM Proof of Transit | This document |
| | | Capabilities Object | |
+------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+
| | TBA6 | IOAM Edge-to-Edge | This document |
| | | Capabilities Object | |
+------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+
| | TBA7 | IOAM DEX Capabilities | This document |
| | | Object | |
+------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+
| | TBA8 | IOAM End-of-Domain Object | This document |
+------+----------+----------------------------+---------------+
Table 1: IANA TLV Type Allocation
6.2. Namespace-ID Error
IANA maintains the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry, and within that
registry a sub-registry "Return Codes".
IANA is requested to assign a new Return Code from the Standards
Action range (0-191) as follows:
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
+==================+=========================+===============+
| Error Value Code | Description | Reference |
+==================+=========================+===============+
| TBA9 | No Matched Namespace-ID | This document |
+------------------+-------------------------+---------------+
Table 2: IANA Return Code Allocation
7. Security Considerations
Securiy issues discussed in [RFC8029] and [RFC9359] apply to this
document.
This document recommends that the network operators establish
policies that restrict access to MPLS Node IOAM Information Query
functionality. In order to enforce these policies, nodes that
support MPLS Node IOAM Information Query functionality SHOULD support
the following configuration options:
* Enable/disable MPLS Node IOAM Information Query functionality. By
default, MPLS Node IOAM Information Query functionality is
disabled.
* Define enabled Namespace-IDs. By default, all Namespace-IDs
except the default one (i.e., Namespace-ID 0x0000) are disabled.
While applying the MPLS Node IOAM Information Query to P2MP MPLS LSP,
since a single MPLS echo request may trigger multiple echo replies,
there are scaling concerns and some mitigation measures, e.g.,
containing the Echo Jitter TLV in the MPLS echo request, as being
specified in [RFC6425], MAY be applied.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Tarek Saad for his comments on
the idea of using LSP Ping for MPLS IOAM Capabilities Discovery.
9. 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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping for IOAM Capabilities March 2024
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Ed., 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC9359] Min, X., Mirsky, G., and L. Bo, "Echo Request/Reply for
Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities", RFC 9359,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9359, April 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9359>.
Authors' Addresses
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Phone: +86 18061680168
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Greg Mirsky
Ericsson
United States of America
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Min & Mirsky Expires 26 September 2024 [Page 11]