doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6829.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6829.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..373f3d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6829.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           M. Chen
+Request for Comments: 6829                  Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+Updates: 4379                                                     P. Pan
+Category: Standards Track                                       Infinera
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                             C. Pignataro
+                                                                R. Asati
+                                                                   Cisco
+                                                            January 2013
+
+
+                   Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for
+ Pseudowire Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) Advertised over IPv6
+
+Abstract
+
+   The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
+   Ping and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and
+   isolate data-plane failures in all MPLS LSPs, including LSPs used for
+   each direction of an MPLS Pseudowire (PW).  However, the LSP Ping and
+   traceroute elements used for PWs are not specified for IPv6 address
+   usage.
+
+   This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so
+   they can be used with PWs that are set up and maintained using IPv6
+   LDP sessions.  This document updates RFC 4379.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6829.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chen, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 6829                  PW LSP Ping for IPv6              January 2013
+
+
+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.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+   2.  Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+   3.  Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+     3.1.  FEC 128 Pseudowire  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+     3.2.  FEC 129 Pseudowire  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+   4.  Summary of Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+   5.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
+   and traceroute are defined in [RFC4379].  These mechanisms can be
+   used to detect data-plane failures in all MPLS LSPs, including
+   Pseudowires (PWs).  However, the PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements
+   are not specified for IPv6 address usage.
+
+   Specifically, the PW Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) sub-TLVs for
+   the Target FEC Stack in the LSP Ping and traceroute mechanism are
+   defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge (PE) routers and are not
+   applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6 addresses.  Three PW-
+   related Target FEC sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128
+   Pseudowire-Deprecated, FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129
+   Pseudowire, see Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]).  These
+   sub-TLVs contain the source and destination addresses of the LDP
+   session, and currently only an IPv4 LDP session is covered.  Despite
+
+
+
+Chen, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 6829                  PW LSP Ping for IPv6              January 2013
+
+
+   the fact that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV
+   definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths
+   of the Sender's/Remote PE Address fields or calculating the length of
+   the sub-TLVs (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]).  When an IPv6 LDP
+   session is used, these existing sub-TLVs cannot be used since the
+   addresses will not fit.  Additionally, all other sub-TLVs are defined
+   in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not the PW sub-TLVs.
+
+   This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constrain the existing
+   PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions and extends the PW LSP Ping to
+   IPv6 LDP sessions (i.e., when IPv6 LDP sessions are used to signal
+   the PW, the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses are IPv6 addresses).
+   This is done by renaming the existing PW sub-TLVs to indicate "IPv4"
+   and also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (FEC 128 Pseudowire
+   IPv6 sub-TLV and FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV) to extend the
+   application of PW LSP Ping and traceroute to IPv6 usage when an IPv6
+   LDP session [MPLS-LDP] is used to signal the Pseudowire.  Note that
+   FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined for IPv6 in this
+   document.
+
+   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].
+
+2.  Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs
+
+   This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10
+   of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Sections 4 and 6.  This
+   is done to avoid any potential ambiguity and confusion and to clarify
+   that these TLVs carry only IPv4 addresses.  Note that the changes are
+   limited to the names of fields; there are no semantic changes.
+
+   Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and
+   state:
+
+      "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
+
+      "FEC 128" Pseudowire
+
+      "FEC 129" Pseudowire
+
+   These names and titles are now changed to:
+
+      "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
+
+      "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
+
+      "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
+
+
+
+Chen, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 6829                  PW LSP Ping for IPv6              January 2013
+
+
+   Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, Sections 3.2.8
+   through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] state:
+
+      Sender's PE Address
+
+      Remote PE Address
+
+   These are now updated to say:
+
+      Sender's PE IPv4 Address
+
+      Remote PE IPv4 Address
+
+3.  Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs
+
+3.1.  FEC 128 Pseudowire
+
+   The FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has a structure consistent with
+   the FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of
+   [RFC4379].  The encoding of the FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV is as
+   follows:
+
+      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
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     |      FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type     |            Length             |
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     ~                   Sender's PE IPv6 Address                    ~
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     ~                    Remote PE IPv6 Address                     ~
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     |                             PW ID                             |
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     |            PW Type            |          Must Be Zero         |
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+                    Figure 1: FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv6
+
+   FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type: 24. 2 octets.
+
+   Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-
+   TLV and its value is 38. 2 octets.
+
+   Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
+   LDP session. 16 octets.
+
+   Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
+   LDP session. 16 octets.
+
+
+
+Chen, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 6829                  PW LSP Ping for IPv6              January 2013
+
+
+   PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
+
+   PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
+
+3.2.  FEC 129 Pseudowire
+
+   The FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has a structure consistent with
+   the FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of
+   [RFC4379].  The encoding of FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 is as follows:
+
+      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
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     |      FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type     |            Length             |
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     ~                   Sender's PE IPv6 Address                    ~
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     ~                    Remote PE IPv6 Address                     ~
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     |            PW Type            |   AGI Type    |  AGI Length   |
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     ~                           AGI Value                           ~
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     |   AII Type    |  SAII Length  |      SAII Value               |
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     ~                    SAII Value (continued)                     ~
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     |   AII Type    |  TAII Length  |      TAII Value               |
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     ~                    TAII Value (continued)                     ~
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+     |  TAII (cont.) |  0-3 octets of zero padding                   |
+     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+                    Figure 2: FEC 129 Pseudowire - IPv6
+
+   FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type: 25. 2 octets.
+
+   Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-
+   TLV. 2 octets
+
+   The length of this TLV is 40 + AGI (Attachment Group Identifier)
+   length + SAII (Source Attachment Individual Identifier) length + TAII
+   (Target Attachment Individual Identifier) length.  Padding is used to
+   make the total length a multiple of 4; the length of the padding is
+   not included in the Length field.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chen, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 6829                  PW LSP Ping for IPv6              January 2013
+
+
+   Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
+   LDP session. 16 octets.
+
+   Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
+   LDP session. 16 octets.
+
+   The other fields are the same as FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
+
+4.  Summary of Changes
+
+   Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target
+   FEC Stack.  Per the change described in Sections 2 and 3, the table
+   would show the following:
+
+   Sub-Type       Length        Value Field
+   --------       ------        -----------
+     ...
+          9           10        "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
+         10           14        "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
+         11          16+        "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
+     ...
+         24           38        "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6
+         25          40+        "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6
+
+5.  Operation
+
+   This document does not define any new procedures.  The process
+   described in [RFC4379] MUST be used.
+
+6.  IANA Considerations
+
+   IANA has made the following assignments in the "Multi-Protocol Label
+   Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
+   registry.
+
+   The following sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two
+   additions, are made for the TLV Type 1 "Target FEC Stack" in the
+   "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry.
+
+   The names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs have been
+   updated to include the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and the
+   Reference has been updated to point to this document:
+
+   Type       Sub-Type        Value Field
+   ----       --------        -----------
+      1            9          "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
+      1           10          "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
+      1           11          "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
+
+
+
+Chen, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 6829                  PW LSP Ping for IPv6              January 2013
+
+
+   Two new entries for the Sub-Type field of the Target FEC TLV (see
+   Section 3) have been created:
+
+   Type       Sub-Type        Value Field
+   ----       --------        -----------
+      1           24          "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6
+      1           25          "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6
+
+7.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document does not introduce any new security issues; the
+   security mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here.
+
+8.  Acknowledgements
+
+   The authors gratefully acknowledge the review and comments of Vanson
+   Lim, Tom Petch, Spike Curtis, Loa Andersson, and Kireeti Kompella.
+
+9.  References
+
+9.1.  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.
+
+9.2.  Informative References
+
+   [MPLS-LDP]  Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro,
+               "Updates to LDP for IPv6", Work in Progress, June 2012.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chen, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 6829                  PW LSP Ping for IPv6              January 2013
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
+   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
+   No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District
+   Beijing  100085
+   China
+
+   EMail: mach@huawei.com
+
+
+   Ping Pan
+   Infinera
+   US
+
+   EMail: ppan@infinera.com
+
+
+   Carlos Pignataro
+   Cisco Systems
+   7200-12 Kit Creek Road
+   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
+   US
+
+   EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
+
+
+   Rajiv Asati
+   Cisco Systems
+   7025-6 Kit Creek Road
+   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
+   US
+
+   EMail: rajiva@cisco.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chen, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+