doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 563 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8339.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8339.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fc23c20
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8339.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      P. Jain, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 8339                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
+Category: Standards Track                                     S. Boutros
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                             VMWare, Inc.
+                                                               S. Aldrin
+                                                             Google Inc.
+                                                              March 2018
+
+
+Definition of P2MP PW TLV for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping Mechanisms
+
+Abstract
+
+   Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping is a widely deployed Operation,
+   Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks.
+   This document describes a mechanism to verify connectivity of Point-
+   to-Multipoint (P2MP) Pseudowires (PWs) using LSP Ping.
+
+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 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8339.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2018 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.
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+     2.1.  Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+     2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+   3.  Identifying a P2MP PW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+     3.1.  P2MP Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
+   4.  Encapsulation of OAM Ping Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
+   5.  Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
+   6.  Controlling Echo Responses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
+   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
+   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
+   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
+     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
+     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
+   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
+   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   A Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Pseudowire (PW) emulates the essential
+   attributes of a unidirectional P2MP Telecommunications service such
+   as P2MP ATM over a Public Switched Network (PSN).  Requirements for
+   P2MP PWs are described in [RFC7338].  P2MP PWs are carried over a
+   P2MP MPLS LSP.  The procedures for P2MP PW signaling using BGP are
+   described in [RFC7117]; LDP for single segment P2MP PWs is described
+   in [RFC8338].  Many P2MP PWs can share the same P2MP MPLS LSP; this
+   arrangement is called an "Aggregate P2MP Tree".  An Aggregate P2MP
+   Tree requires an upstream-assigned label so that on the Leaf PE
+   (L-PE), the traffic can be associated with a Virtual Private Network
+   (VPN) or a Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) instance.  When a P2MP
+   MPLS LSP carries only one VPN or VPLS service instance, the
+   arrangement is called an "Inclusive P2MP Tree".  For an Inclusive
+   P2MP Tree, the P2MP MPLS LSP label itself can uniquely identify the
+   VPN or VPLS service being carried over the P2MP MPLS LSP.  The P2MP
+   MPLS LSP can also be used in the Selective P2MP Tree arrangement to
+   carry multicast traffic.  In a Selective P2MP Tree arrangement,
+   traffic to each multicast group in a VPN or VPLS instance is carried
+   by a separate unique P2MP LSP.  In an Aggregate Selective P2MP Tree
+   arrangement, traffic to a set of multicast groups from different VPN
+   or VPLS instances is carried over the same shared P2MP LSP.
+
+   The P2MP MPLS LSPs are setup using either P2MP RSVP-TE [RFC4875] or
+   Multipoint LDP (mDLP) [RFC6388].  Mechanisms for fault detection and
+   isolation for data-plane failures for P2MP MPLS LSPs are specified in
+   [RFC6425].  This document describes a mechanism to detect data-plane
+   failures for P2MP PW carried over P2MP MPLS LSPs.
+
+   This document defines a new P2MP Pseudowire sub-TLV for the Target
+   Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack for P2MP PWs.  The P2MP
+   Pseudowire sub-TLV is added in the Target FEC Stack TLV by the
+   originator of the echo request at the Root PE (R-PE) to inform the
+   receiver at the Leaf PE (L-PE) of the P2MP PW being tested.
+
+   Support for multi-segment PWs is out of scope of this document.
+
+2.  Terminology
+
+2.1.  Specification of Requirements
+
+   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.
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+2.2.  Abbreviations
+
+   ACH:        Associated Channel Header
+
+   AGI:        Attachment Group Identifier
+
+   ATM:        Asynchronous Transfer Mode
+
+   CE:         Customer Edge
+
+   FEC:        Forwarding Equivalence Class
+
+   GAL:        Generic Associated Channel Label
+
+   LDP:        Label Distribution Protocol
+
+   L-PE:       Leaf PE (one of many destinations of the P2MP MPLS LSP,
+               i.e., egress PE)
+
+   LSP:        Label Switched Path
+
+   LSR:        Label Switching Router
+
+   mLDP:       Multipoint LDP
+
+   MPLS-OAM:   MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
+
+   P2MP:       Point-to-Multipoint
+
+   P2MP-PW:    Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire
+
+   PE:         Provider Edge
+
+   PSN:        Public Switched Network
+
+   PW:         Pseudowire
+
+   R-PE:       Root PE (ingress PE, PE initiating P2MP PW setup)
+
+   RSVP:       Resource Reservation Protocol
+
+   TE:         Traffic Engineering
+
+   TLV:        Type, Length, Value
+
+   VPLS:       Virtual Private LAN Service
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+3.  Identifying a P2MP PW
+
+   This document introduces a new LSP Ping Target FEC Stack sub-TLV, the
+   P2MP Pseudowire sub-TLV, to identify the P2MP PW under test at the
+   P2MP Leaf PE (L-PE).
+
+3.1.  P2MP Pseudowire Sub-TLV
+
+   The P2MP Pseudowire sub-TLV has the format shown in Figure 1.  This
+   TLV is included in the echo request sent over P2MP PW by the
+   originator of the request.
+
+   The Attachment Group Identifier (AGI), as described in Section 3.4.2
+   of [RFC4446], in P2MP Pseudowire sub-TLV identifies the VPLS
+   instance.  The Originating Router's IP address is the IPv4 or IPv6
+   address of the P2MP PW root.  The address family of the IP address is
+   determined by the IP Addr Len field.
+
+       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
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+       | AGI Type    |   AGI Length  |                                 |
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                 |
+       ~                          AGI Value                            ~
+       |                                                               |
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+       | IP Addr Len |                                                 |
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                                 |
+       ~               Originating Routers IP Addr                     ~
+       |                                                               |
+       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+                 Figure 1: P2MP Pseudowire Sub-TLV Format
+
+   For Inclusive and Selective P2MP Trees, the echo request is sent
+   using the P2MP MPLS LSP label.
+
+   For Aggregate Inclusive and Aggregate Selective P2MP Trees, the echo
+   request is sent using a label stack of [P2MP MPLS LSP label, upstream
+   assigned P2MP PW label].  The P2MP MPLS LSP label is the outer label
+   and the upstream assigned P2MP PW label is the inner label.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+4.  Encapsulation of OAM Ping Packets
+
+   The LSP Ping echo request packet is encapsulated with the MPLS label
+   stack as described in previous sections, followed by one of the two
+   encapsulation options:
+
+   o  GAL [RFC6426] followed by an IPv4 (0x0021) or IPv6 (0x0057) type
+      Associated Channel Header (ACH) [RFC4385]
+
+   o  PW ACH [RFC4385]
+
+   To ensure interoperability, implementations of this document MUST
+   support both encapsulations.
+
+5.  Operations
+
+   In this section, we explain the operation of the LSP Ping over a P2MP
+   PW.  Figure 2 shows a P2MP PW PW1 setup from Root PE R-PE1, to Leaf
+   PEs (L-PE2, L-PE3, and L-PE4).  The transport LSP associated with the
+   P2MP PW1 can be mLDP P2MP MPLS LSP or P2MP TE tunnel.
+
+                 |<--------------P2MP PW---------------->|
+          Native |                                       |  Native
+         Service |     |<--PSN1->|      |<--PSN2->|      |  Service
+          (AC)   V     V         V      V         V      V   (AC)
+            |    +-----+         +------+         +------+    |
+            |    |     |         |   P1 |=========|L-PE2 |AC3 |    +---+
+            |    |     |         |   .......PW1.........>|-------->|CE3|
+            |    |R-PE1|=========|   .  |=========|      |    |    +---+
+            |    |  .......PW1........  |         +------+    |
+            |    |  .  |=========|   .  |         +------+    |
+            |    |  .  |         |   .  |=========|L-PE3 |AC4 |    +---+
+    +---+   |AC1 |  .  |         |   .......PW1.........>|-------->|CE4|
+    |CE1|------->|...  |         |      |=========|      |    |    +---+
+    +---+   |    |  .  |         +------+         +------+    |
+            |    |  .  |         +------+         +------+    |
+            |    |  .  |=========|   P2 |=========|L-PE4 |AC5 |    +---+
+            |    |  .......PW1..............PW1.........>|-------->|CE5|
+            |    |     |=========|      |=========|      |    |    +---+
+            |    +-----+         +------+         +------+    |
+
+                             Figure 2: P2MP PW
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+   When an operator wants to perform a connectivity check for the P2MP
+   PW1, the operator initiates an LSP Ping echo request from Root PE
+   R-PE1, with the Target FEC Stack TLV containing the P2MP Pseudowire
+   sub-TLV in the echo request packet.  For an Inclusive P2MP Tree
+   arrangement, the echo request packet is sent over the P2MP MPLS LSP
+   with one of the following two encapsulation options:
+
+   o  {P2MP LSP label, GAL} MPLS label stack and IPv4 or IPv6 ACH.
+
+   o  {P2MP LSP label} MPLS label stack and PW ACH.
+
+   For an Aggregate Inclusive Tree arrangement, the echo request packet
+   is sent over the P2MP MPLS LSP with one of the following two
+   encapsulation options:
+
+   o  {P2MP LSP label, P2MP PW upstream assigned label, GAL} MPLS label
+      stack and IPv4 or IPv6 ACH.
+
+   o  {P2MP LSP label, P2MP PW upstream assigned label} MPLS label stack
+      and PW ACH.
+
+   The intermediate P routers do MPLS label swap and replication based
+   on the incoming MPLS LSP label.  Once the echo request packet reaches
+   L-PEs, L-PEs use the GAL and the IPv4/IPv6 ACH Channel header or PW
+   ACH as the case may be, to determine that the packet is an OAM
+   Packet.  The L-PEs process the packet and perform checks for the P2MP
+   Pseudowire sub-TLV present in the Target FEC Stack TLV as described
+   in Section 4.4 in [RFC8029] and respond according to the processing
+   rules in that document.
+
+6.  Controlling Echo Responses
+
+   The procedures described in [RFC6425] for preventing congestion of
+   Echo Responses (Echo Jitter TLV in Section 3.3 of [RFC6425]) and
+   limiting the echo reply to a single L-PE (Node Address P2MP Responder
+   Identifier TLV in Section 3.2 of [RFC6425]) should be applied to P2MP
+   PW LSP Ping.
+
+7.  Security Considerations
+
+   The proposal introduced in this document does not introduce any new
+   security considerations beyond those that already apply to [RFC6425].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+8.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document defines a new sub-TLV type included in the Target FEC
+   Stack TLV (TLV Type 1) [RFC8029] in LSP Ping.
+
+   IANA has assigned the following sub-TLV type value from the "Sub-TLVs
+   for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" sub-registry within the "Multiprotocol
+   Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
+   registry:
+
+      37 P2MP Pseudowire
+
+9.  References
+
+9.1.  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,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+
+   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
+              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
+              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
+              February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
+
+   [RFC4446]  Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
+              Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [RFC6426]  Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS
+              On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing",
+              RFC 6426, DOI 10.17487/RFC6426, November 2011,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6426>.
+
+   [RFC7117]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., Rekhter, Y., and
+              C. Kodeboniya, "Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service
+              (VPLS)", RFC 7117, DOI 10.17487/RFC7117, February 2014,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7117>.
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [RFC8338]  Boutros, S., Ed. and S. Sivabalan, Ed., "Signaling Root-
+              Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire Using LDP",
+              RFC 8338, DOI 10.17487/RFC8338, March 2018,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8338>.
+
+9.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
+              Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
+              Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
+              Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
+
+   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
+              Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
+              to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
+              Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.
+
+   [RFC7338]  Jounay, F., Ed., Kamite, Y., Ed., Heron, G., and M. Bocci,
+              "Requirements and Framework for Point-to-Multipoint
+              Pseudowires over MPLS Packet Switched Networks", RFC 7338,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC7338, September 2014,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7338>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 9]
+
+RFC 8339                P2MP PW TLV for LSP Ping              March 2018
+
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+   The authors would like to thank Shaleen Saxena, Greg Mirsky, Andrew
+   G. Malis, and Danny Prairie for their valuable input and comments.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Parag Jain (editor)
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+   2000 Innovation Drive
+   Kanata, ON  K2K-3E8
+   Canada
+
+   Email: paragj@cisco.com
+
+
+   Sami Boutros
+   VMWare, Inc.
+   United States of America
+
+   Email: sboutros@vmware.com
+
+
+   Sam Aldrin
+   Google Inc.
+   United States of America
+
+   Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Jain, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 10]
+