From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc6829.txt | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 451 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc6829.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6829.txt') 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] + -- cgit v1.2.3