IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 1 VCCV Extensions for Multi- Segment Pseudo-Wire draft-hart-pwe3-segmented-pw-vccv-01.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-04.txt Mustapha.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
OLD DOG CONSULTING Challenges and Solutions for OAM in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Ltd. Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Advertisements

Pseudowire Endpoint Fast Failure Protection draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00 Rahul Aggarwal Yimin Shen
1 Update from Version 1 draft-dong-pwe3-mspw-oam-02.txt Yang
Benchmarking Carrier Ethernet Technologies Workshop Session MI.1: PW/MPLS Krakow, Poland Lieven Levrau 30 th April 2008.
Generic Overlay OAM and Datapath Failure Detection
ICMP: Ping and Trace CCNA 1 version 3.0 Rick Graziani Spring 2005.
IETF 59, March 2004Mustapha AïssaouiSlide 1 OAM Procedures for VPWS Interworking draft-aissaoui-l2vpn-vpws-iw-oam-00 Mustapha Aïssaoui, Matthew Bocci,
A Unified Control Channel for Pseudowires draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2-02 Thomas D. Nadeau Luca Martini IETF 81.
1 ICMP – Using Ping and Trace CCNA Semester
LSP-Ping extensions for MPLS-TP draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping- extensions-00 Nitin Bahadur Sami Boutros Rahul Aggarwal Eric Gray.
1 LSP-Trace over MPLS tunnels draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-00 Nitin BahadurJuniper Networks Kireeti KompellaJuniper Networks IETF 69, MPLS WG,
IETF 68 Prague: draft-dolganow-ospf-pwe3-ms-pw-ext authors: Alex Zinin (Alcatel-Lucent) Andrew Dolganow (Alcatel-Lucent) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel-Lucent)
61st IETF Washington DC November 2004 Detecting P2MP Data Plane Failures draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt Seisho Yasukawa -
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 IETF 84 – Vancouver August 2012 LSP Ping Support for P2MP PWs (draft-jain-pwe3-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-00.txt)
Draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple Nobo Akiya George Swallow Carlos Pignataro Loa Andersson Mach Chen Shaleen Saxena IETF 88, Vancouver, Canada.
1 © 2002, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-00.txt IETF #56 San Francisco, CA USA Thomas D. Nadeau Monique.
Module 4 – Learning about other Devices Testing network connections.
11/27/2015 draft-bocci-bryant-ms-pw-architecture-00.txt An Architecture for Multi-Segment Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge draft-bocci-bryant-pwe3-ms-pw-architecture-00.txt.
Application of PWE3 to MPLS Transport Networks
Stein-67 Slide 1 PWsec draft-stein-pwe3-pwsec-00.txt PWE3 – 67 th IETF 7 November 2006 Yaakov (J) Stein.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 IETF 84 – Vancouver August 2012 LSP Ping Support for E-VPN and PBB-
PG 1 Multi-Segment Pseudowire Setup & Maintenance using LDP draft-balus-mh-pw-control-protocol-02.txt Authors David McDysan (MCI), Mike Duckett (Bellsouth),
Yaakov (J) Stein RAD Data Communications, Ltd. PW usage nits.
IETF 69, July 2007Slide 1 Preferential Forwarding Status bit Definition draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-01.txt Praveen Muley, Pranjal K. Dutta, Mustapha.
LSP-Ping extensions for MPLS-TP draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions-01 Nitin Bahadur Sami Boutros Rahul Aggarwal Eric Gray 1IETF 77 MPLS WG IETF 77,
NVO3 Overlay P2MP Ping draft-xia-nvo3-overlay-p2mp-ping-00 Liang Xia, Weiguo Hao, Greg Mirsky July 2014 Toronto.
Pseudo Wire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connection Verification (VCCV) Update Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc Rahul Aggarwal (Presenter) Juniper Networks.
Pseudo-Wire Protection Ping Pan IETF 65.
MPLS WG Meeting IETF 58 Paris Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures in Inter-AS and inter-provider Scenarios draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-00.txt Tom.
Pseudo-Wire Protection Mustapha Aissaoui, Florin Balus, Matthew Bocci, Hamid Ould-Brahim, Ping Pan IETF 66, Montreal.
Generic Overlay OAM and Datapath Failure Detection Kanwar Singh (Nuage Networks) Pradeep Jain, Florin Balus Nuage Networks Wim Henderickx Alcatel-Lucent,
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nurit Sprecher / Nokia Siemens Networks Tom Nadeau / BT Huub van Helvoort / Huawei Yaacov Weingarten / Nokia Siemens Networks.
Lecture#6:Connectivity Verification
draft-jounay-pwe3-dynamic-pw-update-00.txt IETF 70 PWE3 Working Group
Requirements for LER Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
Residence Time Measurement draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-02
Connectivity Verification
MPLS-TP Fault Management Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-fault-01
Tal Mizrahi Marvell IETF Meeting 78, July 2010
George Swallow Martin Vigoureux Rahul Aggerwal July 30, 2008
Packet PWE3 – Efficient for IP/MPLS
IETF 96 (MPLS WG) Abhishek Deshmukh Kireeti Kompella (presenting)
Yimin Shen (Juniper) Rahul Aggarwal (Arktan Inc)
ICMP – Using Ping and Trace
Lecture#7:Connectivity Verification
78th IETF Meeting - Maastricht 27th, July 2010
IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS OAM
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)
ICMP – Using Ping and Trace
RFC 3036 FECs RFC 3036 defines FECs used to bind labels to address prefixes in routing table Two FECs defined: Address Prefix FEC Host Address FEC Not.
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)
N. Kumar, C. Pignataro, F. Iqbal, Z. Ali (Presenter) - Cisco Systems
Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin
NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels draft-shen-nsis-tunnel-01.txt
Lecture#6:Connectivity Verification
IETF 98 (MPLS WG) Abhishek Deshmukh (presenting) Kireeti Kompella
NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-04.txt
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
Technical Issues with draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs
DetNet Data Plane design team IETF 98, Chicago, 2017
PW Control Word Stitching
IETF 102 (TEAS WG) Abhishek Deshmukh (presenting) Kireeti Kompella
BIER in IPv6 draft-zhang-bier-bierin6-03
PW Control Word Stitching
Kapil Arora Shraddha Hegde IETF-103
Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
Pseudo-Wire Protection
Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-01 Sami Boutros Siva Sivabalan George Swallow Vishwas.
Inter-AS OAM for SR Networks IETF 105, Montreal
Presentation transcript:

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 1 VCCV Extensions for Multi- Segment Pseudo-Wire draft-hart-pwe3-segmented-pw-vccv-01.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-04.txt Mustapha Aïssaoui, Alcatel Tom Nadeau, Cisco

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 2 Introduction Requirements –when a switching point exists between PE nodes, it is required to be able to continue operating VCCV end-to-end across a S-PE and, –to provide the ability to trace the path of the MS-PW over any number of segments Two proposed methods to achieve these objectives The first method is based on re-using the existing VCCV CW and decrementing the TTL of the PW label at each hop in the path of the MS-PW –described in draft-hart-pwe3-segmented-pw-vccv-01.txt –suitable to deployments where T-PE nodes continue to use the SS-PW control word –requires S-PE nodes capable of decrementing the TTL field for all PW packets The second method is based on using a new MH-VCCV control word and decrementing the TTL field in the control word –described in draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-03.txt –suitable to deployments where S-PE nodes cannot rely the TTL in the PW label to identify if a VCCV packet is destined to this node or not –requires upgrade to T-PE and S-PE user and control plane to use the new MH- VCCV CW

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 3 Proposal to Move Forward Authors believe both methods are required based on existing deployments Initial text describing both methods added to draft- ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-04.txt –Will be published shortly Both methods will provide the following capabilities –End-to-end VCCV (ping mode) –Partial tracing from T-PE (ping mode) –Partial Tracing between S-PE’s (ping mode) –Automated VCCV Trace from T-PE (trace mode)

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 4 Signaling MS-PW VCCV Capability Like in SS-PW, MS-PW VCCV capabilities are signaled using the VCCV parameter included in the interface parameter field of the PW ID FEC TLV or the sub-TLV interface parameter of the Generalized PW ID FEC TLV When using the SS-PW VCCV CW method, T-PE signals CC type 1 When using the MH-VCCV CW method, T-PE signals the new CC type 4 S-PE nodes processing of the VCCV parameter removes CC Types specified by the originating T-PE, except CC Types 1 and 4 which are passed unchanged The far end T-PE, T-PE2, receives the VCCV parameter indicating that one or both Control Word CC types only if they are supported by the sending T-PE (T-PE1) and all S-PE’s along the MS-PW path If T-PE1 signaled both types and T-PE2 also supports them, T-PE2 uses the SS-PW CW CC type in preference

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 5 New VCCV Control Channel Type 4 The new MH-VCCV CW requires a new CC Type | 0x0c | 0x04 | CC Types | CV Types | x01 Type 1: PWE3 control word with 0001 as first nibble 0x02 Type 2: MPLS Router Alert Label. 0x04 Type 3: MPLS PW Demultiplexor Label TTL = 1 (Type 3). 0x08 Type 4: MH-VCCV Control Word

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 6 Packet Encapsulation with MH- VCCV CW A new PW associated channel type is defined to distinguish VCCV packets with new MH-VCCV CW from existing VCCV CW | | 0x00 | Reserved = 0 | Channel Type = TBD | | MH-TTL | MH-VCCV sub-TLV | Three new values are required –One for IPv4 control channel –One for IPv6 control channel –One for BFD packets without IP/UDP headers

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 7 Control Plane Processing of an MS- PW VCCV Echo Message Native | | Native Service | | Service (AC) | | | | | | (AC) | V V V V V V | | | | |T-PE1|=========|S-PE1|=========|T-PE2| | | | |......PW1-Seg |.PW1-Seg | | | | CE1| | |=========| |=========| | | CE2| | | | |

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 8 Ping Mode of Operation Single operation to check MS-PW FEC at an S-PE or destination T-PE Sending a VCCV Echo Request Message –The sender of the echo request message requires the FEC of the last segment to the target S-PE/T-PE node –This information can be configured manually or can be obtained by inspecting the corresponding sub-TLV's of the PW switching point TLV Receiving a VCCV Echo Request Message –Target node validates the request and responds with a VCCV echo reply –If target node is an S-PE for the MS-PW, it responds with an echo reply containing a FEC TLV with the FEC of the next downstream segment and a return code of 8 (label switched at stack-depth) –If target node is the egress T-PE of the MS-PW, it responds with an echo reply with a return code of 3 (egress router) and no FEC TLV is included Receiving a VCCV Echo Reply Message –The sender node may choose to ignore the information in the FEC TLV in the echo reply and report only the return code to the operator

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 9 Trace Mode of Operation Automated path tracing capability that iteratively probes the segments the MS-PW to learn the target FEC information Sending a VCCV Echo Request Message –The sender of the echo request message (T-PE) learns the target FEC by probing one by one the hops of the MS-PW path Receiving a VCCV Echo Request Message –Same as in ping mode Receiving a VCCV Echo Reply Message –the node builds the subsequent VCCV echo request message by incrementing TTL field in PW label or in MH-VCCV CW and using the downstream FEC it received in the echo request message –It sends the echo request message to the next downstream PW segment

IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 10 Next Step Add details of control plane processing and automated trace into draft-ietf-pwe3- segmented-pw-04.txt Authors would like to request WG feedback on mailing list