Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 LSP-Ping and BFD for MPLS-TP draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd- procedures-00.
Advertisements

OLD DOG CONSULTING Challenges and Solutions for OAM in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Ltd. Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Directed BFD Return Path draft-mirsky-mpls-bfd-directed-03 Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura
1 MPLS Architecture. 2 MPLS Network Model MPLS LSR = Label Switched Router LER = Label Edge Router LER LSR LER LSR IP MPLS IP Internet LSR.
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,
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) presented by: chitralekha tamrakar (B.S.E.) divya krit tamrakar (B.S.E.) Rashmi shrivastava(B.S.E.) prakriti.
1 ICMP : Internet Control Message Protocol Computer Network System Sirak Kaewjamnong.
© 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.
LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation over ACH draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures Nitin BahadurRahul Aggarwal Dave WardTom Nadeau Nurit SprecherYaacov.
ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) Computer Networks By: Saeedeh Zahmatkesh spring.
© Janice Regan, CMPT 128, CMPT 371 Data Communications and Networking Network Layer ICMP and fragmentation.
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.
1 LSP-Trace over MPLS tunnels draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 Nitin BahadurJuniper Networks Kireeti KompellaJuniper Networks George SwallowCisco.
Draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping Nobo Akiya George Swallow Carlos Pignataro Nagendra Kumar IETF 88, Vancouver, Canada.
IP Traffic Engineering RSP draft-shen-ip-te-rsp-01.txt Naiming Shen Albert Tian Jun Zhuang
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 Upstream mapping in Echo Request draft-ankur-mpls-upstream-mapping-00 Ankur.
Label Distribution Protocols LDP: hop-by-hop routing RSVP-TE: explicit routing CR-LDP: another explicit routing protocol, no longer under development.
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.
Draft-chen-rtgwg-resource-management-yang-00IETF 94 RTGWG1 PCE-initiated IP Tunnel draft-chen-pce-pce-initiated-ip-tunnel-00 Xia Chen, Zhenbin Li(Huawei)
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.
Requirements for LER Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
Connecting MPLS-SPRING Islands over IP Networks
Residence Time Measurement draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-02
On-demand Continuity Check (CC) and Connectivity Verification(CV) for OverlayNetworks draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv-01 Greg Mirsky Erik Nordmark Nagendra.
MPLS-TP Fault Management Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-fault-01
MPLS LSP Instant Install draft-saad-mpls-lsp-instant-install-00
RSVP Setup Protection draft-shen-mpls-rsvp-setup-protection-02
Advertising Encapsulation Capability Using OSPF
Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Multi-layer OAM for SFC Networks draft-wang-sfc-multi-layer-oam-09
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.
MPLS Basics 2 2.
CHAPTER 8 Network Management
N. Kumar, C. Pignataro, F. Iqbal, Z. Ali (Presenter) - Cisco Systems
Greg Mirsky IETF-99 July 2017, Prague
A Unified Approach to IP Segment Routing
draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy-00
{Stewart Bryant, Mach Huawei
Use of p2mp BFD in PIM-SM over shared-media segment draft-mirsky-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case Greg Mirsky Ji Xiaoli
Segment Routing.
BFD Directed Return Path draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed-07
MPLS-TP BFD for CC-CV proactive and RDI functionalities
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
Internet Control Message Protocol
Return Path Specified LSP Ping
Return Path in SFC OAM
IETF BIER, November 2017, Singapore
Use of p2mp BFD in PIM-SM (over shared-media segment) draft-mirsky-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case Greg Mirsky Ji Xiaoli
Use of p2mp BFD in PIM-SM (over shared-media segment) draft-mirsky-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case Greg Mirsky Ji Xiaoli
Extended BFD draft-mirmin-bfd-extended
OAM for Deterministic Networks with IP Data Plane draft-mirsky-detnet-ip-oam Greg Mirsky Mach Chen IETF-105 July 2019, Montreal.
draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00
OAM for Deterministic Networks with MPLS Data Plane draft-mirsky-detnet-mpls-oam Greg Mirsky Mach Chen IETF-105 July 2019, Montreal.
Active OAM in Geneve draft-mmbb-nvo3-geneve-oam
How OAM Identified in Overlay Protocols draft-mirsky-rtgwg-oam-identify Greg Mirsky IETF-104 March 2019, Prague.
Quan Xiong(ZTE) Gregory Mirsky(ZTE) Chang Liu(China Unicom)
OAM for Deterministic Networks draft-mirsky-detnet-oam
BGP VPN service for SRv6 Plus IETF 105, Montreal
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for EVPN Ethernet Segment Failover Use Case draft-zwm-bess-es-failover-00 BESS WG IETF104# Prague Sandy Zhang.
Kapil Arora Shraddha Hegde IETF-103
Parag Jain, Samer Salam, Ali Sajassi (Cisco),
Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm-03
Inter-AS OAM for SR Networks IETF 105, Montreal
Presentation transcript:

BFD in Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane draft-mirsky-spring-bfd Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin IETF-101 March 2018, London

BFD over MPLS dataplane RFC 5884 has defined use of BFD Asynchronous mode over MPLS LSP BFD over SR-MPLS SHOULD use LSP Ping to bootstrap BFD session In addition to requirements stated in draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping: Initiator MUST include FEC(s) corresponding to the destination segment. Initiator, i.e. ingress LSR, MAY include FECs corresponding to some or all of segments imposed in the label stack by the ingress LSR to communicate the segments traversed. add: When LSP Ping is used to bootstrap a BFD session the FEC corresponding to the destination segment to be associated with the BFD session MUST be as the very last sub-TLV in the Target FEC TLV. BFD control packet encapsulation: with IP/UDP header MUST: destination IP address 128/8 for IPv4 address or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6 address; use UDP destination port 3784 ACH encapsulation use GAL and G-ACh type 0x0007

BFD Reverse Path Ingress LER A periodically transmits BFD control messages over MPLS LSP Egress LER B periodically transmits BFD control messages, per RFC 5884, over path selected based on local policy: IP network using UDP destination port 4784 reverse path segment route with IP/UDP encapsulation (UDP destination port 3784) or ACH encapsulation Failure in the reverse path of the BFD session may be interpreted as LSP failure A A B

Control BFD Reverse Path New optional BFD Reverse Path TLV Used with BFD Discriminator TLV Instructs egress BFD to transmit BFD control packets over the specified MPLS LSP Re-use sub-TLVs defined in draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping BFD Reverse Path TLV may contain none, one or more sub-TLVs If none sub-TLV has been found in the BFD Reverse Path TLV, then the egress BFD MUST transmit BFD control packets over IP network A A B

New Segment Routing Static MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV Ordered list of Label Stack Elements with the top of the stack label as Label Entry 1 and the bottom of the stack label – Label Entry N BFD Reverse TLV MAY include zero or one SR Static MPLS Tunnel sub-TLV If no sub-TLVs present in the BFD Reverse Path TLV – the egress MUST switch the reverse BFD session to be transmitted over IP network If more then one SR Static MPLS Tunnel sub-TLVs present in the BFD Reverse Path TLV, the remote peer MUST send MPLS LSP Echo Reply with Return Code value set to “Too Many TLVs Detected” (new code) SegRouting MPLS sub-TLV Type Length Label Entry 1 Label Entry N

BFD Demand mode (based on draft-mirsky-bfd-mpls-demand) RFC 5880 defined BFD Demand mode BFD node controls mode of its peer, i.e. the BFD node MAY switch its peer into and out of the Demand mode To verify bi-directional continuity the node in Demand mode MAY initiate Poll sequence by simply setting Poll (P) bit in BFD control messages sent periodically to its peer BFD node in the Demand mode MAY send BFD control messages with Poll (P) bit set if any of its parameters have changed

Theory of operation I A A B Ingress LER A bootstraps the BFD session to LER B using LSP Ping BFD session between A and B in Async mode reaches Up state BFD node A switches mode to Demand using Poll sequence Node B ceases transmission of periodic BFD packets A A B

Theory of operation II A A B Ingress LER A bootstraps the BFD session to LER B using LSP Ping BFD session between A and B in Async mode reaches Up state BFD node A switches mode to Demand using Poll sequence Node B ceases transmission of periodic BFD packets Node B detects failure Node B initiates Poll sequence with Diagnostic code set to Control Detection Time Expired Because Node A have received failure notification from the node B (RDI) it sends BFD control packet with Final bit set over IP network as following: destination IP address MUST be set to the destination IP address of the LSP Ping Echo request message destination UDP port set to 4784 Final (F) flag in BFD control packet MUST be set Demand (D) flag in BFD control packet MUST be cleared Node A moves BFD session state to Down Node A switches the BFD session to Async mode Node A transmits BFD control packets periodically at slow rate A A B

Next steps Your comments, suggestions, questions always welcome and greatly appreciated Which WG to anchor – MPLS or SPRING?