LSP-Ping extensions for MPLS-TP draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping- extensions-00 Nitin Bahadur Sami Boutros Rahul Aggarwal Eric Gray

Background This draft specifies extensions to LSP- Ping so that LSP- Ping can be used to perform OAM on MPLS-TP LSPs in the absence of IP encapsulation. LSP-Ping ping function meets the Connectivity Verification, Adjacency and Route Tracing requirements specified in [draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements].

Two modes of operations to run over Bidirectional MPLS-TP LSPs:- 1- Using IP encapsulation. Using IP/UDP header [RFC4379]. The Reply mode MUST be via application level control channel (4). IP/UDP response message MUST be sent on the reverse path. IP addresses are used for identification. 2- Using non-IP encapsulation. Using ACH channel type in [draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures]. The Reply mode MUST be via application level control channel (4). Ingress node MAY attach a Source/destination Address TLVs for identification. Reply message MUST be sent on the reverse path of the LSP using ACH. LSP-Ping/trace-route for MPLS-TP LSPs.

Define New address type for Downstream Mapping TLV [RFC4379] Type # = 0 Address Type = N/A (In the absence of IP addressing). K Octets = 8 - SHOULD only perform mpls label control-plane/data-plane consistency checks. Applicable to Detailed Downstream Mapping TLV in [draft- mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced- dsmap]. *** Downstream Mapping TLV is used to get the downstream node information and to enable LSP verification along the transit nodes when performing traceroute. *** LSP-Ping/trace-route extensions

Source/Destination Address TLVs Identify source/destination addresses as defined in [draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv]. Only one Source Address TLV can exist in the packet. One or more of Destination Address TLVs MAY be included. MEP and MIP Identifier Identify maintenance end point (MEP) and/or maintenance intermediate point (MIP) as defined in [draft-swallow-mpls-tp-identifiers]. Only one identifier (MEP or MIP) may be present in a packet. LSP-Ping/trace-route extensions without IP encapsulation

P2MP Considerations Follows [draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping] when IP addressing is used. Use ACH when IP addressing is not used.

Future Enhancements Define new Target FEC stack for MPLS-TP LSP, specifying src, dst, tun-id and LSP-ID. Define new Target FEC stack for static PW. Define new TLV to specify the sender # of hops to be able to send the inband reply with the correct TTL. In LSP-Ping without IP encapsulation, close on sender/destination node addresses and ME-ID/MEP- ID/MIP-ID formats.

Next Steps Looking for comments/ feedback on the document. Would like the document to be accepted as a WG document.