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,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
OAM Overview draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-02
Advertisements

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.
MPLS-TP BFD for CC-CV proactive and RDI functionalities
MPLS-TP Lock Instruct MPLS WG, IETF 76, Hiroshima, 9 Nov 2009 draft-dai-mpls-tp-lock-instruct-00draft-dai-mpls-tp-lock-instruct-00 ZTE Corporation Xuehui.
OLD DOG CONSULTING Challenges and Solutions for OAM in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Ltd. Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Addressing the Network – IPv4 Network Fundamentals – Chapter 6.
MIP-related aspects of MPLS-TP OAM Greg Mirsky IETF-79.
Pseudowire Endpoint Fast Failure Protection draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00 Rahul Aggarwal Yimin Shen
MAC Withdraw Signaling for static PW draft-boutros-l2vpn-mac-wd-03.txt Himanshu Shah - Ciena Siva Sivabalan, Sami Boutros – Cisco Sam Aldrin - Huwei.
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-03.txt Nurit Sprecher / Nokia Siemens Networks Huub van Helvoort / Huawei Yaacov Weingarten /
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00.txt
MPLS TP MIBs and Extensions draft-vkst-mpls-tp-te-mib-00.txt Sam Aldrin Tom Nadeau Venkatesan Mahalingam Kannan Sampath.
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,
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.
LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation over ACH draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures Nitin BahadurRahul Aggarwal Dave WardTom Nadeau Nurit SprecherYaacov.
9/8/2015 draft-bocci-mpls-tp-gach-gal-00.txt MPLS Generic Associated Channel draft-bocci-mpls-tp-gach-gal-00.txt Matthew Bocci (ALU) & Martin Vigoureux.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 Greg Mirsky, Ericsson Vero Zheng, Huawei Sam Aldrin, Yanfeng Zhang, Huawei.
1 LSP-Trace over MPLS tunnels draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 Nitin BahadurJuniper Networks Kireeti KompellaJuniper Networks George SwallowCisco.
P2MP MPLS-TE FRR with P2MP Bypass Tunnel draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal (Juniper) IETF 67, MPLS WG,
Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs draft-farrel-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-04 H. Endo, A. Farrel, Y. Koike, M. Paul, R. Winter.
Draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping Nobo Akiya George Swallow Carlos Pignataro Nagendra Kumar IETF 88, Vancouver, Canada.
PWE3 Agenda – Monday 8 th Nov 15 min - Agenda bash, WG Agenda and Status - Andy Malis and Matthew Bocci 5 min - Dynamic Placement of Multi Segment Pseudo.
Slide 1 Tunnel OAM/ Nurit Sprecher / October 2010 Nokia Siemens Networks / CTO IE PTE I insert classification level © Nokia Siemens Networks Tunnel OAM.
RSVP-TE extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Configuration draft-bellagamba-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-03 Elisa Bellagamba Ericsson Loa AnderssonEricsson Pontus.
Application of PWE3 to MPLS Transport Networks
1 MPLS-TP BFD for CC- CV proactive and RDI functionalities draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-02 MPLS WG, 77th IETF - Anaheim.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 IETF 84 – Vancouver August 2012 LSP Ping Support for E-VPN and PBB-
MPLS WG1 Targeted mLDP Base mLDP spec didn’t consider use of LDP multipoint extensions over Targeted mLDP sessions LDP speaker must choose “upstream LSR”,
MPLS-TP Loopback Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback-02.txt Sami Boutros and a Cast of Thousands.
1 Ping and Traceroute for GMPLS LSPs in Non-Packet Switched Networks draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-lsp-ping-traceroute-01.txt Zafar Ali, Roberto Cassata (Cisco.
RSVP-TE Extensions to Establish Associated Bidirectional LSP MPLS/CCAMP WG, IETF 81th, Quebec draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01 Fei.
Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label-02
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-03.txt Nurit Sprecher / Nokia Siemens Networks Tom Nadeau / BT Huub van Helvoort / Huawei Yaacov.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 Upstream mapping in Echo Request draft-ankur-mpls-upstream-mapping-00 Ankur.
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.
1 Use of PE-PE IP/GRE/IPsec for MPLS PWs draft-raggarwa-pwe3-pw-over-ip- 00.txt Rahul Aggarwal
Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net 1 MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for RSVP- TE and LDP draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-ldp-upstream-
Precision Time Protocol over MPLS draft-ronc-ptp-mpls-00.txt PWE3 WG IETF Chicago 2007 Ron Cohen
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.
February 2006 MPLS Interop 2008 # 1 MPLS-TP OAM OAM for an MPLS Transport Profile Loa Andersson, Acreo AB IAB, MPLS WG co-chair.
1 RSVP-TE Extensions For Fast Reroute of Bidirectional Co-routed LSPs draft-tsaad-mpls-rsvpte-bidir-lsp-fastreroute-00.txt Author list: Mike Taillon
1 MPLS Source Label Mach Chen Xiaohu Xu Zhenbin Li Luyuan Fang IETF87 MPLS Aug Berlin draft-chen-mpls-source-label-00.
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.
RSVP-TE Extensions to Realize Dynamic Binding of Associated Bidirectional LSP CCAMP/MPLS WG, IETF 79th, Beijing, China draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01.
MPLS-TP OAM Analysis Nurit Sprecher / Nokia Siemens Networks Tom Nadeau / BT Huub van Helvoort / Huawei Yaacov Weingarten / Nokia Siemens Networks.
Requirements for LER Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
MPLS-TP Fault Management Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-fault-01
Tal Mizrahi Marvell IETF Meeting 78, July 2010
RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Co-routed Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) draft-gandhishah-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-01 Author list: Rakesh.
Yimin Shen (Juniper) Rahul Aggarwal (Arktan Inc)
IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS OAM
N. Kumar, C. Pignataro, F. Iqbal, Z. Ali (Presenter) - Cisco Systems
Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin
draft-barth-pce-association-bidir-01
Ryan Zheng Lizhong Jin Thomas Nadeau George Swallow
MPLS-TP BFD for CC-CV proactive and RDI functionalities
Technical Issues with draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
Return Path Specified LSP Ping
Kapil Arora Shraddha Hegde IETF-103
Parag Jain, Samer Salam, Ali Sajassi (Cisco),
Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
EVPN control plane for Geneve draft-boutros-bess-evpn-geneve-03
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:

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, Anaheim

Background Describes how LSP-Ping can be used to meet the Connectivity Verification, Adjacency and Route Tracing requirements specified in [draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-requirements]. Describes OAM procedures for both IP and non-IP encapsulated LSP-Ping packets. Specifies necessary extensions to LSP-Ping, when IP encapsulation is not used. Extends LSP-Ping for performing OAM on statically configured LSPs and PWs. 2IETF 77

Two modes of operation: 1- Using IP encapsulation. IP addresses are used for identification and not forwarding The Reply mode MUST be via application level control channel (4). IP/UDP reply message MUST be sent on the reverse path of the LSP. 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). Reply message MUST be sent on the reverse path of the LSP using ACH. LSP-Ping ping/trace-route for MPLS-TP LSPs 3IETF 77

Source Address TLV Identify source address as defined in [draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv]. Only one Source Address TLV can exist in the packet. MEP and MIP Identifier Identify MEP or MIP being monitored. Only one identifier (MEP or MIP) may be present in a packet. LSP-Ping/trace-route extensions without IP encapsulation 4IETF 77

Downstream Mapping TLV [RFC4379] currently assumes IP addressing New address type defined to indicate absence of IP addressing  Type: 0 LSP-Ping traceroute extensions 5IETF 77

Reverse path connectivity verification Ping typically verifies connectivity in one direction Ping can be used to verify bi-directional connectivity LSP-Ping echo response can contain reverse path target FEC stack –Target FEC will be same for co-routed bi-directional LSPs –Target FEC will be different for associated bi-directional LSPs. Ping initiator (ingress) can perform reverse path CV based on received FEC stack and label stack. IETF 776

Target FEC Stack for Static LSPs New FEC stack for OAM on statically configured LSPs | Source Global ID | | Source Node ID | | Source Tunnel Number | LSP Number | | Destination Global ID | | Destination Node ID | | Destination Tunnel Number | Must be Zero | IETF 77

Target FEC Stack for Static PWs New FEC stack for OAM on statically configured LSPs | Source Global ID | | Source Node ID | | Source AC-ID | | Destination Global ID | | Destination Node ID | | Destination AC-ID | IETF 77

Next Steps Comments/Questions? WG adoption? 9IETF 77