1. 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 N. Bahadur (Juniper) R. Aggarwal (Juniper) T. Nadeau (BT) N. Sprecher (NSN) Y. Weingarten (NSN)

2. 2 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net What is the Problem (1)? LSP-Ping as defined in RFC 4379, draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp- ping and BFD for MPLS LSPs as defined in draft-ietf-bfd- mpls, draft-katz-ward-bfd-multipoint requires IP encapsulation and addressing In particular, in these cases the LSP-Ping and BFD packets generated by an ingress LSR are encapsulated in an IP/UDP header with the destination address from the 127/8 range and then encapsulated in the MPLS label stack Requires an IP host stack to process packets in the 127/8 range Requires IP addressing

3. 3 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net What is the Problem (2)? LSP-Ping and BFD for MPLS-TP LSPs When IP addressing is used on MPLS-TP LSPs RFC 4379 and draft-ietf- bfd-mpls are sufficient to use LSP-Ping and BFD respectively on MPLS- TP LSPs Default addressing as per draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-02.txt Reverse path from egress to ingress LSR MUST use the MPLS LSP from the egress to ingress LSR IP forwarding is not required There is a MPLS-TP requirement to support non-IP addressing or/and the use of non-IP encapsulation draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-02.txt LSP-Ping and BFD require extensions to support non-IP addressing This is the problem the draft addresses

4. 4 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net Solution Encapsulate LSP-Ping and BFD packets in ACH A new ACH code-point for LSP-Ping Reuse the ACH code-point used by BFD for PWs with no IP encapsulation Draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd New source and destination address TLVs for LSP-Ping Carried in the LSP-Ping packet Non IP source identifier for BFD LSP-Ping ping and trace procedures to handle the non-IP addressing case BFD procedures to handle the non-IP source identifier

5. 5 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net MPLS-TP Design Team Update Proposal (1) Reflects only face-to-face discussion between members of the design team present in the Stockholm design team meeting Use BFD for pro-active CC and CV The definition of CV in this case is met by existing BFD for MPLS procedures Requires verifying the source address of the OAM packet Use LSP-Ping for on-demand CV CV functionality is larger than that provided by BFD Use LSP-Ping for on-demand route trace

6. 6 Copyright © 2004 Juniper Networks, Inc. Proprietary and Confidentialwww.juniper.net MPLS-TP Design Team Update Proposal (2) Split draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-bfd-lsp-ping into 2 drafts The first draft would focus on LSP-Ping and BFD ACH encapsulation and non-IP identifiers The second draft would specify any new LSP-Ping procedures required to support non-IP addressing The two new drafts will include contributions and review from other members of the design team In parallel there is an ongoing effort to discuss BFD extensions required to support non-IP addressing