1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Target FEC Stack for Static LSPs New FEC stack for OAM on statically configured LSPs. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Global ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Node ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Tunnel Number | LSP Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Global ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Node ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Tunnel Number | Must be Zero | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 7IETF 77

8. Target FEC Stack for Static PWs New FEC stack for OAM on statically configured LSPs. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Global ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Node ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source AC-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Global ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Node ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination AC-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 8IETF 77

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