1 / 7

MPLS WG IETF 77, Anaheim

LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation over ACH draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures Nitin Bahadur Rahul Aggarwal Dave Ward Tom Nadeau Nurit Sprecher Yaacov Weingarten. MPLS WG IETF 77, Anaheim. Motivation. Re-use existing mpls oam techniques for MPLS-TP LSPs

caine
Download Presentation

MPLS WG IETF 77, Anaheim

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation over ACHdraft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-proceduresNitin Bahadur Rahul AggarwalDave Ward Tom NadeauNurit Sprecher Yaacov Weingarten MPLS WG IETF 77, Anaheim MPLS WG, IETF 77

  2. Motivation • Re-use existing mpls oam techniques for MPLS-TP LSPs • IP forwarding might be unavailable or not-preferred => Need a way to adapt existing techniques (LSP-Ping & BFD) MPLS WG, IETF 77

  3. Solution • Use ACH channel for OAM on MPLS-TP LSPs • Applicable to regular MPLS LSPs as well • New ACH code-point for carrying LSP-Ping data • ACH code-point for BFD already exists. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MPLS Label stack | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | GAL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | LSP-Ping Channel Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- | ACH TLV Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ACH TLVs | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++- | LSP-Ping payload | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MPLS Label stack | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | GAL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | BFD Channel Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- | ACH TLV Header | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ACH TLVs | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++- | BFD payload | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MPLS WG, IETF 77

  4. ACH TLVs • Source address TLV MAY be used to identify src of pkt • MEP &MIP identifier TLVs MAY be included MPLS WG, IETF 77

  5. BFD Usage • BFD should be run pro-actively for Connectivity Check • BFD should be run between MEPs • BFD failure can be used to trigger protection switching MPLS WG, IETF 77

  6. BFD Procedures • BFD discriminator must be signaled (LSP-Ping, etc.) or statically configured • Co-routed bi-directional LSPs • BFD packets MUST be sent on LSP return path ONLY. • Only LSP ingress SHOULD signal the BFD session. • Only 1 BFD session needed per LSP • Associated bi-directional LSPs • BFD packets MUST be sent on the associated LSPs only • Both LSP end-points MAY signal separate BFD sessions. • Recommendation: Use only 1 BFD session MPLS WG, IETF 77

  7. Next Steps • Draft already accepted as WG doc • Need to clarify text regarding BFD sessions MPLS WG, IETF 77

More Related