| Network Working Group | Z. Cui |
| Internet-Draft | R. Winter |
| Intended status: Standards Track | NEC |
| Expires: August 25, 2012 | February 24, 2012 |
Using ITU-T-based IDs for MPLS-TP On-demand Connectivity Verification
draft-cui-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-id-00
This document defines how to use ICC-based MPLS-TP identifiers for on-demand connectivity verification (CV) analogous to RFC 6426. New TLVs are defined to support on-demand CV based on identifiers following ITU-T conventions.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2012.
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
MPLS On-Demand Connectivity Verification (CV) and Route Tracing [RFC6426] is an on-demand monitoring mechanism for the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). [RFC6426] defines a set of Global_ID-based TLVs to support on-demand CV and route tracing for MPLS-TP LSPs, including PWs and Sections which follow the IP/MPLS conventions.
In transport networks however, the ITU Carrier Code (ICC) is traditionally used to identify a carrier/service provider. Instead of using the Global_ID, which is derived from the AS number of the service provider, this document defines source/destination TLVs and static LSP/PW Sub-TLVs based on the ICC_Operator_ID as specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers] for use in CV.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD","SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In ICC-based transport network, the Global_ID might not be available for on-demand CV and route tracing. In such environments it might be necessary to perform CV and route tracing using the ICC_Operator_ID as specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers].
The ICC_Operator_ID consists of the Country Code (CC) followed by the ITU carrier code (ICC). The Country Code (alpha-2) is a string of two alphabetic characters, and the ICC itself is a string of one to six left-justified characters, each character being either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9).
This section provides the definition for a number of ICC_Operator_ID-based TLV objects. In order to simplify implementations, the length of ICC_Operator_ID field has a fixed length independent of the ICC length. Therefore, zero padding will be used in cases where the ICC length is less than 6 octets long. The total length of the ICC_Operator_ID therefore amounts to 8 octets as shown in Figure 1.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CC (2 Octets) | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | ICC (fixed to 6 octets ) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Source and Destination Identifier TLVs follow the same format their only difference being the type. The format is shown below.
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length = 16 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + ICC_Operator_ID (8 Octets) + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Node_ID (4 Octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The format of the ICC_Operator_ID is defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers]. The encoding of the ID is depicted in Figure 1.
The format of the Node_ID is defined in [RFC6370].
Type will be one of either TBD-SRC or TBD-DST. The TLV structure is therefore as follows:
Type # Length Value Field ------ ------ ----------- TBD-SRC 16 ICC_Operator_ID-based Source Identifier TLV TBD-DST 16 ICC_Operator_ID-based Destination Identifier TLV
The new sub-TLVs are assigned sub-type identifiers as follows, and are described in the following sections.
Type # Sub-Type # Length Value Field ------ ---------- ------ ----------- 1 24 28 ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP 1 25 36 ICC_Operator_ID-based Static Pseudowire
The format of the ICC_Operator_ID-based Static LSP Sub-TLV is specified in the following figure. The value fields are taken from [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers].
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Source ICC_Operator_ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Node ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Tunnel Number | LSP Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Destination ICC_Operator_ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Node ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Tunnel Number | Must be Zero | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The ICC_Operator_ID MAY be set to zero. Note however that such use is limited to entities contained within a single operator and MUST NOT be used across an NNI. However, the other fields without the padding field MUST be set to non-zero values.
The format of the ICC_Operator_ID-based Static PW Sub-TLV is specified in the following figure. The value fields are taken from [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers].
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Service Identifier + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Source ICC_Operator_ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Node ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source AC-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + Destination ICC_Operator_ID + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Node ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination AC-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The ICC_Operator_ID MAY be set to zero. Note that such use is limited to entities contained within a single operator and MUST NOT be used across an NNI. However, The other fields MUST be set to non-zero values.
TBD
TBD
| [RFC6426] | Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S. and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing", RFC 6426, November 2011. |
| [RFC6370] | Bocci, M., Swallow, G. and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
| [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers] | Winter, R, Gray, E, Helvoort, H and M Betts, "MPLS-TP Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-02, October 2011. |