Internet DRAFT - draft-nainar-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-sids
draft-nainar-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-sids
Network Work group N. Kumar, Ed.
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track F. Iqbal
Expires: April 26, 2019 Z. Ali
Cisco
October 23, 2018
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing SIDs with
MPLS Data-plane
draft-nainar-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-sids-00
Abstract
RFC8402 introduces Segment Routing architecture that leverages source
routing and tunneling paradigms and can be directly applied to the
Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. A node steers a
packet through a controlled set of instructions called segments, by
prepending the packet with Segment Routing header. SR architecture
defines different types of segments with different forwarding
semantics associated.
RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier
(SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC8287 defines the Target FEC Stack
Sub-TLVs and the procedures to apply RFC8029 on SR architecture with
MPLS data plane.
This document defines the Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs and the extension
required for other SR Segments.
Status of This Memo
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 https://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 April 26, 2019.
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Segment ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. BGP Prefix Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. BGP Peering Segment - Peer-Node-SID . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. BGP Peering Segment - Peer-Adj-SID . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. BGP Peering Segment - Peer-Set-SID . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4.1. Peer Set Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. Path Binding SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Multicast Replication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. BGP Prefix SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. BGP Peering Segment Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. Initiator Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. Responder Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Path Binding SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.1. Initiator Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3.2. Responder Node Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
1. Introduction
[RFC8402] introduces and describes a Segment Routing architecture
that leverages the source routing and tunneling paradigms. A node
steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions called
segments, by prepending the packet with Segment Routing header. A
detailed definition of the Segment Routing architecture is available
in [RFC8402]
As described in [RFC8402] and [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls],
the Segment Routing architecture can be directly applied to an MPLS
data plane, the Segment identifier (Segment ID) will be of 20-bits
size and the Segment Routing header is the label stack.
[RFC8287] defines the mechanism to perform LSP Ping and Traceroute
for Segment Routing with MPLS data plane. [RFC8287] defines the
Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs for IGP-Prefix Segment ID and IGP-Adjacency
Segment ID.
There are various other Segment IDs proposed by different documents
that are applicable for SR architecture.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid] defines BGP Prefix Segment ID,
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] defines BGP Peering Segment
ID such as Peer Node SID, Peer Adj SID and Peer Set SID.
[I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid] defines Path Binding Segment
ID.
As above Segment IDs get deployed in the field, operators require
corresponding MPLS OAM procedures for the SIDs. This document
describes the target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs and the procedure to use LSP
Ping and Traceroute for the above defined Segment IDs to support path
validation and fault isolation.
2. Requirements notation
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].
3. Terminology
This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC8402], [RFC8029],
readers are expected to be familiar with it.
The term "BGP EPE node" is used to refer to node assigning and
advertising BGP Peering Segment SIDs to steer traffic towards a BGP
peer, as described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe].
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
4. Segment ID sub-TLV
As defined in Section 5 of [RFC8287], the format of the following
Segment ID sub-TLVs defined in this document follows the philosophy
of Target FEC Stack TLV carrying FECs corresponding to each label in
the label stack.
4.1. BGP Prefix Segment ID
Section 3.2.13 and 3.2.14 of [RFC8029] defines the Sub-TLV for BGP
labeled IPv4 and IPv6 prefix respectively. This document proposes
the use of the same Sub-TLV for IPv4 and IPv6 BGP Prefix SID without
any change.
4.2. BGP Peering Segment - Peer-Node-SID
Peer-Node-SID identifies the peer node in the BGP Peering Segment.
The sub-TLV format for Peer-Node-SID of BGP Peering Segment MUST be
set as shown in the below TLV format:
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 = TBD1 | Length = x |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AF.Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local ASN (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ASN (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AF.Type
Set to 4 if the address in Local/Remote Interface address field is
IPv4 and set to 6 if the address in Local/Remote Interface address
field is IPv6.
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
Reserved
MUST be set to 0 on send and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Local BGP Router ID
4-octet BGP Router ID of the node that assigns the Peer-Node-SID.
Local ASN
4-octet local ASN number of the node that assigns the Peer-Node-
SID.
Peer BGP Router ID
4-octet BGP Router ID of the peer node.
Peer ASN
4-octet ASN number of the peer node.
Local Interface Address
Set to the address used by the local node for BGP session peering.
When AF.Type is set to 4, this address is 4-octet IPv4 address and
when AF.Type is set to 6, this address is 16-octet IPv6 address.
Remote Interface Address
Set to the address used by the peer node for BGP session peering.
When AF.Type is set to 4, this address is 4-octet IPv4 address and
when AF.Type is set to 6, this address is 16-octet IPv6 address.
4.3. BGP Peering Segment - Peer-Adj-SID
Peer-Adj-SID identifies the underlying link to the BGP peer node.
The sub-TLV format for Peer-Adj-SID of BGP Peering Segment MUST be
set as shown in the below TLV format:
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
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 = TBD2 | Length = 24 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local ASN (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ASN (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Link Identifier (4 octet) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Link Identifier (4 octet) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Local BGP Router ID
4-octet BGP Router ID of the node that assigns the Peer-Node-SID.
Local ASN
4-octet local ASN number of the node that assigns the Peer-Node-
SID.
Peer BGP Router ID
4-octet BGP Router ID of the peer node.
Peer ASN
4-octet ASN number of the peer node.
Local Link Identifier
Set to 4-octet link identifier of the local interface to which
Peer-Adj-SID is assigned to.
Remote Link Identifier
Set to 4-octet link identifier of the peer interface to which
Peer-Adj-SID is assigned to. Set to all-zeros when this
identifier is unknown.
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
4.4. BGP Peering Segment - Peer-Set-SID
The sub-TLV format for Peer-Node-SID of BGP Peering Segment MUST be
set as shown in the below TLV format:
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 = TBD3 | Length = x |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local ASN (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer Set Count | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of Peer Set Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Local BGP Router ID
4-octet BGP Router ID of the node that assigns the Peer-Set-SID.
Local ASN
4-octet local ASN number of the node that assigns the Peer-Set-
SID.
Peer Set Count
Set to the number of Peer Sub-TLVs included.
Sub-TLV Length
Total length in octets of the sub-TLVs associated with this TLV.
Peer Set Sub-TLV
Carries the Sub-TLVs defined in section 4.4.1.
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
4.4.1. Peer Set Sub-TLV
As defined in section 5.3 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe], Peer-Set-SID can identify
the set where the members can be Peer-Node or Peer-Adj from same or
different ASN. The format of the Peer Set Sub-TLV will identify each
such member.
4.4.1.1. Peer Node
The format for this sub-TLV MUST be set as 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 = 1 (Peer) | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ASN (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer BGP Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer ASN
4-octet ASN number of the peer node.
Peer Router ID
4-octet BGP Router ID of the peer node.
4.4.1.2. Link Identifier
The format for this sub-TLV is as below:
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
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 = 2 (Link Id) | Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Peer ASN (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Link Identifier (4 octet) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Link Identifier (4 octet) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Peer ASN
4-octet ASN number of the peer node.
Local Link Identifier
Set to 4-octet link identifier of the local interface to which
Peer-Adj-SID is assigned to.
Remote Link Identifier
Set to 4-octet link identifier of the peer interface to which
Peer-Adj-SID is assigned to. Set to all-zeros when this
identifier is unknown.
4.5. Path Binding SID
Path Binding SID identifies the Binding Segment Identifier associated
with an RSVP-TE or SR-TE path. The format for this sub-TLV is as
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 = TBD4 | Length = x |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AF.Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Head End Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AF.Type
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
Set to 4 if the address in Head End Address field is IPv4 and set
to 6 if the address in Head End address field is IPv6.
Reserved
MUST be set to 0 on send and MUST be ignored on receipt.
Head End Address
Set to the address of the head end node to which the policy is
assigned. When AF.Type is 4, this address is IPv4 and when
AF.Type is 6, it is IPv6.
4.6. Multicast Replication
[I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy] describes Segment Routing Multicast
Replication Policy and introduces the notion of Tree SID to achieve
this. A future version of this document will describe LSP Ping and
Traceroute Target FEC Stack sub-TLV and procedures for Tree SID
validation.
5. Procedures
This section describes the aspects of LSP Ping and Traceroute
operations that require further considerations beyond [RFC8029] and
[RFC8287].
5.1. BGP Prefix SID
The procedures described in [RFC8029] are sufficient for MPLS Ping
and Traceroute operations for BGP Prefix SID using the FEC
definitions from Section 3.2.13 and 3.2.14 of [RFC8029].
5.2. BGP Peering Segment Sub-TLVs
BGP Peering Segment sub-TLVs (BGP-Node-SID, BGP-Adj-SID, Peer-Set-
SID) are assigned by BGP EPE node for a particular BGP neighbor, and
advertised to the peer nodes. Any LSP Ping and Traceroute operation
MUST be performed on the BGP EPE node, and not the remote neighbor
node, as only the BGP EPE node can validate the contents of BGP
Peering Segment sub-TLVs. Additionally, leaking the echo packet to
the peer node may not be desirable for network operators.
5.2.1. Initiator Node Procedures
If the bottom-most label in the label stack is BGP Peer Segment
label, the initiating node MUST set the TTL of the bottom-most label
to 1 to ensure that MPLS TTL expires at the BGP EPE node, and the
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
echo packet does not leak to the BGP peer node. Echo packet MUST
include one of BGP-Node-SID, BGP-Adj-SID, or Peer-Set-SID sub-TLV in
the Target FEC Stack TLV corresponding to the BGP Peer Segment label.
Operator MAY push one or more transport labels on top of the BGP Peer
Segment label to forward the echo packet to the BGP EPE node.
5.2.2. Responder Node Procedures
In addition to procedures defined in [RFC8029], the responding node,
upon TTL expiry of the echo packet, MUST process the incoming BGP
Peer Segment sub-TLV of the Target FEC Stack. It MUST validate that
contents of the sub-TLV and ensure the incoming label is advertised
for the processed BGP Peer Segment sub-TLV.
5.3. Path Binding SID
5.3.1. Initiator Node Procedures
Similar to BGP Peering Segment sub-TLVs, Path Binding SID sub-TLV
MUST be validated at the node assigning and advertising the Binding
SID, instead of the endpoint of the path associated with the Binding
SID. The initiating node MUST set the TTL of the Binding SID label
to 1 and include the associated Path Binding SID TLV in the Target
FEC Stack TLV of the echo request. Operator MAY push one or more
transport labels on top of Binding SID label to forward echo packet
from initiating node to the assigning node.
5.3.2. Responder Node Procedures
In addition to procedures defined in [RFC8029], the responding node,
upon TTL expiry of the echo packet, MUST process the incoming Path
Binding SID sub-TLV of the Target FEC Stack. The responding node
MUST ensure that it is the advertising node specified in the Path
Bindng SID sub-TLV, and the incoming Binding SID label matches the
advertised label value.
6. IANA Considerations
To be Updated.
7. Security Considerations
To be Updated
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
8. Acknowledgement
TBD
9. Contributors
TBD
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Lindem, A., Sreekantiah, A.,
and H. Gredler, "Segment Routing Prefix SID extensions for
BGP", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-27 (work in progress),
June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J.
Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress
Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-
epe-15 (work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid]
Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S.,
Hardwick, J., and D. Dhody, "Carrying Binding Label/
Segment-ID in PCE-based Networks.", draft-sivabalan-pce-
binding-label-sid-04 (work in progress), March 2018.
[I-D.voyer-spring-sr-p2mp-policy]
daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Hassen, C., Gillis, K.,
Filsfils, C., Parekh, R., and H. Bidgoli, "SR Replication
Policy for P2MP Service Delivery", draft-voyer-spring-sr-
p2mp-policy-01 (work in progress), October 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A.,
Gredler, H., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), July
2018.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
segment-routing-extensions-15 (work in progress), August
2018.
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-25 (work in progress), April 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D.
Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer
Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-
epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and
S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-15 (work in
progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14
(work in progress), June 2018.
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
Authors' Addresses
Nagendra Kumar (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
US
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping/Trace for SR SIDs on MPLS October 2018
Carlos Pignataro (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Faisal Iqbal
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: faiqbal@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Kumar, et al. Expires April 26, 2019 [Page 15]
