draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01.txt   draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya
Internet-Draft G. Swallow Internet-Draft G. Swallow
Updates: 4379 (if approved) C. Pignataro Updates: 4379 (if approved) C. Pignataro
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: June 18, 2014 L. Andersson Expires: November 21, 2014 L. Andersson
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
December 15, 2013 May 20, 2014
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Reply Mode Simplification Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-01 draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02
Abstract Abstract
This document adds one reply mode to indicate reverse LSP, to be used The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
by Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to
Ping and Traceroute. This document also adds an optional TLV which be used in the MPLS echo reply. This document adds one value to the
can carry ordered list of reply modes. Reply Mode field to indicate reverse LSP. This document also adds an
optional TLV which can carry ordered list of Reply Mode values.
This document updates [RFC4379]. This document updates RFC4379.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 21, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Problem Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Problem Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Reply via reverse LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Reply via reverse LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Relations to Other LSP Ping/Trace Features . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Reply Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. New Reply Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Proxy LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. New Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.1. New Reply Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.2. New Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
MPLS LSP Ping, described in [RFC4379], allows initiator to encode The MPLS LSP Ping, described in [RFC4379], allows an initiator to
instructions (Reply Mode) on how responder is to send response back encode instructions (Reply Mode) on how a responder should send the
to the initiator. [I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] response back to the initiator. [RFC7110] also allows the initiator
also allows initiator to encode a TLV (Reply Path TLV) which can to encode a TLV (Reply Path TLV) which can instruct the responder to
instruct responder to use specific LSP to send response back to the use specific LSP to send the response back to the initiator. Both
initiator. Both approaches are powerful as they provide ability for approaches are powerful as they provide the ability for the initiator
the initiator to control the return path. to control the return path.
It is, however, becoming increasingly difficult for an initiator to However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for an initiator to
select the "right" return path to encode in MPLS LSP echo request select a valid return path to encode in the MPLS LSP echo request
packets. Consequence of initiator not selecting the "right" return packets. If the initiator does not select a valid return path, the
path encoding can result in false failure of MPLS LSP Ping and MPLS LSP echo reply will not get back to the initiator. This results
Traceroute operations, due to initiator not receiving back expected in a false failure of MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute operation. In an
MPLS LSP echo reply. Resulting from an effort to minimize such false effort to minimize such false failures, different implementations
failures, implementations may result in having different "default" have chosen different default return path encoding for different LSP
return path encoding per LSP type and per operational type. types and LSP operations. The problem with implementations having
Deviating "default" return path encoding, potentially, per vendor per different default return path encoding is that the MPLS echo reply
LSP type per operational type can drift this technology from will not work in many cases, and the default value may not be the
consistency axle. Thus it is desirable to have a return path preferred choice by the operators.
encoding mechanism which minimizes false failure scenarios while
reverse direction taking path preferred for operational needs. This document further describes the problem in Section 2, and
proposes a solution in Section 3 to minimizes false failure scenarios
while accommodating operator preferences.
2. Problem Statements 2. Problem Statements
It is becoming increasingly difficult for implementations to It is becoming increasingly difficult for implementations to
automatically supply a workable return path encoding for all MPLS LSP automatically supply a workable return path encoding for all MPLS LSP
Ping and Traceroute operations across all LSP types. There are Ping and Traceroute operations across all LSP types. There are
several factors which are contributing to this complication. several factors which are contributing to this complication.
o Some LSPs have control-channel, and some do not. Some LSPs have o Some LSPs have a control-channel, and some do not. Some LSPs have
reverse LSP, and some do not. Some LSPs have IP route in reverse a reverse LSP, and some do not. Some LSPs have IP reachability in
direction, and some do not. the reverse direction, and some do not.
o LSRs on some LSPs can have different available return path(s). o LSRs on some LSPs can have different available return path(s).
Available return path(s) can depend on whether responder is a Available return path(s) can depend on whether the responder is a
transit LSR or an egress LSR. In case of bi-directional LSP, transit LSR or an egress LSR. In case of a bi-directional LSP,
available return path(s) on transit LSRs can also depend on available return path(s) on transit LSRs can also depend on
whether LSP is completely co-routed, partially co-routed or non- whether LSP is completely co-routed, partially co-routed or
co-routed. associated (i.e., LSPs in the two directions are not co-routed).
o MPLS LSP echo request packets may falsely terminate on an o MPLS echo request packets may incorrectly terminate on an
unintended target which can have different available return unintended target, which can have different available return
path(s) than intended target. path(s) than the intended target.
o MPLS LSP Ping operation is expected to terminate on egress LSR. o The MPLS LSP Ping operation is expected to terminate on egress
However, MPLS LSP Ping operation with specific TTL values and MPLS LSR. However, the MPLS LSP Ping operation with specific TTL
LSP Traceroute operation can terminate on both transit LSR(s) and values and MPLS LSP Traceroute operation can terminate on both
egress LSR. transit LSR(s) and the egress LSR.
Except for the case where responder node does not have an IP route Except for the case where the responder node does not have an IP
back to the initiator, it is possible to use Reply Mode of value 2 route back to the initiator, it is possible to use Reply Mode of
(Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet) in all cases. However, some value 2 (Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet) in all cases. However,
operators are preferring control-channel and reverse LSP as "default" some operators are preferring control-channel and reverse LSP as
return path if they are available, which are not always available. default return path if they are available, which is not always the
case.
When specific return path encoding is being supplied by users or When specific return path encoding is supplied by users or
applications, then there are no issues in choosing the return path applications, then there are no issues in choosing the return path
encoding. When specific return path encoding is not being supplied encoding. When specific return path encoding is not supplied by
by users or applications, then implementations require extended logic users or applications, then implementations use extra logic to
to compute, and sometimes "guess", the "default" return path compute, and sometimes guess, the default return path encodings. If
encodings. If a responder received a MPLS LSP echo request a responder node receives an MPLS echo request containing return path
containing return path instruction which cannot be accommodated due instructions which cannot be accommodated due to unavailability, then
to unavailability, then responder implementations often drop such the responder often drops such packets. This results in the
packets. This results in initiator to not receive back MPLS LSP echo initiator not receiving the MPLS LSP echo reply packets back. This
reply packets. Consequence may be acceptable for failure cases (ex: consequence may be acceptable for failure cases (e.g., broken LSPs)
broken LSP) where MPLS LSP echo request terminated on unintended where the MPLS echo request terminated on unintended target.
target. However, initiator not receiving back MPLS LSP echo reply However, the initiator not receiving back MPLS echo reply packets,
packets, even when intended target received and verified the even when the intended target received and verified the requests, is
requests, is not desirable as result will be conveyed as false not desirable as false failures will be conveyed to users.
failures to users.
Some return path(s) are more preferred than others, but preferred Many operators prefer some return path(s) over others for specific
cannot be used in all cases. Thus implementations are required to LSP types. To accommodate this, implementations may default to
compute when preferred return path encoding can and cannot be used, operator preferred return path (or allow default return path to be
and that computation is becoming more and more difficult. configured) for a specific operation. However, if the sender of MPLS
echo request knew that preferred return path will not be available at
the intended target node, then it is not very beneficial to use a
Reply Mode corresponding to preferred return path (i.e., the sender
of the MPLS echo request will not receive the MPLS echo reply in the
successful case). What would be beneficial, for a given operation,
is for the sender of the MPLS echo request to determine which return
path(s) can and cannot be used ahead of time.
This document adds one Reply Mode to describe reverse LSP, and one This document adds one Reply Mode value to describe the reverse LSP,
optional TLV to describe ordered list of reply modes. Based on and one optional TLV to describe an ordered list of reply modes.
operational needs, the TLV can describe multiple Reply Mode values in Based on operational needs, the TLV can describe multiple Reply Mode
preferred order to allow responder to use first available Reply Mode values in a preferred order to allow the responder to use the first
from the list. This eliminates the need for initiator to compute, or available Reply Mode from the list. This eliminates the need for the
sometimes "guess", the "default" return path encoding. And that will initiator to compute, or sometimes guess, the default return path
result in simplified implementations across vendors, and result in encoding. And that will result in simplified implementations across
improved usability to fit operational needs. vendors, and result in improved usability to fit operational needs.
3. Solution 3. Solution
This document adds one reply mode to indicate reverse LSP, to be used This document adds one reply mode to indicate reverse LSP, to be used
by Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) by the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute. This document also adds an
Ping and Traceroute. This document also adds an optional TLV which optional TLV which can carry ordered list of reply modes.
can carry ordered list of reply modes.
3.1. Reply via reverse LSP 3.1. Reply via reverse LSP
Some LSP types are capable of having related LSP in reverse Some LSP types are capable of having related LSP in reverse
direction, through signaling or other association mechanisms. This direction, through signaling or other association mechanisms. This
document uses the term "Reverse LSP" to refer to the LSP in reverse document uses the term "Reverse LSP" to refer to the LSP in reverse
direction of such LSP types. Note that this document isolates the direction of such LSP types. Note that this document restricts the
scope of "Reverse LSP" applicability to those reverse LSPs which are scope of "Reverse LSP" applicability to those reverse LSPs which are
capable of and permitted to carry the IP encapsulated MPLS LSP echo capable and allowed to carry the IP encapsulated MPLS echo reply.
reply.
This document adds one Reply Mode to be used by MPLS LSP Ping and This document adds one Reply Mode to be used by MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute operations. Traceroute operations.
Value Meaning Value Meaning
----- ------- ----- -------
TBD1 Reply via reverse LSP TBD1 Reply via reverse LSP
MPLS LSP echo request with TBD1 (Reply via reverse LSP) in the Reply MPLS echo request with TBD1 (Reply via reverse LSP) in the Reply Mode
Mode field may be used to instruct responder to use reverse LSP to field may be used to instruct responder to use reverse LSP to send
send MPLS LSP echo reply. Reverse LSP is in relation to the last FEC MPLS echo reply. Reverse LSP is in relation to the last FEC
specified in the Target FEC Stack TLV. specified in the Target FEC Stack TLV.
When responder is using this Reply Mode, transmitting MPLS LSP echo When a responder is using this Reply Mode, transmitting MPLS echo
reply packet MUST use IP destination address of 127/8 for IPv4 and reply packet MUST use IP destination address of 127/8 for IPv4 and
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6. 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6.
3.2. Reply Mode Order TLV 3.2. Reply Mode Order TLV
This document also introduces a new optional TLV to describe list of This document also introduces a new optional TLV to describe list of
Reply Mode values. The new TLV will contain one or more Reply Mode Reply Mode values. The new TLV will contain one or more Reply Mode
value(s) in preferred order, first Reply Mode value appearing being value(s) in preferred order. The first Reply Mode value is the most
most preferred. Following rules apply when using Reply Mode Order preferred and the last Reply Mode value is the least preferred.
TLV. Following rules apply when using Reply Mode Order TLV.
1. Reply Mode Order TLV MAY be included in MPLS echo request. 1. Reply Mode Order TLV MAY be included in MPLS echo request.
2. Reply Mode Order TLV MUST NOT be included in MPLS echo reply. 2. Reply Mode Order TLV MUST NOT be included in MPLS echo reply.
3. Reply Mode field of MPLS echo request MUST be set to a valid 3. Reply Mode field of MPLS echo request MUST be set to a valid
value when supplying Reply Mode Order TLV in transmitting MPLS value when supplying Reply Mode Order TLV in transmitting MPLS
echo request. It is RECOMMENDED for initiator to set Reply Mode echo request. The initiator SHOULD set Reply Mode field of MPLS
field of MPLS echo request to a value that corresponds to return echo request to a value that corresponds to a return path which
path most likely to be available, in case responder does not most likely to be available, in case responder does not
understand the Reply Mode Order TLV. understand the Reply Mode Order TLV.
4. If responder node understands Reply Mode Order TLV and TLV is 4. If a responder node understands the Reply Mode Order TLV and the
valid, then responder MUST consider Reply Mode values described TLV is valid, then the responder MUST consider Reply Mode values
in the TLV and MUST NOT use value described in Reply Mode field described in the TLV and MUST NOT use the value described in the
of received MPLS echo request. Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo request.
5. If responder node understands Reply Mode Order TLV but TLV is not 5. If a responder node understands the Reply Mode Order TLV but the
valid (due to conditions listed below), then responder MUST only TLV is not valid (due to conditions listed below), then the
use value described in Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo responder MUST only use the value described in the Reply Mode
request. field of received MPLS echo request.
6. Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode value, 6. Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode value,
and SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values. and SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values.
7. Same Reply Mode value MUST NOT appear multiple times in the Reply 7. A Reply Mode value MUST NOT be repeated (i.e. MUST NOT appear
Mode Order TLV. multiple times) in the Reply Mode Order TLV.
8. Reply Mode value 1 (Do not reply) SHOULD NOT be used in the Reply 8. Reply Mode value 1 (Do not reply) SHOULD NOT be used in the Reply
Mode Order TLV. Mode Order TLV.
The responding node is to select the first available return path in The responding node is to select the first available return path in
this TLV. Reply Mode value corresponding to selected return path this TLV. Reply Mode value corresponding to selected return path
MUST be set in Reply Mode field of MPLS LSP echo reply to communicate MUST be set in Reply Mode field of MPLS echo reply to communicate
back to the initiator which return path was chosen. back to the initiator which return path was chosen.
The format of the TLV is as follows: The format of the TLV is as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reply Mode Order TLV Type | Length | | Reply Mode Order TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reply mode 1 | Reply mode 2 | Reply mode 3 | Reply mode 4 | | Reply mode 1 | Reply mode 2 | Reply mode 3 | Reply mode 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 Reply Mode Order TLV Figure 1 Reply Mode Order TLV
This is a variable length optional TLV. Each Reply Mode field is 1 This is a variable length optional TLV. Each Reply Mode field is 1
octet. octet.
4. Security Considerations 4. Relations to Other LSP Ping/Trace Features
4.1. Reply Path TLV
[RFC7110] defines a new Reply Mode (5 - Reply via Specified Path).
This Reply Mode specified in MPLS echo request indicates that MPLS
echo reply be sent on one specific path described by the Reply Path
TLV. The Flags field of the Reply Path TLV can indicate B
(Bidirectional) bit to describe reverse direction of the tested
bidirectional LSP. However, it is desired to have a new Reply Mode
(TBD1 - Reply via reverse LSP) to indicate reverse direction of the
tested bidirectional LSP without requiring to include additional TLV
(i.e. Reply Path TLV). Therefore, a new Reply Mode (TBD1 - Reply via
reverse LSP) has been added.
4.2. Proxy LSP Ping
The mechanism defined in this document will work with Proxy LSP Ping
defined by [I-D.ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping]. MPLS proxy ping request
can carry a Reply Mode value and the Reply Mode Order TLV with list
of Reply Mode values. Proxy LSR MUST copy both Reply Mode value and
the Reply Mode Order TLV into MPLS echo request. Proxy LSR, upon
receiving MPLS echo reply, MUST copy Reply Mode value into MPLS proxy
ping reply. With these procedures, Reply Mode used by the MPLS echo
reply sender is propagated in the Reply Mode field to the sender of
MPLS proxy ping request.
5. Security Considerations
Beyond those specified in [RFC4379], there are no further security Beyond those specified in [RFC4379], there are no further security
measures required. measures required.
5. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Reply Mode 6.1. New Reply Mode
IANA is requested to assign one reply modes from the "Reply Mode" IANA is requested to assign one reply modes from the "Reply Mode"
sub-registry within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture sub-registry within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
(MPLS)" registry. (MPLS)" registry.
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- --------- ----- ------- ---------
TBD1 Reply via reverse LSP this document TBD1 Reply via reverse LSP this document
5.2. New Reply Mode Order TLV 6.2. New Reply Mode Order TLV
IANA is requested to assign a new TLV type value from the "TLVs" sub- IANA is requested to assign a new TLV type value from the "TLVs" sub-
registry within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture registry within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
(MPLS)" registry, for the "Reply Mode Order TLV". (MPLS)" registry, for the "Reply Mode Order TLV".
The new TLV Type value should be assigned from the range The new TLV Type value should be assigned from the range
(32768-49161) specified in RFC 4379 [RFC4379] section 3 that allows (32768-49161) specified in [RFC4379] section 3 that allows the TLV
the TLV type to be silently dropped if not recognized. type to be silently dropped if not recognized.
Type Meaning Reference Type Meaning Reference
---- ------- --------- ---- ------- ---------
TBD2 Reply Mode Order TLV this document TBD2 Reply Mode Order TLV this document
6. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Santiago Alvarez and Faisal Iqbal for Authors would like to thank Santiago Alvarez and Faisal Iqbal for
discussions which motivated creation of this document. Authors would discussions which motivated creation of this document. Authors would
also like to thank Sam Aldrin and Curtis Villamizar for providing also like to thank Sam Aldrin, Curtis Villamizar and Ross Callon for
valuable comments to influence the contents of the draft. providing valuable comments to influence the contents of the draft.
7. Contributing Authors 8. Contributing Authors
Shaleen Saxena Shaleen Saxena
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: ssaxena@cisco.com Email: ssaxena@cisco.com
8. References 9. References
8.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006. February 2006.
8.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] [I-D.ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping]
Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., JOUNAY, F., and S. DeLord, Swallow, G., Lim, V., and S. Aldrin, "Proxy MPLS Echo
"Return Path Specified LSP Ping", draft-ietf-mpls-return- Request", draft-ietf-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-01 (work in
path-specified-lsp-ping-15 (work in progress), October progress), January 2014.
2013.
[RFC7110] Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., Jounay, F., and S. Delord,
"Return Path Specified Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping",
RFC 7110, January 2014.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Nobo Akiya Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: nobo@cisco.com Email: nobo@cisco.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 44 change blocks. 
139 lines changed or deleted 181 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/