Detecting P2MP Data Plane Failures draftyasukawamplsp2mplspping02'txt

1
Detecting P2MP Data Plane Failuresdraft-yasukawa-
mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-02.txt

• Seisho Yasukawa - yasukawa.seisho_at_lab.ntt.co.jp
  Adrian Farrel - adrian_at_olddog.co.uk
• Zafar Ali zali_at_cisco.com
• Bill Fenner - fenner_at_research.att.com

2
Recap of Objectives

• Point-to-multipoint MPLS development is real
• P2MP MPLS-TE is under development in the MPLS
  working group
• Work starting on multicast LDP
• Need simple and efficient mechanisms to detect
  data plane failures in P2MP MPLS LSPs
• Requirements include
• Verification of reception at recipients.
• Discovering point-to-multipoint tree topology.
• Ping/Trace from ingress/egress.
• Whole tree (source-to-recipient)
• Individual recipients
• Objective is to build a solution on top of
  existing LSP Ping technology

3
Proposed Solution

• Heavy re-use of LSP Ping
• Need to identify the LSP
• Introduce RSVP P2MP Session sub-TLV
• Ingress can control ping/trace of whole tree or
  individual recipients
• Necessary to protect the ingress from being
  swamped
• Introduce P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLV (of FEC
  Stack TLV)
• Place-holder for multicast LDP FEC when stable
• P2MP LSP Ping
• Echo request cannot be filtered based on
  identified recipient
• Echo response only from targeted recipient
• P2MP LSP traceroute
• Echo request cannot be filtered based on
  identified recipient
• Only LSRs on the path to identified recipients
  respond

4
Changes in 02 Revision

• New co-author (Bill Fenner)
• Introduce jitter parameter
• Allows initiator to specify jitter at responder
• Increases size of tree that can be pinged
• Parameter might be added to response to indicate
  how much jitter was applied (not in current
  version)
• Editorial nits and boilerplate

5
Further Issues Questions

• Support multicast LDP in the same I-D?
• Yes!
• Will need work to support multicast FEC
• Consult with mLDP authors
• Ping a subset of leaves?
• Removed from early versions
• Too much processing at transit nodes
• Question raised in Minneapolis, but no follow-up
  on list
• Minneapolis
• Agreed not to merge with P2P LSP Ping I-D
• Agreed this MPLS WG work
• Agreed need for P2MP OAM requirements I-D
• Now available
• Now ready to be WG doc?