/
LSP Ping Relay Reply LSP Ping Relay Reply

LSP Ping Relay Reply - PowerPoint Presentation

debby-jeon
debby-jeon . @debby-jeon
Follow
391 views
Uploaded On 2015-09-27

LSP Ping Relay Reply - PPT Presentation

ltdraftietfmplslsppingrelayreply07gt L Jin J Luo T Nadeau G Swallow Changes in draft07 LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply Stack Object Added Source Address of Replying Router Destination Address Pointer ID: 142124

reply address stack asbr address reply asbr stack ping relayed router source lsp 169 replying relay procedures echo bit

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "LSP Ping Relay Reply" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

LSP Ping Relay Reply<draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-07>

L. Jin

J.

Luo

T. Nadeau

G. SwallowSlide2

Changes in draft-07

LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply Stack Object: Added

Source Address of Replying Router

Destination Address Pointer

LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply Stack Entry

Eliminated Address Length since it is implied by the type

Relay Node Address Stack description

Moved procedural information into Section 4, Procedures

Generalized MTU exceeded error

Generally useful, wider

applicabilitySlide3

Changes in draft-07 (2)Procedures

Updated text (both technical changes and clarifications)

Changed many SHOULDs to MUSTs

Section 4.7, Impact to

Traceroute

Updated to use Source Address of Replying Router

Section

5, LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply Example

Updated example to use changed proceduresSlide4

Relayed Echo Reply Stack Object

Source

Address of Replying

Router

Had been carried in Address stack

Confused semantics, often did not even belong there

Used for loop-detection and

displayDestination Address Pointer

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

|

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

| Initiator Source Port |

Reply

Add

Type

|

Reserved

|

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

|

Source Address of

Replying

Router (0, 4, or 16

octects

)

|

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

|

Destination Address Pointer

|

Number

of

Relayed

Addresses

|

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

| |

~

Stack

of

Relayed

Addresses

~

| |

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Slide5

Source Address of Replying Router

Semantic Issue

Procedures mandated adding the IF address of replying router at the bottom of the stack

Adding other address optional

In

example below ASBR 2 MUST add 10.0.0.2 at BOS, but that address is not reachable from ASBR 4!

Address needed for relaying must be reachable through the interface from which the LSP ping would have been forwarded if TTL had not expired

AS Red

AS Blue

PE2

ABR

PE

1

ASBR 2

ASBR 4

ASBR 4

ASBR 5

169.0.0.2

169.0.0.3

169.0.0.4

169.0.0.5

10.0.0.2

10.0.0.2Slide6

Loop Detection

Procedures

said a

the

next relay node address MUST be located before the source IP address of the received Relayed Echo Reply which MUST be also in the stack

In example below

address 10.0.0.1 is used in both

ASes Added Destination Address Stack Pointer

Points to address to which the message is being

sent

AS Red

AS Blue

PE2

PE

1

ASBR 2

ASBR 4

169.0.0.2

169.0.0.3

10.0.0.2

10.0.0.1

10.0.0.1Slide7

Mandatory address in stackMandated adding an address

reachable through the interface from which the LSP ping

would have been forwarded at the BOS

If a

router is

hiding

its

addresslocated at an addressing domain boundarye.g. AS boundary or between areas

u

sing BGP-LU (RFC3107)

vs

IGP then a Null address MUST be added with the K bit setSlide8

Stack processing

Procedures in two cases ignored the significance of the K bit

When eliminating addresses, this can only be done from the last entry with the K bit set to the end

When choosing the next relay router MUST not use one above the

last entry with the K bit set Slide9

Next Steps

Workgroup

review (requested March 7)

MPLS-RT review (in progress)

Address comments

Last call