Subject: [mpls] New draft for performing lsp-traceroute for tunneled/stitched LSPs.

From: "Nitin Bahadur" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:08:27 -0700

Hi,

 A new draft has been submitted... 

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/mpls/draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-00.
txt

The draft describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute over mpls
tunnels.  The techniques outlined in RFC 4379 (LSP-Ping) fail to perform
correct traceroute validation and path discovery for a LSP that goes
over other mpls tunnels or over stitched LSPs. The draft describes new
procedures that can be used in conjunction with the standard procedures
described in RFC 4379 to trace such LSPs.

It would be great if the WG could go over the draft and provide comments
on the same.

Thanks
Nitin

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:51:58 +0100

Hi,

Could you briefly compare and contrast with RFC 3609?

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nitin Bahadur" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: [mpls] New draft for performing lsp-traceroute fortunneled/stitched 
LSPs.

Hi,

Thanks
Nitin

---

From: "Nitin Bahadur" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:58:17 -0700

* RFC 3609 stipulates requirements for tracing generic tunnels. The
draft provides detailed procedures for performing the tracing.

* The draft is centered on MPLS tunnels and tracing of MPLS FECs, as
compared to a generic IP-IP, GRE tunnel tracing mechanism.

* A generic IP traceroute does not perform MPLS FEC validation. The
draft enables FEC validation (similar to that specified in RFC 4379).

* RFC 3609 talks about security/access/privileges w.r.t. tracing
tunnels. The draft allows for mechanisms to respond to traceroute
requests without divulging tunnel details. Vendors can also make the
tunnel look like a single-hop (via configuration or other means) and
thus prevent tracing inside of the tunnel.

* Mechanisms to test the forwarding and control-plane operation and
report faults, as part of the traceroute, are supported by the draft.

* The draft currently *does not* support other tunneling technologies
(besides MPLS).

* The draft *does* support nested tunnels.

* The various protocol requirements specified in the RFC are supported
by the draft. The draft does not explicitly state (which it should) that
a path should exist from a transit node to the ingress node, in order
for the reply to reach the ingress successfully.

Thanks
Nitin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:52 PM
> To: Nitin Bahadur; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] New draft for performing lsp-traceroute
> fortunneled/stitched LSPs.
> 
> Hi,
>