RE: [mpls] New draft for performing lsp-traceroute fortunneled/stitched LSPs.

* 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:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:52 PM
> To: Nitin Bahadur; mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] New draft for performing lsp-traceroute
> fortunneled/stitched LSPs.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Could you briefly compare and contrast with RFC 3609?
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nitin Bahadur" <nitinb@juniper.net>
> To: <mpls@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:08 PM
> Subject: [mpls] New draft for performing lsp-traceroute
> fortunneled/stitched
> LSPs.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls