RFC 8012: Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Networks Using Entropy Labels (ELs)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) paths. Ping is known as a connectivity-verification method and traceroute is known as a fault-isolation method, as described in RFC 4379. When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described in RFC 6790, the ability for LSP ping and traceroute operations to discover and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where Label Switching Routers (LSRs) apply different load-balancing techniques. One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL-based load balancing while other LSRs apply load balancing that is not EL based (e.g., IP). Another scenario is when an EL-based LSP is stitched with another LSP that can be EL based or not EL based. This document extends the MPLS LSP ping and traceroute multipath mechanisms in RFC 6424 to allow the ability of exercising LSPs that make use of the EL. This document updates RFC 6790.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8012
- Published
- November 2016
- Authors
- N. Akiya; G. Swallow; C. Pignataro; A. Malis; S. Aldrin
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 23
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 6790
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8287Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data PlanesUpdated
December 2017
- RFC 7737Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Reply Mode SimplificationCurrent
January 2016
- RFC 8611Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) InterfacesUpdated
June 2019
- RFC 7876UDP Return Path for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS NetworksCurrent
July 2016
- RFC 8169Residence Time Measurement in MPLS NetworksCurrent
May 2017
- RFC 8184Dual-Homing Protection for MPLS and the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) PseudowiresCurrent
June 2017
- RFC 8185Dual-Homing Coordination for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Pseudowires ProtectionCurrent
June 2017
- RFC 8256Requirements for Hitless MPLS Path Segment MonitoringCurrent
October 2017
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?