Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-11
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 6424.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | George Swallow , Nitin Bahadur , Kireeti Kompella | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2011-09-10) | ||
| Replaces | draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 6424 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Stewart Bryant | ||
| IESG note | |||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-11
Network Working Group N. Bahadur
Internet-Draft K. Kompella
Updates: 4379 (if approved) Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track G. Swallow
Expires: March 13, 2012 Cisco Systems
September 10, 2011
Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-11
Abstract
This document describes methods for performing LSP-Ping (specified in
RFC 4379) traceroute over MPLS tunnels and for traceroute of stitched
MPLS label-switched-paths (LSPs). The techniques outlined in RFC
4379 are insufficient to perform traceroute Forwarding Equivalency
Class (FEC) validation and path discovery for an LSP that goes over
other MPLS tunnels or for a stitched LSP. This document describes
enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379).
These enhancements along with other procedures outlined in this
document can be used to trace such LSPs.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 13, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. New Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Return code per downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Return code for stitched LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1.1. Multipath data sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Deprecation of Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Performing MPLS traceroute on tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. Transit node procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.1. Addition of a new tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1.2. Transition between tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.3. Modification to FEC Validation procedure on Transit . 16
4.2. Modification to FEC Validation procedure on Egress . . . . 16
4.3. Ingress node procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.1. Processing Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . 17
4.3.1.1. Stack Change sub-TLV not present . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.1.2. Stack Change sub-TLV(s) present . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.2. Modifications to handling to Return Code 3 reply. . . 19
4.3.3. Handling of new return codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Handling deprecated Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . 19
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
1. Introduction
This documents describes methods for performing LSP-Ping (specified
in [RFC4379]) traceroute over MPLS tunnels. The techniques in
[RFC4379] outline a traceroute mechanism that includes Forwarding
Equivalency Class (FEC) validation and Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP)
path discovery. Those mechanisms are insufficient and do not provide
details when the FEC being traced traverses one or more MPLS tunnels
and when label-switched-path (LSP) stitching [RFC5150] is in use.
This document defines enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV
[RFC4379] to make it more extensible and to enable retrieval of
detailed information. Using the enhanced TLV format along with the
existing definitions of [RFC4379], this document describes procedures
by which a traceroute request can correctly traverse MPLS tunnels
with proper FEC and label validations.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Motivation
A LSP-Ping traceroute may cross multiple MPLS tunnels en-route the
destination. Let us consider a simple case.
A B C D E
o -------- o -------- o --------- o --------- o
\_____/ | \______/ \______/ | \______/
LDP | RSVP RSVP | LDP
| |
\____________________/
LDP
Figure 1: LDP over RSVP tunnel
When a traceroute is initiated from router A, router B returns
downstream mapping information for node C in the MPLS echo reply.
The next MPLS echo request reaches router C with a LDP FEC. Node C
is a pure RSVP node and does not run LDP. Node C will receive the
MPLS echo request with 2 labels but only 1 FEC in the Target FEC
stack. Consequently, node C will be unable to perform FEC complete
validation. It will let the trace continue by just providing next-
hop information based on incoming label, and by looking up the
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
forwarding state associated with that label. However, ignoring FEC
validation defeats the purpose of control plane validatations. The
MPLS echo request should contain sufficient information to allow node
C to perform FEC validations to catch any misrouted echo-requests.
The above problem can be extended for a generic case of hierarchical
tunnels or stitched tunnels (e.g. B-C can be a separate RSVP tunnel
and C-D can be a separate RSVP tunnel). The problem of FEC
validation for tunnels can be solved if the transit routers (router B
in the above example) provide some information to the ingress
regarding the start of a new tunnel.
Stitched LSPs involve 2 or more LSP segments stitched together. The
LSP segments can be signaled using the same or different signaling
protocols. In order to perform an end-to-end trace of a stitched
LSP, the ingress needs to know FEC information regarding each of the
stitched LSP segments. For example, consider the figure below.
A B C D E F
o -------- o -------- o --------- o -------- o ------- o
\_____/ \______/ \______/ \______/ \_______/
LDP LDP BGP RSVP RSVP
Figure 2: Stitched LSP
Consider ingress (A) tracing end-to-end stitched LSP A--F. When an
MPLS echo request reaches router C, there is a FEC stack change
happening at router C. With current LSP-Ping [RFC4379] mechanisms,
there is no way to convey this information to A. Consequently, when
the next echo request reaches router D, router D will know nothing
about the LDP FEC that A is trying to trace.
Thus, the procedures defined in [RFC4379] do not make it possible for
the ingress node to:
1. Know that tunneling has occured
2. Trace the path of the tunnel
3. Trace the path of stitched LSPs
3. Packet format
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
3.1. Introduction
In many cases there has been a need to associate additional data in
the MPLS echo reply. In most cases, the additional data needs to be
associated on a per downstream neighbor basis. Currently, the MPLS
echo reply contains one downstream map TLV (DSMAP) per downstream
neighbor. However the DSMAP format is not extensible and hence it is
not possible to associate more information with a downstream
neighbor. This draft defines a new extensible format for the DSMAP
and provides mechanisms for solving the tunneled LSP-Ping problem
using the new format. In summary, the draft makes the following TLV
changes:
o Addition of new Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (DDMAP).
o Deprecation of existing Downstream Mapping TLV (DSMAP).
o Addition of Downstream FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV to DDMAP.
3.2. New Return Codes
3.2.1. Return code per downstream
A new Return Code is being defined "See DDM TLV for Return Code and
Return SubCode" (Section 6.3) to indicate that the Return Code is per
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (Section 3.3). This Return Code MUST
be used only in the message header and MUST be set only in the MPLS
echo reply message. If the Return Code is set in the MPLS echo
request message, then it MUST be ignored. When this Return Code is
set, each Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV MUST have an appropriate
Return Code and Return SubCode. This Return Code MUST be used when
there are multiple downstreams for a given node (such as P2MP or
ECMP), and the node needs to return a Return Code/Return SubCode for
each downstream. This Return Code MAY be used even when there is
only 1 downstream for a given node.
3.2.2. Return code for stitched LSPs
When a traceroute is being performed on stitched LSPs (Section 4.1.2)
the stitching point SHOULD indicate the stitching action to the node
performing the trace. This is done by setting the Return Code to
"Label switched with FEC change" (Section 6.3). If a node is
performing FEC hiding, then it MAY choose to set the Return Code to a
value (specified in [RFC4379]) other than "Label switched with FEC
change". The Return Code of "Label switched with FEC change" MUST
NOT be used if no FEC Stack sub-TLV (Section 3.3.1.3) is present in
the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV(s). This new Return Code MAY be
used for hierarchical LSPs (for indicating start or end of an outer
LSP).
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
3.3. Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
Type # Value Field
------ ------------
TBD Downstream detailed mapping
The Downstream Detailed Mapping object is a TLV that MAY be included
in an MPLS echo request message. Only one Downstream Detailed
Mapping object may appear in an echo request. The presence of a
Downstream Detailed Mapping object is a request that Downstream
Detailed Mapping objects be included in the MPLS echo reply. If the
replying router is the destination (Label Edge Router) of the FEC,
then a Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV SHOULD NOT be included in the
MPLS echo reply. Otherwise the replying router SHOULD include a
Downstream Detailed Mapping object for each interface over which this
FEC could be forwarded.
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 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MTU | Address Type | DS Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Interface Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Return Code | Return SubCode| Sub-tlv length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of Sub TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
The Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV format is derived from the
Downstream Mapping TLV format. The key change is that variable
length and optional fields have been converted into sub-TLVs. The
fields have the same use and meaning as in [RFC4379]. A summary of
the fields taken from Downstream Mapping TLV is as below:
Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
The MTU is the size in octets of the largest MPLS frame (including
label stack) that fits on the interface to the Downstream LSR.
Address Type
The Address Type indicates if the interface is numbered or
unnumbered. It also determines the length of the Downstream IP
Address and Downstream Interface fields.
DS Flags
The DS Flags field is a bit vector of various flags.
Downstream Address and Downstream Interface Address
IPv4 addresses and interface indices are encoded in 4 octets; IPv6
addresses are encoded in 16 octets. For details regarding setting
the address value, refer to [RFC4379].
The newly added sub-TLVs and their fields are as described below.
Return code
The Return Code is set to zero by the sender. The receiver can
set it to one of the values specified in the "Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters" registry,
"Return Codes" sub-registry.
If the receiver sets a non-zero value of the Return Code field in
the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV, then the receiver MUST also
set the Return Code field in the echo reply header to "See DDM TLV
for Return Code and Return SubCode" (Section 6.3). An exception
to this is if the receiver is a bud node [RFC4461] and is replying
as both an egress and a transit node with a Return Code of 3
("Replying router is an egress for the FEC") in the echo reply
header.
If the Return Code of the echo reply message is not set to either
"See DDM TLV for Return Code and Return SubCode" (Section 6.3) or
"Replying router is an egress for the FEC", then the Return Code
specified in the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV MUST be ignored.
Return SubCode
The Return SubCode is set to zero by the sender. The receiver can
set it to one of the values specified in the "Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters" registry,
"Return Codes" sub-registry. This field is filled in with the
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
stack-depth for those codes that specify that. For all other
codes, the Return SubCode MUST be set to zero.
If the Return Code of the echo reply message is not set to either
"See DDM TLV for Return Code and Return SubCode" (Section 6.3) or
"Replying router is an egress for the FEC", then the Return
SubCode specified in the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV MUST be
ignored.
Sub-tlv length
Total length in bytes of the sub-TLVs associated with this TLV.
3.3.1. Sub-TLVs
This section defines the Sub-TLVs that MAY be included as part of the
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV.
Sub-Type Value Field
--------- ------------
TBD Multipath data
TBD Label stack
TBD FEC Stack change
3.3.1.1. Multipath data sub-TLV
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 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Multipath Type | Multipath Length |Reserved (MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| (Multipath Information) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Multipath Sub-TLV
The multipath data sub-TLV includes multipath information. The sub-
TLV fields and their usage is as defined in [RFC4379]. A brief
summary of the fields is as below:
Multipath Type
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
The type of the encoding for the Multipath Information.
Multipath Length
The length in octets of the Multipath Information.
Multipath Information
Encoded multipath data, according to the Multipath Type.
3.3.1.2. Label stack sub-TLV
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 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Label | Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Label | Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Label Stack Sub-TLV
The Label stack sub-TLV contains the set of labels in the label stack
as it would have appeared if this router were forwarding the packet
through this interface. Any Implicit Null labels are explicitly
included. The number of label/protocol pairs present in the sub-TLV
is determined based on the sub-TLV data length. The label format and
protocol type are as defined in [RFC4379]. When the Downstream
Detailed Mapping TLV is sent in the echo reply, this sub-TLV MUST be
included.
Downstream Label
A Downstream Label is 24 bits, in the same format as an MPLS label
minus the TTL field, i.e., the MSBit of the label is bit 0, the
LSBit is bit 19, the EXP bits are bits 20-22, and bit 23 is the S
bit. The replying router SHOULD fill in the EXP and S bits; the
LSR receiving the echo reply MAY choose to ignore these bits.
Protocol
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
This specifies the label distribution protocol for the downstream
label.
3.3.1.3. FEC Stack change sub-TLV
A router MUST include the FEC Stack change sub-TLV when the
downstream node in the echo reply has a different FEC Stack than the
FEC stack received in the echo request. One or more FEC Stack change
sub-TLVs MAY be present in the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV. The
format is as below.
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 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Operation Type | Address type | FEC-tlv length| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Peer Address (0, 4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. FEC TLV .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV
Operation Type
The operation type specifies the action associated with the FEC
stack change. The following operation types are defined.
Type # Operation
------ ---------
1 Push
2 Pop
Address Type
The Address Type indicates the remote peer's address type. The
Address Type is set to one of the following values. The peer
address length is determined based on the address type. The
address type MAY be different from the address type included in
the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV. This can happen when the LSP
goes over a tunnel of a different address family. The address
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
type MAY be set to Unspecified if the peer-address is either
unavailable or the transit router does not wish it provide it for
security or administrative reasons.
Type # Address Type Address length
------ ------------ --------------
0 Unspecified 0
1 IPv4 4
2 IPv6 16
FEC tlv Length
Length in bytes of the FEC TLV.
Reserved
This field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
Remote peer address
The remote peer address specifies the remote peer which is the
next-hop for the FEC being currently traced. E.g. in the LDP over
RSVP case Figure 1, router B would respond back with the address
of router D as the remote peer address for the LDP FEC being
traced. This allows the ingress node to provide information
regarding FEC peers. If the operation type is PUSH, the remote
peer address is the address of the peer from which the FEC being
pushed was learnt. If the operation type is POP, the remote peer
address MAY be set to Unspecified.
For upstream assigned labels [RFC5331], an operation type of POP
will have a remote peer address (the upstream node that assigned
the label) and this SHOULD be included in the FEC Stack change
sub-TLV. The remote peer address MAY be set to Unspecified, if
the address needs to be hidden.
FEC TLV
The FEC TLV is present only when FEC-tlv length field is non-zero.
The FEC TLV specifies the FEC associated with the FEC stack change
operation. This TLV MAY be included when the operation type is
POP. It MUST be included when the operation type is PUSH. The
FEC TLV contains exactly 1 FEC from the list of FECs specified in
[RFC4379]. A NIL FEC MAY be associated with a PUSH operation if
the responding router wishes to hide the details of the FEC being
pushed.
FEC Stack change sub-TLV operation rules:
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
a. A FEC Stack change sub-TLV containing a PUSH operation MUST NOT
be followed by a FEC Stack change sub-TLV containing a POP
operation.
b. One or more POP operations MAY be followed by one or more PUSH
operations.
c. One FEC Stack change sub-TLV MUST be included per FEC stack
change. For example, if 2 labels are going to be pushed, then 1
FEC Stack change sub-TLV MUST be included for each FEC.
d. A FEC splice operation (an operation where 1 FEC ends and another
FEC starts, see Figure 7) MUST be performed by including a POP
type FEC Stack change sub-TLV followed by a PUSH type FEC Stack
change sub-TLV.
e. A Downstream detailed mapping TLV containing only 1 FEC Stack
Change sub-TLV with Pop operation is equivalent to IS_EGRESS
(Return code 3, [RFC4379]) for the outermost FEC in the FEC
stack. The ingress router performing the MPLS traceroute MUST
treat such a case as an IS_EGRESS for the outermost FEC.
3.4. Deprecation of Downstream Mapping TLV
This document deprecates the Downstream Mapping TLV. LSP-ping
procedures should now use the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV.
Detailed procedures regarding interoperability between the deprecated
TLV and the new TLV are specified in Section 4.4.
4. Performing MPLS traceroute on tunnels
This section describes the procedures to be followed by an LSP
ingress node and LSP transit nodes when performing MPLS traceroute
over MPLS tunnels.
4.1. Transit node procedure
4.1.1. Addition of a new tunnel
A transit node (Figure 1) knows when the FEC being traced is going to
enter a tunnel at that node. Thus, it knows about the new outer FEC.
All transit nodes that are the origination point of a new tunnel
SHOULD add the a FEC Stack change sub-TLV (Section 3.3.1.3) to the
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (Figure 3) in the echo reply. The
transit node SHOULD add 1 FEC Stack change sub-TLV of operation type
PUSH, per new tunnel being originated at the transit node.
A transit node that sends a Downstream FEC Stack change sub-TLV in
the echo reply SHOULD fill the address of the remote peer; which is
the peer of the current LSP being traced. If the transit node does
not know the address of the remote peer, it MUST set the address type
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
to Unspecified.
The Label stack sub-TLV MUST contain 1 additional label per FEC being
PUSHed. The label MUST be encoded as per Figure 5. The label value
MUST be the value used to switch the data traffic. If the tunnel is
transparent pipe to the node, i.e. the data-plane trace will not
expire in the middle of the new tunnel, then a FEC Stack change sub-
TLV SHOULD NOT be added and the Label stack sub-TLV SHOULD NOT
contain a label corresponding to the hidden tunnel.
If the transit node wishes to hide the nature of the tunnel from the
ingress of the echo request, then it MAY not want to send details
about the new tunnel FEC to the ingress. In such a case, the transit
node SHOULD use the NIL FEC. The echo reply would then contain a FEC
Stack change sub-TLV with operation type PUSH and a NIL FEC. The
value of the label in the NIL FEC MUST be set to zero. The remote
peer address type MUST be set to Unspecified. The transit node
SHOULD add 1 FEC Stack change sub-TLV of operation type PUSH, per new
tunnel being originated at the transit node. The Label stack sub-TLV
MUST contain 1 additional label per FEC being PUSHed. The label
value MUST be the value used to switch the data traffic.
4.1.2. Transition between tunnels
A B C D E F
o -------- o -------- o --------- o -------- o ------- o
\_____/ \______/ \______/ \______/ \_______/
LDP LDP BGP RSVP RSVP
Figure 7: Stitched LSPs
In the above figure, we have 3 seperate LSP segments stitched at C
and D. Node C SHOULD include 2 FEC Stack change sub-TLVs. One with a
POP operation for the LDP FEC and one with the PUSH operation for the
BGP FEC. Similarly, node D SHOULD include 2 FEC Stack change sub-
TLVs, one with a POP operation for the BGP FEC and one with a PUSH
operation for the RSVP FEC. Nodes C and D SHOULD set the Return Code
to "Label switched with FEC change" (Section 6.3) to indicate change
in FEC being traced.
If node C wishes to perform FEC hiding, it SHOULD respond back with 2
FEC Stack change sub-TLVs. One POP followed by 1 PUSH. The POP
operation MAY either exclude the FEC TLV (by setting FEC TLV length
to 0) or set the FEC TLV to contain the LDP FEC. The PUSH operation
SHOULD have the FEC TLV containing the NIL FEC. The Return Code
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
SHOULD be set to "Label switched with FEC change".
If node C performs FEC hiding and node D also performs FEC hiding,
then node D MAY choose to not send any FEC Stack change sub-TLVs in
the echo reply since the number of labels has not changed (for the
downstream of node D) and the FEC type also has not changed (NIL
FEC). In such a case, node D MUST NOT set the Return Code to "Label
switched with FEC change". If node D performs FEC hiding, then node
F will respond as IS_EGRESS for the NIL FEC. The ingress (node A)
will know that IS_EGRESS corresponds to the end-to-end LSP.
A B C D E F
o -------- o -------- o --------- o --------- o --------- o
\_____/ |\____________________/ |\_______/
LDP |\ RSVP-A | LDP
| \_______________________________/|
| RSVP-B |
\________________________________/
LDP
Figure 8: Hierarchical LSPs
In the above figure, we have an end-to-end LDP LSP between nodes A
and F. The LDP LSP goes over RSVP LSP RSVP-B. LSP RSVP-B itself goes
over another RSVP LSP RSVP-A. When node A initiates a traceroute for
the end-to-end LDP LSP, then following sequence of FEC Stack change
sub-TLVs will be performed
Node B:
Respond with 2 FEC Stack change sub-TLVs: PUSH RSVP-B, PUSH RSVP-A.
Node D:
Respond with a Return Code of 3 when RSVP-A is top of FEC stack.
When the echo request contains RSVP-B as top of stack, respond with
Downstream information for node E and an appropriate Return Code.
If node B is performing tunnel hiding, then:
Node B:
Respond with 2 FEC Stack change sub-TLVs: PUSH NIL-FEC, PUSH NIL-FEC.
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
Node D:
If D can co-relate that the NIL-FEC corresponds to RSVP-A, which
terminates at D, then it SHOULD Respond with Return Code of 3. D can
also respond with FEC Stack change sub-TLV: POP (since D knows that
number of labels towards next-hop is decreasing). Both responses
would be valid.
A B C D E F G
o -------- o -------- o ------ o ------ o ----- o ----- o
LDP LDP BGP \ RSVP RSVP / LDP
\_____________/
LDP
Figure 9: Stitched hierarchical LSPs
In the above case, node D will send 3 FEC Stack change sub-TLVs. One
POP (for the BGP FEC) followed by 2 PUSHes (one for LDP and one for
RSVP). Nodes C and D SHOULD set the Return Code to "Label switched
with FEC change" (Section 6.3) to indicate change in FEC being
traced.
4.1.3. Modification to FEC Validation procedure on Transit
Section 4.4 of [RFC4379] specifies Target FEC stack validation
procedures. This document enhances the FEC validation procedures as
follows. If the outermost FEC of the target FEC stack is the NIL
FEC, then the node MUST skip the target FEC validation completely.
This is to support FEC hiding, in which the outer hidden FEC can be
the NIL FEC.
4.2. Modification to FEC Validation procedure on Egress
Section 4.4 of [RFC4379] specifies Target FEC stack validation
procedures. This document enhances the FEC validation procedures as
follows. If the outermost FEC of the target FEC stack is the NIL
FEC, then the node MUST skip the target FEC validation completely.
This is to support FEC hiding, in which the outer hidden FEC can be
the NIL FEC.
4.3. Ingress node procedure
It is the responsibility of an ingress node to understand tunnel
within tunnel semantics and LSP stitching semantics when performing a
MPLS traceroute. This section describes the ingress node procedure
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
based on the kind of reply an ingress node receives from a transit
node.
4.3.1. Processing Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV should be processed in the same way
as the Downstream Mapping TLV, defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC4379].
This section describes the procedures for processing the new elements
introduced in this document.
4.3.1.1. Stack Change sub-TLV not present
This would be the default behavior as described in [RFC4379]. The
ingress node MUST perform MPLS echo reply processing as per the
procedures in [RFC4379].
4.3.1.2. Stack Change sub-TLV(s) present
If one or more FEC Stack change sub-TLVs (Section 3.3.1.3) are
received in the MPLS echo reply, the ingress node SHOULD process them
and perform some validation.
The FEC stack changes are associated with a downstream neighbor and
along a particular path of the LSP. Consequently, the ingress will
need to maintain a FEC-stack per path being traced (in case of
multipath). All changes to the FEC stack resulting from the
processing of FEC Stack change sub-TLV(s) should be applied only for
the path along a given downstream neighbor. The following algorithm
should be followed for processing FEC Stack change sub-TLVs.
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
push_seen = FALSE
fec_stack_depth = current-depth-of-fec-stack-being-traced
saved_fec_stack = current_fec_stack
while (sub-tlv = get_next_sub_tlv(downstream_detailed_map_tlv))
if (sub-tlv == NULL) break
if (sub-tlv.type == FEC-Stack-Change) {
if (sub-tlv.operation == POP) {
if (push_seen) {
Drop the echo reply
current_fec_stack = saved_fec_stack
return
}
if (fec_stack_depth == 0) {
Drop the echo reply
current_fec_stack = saved_fec_stack
return
}
Pop FEC from FEC stack being traced
fec_stack_depth--;
}
if (sub-tlv.operation == PUSH) {
push_seen = 1
Push FEC on FEC stack being traced
fec_stack_depth++;
}
}
}
if (fec_stack_depth == 0) {
Drop the echo reply
current_fec_stack = saved_fec_stack
return
}
Figure 10: FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV Processing Guideline
The next MPLS echo request along the same path should use the
modified FEC stack obtained after processing the FEC Stack change
sub-TLVs. A non-NIL FEC guarantees that the next echo request along
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
the same path will have the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV validated
for IP address, Interface address and label stack mismatches.
If the top of the FEC stack is a NIL FEC and the MPLS echo reply does
not contain any FEC Stack change sub-TLV, then it does not
necessarily mean that the LSP has not started traversing a different
tunnel. It could be that the LSP associated with the NIL FEC
terminated at a transit node and at the same time a new LSP started
at the same transit node. The NIL FEC would now be associated with
the new LSP (and the ingress has no way of knowing this). Thus, it
is not possible to build an accurate hierarchical LSP topology if a
traceroute contains NIL FECs.
4.3.2. Modifications to handling to Return Code 3 reply.
The procedures above allow the addition of new FECs to the original
FEC being traced. Consequently, a reply from a downstream node with
Return Code of 3 (IS_EGRESS) may not necessarily be for the FEC being
traced. It could be for one of the new FECs that was added. On
receipt of an IS_EGRESS reply, the LSP ingress should check if the
depth of Target FEC sent to the node that just responded, was the
same as the depth of the FEC that was being traced. If it was not,
then it should pop an entry from the Target FEC stack and resend the
request with the same TTL (as previously sent). The process of
popping a FEC is to be repeated until either the LSP ingress receives
a non-IS_EGRESS reply or until all the additional FECs added to the
FEC stack have already been popped. Using IS_EGRESS reply, an
ingress can build a map of the hierarchical LSP structure traversed
by a given FEC.
4.3.3. Handling of new return codes
When the MPLS echo reply Return Code is "Label switched with FEC
change" (Section 3.2.2), the ingress node SHOULD manipulate the FEC
stack as per the FEC Stack change sub-TLVs contained in the
downstream detailed mapping TLV. A transit node can use this Return
Code for stitched LSPs and for hierarchical LSPs. In case of Equal
Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) or Point to Multi-Point (P2MP), there could be
multiple paths and downstream detailed mapping TLVs with different
return codes (Section 3.2.1). The ingress node should build the
topology based on the Return Code per ECMP path/P2MP branch.
4.4. Handling deprecated Downstream Mapping TLV
The Downstream Mapping TLV has been deprecated. Applications should
now use the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV. The following
procedures SHOULD be used for backward compatibility with routers
that do not support the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV.
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
o The Downstream Mapping TLV and the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
MUST never be sent together in the same MPLS echo request or in
the same MPLS echo reply.
o If the echo request contains a Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV and
the corresponding echo reply contains a Return Code of 2 (one or
more of the TLVs was not understood), then the sender of the echo
request MAY resend the echo request with the Downstream Mapping
TLV (instead of the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV). In cases
where a detailed reply is needed, the sender can choose to ignore
the router that does not support the Downstream Detailed Mapping
TLV.
o If the echo request contains a Downstream Mapping TLV, then a
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV MUST NOT be sent in the echo
reply. This is to handle the case that the sender of the echo
request does not support the new TLV. The echo reply MAY contain
Downstream Mapping TLV(s).
o If echo request forwarding is in use; such that the echo request
is processed at an intermediate label switched router (LSR) and
then forwarded on; then the intermediate router is responsible for
making sure that the TLVs being used among the ingress,
intermediate and destination are consistent. The intermediate
router MUST NOT forward an echo request or an echo reply
containing a Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV if it itself does not
support that TLV.
5. Security Considerations
1. If a network operator wants to prevent tracing inside a tunnel,
one can use the pipe mode [RFC3443], i.e. hide the outer MPLS
tunnel by not propagating the MPLS TTL into the outer tunnel (at
the start of the outer tunnel). By doing this, MPLS traceroute
packets will not expire in the outer tunnel and the outer tunnel
will not get traced.
2. If one doesn't wish to expose the details of the new outer LSP,
then the NIL FEC can be used to hide those details. Using the
NIL FEC ensures that the trace progresses without false negatives
and all transit nodes (of the new outer tunnel) perform some
minimal validations on the received MPLS echo requests.
Other security considerations, as discussed in [RFC4379] are also
applicable to this document.
6. IANA Considerations
The suggested values in all sub-sections below have been allocated
according to the early allocation process.
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
6.1. New TLV
IANA is requested to assign TLV type value to the following TLV from
the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-
registry.
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (See Section 3.3). Suggested value:
20.
6.2. New Sub-TLV types and associated registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry for the Sub-Type field of
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV. The valid range for this is
0-65535. Assignments in the range 0-16383 and 32768-49161 are made
via Standards Action as defined in [RFC3692]; assignments in the
range 16384-31743 and 49162-64511 are made via Specification Required
([RFC4379]); values in the range 31744-32767 and 64512-65535 are for
Vendor Private Use, and MUST NOT be allocated. If a sub-TLV has a
Type that falls in the range for Vendor Private Use, the Length MUST
be at least 4, and the first four octets MUST be that vendor's SMI
Enterprise Code, in network octet order. The rest of the Value field
is private to the vendor.
It is requested that IANA assign sub-TLV types from this new registry
to the following sub-TLVs (See Section 3.3.1).
Multipath data sub-TLV: Suggested value: 1
Label stack sub-TLV: Suggested value: 2
FEC Stack change sub-TLV: Suggested value: 3
6.3. New Return Codes
IANA is requested to assign new Return Code values from the "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Parameters" registry, "Return Codes" sub-registry as follows using a
Standards Action value.
Value Meaning
----- -------
TBD See DDM TLV for Return Code and Return SubCode
TBD Label switched with FEC change
Suggested values: 14 and 15 respectively
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter and Adrian Farrel for
their suggestions on the draft.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, January 2003.
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-
Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, August 2008.
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnel September 2011
Authors' Addresses
Nitin Bahadur
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Phone: +1 408 745 2000
Email: nitinb@juniper.net
URI: www.juniper.net
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Phone: +1 408 745 2000
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
URI: www.juniper.net
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
US
Email: swallow@cisco.com
URI: www.cisco.com
Bahadur, et al. Expires March 13, 2012 [Page 23]