RFC6374 UDP Return Path
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2015-04-29
Replaces draft-ietf-mpls-pm-udp-return
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Loa Andersson
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
MPLS                                                           S. Bryant
Internet-Draft                                              S. Sivabalan
Intended status: Standards Track                                 S. Soni
Expires: October 31, 2015                                  Cisco Systems
                                                          April 29, 2015

                        RFC6374 UDP Return Path
               draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-03

Abstract

   This document specifies the proceedure to be used by the Packet Loss
   and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks protocol defined in RFC6374
   when sending and processing MPLS performance management out-of-band
   responses for delay and loss measurements over an IP/UDP return path.

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 October 31, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   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.

Bryant, et al.          Expires October 31, 2015                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           RFC6374 UDP Return Path              April 2015

1.  Introduction

   This document describes how Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for
   MPLS Networks protocol (MPLS-PLDM) [RFC6374] out-of-band responses
   can be delivered to the Querier using UDP/IP.

   The use of UDP may be required to support data path management such
   as passage through firewalls, or to provide the necessary
   multiplexing needed in bistatic operation where the querier and the
   collector are not co-located and the collector is gathering the
   response information for a number of responders.  In a highly scaled
   system some MPLS-PLDM sessions may be off-loaded to a specific node
   within the distributed system that comprises the Label Switching
   Router (LSR) as a whole.  In such systems the response may arrive via
   any interface in the LSR and need to internally forwarded to the
   processor tasked with handling the particular MPLS-PLDM measurement.
   Currently the MPLS-PLDM protocol does not have any mechanism to
   deliver the PLDM Response message to particular node within a multi-
   CPU LSR.

   The procedure described in this specification describes how the
   queryer requests delivery of the MPLS-PLDM response over IP to a
   dynamic UDP port.  It makes no other changes to the protocol and thus
   does not affect the case where the reponse is delivered over a MPLS
   Associated Channel [RFC5586].

2.  Requirements Language

   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].

3.  Solution Overview

   This document specifies that, unless configured otherwise, if a UDP
   Return Object (URO) is present in a MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder
   MUST use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to the
   querier.  Multiple UROs MAY be present in a MPLS-PLDM Query
   indicating that an identical responses SHOULD be sent to each addess-
   port pair.  A responder MAY be designed or configured to only
   transmit a single response, in which case the response MUST be sent
   using the parameters specified in the first URO in the querry packet.

   The procedures defined in this document may be applied to both
   unidirectional and bidirectional LSPs.  In this document, the term
   bidirectional LSP includes the co-routed bidirectional LSP defined in
   [RFC3945] and the associated bidirectional LSP that is constructed
   from a pair of unidirectional LSPs (one for each direction) that are

Bryant, et al.          Expires October 31, 2015                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           RFC6374 UDP Return Path              April 2015

   associated with one another at the LSP's ingress/egress points
   [RFC5654].  The mechanisms defined in this document can apply to both
   IP/MPLS and to the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)[RFC5654],
   [RFC5921]

3.1.  UDP Return Object

   NOTE TO RFC Editor please delete the following paragraph before
   publication.

   START DELETE

   Note to reviewers - We considered a number of approaches to the
   design.  The first was to use the existing address object and a
   separate UDP object, but concern in the WG was that there may be more
   than one collector that required this information, and the combined
   size of the two objects.  The next approach considered by the authors
   was to create a new object by appending a UDP port to the existing
   generalized address object.  However by noting that UDP is only
   likely to be sent over IP and that it will be a long time before we
   design a third major version of IP we can compress the object either
   by having separate IPv4 and an IPv4 objects, or using the address
   length as the discriminator.  The object design below uses the latter
   approach.  The resultant combined UDP port + address object is thus
   the same size as the original address object.

   END DELETE

   The format of the UDP Return Object (URO) is as follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | URO TLV Type  | Length={6,18} |    UDP-Destination-Port       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                           Address                             ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Type and Length fields are each 8 bits long.  The Length field
   indicates the size in bytes of the remainder of the object (i.e. is
   the size of the address in bytes plus 2).  When the address is IPv4
   the length field is thus 6 and when the address is IPv6 the length
   field is thus 18.  The length field therefore acts as both the TLV
   parsing parameter and the address family type indicator.

   The UDP Return Object Type (URO TLV Type) has a value of 131.

Bryant, et al.          Expires October 31, 2015                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           RFC6374 UDP Return Path              April 2015

   The UDP Destination Port is a UDP Destination port as specified in
   [RFC0768].

   The Address is either an IPv4 or an IPv6 address.

   The URO MUST NOT appear in a response.

4.  Theory of Operation

   This document defines the UDP Return Object to enable the MPLS-PLDM
   Querier to specify the return path for the MPLS-PLDM reply using IP/
   UDP encapsulation.

   When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting the
   Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM Query to "Out-of-band Response
   Requested", and the URO is present, the responder SHOULD send the
   response back to Querier on the specified destination UDP port at the
   specified destination IP address contained in the URO.

   If the URO is expected but is not present in a Query message and an
   MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band, the Query message MUST
   NOT be processed further, and if posisble an "Error - Invalid
   Message" ([RFC6374] Section 3.1) SHOULD be send to the Querrier and
   the operator notified via the management system (see Section 4.2 for
   rurther details.

4.1.  Sending an MPLS-PM Query

   When sending an MPLS-PLDM Query message, in addition to the rules and
   procedures defined in [RFC6374]; the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM
   Query MUST be set to "Out-of-band Response Requested", and a URO MUST
   be carried in the MPLS-PLDM Query message.

   If the Querier uses the UDP port to de-multiplexing of the response
   for different measurement type, there MUST be a different UDP port
   for each measurement type (Delay, loss and delay-loss combined).

   An implementation MAY use multiple UDP ports for same measurement
   type to direct the response to the correct management process in the
   LSR.

4.2.  Receiving an MPLS PM Query Request

   The processing of MPLS-PLDM query messages as defined in [RFC6374]
   applies in this document.  In addition, when an MPLS-PLDM Query
   request is received, with the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM Query set
   to "Out-of-band Response Requested" with a URO present, then the

Bryant, et al.          Expires October 31, 2015                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           RFC6374 UDP Return Path              April 2015

   Responder SHOULD use that IP address and UDP port to send MPLS-PLDM
   response back to Querier.

   If an Out-of-band response is requested and the Address object or the
   URO is missing, the Query SHOULD be dropped in the case of a
   unidirectional LSP.  If both these TLVs are missing on a
   bidirectional LSP, the control code of Response message should set to
   0x1C indicating "Error - Invalid Message" ([RFC6374] Section 3.1) and
   the response SHOULD be sent over the reverse LSP.  The receipt of
   such a mal-formed request SHOULD be notified to the operator through
   the management system, taking the normal precautions with respect to
   the prevention of overload of the error reporting system.

4.3.  Sending an MPLS-PM Response

   As specified in [RFC6374] the MPLS-PLDM Response can be sent over
   either the reverse MPLS LSP for a bidirectional LSP or over an IP
   path.  It MUST NOT be sent other than in response to an MPLS-PLDM
   Query message.

   When the requested return path is an IP forwarding path and this
   method is in use, the destination IP address and UDP port MUST be
   copied from the URO.  The source IP address and the source UDP Port
   of Response packet is left to discretion of the Responder subject to
   the normal management and security considerations.  The packet format
   for the MPLS-PLDM response after the UDP header is as specified in
   [RFC6374].  As shown in Figure 1 the Associate Channel Header (ACH)
   [RFC5586] is not incuded.  The information provided by the ACH is not
   needed since the correct binding between the Querry and Response
   messages is achieved though the UDP Port and the Session Indentifier
   contained in the RFC6374 message.

Bryant, et al.          Expires October 31, 2015                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           RFC6374 UDP Return Path              April 2015

       +----------------------------------------------------------+
       |  IP Header                                               |
       .    Source Address = Responders IP Address                |
       .    Destination Addess = URO.Address                      |
       .    Protocol = UDP                                        .
       .                                                          .
       +----------------------------------------------------------+
       | UDP Header                                               |
       .   Source Port = As chosen by Responder                   .
       .   Destination Port = URO.UDP-Destination-Port            .
       .                                                          .
       +----------------------------------------------------------+
       | Message as specified in RFC6374                          |
       .                                                          .
       +----------------------------------------------------------+

                     Figure 1: Response packet Format

   If the return path is an IP path, only one-way delay or one-way loss
   measurement can be carried out.  In this case timestamps 3 and 4 MUST
   be zero as specified in [RFC6374].

4.4.  Receiving an MPLS-PM Response

   If the response was received over UDP/IP and an out-of-band response
   was expected, the Response message SHOULD be directed to the
   appropriate measurement process as determined by the destination UDP
   Port, and processed using the corresponding measurement type
   procedure specified in [RFC6374].

   If the Response was received over UDP/IP and an out-of-band response
   was not requested, that response should be dropped and the event
   SHOULD be notified to the operator through the management system,
   taking the normal precautions with respect to the prevention of
   overload of the error reporting system.

5.  Manageability Considerations

   The manageability considerations described in Section 7 of [RFC6374]
   are applicable to this specification.  Additional manageability
   considerations are noted within the elements of procedure of this
   document.

   Nothing in this document precludes the use of a configured UDP/IP
   return path in a deployment in which configuration is preferred to
   signalling.  In these circumstances the URO MAY be omitted from the
   MPLS-PLDM messages.

Bryant, et al.          Expires October 31, 2015                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           RFC6374 UDP Return Path              April 2015

6.  Security Considerations

   The MPLS-PLDM system is not intended to be deployed on the public
   Internet.  It is intended for deployment in well manages private and
   service provider networks.  The security considerations described in
   Section 8 of [RFC6374] are applicable to this specification and the
   reader's attention is drawn to the last two paragraphs.
   Cryptographic measures may be enhanced by the correct configuration
   of access control lists and firewalls.

   There is no additional exposure of information to pervasive
   monitoring systems observing LSPs that are being monitored.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has made an early allocation of a new Optional TLV type from
   MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object Registry contained within the
   g-ach-parameters registry set.  IANA is requested to modify the
   description text as shown below.

      Code              Description            Reference
       131     UDP Return                  [This]

8.  Acknowledgements

   We acknowledge the contribution of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi,
   both with Cisco Systems.  We thank Loa Andersson, Eric Osborne,
   Mustapha Aissaoui, and Jeffrey Zhang for their review comments.

   We thank all who have reviewed this text and provided feedback.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              August 1980.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
              Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

Bryant, et al.          Expires October 31, 2015                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           RFC6374 UDP Return Path              April 2015

   [RFC5654]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
              and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
              RFC 5654, September 2009.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5921]  Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.
              Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC
              5921, July 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Stewart Bryant
   Cisco Systems

   Email: stbryant@cisco.com

   Siva Sivabalan
   Cisco Systems

   Email: msiva@cisco.com

   Sagar Soni
   Cisco Systems

   Email: sagsoni@cisco.com

Bryant, et al.          Expires October 31, 2015                [Page 8]