Encapsulating MPLS in UDP
draft-xu-mpls-in-udp-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Xiaohu Xu , Marshall Eubanks , Lucy Yong , Zhenbin Li , Nischal Sheth , Fan Yongbing | ||
| Last updated | 2012-10-07 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp, RFC 7510 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-xu-mpls-in-udp-03
Network working group X. Xu
Internet Draft Huawei
Category: Standard Track M. Eubanks
AmericaFree.TV
L. Yong
Z. Li
Huawei
N. Sheth
Juniper
Y. Fan
China Telecom
Expires: April 2013 October 8, 2012
Encapsulating MPLS in UDP
draft-xu-mpls-in-udp-03
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating MPLS in UDP October 2012
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.
Abstract
This document specifies one additional IP-based encapsulation
technology for MPLS packets referred to as MPLS-in-UDP, which is
intended to facilitate load-balancing the traffic of various MPLS
applications such as MPLS-based L2VPN and L3VPN in the core of IP-
enabled packet switch networks.
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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Terminology ................................................. 4
3. Encapsulation in UDP ........................................ 4
4. Signaling for Encapsulation in UDP .......................... 5
5. Processing Functions ........................................ 5
6. Applicability ............................................... 6
7. Security Considerations ..................................... 6
8. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6
9. Acknowledgements ............................................ 7
10. References ................................................. 7
10.1. Normative References .................................. 7
10.2. Informative References ................................ 7
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 8
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating MPLS in UDP October 2012
1. Introduction
Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and Link Aggregation Group (LAG) are
widely used in the core of IP-enabled Packet Switch Networks (PSN)
for load-balancing purposes. Most core routers (i.e., P routers) in
the IP-enabled PSN are capable of load-balancing IP traffic flows
across ECMP paths and/or LAG based on the hash of the five-tuple of
UDP/TCP packets (i.e., source IP address, destination IP address,
source port, destination port, and protocol) or some fields in the
IP header of non-UDP/TCP packets (e.g., source IP address,
destination IP address). However, with existing IP-based
encapsulation methods as defined in [RFC4023] (e.g., MPLS-in-IP and
MPLS-in-GRE), distinct customer traffic flows of various MPLS
applications (e.g., MPLS-based L2VPN or L3VPN) between a given PE
pair would be encapsulated with the same IP or GRE tunnel header
prior to traversing the IP core. Since the encapsulating traffic is
neither TCP nor UDP traffic, core routers could only perform hash
calculation on the fields in the IP header of IP or GRE tunnels. As
a result, core routers could not achieve an effective load-balancing
for these traffic flows in the network due to the lack of adequate
entropy information. In most service providers' backbones, MPLS
forwarding capability is enabled by default and therefore the
deployment of IP-based encapsulation method for MPLS packets (e.g.,
MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-GRE) is not popular. As a result, the above
load-balancing issue is unweighted. However, in most cloud data
center network environments, data center operators tend to enable IP
forwarding capability, rather than MPLS forwarding capability in the
underlying data center networks due to certain reasons. In case
MPLS-based L2VPN or L3VPN technology are adopted as a scalable data
center network solution to support multi-tenancy in such
environments, IP-based encapsulation method for MPLS packets would
have to be used and therefore the above load-balancing issue would
become significant.
[RFC5640] describes a method for improving the load-balancing in
Softwire mesh networks [RFC5565]. However, this method requires core
routers to be able to perform hash calculation on the fields
including the "load-balancing" field contained in the L2TPv3 or GRE
tunnel header. [Entropy-Label] proposes to use the "entropy labels"
for achieving a better load-balancing for MPLS traffic flows in the
core of MPLS-enabled PSN. Although the entropy label could be
inserted in the "Key" field of the GRE header by ingress PE routers
in the case where the PSN is IP enabled rather than MPLS enabled, it
still requires core routers to be capable of performing hash
calculation on the "entropy label" contained in the GRE tunnel
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating MPLS in UDP October 2012
header. Any of the above load-balancing methods requires a change to
the date plane of core routers.
This document describes a new IP-based encapsulation method for MPLS
packets referred to as MPLS-in-UDP, which is intended to facilitate
load-balancing the traffic of various MPLS applications such as
MPLS-based L2VPN and L3VPN in the core of IP-enabled packet switch
networks where the core routers could not be upgraded due to some
reason.
2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC4364] and [RFC4664].
3. Encapsulation in UDP
MPLS-in-IP messages have the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = entropy | Dest Port = MPLS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ MPLS Packet ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Source Port of UDP
This field contains an entropy value that is generated
by the ingress PE router. For example, the entropy value
can be generated by performing hash calculation on
certain fields in the customer packets (e.g., the five
tuple of UDP/TCP packets). To ensure that the source
port number is always in the range 49152 to 65535 which
may be required in some cases, instead of calculating a
16-bit hash, the ingress PE router could calculate a 14-
bit hash and use those 14 bits as the least significant
bits of the source port field while the most significant
two bits would be set to binary 11. That still conveys
14 bits of entropy information which would be enough as
well in practice.
Destination Port of UDP
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating MPLS in UDP October 2012
This field is set to a value (TBD) indicating the MPLS
packet encapsulated in the UDP header is a MPLS unicast
one or a MPLS multicast one.
UDP Length
The usage of this field is in accordance with the
current UDP specification.
UDP Checksum
The usage of this field is in accordance with the
current UDP specification. To simplify the operation on
egress PE router, this field is recommended to be set to
zero.
4. Signaling for Encapsulation in UDP
PE routers could signal the UDP tunnel encapsulation information
among them by some means.
In the case when BGP is used in the MPLS applications (e.g.,
BGP/MPLS IP VPN [RFC4364]), the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation
information can be signaled by using the mechanism defined in [RFC
5512]. In this case, a new Tunnel Type code for UDP tunnel
technology needs to be assigned by IANA. If there is no explicit
encapsulation information to signal using the Encapsulation SAFI for
the UDP tunneling protocol, a BGP Encapsulation Extended Community
with the Tunnel Type set to the value indicating UDP tunneling
protocol would be enough. For example, such extended community could
be attached to the update messages for NLRI announcement in the
BGP/MPLS IP VPN case, or be attached to the update messages
dedicated for auto-discovery in the VPLS [RFC4761, RFC4762] case
where BGP-based auto-discovery is used. Otherwise, if more detailed
information about the UDP tunnel technology is needed for signaling
(e.g., to specify what MPLS application is allowed to use this MPLS-
in-UDP encapsulation), a new TLV and even a set of sub-TLVs
dedicated for UDP tunnel encapsulation technology that would be
contained in the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute needs to be defined.
More details about how to signal the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation
information will be described in a separate document.
5. Processing Functions
This MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation causes MPLS packets to be forwarded
through "IP UDP tunnels". When performing MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating MPLS in UDP October 2012
by an ingress PE router, the entropy value would be generated by the
ingress PE router and then be filled in the Source Port field of the
UDP header.
P routers, upon receiving these UDP encapsulated packets, could
balance these packets based on the hash of the five-tuple of UDP
packets.
Upon receiving these UDP encapsulated packets, egress PE routers
would decapsulate them by removing the UDP headers and then process
them accordingly.
6. Applicability
Besides the MPLS-based L3VPN [RFC4364] and L2VPN [RFC4761, RFC4762]
[E-VPN] applications, MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation could also be used
in other MPLS applications including but not limited to 6PE [RFC4798]
and PWE3 services.
7. Security Considerations
Just like MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-IP encapsulation formats, the
MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format defined in this document by itself
cannot ensure the integrity and privacy of data packets being
transported through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and cannot enable the
tunnel decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel encapsulator. In the
case where any of the above security issues is concerned, the MPLS-
in-UDP tunnels SHOULD be secured with IPsec in transport mode. In
this way, the UDP header would not be seeable to P routers anymore.
As a result, the meaning of adopting MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation
format as an alternative to MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-IP encapsulation
formats is lost. Hence, MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format SHOULD be
used only in the scenarios where all the security issues as
mentioned above are not significant concerns. For example, in a data
center environment, the whole network including P routers and PE
routers are under the control of a single administrative entity and
therefore there is no need to worry about the above security issues.
8. IANA Considerations
Two distinct UDP destination port numbers indicating MPLS and MPLS
with upstream-assigned label respectively need to be assigned by
IANA.
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating MPLS in UDP October 2012
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Shane Amante, Dino Farinacci, Keshava A K, Ivan Pepelnjak,
Eric Rosen, Kireeti Kompella, Weiguo Hao, Zhenxiao Liu and Xing Tong
for their valuable comments on the idea of MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC4364] Rosen, E and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L. and Rosen, E. (Editors),"Framework for Layer
2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, Sept 2006.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating
MPLS in IP or GRE", RFC4023, March 2005.
[RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load-
Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640, August 2009.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
J., and S. Amante, "Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires
over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC6391, November
2011
[Entropy-Label] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W.,
and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS
Forwarding", draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-01, work in
progress, October, 2011.
[RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the
BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, April
2009.
[RFC4798] J Declerq et al., "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS
using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC4798, February
2007.
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating MPLS in UDP October 2012
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC
4761, January 2007.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
RFC 4762, January 2007.
[E-VPN] Aggarwal et al., "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", draft-ietf-
l2vpn-evpn-00.txt, work in progress, February, 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu
Huawei Technologies,
Beijing, China
Phone: +86-10-60610041
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Marshall Eubanks
AmericaFree.TV LLC
P.O. Box 141
Clifton, Virginia 20124
USA
Phone: +1-703-501-4376
Email: marshall.eubanks@gmail.com
Lucy Yong
Huawei USA
1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500
Plano, TX 75075
US
Email: lucyyong@huawei.com
Nischal Sheth
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Email: nsheth@juniper.net
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Encapsulating MPLS in UDP October 2012
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies,
Beijing, China
Phone: +86-10-60613676
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Yongbing Fan
China Telecom
Guangzhou, China.
Phone: +86 20 38639121
Email: fanyb@gsta.com
Xu, et al. Expires April 8, 2013 [Page 9]