Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya
Internet-Draft G. Swallow
Updates: 4379,6424 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track S. Litkowski
Expires: December 15, 2014 B. Decraene
Orange
J. Drake
Juniper Networks
June 13, 2014
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath Support for
Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-00
Abstract
This document defines an extension to the Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute to
describe Multipath Information for Link Aggregation (LAG) member
links separately, thus allowing MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to
discover and exercise specific paths of layer 2 Equal-Cost Multipath
(ECMP) over LAG interfaces.
This document updates RFC4379 and RFC6424.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 December 15, 2014.
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. LAG Interface Info TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. DDMAP TLV DS Flags: G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1.1. Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1.2. Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. LAG Interface Info TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.3. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . 14
10.4. New Sub-Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.4.1. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.4.2. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. LAG with L2 Switch Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.1. Equal Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.3. LAG Only on Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.4. LAG Only on Left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
The following acronyms/terminologies are used in this document:
o MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching.
o LSP - Label Switched Path.
o LSR - Label Switching Router.
o ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath.
o LAG - Link Aggregation.
o Initiating LSR - LSR which sends MPLS echo request.
o Responder LSR - LSR which receives MPLS echo request and sends
MPLS echo reply.
1.2. Background
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping and Traceroute [RFC4379] are powerful tools designed to diagnose
all available layer 3 paths of LSPs, i.e. provides diagnostic
coverage of layer 3 Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP). In many MPLS
networks, Link Aggregation (LAG) as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], which
provide layer 2 ECMP, are often used for various reasons. MPLS LSP
Ping and Traceroute tools were not designed to discover and exercise
specific paths of layer 2 ECMP. Result raises a limitation for
following scenario when LSP X traverses over LAG Y:
o MPLS switching of LSP X over one or more member links of LAG Y is
succeeding.
o MPLS switching of LSP X over one or more member links of LAG Y is
failing.
o MPLS echo request for LSP X over LAG Y is load balanced over a
member link which is MPLS switching successfully.
With above scenario, MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute will not be able to
detect the MPLS switching failure of problematic member link(s) of
the LAG. In other words, lack of layer 2 ECMP discovery and exercise
capability can produce an outcome where MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute
can be blind to MPLS switching failures over LAG interface that are
impacting MPLS traffic. It is, thus, desirable to extend the MPLS
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
LSP Ping and Traceroute to have deterministic diagnostic coverage of
LAG interfaces.
2. Overview
This document defines an extension to the MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute to describe Multipath Information for LAG member links
separately, thus allowing MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover
and exercise specific paths of layer 2 ECMP over LAG interfaces.
Reader is expected to be familiar with mechanics of the MPLS LSP Ping
and Traceroute described in Section 3.3 of [RFC4379] and Downstream
Detailed Mapping TLV (DDMAP) described in Section 3.3 of [RFC6424].
MPLS echo request carries a DDMAP and an optional TLV to indicate
that separate load balancing information for each layer 2 nexthop
over LAG is desired in MPLS echo reply. Responder LSR places the
same optional TLV in the MPLS echo reply to provide acknowledgement
back to the initiator. It also adds, for each downstream LAG member,
a load balance information (i.e. multipath information and interface
index). For example:
<----- LDP Network ----->
+-------+
| |
A-------B=======C-------E
| |
+-------D-------+
---- Non-LAG
==== LAG comprising of two member links
Figure 1: Example LDP Network
When node A is initiating LSP Traceroute to node E, node B will
return to node A load balance information for following entries.
1. Downstream C over Non-LAG (upper path).
2. First Downstream C over LAG (middle path).
3. Second Downstream C over LAG (middle path).
4. Downstream D over Non-LAG (lower path).
This document defines:
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
o In Section 3, a mechanism to discover L2 ECMP multipath
information;
o In Section 4, a mechanism to validate L2 ECMP traversal in some
LAG provisioning models;
o In Section 5, the LAG Interface Info TLV;
o In Section 6, the LAG Description Indicator flag;
o In Section 7, the Interface Index Sub-TLV;
o In Section 8, the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.
3. Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP Multipath
The MPLS echo request carries a DDMAP and the LAG Interface Info TLV
(described in Section 5) to indicate that separate load balancing
information for each layer 2 nexthop over LAG is desired in MPLS echo
reply. Responder LSR:
o MUST add the LAG Interface Info TLV in the MPLS echo reply to
provide acknowledgement back to the initiator. Downstream LAG
Info Accommodation flag MUST be set in LAG Interface Info Flags.
o For each downstream that is a LAG interface:
* MUST add DDMAP in the MPLS echo reply.
* MUST set LAG Description Indicator flag in DS Flags (described
in Section 6) of DDMAP.
* All fields and Sub-TLVs, except for Multipath Data Sub-TLV and
Interface Index Sub-TLV, are set/added to DDMAP to describe
this LAG interface, as per [RFC6424].
* For each LAG member link of this LAG interface:
+ MUST add Interface Index Sub-TLV (described in Section 7)
with LAG Member Link Indicator flag set in Interface Index
Flags, describing this LAG member link.
+ MUST add Multipath Data Sub-TLV for this LAG member link, if
received DDMAP requested multipath information.
Each LAG member link is described with Interface Index Sub-TLV and
conditionally with Multipath Data Sub-TLV (if multipath information
is requested). If both Sub-TLVs are placed in the DDMAP to describe
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
a LAG member link, Interface Index Sub-TLV MUST be added first with
Multipath Data Sub-TLV immediately following.
For example, a responder LSR possessing a LAG interface with two
member links would send the following DDMAP for this LAG interface:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DDMAP fields describing LAG interface with DS Flags G set |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Stack Sub-TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: LAG Interface DDMAP Example
These procedures allow initiating LSR to:
o Identify whether responder LSR understands this mechanism.
o Identify whether each DDMAP describes a LAG interface or a non-LAG
interface.
o Obtain multipath information which is expected to traverse the
specific LAG member link described by interface index.
4. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal
The MPLS echo request is sent with a DDMAP with DS Flags I set and
the optional LAG Interface Info TLV to indicate the request for
Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV with additional LAG member
link information (i.e. interface index) in the MPLS echo reply.
Responder LSR MUST:
o Add LAG Interface Info TLV in the MPLS echo reply to provide
acknowledgement back to the initiator. Upstream LAG Info
Accommodation flag MUST be set in LAG Interface Info Flags.
o Add the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV (described in
Section 8) in the MPLS echo reply.
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
o Add the Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV (described in
Section 8.1.2) for LAG interfaces. The LAG Member Link Indicator
flag MUST be set in Interface Index Flags, and the incoming
Interface Index set to LAG member link which received the MPLS
echo request.
Described procedures allow initiating LSR to know:
o The expected load balance information of every LAG member link, at
LSR with TTL=n.
o The actual incoming interface at LSR with TTL=n+1, including the
interface index of LAG member link if incoming interface is a LAG
interface.
Note that defined procedures will provide a deterministic result for
LAG interfaces that are back-to-back connected between routers (i.e.
no L2 switch in between). If there is a L2 switch between LSR at
TTL=n and LSR at TTL=n+1, there is no guarantee that traversal of
every LAG member link at TTL=n will result in reaching different
interface index at TTL=n+1. Issues resulting from LAG with L2 switch
in between are further described in Appendix A. LAG provisioning
models in operated network should be considered when analyzing the
output of LSP Traceroute exercising L2 ECMPs.
5. LAG Interface Info TLV
The LAG Interface Info object is a new TLV that MAY be included in
the MPLS echo request message. An MPLS echo request MUST NOT include
more than one LAG Interface Info object. Presence of LAG Interface
Info object is a request that responder LSR describes upstream and
downstream LAG interfaces according to procedures defined in this
document. If the responder LSR is able to accommodate this request,
then the LAG Interface Info object MUST be included in the MPLS echo
reply message.
LAG Interface Info TLV Type is TBD1. Length is 4. The Value field
of LAG Interface TLV has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAG Interface Info Flags | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: LAG Interface Info TLV
LAG Interface Info Flags
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
LAG Interface Info Flags field is a bit vector with following
format.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero (Reserved) |U|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Two flags are defined: U and D. The remaining flags MUST be set
to zero when sending and ignored on receipt. Both U and D flags
MUST be cleared in MPLS echo request message when sending, and
ignored on receipt. Either or both U and D flags MAY be set in
MPLS echo reply message.
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
U Upstream LAG Info Accommodation
When this flag is set, LSR is capable of placing Incoming
Interface Index Sub-TLV, describing LAG member link, in
the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.
D Downstream LAG Info Accommodation
When this flag is set, LSR is capable of placing Interface
Index Sub-TLV and Multipath Data Sub-TLV, describing LAG
member link, in the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV.
6. DDMAP TLV DS Flags: G
One flag, G, is added in DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV. In the
MPLS echo request message, G flag MUST be cleared when sending, and
ignored on receipt. In the MPLS echo reply message, G flag MUST be
set if the DDMAP TLV describes a LAG interface. It MUST be cleared
otherwise.
DS Flags
DS Flags G is added, in Bit Number 3, in DS Flags bit vector.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |G|MBZ|I|N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
G LAG Description Indicator
When this flag is set, DDMAP describes a LAG interface.
7. Interface Index Sub-TLV
The Interface Index object is a Sub-TLV that MAY be included in a
DDMAP TLV. Zero or more Interface Index object MAY appear in a DDMAP
TLV. The Interface Index Sub-TLV describes the index assigned by the
upstream LSR to the interface.
Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is TBD2. Length is 8, and the Value
field has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index Flags | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Interface Index Sub-TLV
Interface Index Flags
Interface Index Flags field is a bit vector with following format.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero (Reserved) |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One flag is defined: M. The remaining flags MUST be set to zero
when sending and ignored on receipt.
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
M LAG Member Link Indicator
When this flag is set, interface index described in
this sub-TLV is member of a LAG.
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
Interface Index
Index assigned by the LSR to this interface.
8. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV
The Detailed Interface and Label Stack object is a TLV that MAY be
included in a MPLS echo reply message to report the interface on
which the MPLS echo request message was received and the label stack
that was on the packet when it was received. A responder LSR MUST
NOT insert more than one instance of this TLV. This TLV allows the
initiating LSR to obtain the exact interface and label stack
information as it appears at the responder LSR.
Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV Type is TBD3. Length is K +
Sub-TLV Length, and the Value field has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero | Sub-TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV
The Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV format is derived from the
Interface and Label Stack TLV format (from [RFC4379]). Two changes
are introduced. First is that label stack, which is of variable
length, is converted into a sub-TLV. Second is that a new sub-TLV is
added to describe an interface index. The fields of Detailed
Interface and Label Stack TLV have the same use and meaning as in
[RFC4379]. A summary of the fields taken from the Interface and
Label Stack TLV is as below:
Address Type
The Address Type indicates if the interface is numbered or
unnumbered. It also determines the length of the IP Address
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
and Interface fields. The resulting total for the initial part
of the TLV is listed in the table below as "K Octets". The
Address Type is set to one of the following values:
Type # Address Type K Octets
------ ------------ --------
1 IPv4 Numbered 16
2 IPv4 Unnumbered 16
3 IPv6 Numbered 40
4 IPv6 Unnumbered 28
IP Address and Interface
IPv4 addresses and interface indices are encoded in 4 octets;
IPv6 addresses are encoded in 16 octets.
If the interface upon which the echo request message was
received is numbered, then the Address Type MUST be set to IPv4
Numbered or IPv6 Numbered, the IP Address MUST be set to either
the LSR's Router ID or the interface address, and the Interface
MUST be set to the interface address.
If the interface is unnumbered, the Address Type MUST be either
IPv4 Unnumbered or IPv6 Unnumbered, the IP Address MUST be the
LSR's Router ID, and the Interface MUST be set to the index
assigned to the interface.
Note: Usage of IPv6 Unnumbered has the same issue as [RFC4379],
described in Section 3.4.2 of [I-D.ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap]. A
solution should be considered an applied to both [RFC4379] and
this document.
Sub-TLV Length
Total length in octets of the sub-TLVs associated with this
TLV.
8.1. Sub-TLVs
This section defines the sub-TLVs that MAY be included as part of the
Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.
Sub-Type Value Field
--------- ------------
1 Incoming Label stack
2 Incoming Interface Index
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
8.1.1. Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV
The Incoming Label Stack sub-TLV contains the label stack as received
by the LSR. If any TTL values have been changed by this LSR, they
SHOULD be restored.
Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV Type is 1. Length is variable, and the
Value field has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV
8.1.2. Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV
The Incoming Interface Index object is a Sub-TLV that MAY be included
in a Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV. The Incoming Interface
Index Sub-TLV describes the index assigned by this LSR to the
interface which received the MPLS echo request message.
Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is 2. Length is 8, and the
Value field has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index Flags | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV
Interface Index Flags
Interface Index Flags field is a bit vector with following format.
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero (Reserved) |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One flag is defined: M. The remaining flags MUST be set to zero
when sent and ignored on receipt.
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
M LAG Member Link Indicator
When this flag is set, the interface index described in
this sub-TLV is a member of a LAG.
Interface Index
Index assigned by the LSR to this interface.
9. Security Considerations
This document extends LSP Traceroute mechanism to discover and
exercise layer 2 ECMP paths. Additional processing are required for
initiating LSR and responder LSR, especially to compute and handle
increasing number of multipath information. Due to additional
processing, it is critical that proper security measures described in
[RFC4379] and [RFC6424] are followed.
10. IANA Considerations
10.1. LAG Interface Info TLV
The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD1 for LAG Interface Info
TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry.
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBD1 LAG Interface Info TLV this document
10.2. Interface Index Sub-TLV
The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD2 for Interface Index
Sub-TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry, "Sub-
TLVs for TLV Types 20" sub-registry.
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBD2 Interface Index Sub-TLV this document
10.3. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV
The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD3 for Detailed Interface
and Label Stack TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters -
TLVs" registry.
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBD3 Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV this document
10.4. New Sub-Registry
10.4.1. DS Flags
[RFC4379] defines the Downstream Mapping TLV, which has the Type 2
assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. [RFC6424]
defines the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV, which has the Type 20
assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. DSMAP has
been deprecated by DDMAP, but both TLVs shares a field: "DS Flags".
This document requires allocation of a new value in the "DS Flags"
field, which is not maintained by IANA today. Therefore, this
document requests IANA to create new registries within
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] protocol to maintain "DS Flags" field. Initial
values for this registry, "DS Flags", are described below.
Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
7 N: Treat as a Non-IP Packet RFC4379
6 I: Interface and Label Stack Object Request RFC4379
5-4 Unassigned
3 G: LAG Description Indicator this document
2-0 Unassigned
Assignments of DS Flags are via Standards Action [RFC5226] or IESG
Approval [RFC5226].
Note that "DS Flags" is a field included in two TLVs defined in
"Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry: Downstream Mapping TLV (value 2)
and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (value 20). Modification to "DS
Flags" registry will affect both TLVs.
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
Also note that [I-D.akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] makes request to
create a new retry for "DS Flags", with new values being added for
Bit Number 4 and 5. If [I-D.akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] becomes RFC
and "DS Flags" IANA registry is created as result, then this document
simply requests Bit Number 3 (G: LAG Description Indicator) to be
added to the registry.
10.4.2. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD3
The IANA is requested to make a new "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD3" sub-
registry under "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry.
Initial values for this sub-registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types TBD3",
are described below.
Sub-Type Name Reference
--------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
1 Incoming Label Stack this document
2 Incoming Interface Index this document
4-65535 Unassigned
Assignments of Sub-Types are via Standards Action [RFC5226] or IESG
Approval [RFC5226].
11. Acknowledgements
TBD
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.
12.2. Informative References
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
[I-D.akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping]
Akiya, N., Swallow, G., and C. Pignataro, "Label Switched
Path (LSP) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy
Labels (EL)", draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-01 (work
in progress), December 2013.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap]
George, W. and C. Pignataro, "Gap Analysis for Operating
IPv6-only MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-00
(work in progress), April 2014.
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Appendix A. LAG with L2 Switch Issues
Several flavors of "LAG with L2 switch" provisioning models are
described in this section, with MPLS data plane ECMP traversal
validation issues with each.
A.1. Equal Numbers of LAG Members
R1 ==== S1 ==== R2
The issue with this LAG provisioning model is that packets traversing
a LAG member from R1 to S1 can get load balanced by S1 towards R2.
Therefore, MPLS echo request messages traversing specific LAG member
from R1 to S1 can actually reach R2 via any LAG members, and sender
of MPLS echo request messages have no knowledge of this nor no way to
control this traversal. In the worst case, MPLS echo request
messages with specific entropies to exercise every LAG members from
R1 to S1 can all reach R2 via same LAG member. Thus it is impossible
for MPLS echo request sender to verify that packets intended to
traverse specific LAG member from R1 to S1 did actually traverse that
LAG member, and to deterministically exercise "receive" processing of
every LAG member on R2.
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
A.2. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members
____
R1 ==== S1 ==== R2
There are deviating number of LAG members on the two sides of the L2
switch. The issue with this LAG provisioning model is the same as
previous model, sender of MPLS echo request messages have no
knowledge of L2 load balance algorithm nor entropy values to control
the traversal.
A.3. LAG Only on Right
R1 ---- S1 ==== R2
The issue with this LAG provisioning model is that there is no way
for MPLS echo request sender to deterministically exercise both LAG
members from S1 to R2. And without such, "receive" processing of R2
on each LAG member cannot be verified.
A.4. LAG Only on Left
R1 ==== S1 ---- R2
MPLS echo request sender has knowledge of how to traverse both LAG
members from R1 to S1. However, both types of packets will terminate
on the non-LAG interface at R2. It becomes impossible for MPLS echo
request sender to know that MPLS echo request messages intended to
traverse a specific LAG member from R1 to S1 did indeed traverse that
LAG member.
Authors' Addresses
Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems
Email: nobo@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath June 2014
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
John E. Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Akiya, et al. Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 18]