Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya Internet-Draft G. Swallow Updates: 4379,6424 (if approved) Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track S. Litkowski Expires: June 2, 2015 B. Decraene Orange J. Drake Juniper Networks November 29, 2014 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-04 Abstract This document defines an extension to the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute as specified in RFC 4379. The extension allows the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover and exercise specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) over Link Aggregation Group (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 June 2, 2015. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 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 3.1. Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. LAG Interface Info TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. DDMAP TLV DS Flags: G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1.1. Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1.2. Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.1. LAG Interface Info TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10.1.1. LAG Interface Info Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.2. Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.2.1. Interface Index Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10.3. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . 19 10.3.1. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10.4. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix A. LAG with L2 Switch Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.1. Equal Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.2. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.3. LAG Only on Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 A.4. LAG Only on Left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 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 Group. o Initiator 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 MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute as specified in [RFC4379] are powerful tools designed to diagnose all available layer 3 (L3) paths of LSPs, i.e. provides diagnostic coverage of L3 Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP). In many MPLS networks, Link Aggregation Group (LAG) as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], which provide Layer 2 (L2) ECMP, are often used for various reasons. MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute tools were not designed to discover and exercise specific paths of L2 ECMP. Result raises a limitation for following scenario when LSP X traverses over LAG Y: o Label switching of LSP X over one or more member links of LAG Y is succeeding. o Label switching of LSP X over one or more member links of LAG Y is failing. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 o MPLS echo request for LSP X over LAG Y is load balanced over a member link which is label 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 L2 ECMP discovery and exercise capability can produce an outcome where MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute can be blind to label switching failures over LAG interface that are impacting MPLS traffic. It is, thus, desirable to extend the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to have deterministic diagnostic coverage of LAG interfaces. Creation of this document was motivated by issues encountered in live networks. 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 L2 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 L2 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). The following figure and the texts provides an example using an LDP network. However the problem and the mechanism is applicable to all types of LSPs which can traverse over LAG interfaces. <----- LDP Network -----> +-------+ | | A-------B=======C-------E | | +-------D-------+ ---- Non-LAG ==== LAG comprising of two member links Figure 1: Example LDP Network Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 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: 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; o In Appendix A, issues with LAG having an L2 Switch. Note that the mechanism described in this document does not impose any changes to scenarios where an LSP is pinned down to a particular LAG member (i.e. the LAG is not treated as one logical interface by the LSP). 3. Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP Multipath 3.1. Initiator LSR Procedures 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 L2 nexthop over LAG is desired in MPLS echo reply. 3.2. Responder LSR Procedures Responder LSRs that understand the LAG Interface Info TLV but are unable to describe outgoing LAG member links separately are to use the following procedures: Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 o The responder LSR MUST add the LAG Interface Info TLV in the MPLS echo reply. This will allow the initiator LSR to understand that the responder LSR understood the LAG Interface Info TLV. o The responder LSR MUST clear the Downstream LAG Info Accommodation flag in the LAG Interface Info Flags field of the LAG Interface Info TLV. This will allow the initiator LSR to understand that the responder LSR understood the LAG Interface Info TLV but cannot describe outgoing LAG member links separately in the DDMAP. The responder LSRs that understands the LAG Interface Info TLV and are able to describe outgoing LAG member links separately are to use the follow procedures, regardless of whether or not outgoing interfaces include LAG interfaces: o The responder LSR MUST add the LAG Interface Info TLV in the MPLS echo reply. o The responder LSR MUST set the Downstream LAG Info Accommodation flag in the LAG Interface Info Flags field of the LAG Interface Info TLV. o For each downstream that is a LAG interface: * The responder LSR MUST add DDMAP in the MPLS echo reply. * The responder LSR MUST set the LAG Description Indicator flag in the DS Flags field (described in Section 6) of the DDMAP. * In the DDMAP, Interface Index Sub-TLV and Multipath Data Sub- TLV are to describe each LAG member link. All other fields of the DDMAP are to describe the LAG interface. * For each LAG member link of this LAG interface: + The responder LSR MUST add an Interface Index Sub-TLV (described in Section 7) with the LAG Member Link Indicator flag set in the Interface Index Flags field, describing this LAG member link. + The responder LSR MUST add an Multipath Data Sub-TLV for this LAG member link, if received DDMAP requested multipath information. Based on the procedures described above, every LAG member link will have the Interface Index Sub-TLV and the Multipath Data Sub-TLV entries in the DDMAP. When both the Interface Index Sub-TLV and the Multipath Data Sub-TLV are placed in the DDMAP to describe a LAG Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 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: Example of DDMAP in MPLS Echo Reply 3.3. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures Above procedures allow an initiator LSR to: o Require the responder LSR to always add the LAG Interface Info TLV in the MPLS echo reply. This allows the initiator LSR to identify whether or not the responder LSR understands the LAG Interface Info TLV and can describe outgoing LAG member links separately. o Utilize the value of the LAG Description Indicator flag in DS Flags to 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 corresponding interface index. When an initiator LSR receives a DDMAP containing LAG member information from a downstream LSR with TTL=n, then the subsequent DDMAP sent by the initiator LSR to the downstream LSR with TTL=n+1 through a particular LAG member link MUST be updated with following procedures: Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 o The Interface Index Sub-TLVs MUST NOT be present in the sending DDMAP. o The Multipath Data Sub-TLVs SHOULD be updated to include just the one corresponding to the LAG member link being traversed. The initiator LSR MAY combine the Multipath Data Sub-TLVs for all LAG member links into a single Multipath Data Sub-TLV, but there MUST be only one Multipath Data Sub-TLV in the sending DDMAP. o All other fields of the DDMAP are to comply with procedures described in [RFC6424]. Using the DDMAP example described in the Figure 2, the DDMAP being sent by the initiator LSR through LAG member link #1 to the next downstream LSR should be: 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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label Stack Sub-TLV | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Example of DDMAP in MPLS Echo Request 4. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal This document does not update the FEC validation procedures nor the DDMAP validation procedures, specified in [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] respectively. Rather this document provides the mechanism for the initiator LSR to obtain additional information from the downstream LSRs when incoming and/or outgoing interfaces are LAGs. With this additional information, it is the responsibility of the initiator LSR to validate the L2 ECMP traversal. 4.1. Initiator LSR Procedures 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. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 4.2. Responder LSR Procedures Responder LSRs that understands the LAG Interface Info TLV but unable to describe incoming LAG member link are to use following procedures: o The responder LSR MUST add the LAG Interface Info TLV in the MPLS echo reply. This will allow the initiator LSR to understand that the responder LSR understood the LAG Interface Info TLV. o The responder LSR MUST clear The Upstream LAG Info Accommodation flag in the LAG Interface Info Flags field of the LAG Interface Info TLV. This will allow the initiator LSR to understand that the responder LSR understood the LAG Interface Info TLV but cannot describe incoming LAG member link. The responder LSRs that understands the LAG Interface Info TLV and able to describe incoming LAG member link MUST use the following procedures, regardless of whether or not incoming interface was a LAG interface: o Add the LAG Interface Info TLV in the MPLS echo reply to provide acknowledgement back to the initiator. The Upstream LAG Info Accommodation flag MUST be set in the LAG Interface Info Flags field. o When the received DDMAP had DS Flags I set, add the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV (described in Section 8) in the MPLS echo reply. o When the received DDMAP had DS Flags I set and incoming interface was a LAG, add the Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV (described in Section 8.1.2). The LAG Member Link Indicator flag MUST be set in the Interface Index Flags field, and the Interface Index field set to the LAG member link which received the MPLS echo request. These procedures allow initiator LSR to: o Identify whether or not the responder LSR understands the LAG Interface Info TLV and can describe the incoming LAG member links (the responder LSR is mandated to always add the LAG Interface Info TLV in the MPLS echo reply). 4.3. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures Along with procedures described in Section 3, described procedures in this section will allow an initiator LSR to know: Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 o The expected load balance information of every LAG member link, at LSR with TTL=n. o With specific entropy, the expected interface index of the outgoing LAG member link at TTL=n. o With specific entropy, the interface index of the incoming LAG member link at TTL=n+1. Expectation is that there's a relationship between the interface index of the outgoing LAG member link at TTL=n and the interface index of the incoming LAG member link at TTL=n+1 for all discovered entropies. In other words, set of entropies that load balances to outgoing LAG member link X at TTL=n should all reach the nexthop on same incoming LAG member link Y at TTL=n+1. With additional logics added in the initiator LSR, following checks can be performed: o Success case: * Traversing LAG member=1 at TTL=n results in LAG member=1' as the incoming interface at TTL=n+1. * Traversing LAG member=2 at TTL=n results in LAG member=2' as the incoming interface at TTL=n+1. o Error case: * Traversing LAG member=1 at TTL=n results in LAG member=1' as the incoming interface at TTL=n+1. * Traversing LAG member=2 at TTL=n results in LAG member=1' as the incoming interface at TTL=n+1. 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. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | LAG Interface Info Flags | Must Be Zero | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: LAG Interface Info TLV LAG Interface Info Flags 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. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 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. The G flag of the DS Flags field has no meaning in the MPLS echo request message. The G flag MUST therefore be cleared when sending, and ignored on the receipt of the MPLS echo request message. 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 TBD4, in DS Flags bit vector. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MBZ |G|MBZ|I|N| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ RFC-Editor-Note: Please update above figure to place the flag G in the bit number TBD4. 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 Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 TLV. The Interface Index Sub-TLV describes the index assigned by local LSR to the egress 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface Index Flags | Must Be Zero | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface Index | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: 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. 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 Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 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 initiator 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 (sum of Sub-TLVs). K is the sum of all fields of this TLV prior to Sub-TLVs, but the length of K depends on the Address Type. Details of this information is described below. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 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 6: 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 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: Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 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 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. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | TC |S| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7: 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 the same format as the Interface Index Sub-TLV described in Section 7, and 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface Index Flags | Must Be Zero | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface Index | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8: Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV Interface Index Flags Interface Index Flags field is a bit vector with following format. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 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 L2 ECMP paths. As result of supporting the code points and procedures described in this document, additional processing are required by initiator LSRs and responder LSRs, 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. The LSP Traceroute allows an initiator LSR to discover the paths of tested LSPs, providing deep knowledge of the MPLS network. Exposing such information to a malicious user is considered dangerous. To prevent leakage of vital information to untrusted users, a responder LSR MUST only accept MPLS echo request messages from trusted sources via filtering source IP address field of received MPLS echo request messages. 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. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 Value Meaning Reference ----- ------- --------- TBD1 LAG Interface Info TLV this document 10.1.1. LAG Interface Info Flags The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "LAG Interface Info Flags" with following registration procedures: Registry Name: LAG Interface Info Flags Bit number Name Reference ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 15 D: Downstream LAG Info Accommodation this document 14 U: Upstream LAG Info Accommodation this document 0-13 Unassigned Assignments of LAG Interface Info Flags are via Standards Action [RFC5226]. 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. Value Meaning Reference ----- ------- --------- TBD2 Interface Index Sub-TLV this document 10.2.1. Interface Index Flags The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "Interface Index Flags" with following registration procedures: Registry Name: Interface Index Flags Bit number Name Reference ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 15 M: LAG Member Link Indicator this document 0-14 Unassigned Assignments of Interface Index Flags are via Standards Action [RFC5226]. Note that this registry is used by the Interface Index Flags field of the Interface Index Sub-TLV which may be present in the "Downstream Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 Detailed Mapping" TLV and the Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV which may be present in the "Detailed Interface and Label Stack" TLV. 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 ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). Value Meaning Reference ----- ------- --------- TBD3 Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV this document 10.3.1. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD3 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a sub-registry entitled "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD3" 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]. 10.4. DS Flags The IANA is requested to assign a new bit number from the "DS flags" sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). Note: the "DS flags" sub-registry is created by [I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry]. Bit number Name Reference ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- TBD4 G: LAG Description Indicator this document Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 11. Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank Nagendra Kumar and Sam Aldrin for providing useful comments and suggestions. Authors would like to thank Loa Andersson for performing a detailed review and providing number of comments. 12. References 12.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry] Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and S. Aldrin, "IANA registries for LSP ping Code Points", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-00 (work in progress), November 2014. [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 [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-04 (work in progress), November 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. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 [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. 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. Akiya, et al. Expires June 2, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath November 2014 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 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 June 2, 2015 [Page 22]
