MPLS Working Group R. Torvi
Internet-Draft R. Bonica
Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks
Expires: May 14, 2015 M. Conn
D. Pacella
L. Tomotaki
M. Wygant
Verizon
November 10, 2014
LSP Self-Ping
draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping-03
Abstract
This memo describes LSP Self-ping. Ingress LSR's can use LSP Self-
ping to verify that an LSP is ready to carry traffic.
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 May 14, 2015.
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
Torvi, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Self-Ping November 2014
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. LSP Self Ping Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Rejected Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
An ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) can use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] to
establish an MPLS Label Switched Path [RFC3032]. The following
paragraphs provide an overview of RSVP-TE procedures.
The ingress LSR calculates an explicit path between itself and an
egress LSR. It then formats an RSVP PATH message, including an
Explicit Route Object (ERO). The ERO represents the explicit path
between the ingress and egress LSRs.
The ingress LSR forwards the PATH message in the direction of the
egress LSR, following the path defined by the ERO. Each transit LSR
that receives the PATH message executes admission control procedures.
If the transit LSR admits the LSP, it reserves bandwidth (if
necessary) and sends the PATH message downstream, to the next node in
the ERO.
When the egress LSR receives the PATH message, it binds a label to
the LSP. The label can be implicit null, explicit null, or non-null.
The egress LSR then installs forwarding state (if necessary), and
constructs an RSVP RESV message. The RESV message includes a Label
Object containing the label that has been bound to the LSP.
The egress LSR sends the RESV message upstream towards the ingress
LSR. The RESV message visits the same transit LSRs that the PATH
message visited, but in reverse order. Each transit LSR binds a
label to the LSP, updates its forwarding state and updates the RESV
message. As a result, the RESV message contains a Label Object and
the Label Object contains the label that has been bound to the LSP.
Next, the transit LSR sends the RESV message upstream, along the
explicit path.
Torvi, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Self-Ping November 2014
The ingress LSR receives the RESV message and installs forwarding
state. Once the ingress LSR installs forwarding state it can forward
traffic through the LSP.
An implementation can optimize the procedure described above by
allowing LSRs to send a RESV messages upstream before installing
forwarding state. This optimization is desirable, because it allows
LSRs to install forwarding state in parallel, thus accelerating the
process of LSP signaling and setup. However, this optimization
creates a race condition. When the ingress LSR receives a RESV
message, some downstream LSRs may have not yet completed the process
of forwarding state installation. If the ingress sends traffic over
the LSP, the traffic will be black-holed until forwarding state has
been installed on all downstream LSRs.
The ingress LSP can prevent back-holing by verifying the LSPs
readiness to carry traffic before forwarding traffic through it.
Ingress LSRs can use LSP Self-Ping to verify that an LSP is ready to
carry traffic.
LSP Self-ping is an extremely lightweight mechanism, designed to
perform well when control plane resources are scarce. Therefore, LSP
Self-ping consumes no control plane resources on transit or egress
LSRs.
This memo describes LSP Self-ping.
2. LSP Self Ping Procedures
In order to verify that an LSP is ready to carry traffic, the ingress
LSR creates a short-lived LSP Self-ping session. All session state
is maintained locally on the ingress LSR. Session state includes the
following:
o Session-id: A 32-bit number that identifies the session
o verification-status: A boolean variable indicating whether LSP
readiness has been verified. The initial value of this variable
is FALSE.
o retries: The number of times that the ingress LSR probes the LSP
before giving up. The initial value of this variable is
determined by configuration.
o retry-timer: The number of milliseconds that the LSR waits after
probing the LSP. The initial value of this variable is determined
by configuration.
Torvi, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Self-Ping November 2014
The ingress LSR executes the following procedure until verification-
status equals TRUE or retries is less than 1:
o Format a MPLS Echo [RFC4379] message
o Send the MPLS Echo message through the LSP under test
o Set a timer to expire in retry-timer milliseconds
o Wait until either a) a MPLS Echo message associated with the
session returns or b) the timer expires. If an MPLS Echo message
associated with the session returns, set verification-status to
TRUE. Otherwise, decrement retries. Optionally, increase the
value of retry-timer according to an appropriate back off
algorithm.
As per [RFC4379], the MPLS Echo message is encapsulate in a User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] header. If the protocol messages
used to establish the LSP were delivered over IPv4 [RFC0791], the UDP
datagram is encapsulated in an IPv4 header. If the protocol messages
used to establish the LSP were delivered over IPv6 [RFC2460], the UDP
datagram is encapsulated in an IPv6 header.
In either case, message contents are as follows:
o IP Source Address is configurable. By default, it is the address
of the egress LSR
o IP Destination Address is the address of the ingress LSR
o IP Time to Live (TTL) / Hop Count is 255
o IP DSCP is configurable. By default, it is equal to CS6 (Ox48)
[RFC4594]
o UDP Source Port is any port selected from the dynamic range
(49152-65535) [RFC6335]
o UDP Destination Port is any port selected from the dynamic range
o MPLS Echo Global Flags are clear (i.e., set to 0)
o MPLS Echo Type is equal to "MPLS Echo Reply" (2)
o MPLS Echo Reply Mode is "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet" (2)
o MPLS Echo Senders Handle is equal to the Session-ID
Torvi, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Self-Ping November 2014
o MPLS Echo Sequence Number is equal to retries
o MPLS Echo Time Stamp Sent is equal to the current time
The reader should note that the ingress LSR probes the LSP by sending
an MPLS Echo message, addressed to itself, through the LSP. The
egress LSR forwards the MPLS Echo message back to the ingress LSR,
exactly as it would forward any other packet.
If the LSP under test is ready to carry traffic, the egress LSR
receives the MPLS Echo message. The MPLS Echo message can arrive at
the egress LSR with or without an MPLS header, depending on whether
the LSP under test executes penultimate hop-popping procedures. If
the MPLS Echo message arrives at the egress LSR with an MPLS header,
the egress LSR removes that header.
The egress LSR forwards the MPLS Echo message to its destination, the
ingress LSR. The egress LSR forwards the MPLS Echo message exactly
as it would forward any other packet. If the egress LSR's most
preferred route to the ingress LSR is through an LSP, the egress LSR
forwards the MPLS Echo message through that LSP. However, if the
egress LSR's most preferred route to the ingress LSR is not through
an LSP, the egress LSR forwards the MPLS Echo message without MPLS
encapsulation.
If the ingress LSR receives an MPLS Echo message with Senders Handle
equal to the Session-ID, it sets the verification-status to TRUE.
The Sequence Number does not have to match the last Sequence Number
sent.
When an LSP Self-ping session terminates, it returns the value of
verification-status to the invoking protocol. For example, assume
that RSVP-TE invokes LSP Self-ping as part of the LSP set-up
procedure. If LSP Self-ping returns TRUE, RSVP-TE makes the LSP
under test available for forwarding. However, if LSP Self-ping
returns FALSE, RSVP-TE takes appropriate remedial actions.
LSP Self-ping fails if all of the following conditions are true:
o The Source Address of the MPLS Echo message is equal to its
default value (that is, the address of the egress LSR)
o The penultimate hop pops the MPLS label
o The egress LSR executes Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF)
procedures
Torvi, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Self-Ping November 2014
In this scenario and in similar scenarios, the egress LSR discards
the MPLS Echo message rather than forwarding it. In such scenarios,
the calling application can set the source address to a more
appropriate value.
3. Rejected Approaches
In a rejected approach, the ingress LSR uses LSP-Ping, exactly as
described in [RFC4379] to verify LSP readiness to carry traffic.
This approach was rejected for the following reasons.
While an ingress LSR can control its control plane overhead due to
LSP Ping, an egress LSR has no such control. This is because each
ingress LSR can, on its own, control the rate of the LSP Ping
originated by the LSR, while an egress LSR must respond to all the
LSP Pings originated by various ingresses. Furthermore, when an MPLS
Echo Request reaches an egress LSR it is sent to the control plane of
the egress LSR, which makes egress LSR processing overhead of LSP
Ping well above the overhead of its data plane (MPLS/IP forwarding).
These factors make LSP Ping problematic as a tool for detecting LSP
readiness to carry traffic when dealing with a large number of LSPs.
By contrast, LSP Self-ping does not consume any control plane
resources at the egress LSR, and relies solely on the data plane of
the egress LSR, making it more suitable as a tool for checking LSP
readiness when dealing with a large number of LSPs.
In another rejected approach, the ingress LSR does not verify LSP
readiness. Alternatively, it sets a timer when it receives an RSVP
RESV message and does not forward traffic through the LSP until the
timer expires. This approach was rejected because it is impossible
to determine the optimal setting for this timer. If the timer value
is set too low, it does not prevent black-holing. If the timer value
is set too high, it slows down the process of LSP signalling and
setup.
Moreover, the above-mentioned timer is configured on a per-router
basis. However, its optimum value is determined by a network-wide
behavior. Therefore, changes in the network could require changes to
the value of the timer, making the optimal setting of this timer a
moving target.
4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
Torvi, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Self-Ping November 2014
5. Security Considerations
MPLS Echo messages are easily forged. Therefore, an attacker can
send the ingress LSR a forged MPLS Echo message, causing the ingress
LSR to terminate the LSP Self-ping session prematurely.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Yakov Rekhter, Ravi Singh, Eric Rosen, Eric Osborne and
Nobo Akiya for their contributions to this document.
7. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September
1981.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, August
2006.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, RFC
6335, August 2011.
Torvi, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Self-Ping November 2014
Authors' Addresses
Ravi Torvi
Juniper Networks
Email: rtorvi@juniper.net
Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Michael Conn
Verizon
Email: michael.e.conn@verizon.com
Dante Pacella
Verizon
Email: dante.j.pacella@verizon.com
Luis Tomotaki
Verizon
Email: luis.tomotaki@verizon.com
Mark Wygant
Verizon
Email: mark.wygant@verizon.com
Torvi, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 8]