MPLS S. Bryant
Internet-Draft S. Sivabalan
Intended status: Standards Track S. Soni
Expires: November 22, 2014 Cisco Systems
May 21, 2014
MPLS Performance Measurement UDP Return Path
draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return-01
Abstract
This document specifies the proceedure to be used by the Packet Loss
and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks protocol defined in RFC6374
when sending and processing MPLS performance management out-of-band
responses for delay and loss measurements over an IP/UDP return path.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 22, 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.
Bryant, et al. Expires November 22, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS PM UDP Return May 2014
1. Introduction
The Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks protocol
(MPLS-PLDM) defined in[RFC6374] does not define how an MPLS-PLDM out-
of-band response delivered over IP will be transmitted to the
Querier.
In a highly scaled system some MPLS-PLDM sessions may be off-loaded
to a specific node within a the distributed system that comprises the
LSR as a whole. In such systems the response may arrive via any
interface in the LSR and need to internally forwarded to the
processor tasked with handling the particular MPLS-PLDM measurement.
Currently the MPLS-PLDM protocol does not have any mechanism to
deliver the PLDM Response message to particular node within a multi-
CPU LSR.
The procedure described in this specification describes how the
queryer requests delivery of the MPLS-PLDM response over IP to a
dynamic UDP port. It makes no other changes to the protocol and thus
does not affect the case where the reponse is delivered over a MPLS
Associated Channel [RFC5586].
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Solution Overview
This document specifies that, unless configured otherwise, the
Addressing Object defined in [RFC6374] SHALL be sent in MPLS-PLDM
query messages to tell the responder the IP return address to be
used. This document also defines Return UDP Port object which,
unless configured otherwise SHALL be used to the return UDP port.
The Addressing Object and the Return UDP PORT object carried in the
MPLS-PLDM query message are used to specify to the Responder how to
return the response message.
The procedures defined in this document may be applied to both
unidirectional tunnels and Bidirectional LSPs. In this document, the
term bidirectional LSP includes the co-routed Bidirectional LSP
defined in [RFC3945] and the associated bidirectional LSP that is
constructed from a pair of unidirectional LSPs (one for each
direction) that are associated with one another at the LSP's ingress/
egress points [RFC5654]. The mechanisms defined in this document can
Bryant, et al. Expires November 22, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS PM UDP Return May 2014
apply to both IP/MPLS and the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP).
3.1. Return UDP Port Object
The format of the Return UDP Port Object is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP TLV Type | Length = 2 | UDP Destination Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Return UDP Port Object TLV Type (UDP TLV Type) has a value of
<TBD>.
The Return UDP Port Object MUST NOT appear in a response.
4. Theory of Operation
This document defines the Return UDP Port Object and uses the
Addressing Object to enable the MPLS-PLDM Querier to specify the
return path for the MPLS-PLDM reply using IP/UDP encapsulation.
When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting
Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM Query to "Out-of-band Response
Requested", the responder SHOULD send the response back to Querier on
the specified destination UDP port at the specified destination IP
address as received in the Return UDP Port Object and Return Address
Object respectively.
If either the Return Address Object or Return UDP Port Object is not
present in Query message and an MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-
of-band, the Query message MUST NOT be processed further. If
received over a bidirectional LSP, the control code of the Response
message MUST be set to "Error - Missing TLV" and a Response SHOULD be
sent over the reverse LSP. The receipt of such a mal-formed request
SHOULD be notified to the operator through the management system,
taking the normal precautions with respect to the prevention of
overload of the error reporting system.
4.1. Missing TLV
The control code "Missing TLV", which is classified as an Error
response code, indicates that the operation failed because one or
more required TLV Objects was not sent in the query message.
Bryant, et al. Expires November 22, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS PM UDP Return May 2014
4.2. Sending an MPLS-PM Query
When sending an MPLS-PLDM Query message, in addition to the rules and
procedures defined in [RFC6374]; the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM
Query MUST be set to "Out-of-band Response Requested", and a "Return
UDP Port TLV" along with "Return Address TLV" MUST be carried in the
MPLS-PLDM Query message.
Since the Querier uses the UDP port to de-multiplex response for
different measurement type, there SHOULD be a different UDP port for
each measurement type (Delay, loss and delay-loss combined).
An implementation MAY use multiple UDP ports for same measurement
type to direct the response to the correct management process in the
LSR.
4.3. Receiving an MPLS PM Query Request
The processing of MPLS-PLDM query messages as defined in [RFC6374]
applies in this document. In addition, when an MPLS-PLDM Query
request is received, with the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM Query set
to "Out-of-band Response Requested" with a Return address TLV and
Return UDP TLV is present, then the Responder SHOULD use that IP
address and UDP port to send MPLS-PLDM response back to Querier.
If an Out-of-band response is requested and either the Return Address
TLV or the Return UDP port TLV is missing, the Query SHOULD be
dropped in the case of unidirectional LSP. If either of these TLVs
is missing on a bidirectional LSP, the control code of Response
message should set to "Invalid Message" and the response SHOULD be
sent over the reverse LSP. In either case the receipt of such a mal-
formed request SHOULD be notified to the operator through the
management system, taking the normal precautions with respect to the
prevention of overload of the error reporting system.
4.4. Sending an MPLS-PM Response
As specified in [RFC6374] the MPLS-PLDM Response can be sent over
either the reverse MPLS LSP for a bidirectional LSP or over an IP
path. It MUST NOT be sent other than in response to an MPLS-PLDM
Query message.
When the requested return path is an IP forwarding path and this
method is in use, the destination IP address and UDP port SHOULD be
copied from the Return Address TLV and the Return UDP TLV
respectively. The source IP address and the source UDP port of
Response packet is left to discretion of the Responder subject to the
normal management and security considerations. The packet format for
Bryant, et al. Expires November 22, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS PM UDP Return May 2014
the MPLS-PLDM response after the UDP header is as specified in
[RFC6374]. As shown in Figure 1 the Associate Channel Header (ACH)
[RFC5586] is not incuded. The information provided by the ACH is not
needed since the correct binding between the Querry and Response
messages is achieved though the UDP Port and the Session Indentifier
contained in the RFC6374 message.
As noted in
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header |
. Source Address = Responders IP Address |
. Destination Addess = Return Address TLV.Address |
. Protocol = UDP .
. .
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Responder .
. Destination Port = Return UDP Port TLV.UDP Dest Port .
. .
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Message as specified in RFC6374 |
. .
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Response packet Format
If the return path is IP path, only one-way delay or one-way loss
measurement can be carried out. In this case timestamps 3 and 4 MUST
be zero as specified in [RFC6374].
4.5. Receiving an MPLS-PM Response
If the response was received over UDP/IP and an out-of-band response
was expected, the Response message SHOULD be directed to the
appropriate measurement process as determined by the destination UDP
Port, and processed using the corresponding measurement type
procedure specified in [RFC6374].
If the Response was received over UDP/IP and an out-of-band response
was not requested, that response should be dropped and the event
SHOULD be notified to the operator through the management system,
taking the normal precautions with respect to the prevention of
overload of the error reporting system.
Bryant, et al. Expires November 22, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS PM UDP Return May 2014
5. Manageability Considerations
The manageability considerations described in Section 7 of [RFC6374]
are applicable to this specification. Additional manageability
considerations are noted within the elements of procedure of this
document.
Nothing in this document precludes the use of a configured UDP/IP
return path in a deployment in which configuration is preferred to
signalling. In these circumstances the address and UDP port TLVs MAY
be omitted from the MPLS-PLDM messages.
6. Security Considerations
The MPLS-PLDM system is not intended to be deployed on the public
Internet. It is intended for deployment in well manages private and
service provider networks. The security considerations described in
Section 8 of [RFC6374] are applicable to this specification and the
reader's attention is drawn to the last two paragraphs.
Cryptographic measures may be enhanced by the correct configuration
of access control lists and firewalls.
There is no additional exposure of information to pervasive
monitoring systems observing LSPs that are being monitored.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a new Optional TLV type from MPLS Loss/
Delay Measurement TLV Object Registry contained within the g-ach-
parameters registry set.
Code Description Reference
TBD Return UDP Port [This]
The TLV 131 is recommended.
IANA is requested to assign a new response code in the MPLS Loss/
Delay Measurement Control Code Registry contained within the g-ach-
parameters registry set.
Code Description Reference
TBD Missing TLV [This]
The response code 0x1E is recommended.
Bryant, et al. Expires November 22, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS PM UDP Return May 2014
8. Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contribution of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi,
both with Cisco Systems. We thank Loa Andersson for his review
comments.
We thank all who have reviewed this text and provided feedback.
9. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
Email: stbryant@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems
Phone:
Fax:
Email: msiva@cisco.com
URI:
Bryant, et al. Expires November 22, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS PM UDP Return May 2014
Sagar Soni
Cisco Systems
Phone:
Fax:
Email: sagsoni@cisco.com
URI:
Bryant, et al. Expires November 22, 2014 [Page 8]