MPLS Working Group N. Akiya
Internet-Draft Big Switch Networks
Updates: 6790 (if approved) G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro
Expires: March 9, 2017 Cisco
A. Malis
Huawei Technologies
S. Aldrin
Google
September 5, 2016
Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over
MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)
draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-05
Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
and Traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP)
paths. Ping is known as a connectivity verification method and
Traceroute as a fault isolation method, as described in RFC 4379.
When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described in RFC
6790, the ability for LSP Ping and Traceroute operations to discover
and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where Label Switching
Routers (LSRs) apply different load balancing techniques. One such
scenario is when some LSRs apply EL-based load balancing while other
LSRs apply non-EL-based load balancing (e.g., IP). Another scenario
is when an EL-based LSP is stitched with another LSP which can be EL-
based or non-EL-based.
This document extends the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute multipath
mechanisms in RFC 6424 to allow the ability of exercising LSPs which
make use of the EL. This document updates RFC 6790.
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
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
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 March 9, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Multipath Type 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Pseudowire Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. DS Flags: L and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. New Multipath Information Type: TBD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Initiating LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. IP-based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL . . . . . . . 14
9.2. IP Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . . . 14
9.3. Label-based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL . . . . . 15
9.4. Label-based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . . 16
9.5. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Supported and Unsupported Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
12.3. Multipath Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
The following acronyms and terms are used in this document:
o MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching.
o LSP - Label Switched Path.
o Stitched LSP - Stitched Label Switched Paths combine several LSPs
such that a single end-to-end (e2e) LSP is realized. [RFC6424]
describes LSP Ping for Stitched LSPs.
o LSR - Label Switching Router.
o FEC - Forwarding Equivalence Class.
o ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath.
o EL - Entropy Label.
o ELI - Entropy Label Indicator.
o GAL - Generic Associated Channel Label.
o MS-PW - Multi-Segment Pseudowire.
o Initiating LSR - LSR which sends an MPLS echo request.
o Responder LSR - LSR which receives an MPLS echo request and sends
an MPLS echo reply.
o IP-Based Load Balancer - LSR which load balances on fields from an
IP header (and possibly fields from upper layers), and does not
consider an entropy label from an MPLS label stack (i.e., flow
label [RFC6391] or entropy label [RFC6790]) for load balancing
purposes.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
o Label-Based Load Balancer - LSR which load balances on an entropy
label from an MPLS label stack (i.e., flow label or entropy
label), and does not consider fields from an IP header (and
possibly fields from upper layers) for load balancing purposes.
o Label and IP-Based Load Balancer - LSR which load balances on both
entropy labels from an MPLS label stack and fields from an IP
header (and possibly fields from upper layers).
1.2. Background
MPLS implementations employ a wide variety of load balancing
techniques in terms of fields used for hash "keys". The mechanisms
in [RFC4379] and updated by [RFC6424] are designed to provide
multipath support for a subset of techniques. The intent of this
document is to provide multipath support for the supported techniques
which are compromised by the use of ELs [RFC6790]. Section 10
describes supported and unsupported cases, and it may be useful for
the reader to first review this section.
The Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV [RFC6424] provides
Multipath Information which can be used by an LSP Ping initiator to
trace and validate ECMP paths between an ingress and egress. The
Multipath Information encodings defined by [RFC6424] are sufficient
when all the LSRs along the path(s), between ingress and egress,
consider the same set of "keys" as input for load balancing
algorithms, e.g., either all IP-based or all label-based.
With the introduction of [RFC6790], some LSRs may perform load
balancing based on labels while others may be IP-based. This results
in an LSP Ping initiator that is unable to trace and validate all the
ECMP paths in the following scenarios:
o One or more transit LSRs along an LSP with ELI/EL in the label
stack do not perform ECMP load balancing based on EL (hashes based
on "keys" including the IP destination address). This scenario is
not only possible but quite common due to transit LSRs not
implementing [RFC6790] or transit LSRs implementing [RFC6790], but
not implementing the suggested transit LSR behavior in Section 4.3
of [RFC6790].
o Two or more LSPs stitched together with at least one of these LSPs
pushing ELI/EL into the label stack.
These scenarios can be quite common because deployments of [RFC6790]
typically have a mixture of nodes that support ELI/EL and nodes that
do not. There will also typically be a mixture of areas that support
ELI/EL and areas that do not.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
As pointed out in [RFC6790], the procedures of [RFC4379] (and
consequently of [RFC6424]) with respect to Multipath Information Type
{9} are incomplete. However, [RFC6790] does not actually update
[RFC4379]. Further, the specific EL location is not clearly defined,
particularly in the case of Flow Aware Pseudowires [RFC6391]. This
document defines a new FEC Stack sub-TLV for the entropy label.
Section 3 of this document updates the procedures for Multipath
Information Type {9} described in [RFC4379] and applicable to
[RFC6424]. The rest of this document describes extensions required
to restore ECMP discovery and tracing capabilities for the scenarios
described.
[RFC4379], [RFC6424], and this document will support IP-based load
balancers and label-based load balancers which limit their hash to
the first (top-most) or only entropy label in the label stack. Other
use cases (refer to Section 10) are out of scope.
2. Overview
[RFC4379] describes LSP traceroute as an operation where the
initiating LSR sends a series of MPLS echo requests towards the same
destination. The first packet in the series has the TTL set to 1.
When the echo reply is received from the LSR one hop away, the second
echo request in the series is sent with the TTL set to 2. For each
additional echo request the TLL is incremented by one until a
response is received from the intended destination. The initiating
LSR discovers and exercises ECMP by obtaining Multipath Information
from each transit LSR and using a specific destination IP address or
specific entropy label.
From here on, the notation {x, y, z} refers to Multipath Information
Types x, y, or z. Multipath Information Types are defined in
Section 3.3 of [RFC4379].
The LSR initiating LSP Ping sends an MPLS echo request with Multipath
Information. This Multipath Information is described in the echo
request's DDMAP TLV, and may contain a set of IP addresses or a set
of labels. Multipath Information Types {2, 4, 8} carry a set of IP
addresses, and Multipath Information Type {9} carries a set of
labels. The responder LSR (the receiver of the MPLS echo request)
will determine the subset of initiator-specified Multipath
Information which load balances to each downstream (outgoing)
interface. The responder LSR sends an MPLS echo reply with resulting
Multipath Information per downstream (outgoing interface) back to the
initiating LSR. The initiating LSR is then able to use a specific IP
destination address or a specific label to exercise a specific ECMP
path on the responder LSR.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
The current behavior is problematic in the following scenarios:
o The initiating LSR sends IP Multipath Information, but the
responder LSR load balances on labels.
o The initiating LSR sends Label Multipath Information, but the
responder LSR load balances on IP addresses.
o The initiating LSR sends existing Multipath Information to an LSR
which pushes ELI/EL in the label stack, but the initiating LSR can
only continue to discover and exercise specific paths of the ECMP,
if the LSR which pushes ELI/EL responds with both IP addresses and
the associated EL corresponding to each IP address. This is
because:
* An ELI/EL-pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load
balance based on the IP address.
* Downstream LSR(s) of an ELI/EL-pushing LSR may load balance
based on ELs.
o The initiating LSR sends existing Multipath Information to an ELI/
EL-pushing LSR, but the initiating LSR can only continue to
discover and exercise specific paths of ECMP, if the ELI/EL-
pushing LSR responds with both labels and the associated EL
corresponding to the label. This is because:
* An ELI/EL-pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load
balance based on the EL from the previous LSP and pushes a new
EL.
* Downstream LSR(s) of ELI/EL-pushing LSR may load balance based
on new ELs.
The above scenarios demonstrate the existing Multipath Information is
insufficient when LSP traceroute is used on an LSP with entropy
labels [RFC6790]. This document defines a new Multipath Information
Type to be used in the DDMAP of MPLS echo request/reply packets for
[RFC6790] LSPs.
The responder LSR can reply with empty Multipath Information if no IP
address is set or label set is received with the Multipath
Information. An empty return is also possible if an initiating LSR
sends Multipath Information of one type, IP Address or Label, but the
responder LSR load balances on the other type. To disambiguate
between the two results, this document introduces new flags in the
DDMAP TLV to allow the responder LSR to describe the load balancing
technique being used.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
To use this enhanced method end-to-end, all LSRs along the LSP need
to be able to understand the new flags and the new Multipath
Information Type. Mechanisms to verify this condition are outside of
the scope of this document. The rest of the requirements are
detailed in the initiating LSR and responder LSR procedures. Two
additional DS Flags are defined for the DDMAP TLV in Section 6.
These two flags are used by the responder LSR to describe its load
balance behavior on a received MPLS echo request.
Note that the terms "IP-Based Load Balancer" and "Label-Based Load
Balancer" are in context of how a received MPLS echo request is
handled by the responder LSR.
3. Multipath Type 9
[RFC4379] defined Multipath Type {9} for tracing of LSPs where label-
based load balancing is used. However, as pointed out in [RFC6790],
the procedures for using this type are incomplete as the specific
location of the label was not defined. It was assumed that the
presence of Multipath Type {9} implied the value of the bottom-of-
stack label should be varied by the values indicated by multipath to
determine the respective outgoing interfaces.
Section 5 defines a new FEC-Stack sub-TLV to indicate an entropy
label. These labels MAY appear anywhere in a label stack.
Multipath Type {9} applies to the first label in the label stack that
corresponds to an EL-FEC. If no such label is found, it applies to
the label at the bottom of the label stack.
4. Pseudowire Tracing
This section defines procedures for tracing pseudowires. These
procedures pertain to the use of Multipath Information Type {9} as
well as Type {TBD4}. In all cases below, when a control word is in
use, the N-flag in the DDMAP MUST be set. Note that when a control
word is not in use, the returned DDMAPs may not be accurate.
In order to trace a non-flow-aware Pseudowire, the initiator includes
an EL-FEC instead of the appropriate PW FEC at the bottom of the FEC
stack. Tracing in this way will cause compliant routers to return
the proper outgoing interface. Note that this procedure only traces
to the end of the MPLS LSP that is under test and will not verify the
PW FEC. To actually verify the PW FEC or in the case of a MS-PW, to
determine the next pseudowire label value, the initiator MUST repeat
that step of the trace (i.e., repeating the TTL value used) but with
the FEC Stack modified to contain the appropriate PW FEC. Note that
these procedures are applicable to scenarios where an initiator is
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
able to vary the bottom label (i.e., Pseudowire label). Possible
scenarios are tracing multiple non-flow-aware Pseudowires on the same
endpoints or tracing a non-flow-aware Pseudowire provisioned with
multiple Pseudowire labels.
In order to trace a flow-aware Pseudowire [RFC6391], the initiator
includes an EL FEC at the bottom of the FEC Stack and pushes the
appropriate PW FEC onto the FEC Stack.
In order to trace through non-compliant routers, the initiator forms
an MPLS echo request message and includes a DDMAP with Multipath Type
{9}. For a non-flow-aware Pseudowire it includes the appropriate PW
FEC in the FEC Stack. For a flow-aware Pseudowire, the initiator
includes a Nil FEC at the bottom of the FEC Stack and pushes the
appropriate PW FEC onto the FEC Stack.
5. Entropy Label FEC
The entropy label indicator (ELI) is a reserved label that has no
explicit FEC associated, and has label value 7 assigned from the
reserved range. Use the Nil FEC as the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to
account for ELI in a Target FEC Stack TLV.
The entropy label (EL) is a special purpose label with the label
value being discretionary (i.e., the label value is not from the
reserved range). For LSP verification mechanics to perform its
purpose, it is necessary for a Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to clearly
describe the EL, particularly in the scenario where the label stack
does not carry ELI (e.g., flow-aware Pseudowire [RFC6391]).
Therefore, this document defines an EL FEC sub-TLV (TBD1, see
Section 12.1) to allow a Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to be added to the
Target FEC Stack to account for EL.
The Length is 4. Labels are 20-bit values treated as numbers.
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 | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Entropy Label FEC
Label is the actual label value inserted in the label stack; the MBZ
field MUST be zero when sent and ignored on receipt.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
6. DS Flags: L and E
Two flags, L and E, are added to the DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV.
Both flags MUST NOT be set in echo request packets when sending, and
SHOULD be ignored when received. Zero, one or both new flags MUST be
set in echo reply packets.
DS Flags
--------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |L|E|I|N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
RFC-Editor-Note: Please update the above figure to place the flag E
in the bit number TBD2 and the flag L in the bit number TBD3.
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
L Label-based load balance indicator
This flag MUST be cleared in the echo request. An LSR
which performs load balancing on a label MUST set this
flag in the echo reply. An LSR which performs load
balancing on IP MUST NOT set this flag in the echo
reply.
E ELI/EL push indicator
This flag MUST be cleared in the echo request. An LSR
which pushes ELI/EL MUST set this flag in the echo
reply. An LSR which does not push ELI/EL MUST NOT set
this flag in the echo reply.
The two flags result in four load balancing techniques which the echo
reply generating LSR can indicate:
o {L=0, E=0} LSR load balances based on IP and does not push ELI/EL.
o {L=0, E=1} LSR load balances based on IP and pushes ELI/EL.
o {L=1, E=0} LSR load balances based on labels and does not push
ELI/EL.
o {L=1, E=1} LSR load balances based on labels and pushes ELI/EL.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
7. New Multipath Information Type: TBD4
One new Multipath Information Type is added to be used in DDMAP TLV.
This new Multipath Type has the value of TBD4.
Key Type Multipath Information
--- ---------------- ---------------------
TBD4 IP and Label set IP addresses and label prefixes
Multipath Type TBD4 is comprised of three sections. The first
section describes the IP address set. The second section describes
the label set. The third section describes another label set which
associates to either the IP address set or the label set specified in
the other sections.
Multipath Information Type TBD4 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IPMultipathType| IP Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| (IP Multipath Information) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|LbMultipathType| Label Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| (Label Multipath Information) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Assoc Label Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| (Associated Label Multipath Information) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Multipath Information Type TBD4
o IPMultipathType
* 0 when "IP Multipath Information" is omitted. Otherwise, one
of the IP Multipath Information values: {2, 4, 8}.
o IP Multipath Information
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
* This section is omitted when "IPMultipathType" is 0.
Otherwise, this section reuses IP Multipath Information from
[RFC4379]. Specifically, Multipath Information for values {2,
4, 8} can be used.
o LbMultipathType
* 0 when "Label Multipath Information" is omitted. Otherwise,
Label Multipath Information value {9}.
o Label Multipath Information
* This section is omitted when "LbMultipathType" is 0.
Otherwise, this section reuses Label Multipath Information from
[RFC4379]. Specifically, Multipath Information for value {9}
can be used.
o Associated Label Multipath Information
* "Assoc Label Multipath Length" is a 16-bit field of Multipath
Information which indicates the length in octets of the
Associated Label Multipath Information.
* "Associated Label Multipath Information" is a list of labels
with each label described in 24 bits. This section MUST be
omitted in an MPLS echo request message. A midpoint which
pushes ELI/EL labels SHOULD include "Assoc Label Multipath
Information" in its MPLS echo reply message, along with either
"IP Multipath Information" or "Label Multipath Information".
Each specified associated label described in this section maps
to a specific IP address OR label described in the "IP
Multipath Information" section or "Label Multipath Information"
section. For example, if three IP addresses are specified in
the "IP Multipath Information" section, then there MUST be
three labels described in this section. The first label maps
to the first IP address specified, the second label maps to the
second IP address specified, and the third label maps to the
third IP address specified.
When a section is omitted, the length for that section MUST be set to
zero.
8. Initiating LSR Procedures
The following procedure is described in terms of an EL_LSP boolean
maintained by the initiating LSR. This value controls the Multipath
Information Type to be used in the transmitted echo request packets.
When the initiating LSR is transmitting an echo request packet with
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
DDMAP with a non-zero Multipath Information Type, then the EL_LSP
boolean MUST be consulted to determine the Multipath Information Type
to use.
In addition to procedures described in [RFC4379], as updated by
Section 3 and [RFC6424], the initiating LSR MUST operate with the
following procedures:
o When the initiating LSR pushes ELI/EL, initialize EL_LSP=True.
Else set EL_LSP=False.
o When the initiating LSR is transmitting a non-zero Multipath
Information Type:
* If (EL_LSP), the initiating LSR MUST use Multipath Information
Type {TBD4} unless the responder LSR cannot handle Type {TBD4}.
When the initiating LSR is transmitting Multipath Information
Type {TBD4}, both "IP Multipath Information" and "Label
Multipath Information" MUST be included, and "Associated Label
Multipath Information" MUST be omitted (NULL).
* Else the initiating LSR MAY use Multipath Information Type {2,
4, 8, 9, TBD4}. When the initiating LSR is transmitting
Multipath Information Type {TBD4} in this case, "IP Multipath
Information" MUST be included, and "Label Multipath
Information" and "Associated Label Multipath Information" MUST
be omitted (NULL).
o When the initiating LSR receives an echo reply with {L=0, E=1} in
the DS flags with valid contents, set EL_LSP=True.
In the following conditions, the initiating LSR may have lost the
ability to exercise specific ECMP paths. The initiating LSR MAY
continue with "best effort" in the following cases:
o Received echo reply contains empty Multipath Information.
o Received echo reply contains {L=0, E=<any>} DS flags, but does not
contain IP Multipath Information.
o Received echo reply contains {L=1, E=<any>} DS flags, but does not
contain Label Multipath Information.
o Received echo reply contains {L=<any>, E=1} DS flags, but does not
contain Associated Label Multipath Information.
o IP Multipath Information Types {2, 4, 8} sent, and received echo
reply with {L=1, E=0} in DS flags.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
o Multipath Information Type {TBD4} sent, and received echo reply
with Multipath Information Type other than {TBD4}.
9. Responder LSR Procedures
Common Procedures:
o The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request packet MUST first
determine whether or not the initiating LSR supports this LSP Ping
and Traceroute extension for Entropy Labels. If either of the
following conditions are met, the responder LSR SHOULD determine
that the initiating LSR supports this LSP Ping and Traceroute
extension for entropy labels.
1. Received MPLS echo request contains the Multipath Information
Type {TBD4}.
2. Received MPLS echo request contains a Target FEC Stack TLV
that includes the entropy label FEC.
If the initiating LSR is determined not to support this LSP Ping
and Traceroute extension for entropy labels, then the responder
LSR MUST NOT follow further procedures described in this section.
Specifically, MPLS echo reply packets:
* MUST have the following DS Flags cleared (i.e., not set): "ELI/
EL push indicator" and "Label-based load balance indicator".
* MUST NOT use Multipath Information Type {TBD4}.
o The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request packet with
Multipath Information Type {TBD4} MUST validate the following
contents. Any deviation MUST result in the responder LSR
considering the packet as malformed and returning code 1
("Malformed echo request received") in the MPLS echo reply packet.
* IP Multipath Information MUST be included.
* Label Multipath Information MAY be included.
* Associated Label Multipath Information MUST be omitted (NULL).
The following subsections describe expected responder LSR procedures
when the echo reply is to include DDMAP TLVs, based on the local load
balance technique being employed. In case the responder LSR performs
deviating load balance techniques on a per downstream basis,
appropriate procedures matched to each downstream load balance
technique MUST be followed.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
9.1. IP-based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL
o The responder MUST set {L=0, E=0} in DS flags.
o If Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the responder
MUST comply with [RFC4379] and [RFC6424].
o If Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder MUST
reply with Multipath Type {0}.
o If Multipath Information Type {TBD4} is received, the following
procedures are to be used:
* The responder MUST reply with Multipath Information Type
{TBD4}.
* The "Label Multipath Information" and "Associated Label
Multipath Information" sections MUST be omitted (NULL).
* If no matching IP address is found, then the "IPMultipathType"
field MUST be set to Multipath Information Type {0} and the "IP
Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted (NULL).
* If at least one matching IP address is found, then the
"IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to appropriate Multipath
Information Type {2, 4, 8} and the "IP Multipath Information"
section MUST be included.
9.2. IP Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL
o The responder MUST set {L=0, E=1} in DS flags.
o If Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder MUST
reply with Multipath Type {0}.
o If Multipath Type {2, 4, 8, TBD4} is received, the following
procedures are to be used:
* The responder MUST respond with Multipath Type {TBD4}. See
Section 7 for details of Multipath Type {TBD4}.
* The "Label Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted
(i.e., it is not there).
* The IP address set specified in the received IP Multipath
Information MUST be used to determine the returned IP/Label
pairs.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
* If the received Multipath Information Type was {TBD4}, the
received "Label Multipath Information" sections MUST NOT be
used to determine the associated label portion of the returned
IP/Label pairs.
* If no matching IP address is found, then the "IPMultipathType"
field MUST be set to Multipath Information Type {0} and the "IP
Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted. In addition,
the "Assoc Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to 0, and the
"Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be
omitted.
* If at least one matching IP address is found, then the
"IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to appropriate Multipath
Information Type {2, 4, 8} and the "IP Multipath Information"
section MUST be included. In addition, the "Associated Label
Multipath Information" section MUST be populated with a list of
labels corresponding to each IP address specified in the "IP
Multipath Information" section. "Assoc Label Multipath Length"
MUST be set to a value representing the length in octets of the
"Associated Label Multipath Information" field.
9.3. Label-based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL
o The responder MUST set {L=1, E=0} in DS flags.
o If Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the responder
MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}.
o If Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder MUST
comply with [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] as updated by Section 3.
o If Multipath Information Type {TBD4} is received, the following
procedures are to be used:
* The responder MUST reply with Multipath Information Type
{TBD4}.
* The "IP Multipath Information" and "Associated Label Multipath
Information" sections MUST be omitted (NULL).
* If no matching label is found, then the "LbMultipathType" field
MUST be set to Multipath Information Type {0} and the "Label
Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted (NULL).
* If at least one matching label is found, then the
"LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to the appropriate
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
Multipath Information Type {9} and the "Label Multipath
Information" section MUST be included.
9.4. Label-based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL
o The responder MUST set {L=1, E=1} in DS flags.
o If Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the responder
MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}.
o If Multipath Type {9, TBD4} is received, the following procedures
are to be used:
* The responder MUST respond with Multipath Type {TBD4}.
* The "IP Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted.
* The label set specified in the received Label Multipath
Information MUST be used to determine the returned Label/Label
pairs.
* If received Multipath Information Type was {TBD4}, received
"Label Multipath Information" sections MUST NOT be used to
determine the associated label portion of the returned Label/
Label pairs.
* If no matching label is found, then the "LbMultipathType" field
MUST be set to Multipath Information Type {0} and "Label
Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted. In addition,
"Assoc Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to 0, and the
"Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be
omitted.
* If at least one matching label is found, then the
"LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to the appropriate
Multipath Information Type {9} and the "Label Multipath
Information" section MUST be included. In addition, the
"Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST be
populated with a list of labels corresponding to each label
specified in the "Label Multipath Information" section. "Assoc
Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to a value representing the
length in octets of the "Associated Label Multipath
Information" field.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
9.5. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR
A stitching LSR that cross-connects flow-aware Pseudowires behaves in
one of two ways:
o Load balances on the previous flow label, and carries over the
same flow label. For this case, the stitching LSR is to behave as
described in Section 9.3.
o Load balances on the previous flow label, and replaces the flow
label with a newly computed label. For this case, the stitching
LSR is to behave as described in Section 9.4.
10. Supported and Unsupported Cases
The MPLS architecture does not define strict rules on how
implementations are to identify hash "keys" for load balancing
purposes. As a result, implementations may be of the following load
balancer types:
1. IP-based load balancer.
2. Label-based load balancer.
3. Label- and IP-based load balancer.
For cases (2) and (3), an implementation can include different sets
of labels from the label stack for load balancing purpose. Thus the
following sub-cases are possible:
a. Entire label stack.
b. Top N labels from label stack where the number of labels in label
stack is > N.
c. Bottom N labels from label stack where the number of labels in
label stack is > N.
In a scenario where there is one flow label or entropy label present
in the label stack, the following further cases are possible for
(2b), (2c), (3b) and (3c):
1. N labels from label stack include flow label or entropy label.
2. N labels from label stack do not include flow label or entropy
label.
Also in a scenario where there are multiple entropy labels present in
the label stack, it is possible for implementations to employ
deviating techniques:
o Search for entropy stops at the first entropy label.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
o Search for entropy includes any entropy label found plus continues
to search for entropy in the label stack.
Furthermore, handling of reserved (i.e., special) labels varies among
implementations:
o Reserved labels are used in the hash as any other label would be
(not a recommended practice.)
o Reserved labels are skipped over and, for implementations limited
to N labels, the reserved labels do not count towards the limit of
N.
o Reserved labels are skipped over and, for implementations limited
to N labels, the reserved labels count towards the limit of N.
It is important to point this out since the presence of GAL will
affect those implementations which include reserved labels for load
balancing purposes.
As can be seen from the above, there are many types of potential load
balancing implementations. Attempting for any OAM tools to support
ECMP discovery and traversal over all types would require fairly
complex procedures. Complexities in OAM tools have minimal benefit
if the majority of implementations are expected to employ only a
small subset of the cases described above.
o Section 4.3 of [RFC6790] states that in implementations, for load
balancing purposes, parsing beyond the label stack after finding
an entropy label has "limited incremental value". Therefore, it
is expected that most implementations will be of types "IP-based
load balancer" or "Label-based load balancer".
o Section 2.4.5.1 of [RFC7325] recommends that searching for entropy
labels in the label stack should terminate upon finding the first
entropy label. Therefore, it is expected that implementations
will only include the first (top-most) entropy label when there
are multiple entropy labels in the label stack.
o It is expected that, in most cases, the number of labels in the
label stack will not exceed the number of labels (N) which
implementations can include for load balancing purposes.
o It is expected that labels in the label stack, besides the flow
label and entropy label, are constant for the lifetime of a single
LSP multipath traceroute operation. Therefore, deviating load
balancing implementations with respect to reserved labels should
not affect this tool.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
Thus [RFC4379], [RFC6424], and this document support cases (1) and
(2a1), where only the first (top-most) entropy label is included when
there are multiple entropy labels in the label stack.
11. Security Considerations
While [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] already allow for the discovery and
exercise of ECMP paths, this document extends the LSP Ping and
Traceroute mechanisms to more precisely discover and exercise ECMP
paths when an LSP uses ELI/EL in the label stack. Sourcing or
inspecting LSP Ping packets can be used for network reconnaissance.
The extended capability defined in this document requires small
additional processing for the responder and initiator nodes. The
responder node that pushes ELI/EL will need to compute and return
multipath data including associated EL. The initiator node will need
to store and handle both IP Multipath and Label Multipath
Information, and include destination IP addresses and/or ELs in MPLS
echo request packets as well as in Multipath Information sent to
downstream nodes. The security considerations of [RFC4379] already
cover Denial-of-Service attacks by regulating LSP Ping traffic going
to the control plane.
Finally, the security measures described in [RFC4379], [RFC6424], and
[RFC6790] are applicable. [RFC6424] provides guidelines if a network
operator wants to prevent tracing or does not want to expose details
of the tunnel and [RFC6790] provides guidance on the use of the EL.
12. IANA Considerations
12.1. Entropy Label FEC
The IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV from the "Sub-TLVs for
TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" section from the "Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs"
registry ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
-------- ------------ ---------
TBD1 Entropy label FEC this document
12.2. DS Flags
The IANA is requested to assign new bit numbers 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]).
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
Note: the "DS flags" sub-registry is created by [RFC7537].
Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
TBD2 E: ELI/EL push indicator this document
TBD3 L: Label-based load balance indicator this document
12.3. Multipath Type
The IANA is requested to assign a new value from the "Multipath Type"
sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry
([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).
Note: The "Multipath Type" sub-registry is created by [RFC7537].
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
TBD4 IP and label set this document
13. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Curtis Villamizar,
Daniel King, Sriganesh Kini, Victor Ji, Acee Lindem, Deborah
Brungard, Shawn M Emery, Scott O. Bradner, and Peter Yee for
performing thorough reviews and providing most valuable comments.
Carlos Pignataro would like to acknowledge his lifetime friend Martin
Rigueiro, with deep gratutide and esteem, for sharing his contagious
passion for engineering and sciences, and for selflessly teaching so
many lessons.
14. Contributing Authors
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, DOI 10.17487/RFC6424, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6424>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7537] Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and
S. Aldrin, "IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points",
RFC 7537, DOI 10.17487/RFC7537, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537>.
15.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.
[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,
and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,
August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.
Authors' Addresses
Nobo Akiya
Big Switch Networks
Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping over Entropy September 2016
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Sam Aldrin
Google
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Akiya, et al. Expires March 9, 2017 [Page 22]