MPLS C. Villamizar, Ed.
Internet-Draft OCCNC
Intended status: Informational K. Kompella
Expires: October 18, 2013 Contrail Systems
S. Amante
Level 3 Communications, Inc.
A. Malis
Verizon
C. Pignataro
Cisco
April 16, 2013
MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements
draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding-00
Abstract
This document provides guidelines for implementors regarding MPLS
forwarding and a basis for evaluations of forwarding implementations.
Guidelines cover many aspects of MPLS forwarding. Topics are
highlighted where implementors might potentially overlook practical
requirements which are unstated or underemphasized or are optional
for conformance to RFCs.
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 October 18, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
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 and Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Use of Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3. Apparent Misconceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4. Target Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Forwarding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1. Forwarding Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.1. MPLS Reserved Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2. MPLS Differentiated Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.3. Time Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.4. Uses of Multiple Label Stack Entries . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.5. MPLS Link Bundling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.6. MPLS Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.7. MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.8. Pseudowire Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.8.1. Pseudowire Sequence Number . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.9. Layer-2 and Layer-3 VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2. MPLS Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3. Packet Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4. MPLS Multipath Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.1. Pseudowire Control Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4.2. Large Microflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4.3. Pseudowire Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.4. MPLS Entropy Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.5. Fields Used for Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.5.1. MPLS Fields in Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.5.2. IP Fields in Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4.5.3. Fields Used in Flow Label . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.5.4. Fields Used in Entropy Label . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5. MPLS-TP and UHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6. Local Delivery of Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6.1. DoS Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6.2. MPLS OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6.3. Pseudowire OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6.4. MPLS-TP OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.6.5. MPLS OAM and Layer-2 OAM Interworking . . . . . . . . 31
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
2.6.6. Extent of OAM Support by Hardware . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.7. Number and Size of Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3. Questions for Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.1. Basic Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2. Basic Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3. Multipath Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4. Pseudowire Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . 36
3.5. Entropy Label Support and Performance . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.6. DoS Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.7. OAM Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4. Forwarding Compliance and Performance Testing . . . . . . . . 37
4.1. Basic Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.2. Basic Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3. Multipath Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4. Pseudowire Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . 40
4.5. Entropy Label Support and Performance . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.6. DoS Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.7. OAM Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix A. Organization of References Section . . . . . . . . . 49
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
1. Introduction and Document Scope
The initial purpose of this document was to address concerns raised
on the MPLS WG mailing list about shortcomings in implementations of
MPLS forwarding. Documenting existing misconceptions and potential
pitfalls might potentially avoid repeating past mistakes. The
document has grown to address a broad set of forwarding requirements.
The focus of this document is MPLS forwarding, base pseudowire
forwarding, and MPLS OAM. The use of pseudowire control word, and
sequence number are discussed. Specific pseudowire AC and NSP are
out of scope. Specific pseudowire applications, such as various
forms of VPN, are out of scope.
MPLS support for multipath techniques is considered essential by many
service providers and is useful for other high capacity networks. In
order to obtain sufficient entropy from MPLS traffic service
providers and others find it essential for the MPLS implementation to
interpret the MPLS payload as IPv4 or IPv6 based on the contents of
the first nibble of payload. The use of IP addresses, the IP
protocol field, and UDP and TCP port number fields in multipath load
balancing are considered within scope. The use of any other IP
protocol fields, such as tunneling protocols carried within IP, are
out of scope.
Implementation details are a local matter and are out of scope. Most
interfaces today operate at 1 Gb/s or greater. It is assumed that
all forwarding operations are implemented in specialized forwarding
hardware rather than on a special purpose processor. This is often
referred to as "fast path" and "slow path" processing. Some
recommendations are made regarding implemeting control or management
plane functionality in specialized hardware or with limited
assistance from specialized hardware. This advise is based on
expected control or management protocol loads and on the need for
denial of service (DoS) protection.
1.1. Acronyms
The following acronyms are used.
AC Attachment Circuit ([RFC3985])
ACH Associated Channel Header (pseudowires)
ACK Acknowledgement (TCP flag and type of packet)
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
AIS Alarm Indication Signal (MPLS-TP OAM)
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode (legacy switched circuits)
BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
BGP Border Gateway Protocol
CC-CV Connectivity Check and Connectivity Verification
CE Customer Edge (LDP)
CPU Central Processing Unit (computer or microprocessor)
CT Class Type ([RFC4124])
CW Control Word ([RFC4385])
DCCP Datagram Congestion Control Protocol
DDoS Distributed Denial of Service
DM Delay Measurement (MPLS-TP OAM)
DSCP Differentiated Services Code Point ([RFC2474])
DWDM Dense Wave Division Multiplexing
DoS Denial of Service
E-LSP EXP-Inferred-PSC LSP ([RFC3270])
EBGP External BGP
ECMP Equal Cost Multi-Path
ECN Explicit Congestion Notification ([RFC3168] and [RFC5129])
EL Entropy Label ([RFC6790])
ELI Entropy Label Indicator ([RFC6790])
EXP Experimental (field in MPLS renamed to TC in [RFC5462])
FEC Forwarding Equivalence Classes (LDP), also Forward Error
Correction in other context
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
FR Frame Relay (legacy switched circuits)
FRR Fast Reroute ([RFC4090])
G-ACh Generic Associated Channel ([RFC5586])
GAL Generic Associated Channel Label ([RFC5586])
GFP Generic Framing Protocol (used in OTN)
GMPLS Generalized MPLS ([RFC3471])
GTSM Generalized TTL Security Mechanism ([RFC5082])
Gb/s Gigabits per second (billion bits per second)
IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
ILM Incoming Label Map ([RFC3031])
IP Internet Protocol
IPVPN Internet Protocol VPN
IPv4 Internet Protocol version 4
IPv6 Internet Protocol version 6
L-LSP Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSP ([RFC3270])
L2VPN Layer 2 VPN
LDP Label Distribution Protocol ([RFC5036])
LER Label Edge Router ([RFC3031])
LM Loss Measurement (MPLS-TP OAM)
LSP Label Switched Path ([RFC3031])
LSR Label Switching Router ([RFC3031])
MP2MP Multipoint to Point
MPLS MultiProtocol Label Switching ([RFC3031])
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile ([RFC5317])
Mb/s Megabits per second (million bits per second)
NSP Native Service Processing ([RFC3985])
NTP Network Time Protocol
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance ([RFC6291])
OOB Out-of-band (not carried within a data channel)
OTN Optical Transport Network
P Provider router (LDP)
P2MP Point to Multi-Point
PE Provider Edge router (LDP)
PHB Per-Hop-Behavior ([RFC2475])
PHP Penultimate Hop Popping ([RFC3443])
POS Packet over SONET
PSC This acronym has multiple interpretations.
1. Packet Switch Capable ([RFC3471]
2. PHB Scheduling Class ([RFC3270])
3. Protection State Coordination (MPLS-TP linear protection)
PTP Precision Time Protocol
PW Pseudowire
QoS Quality of Service
RA Router Alert ([RFC3032])
RDI Remote Defect Indication (MPLS-TP OAM)
RSVP-TE RSVP Traffic Engineering
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
RTP Real-Time Transport Protocol
SCTP Stream Control Transmission Protocol
SDH Synchronous Data Hierarchy (European SONET, a form of TDM)
SONET Synchronous Optical Network (US SDH, a form of TDM)
T-LDP Targeted LDP (LDP sessions over more than one hop)
TC Traffic Class ([RFC5462])
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
TDM Time-Division Multiplexing (legacy encapsulations)
TOS Type of Service (see [RFC2474])
TTL Time-to-live (a field in IP and MPLS headers)
UDP User Datagram Protocol
UHP Ultimate Hop Popping (opposite of PHP)
VCCV Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification ([RFC5085])
VLAN Virtual Local Area Network (Ethernet)
VOQ Virtual Output Queuing (switch fabric design)
VPN Virtual Private Network
WG Working Group
1.2. Use of Requirements Language
This document is informational. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are used only where the
requirement is specified in an existing RFC. These keywords SHOULD
be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Advice given in this document does not use the upper case RFC 2119
keywords, except where explicitly noted that the keywords indicate
that operator experiences indicate a requirement, but there are no
existing RFC requirements. Such advice may be ignored by
implementations. Similarly, implementations not claiming conformance
to specific RFCs may ignore the requirements of those RFCs. In both
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
cases, implementators may be doing so at their own peril.
1.3. Apparent Misconceptions
In early generations of forwarding silicon (which might now be behind
us), there apparently were some misconceptions about MPLS. The
following statements provide clarifications.
1. There are practical reasons to have more than one or two labels
in an MPLS label stack. Under some circumstances the label stack
can become quite deep. See Section 2.1.
2. The label stack MUST be considered to be arbitrarily deep.
Section 3.27.4. "Hierarchy: LSP Tunnels within LSPs" of RFC 3031
[RFC3031] states "The label stack mechanism allows LSP tunneling
to nest to any depth." If a bottom of the label stack cannot be
found, but sufficient number of labels exist to forward, an LSR
MUST forward the packet. An LSR MUST NOT assume the packet is
malformed unless the end of packet is found before bottom of
stack. See Section 2.1.
3. In networks where deep label stacks are encountered, they are not
rare. Full packet rate performance is required regardless of
label stack depth, except where multiple pop operations are
required. See Section 2.1.
4. Research has shown that long bursts of short packets with 40 byte
or 44 byte IP payload sizes in these bursts are quite common.
This is due to TCP ACK compression [ACK-compression].
A. A forwarding engine SHOULD, if practical, be able to sustain
an arbitrarily long sequence of small packets arriving at
full interface rate.
B. If indefinite full packet rate for small packets is not
practical, a forwarding engine MUST be able to buffer a long
sequence of small packets inbound to the on-chip decision
engine and sustain full interface rate for some reasonable
average packet rate. Absent this small on-chip buffering,
QoS agnostic packet drops can occur.
See Section 2.3.
5. The implementor and system designer MUST support pseudowire
control word if MPLS-TP is supported or if ACH is being used on a
pseudowire [RFC5586]. The implementor and system designer SHOULD
support pseudowire control word if MPLS-TP and [RFC5586] are not
used [RFC5085]. Deployments SHOULD enable pseudowire control
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
word. See Section 2.4.1.
6. The implementor and system designer SHOULD support adding a
pseudowire Flow Label [RFC6391]. Deployments MAY enable this
feature for appropriate pseudowire types. See Section 2.4.3.
7. The implementor and system designer SHOULD support adding an MPLS
entropy label [RFC6790]. Deployments MAY enable this feature.
See Section 2.4.4.
1.4. Target Audience
This document is intended for multiple audiences: implementor
(implementing MPLS forwarding in silicon or in software); systems
designer (putting together a MPLS forwarding systems); deployer
(running an MPLS network). These guidelines are intended to serve
the following purposes:
1. Explain what to do and what not to do when a deep label stack is
encountered. (audience: implementor)
2. Highlight pitfalls to look for when implementing an MPLS
forwarding chip. (audience: implementor)
3. Provide a checklist of features and performance specifications to
request. (audience: systems designer, deployer)
4. Provide a set of tests to perform. (audience: systems designer,
deployer).
The implementor, systems designer, and deployer have a transitive
supplier customer relationship. It is in the best interest of the
supplier to review their product against their customer's checklist
and customer's customer's checklist if applicable.
2. Forwarding Issues
A brief review of forwarding issues is provided in the subsections
that follow. This section provides some background on why some of
these requirements exist. The questions to ask of suppliers and
testing is covered in the following sections, Section 3 and
Section 4.
2.1. Forwarding Basics
Basic MPLS architecture and MPLS encapsulation, and therefore packet
forwarding are defined in [RFC3031] and [RFC3032]. RFC3031 and
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
RFC3032 are somewhat LDP centric. RSVP-TE supports traffic
engineering (TE) and fast reroute, features that LDP lacks. The base
document for RSVP-TE based MPLS is [RFC3209].
A few RFCs update RFC3032. Those with impact on forwarding include
the following.
1. TTL processing is clarified in [RFC3443].
2. The use of MPLS Explicit NULL is modified in [RFC4182].
3. Differentiated Services is supported by [RFC3270] and [RFC4124].
The "EXP" field is renamed to "Traffic Class" in [RFC5462],
removing any misconception that it was available for
experimentation or could be ignored.
4. ECN is supported by [RFC5129].
5. The MPLS G-ACh and GAL are defined in [RFC5586].
Other RFCs have implications to MPLS Forwarding and do not update
RFC3032 or RFC3209, including:
1. The pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header (ACH), defined by
[RFC5085], later generalized by the MPLS G-ACh [RFC5586].
2. The entropy label indicator (ELI) and entropy label (EL) are
defined by [RFC6790].
A few RFCs update RFC3209. Those that are listed as updating RFC3209
generally impact only RSVP-TE signaling. Forwarding is modified by
major extension built upon RFC3209.
RFCs which impact forwarding are discussed in the following
subsections.
2.1.1. MPLS Reserved Labels
[RFC3032] specifies that label values 0-15 are reserved labels with
special meanings. Three values of NULL label are defined (two of
which are later updated by [RFC4182]) and a router-alert label is
defined. The original intent was that reserved labels, except the
NULL labels, could be sent to the routing engine CPU rather than be
processed in forwarding hardware. Hardware support is required by
new RFCs such as those defining entropy label and OAM processed as a
result of receiving a GAL. For new reserved labels, some
accommodation is needed for LSR that will send the labels to a
general purpose CPU or other highly programmable hardware. For
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
example, ELI will only be sent to LSR which have signaled support for
[RFC6790] and high OAM packet rate must be negotiated among
endpoints.
[RFC3429] reserves a label for ITU-T Y.1711, however Y.1711 does not
work with multipath and its use is strongly discouraged.
The current list of reserved labels can be found on the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Values"
registry reachable at IANA's pages at <http://www.iana.org>.
When an unknown reserved label is encountered or a reserved label not
directly handled in forwarding hardware is encountered, the packet
should be sent to a general purpose CPU by default. If this
capability is supported, there must be an option to either drop or
rate limit such packets on a per reserved label value basis.
2.1.2. MPLS Differentiated Services
[RFC2474] deprecates the IP Type of Service (TOS) and IP Precedence
(Prec) fields and replaces them with the Differentiated Services
Field more commonly known as the Differentiated Services Code Point
(DSCP) field. [RFC2475] defines the Differentiated Services
architecture, which in other forum is often called a Quality of
Service (QoS) architecture.
MPLS uses the Traffic Class (TC) field to support Differentiated
Services [RFC5462]. There are two primary documents describing how
DSCP is mapped into TC.
1. [RFC3270] defines E-LSP and L-LSP. E-LSP use a static mapping of
DSCP into TC. L-LSP uses a per LSP mapping of DSCP into TC, with
one PHB Scheduling Class (PSC) per L-LSP. Each PSC can use
multiple Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) values. For example, the Assured
Forwarding service defines three PSC, each with three PHB
[RFC2597].
2. [RFC4124] defines assignment of a class-type (CT) to an LSP,
where a per CT static mapping of TC to PHB is used. [RFC4124]
provides a means to support up to eight E-LSP-like mappings of
DSCP to TC.
To meet Differentiated Services requirements specified in [RFC3270],
the following forwarding requirements must be met. An ingress LER
MUST be able to select an LSP and then apply a per LSP map of DSCP
into TC. A midpoint LSR MUST be able to apply a per LSP map of TC to
PHB. The number of mappings supported will be far less than the
number of LSP supported.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
2.1.3. Time Synchronization
PTP or NTP may be carried over MPLS [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls].
Generally NTP will be carried within IP with IP carried in MPLS
[RFC5905]. Both PTP and NTP benefit from accurate time stamping of
incoming packets and the ability to insert accurate time stamps in
outgoing packets. PTP correction which occurs when forwarding
requires updating a timestamp compensation field based on the
difference between packet arrival at an LSR and packet transmit time
at that same LSR.
Since the label stack depth may vary, hardware should allow a
timestamp to be placed in an outgoing packet at any specified byte
position. It may be necessary to modify layer-2 checksums or frame
check sequences after insertion. PTP and NTP timestamp formats
differ slightly. If NTP or PTP is carried over UDP/IP or UDP/IP/
MPLS, the UDP checksum will also have to be updated.
Accurate time synchronization in addition to being generally useful
is required for MPLS-TP delay measurement (DM) OAM. See
Section 2.6.4.
2.1.4. Uses of Multiple Label Stack Entries
MPLS deployments in the early part of the prior decade (circa 2000)
tended to support either LDP or RSVP-TE. LDP was favored by some for
its ability to scale to a very large number of PE devices at the edge
of the network, without adding deployment complexity. RSVP-TE was
favored, generally in the network core, where traffic engineering
and/or fast reroute were considered important.
Both LDP and RSVP-TE are used simultaneously within major Service
Provider networks using a technique known as "LDP over RSVP-TE
Tunneling". This technique allows service providers to carry LDP
tunnels, originating and terminating at PE's, inside of RSVP-TE
tunnels, generally between Inter-City P routers, to take advantage of
Traffic Engineering and Fast Re-Route on more expensive Inter-City
and Inter-Continental Transport paths. LDP over RSVP-TE tunneling
requires a minimum of two MPLS labels: one each for LDP and RSVP-TE.
The use of MPLS FRR [RFC4090] might add one more label to MPLS
traffic, but only when FRR protection was in use. If LDP over
RSVP-TE is in use, and FRR protection is in use, then at least three
MPLS labels are present on the label stack on the links through which
the Bypass LSP traverses. FRR is covered in Section 2.1.7.
LDP L2VPN, LDP IPVPN, BGP L2VPN, and BGP IPVPN added support for VPN
services that are deployed in the vast majority of service providers.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
These VPN services added yet another label, bringing the label stack
depth (when FRR is active) to four.
Pseudowires and VPN are discussed in further detail in Section 2.1.8
and Section 2.1.9.
2.1.5. MPLS Link Bundling
MPLS Link Bundling was the first RFC to address the need for multiple
parallel links between nodes [RFC4201]. MPLS Link Bundling is
notable in that it tried not to change MPLS forwarding, except in
specifying the "All-Ones" component link. MPLS Link Bundling is
seldom if ever deployed. Instead multipath techniques described in
Section 2.4 are used.
2.1.6. MPLS Hierarchy
MPLS hierarchy is defined in [RFC4206]. Although RFC4206 is
considered part of GMPLS, the Packet Switching Capable (PSC) portion
of the MPLS hierarchy are applicable to MPLS and may be supported in
an otherwise GMPLS free implementation. The MPLS PSC hierarchy
remains the most likely means of providing further scaling in an
RSVP-TE MPLS network, particularly where the network is designed to
provide RSVP-TE connectivity to the edges. This is the case for
envisioned MPLS-TP networks. The use of the MPLS PSC hierarchy can
add as many as four labels to a label stack, though it is likely that
only one layer of PSC will be used in the near future.
2.1.7. MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR)
Fast reroute is defined by [RFC4090]. Two significantly different
methods are the "One-to-One Backup" method which uses the "Detour
LSP" and the " Facility Backup" which uses a "bypass tunnel". These
are commonly referred to as the detour and bypass methods
respectively.
The detour method makes use of a presignaled LSP. Hardware
assistance is needed for detour FRR only if necessary to accomplish
local repair of a large number of LSP within the 10s of milliseconds
target. For each affected LSP a swap operation must be reprogrammed
or otherwise switched over. The use of detour FRR doubles the number
of LSP terminating at any given hop and will increase the number of
LSP within a network by a factor dependent on the average detour path
length.
The bypass method makes use of a tunnel that is unused when no fault
exists but may carry many LSP when a local repair is required. There
is no presignaling indicating which working LSP will be diverted into
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
any specific bypass LSP. The egress LSR of the bypass LSP MUST use
platform label space (as defined in [RFC3031]) so that an LSP working
path on any give interface can be backed up using a bypass LSP
terminating on any other interface. Hardware assistance is needed if
necessary to accomplish local repair of a large number of LSP within
the 10s of milliseconds target. For each affected LSP a swap
operation must be reprogrammed or otherwise switched over with an
additional push of the bypass LSP label. In addition the use of
platform label space impacts the size of the LSR ILM for LSR with a
very large number of interfaces.
2.1.8. Pseudowire Encapsulation
The pseudowire (PW) architecture is defined in [RFC3985]. A
pseudowire, when carried over MPLS, adds one or more additional label
entries to the MPLS label stack. A PW Control Word is defined in
[RFC4385] with motivation for defining the control word in [RFC4928].
The PW Associated Channel defined in [RFC4385] is used for OAM in
[RFC5085]. The PW Flow Label is defined in [RFC6391] and is
discussed further in this document in Section 2.4.3.
There are numerous pseudowire encapsulations, supporting emulation of
services such as Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet, TDM, and SONET/SDH over
packet switched networks (PSNs) using IP or MPLS.
The pseudowire encapsulation is out of scope for this document.
Pseudowire impact on MPLS forwarding at midpoint LSR is within scope.
The impact on ingress MPLS push and egress MPLS UHP pop are within
scope. While pseudowire encapsulation is out of scope, some advice
is given on sequence number support.
2.1.8.1. Pseudowire Sequence Number
Pseudowire (PW) sequence number support is most important for PW
payload types with a high expectation of in-order delivery.
Resequencing support, rather than dropping at egress on out of order
arrival, is most important for PW payload types with a high
expectation of lossless delivery. For example, TDM payloads require
sequence number support and require resequencing support. The same
is true of ATM CBR service. ATM VBR or ABR may have somewhat relaxed
requirements, but generally require ATM Early Packet Discard (EPD) or
ATM Partial Packet Discard (PPD) [ATM-EPD-and-PPD]. Though sequence
number support and resequencing support are beneficial to PW packet
oriented payloads such as FR and Ethernet, they are highly desirable
but not as strongly required.
Packet reorder should be rare except in a small number of
circumstances, most of which are due to network design or equipment
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
design errors:
1. The most common case is where reordering occurs is rare,
occurring only when a network or equipment fault forces traffic
on a new path with different delay. The packet loss that
accompanies a network or equipment fault is generally more
disruptive than any reordering which may occur.
2. A path change can be caused by reasons other than a network or
equipment fault, such as administrative routing change. This may
result in packet reordering but generally without any packet
loss.
3. If the edge is not using pseudowire control word (CW) and the
core is using multipath, reordering will be far more common. If
this is occurring, the best solution is to use CW on the edge,
rather than try to fix the reordering using resequencing.
4. Another avoidable case is where some core equipment has multipath
and for some reason insists on periodically installing a new
random number as the multipath hash seed. If supporting MPLS-TP,
equipment MUST provide a means to disable periodic hash reseeding
and deployments MUST disable periodic hash reseeding. Even if
not supporting MPLS-TP, equipment should provide a means to
disable periodic hash reseeding and deployments should disable
periodic hash reseeding.
2.1.9. Layer-2 and Layer-3 VPN
Layer-2 VPN [RFC4664] and Layer-3 VPN [RFC4110] add one or more label
entry to the MPLS label stack. VPN encapsulations are out of scope
for this document. Its impact on forwarding at midpoint LSR are
within scope.
Any of these services may be used on an MPLS entropy label enabled
ingress and egress (see Section 2.4.4 for discussion of entropy
label) which would add an additional label to the MPLS label stack.
The need to provide a useful entropy label value impacts the
requirements of the VPN ingress LER but is out of scope for this
document.
2.2. MPLS Multicast
MPLS Multicast encapsulation is clarified in [RFC5332]. MPLS
Multicast may be signaled using RSVP-TE [RFC4875] or LDP [RFC6388].
[RFC4875] defines a root initiated RSVP-TE LSP setup rather than leaf
initiated join used in IP multicast. [RFC6388] defines a leaf
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
initiated LDP setup. Both [RFC4875] and [RFC6388] define point to
multipoint (P2MP) LSP setup. [RFC6388] also defined multipoint to
multipoint (MP2MP) LSP setup.
The P2MP LSP have a single source. An LSR may be a leaf node, an
intermediate node, or a "bud" node. A bud serves as both a leaf and
intermediate. At a leaf an MPLS pop is performed. The payload may
be a IP Multicast packet that requires further replication. At an
intermediate node a MPLS swap operation is performed. The bud
requires that both a pop operation and a swap operation be performed
for the same incoming packet.
One strategy to support P2MP functionality is to pop at the LSR
ingress and then optionally push labels at each LSR egress. A given
LSR egress chip may support multiple egress interfaces, each of which
requires a copy, but each with a different set of added labels and
layer-2 encapsulation. Some physical interfaces may have multiple
sub-interfaces (such as Ethernet VLAN or channelized interfaces) each
requiring a copy.
If packet replication is performed at LSR ingress, then the ingress
interface performance may suffer. If the packet replication is
performed within a LSR switching fabric and at LSR egress, congestion
of egress interfaces cannot make use of backpressure to ingress
interfaces using techniques such as virtual output queuing (VOQ). If
buffering is primarily supported at egress, then the need for
backpressure is minimized. There may be no good solution for high
volumes of multicast traffic if VOQ is used.
MP2MP LSP differ in that any branch may provide an input, including a
leaf. Packets must be replicated onto all other branches. This
forwarding is often implemented as multiple P2MP forwarding trees,
one for each potential input.
2.3. Packet Rates
While average packet size of Internet traffic may be large, long
sequences of small packets have both been predicted in theory and
observed in practice. Traffic compression and TCP ACK compression
can conspire to create long sequences of packets of 40-44 bytes in
payload length. If carried over Ethernet, the 64 byte minimum
payload applies, yielding a packet rate of approximately 150 Mpps
(million packets per second) for the duration of the burst on a
nominal 100 Gb/s link. The peak rate is higher for other
encapsulations can be as high as 250 Mpps (for example IP or MPLS
encapsulated using GFP over OTN ODU4).
It is also possible that the packet rates for a minimum payload size,
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
such as 64 byte (64B) payload for Ethernet, is acceptable, but the
rate declines for other packet sizes, such as 65B payload. There are
other packet rates of interest besides TCP ACK. For example, a TCP
ACK carried over an Ethernet PW over MPLS over Ethernet may occupy
82B or 82B plus an increment of 4B if additional MPLS labels are
present.
A graph of packet rate vs. packet size often displays a sawtooth.
The sawtooth is commonly due to a memory bottleneck and memory
widths, sometimes internal cache, but often a very wide external
buffer memory interface. In some cases it may be due to a fabric
transfer width. A fine packing, rounding up to the nearest 8B or 16B
will result in a fine sawtooth with small degradation for 65B, and
even less for 82B packets. A course packing, rounding up to 64B can
yield a sharper drop in performance for 65B packets, or perhaps more
important, a larger drop for 82B packets.
The loss of some TCP ACK packets are not the primary concern when
such a burst occurs. When a burst occurs, any other packets,
regardless of packet length and packet QoS are dropped once on-chip
input buffers prior to the decision engine are exceeded. Buffers in
front of the packet decision engine are often very small or non-
existent (less than one packet of buffer) causing significant QoS
agnostic packet drop.
Internet service providers and content providers generally specify
full rate forwarding with 40 byte payload packets as a requirement.
This requirement often can be waived if the provider can be convinced
that when long sequence of short packets occur no packets will be
dropped.
Many equipment suppliers have pointed out that the extra cost in
designing hardware capable of processing the minimum size packets at
full line rate is significant for very high speed interfaces. If
hardware is not capable of processing the minimum size packets at
full line rate, then that hardware MUST be capable of handling large
burst of small packets, a condition which is often observed. This
level of performance is necessary to meet Differentiated Services
[RFC2475] requirements for without it, packets are lost prior to
inspection of the IP DSCP field [RFC2474] or MPLS TC field [RFC5462].
With adequate on-chip buffers before the packet decision engine, an
LSR can absorb a long sequence of short packets. Even if the output
is slowed to the point where light congestion occurs, the packets,
having cleared the decision process, can make use of larger VOQ or
output side buffers and be dealt with according to configured QoS
treatment, rather than dropped completely at random.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
These on-chip buffers need not contribute significant delay since
they are only used when the packet decision engine is unable to keep
up, not in response to congestion, plus these buffers are quite
small. For example, an on-chip buffer capable of handling 4K packets
of 64 bytes in length, or 256KB, corresponds to 2 msec on a 10 Mb/s
link and 0.2 usec on a 100 Gb/s link. If the packet decision engine
is capable of handling packets at 90% of the full rate for small
packets, then the maximum added delay is 0.2 msec and 20 nsec
respectively, and this delay only applies if a 4K burst of short
packets occurs. When no burst of short packets was being processed,
no delay is added.
Packet rate requirements apply regardless of which network tier
equipment is deployed in. Whether deployed in the network core or
near the network edges, one of the two conditions MUST be met:
1. Packets must be processed at full line rate with minimum sized
packets. -OR-
2. Packets must be processed at a rate well under generally accepted
average packet sizes, with sufficient buffering prior to the
packet decision engine to accommodate long bursts of small
packets.
2.4. MPLS Multipath Techniques
In any large provider, service providers and content providers, hash
based multipath techniques are used in the core and in the edge. In
many of these providers hash based multipath is also used in the
larger metro networks.
The most common multipath techniques are ECMP applied at the IP
forwarding level, Ethernet LAG with inspection of the IP payload, and
multipath on links carrying both IP and MPLS, where the IP header is
inspected below the MPLS label stack. In most core networks, the
vast majority of traffic is MPLS encapsulated.
In order to support an adequately balanced load distribution across
multiple links, IP header information must be used. Common practice
today is to reinspect the IP headers at each LSR and use the label
stack and IP header information in a hash performed at each LSR.
Further details are provided in Section 2.4.5.
The use of this technique is so ubiquitous in provider networks that
lack of support for multipath makes any product unsuitable for use in
large core networks. This will continue to be the case in the near
future, even as deployment of MPLS entropy label begins to relax the
core LSR multipath performance requirements given the existing
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
deployed base of edge equipment without the ability to add an entropy
label.
A generation of edge equipment supporting the ability to add an MPLS
entropy label is needed before the performance requirements for core
LSR can be relaxed. However, it is likely that two generations of
deployment in the future will allow core LSR to support full packet
rate only when a relatively small number of MPLS labels need to be
inspected before hashing. For now, don't count on it.
Common practice today is to reinspect the packet at each LSR and
information from the packet combined with a hash seed that is
selected by each LSR. Where flow labels or entropy labels are used,
a hash seed must be used when creating these labels.
2.4.1. Pseudowire Control Word
Within the core of a network some form of multipath is almost certain
to be used. Multipath techniques deployed today are likely to be
looking beneath the label stack for an opportunity to hash on IP
addresses.
A pseudowire encapsulated at a network edge must have a means to
prevent reordering within the core if the pseudowire will be crossing
a network core, or any part of a network topology where multipath is
used (see [RFC4385] and [RFC4928]).
Not supporting the ability to encapsulate a pseudowire with a control
word may lock a product out from consideration. A pseudowire
capability without control word support might be sufficient for
applications that are strictly both intra-metro and low bandwidth.
However a provider with other applications will very likely not
tolerate having equipment which can only support a subset of their
pseudowire needs.
2.4.2. Large Microflows
Where multipath makes use of a simple hash and simple load balance
such as modulo or other fixed allocation (see Section 2.4) the
presence of large microflows that each consumes 10% of the capacity
of a component link of a potentially congested composite link, one
such microflow can upset the traffic balance and more than one can in
effect reduce the effective capacity of the entire composite link by
more than 10%.
When even a very small number of large microflows are present, there
is a significant probability that more than one of these large
microflows could fall on the same component link. If the traffic
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
contribution from large microflows is small, the probability for
three or more large microflows on the same component link drops
significantly. Therefore in a network where a significant number of
parallel 10 Gb/s links exists, even a 1 Gb/s pseudowire or other
large microflow that could not otherwise be subdivided into smaller
flows should carry a flow label or entropy label if possible.
Active management of the hash space to better accommodate large
microflows has been implemented and deployed in the past, however
such techniques are out of scope for this document.
2.4.3. Pseudowire Flow Label
Unlike a pseudowire control word, a pseudowire flow label [RFC6391],
is required only for relatively large capacity pseudowires. There
are many cases where a pseudowire flow label makes sense. Any
service such as a VPN which carries IP traffic within a pseudowire
can make use of a pseudowire flow label.
Any pseudowire carried over MPLS which makes use of the pseudowire
control word and does not carry a flow label is in effect a single
microflow (in [RFC2475] terms).
2.4.4. MPLS Entropy Label
The MPLS entropy label simplifies flow group identification [RFC6790]
in the network core. Prior to the MPLS entropy label core LSR needed
to inspect the entire label stack and often the IP headers to provide
an adequate distribution of traffic when using multipath techniques
(see Section 2.4.5). With the use of MPLS entropy label, a hash can
be performed closer to network edges, placed in the label stack, and
used within the network core.
The MPLS entropy label is capable of avoiding full label stack and
payload inspection within the core where performance levels are most
difficult to achieve (see Section 2.3). The label stack inspection
can be terminated as soon as the first entropy label is encountered,
which is generally after a small number of labels are inspected.
In order to provide these benefits in the core, LSR closer to the
edge must be capable of adding an entropy label. This support may
not be required in the access tier, the tier closest to the customer,
but is likely to be required in the edge or the border to the network
core. LSR peering with external networks will also need to be able
to add an entropy label.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
2.4.5. Fields Used for Multipath
The most common multipath techniques are based on a hash over a set
of fields. Regardless of whether a hash is used or some other method
is used, the there is a limited set of fields which can safely be
used for multipath.
2.4.5.1. MPLS Fields in Multipath
If the "outer" or "first" layer of encapsulation is MPLS, then label
stack entries are used in the hash. Within a finite amount of time
(and for small packets arriving at high speed that time can quite
limited) only a finite number of label entries can be inspected.
Pipelined or parallel architectures improve this, but the limit is
still finite.
The following guidelines are provided for use of MPLS fields in
multipath load balancing.
1. Only the 20 bit label field SHOULD be used. The TTL field SHOULD
NOT be used. The S bit MUST NOT be used. The TC field (formerly
EXP) MUST NOT be used. See below this list for reasons.
2. If an ELI label is found, then if the LSR supports entropy label,
the EL label field in the next label entry (the EL) SHOULD be
used and label entries below that label SHOULD NOT be used and
the MPLS payload SHOULD NOT be used. See below this list for
reasons.
3. Reserved labels (label values 0-15) MUST NOT be used. In
particular, GAL and RA MUST NOT be used so that OAM traffic
follows the same path as payload packets with the same label
stack.
4. The most entropy is generally found in the label stack entries
near the bottom of the label stack (innermost label, closest to
S=1 bit). If the entire label stack cannot be used (or entire
stack up to an EL), then it is better to use as many labels as
possible closest to the bottom of stack.
5. If no ELI is encountered, and the first nibble of payload
contains a 4 (IPv4) or 6 (IPv6), an implementation SHOULD support
the ability to interpret the payload as IPv4 or IPv6 and extract
and use appropriate fields from the IP headers. This feature is
considered a hard requirement by many service providers. If
supported, there MUST be a way to disable it (if, for example, PW
without CW are used). This ability to disable this feature is
considered a hard requirement by many service providers.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Therefore an implementation has a very strong incentive to
support both options.
6. A label which is popped at egress (UHP pop) SHOULD NOT be used.
A label which is popped at the penultimate hop (PHP pop) SHOULD
be used.
Apparently some chips have made use of the TC (formerly EXP) bits as
a source of entropy. This is very harmful since it will reorder
Assured Forwarding (AF) traffic [RFC2597] when a subset does not
conform to the configured rates and is remarked but not dropped at a
prior LSR. Traffic which uses MPLS ECN [RFC5129] can also be
reordered if TC is used for entropy. Therefore, as stated in the
guidelines above, the TC field (formerly EXP) MUST NOT be used in
multipath load balancing as it violates Differentiated Services
Ordered Aggregate (OA) requirements in these two instances.
Use of the MPLS label entry S bit would result in putting OAM traffic
on a different path if the addition of a GAL at the bottom of stack
removed the S bit from the prior label.
If an ELI label is found, then if the LSR supports entropy label, the
EL label field in the next label entry (the EL) SHOULD be used and
the search for additional entropy within the packet SHOULD be
terminated. Failure to terminate the search will impact client
MPLS-TP LSP carried within server MPLS LSP. A network operator has
the option to use administrative attributes as a means to identify
LSR which do not terminate the entropy search at the first EL.
Administrative attributes are defined in [RFC3209]. Some
configuration is required to support this.
If the label removed by a PHP pop is not used, then for any PW for
which CW is used, there is no basis for multipath load split. In
some networks it is infeasible to put all PW traffic on one component
link. Any PW which does not use CW will be improperly split
regardless of whether the label removed by a PHP pop is used.
Therefore the PHP pop label SHOULD be used as recommended above.
2.4.5.2. IP Fields in Multipath
Inspecting the IP payload provides the most entropy in provider
networks. The practice of looking past the bottom of stack label for
an IP payload is well accepted and documented in [RFC4928] and in
other RFCs.
Where IP is mentioned in the document, both IPv4 and IPv6 apply. All
LSRs MUST fully support IPv6.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
When information in the IP header is used, the following guidelines
apply:
1. Both the IP source address and IP destination address SHOULD be
used. There MAY be an option to reverse the order of these
addresses, improving the ability to provide symmetric paths in
some cases. Many service providers require that both addresses
be used.
2. Implementations SHOULD allow inspection of the IP protocol field
and use of the UDP or TCP port numbers. For many service
providers this feature is considered mandatory, particularly for
enterprise, data center, or edge equipment. If this feature is
provided, it SHOULD be possible to disable use of TCP and UDP
ports. Many service providers consider it a hard requirement
that use of UDP and TCP ports can be disabled. Therefore there
is a stong incentive for implementations to provide both options.
3. Equipment suppliers MUST NOT make assumptions that because the IP
version field is equal to 4 (an IPv4 packet) that the IP protocol
will either be TCP (IP protocol 6) or UDP (IP protocol 17) and
blindly fetch the data at the offset where the TCP or UDP ports
would be found. With IPv6, TCP and UDP port numbers are not at
fixed offsets. With IPv4 packets carrying IP options, TCP and
UDP port numbers are not at fixed offsets.
4. The IPv6 header flow field SHOULD be used. This is the explicit
purpose of the IPv6 flow field, however observed flow fields
rarely contains a non-zero value. Some uses of the flow field
have been defined such as [RFC6438]. In the absense of MPLS
encapsulation, the IPv6 flow field can serve a role equivalent to
entropy label.
5. Support other protocols that share a common Layer-4 header such
as RTP, UDP-lite, SCTP and DCCP SHOULD be provided, particularly
for edge or access equipment where additional entropy may be
needed. Equipment SHOULD also use RTP, UDP-lite, SCTP and DCCP
headers when creating an entropy label.
6. The following IP header fields should not or must not be used:
A. Similar to avoiding TC in MPLS, the IP DSCP, and ECN bits
MUST NOT be used.
B. The IPv4 TTL or IPv6 Hop Count SHOULD NOT be used.
C. Note that the IP TOS field was deprecated ([RFC0791] was
updated by [RFC2474]). No part of the IP DSCP field can be
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
used (formerly IP PREC and IP TOS bits).
7. Some IP encapsulations support tunneling, such as IP-in-IP, GRE,
L2TPv3, and IPSEC. These provide a greater source of entropy
which some provider networks carrying large amounts of tunneled
traffic may need. The use of tunneling header information is out
of scope for this document.
This document makes the following recommendations. These
recommendations are not required to claim compliance to any existing
RFC therefore implementors are free to ignore them, but due to
service provider requirements may be doing so at their own peril.
The use of IP addresses MUST be supported and TCP and UDP ports
(conditional on the protocol field and properly located) MUST be
supported. The ability to disable use of UDP and TCP ports MUST be
available. Though potentially very useful in some networks, it is
uncommon to support using payloads of tunneling protocols carried
over IP. Though the use of tunneling protocol header information is
out of scope for this document, it is not discouraged.
2.4.5.3. Fields Used in Flow Label
The ingress to a pseudowire (PW) can extract information from the
payload being encapsulated to create a flow label. [RFC6391]
references IP carried in Ethernet as an example. The Native Service
Processing (NSP) function defined in [RFC3985] differs with
pseudowire type. It is in the NSP function where information for a
specific type of PW can be extracted for use in a flow label. Which
fields to use for any given PW NSP is out of scope for this document.
2.4.5.4. Fields Used in Entropy Label
An entropy label is added at the ingress to an LSP. The payload
being encapsulated is most often MPLS, a PW, or IP. The payload type
is identified by the layer-2 encapsulation (Ethernet, GFP, POS, etc).
If the payload is MPLS, then the information used to create an
entropy label is the same information used for local load balancing
(see Section 2.4.5.1). This information MUST be extracted for use in
generating an entropy label even if the LSR local egress interface is
not a multipath.
Of the non-MPLS payload types, only payloads that are forwarded are
of interest. For example, ARP is not forwarded and CNLP (used only
for ISIS) is not forwarded.
The non-MPLS payload type of greatest interest are IPv4 and IPv6.
The guidelines in Section 2.4.5.2 apply to fields used to create and
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
entropy label.
The IP tunneling protocols mentioned in Section 2.4.5.2 may be more
applicable to generation of an entropy label at edge or access where
deep packet inspection is practical due to lower interface speeds
than in the core where deep packet inspection may be impractical.
2.5. MPLS-TP and UHP
MPLS-TP introduces forwarding demands that will be extremely
difficult to meet in a core network. Most troublesome is the
requirement for Ultimate Hop Popping (UHP, the opposite of
Penultimate Hop Popping or PHP). Using UHP opens the possibility of
one or more MPLS pop operation plus an MPLS swap operation for each
packet. The potential for multiple lookups and multiple counter
instances per packet exists.
As networks grow and tunneling of LDP LSPs into RSVP-TE LSPs is used,
and/or RSVP-TE hierarchy is used, the requirement to perform one or
two or more MPLS pop operations plus a MPLS swap operation (and
possibly a push or two) increases. If MPLS-TP LM (link monitoring)
OAM is enabled at each layer, then a packet and byte count MUST be
maintained for each pop and swap operation so as to offer OAM for
each layer.
2.6. Local Delivery of Packets
There are a number of situations in which packets are destined to a
local address or where a return packet must be generated. There is a
need to mitigate the potential for outage as a result of either
attacks on network infrastructure, or in some cases unintentional
misconfiguration resulting in processor overload. Some hardware
assistance is needed for all traffic destined to the general purpose
CPU that is used in MPLS control protocol processing or network
management protocol processing and in most cases to other general
purpose CPUs residing on an LSR. This is due to the ease of
overwhelming such a processor with traffic arriving on LSR high speed
interfaces, whether the traffic is malicious or not.
Denial of service (DoS) protection is an area requiring hardware
support that is often overlooked or inadequately considered.
Hardware assist is also needed for OAM, particularly the more
demanding MPLS-TP OAM.
2.6.1. DoS Protection
Modern equipment supports a number of control plane and management
plane protocols. Generally no single means of protecting network
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
equipment from denial of service (DoS) attacks is sufficient,
particularly for high speed interfaces. This problem is not specific
to MPLS, but is a topic that cannot be ignored when implementing or
evaluating MPLS implementations.
Two types of protections are often cited as primary means of
protecting against attacks of all kinds.
Isolated Control/Management Traffic
Control and Management traffic can be carried out-of-band (OOB),
meaning not intermixed with payload. For MPLS use of G-ACh and
GAL to carry control and management traffic provides a means of
isolation from potentially malicious payload. Used alone, the
compromise of a single node, including a small computer at a
network operations center, could compromise an entire network.
Implementations which send all G-ACh/GAL traffic directly to a
routing engine CPU are subject to DoS attack as a result of such
a compromise.
Cryptographic Authentication
Cryptographic authentication can very effectively prevent
malicious injection of control or management traffic.
Cryptographic authentication can is some circumstances be subject
to DoS attack by overwhelming the capacity of the decryption with
a high volume of malicious traffic. For very low speed
interfaces, cryptographic authentication can be performed by the
general purpose CPU used as a routing engine. For all other
cases, cryptographic hardware may be needed. For very high speed
interfaces, even cryptographic hardware can be overwhelmed.
Some control and management protocols are often carried with payload
traffic. This is commonly the case with BGP, T-LDP, and SNMP. It is
often the case with RSVP-TE. Even when carried over G-ACh/GAL
additional measures can reduce the potential for a minor breach to be
leveraged to a full network attack.
Some of the additional protections are supported by hardware packet
filtering.
GTSM
[RFC5082] defines a mechanism that uses the IPv4 TTL or IPv6 Hop
Limit fields to insure control traffic that can only originate
from an immediate neighbor is not forged and originating from a
distant source. GTSM can be applies to many control protocols
which are routable, for example LDP [RFC6720].
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
IP Filtering
At the very minimum, packet filtering plus classification and use
of multiple queues supporting rate limiting is needed for traffic
that could potentially be sent to a general purpose CPU used as a
routing engine. The first level of filtering only allows
connections to be initiated from specific IP prefixes to specific
destination ports and then preferably passes traffic directly to
a cryptographic engine and/or rate limits. The second level of
filtering passes connected traffic, such as TCP connections
having received at least one authenticated SYN or having been
locally initiated. The second level of filtering only passes
traffic to specific address and port pairs to be checked for
cryptographic authentication.
The cryptographic authentication is generally the last resort in DoS
attack mitigation. If a packet must be first sent to a general
purpose CPU, then sent to a cryptographic engine, a DoS attack is
possible on high speed interfaces. Only where hardware can identify
a signature and the portion of packet covered by the signature is
cryptographic authentication highly beneficial in protecting against
DoS attacks.
For chips supporting multiple 100 Gb/s interfaces, only a very large
number of parallel cryptographic engines can provide the processing
capacity to handle a large scale DoS or distributed DoS (DDoS)
attack. For many forwarding chips this much processing power
requires significant chip real estate and power, and therefore
reduces system space and power density. For this reason,
cryptographic authentication is not considered a viable first line of
defense.
For some networks the first line of defense is some means of
supporting OOB control and management traffic. In the past this OOB
channel migh make use of overhead bits in SONET or OTN or a dedicated
DWDM wavelength. G-ACh and GAL provide an alternative OOB mechanism
which is independent of underlying layers. In other networks,
including most IP/MPLS networks, perimeter filtering serves a similar
purpose, though less effective without extreme vigilance.
A second line of defense is filtering, including GTSM. For protocols
such as EBGP, GTSM and other filtering is often the first line of
defense. Cryptographic authentication is usually the last line of
defense and insufficient by itself to mitigate DoS or DDoS attacks.
2.6.2. MPLS OAM
[RFC4377] defines requirements for MPLS OAM that predate MPLS-TP.
[RFC4379] defines what is commonly referred to as LSP Ping and LSP
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Traceroute. [RFC4379] is updated by [RFC6424] supporting MPLS
tunnels and stitched LSP and P2MP LSP. [RFC4379] is updated by
[RFC6425] supporting P2MP LSP. [RFC4379] is updated by [RFC6426] to
support MPLS-TP connectivity verification (CV) and route tracing.
[RFC4950] extends the ICMP format to support TTL expiration that may
occur when using IP traceroute within an MPLS tunnel. The ICMP
message generation can be implemented in forwarding hardware, but if
sent to a general purpose CPU must be rate limited to avoid a
potential denial or service (DoS) attack.
[RFC5880] defines Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), a
protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path between
two forwarding engines. [RFC5884] and [RFC5885] define BFD for MPLS.
BFD can provide failure detection on any kind of path between
systems, including direct physical links, virtual circuits, tunnels,
MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), multihop routed paths, and
unidirectional links as long as there is some return path.
The processing requirements for BFD are less than for LSP Ping,
making BFD somewhat better suited for relatively high rate proactive
monitoring. BFD does not verify that the data plane against the
control plane, where LSP Ping does. LSP Ping somewhat better suited
for on-demand monitoring including relatively low rate periodic
verification of data plane and as a diagnostic tool.
Hardware assistance is often provided for BFD response where BFD
setup or parameter change is not involved and may be necessary for
relatively high rate proactive monitoring. If both BFD and LSP Ping
are recognized in filtering prior to passing traffic to a general
purpose CPU, appropriate DoS protection can be applied (see
Section 2.6.1). Failure to recognize BFD and LSP Ping and at least
rate limit creates the potential for misconfiguration to cause
outages rather than cause errors in the misconfigured OAM.
2.6.3. Pseudowire OAM
Pseudowire OAM makes use of the control channel provided by Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085]. VCCV makes use
of the Pseudowire Control Word. BFD support over VCCV is defined by
[RFC5885]. [RFC5885] is updated by [RFC6478] in support of static
pseudowires. [RFC4379] is updated by [RFC6829] supporting LSP Ping
for Pseudowire FEC advertised over IPv6.
G-ACh/GAL (defined in [RFC5586]) is the preferred MPLS-TP OAM control
channel and applies to any MPLS-TP end points, including Pseudowire.
See Section 2.6.4 for an overview of MPLS-TP OAM.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
2.6.4. MPLS-TP OAM
[RFC6669] summarizes the MPLS-TP OAM toolset, the set of protocols
supporting the MPLS-TP OAM requirements specified in [RFC5860] and
supported by the MPLS-TP OAM framework defined in [RFC6371].
The MPLS-TP OAM toolset includes:
CC-CV
[RFC6428] defines BFD extensions to support proactive
Connectivity Check and Connectivity Verification (CC-CV)
applications. [RFC6426] provides LSP ping extensions that are
used to implement on-demand connectivity verification.
RDI
Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is triggered by failure of
proactive CC-CV, which is BFD based. For fast RDI initiation,
RDI SHOULD be initiated and handled by hardware if BFD is handled
in forwarding hardware. [RFC6428] provides an extension for BFD
that includes the RDI indication in the BFD format and a
specification of how this indication is to be used.
Route Tracing
[RFC6426] specifies that the LSP ping enhancements for MPLS-TP
on-demand connectivity verification include information on the
use of LSP ping for route tracing of an MPLS-TP path.
Alarm Reporting
[RFC6427] describes the details of a new protocol supporting
Alarm Indication Signal (AIS), Link Down Indication, and fault
management. Failure to support this functionality in forwarding
hardware can potentially result in failure to meet protection
recovery time requirements and is therefore strongly recommended.
Lock Instruct
Lock instruct is initiated on-demand and therefore need not be
implemented in forwarding hardware. [RFC6435] defines a lock
instruct protocol.
Lock Reporting
[RFC6427] covers lock reporting. Lock reporting need not be
implemented in forwarding hardware.
Diagnostic
[RFC6435] defines protocol support for loopback. Loopback
initiation is on-demand and therefore need not be implemented in
forwarding hardware. Loopback of packet traffic SHOULD be
implemented in forwarding hardware on high speed interfaces.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Packet Loss and Delay Measurement
[RFC6374] and [RFC6375] define a protocol and profile for packet
loss measurement (LM) and delay measurement (DM). LM requires a
very accurate capture and insertion of packet and byte counters
when a packet is transmitted and capture of packet and byte
counters when a packet is received. This capture and insertion
MUST be implemented in forwarding hardware for LM OAM if high
accuracy is needed. DM requires very accurate capture and
insertion of a timestamp on transmission and capture of timestamp
when a packet is received. This timestamp capture and insertion
MUST be implemented in forwarding hardware for DM OAM if high
accuracy is needed.
See Section 2.6.2 for discussion of hardware support necessary for
BFD and LSP Ping.
CC-CV and alarm reporting is tied to protection and therefore SHOULD
be supported in forwarding hardware in order to provide protection
for a large number of affected LSP within target response intervals.
Since CC-CV is supported by BFD, for MPLS-TP providing hardware
assistance for BFD processing helps insure that protection recovery
time requirements can be met even for faults affecting a large number
of LSP.
2.6.5. MPLS OAM and Layer-2 OAM Interworking
[RFC6670] provides the reasons for selecting a single MPLS-TP OAM
solution and examines the consequences were ITU-T to develop a second
OAM solution that is based on Ethernet encodings and mechanisms.
[RFC6310] and [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk] specifies the mapping
of defect states between many types of hardware Attachment Circuits
(ACs) and associated Pseudowires (PWs). This functionality SHOULD be
supported in forwarding hardware.
It is beneficial if an MPLS OAM implementation can interwork with the
underlying server layer and provide a means to interwork with a
client layer. For example, [RFC6427] specifies an inter-layer
propogation of AIS and LDI from MPLS server layer to client MPLS
layers. Where the server layer is a Layer-2, such as Ethernet, PPP
over SONET/SDH, or GFP over OTN, interwork among layers is also
beneficial. For high speed interfaces, supporting this interworking
in forwarding hardware helps insure that protection based on this
interworking can meet recovery time requirements even for faults
affecting a large number of LSP.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
2.6.6. Extent of OAM Support by Hardware
Where certain requirements must be met, such as relatively high CC-CV
rates and a large number of interfaces, or strict protection recovery
time requirements and a moderate number of affected LSP, some OAM
functionality must be supported by forwarding hardware. In other
cases, such as highly accurate LM and DM OAM or strict protection
recovery time requirements with a large number of affected LSP, OAM
functionality must be entirely implemented in forwarding hardware.
Where possible, implementation in forwarding hardware should be in
programmable hardware such that if standards are later changed or
extended these changes are likely to be accommodated with hardware
reprogramming rather than replacement.
For some functionality there is a strong case for an implementation
in dedicated forwarding hardware. Examples include packet and byte
counters needed for LM OAM as well as needed for management
protocols. Similarly the capture and insertion of packet and byte
counts or timestamps needed for transmitted LM or DM or time
synchronization packets MUST be implemented in forwarding hardware if
high accuracy is required.
For some functions there is a strong case to provide limited support
in forwarding hardware but may make use of an external general
purpose processor if performance criteria can be met. For example
origination of RDI triggered by CC-CV, response to RDI, and PSC
functionality may be supported by hardware, but expansion to a large
number of client LSP and transmission of AIS or RDI to the client LSP
may occur in a general purpose processor. Some forwarding hardware
supports one or more on-chip general purpose processors which may be
well suited for such a role.
The customer (system supplier or provider) should not dictate design,
but should independently validate target functionality and
performance. However, it is not uncommon for service providers and
system implementors to insist on reviewing design details (under NDA)
due to past experiences with suppliers and to reject suppliers who
are unwilling to provide details.
2.7. Number and Size of Flows
Service provider networks may carry up to hundreds of millions of
flows on 10 Gb/s links. Most flows are very short lived, many under
a second. A subset of the flows are low capacity and somewhat long
lived. When Internet traffic dominates capacity a very small subset
of flows are high capacity and/or very long lived.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Two types of limitations with regard to number and size of flows have
been observed.
1. Some hardware cannot handle some very large flows because of
internal paths which are limited, such as per packet backplane
paths or paths internal or external to chips such as buffer
memory paths. Such designs can handle aggregates of smaller
flows. Some hardware with acknowledged limitations has been
successfully deployed but may be increasingly problematic if the
capacity of large microflows in deployed networks continues to
grow.
2. Some hardware approaches cannot handle a large number of flows,
or a large number of large flows due to attempting to count per
flow, rather than deal with aggregates of flows. Hash techniques
scale with regard to number of flows due to a fixed hash size
with many flows falling into the same hash bucket. Techniques
that identify individual flows have been implemented but have
never successfully deployed for Internet traffic.
3. Questions for Suppliers
The following questions should be asked of a supplier. These
questions are grouped into broad categories. The questions
themselves are intended to be an open ended question to the supplier.
The tests in Section 4 are intended to verify whether the supplier
disclosed any compliance or performance limitations completely and
accurately.
3.1. Basic Compliance
Q#1 Can the implementation forward packets with an arbitrarily
large stack depth? What limitations exist, and under what
circumstances do further limitations come into play (such as
high packet rate or specific features enabled or specific types
of packet processing)? See Section 2.1.
Q#2 Is the entire set of basic MPLS functionality described in
Section 2.1 supported?
Q#3 Are the set of MPLS reserved labels handled correctly and with
adequate performance? See Section 2.1.1.
Q#4 Are mappings of label value and TC to PHB handled correctly,
including RFC3270 L-LSP mappings and RFC4124 CT mappings to
PHB? See Section 2.1.2.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Q#5 Is time synchronization adequately supported in forwarding
hardware?
A. Are both PTP and NTP formats supported?
B. Is the accuracy of timestamp insertion and incoming
stamping sufficient?
See Section 2.1.3.
Q#6 Is link bundling supported?
A. Can LSP be pinned to specific components?
B. Is the "all-ones" component link supported?
See Section 2.1.5.
Q#7 Is MPLS hierarchy supported?
A. Are both PHP and UHP supported? What limitations exist on
the number of pop operations with UHP?
B. Are the pipe, short-pipe, and uniform models supported?
Are TTL and TC values updated correctly at egress where
applicable?
See Section 2.1.6
Q#8 Are pseudowire sequence numbers handled correctly? See
Section 2.1.8.1.
Q#9 Is VPN LER functionality handled correctly and without
performance issues? See Section 2.1.9.
Q#10 Is MPLS multicast (P2MP and MP2MP) handled correctly?
A. Are packets dropped on uncongested outputs if some outputs
are congested?
B. Is performance limited in high fanout situations?
See Section 2.2.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
3.2. Basic Performance
Q#11 Can very small packets be forwarded at full line rate on all
interfaces indefinitely? What limitations exist, and under
what circumstances do further limitations come into play (such
as specific features enabled or specific types of packet
processing)?
Q#12 Customers must decide whether to relax the prior requirement
and to what extent. If the answer to the prior question
indicates that limitations exist, then:
A. What is the smallest packet size where full line rate
forwarding can be supported?
B. What is the longest burst of full rate small packets that
can be supported?
Specify circumstances (such as specific features enabled or
specific types of packet processing) often impact these rates
and burst sizes.
Q#13 How many pop operations can be supported along with a swap
operation at full line rate while maintaining per LSP packet
and byte counts for each pop and swap? This requirement is
particularly relevant for MPLS-TP.
Q#14 How many label push operations can be supported. While this
limitation is rarely an issue, it applies to both PHP and UHP,
unlike the pop limit which applies to UHP.
Q#15 For a worst case where all packets arrive on one LSP, what is
the counter overflow time? Are any means provided to avoid
polling all counters at short intervals? This applies to both
MPLS and MPLS-TP.
3.3. Multipath Capabilities and Performance
Multipath capabilities and performance do not apply to MPLS-TP but
apply to MPLS and apply if MPLS-TP is carried in MPLS.
Q#16 How are large microflows accommodated? Is there active
management of the hash space mapping to output ports? See
Section 2.4.2.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Q#17 How many MPLS labels can be included in a hash based on the
MPLS label stack?
Q#18 Is packet rate performance decreased beyond some number of
labels?
Q#19 Can the IP header and payload information below the MPLS stack
be used in the hash? If so, which IP fields, payload types and
payload fields are supported?
Q#20 At what maximum MPLS label stack depth can Bottom of Stack and
an IP header appear without impacting packet rate performance?
Q#21 Are reserved labels excluded from the label stack hash? See
Section 2.4.5.1.
Q#22 How is multipath performance affected by very large flows or an
extremely large number of flows, or by very short lived flows?
See Section 2.7.
3.4. Pseudowire Capabilities and Performance
Q#23 Is the pseudowire control word supported?
Q#24 What is the maximum rate of pseudowire encapsulation and
decapsulation? Apply the same questions as in Base Performance
for any packet based pseudowire such as IP VPN or Ethernet.
Q#25 Does inclusion of a pseudowire control word impact performance?
Q#26 Are flow labels supported?
Q#27 If so, what fields are hashed on for the flow label for
different types of pseudowires?
Q#28 Does inclusion of a flow label impact performance?
3.5. Entropy Label Support and Performance
Q#29 Can an entropy label be added when acting as in ingress LER and
can it be removed when acting as an egress LER?
Q#30 If so, what fields are hashed on for the entropy label?
Q#31 Does adding or removing an entropy label impact packet rate
performance?
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Q#32 Can an entropy label be detected in the label stack, used in
the hash, and properly terminate the search for further
information to hash on?
Q#33 Does using an entropy label have any negative impact on
performance? It should have no impact or a positive impact.
3.6. DoS Protection
Q#34 For each control and management plane protocol in use, what
measures are taken to provide DoS attack hardenning?
Q#35 Have DoS attack tests been performed?
Q#36 Can compromise of an internal computer on a management subnet
be leveraged for any form of attack including DoS attack?
3.7. OAM Capabilities and Performance
Q#37 What OAM proactive and on-demand mechanisms are supported?
Q#38 What performance limits exist under high proactive monitoring
rates?
Q#39 Can excessively high proactive monitoring rates impact control
plane performance or cause control plane instability?
Q#40 Ask the prior questions for each of the following.
A. MPLS OAM
B. Pseudowire OAM
C. MPLS-TP OAM
D. Layer-2 OAM Interworking
See Section 2.6.2.
4. Forwarding Compliance and Performance Testing
Packet rate performance of equipment supporting a large number of 10
Gb/s or 100 Gb/s links is not possible using desktop computers or
workstations. The use of high end workstations as a source of test
traffic was barely viable 20 years ago, but is no longer at all
viable. Though custom microcode has been used on specialized router
forwarding cards to serve the purpose of generating test traffic and
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
measuring it, for the most part performance testing will require
specialized test equipment. There are multiple sources of suitable
equipment.
The set of tests listed here do not correspond one-to-one to the set
of questions in Section 3. The same categorization is used and these
tests largely serve to validate answers provided to the prior
questions, and can also provide answers where a supplier is unwilling
to disclose compliance or performance.
Performance testing is the domain of the IETF Benchmark Methodology
Working Group (BMWG). Below are brief descriptions of conformance
and performance tests. Some very basic tests are specified in
[RFC5695] which partially cover only the basic performance test T#3.
The following tests should be performed by the systems designer, or
deployer, or performed by the supplier on their behalf if it is not
practical for the potential customer to perform the tests directly.
These tests are grouped into broad categories.
The tests in Section 4.1 should be repeated under various conditions
to retest basic performance when critical capabilities are enabled.
Complete repetition of the performance tests enabling each capability
and combinations of capabilities would be very time intensive,
therefore a reduced set of performance tests can be used to gauge the
impact of enabling specific capabilities.
4.1. Basic Compliance
T#1 Test forwarding at a high rate for packets with varying number
of label entries. While packets with more than a dozen label
entries are unlikely to be used in any practical scenario today,
it is useful to know if limitations exists.
T#2 For each of the questions listed under "Basic Compliance" in
Section 3, verify the claimed compliance. For any functionality
considered critical to a deployment, where applicable
performance using each capability under load should be verified
in addition to basic compliance.
4.2. Basic Performance
T#3 Test packet forwarding at full line rate with small packets.
See [RFC5695]. The most likely case to fail is the smallest
packet size. Also test with packet sizes in four byte
increments ranging from payload sizes or 40 to 128 bytes.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
T#4 If the prior tests did not succeed for all packet sizes, then
perform the following tests.
A. Increase the packet size by 4 bytes until a size is found
that can be forwarded at full rate.
B. Inject bursts of consecutive small packets into a stream of
larger packets. Allow some time for recovery between
bursts. Increase the number of packets in the burst until
packets are dropped.
T#5 Send test traffic where a swap operation is required. Also set
up multiple LSP carried over other LSP where the device under
test (DUT) is the egress of these LSP. Create test packets such
that the swap operation is performed after pop operations,
increasing the number of pop operations until forwarding of
small packets at full line rate can no longer be supported.
Also check to see how many pop operations can be supported
before the full set of counters can no longer be maintained.
This requirement is particularly relevant for MPLS-TP.
T#6 Send all traffic on one LSP and see if the counters become
inaccurate. Often counters on silicon are much smaller than the
64 bit packet and byte counters in IETF MIB. System developers
should consider what counter polling rate is necessary to
maintain accurate counters and whether those polling rates are
practical. Relevant MIBs for MPLS are discussed in [RFC4221]
and [RFC6639].
4.3. Multipath Capabilities and Performance
Multipath capabilities do not apply to MPLS-TP but apply to MPLS and
apply if MPLS-TP is carried in MPLS.
T#7 Send traffic at a rate well exceeding the capacity of a single
multipath component link, and where entropy exists only below
the top of stack. If only the top label is used this test will
fail immediately.
T#8 Move the labels with entropy down in the stack until either the
full forwarding rate can no longer be supported or most or all
packets try to use the same component link.
T#9 Repeat the two tests above with the entropy contained in IP
headers or IP payload fields below the label stack rather than
in the label stack. Test with the set of IP headers or IP
payload fields considered relevant to the deployment or to the
target market.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
T#10 Determine whether traffic that contains a pseudowire control
word is interpreted as IP traffic. Information in the payload
MUST NOT be used in the load balancing if the first nibble of
the packet is not 4 or 6 (IPv4 or IPv6).
T#11 Determine whether reserved labels are excluded from the label
stack hash. They MUST be excluded.
T#12 Perform testing in the presence of combinations of:
A. Very large microflows.
B. Relatively short lived high capacity flows.
C. Extremely large numbers of flows.
D. Very short lived small flows.
4.4. Pseudowire Capabilities and Performance
T#13 Ensure that pseudowire can be set up with a pseudowire label
and pseudowire control word added at ingress and the pseudowire
label and pseudowire control word removed at egress.
T#14 For pseudowire that contains variable length payload packets,
repeat performance tests listed under "Basic Performance" for
pseudowire ingress and egress functions.
T#15 Repeat pseudowire performance tests with and without a
pseudowire control word.
T#16 Determine whether pseudowire can be set up with a pseudowire
label, flow label, and pseudowire control word added at ingress
and the pseudowire label, flow label, and pseudowire control
word removed at egress.
T#17 Determine which payload fields are used to create the flow
label and whether the set of fields and algorithm provide
sufficient entropy for load balancing.
T#18 Repeat pseudowire performance tests with flow labels included.
4.5. Entropy Label Support and Performance
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
T#19 Determine whether entropy labels can be added at ingress and
removed at egress.
T#20 Determine which fields are used to create an entropy label.
Labels further down in the stack, including entropy labels
further down and IP headers or IP payload fields where
applicable should be used. Determine whether the set of fields
and algorithm provide sufficient entropy for load balancing.
T#21 Repeat performance tests under "Basic Performance" when entropy
labels are used, where ingress or egress is the device under
test (DUT).
T#22 Determine whether an ELI is detected when acting as a midpoint
LSR and whether the search for further information on which to
base the load balancing is used. Information below the entropy
label SHOULD NOT be used.
T#23 Ensure that the entropy label indicator and entropy label (ELI
and EL) are removed from the label stack during UHP and PHP
operations.
T#24 Insure that operations on the TC field when adding and removing
entropy label are correctly carried out. If TC is changed
during a swap operation, the ability to transfer that change
MUST be provided. The ability to suppress the transfer of TC
MUST also be provided. See "pipe", "short pipe", and "uniform"
models in [RFC3443].
T#25 Repeat performance tests for midpoint LSR with entropy labels
found at various label stack depths.
4.6. DoS Protection
T#26 Actively attack LSR under high protocol churn load and
determine control plane performance impact or successful DoS
under test conditions. Specifically test for the following.
A. TCP SYN attack against control plane and management plane
protocols using TCP, including CLI access (typically SSH
protected login), NETCONF, etc.
B. High traffic volume attack against control plane and
management plane protocols not using TCP.
C. Attacks which can be performed from a compromised
management subnet computer, but not one with authentication
keys.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
D. Attacks which can be performed from a compromised peer
within the control plane (internal domain and external
domain). Assume that per peering keys and per router ID
keys rather than network wide keys are in use.
See Section 2.6.1.
4.7. OAM Capabilities and Performance
T#27 Determine maximum sustainable rates of BFD traffic. If BFD
requires CPU intervention, determine both maximum rates and CPU
loading when multiple interfaces are active.
T#28 Verify LSP Ping and LSP Traceroute capability.
T#29 Determine maximum rates of MPLS-TP CC-CV traffic. If CC-CV
requires CPU intervention, determine both maximum rates and CPU
loading when multiple interfaces are active.
T#30 Determine MPLS-TP DM precision.
T#31 Determine MPLS-TP LM accuracy.
T#32 Verify MPLS-TP AIS/RDI and PSC functionality, protection speed,
and AIS/RDI notification speed when a large number of
Management Entities (ME) must be notified with AIS/RDI.
5. Acknowledgements
Numerous very useful comments have been received in private email.
Some of these contributions are acknowledged here, approximately in
chronologic order.
Paul Doolan provided a brief review resulting in a number of
clarifications, most notably regarding on-chip vs. system buffering,
100 Gb/s link speed assumptions in the 150 Mpps figure, and handling
of large microflows. Pablo Frank reminded us of the sawtooth effect
in PPS vs. packet size graphs, prompting the addition of a few
paragraphs on this. Comments from Lou Berger at IETF-85 prompted the
addition of Section 2.7.
Valuable comments were received on the BMWG mailing list. Jay
Karthik pointed out testing methodology hints that after discussion
were deemed out of scope and were removed.
Nabil Bitar pointed out the need to cover QoS (Differentiated
Services), MPLS multicast (P2MP and MP2MP), and MPLS-TP OAM. Nabil
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
also provided a number of clarifications to the questions and tests
in Section 3 and Section 4.
Gregory Mirsky and Thomas Beckhaus provided useful comments during
the MPLS RT review.
Tal Mizrahi provided comments that prompted clarifications regarding
timestamp processing, local delivery of packets, and the need for
hardware assistance in processing OAM traffic.
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
7. Security Considerations
This document reviews forwarding behavior specified elsewhere and
points out compliance and performance requirements. As such it
introduces no new security requirements or concerns.
Knowledge of potential performance shortcomings may serve to help new
implementations avoid pitfalls. It is unlikely that such knowledge
could be the basis of new denial of service as these pitfalls are
already widely known in the service provider community and among
leading equipment suppliers. In practice extreme data and packet
rate are needed to affect existing equipment and networks that may be
still vulnerable due to failure to implement adequate protection and
make this type of denial of service unlikely and make undetectable
denial of service of this type impossible.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, January 2003.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[RFC4182] Rosen, E., "Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS
Explicit NULL", RFC 4182, September 2005.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, January 2008.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires
over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391,
November 2011.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012.
8.2. Informative References
[ACK-compression]
"Observations and Dynamics of a Congestion Control
Algorithm: The Effects of Two-Way Traffic", Proc. ACM
SIGCOMM, ACM Computer Communications Review (CCR) Vol 21,
No 4, 1991, pp.133-147., 1991.
[ATM-EPD-and-PPD]
"Dynamics of TCP Traffic over ATM Networks", IEEE Journal
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
of Special Areas of Communication Vol 13 No 4, May 1995,
pp. 633-641., May 1995.
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk]
Mohan, D., Bitar, N., and A. Sajassi, "MPLS and Ethernet
OAM Interworking", draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-07
(work in progress), January 2013.
[I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls]
Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L.
Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 (work in
progress), February 2013.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC2597] Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
"Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3429] Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429,
November 2002.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
[RFC4110] Callon, R. and M. Suzuki, "A Framework for Layer 3
Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
RFC 4110, July 2005.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
June 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4221] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Farrel, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview", RFC 4221,
November 2005.
[RFC4377] Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and S.
Matsushima, "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements
for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 4377, February 2006.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, June 2007.
[RFC4950] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "ICMP
Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching", RFC 4950,
August 2007.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[RFC5317] Bryant, S. and L. Andersson, "Joint Working Team (JWT)
Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a
Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009.
[RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
[RFC5695] Akhter, A., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding
Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows", RFC 5695,
November 2009.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
[RFC5885] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June 2010.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291, June 2011.
[RFC6310] Aissaoui, M., Busschbach, P., Martini, L., Morrow, M.,
Nadeau, T., and Y(J). Stein, "Pseudowire (PW) Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Message Mapping",
RFC 6310, July 2011.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
[RFC6375] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6375, September 2011.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
"Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa,
S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping",
RFC 6425, November 2011.
[RFC6426] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS
On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing",
RFC 6426, November 2011.
[RFC6427] Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros, S.,
and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 6427,
November 2011.
[RFC6428] Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive
Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote
Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile",
RFC 6428, November 2011.
[RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M.,
and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and
Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, November 2011.
[RFC6478] Martini, L., Swallow, G., Heron, G., and M. Bocci,
"Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires", RFC 6478,
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
May 2012.
[RFC6639] King, D. and M. Venkatesan, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-Based Management
Overview", RFC 6639, June 2012.
[RFC6669] Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Toolset for MPLS-
Based Transport Networks", RFC 6669, July 2012.
[RFC6670] Sprecher, N. and KY. Hong, "The Reasons for Selecting a
Single Solution for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
RFC 6670, July 2012.
[RFC6720] Pignataro, C. and R. Asati, "The Generalized TTL Security
Mechanism (GTSM) for the Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP)", RFC 6720, August 2012.
[RFC6829] Chen, M., Pan, P., Pignataro, C., and R. Asati, "Label
Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Pseudowire Forwarding
Equivalence Classes (FECs) Advertised over IPv6",
RFC 6829, January 2013.
Appendix A. Organization of References Section
The References section is split into Normative and Informative
subsections. References that directly specify forwarding
encapsulations or behaviors are listed as normative. References
which describe signaling only, though normative with respect to
signaling, are listed as informative. They are informative with
respect to MPLS forwarding.
Authors' Addresses
Curtis Villamizar (editor)
Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting, LLC
Email: curtis@occnc.com
Kireeti Kompella
Contrail Systems
Email: kireeti.kompella@gmail.com
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft MPLS Forwarding April 2013
Shane Amante
Level 3 Communications, Inc.
1025 Eldorado Blvd
Broomfield, CO 80021
Email: shane@level3.net
Andrew Malis
Verizon
60 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451
Phone: +1 781-466-2362
Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Villamizar, et al. Expires October 18, 2013 [Page 50]