[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07                                       
Network Working Group                                     George Swallow
Internet Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: April 2005
                                                        Kireeti Kompella
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.

                                                              Dan Tappan
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                            October 2004


                    Label Switching Router Self-Test


                  draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, the authors certify that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been
   disclosed, and any of which we become aware will be disclosed, in
   accordance with RFC 3668.

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 5 of RFC3667.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

   Abstract




Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 1]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


      This document defines a means of self test for a Label-Switching
      Router (LSR) to verify that its dataplane is functioning for
      certain key Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) applications
      including unicast forwarding based on LDP [LDP] and traffic
      engineering tunnels based on [RSVP-TE].  A new Loopback FEC type
      is defined to allow an upstream neighbor to assist in the testing
      at very low cost.  MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply messages
      [LSP-Ping] are extended to do the actual probing.



Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 1.1    Conventions  ...............................................   3
 2      Loopback FEC  ..............................................   4
 2.1    Loopback FEC Element  ......................................   4
 2.2    LDP Procedures  ............................................   5
 3      Data Plane Self Test  ......................................   5
 3.1    Data Plane Verification Request / Reply Messages  ..........   6
 3.2    Reply-To Object  ...........................................   8
 3.2.1  IPv4 Reply-To Object  ......................................   8
 3.2.2  IPv6 Reply-To Object  ......................................   8
 3.3    Sending procedures  ........................................   9
 3.4    Receiving procedures  ......................................  10
 3.5    Upstream Neighbor Verification  ............................  11
 4      Security Considerations  ...................................  11
 5      IANA Considerations  .......................................  12
 6      Acknowledgments  ...........................................  12
 7      References  ................................................  12
 7.1    Normative References  ......................................  12
 7.2    Informative References  ....................................  12
 8      Authors' Addresses  ........................................  13
 9      Full Copyright and Intellectual Property Statements  .......  13
















Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 2]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


1. Introduction

   This document defines a means of self test for a Label-Switching
   Router (LSR) to verify that its dataplane is functioning for certain
   key Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) applications including uni-
   cast forwarding based on LDP [LDP] and traffic engineering tunnels
   based on [RSVP-TE].  MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply messages
   [LSP-Ping] messages are extended to do the actual probing.  The pings
   are sent to an upstream neighbor, looped back through the LSR under
   test and intercepted, by means of TTL expiration by a downstream
   neighbor.  Extensions to LSP-Ping [LSP-Ping] are defined to allow the
   down stream neighbor to report the test results.

   In order to minimize the load on upstream LSRs a new loopback FEC is
   defined. Receipt of a packet labeled with a loopback label will cause
   the advertising LSR to pop the label off the label stack and send the
   packet out the advertised interface.

   Note that use of a loopback allows an LSR to test label entries for
   which the LSR is not currently some neighbor's next hop.  In this way
   label entries can be verified prior to the occurrence of a routing
   change.

   Some routing protocls, most notably OSPF have no means of exchanging
   the "Link Local Identifiers" used to identify unnumbered links and
   components of bundled links.  These test procedures can be used to
   associate the neighbor's interfaces with the probing LSRs interfaces.
   This is achieved by simply having the TTL of the MPLS Ping expire one
   hop sooner, i.e. at the testing LSR itself.



1.1. Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].














Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 3]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


2. Loopback FEC

   The Loopback FEC type is defined to enable an upstream neighbor to
   assist in LSR self-testing at very low cost.  This FEC causes the
   loopback to occur in the dataplane without control plane involvement
   beyond the initial LDP exchange and dataplane setup.

   An LSR uses the Loopback FEC to selectively advertise loopback labels
   to its neighbor LSRs.  Each loopback label is bound to a particular
   interface.  For multi-access links, a unique label for each neighbor
   is required, since the link-level address is derived from the label
   lookup.  When an MPLS packet with its top label set to a loopback
   label is received from an interface over which that label was adver-
   tised, the loopback label is popped and the packet is sent on the
   interface to which the loopback label was bound.

   TTL treatment for loopback labels follows the Uniform model.  I.e.
   the TTL carried in the loopback label is decremented and copied to
   the exposed label or IP header as the case may be.



2.1. Loopback FEC Element

   FEC element type 130 is used.   The FEC element is encoded as fol-
   lows: (note: 130 is provisionally assigned, the actual value will be
   assigned by IANA.)


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     130       |      Res      | Interface Type|   Id Length   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Interface Identifier                      |
      |                              "                                |
      |                              "                                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Reserved (Res)

         Must be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.








Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 4]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


      Interface Type

            #     Type              Interface Identifier
           ---    ----              --------------------
            0     Unnumbered        A 32 bit Link Identifier as
                                      defined in [RFC3477]
            1     IPv4 Numbered     IPv4 Address
            2     IPv6 Numbered     IPv6 Address


      Identifier Length

         Length of the interface identifier in octets.  The length is 4
         bytes for Unnumbered and IPv4, 16 bytes for IPv6.

      Address

         An identifier encoded according to the Identifier Type field.


2.2. LDP Procedures

   It is RECOMMENDED that loopback labels only be distributed in
   response to a Label Request message, irrespective of the label adver-
   tisement mode of the LDP session.  However it is recognized that in
   certain cases such as OSPF with unnumbered links, the upstream LSR
   may not have sufficiently detailed information of the neighbor's link
   identifier to form the request.  In these cases, the downstream LSR
   will need to be configured to make unsolicited advertisements.



3. Data Plane Self Test

   A self test operation involves three LSRs, the LSR doing the test, an
   upstream neighbor and a downstream neighbor.  We refer to these as
   LSRs T, U, and D respectively.  In order to minimize the processing
   load on LSR-D, two new LSP Ping messages are defined, called the MPLS
   Data Plane Verification Request and the MPLS Data Plane Verification
   Reply.  These messages are used to allow LSR-T to obtain the label
   stack, address and interface information of LSR-D.

   If FEC verification is required, the MPLS Echo Request and Reply mes-
   sages are used.

   The packet flow is shown below. Although the figure shows LSR-D adja-
   cent to LSR-T it may in some cases be an arbitrary number of hops
   away.



Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 5]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


                 +-------+       +-------+       +-------+
                 |     ,-|-------|<DPVRq |       |       |
                 |     `-|-------|-------|-------|->     |
                 |       |       |       |       |       |
                 |       |       |     <-|-------|<DPVRp |
                 +-------+       +-------+       +-------+
                   LSR-U           LSR-T           LSR-D

               DPVRq: MPLS Data Plane Verification Request
               DPVRp: MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply

                    Figure 1: Self Test Message Flow


   In order to perform a test on an incoming label stack, LSR-T forms an
   MPLS Data Plane Verification Request.  LSR-T prepends the packet with
   the incoming label stack being tested and the loopback label received
   from LSR-U.  The TTL values are set such that they will expire at
   LSR-D.  LSR-T then forwards the packet to LSR-U.

   LSR-U receives the packet and performs normal MPLS forwarding.  That
   is, the loopback label is popped, the TTL is decremented and propa-
   gated (in this case) to the exposed label.

   LSR-T receives the packet and performs normal MPLS forwarding.  If
   everything is functioning as expected this will cause the packet to
   arrive at LSR-D with a TTL of 1.

   In this example, we assume that all is working properly.  The TTL
   expires at LSR-D causing it to receive the packet.   LSR-D notes the
   the interface and the label stack on which the packet was received
   and records these in an Interface and Label Stack TLV.  This Object
   is sent to LSR-T in an MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply message.



3.1. Data Plane Verification Request / Reply Messages

   Two new LSP Ping messages are defined for LSR self test.  The purpose
   of the new messages is three fold.  First the timestamps are removed
   to minimize processing.  Second the message type allows simple recog-
   nition that minimal processing is necessary to service this request.
   Third, the Verification Request message itself conveys the the
   request, thus a Verification Request message with no Objects is both
   legal and normal.

   The definitions of all fields in the messages are identical to those
   found in [LSP-PING].



Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 6]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


   The new message types are: (Provisionally; to be assigned)

      Type     Message
      ----     -------
        3      MPLS Data Plane Verification Request
        4      MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply

   The messages have the following format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Version Number        |         Must Be Zero          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Message Type |   Reply mode  |  Return Code  | Return Subcode|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Sender's Handle                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Sequence Number                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            TLVs ...                           |
   .                                                               .
   .                                                               .
   .                                                               .
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The MPLS Data Plane Verification Request message MAY contain the fol-
   lowing objects:

          Type #            Object
          ------            -----------
            3               Pad
            5               Vendor Enterprise Code
            9 (tba)         IPv4 Reply-to Object
           10 (tba)         IPv6 Reply-to Object

   The MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply message MAY contain the fol-
   lowing objects:

          Type #            Object
          ------            -----------
            3               Pad
            4               Error Code
            5               Vendor Enterprise Code
            7 (tba)         IPv4 Interface and Label Stack Object
            8 (tba)         IPv6 Interface and Label Stack Object




Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 7]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


3.2. Reply-To Object

   In order to perform detailed diagnostics of a particular failing flow
   in the face of ECMP, it is useful to be able to use the exact source
   and destination addresses of that flow.  The Reply-To Object is an
   optional TLV in a MPLS Data Plane Verification Request message.  The
   Object has two formats, type 9 for IPv4 and type 10 for IPv6 (to be
   assigned by IANA).



3.2.1. IPv4 Reply-To Object

   The length of an IPv4 Reply-To Object is 5 octets; the value field
   has the following format:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Reply-to IPv4 Address                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    DS-Byte    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Reply-to IPv4 Address

         The address to which the MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply
         message is to be sent.


      DS-Byte

         The DS-Byte to be used in the MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply
         packet.



3.2.2. IPv6 Reply-To Object

   The length of an IPv6 Reply-To Object is 17 octets; the value field
   has the following format:









Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 8]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Reply-to IPv6 Address                     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Reply-to IPv6 Address (Cont.)                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Reply-to IPv6 Address (Cont.)                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Reply-to IPv6 Address (Cont.)                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    DS-Byte    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      Reply-to IPv6 Address

         The address to which the MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply
         message is to be sent.


      DS-Byte

         The DS-Byte to be used in the MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply
         packet.



3.3. Sending procedures

   In order to perform a test on an incoming label stack, an LSR first
   determines the expected outgoing label stack, next hop router and
   next hop interface.

   The LSR creates an MPLS Data Plane Verification Request message and
   includes a Data Plane Verification Object.  Optionally a FEC Stack
   TLV may be included.  In this case an MPLS Echo Request Message MUST
   be used.

   In normal use, the source address is set to an address belonging to
   the LSR and the destination set to an address in the range of 127/8.
   The IP TTL SHOULD be set to 1.  The incoming label stack is prepended
   to the packet.  The TTL of these labels SHOULD be set to appropriate
   values - 2 for those labels which will be process by this  when the
   packet is looped back; 1 for those labels which will be carried
   through.  Finally the loopback label bound to the incoming interface
   is prepended to the packet.  The TTL is set such that it will have
   the value of 3 on the wire.



Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                    [Page 9]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


   The packet is sent to the upstream neighbor on an interface for which
   the loopback label is valid.

   In diagnostic situations, the source and destination addresses MAY be
   set to any value.  In this case, a Reply-to IPv4 or IPv6 Object MUST
   be included.  The IP TTL MUST be set to 1.  The TTL of labels other
   than the loopback label MUST be set to appropriate values - 2 for
   those labels which will be process by this LSR when the packet is
   looped back; 1 for those labels which will be carried through.


3.4. Receiving procedures

   An LSR X that receives an MPLS Verification Request message formats a
   MPLS Verification Reply message.  The Sender's Handle and Sequence
   Number are copied from the Request message.

   X then parses the packet to ensure that it is a well-formed packet,
   and that the TLVs that are not marked "Ignore" are understood.  If
   not, X SHOULD send an MPLS echo reply with the Return Code set to
   "Malformed echo request received" or "TLV not understood" (as appro-
   priate), and the Subcode set to zero.  In the latter case, the misun-
   derstood TLVs (only) are included in the reply.

   If the echo request is good, X notes the interface I over which the
   echo was received, and the label stack with which it came. If the
   MPLS echo request contained a Downstream Verification object, then X
   must format this information as a Downstream Verification object and
   include it in its MPLS echo reply message.

   The source address of the Reply message MUST be an address of the
   replying LSR.  If the request included a Reply-to IPv4 or IPv6
   Object, the MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply message MUST be sent
   to that address.  Otherwise the Reply message is sent to the source
   address of the Verification Request message.

   An LSR MUST be capable of filtering addresses that are to be replied
   to.  If a filter has been invoked (i.e. configured) and an address
   does not pass the filter, then a reply MUST NOT be sent, and the
   event SHOULD be logged.











Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 10]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


3.5. Upstream Neighbor Verification

   To verify that an upstream neighbor is properly echoing packets an
   LSR may send an MPLS Data Plane Verification Request packet with the
   TTL set so that the packet will expire upon reaching reaching itself.
   This procedure not only tests that the neighbor is correctly process-
   ing the loopback label, it also allow the node to verify the neigh-
   bor's interface mapping.


                      +-------+       +-------+
                      |       |       |       |
                      |     ,-|-------|<DPVRq |
                      |     `-|-------|->     |
                      |       |       |       |
                      +-------+       +-------+
                        LSR-U           LSR-T

             DPVRq: MPLS Data Plane Verification Request


              Figure 2: Upstream Neighbor Verification

   No TLVs need to be included in the MPLS Data Plane Verification
   Request.  By noting the Sender's Handle and Sequence Number, as well
   as the loopback label, LSR-T is able to detect that a) the packet was
   looped, and b) determine (or verify) the interface on which the
   packet was received.



4. Security Considerations

   Were loopback labels widely known, they might be subject to abuse.
   It is therefore RECOMMENDED that loopback labels only be shared
   between trusted neighbors.  Further, if the loopback labels are drawn
   from the Global Label Space, or any other label space shared across
   multiple LDP sessions, it is RECOMMENDED that all loopback labels be
   filtered from a session except those labels pertaining to interfaces
   directly connected to the neighbor participating in that session.











Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 11]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


5. IANA Considerations

   TBD



6. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Vanson Lim, Tom Nadeau, and Bob
   Thomas for their comments and suggestions.



7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [RFC3036]  Andersson, L. et al., "LDP Specification", January 2001.

   [LSP-Ping] Bonica, R. et al., "Detecting MPLS Data Plane Liveness",
              work-in-progress.

   [RFC3477]  Kompella, K. & Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
              in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
              (RSVP-TE)", January 2003.

   [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.


7.2. Informative References

   [RSVP-TE]  Awduche, D., et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

















Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 12]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


8. Authors' Addresses

      Kireeti Kompella
      Juniper Networks, Inc.
      1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
      Sunnyvale, CA 94089
      Email:  kireeti@juniper.net



      George Swallow
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      1414 Massachusetts Ave
      Boxborough, MA 01719

      Email:  swallow@cisco.com


      Dan Tappan
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      1414 Massachusetts Ave
      Boxborough, MA 01719

      Email:  tappan@cisco.com



9. Full Copyright and Intellectual Property Statements

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR-
   MATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
   OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has



Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 13]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-03.txt      October 2004


   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assur-
   ances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
   made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.






























Swallow, et al.              Standards Track                   [Page 14]