Network Working Group George Swallow
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: January 2006
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Dan Tappan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 2005
Label Switching Router Self-Test
draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
Abstract
This document defines a means for a Label-Switching Router (LSR)
to verify that its dataplane is functioning for certain key Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) applications, including unicast
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
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 IPv4 Loopback FEC Element ................................. 4
2.2 LDP Procedures ............................................ 5
3 Data Plane Self Test ...................................... 6
3.1 Data Plane Verification Request / Reply Messages .......... 7
3.2 UDP Port .................................................. 8
3.3 Reply-To Object ........................................... 8
3.3.1 IPv4 Reply-To Object ...................................... 9
3.3.2 IPv6 Reply-To Object ...................................... 9
3.4 Sending procedures ........................................ 10
3.5 Receiving procedures ...................................... 11
3.6 Upstream Neighbor Verification ............................ 11
4 Security Considerations ................................... 12
5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 12
6 Acknowledgments ........................................... 13
7 References ................................................ 13
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 13
7.2 Informative References .................................... 13
8 Authors' Addresses ........................................ 14
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
1. Introduction
This document defines a means for a Label-Switching Router (LSR) to
verify that its dataplane is functioning for certain key Multi-Proto-
col Label Switching (MPLS) applications, including unicast forwarding
based on LDP [LDP] and traffic engineering tunnels based on [RSVP-
TE]. MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply messages [LSP-Ping] mes-
sages 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-05.txt July 2005
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. The FEC also
carries information to indicate the desired encapsulation should it
be the only label in a received label stack. Values are defined for
IPv4 and IPv6.
An LSR uses a 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. If the label-stack
only contains the one loopback label, the encapsulation of the packet
is determined by the FEC Type.
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. IPv4 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 | If & Prot Type| Id Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Identifier |
| " |
| " |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
Reserved (Res)
Must be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt.
Interface & Protocol Type
# Type Interface Identifier
--- ---- --------------------
1 IPv4 Numbered IPv4 Address
2 IPv4 Unnumbered A 32 bit Link Identifier as
defined in [RFC3477]
3 IPv6 Numbered IPv6 Address
4 IPv6 Unnumbered A 32 bit Link Identifier as
defined in [RFC3477]
.in 9
Note that this type alos indicates the encapsulation type for payloads
that have a label stack contain the one loopback label.
Identifier Length
Length of the interface identifier in octets. The length is 4
bytes for the unnumbered types 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.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
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.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| ,-|-------|<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
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
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].
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 ... |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
The MPLS Data Plane Verification Request message MAY contain the fol-
lowing objects:
Type # Object
------ -----------
3 Pad
5 Vendor Enterprise Code
11 (provisional) IPv4 Reply-to Object
12 (provisional) 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 IPv4 Interface and Label Stack Object
8 IPv6 Interface and Label Stack Object
3.2. UDP Port
MPLS Data Plane Verification Request messages MAY be sent to port
3503 as is used for [LSP-PING]. However to aid implementations that
wish to handle these messages at a lower level than MPLS Echo Request
messages another UDP port, tbd, is provided. Port tbd SHOULD be used
by default. The source UDP port, as in [LSP-PING] is chosen by the
sender.
3.3. 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 11 for IPv4 and type 12 for IPv6 (to be
assigned by IANA).
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
3.3.1. IPv4 Reply-To Object
The length of an IPv4 Reply-To Object is 4 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reply-to IPv4 Address
The address to which the MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply
message is to be sent.
3.3.2. IPv6 Reply-To Object
The length of an IPv6 Reply-To Object is 16 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 IPv6 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reply-to IPv6 Address (Cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reply-to IPv6 Address (Cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reply-to IPv6 Address (Cont.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reply-to IPv6 Address
The address to which the MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply
message is to be sent.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
3.4. Sending procedures
In order to perform a test on an incoming labeled or unlabeled
packet, 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 incoming label stack (if any) is prepended to the packet. The
TTL of these labels and the packet header SHOULD be set to appropri-
ate values - 2 for those labels and/or header which will be processed
by this node when the packet is looped back; 1 for those labels
and/or header which will be carried through. Finally the loopback
label bound to the incoming interface is prepended to the packet. In
the case of an otherwise unlabeled packet the label's FEC MUST indi-
cate the appropriate IP version. The TTL is set such that it will
have the value of 3 on the wire.
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.
In some MPLS deployments TTL hiding is used to make a providers net-
work appear as a single hop. That is the TTL in the imposed label
does not refect the TTL of the received packet. It is RECOMMENDED
that testing of label imposition SHOULD NOT be performed in such cir-
cumstances as the Echo Request will in most case travel multiple
hops.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
3.5. 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.
3.6. 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 allows the node to verify the neigh-
bor's interface mapping.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
+-------+ +-------+
| | | |
| ,-|-------|<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.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes the following codepoint assigments (pending IANA
action):
Registry Codepoint Purpose
UDP Port tbd MPLS Verification Request
LSP Ping Message Type 3 MPLS Data Plane Verification
Request
LSP Ping Message Type 4 MPLS Data Plane Verification
Reply
LSP Ping Object Type 11 IPv4 Reply-to Object
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
LSP Ping Object Type 12 IPv6 Reply-to Object
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 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-05.txt July 2005
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
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Expiration Date
January 2006
Disclaimer of Validity
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 INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
