Network Working Group G. Swallow
Internet-Draft V. Lim
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: January 06, 2014 S. Aldrin
Huawei Technologies
July 05, 2013
Proxy MPLS Echo Request
draft-lim-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping-03
Abstract
This document defines a means of remotely initiating Multiprotocol
Label Switched Protocol Pings on Label Switched Paths. A proxy ping
request is sent to any Label Switching Routers along a Label Switched
Path. The primary motivations for this facility are first to limit
the number of messages and related processing when using LSP Ping in
large Point-to-Multipoint LSPs, and second to enable leaf to leaf/
root tracing.
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 January 06, 2014.
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
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
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Proxy Ping Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Proxy MPLS Echo Request / Reply Procedures . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Procedures for the initiator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Procedures for the proxy LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Proxy LSR Handling when it is Egress for FEC . . . . 9
3.2.2. Downstream Detailed/Downstream Maps in Proxy Reply . 10
3.2.3. Sending an MPLS proxy ping reply . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.4. Sending the MPLS echo requests . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.4.1. Forming the base MPLS echo request . . . . . . . 11
3.2.4.2. Per interface sending procedures . . . . . . . . 12
4. Proxy Ping Request / Reply Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Proxy Ping Request / Reply Message formats . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Proxy Ping Request Message contents . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Proxy Ping Reply Message Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. TLV formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1. Proxy Echo Parameters TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.1. Next Hop sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.2. Reply-to Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3. Upstream Neighbor Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4. Downstream Neighbor Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
1. Introduction
This document is motivated by two broad issues in connection with
diagnosing Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
The first is scalability due to the automatic replication of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Echo Request Messages as they
proceed down the tree. The second, which is primarily motivated by
Multicast Label Distribution Protocol (mLDP), is the ability to trace
a sub-LSP from leaf node to root node.
It is anticipated that very large Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-
to-Multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths will exist. Further it is
anticipated that many of the applications for P2MP/MP2MP tunnels will
require OAM that is both rigorous and scalable.
Suppose one wishes to trace a P2MP LSP to localize a fault which is
affecting one egress or a set of egresses. Suppose one follows the
normal procedure for tracing - namely repeatedly pinging from the
root, incrementing the Time to Live (TTL) by one after each three or
so pings. Such a procedure has the potential for producing a large
amount of processing at the P2MP-LSP midpoints and egresses. It also
could produce an unwieldy number of replies back to the root.
One alternative would be to begin sending pings from points at or
near the affected egress(es) and working backwards toward the root.
The TTL could be held constant, say two, limiting the number of
responses to the number of next-next-hops of the point where a ping
is initiated.
In the case of Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE), all setup is initiated from the root of the tree. Thus,
the root of the tree has knowledge of both all the leaf nodes and
usually the topology of the entire tree. Thus the above alternative
can easily be initiated by the root node.
In mLDP the situation is quite different. Leaf nodes initiate
connectivity to the tree which is granted by the first node toward
the root that is part of the tree. The root node may only be aware
of the immediately adjacent (downstream) nodes of the tree.
Initially the leaf node only has knowledge of the (upstream) node to
which it is immediately adjacent. However this is sufficient
information to intiate a trace. First the above procedure is applied
by asking that node to ping across the final link. That is, a
message is sent from the leaf to the upstream node requesting it to
send an MPLS Echo Request for the Forward Equivalence Class (FEC) of
the tree in question on said link. The leaf node also requests the
identity of the the upsteam neighbor's upstream neighbor for that
FEC. With this information the procedure can interatively be applied
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
until the fault is localized or the root node is reached. In all
cases the TTL for the request need only be at most 2. Thus the
processing load of each request is small as only a limited number of
nodes will receive the request.
This document defines protocol extensions to MPLS ping [RFC4379] to
allow a third party to remotely cause an MPLS echo request message to
be sent down a LSP or part of an LSP. The procedure described in the
paragraphs above does require that the initiator know the previous-
hop node to the one which was pinged on the prior iteration. This
information is readily available in [RFC4875]. This document also
provides a means for obtaining this information for [RFC6388].
While the motivation for this document came from multicast scaling
concerns, it's applicability may be wider. The procedures presented
in this document are applicable to all LSP ping FEC types where the
MPLS echo request/reply are IP encapsulated and the MPLS echo reply
can sent out of band of the LSP over ip. Remote pinging of LSPs that
involve the use of in-band control channels is beyond the scope of
this document.
Other uses of this facility are beyond the scope of this document.
In particular, the procedures defined in this document only allow
testing of a FEC stack consisting of a single FEC. It also does not
allow the initiator to specify the label assigned to that FEC, nor
does it allow the initiator to cause any additional labels to be
added to the label stack of the actual MPLS echo request message.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
The term "Must Be Zero" (MBZ) is used in TLV descriptions for
reserved fields. These fields MUST be set to zero when sent and
ignored on receipt.
Based on context the terms leaf and egress are used interchangeably.
Egress is used where consistency with[RFC4379] was deemed
appropriate. Receiver is used in the context of receiving protocol
messages.
[Note (to be removed after assignments occur): <tba> = to be assigned
by IANA]
2. Proxy Ping Overview
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
This document defines a protocol interaction between a first node and
a node which is part of an LSP to allow the first node to request
that second node initiate an LSP ping for the LSP on behalf of the
first node. Two new LSP Ping messages are defined for remote
pinging: the MPLS proxy ping request and the MPLS proxy ping reply.
A remote ping operation on a P2MP LSP generally involves at least
three LSRs; in some scenarios none of these are the ingress (root) or
an egress (leaf) of the LSP.
We refer to these nodes with the following terms:
Initiator - the node which initiates the ping operation by sending
an MPLS proxy ping request message
Proxy LSR - the node which is the destination of the MPLS proxy
request message and potential initiator of the MPLS echo request
Receiver(s) - the nodes which receive the MPLS echo request
message
Responder - A receiver that responds to a MPLS Proxy Ping Request
or an MPLS Echo Request
We note that in some scenarios, the initiator could also be the
responder, in which case the response would be internal to the node.
The initiator formats an MPLS proxy ping request message and sends it
to the proxy LSR, a node it believes to be on the path of the LSP.
This message instructs the proxy LSR to either Reply with Proxy
information or to send a MPLS echo request inband of the LSP. The
initiator requests Proxy information so that it can learn additional
information it needs to use to form a subsequent MPLS Proxy Ping
request. For example during LSP traceroute an initiator needs the
downstream map information to form an Echo request. An initiator may
also want to learn a Proxy LSR's FEC neighbor information so that it
can form proxy request to various nodes along the LSP.
The proxy LSR either replies with the requested Proxy information or
it validates that it has a label mapping for the specified FEC and
that it is authorized to send the specified MPLS echo request on
behalf of the initiator.
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
If the proxy LSR has a label mapping for the FEC and all
authorization checks have passed, the proxy LSR formats an MPLS echo
request. If the source address of the MPLS echo request is not to be
set to the Proxy Request source address, the initiator must include a
Reply-to Address TLV containing the source address to use in the MPLS
echo request. It then sends it inband of the LSP.
The receivers process the MPLS echo request as normal, sending their
MPLS echo replies back to the initiator.
If the proxy LSR failed to send a MPLS echo request as normal because
it encountered an issue while attempting to send, a MPLS proxy ping
reply message is sent back with a return code indicating that the
MPLS echo request could not be sent.
3. Proxy MPLS Echo Request / Reply Procedures
3.1. Procedures for the initiator
The initiator creates an MPLS proxy ping request message.
The message MUST contain a Target FEC Stack that describes the FEC
being tested. The topmost FEC in the target FEC stack is used at the
Proxy LSR to lookup the MPLS label stack that will be used to
encapsulate the MPLS echo request packet.
The MPLS Proxy Ping message MUST contain a Proxy Echo Parameters TLV.
In that TLV, the address type is set to either IPv4 or IPv6. The
Destination IP Address is set to the value to be used in the MPLS
echo request packet. If the Address Type is IPv4, an address is from
the range 127/8. If the Address Type is IPv6, an address is from the
range ::FFFF:7F00:0/104.
The Reply mode and Global Flags of the Proxy Echo Parameters TLV are
set to the values to be used in the MPLS echo request message header.
The Source UDP Port is set to the value to be used in the MPLS echo
request packet. The TTL is set to the value to be used in the
outgoing MPLS label stack. See Section 5.1 for further details.
If the FEC's Upstream/Downstream Neighbor address information is
required, the initiator sets the "Request for FEC neighbor
information" Proxy Flags in the Proxy Echo Parameters TLV.
If a Downstream Detailed or Downstream Mapping TLV is required in a
MPLS Proxy Ping Reply, the initiator sets the "Request for Downstream
Detailed Mapping" or "Request for Downstream Mapping" Proxy Flags in
the Proxy Echo Parameters TLV. Only one of the two flags can be set.
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
The Proxy Request reply mode is set with one of the reply modes
defined in [RFC4379] as appropriate.
A list of Next Hop IP Addresses MAY be included to limit the next
hops towards which the MPLS echo request message will be sent. These
are encoded as Next Hop sub-TLVs and included in the Proxy Echo
Parameters TLV.
Proxy Echo Parameter TLV MPLS payload size field may be set to
request that the MPLS echo request (including any IP and UDP header)
be zero padded to the specified size. When the payload size is non
zero, if sending the MPLS Echo Request involves using an IP header,
the Dont Fragment (DF) bit MUST be set to 1.
Any of following TLVs MAY be included; these TLVs will be copied into
the MPLS echo request messages:
Pad
Vendor Enterprise Number
Reply TOS Byte
P2MP Responder Identifier [RFC6425]
Echo Jitter TLV [RFC6425]
Vendor Private TLVs
Downstream Detailed Mapping DDSMAP) or Downstream Mapping (DSMAP)
TLVs MAY be included. These TLVs will be matched to the next hop
address for inclusion in those particular MPLS echo request messages.
The message is then encapsulated in a UDP packet. The source User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) port is chosen by the initiator; the
destination UDP port is set to 3503. The IP header is set as
follows: the source IP address is a routable address of the
initiator; the destination IP address is a routable address to the
Proxy LSR. The packet is then sent with the IP TTL is set to 255.
3.2. Procedures for the proxy LSR
A proxy LSR that receives an MPLS proxy ping request message, parses
the packet to ensure that it is a well-formed packet. It checks that
the TLVs that are not marked "Ignore" are understood. If not, it
sets the Return Code set to "Malformed echo request received" or "TLV
not understood" (as appropriate), and the Subcode set to zero. If
the Reply Mode of the message header is not 1(Do not reply), an MPLS
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
proxy ping reply message SHOULD be sent as described below. In the
latter case, the misunderstood TLVs (only) are included in an Errored
TLVs TLV.
The Proxy LSR checks that the MPLS proxy ping request message did not
arrive via one of its exception processing paths. Packets arriving
via IP TTL expiry, IP destination address set to a Martian address or
label ttl expiry MUST be treated as "Unauthorized" packets. An MPLS
proxy ping reply message MAY be sent with a Return Code of <tba>,
"Proxy Ping not authorized".
The header fields Sender's Handle and Sequence Number are not
examined, but are saved to be included in the MPLS proxy ping reply
or MPLS echo request messages.
The proxy LSR validates that it has a label mapping for the specified
FEC, it then determines if it is an ingress, egress, transit or bud
node and sets the Return Code as appropriate. A new return code
(Replying router has FEC mapping for topmost FEC) has been defined
for the case where the Proxy LSR is an ingress (for example head of
the TE tunnel or a transit router) because the existing RFC4379
return codes don't match the situation. For example, when a Proxy
LSR is a transit router, it's not appropriate for the return code to
describe how the packet would transit because the Proxy Request
doesn't contain information about what input interface the an MPLS
echo request would be switched from at the Proxy LSR.
The proxy LSR then determines if it is authorized to send the
specified MPLS echo request on behalf of the initiator. A Proxy LSR
MUST be capable of filtering addresses to validate initiators. Other
filters on FECs or MPLS echo request contents MAY be applied. If a
filter has been invoked (i.e. configured) and an address does not
pass the filter, then an MPLS echo request message MUST NOT be sent,
and the event SHOULD be logged. An MPLS proxy ping reply message MAY
be sent with a Return Code of <tba>, "Proxy Ping not authorized".
The destination address specified in the Proxy Echo Parameters TLV is
checked to ensure that it conforms to the address allowed IPv4 or
IPv6 address range. If not, it sets the Return Code set to
"Malformed echo request received" and the Subcode set to zero. If
the Reply Mode of the message header is not 1, an MPLS proxy ping
reply message SHOULD be sent as described below.
If the "Request for FEC Neighbor Address info" flag is set, a
Upstream Neighbor Address TLV and/or Downstream Neighbor Address
TLV(s) is/are formatted for inclusion in the MPLS proxy ping reply.
If the Upstream or Downstream address is unknown they are not
included in the Proxy Reply.
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
If there are Next Hop sub-TLVs in the Proxy Echo Parameters TLV, each
address is examined to determine if it is a valid next hop for this
FEC. If any are not, Proxy Echo Parameters TLV should be updated
removing unrecognized Next Hop sub-TLVs. The updated Proxy Echo
Parameters TLV MUST be included in the MPLS proxy ping reply.
If the "Request for Downstream Detailed Mapping" or "Request for
Downstream Mapping" flag is set, the LSR formats (for inclusions in
the MPLS proxy ping reply) a Downstream Detailed/Downstream Mapping
TLV for each interface over which the MPLS echo request will be sent.
If the Proxy LSR is the egress for the FEC, the behavior of the proxy
LSR vary depending on whether the node is an Egress of a P2P LSP, a
P2MP LSP or MP2MP LSP. Additional details can be found in the
section describing "Handling when Proxy LSR it is egress for FEC".
If the Reply Mode of the Proxy Request message header is "1 - do not
reply", no MPLS proxy ping reply is sent. Otherwise an MPLS proxy
ping reply message or MPLS echo request should be sent as described
below.
3.2.1. Proxy LSR Handling when it is Egress for FEC
This sections describes the different behaviors for the Proxy LSR
when it's the Egress for the FEC. In the P2MP budnode and MP2MP
budnode and egress cases, different behavior is required.
When the Proxy LSR is the egress of a P2P FEC, a Proxy reply should
be sent to the initiator with the return code set to 3 (Reply router
is Egress for FEC) with return subcode set to 0.
When the Proxy LSR is the egress of a P2MP FEC, it can be either a
budnode or just an Egress. If the Proxy LSR is a Budnode, a Proxy
reply should be sent to the initiator with the return code set to 3
(Reply router is Egress for FEC) with return subcode set to 0 and DS/
DDMAPs only if the Proxy initiator requested information to be
returned in a Proxy reply. If the Proxy LSR is a Budnode but not
requested to return a Proxy reply, the Proxy LSR should send packets
to the downstream neighbors (no Echo reply is sent to the Proxy
Initiator to indicate that the Proxy LSR is an egress). If the Proxy
LSR is just an egress, a Proxy reply should be sent to the initiator
with the return code set to 3 (Reply router is Egress for FEC) with
return subcode set to 0.
When the Proxy LSR is the egress of a MP2MP FEC, it can be either a
budnode or just an Egress. LSP pings sent from a leaf of a MP2MP has
different behavior in this case. MPLS echo request are sent to all
upstream/downstream neighbors. The Proxy LSRs need to be consistent
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
with this variation in behavior. If the Proxy LSR is a Budnode or
just an egress, a Proxy reply should be sent to the initiator with
the return code set to 3 (Reply router is Egress for FEC) with return
subcode set to 0 and DS/DDMAPs included only if the Proxy initiator
requested information to be returned in a Proxy reply. If the Proxy
LSR is not requested to return information in a proxy reply, the
Proxy LSR should send packets to all upstream/downstream neighbors as
would be done when sourcing an LSP ping from a M2MP leaf (no echo
reply is sent to the Proxy initiator indicating that the Proxy LSR is
an egress).
3.2.2. Downstream Detailed/Downstream Maps in Proxy Reply
When the Proxy LSR is a transit or bud node, downstream maps
corresponding to how the packet is transited can not be supplied
unless an ingress interface for the MPLS echo request is specified,
since this information is not available and since all valid output
paths are of interest, the Proxy LSR should include DS/DDMAP(s) to
describe the entire set of paths that the packet can be replicated,
like in the case where an LSP ping is initiated at the Proxy LSR.
For mLDP there is a DSMAP/DDMAP per upstream/downstream neighbor for
MP2MP LSPs, or per downstream neighbor in the P2MP LSP case.
When the Proxy LSR is a bud node or egress in a MP2MP LSP or a
budnode in a P2MP LSP, an LSP ping initiated from the Proxy LSR would
source packets only to the neighbors but not itself despite the fact
that the Proxy LSR is itself an egress for the FEC. In order to
match the behavior as seen from LSP Ping initiated at the Proxy LSR,
the Proxy Reply should contain DSMAP/DDMAPs for only the paths to the
upstream/downstream neighbors, but no DSMAP/DDMAP describing its own
egresses paths. The proxy LSR identifies that it's an egress for the
FEC using a different Proxy Reply return code. The Proxy reply
return code is either set to "Reply router has a mapping for the
topmost FEC" or "Reply router is Egress for the FEC".
3.2.3. Sending an MPLS proxy ping reply
The Reply mode, Sender's Handle and Sequence Number fields are copied
from the proxy ping request message. The TLVs specified above are
included. The message is encapsulated in a UDP packet. The source
IP address is a routable address of the proxy LSR; the source port is
the well-known UDP port for LSP ping. The destination IP address and
UDP port are copied from the source IP address and UDP port of the
echo request. The IP TTL is set to 255.
3.2.4. Sending the MPLS echo requests
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
A base MPLS echo request is formed as described in the next section.
The section below that describes how the base MPLS echo request is
sent on each interface.
3.2.4.1. Forming the base MPLS echo request
A Next_Hop_List is created as follows. If Next Hop sub-TLVs were
included in the received Proxy Parameters TLV, the Next_Hop_List
created from the address in those sub-TLVs as adjusted above.
Otherwise, the list is set to all the next hops to which the FEC
would be forwarded.
The proxy LSR then formats an MPLS echo request message. The Global
Flags and Reply Mode are copied from the Proxy Echo Parameters TLV.
The Return Code and Return Subcode are set to zero.
The Sender's Handle and Sequence Number are copied from the remote
echo request message.
The TimeStamp Sent is set to the time-of-day (in seconds and
microseconds) that the echo request is sent. The TimeStamp Received
is set to zero.
If the reply-to address TLV is present, it is used to set the echo
request source address, otherwise the echo request source address is
set to the proxy request source address.
The following TLVs are copied from the MPLS proxy ping request
message. Note that of these, only the Target FEC Stack is REQUIRED
to appear in the MPLS proxy ping request message.
Target FEC Stack
Pad
Vendor Enterprise Number
Reply TOS Byte
P2MP Responder Identifier [RFC6425]
Echo Jitter TLV [RFC6425]
Vendor Private TLVs
The message is then encapsulated in a UDP packet. The source UDP
port is copied from the Proxy Echo Parameters TLV. The destination
port copied from the proxy ping request message.
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
The source IP address is set to a routable address specified in the
reply-to-address TLV or the source address of the received proxy
request. Per usual the TTL of the IP packet is set to 1.
If the Explicit Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) flag is
set, the Requested DSCP byte is examined. If the setting is
permitted then the DSCP byte of the IP header of the MPLS Echo
Request message is set to that value. If the Proxy LSR does not
permit explicit control for the DSCP byte, the MPLS Proxy Echo
Parameters with the Explicit DSCP flag cleared MUST be included in
any MPLS proxy ping reply message to indicate why an Echo Request was
not sent. The return code MUST be set to <tba>, "Proxy ping
parameters need to be modified". If the Explicit DSCP flag is not
set, the Proxy LSR should set the Echo Request DSCP settings to the
value normally used to source LSP ping packets..
3.2.4.2. Per interface sending procedures
The proxy LSR now iterates through the Next_Hop_List modifying the
base MPLS echo request to form the MPLS echo request packet which is
then sent on that particular interface.
For each next hop address, the outgoing label stack is determined.
The TTL for the label corresponding to the FEC specified in the FEC
stack is set such that the TTL on the wire will be othe TTL specified
in the Proxy Echo Parameters. If any additional labels are pushed
onto the stack, their TTLs are set to 255.
If the MPLS proxy ping request message contained Downstream Mapping/
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLVs, they are examined. If the
Downstream IP Address matches the next hop address that Downstream
Mapping TLV is included in the MPLS echo request.
The packet is then transmitted on this interface.
4. Proxy Ping Request / Reply Messages
This document defines two new LSP Ping messages, the MPLS proxy ping
request and the MPLS proxy ping reply.
4.1. Proxy Ping Request / Reply Message formats
Except where noted, the definitions of all fields in the messages are
identical to those found in [RFC4379]. 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
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version Number | MUST Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code | Return Subcode|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLVs ... |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version Number
The Version Number is currently 1. (Note: the Version Number
is to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the
ability of an implementation to correctly parse or process an
MPLS echo request/reply. These changes include any syntactic
or semantic changes made to any of the fixed fields, or to any
TLV or sub-TLV assignment or format that is defined at a
certain version number. The Version Number may not need to be
changed if an optional TLV or sub-TLV is added.)
Message Type
Type Message
---- -------
TBA-1 MPLS proxy ping request
(Pending IANA assignment)
TBA-2 MPLS proxy ping reply
(Pending IANA assignment)
4.2. Proxy Ping Request Message contents
The MPLS proxy ping request message MAY contain the following
TLVs:
Type TLV
---- -----------
1 Target FEC Stack
2 Downstream Mapping
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
3 Pad
5 Vendor Enterprise Number
10 Reply TOS Byte
11 P2MP Responder Identifier [RFC6425]
12 Echo Jitter TLV [RFC6425]
20 Downstream Detailed Mapping
TBA-3 Proxy Echo Parameters (Pending IANA assignment)
TBA-4 Reply-to-Address TLV
* Vendor Private TLVs
* TLVs types in the Vendor Private TLV Space MUST be
ignored if not understood
4.3. Proxy Ping Reply Message Contents
The MPLS proxy ping reply message MAY contain the following TLVs:
Type TLV
---- -----------
1 Target FEC Stack
2 Downstream Mapping
5 Vendor Enterprise Number
9 Errored TLVs
20 Downstream Detailed Mapping
TBA-3 Proxy Echo Parameters (Pending IANA assignment)
TBA-5 Upstream Neighbor Address (Pending IANA assignment)
TBA-6 Downstream Neighbor Address (0 or more)
(Pending IANA assignment)
* Vendor Private TLVs
* TLVs types in the Vendor Private TLV Space MUST be
ignored if not understood
5. TLV formats
5.1. Proxy Echo Parameters TLV
The Proxy Echo Parameters TLV is a TLV that MUST be included in an
MPLS Proxy Echo Request message. The length of the TLV is 12 + K +
S, where K is the length of the Destination IP Address field and S is
the total length of the sub-TLVs. The Proxy Echo Parameters TLV can
be used to either to 1) control attributes used in Composing and
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
Sending an MPLS echo request or 2) query the Proxy LSR for
information about the topmost FEC in the target FEC stack but not
both. In the case where the Proxy LSR is being queried (ie
information needs to be returned in a Proxy Reply), no MPLS echo
request will be sent from the Proxy LSR. The MPLS Proxy Echo request
echo header's Reply Mode should be set to "Reply with Proxy Info".
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Type | Reply mode | Proxy Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TTL | Rqst'd DSCP | Source UDP Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Flags | MPLS Payload size |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Destination IP Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: :
: Sub-TLVs :
: :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Type
The type and length of the address found in the in the
Destination IP Address and Next Hop IP Addresses fields.
The values are shared with the Downstream Mapping Address
Type Registry.
The type codes applicable in this case appear in the table below:
Address Family Type Length
IPv4 1 4
IPv6 3 16
Reply mode
The reply mode to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request message; the
values are as specified in [RFC4379].
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
Proxy Flags
The Proxy Request Initiator sets zero, one or more of these
flags to request actions at the Proxy LSR.
Request for FEC Neighbor Address info 0x01
When set this requests that the proxy LSR supply the
Upstream and Downstream neighbor address information in the
MPLS proxy ping reply message. This flag is only applicable
for the topmost FEC in the FEC stack if the FEC types
corresponds with a P2MP or MP2MP LSPs. The Proxy LSR MUST
respond as applicable with a Upstream Neighbor Address
TLV and Downstream Neighbor Address TLV(s) in the MPLS
Proxy ping reply message. Upstream Neighbor Address TLV
needs be included only if there is an upstream neighbor.
Similarly, one Downstream Neighbor Address TLV needs to
be included for each Downstream Neighbor for which the LSR
learned bindings from.
Setting this flag will cause the proxy LSR to cancel sending
an Echo request. Information learned with such proxy reply
may be used by the proxy initiator to generate subsequent
proxy requests.
Request for Downstream Mapping 0x02
When set this requests that the proxy LSR supply a
Downstream Mapping TLV see [RFC4379] in the MPLS
proxy ping reply message. It's not valid
to have Request for Downstream Detailed Mapping flag set
when this flag is set.
Setting this flag will cause the proxy LSR to cancel sending
an Echo request. Information learned with such proxy reply
may be used by the proxy initiator to generate subsequent
proxy requests.
Request for Downstream Detailed Mapping 0x04
When set this requests that the proxy LSR supply a
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV see [RFC6424] in the
MPLS proxy ping reply message. It's not valid
to have Request for Downstream Mapping flag set
when this flag is set.
Setting this flag will cause the proxy LSR to cancel sending
an Echo request. Information learned with such proxy reply
may be used by the proxy initiator to generate subsequent
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
proxy requests.
Explicit DSCP Request 0x08
When set this requests that the proxy LSR use
the supplied "Rqst'd DSCP" byte in the echo request message
TTL
The TTL to be used in the label stack entry corresponding to
the topmost FEC in the in the MPLS Echo Request packet. Valid
values are in the range [1,255]. A setting of 0 should be
ignored by the Proxy LSR.
Requested DSCP
This field is valid only if the Explicit DSCP flag is set. If
not set, the field MUST be zero on transmission and ignored on
receipt. When the flag is set this field contains the DSCP
value to be used in the MPLS echo request packet IP header.
Source UDP Port
The source UDP port to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request packet
Global Flags
The Global Flags to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request message
MPLS Payload Size
Used to request that the MPLS payload (IP header + UDP header
+ MPLS echo request) be padded using a zero filled Pad TLV
so that the IP header, UDP header nad MPLS echo request total
the specified size. Field set to zero means no
size request is being made. If the requested size is less
than the minimum size required to form the MPLS echo request,
the request will be treated as a best effort request with
the Proxy LSR building the smallest possible packet (ie
not using a Pad TLV). The IP header DF bit should be set
when this field is non zero.
Destination IP Address
If the Address Type is IPv4, an address from the range 127/8;
If the Address Type is IPv6, an address from the range
::FFFF:7F00:0/104
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
Sub-TLVs
A TLV encoded list of sub-TLVs. Currently one is defined.
Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ -----------
1 8+ Next Hop
5.1.1. Next Hop sub-TLV
This sub-TLV is used to describe a particular next hop towards which
the Echo Request packet should be sent. If the topmost FEC in the
FEC-stack is a multipoint LSP, this sub-TLV may appear multiple
times.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Addr Type | MUST be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop IP Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hop Interface (0, 4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Type
Type Type of Next Hop Addr Length IF Length
1 IPv4 Numbered 4 4
2 IPv4 Unnumbered 4 4
3 IPv6 Numbered 16 16
4 IPv6 Unnumbered 16 4
5 IPv4 Protocol Adj 4 0
6 IPv6 Protocol Adj 16 0
Note: Types 1-4 correspond to the types in the DS Mapping
TLV. They are expected to populated with information
obtained through a previously returned DS Mapping TLV.
Types 5 and 6 are intended to be populated from the local
address information obtained from a previously returned
Downstream Neighbor Address TLV(s)/Upstream Neighbor Address TLV.
Next Hop IP Address
A next hop address that the echo request message is to
be sent towards
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
Next Hop Interface
Identifier of the interface through which the echo request
message is to be sent. For Addr Type 5, and 6, the Next Hop
interface field isn't used and must of a associated byte
length of "0" octets.
5.2. Reply-to Address TLV
Used to specify the MPLS echo request IP source address. This
address must be IP reachable via the Proxy LSR otherwise it will be
rejected.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Type | MUST be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Reply-to Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Type
A type code as specified in the table below:
Type Type of Address
1 IPv4
3 IPv6
5.3. Upstream Neighbor Address TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Upst Addr Type |Local Addr Type| MUST be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Upstream Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Local Address :
| |
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Upst Addr Type; Local Addr Type
These two fields determine the type and length of the
respective addresses. The codes are specified in the table
below:
Type Type of Address Length
0 No Address Supplied 0
1 IPv4 4
3 IPv6 16
Upstream Address
The address of the immediate upstream neighbor for the topmost
FEC in the FEC stack. If protocol adjacency exists by which
the label for this FEC was exchanged, this address MUST be the
address used in that protocol exchange.
Local Address
The local address used in the protocol adjacency exists by
which the label for this FEC was exchanged.
5.4. Downstream Neighbor Address TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Dnst Addr Type |Local Addr Type| MUST be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Downstream Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
: Local Address :
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Dnst Addr Type; Local Addr Type
These two fields determine the type and length of the
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
respective addresses. The codes are specified in the table
below:
Type Type of Address Length
0 No Address Supplied 0
1 IPv4 4
3 IPv6 16
Downstream Address
The address of a immediate downstream neighbor for the topmost
FEC in the FEC stack. If protocol adjacency exists by which
the label for this FEC was exchanged, this address MUST be the
address used in that protocol exchange.
Local Address
The local address used in the protocol adjacency exists by
which the label for this FEC was exchanged.
6. Security Considerations
The mechanisms described in this document are intended to be used
within a Service Provider network and to be initiated only under the
authority of that administration.
If such a network also carries internet traffic, or permits IP access
from other administrations, MPLS proxy ping message SHOULD be
discarded at those points. This can be accomplished by filtering on
source address or by filtering all MPLS ping messages on UDP port.
Any node which acts as a proxy node SHOULD validate requests against
a set of valid source addresses. An implementation MUST provide such
filtering capabilities.
MPLS proxy ping request messages are IP addressed directly to the
Proxy node. If a node which receives an MPLS proxy ping message via
IP or Label TTL expiration, it MUST NOT be acted upon.
MPLS proxy ping request messages are IP addressed directly to the
Proxy node. If a MPLS Proxy ping request IP destination address is a
Martian Address, it MUST NOT be acted upon.
if a MPLS Proxy ping request IP source address is not IP reachable by
the Proxy LSR, the Proxy request MUST NOT be acted upon.
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
MPLS proxy ping requests are limited to making their request via the
specification of a FEC. This ensures that only valid MPLS echo
request messages can be created. No label spoofing attacks are
possible.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya for his detailed review
and insightful comments.
8. IANA Considerations
This document makes the following assignments (pending IANA action)
LSP Ping Message Types
Type Value Field
---- -----------
TBA-1 MPLS proxy ping request
TBA-2 MPLS proxy ping reply
TLVs and Sub-TLVs
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
TBA-3 Proxy Echo Parameters
1 Next Hop
TBA-4 Reply-to Address
TBA-5 Upstream Neighbor Address
TBA-6 Downstream Neighbor Address
Return Code [pending IANA assignment]
Value Meaning
----- -------
TBA-7 Proxy ping not authorized.
TBA-8 Proxy ping parameters need to be modified.
TBA-9 MPLS Echo Request Could not be sent.
TBA-10 Replying router has FEC mapping for topmost FEC.
Downstream Address Mapping Registry [pending IANA assignment]
Value Meaning
----- -------
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
TBA-11 IPv4 Protocol Adj
TBA-12 IPv6 Protocol Adj
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[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.
9.2. Informative References
[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.
[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.
Authors' Addresses
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Proxy LSP Ping July 2013
Vanson Lim
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: vlim@cisco.com
Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Express Way
Santa Clara, CA 95951
USA
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Swallow, et al. Expires January 06, 2014 [Page 24]
