Network Working Group Seisho Yasukawa IETF Internet Draft NTT Proposed Status: Informational Expires: April 2005 Adrian Farrel Olddog Consulting Zafar Ali Cisco Systems October 2004 Detecting Data Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Traffic Engineering - Extensions to LSP Ping draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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). All Rights Reserved. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 Abstract Recent proposals have extended the scope of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) to encompass point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. The requirement for a simple and efficient mechanism that can be used to detect data plane failures in point-to-point (P2P) MPLS LSPs has been recognized and has led to the development of techniques for fault detection and isolation commonly referred to as "LSP Ping" [LSP-PING]. This documents does not replace any of the mechanism of LSP Ping, but clarifies their applicability to P2MP MPLS TE LSPs, and extends the techniques and mechanisms of LSP Ping to the P2MP TE environment. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 Contents 1. Introduction .................................................. 04 1.1 Design Considerations ..................................... 04 2. Notes on Motivation ........................................... 05 2.1. Basic Motivations for LSP Ping ........................... 05 2.2. Motivations for LSP Ping for P2MP TE LSPs ................ 05 3. Operation of LSP Ping for a P2MP TE LSP ....................... 07 3.1. Identifying the LSP Under Test ........................... 07 3.1.1. RSVP P2MP IPv4 Session Sub-TLV ......................... 07 3.1.2. RSVP P2MP IPv6 Session Sub-TLV ......................... 08 3.2. Ping Mode Operation ...................................... 09 3.2.1. Controlling Responses to LSP Pings ..................... 09 3.2.2. P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLVs ........................ 10 3.3. Traceroute Mode Operation ................................ 10 3.3.1. Traceroute Responses at Non-Branch Nodes ............... 11 3.3.2. Traceroute Responses at Branch Nodes .................. 11 3.3.3. Traceroute Responses at Bud Nodes ...................... 12 3.3.4. Non-Response to Traceroute Echo Requests ............... 12 3.3.5. Modifications to the Downstream Mapping TLV ............ 13 3.3.6. Additions to Downstream Mapping Multipath Information .. 14 4. OAM Considerations ............................................ 15 5. IANA Considerations ........................................... 16 5.1. New Sub TLV Types ........................................ 16 6. Security Considerations ....................................... 16 7. Acknowledgements .............................................. 16 8. Intellectual Property Considerations .......................... 16 9. Normative References .......................................... 17 10. Informational References ..................................... 17 11. Authors' Addresses ........................................... 18 12. Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 18 Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 1. Introduction Simple and efficient mechanisms that can be used to detect data plane failures in point-to-point MPLS LSP are described in [LSP-PING]. The techniques involve information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo reply", and mechanisms for transporting the echo reply. The echo request and reply messages provide sufficient information to check correct operation of the data plane, as well as a mechanism to verify the data plane against the control plane, and thereby localize faults. The use of reliable reply channels for echo request messages as described in [LSP-PING] enables more robust fault isolation. This collection of mechanisms is commonly referred to as "LSP Ping". The requirement for Point-to-multipoint traffic engineered MPLS LSPs is introduced in [P2MP-REQ]. [P2MP-RSVP] specifies a signaling solution for establishing P2MP MPLS TE LSPs. P2MP MPLS TE LSPs are at least as vulnerable to data plane faults or to discrepancies between the control and data planes as their P2P counterparts. LSP Ping Mechanisms are, therefore, also desirable to detect such data plane faults in P2MP MPLS TE LSPs. This document extends the techniques described in [LSP-PING] in order that they may be applied to P2MP MPLS TE LSPs. This document stresses the reuse of existing LSP Ping mechanisms as such reuse simplifies operations of the network. 1.1 Design Considerations As mentioned earlier, an important consideration for designing LSP Ping for P2MP MPLS TE LSPs is that every attempt is made to use or extend existing mechanisms rather than invent new mechanisms. As for P2P LSPs, a critical requirement is that the echo request messages follow the same data path that normal MPLS packets would traverse. However, it can be seen this notion needs to be extended for P2MP MPLS TE LSPs, as in this case an MPLS packet is replicated so that it arrives at each egress (or leaf) of the P2MP tree. MPLS echo requests are meant primarily to validate the data plane, and secondarily to verify the data plane against the control plane. As pointed out in [LSP-PING], mechanisms to check the liveness, function and consistency of the control plane are valuable, but such mechanisms are not covered in this document. As is described in [LSP-PING], to avoid potential Denial of Service attacks, it is RECOMMENDED to regulate the LSP Ping traffic passed to the control plane. A rate limiter should be applied to the well-known UDP port defined for use by LSP Ping traffic. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 2. Notes on Motivation 2.1. Basic Motivations for LSP Ping The motivations listed in [LSP-PING] are reproduced here for completeness. When an LSP fails to deliver user traffic, the failure cannot always be detected by the MPLS control plane. There is a need to provide a tool that would enable users to detect such traffic "black holes" or misrouting within a reasonable period of time; and a mechanism to isolate faults. [LSP-PING] describes a mechanism that accomplishes these goals. This mechanism is modeled after the ping/traceroute paradigm: ping (ICMP echo request [RFC792]) is used for connectivity checks, and traceroute is used for hop-by-hop fault localization as well as path tracing. [LSP-PING] specifies a "ping mode" and a "traceroute" mode for testing MPLS LSPs. The basic idea as expressed in [LSP-PING] is to test that the packets that belong to a particular Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) actually end their MPLS path on an LSR that is an egress for that FEC. [LSP-PING] achieves this test by sending a packet (called an "MPLS echo request") along the same data path as other packets belonging to this FEC. An MPLS echo request also carries information about the FEC whose MPLS path is being verified. This echo request is forwarded just like any other packet belonging to that FEC. In "ping" mode (basic connectivity check), the packet should reach the end of the path, at which point it is sent to the control plane of the egress LSR, which then verifies that it is indeed an egress for the FEC. In "traceroute" mode (fault isolation), the packet is sent to the control plane of each transit LSR, which performs various checks that it is indeed a transit LSR for this path; this LSR also returns further information that helps to check the control plane against the data plane, i.e., that forwarding matches what the routing protocols determined as the path. One way these tools can be used is to periodically ping a FEC to ensure connectivity. If the ping fails, one can then initiate a traceroute to determine where the fault lies. One can also periodically traceroute FECs to verify that forwarding matches the control plane; however, this places a greater burden on transit LSRs and thus should be used with caution. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 2.2. Motivations for LSP Ping for P2MP TE LSPs P2MP MPLS TE LSPs may be viewed as MPLS tunnels with a single ingress and multiple egresses. MPLS packets inserted at the ingress are delivered equally (barring faults) to all egresses. There is no concept or applicability of an FEC in the context of a P2MP MPLS TE LSP, just as there is no similar concept for point-to-point TE LSPs. In consequence, the basic idea of LSP Ping for P2MP MPLS TE LSPs may be expressed as an intention to test that packets that enter (at the ingress) a particular P2MP MPLS TE LSP actually end their MPLS path on LSRs that are (intended) egresses for that LSP. The idea may be extended to check selectively that such packets reach a specific egress, or a particular group of egresses of the LSP. This document proposes that this test is carried out by sending an LSP Ping echo request message along the same data path as the MPLS packets. An echo request also carries the identification of the P2MP MPLS TE LSP that it is testing. The echo request is forwarded just as any other packet using that LSP. In "ping" mode (basic connectivity check), the echo request should reach the end of the path, at which point it is sent to the control plane of the egress LSR, which then verifies that it is indeed an egress (leaf) of the P2MP MPLS TE LSP. An echo response message is sent by the egress to the ingress to confirm the successful receipt (or announce the erroneous arrival) of the echo request. In "traceroute" mode (fault isolation), the echo request is sent to the control plane at each transit LSR, and the control plane checks that it is indeed a transit LSR for this P2MP MPLS TE LSP. The transit LSR also returns information on an echo response that helps verify the control plane against the data plane. That is, the information is used by the ingress to check that the data plane forwarding matches what is signaled by the control plane. P2MP MPLS TE LSPs may have many egresses, and it is not necessarily the intention of the initiator of the ping or traceroute operation to collect information about the connectivity or path to all egresses. Indeed, in the event of pinging all egresses of a large P2MP MPLS TE LSP, it might be expected that a large number of echo responses would arrive at the ingress independently but at approximately the same time. Under some circumstances this might cause congestion at or around the ingress LSR. Therefore, the procedures described in this document provide the ability for the initiator to limit the scope of an LSP Ping (ping or traceroute mode) to one or a limited list of the intended egresses of the P2MP MPLS TE LSP. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 LSP Ping can be used to periodically ping a P2MP MPLS TE LSP to ensure connectivity to any or all of the egresses. If the ping fails, the operator or an automated process can then initiate a traceroute to determine where the fault is located within the network. A traceroute may also be used periodically to verify that data plane forwarding matches the control plane state; however, this places an increased burden on transit LSRs and should be used infrequently and with caution. 3. Operation of LSP Ping for a P2MP TE LSP This section describes how LSP Ping is applied to P2MP MPLS TE LSPs. It covers the mechanisms and protocol fields applicable to both ping mode and traceroute mode. It explains the responsibilities of the initiator (ingress), transit LSRs and receivers (egresses). 3.1. Identifying the LSP Under Test [LSP-PING] defines how an MPLS TE LSP under test may be identified in an echo request. A Target FEC Stack TLV is used to carry either an RSVP IPv4 Session or an RSVP IPv6 Session sub-TLV. In order to identify the P2MP MPLS TE LSP under test, the echo request message MUST carry a Target FEC Stack TLV, and this MUST carry exactly one of two new sub-TLVs: either an RSVP P2MP IPv4 Session or an RSVP P2MP IPv6 Session sub-TLV. These sub-TLVs carry the various fields from the RSVP-TE P2MP Session and Sender-Template objects [P2MP-RSVP] and so provide sufficient information to uniquely identify the LSP. The new sub-TLVs are assigned sub-type identifiers as follows, and are described in the following sections. Sub-Type # Length Value Field ---------- ------ ----------- TBD 20 RSVP P2MP IPv4 Session TBD 56 RSVP P2MP IPv6 Session 3.1.1. RSVP P2MP IPv4 Session Sub-TLV The format of the RSVP P2MP IPv4 Session Sub-TLV value field is specified in the following figure. The value fields are taken from the definitions of the P2MP IPv4 LSP Session Object, and the P2MP IPv4 Sender-Template Object in [P2MP-RSVP]. Note that the Sub-Group ID of the Sender-Template is not required. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | P2MP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Must Be Zero | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extended Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 tunnel sender address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Must Be Zero | LSP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 3.1.2. RSVP P2MP IPv6 Session Sub-TLV The format of the RSVP P2MP IPv6 Session Sub-TLV value field is specified in the following figure. The value fields are taken from the definitions of the P2MP IPv6 LSP Session Object, and the P2MP IPv6 Sender-Template Object in [P2MP-RSVP]. Note that the Sub-Group ID of the Sender-Template is not required. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | P2MP ID | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Must Be Zero | Tunnel ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extended Tunnel ID | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv6 tunnel sender address | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Must Be Zero | LSP ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 3.2. Ping Mode Operation 3.2.1. Controlling Responses to LSP Pings As described above, it may be desirable to restrict the operation of LSP Ping to a single egress. Since echo requests are forwarded through the data plane without interception by the control plane (compare with traceroute mode), there is no facility to limit the propagation of echo requests, and they will automatically be forwarded to all (reachable) egresses. However, the intended egress under test is identified in the FEC Stack TLV by the inclusion of an IPv4 P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLV or an IPv6 P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLV. Such TLVs MUST be placed after the RSVP P2MP IPv4/6 Session sub-TLV. An egress LSR that receives an echo request carrying an RSVP P2MP IPv4/6 Session sub-TLV MUST determine whether it is an intended egress of the P2MP LSP in question by checking with the control plane. If it is not supposed to be an egress, it MUST respond according to the setting of the Response Type field in the echo message following the rules defined in [LSP-PING]. If the egress that receives an echo request is an intended egress, the LSR can check to see whether it is an intended Ping recipient. If the address included in the P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLV indicates any address that is local to the egress LSR it, MUST respond according to the setting of the Response Type field in the echo message following the rules defined in [LSP-PING]. If the address in the P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLV does not identify the egress LSR, it MUST NOT respond to the echo request. Multiple P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLVs may appear in a list after the RSVP P2MP IPv4/6 Session sub-TLV. In this case, each identifies a single egress that is intended to reply to the echo request according to the setting in the Reply Type field. An egress SHOULD consider itself a target of the echo request if any of its local addresses matches any of the specified egress identifiers. An initiator may indicate that it wishes all egresses to respond to an echo request by omitting all P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLVs. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 3.2.2. P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLVs Two new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the Target FEC Stack TLV (type 1) carried on the echo request message. These are: Sub-Type # Length Value Field ---------- ------ ----------- (TBD) 4 IPv4 P2MP Egress Identifier (TBD) 16 IPv6 P2MP Egress Identifier The value of an IPv4 P2MP Egress Identifier consists of four octets of an IPv4 address. The IPv4 address is in network byte order. The value of an IPv6 P2MP Egress Identifier consists of sixteen octets of an IPv6 address. The IPv6 address is in network byte order. 3.3. Traceroute Mode Operation The traceroute mode of operation is described in [LSP-PING]. Like other traceroute operations, it relies on the expiration of the TTL of the packet that carries the echo request. Echo requests may include a Downstream Mapping TLV and when the TTL expires the echo request is passed to the control plane on the transit LSR which responds according to the Response Type in the message. A responding LSR fills in the fields of the Downstream Mapping TLV to indicate the downstream interfaces and labels used by the reported LSP from the responding LSR. In this way, by successively sending out echo requests with increasing TTLs, the ingress may gain a picture of the path and resources used by an LSP up to the point of failure when no response is received, or an error response is generated by an LSR where the control plane does not expect to be handling the LSP. This mode of operation is equally applicable to P2MP MPLS TE LSPs as described in the following sections. The traceroute mode can be applied to a single destination, a set of destinations, or to all destinations of the P2MP tree just as in the ping mode. That is, the IPv4/6 P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLVs may be used to identify one or more egresses for which traceroute information is requested. In the absence of an IPv4/6 P2MP Egress Identifier sub-TLV, the echo request is asking for traceroute information applicable to all egresses. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 3.3.1. Traceroute Responses at Non-Branch Nodes When the TTL for the MPLS packet carrying an echo request expires and the message is passed to the control plane, an echo response MUST only be returned if the responding LSR lies on the path to one or more of the egresses identified by the IPv4/6 P2MP Egress Identifiers carried on the request, or if not such sub-TLV is present. The echo response identifies the next hop of the path in the data plane by including a Downstream Mapping TLV as described in [LSP-PING]. When traceroute is being simultaneously applied to multiple egresses, it is important that the ingress should be able to correlate the echo responses with the branches in the P2MP tree. Without this information the ingress will be unable to determine the correct ordering of transit nodes. One possibility is for the ingress to poll the path to each egress in turn, but this may be inefficient or undesirable. Therefore, the echo response contains additional information in the Multipath Information field of the Downstream Mapping TLV that identifies to which egress/egresses the echo response applies. This information MUST be present when the echo request applies to more than one egress, and is RECOMMENDED to be present even when the echo request is limited to a single egress. The format of the information in the Downstream Mapping TLV for MPLS P2MP TE LSPs is described in section 3.3.5 and 3.3.6. 3.3.2. Traceroute Responses at Branch Nodes A branch node may need to identify more than one downstream interface in a traceroute echo response if some of the egresses that are being traced lie on different branches. This would always be the case for any branch node if all egresses are being traced. [LSP-PING] describes how multiple Downstream Mapping TLVs should be included in an echo response, each identifying exactly one downstream interface that is applicable to the LSP. Just as with non-branches, it is important that the echo responses provide correlation information that will allow the ingress to work out to which branch of the LSP the response applies. Further, when multiple downstream interfaces are identified, it is necessary to indicate which egresses are reached through which branches. This is achieved exactly as for non-branch nodes: that is, by including a list of egresses as part of the Multipath Information field of the appropriate Downstream Mapping TLV. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 Note also that a branch node may sometimes only need to respond with a single Downstream Mapping TLV. Consider the case where the traceroute is directed to only a single egress node, or where a subset of the egresses are being traced, but where all of them are reached through the same branch. Therefore, the presence of only one Downstream Mapping TLV in an echo response does not guarantee that the reporting LSR is not a branch node. To report on the fact that an LSR is a branch node for the MPLS P2MP TE LSP, a new B-flag is added to the Downstream Mapping TLV to indicate that the reporting LSR is not a branch for this LSP (set to zero) or is a branch (set to one). The flag is placed in the fourth byte of the TLV that was previous reserved. The format of the information in the Downstream Mapping TLV for MPLS P2MP TE LSPs is described in section 3.3.5 and 3.3.6. 3.3.3. Traceroute Responses at Bud Nodes Some nodes on an MPLS P2MP TE LSP may be egresses, but also have downstream LSRs. Such LSRs are known as bud nodes. A bud node will respond to a traceroute echo request just as a branch node would, but it is also important that it indicates to the ingress that it is an egress in its own right. This is achieved through the use of a new E-flag in the Downstream Mapping TLV that indicates that the reporting LSR is not a bud for this LSP (set to zero) or is a bud (set to one). A normal egress is not required to set this flag. The flag is placed in the fourth byte of the TLV that was previous reserved. 3.3.4. Non-Response to Traceroute Echo Requests The nature of MPLS P2MP TE LSPs in the data plane mean that traceroute echo requests may be delivered to the control plane of LSRs that must not reply to the request because, although they lie on the P2MP tree, they do not lie on the paths to the egresses that are being traced. Thus, an LSR on a P2MP MPLS TE LSP MUST NOT respond to an echo request for which the TTL has expired if any of the following applies: - The Reply Type indicates that no reply is required - There is one or more IPv4/6 P2MP Egress Identifiers present on the echo request and none of the addresses identifies an egress that is reached, for this particular MPLS P2MP TE LSP, through this LSR. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 3.3.5. Modifications to the Downstream Mapping TLV A new B-flag is added to the Downstream Mapping TLV to indicate that the reporting LSR is not a branch for this LSP (set to zero) or is a branch (set to one). A new E-flag is added to the Downstream Mapping TLV to indicate that the reporting LSR is not a bud node for this LSP (set to zero) or is a bud node (set to one). The flags are placed in the fourth byte of the TLV that was previously reserved as shown below. All other fields are unchanged from their definitions in [LSP-PING] except for the additional information that can be carried in the Multipath Information. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MTU | Address Type | Resvd |E|B| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Downstream IP Address (4 or 16 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Downstream Interface Address (4 or 16 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Hash Key Type | Depth Limit | Multipath Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . (Multipath Information) . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Downstream Label | Protocol | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Downstream Label | Protocol | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 3.3.6. Additions to Downstream Mapping Multipath Information A new value for the Hash Key Type is defined to indicate that the reported Multipath Information applies to an MPLS P2MP TE LSP and may contain a list of egress identifiers that indicate the egress nodes that can be reached through the reported interface. Key Type Multipath Information --- ---------------- --------------------- TBD P2MP egresses List of P2MP egresses Note that a list of egresses may include IPv4 and IPv6 identifiers since these may be mixed in the MPLS P2MP TE LSP. The Multipath Length field continues to identify the length of the Multipath Information just as in [LSP-PING] (that is not including the downstream labels), and the downstream label (or potential stack thereof) is also handled just as in [LSP-PING]. The format of the Multipath Information for a Hash Key Type of P2MP Egresses is as follows. 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 | Egress Address (4 or 16 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | (continued) | : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : Further Address Types and Egress Addresses : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Address Type This field indicates whether the egress address that follows is an IPv4 or IPv6 address, and so implicitly encodes the length of the address. Two values are defined and mirror the values used in the Address Type field of the Downstream Mapping TLV itself. Type # Address Type ------ ------------ 1 IPv4 3 IPv6 Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 Egress Address An egress of this MPLS P2MP TE LSP that is reached through the interface indicated by the Downstream Mapping TLV and for which the traceroute echo request was enquiring. 4. OAM Considerations This draft clearly facilitates OAM procedures for P2MP MPLS TE LSPs. In order to be fully operational several considerations must be made. - Scaling concerns dictate that only cautious use of LSP Ping should be made. In particular, sending an LSP Ping to all egresses of a P2MP MPLS TE LSP could result in congestion at or near the ingress when the responses arrive. Further, incautious use of timers to generate LSP Ping echo requests either in ping mode or especially in traceroute may lead to significant degradation of network performance. - Management interfaces should allow an operator full control over the operation of LSP Ping. In particular, it should provide the ability to limit the scope of an LSP Ping echo request for a P2MP MPLS TE LSP to a single egress. Such an interface should also provide the ability to disable all active LSP Ping operations to provide a quick escape if the network becomes congested. - A MIB module is required for the control and management of LSP Ping operations, and to enable the reported information to be inspected. There is no reason to believe this should not be a simple extension of the LSP Ping MIB module used for P2P LSPs. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 5. IANA Considerations 5.1. New Sub TLV Types Four new sub-TLV types are defined for inclusion within the Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV type 1). IANA is requested to assign sub-type values to the following sub-TLVs. RSVP P2MP IPv4 Session (see section 3.1) RSVP P2MP IPv6 Session (see section 3.1) IPv4 P2MP Egress Identifier (see section 3.2.2) IPv6 P2MP Egress Identifier (see section 3.2.2) 6. Security Considerations This document does not introduce security concerns over and above those described in [LSP-PING]. Note that because of the scalability implications of many egresses to P2MP MPLS TE LSPs, there is a stronger concern to regulate the LSP Ping traffic passed to the control plane by the use of a rate limiter applied to the LSP Ping well-known UDP port. 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the authors of [LSP-PING] for their work which is substantially re-used in this document. 8. Intellectual Property Considerations 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 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 assurances 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. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 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. 9. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667, February 2004. [RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004. [LSP-PING] Kompella, K., and Swallow, G., (Editors), "Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping, work in progress. 10. Informational References [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP: 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3552] Rescorla E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP: 72, RFC 3552, July 2003. [RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC 792. [P2MP-REQ] S. Yasukawa, et. al., "Requirements for Point to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-requirement, work in progress. [P2MP-RSVP] R. Aggarwal, et. al., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to Multipoint TE LSPs", draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp, work in progress. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt October 2004 11. Authors' Addresses Seisho Yasukawa NTT Corporation 9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan Phone: +81 422 59 4769 Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk Zafar Ali Cisco Systems Inc. 100 South Main St. #200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA. Phone: (734) 276-2459 Email: zali@cisco.com 12. Full Copyright Statement 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 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Yasukawa, Farrel and Ali. [Page 18]