Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks
RFC 3443
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(January 2003; No errata)
Updated by RFC 5462
Updates RFC 3032
Was draft-ietf-mpls-ttl (mpls WG)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Bora Akyol , Puneet Agarwal | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-agarwal-mpls-ttl | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 3443 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Scott Bradner | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group P. Agarwal
Request for Comments: 3443 Brocade
Updates: 3032 B. Akyol
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
January 2003
Time To Live (TTL) Processing in
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes Time To Live (TTL) processing in hierarchical
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks and is motivated by
the need to formalize a TTL-transparent mode of operation for an MPLS
label-switched path. It updates RFC 3032, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding". TTL processing in both Pipe and Uniform Model
hierarchical tunnels are specified with examples for both "push" and
"pop" cases. The document also complements RFC 3270, "MPLS Support
of Differentiated Services" and ties together the terminology
introduced in that document with TTL processing in hierarchical MPLS
networks.
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].
1. Introduction and Motivation
This document describes Time To Live (TTL) processing in hierarchical
MPLS networks. We believe that this document adds details that have
not been addressed in [MPLS-ARCH, MPLS-ENCAPS], and that the methods
presented in this document complement [MPLS-DS].
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
In particular, a new mode of operation (referred to as the Pipe
Model) is introduced to support the practice of configuring MPLS LSPs
such that packets transiting the LSP see the tunnel as a single hop
regardless of the number of intermediary label switch routers (LSR).
The Pipe Model for TTL is currently being used in multiple networks
and is provided as an option configurable by the network operator by
several vendors.
This document formalizes the TTL processing in MPLS networks and ties
it with the terminology introduced in [MPLS-DS].
2. TTL Processing in MPLS Networks
2.1. Changes to RFC 3032 [MPLS-ENCAPS]
a) [MPLS-ENCAPS] only covers the Uniform Model and does NOT address
the Pipe Model or the Short Pipe Model. This document addresses
these two models and for completeness will also address the
Uniform Model.
b) [MPLS-ENCAPS] does not cover hierarchical LSPs. This document
addresses this issue.
c) [MPLS-ENCAPS] does not define TTL processing in the presence of
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP). This document addresses this
issue.
2.2. Terminology and Background
As defined in [MPLS-ENCAPS], MPLS packets use a MPLS shim header that
indicates the following information about a packet:
a) MPLS Label (20 bits)
b) TTL (8 bits)
c) Bottom of stack (1 bit)
d) Experimental bits (3 bits)
The experimental bits were later redefined in [MPLS-DS] to indicate
the scheduling and shaping behavior that could be associated with an
MPLS packet.
[MPLS-DS] also defined two models for MPLS tunnel operation: Pipe and
Uniform Models. In the Pipe Model, a MPLS network acts like a
circuit when MPLS packets traverse the network such that only the LSP
ingress and egress points are visible to nodes that are outside the
tunnel. A Short variation of the Pipe Model is also defined in
[MPLS-DS] to differentiate between different egress forwarding and
QoS treatments. On the other hand, the Uniform Model makes all the
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
nodes that a LSP traverses visible to nodes outside the tunnel. We
will extend the Pipe and Uniform Models to include TTL processing in
the following sections. Furthermore, TTL processing, when performing
PHP, is also described in this document. For a detailed description
of Pipe and Uniform Models, please see [MPLS-DS].
TTL processing in MPLS networks can be broken down into two logical
blocks: (i) the incoming TTL determination to take into account any
tunnel egress due to MPLS Pop operations; (ii) packet processing of
(possibly) exposed packets and outgoing TTLs.
We also note here that signaling the LSP type (Pipe, Short Pipe or
Uniform Model) is out of the scope of this document, and that is also
not addressed in the current versions of the label distribution
protocols, e.g. LDP [MPLS-LDP] and RSVP-TE [MPLS-RSVP]. Currently,
the LSP type is configured by the network operator manually by means
of either a command line or network management interface.
2.3. New Terminology
iTTL: The TTL value to use as the incoming TTL. No checks are
performed on the iTTL.
oTTL: This is the TTL value used as the outgoing TTL value (see
section 3.5 for exception). It is always (iTTL - 1) unless otherwise
stated.
oTTL Check: Check if oTTL is greater than 0. If the oTTL Check is
false, then the packet is not forwarded. Note that the oTTL check is
performed only if any outgoing TTL (either IP or MPLS) is set to oTTL
(see section 3.5 for exception).
3. TTL Processing in different Models
This section describes the TTL processing for LSPs conforming to each
of the 3 models (Uniform, Short Pipe and Pipe) in the
presence/absence of PHP (where applicable).
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
3.1. TTL Processing for Uniform Model LSPs (with or without PHP)
(consistent with [MPLS-ENCAPS]):
========== LSP =============================>
+--Swap--(n-2)-...-swap--(n-i)---+
/ (outer header) \
(n-1) (n-i)
/ \
>--(n)--Push...............(x).....................Pop--(n-i-1)->
(I) (inner header) (E or P)
(n) represents the TTL value in the corresponding header
(x) represents non-meaningful TTL information
(I) represents the LSP ingress node
(P) represents the LSP penultimate node
(E) represents the LSP Egress node
This picture shows TTL processing for a Uniform Model MPLS LSP. Note
that the inner and outer TTLs of the packets are synchronized at
tunnel ingress and egress.
3.2. TTL Processing for Short Pipe Model LSPs
3.2.1. TTL Processing for Short Pipe Model LSPs without PHP
========== LSP =============================>
+--Swap--(N-1)-...-swap--(N-i)-----+
/ (outer header) \
(N) (N-i)
/ \
>--(n)--Push...............(n-1).....................Pop--(n-2)->
(I) (inner header) (E)
(N) represents the TTL value (may have no relationship to n)
(n) represents the tunneled TTL value in the encapsulated header
(I) represents the LSP ingress node
(E) represents the LSP Egress node
The Short Pipe Model was introduced in [MPLS-DS]. In the Short Pipe
Model, the forwarding treatment at the egress LSR is based on the
tunneled packet, as opposed to the encapsulating packet.
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
3.2.2. TTL Processing for Short Pipe Model with PHP:
========== LSP =====================================>
+-Swap-(N-1)-...-swap-(N-i)-+
/ (outer header) \
(N) (N-i)
/ \
>--(n)--Push.............(n-1)............Pop-(n-1)-Decr.-(n-2)->
(I) (inner header) (P) (E)
(N) represents the TTL value (may have no relationship to n)
(n) represents the tunneled TTL value in the encapsulated header
(I) represents the LSP ingress node
(P) represents the LSP penultimate node
(E) represents the LSP egress node.
Since the label has already been popped by the LSP's penultimate
node, the LSP egress node just decrements the header TTL.
Also note that at the end of the Short Pipe Model LSP, the TTL of the
tunneled packet has been decremented by two, with or without PHP.
3.3. TTL Processing for Pipe Model LSPs (without PHP only):
========== LSP =============================>
+--Swap--(N-1)-...-swap--(N-i)-----+
/ (outer header) \
(N) (N-i)
/ \
>--(n)--Push...............(n-1)....................Pop--(n-2)->
(I) (inner header) (E)
(N) represents the TTL value (may have no relationship to n)
(n) represents the tunneled TTL value in the encapsulated header
(I) represents the LSP ingress node
(E) represents the LSP Egress node
From the TTL perspective, the treatment for a Pipe Model LSP is
identical to the Short Pipe Model without PHP.
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
3.4. Incoming TTL (iTTL) determination
If the incoming packet is an IP packet, then the iTTL is the TTL
value of the incoming IP packet.
If the incoming packet is an MPLS packet and we are performing a
Push/Swap/PHP, then the iTTL is the TTL of the topmost incoming
label.
If the incoming packet is an MPLS packet and we are performing a Pop
(tunnel termination), the iTTL is based on the tunnel type (Pipe or
Uniform) of the LSP that was popped. If the popped label belonged to
a Pipe Model LSP, then the iTTL is the value of the TTL field of the
header, exposed after the label was popped (note that for the purpose
of this document, the exposed header may be either an IP header or an
MPLS label). If the popped label belonged to a Uniform Model LSP,
then the iTTL is equal to the TTL of the popped label. If multiple
Pop operations are performed sequentially, then the procedure given
above is repeated with one exception: the iTTL computed during the
previous Pop is used as the TTL of subsequent labels being popped;
i.e. the TTL contained in the subsequent label is essentially ignored
and replaced with the iTTL computed during the previous pop.
3.5. Outgoing TTL Determination and Packet Processing
After the iTTL computation is performed, the oTTL check is performed.
If the oTTL check succeeds, then the outgoing TTL of the
(labeled/unlabeled) packet is calculated and packet headers are
updated as defined below.
If the packet was routed as an IP packet, the TTL value of the IP
packet is set to oTTL (iTTL - 1). The TTL value(s) for any pushed
label(s) is determined as described in section 3.6.
For packets that are routed as MPLS, we have four cases:
1) Swap-only: The routed label is swapped with another label and the
TTL field of the outgoing label is set to oTTL.
2) Swap followed by a Push: The swapped operation is performed as
described in (1). The TTL value(s) of any pushed label(s) is
determined as described in section 3.6.
3) Penultimate Hop Pop (PHP): The routed label is popped. The oTTL
check should be performed irrespective of whether the oTTL is used
to update the TTL field of the outgoing header. If the PHPed
label belonged to a Short Pipe Model LSP, then the TTL field of
the PHP exposed header is neither checked nor updated. If the
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
PHPed label was a Uniform Model LSP, then the TTL field of the PHP
exposed header is set to the oTTL. The TTL value(s) of additional
labels are determined as described in section 3.6
4) Pop: The pop operation happens before routing and hence it is not
considered here.
3.6. Tunnel Ingress Processing (Push)
For each pushed Uniform Model label, the TTL is copied from the
label/IP-packet immediately underneath it.
For each pushed Pipe Model or Short Pipe Model label, the TTL field
is set to a value configured by the network operator. In most
implementations, this value is set to 255 by default.
3.7. Implementation Remarks
1) Although iTTL can be decremented by a value larger than 1 while it
is being updated or oTTL is being determined, this feature should
be only used for compensating for network nodes that are not
capable of decrementing TTL values.
2) Whenever iTTL is decremented, the implementer must make sure that
the value does not become negative.
3) In the Short Pipe Model with PHP enabled, the TTL of the tunneled
packet is unchanged after the PHP operation.
4. Conclusion
This Internet Document describes how the TTL field can be processed
in an MPLS network. We clarified the various methods that are
applied in the presence of hierarchical tunnels and completed the
integration of Pipe and Uniform Models with TTL processing.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not add any new security issues other than the
ones defined in [MPLS-ENCAPS, MPLS-DS]. In particular, the document
does not define a new protocol or expand an existing one and does not
introduce security problems into the existing protocols. The authors
believe that clarification of TTL handling in MPLS networks benefits
service providers and their customers since troubleshooting is
simplified.
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC-2119] Bradner, S. "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MPLS-ARCH] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
January 2001.
[MPLS-ENCAPS] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T. and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[MPLS-DS] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S.,
Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P. and J. Heinanen,
"Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of
Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.
6.2. Informative References
[MPLS-LDP] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.
and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January
2001.
[MPLS-RSVP] 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.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the members of the MPLS working group
for their feedback. We would especially like to thank Shahram Davari
and Loa Andersson for their careful review of the document and their
comments.
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
8. Author's Addresses
Puneet Agarwal
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.
1745 Technology Drive
San Jose, CA 95110
EMail: puneet@acm.org
Bora Akyol
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
EMail: bora@cisco.com
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3443 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks January 2003
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Agarwal & Akyol Standards Track [Page 10]