Definition of Time to Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
RFC 7394
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (November 2014) Errata | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Sami Boutros , Siva Sivabalan , George Swallow , Shaleen Saxena , Vishwas Manral , Sam Aldrin | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Loa Andersson | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2013-10-24 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7394 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
RFC 7394
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Boutros
Request for Comments: 7394 S. Sivabalan
Category: Standards Track G. Swallow
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Saxena
Cisco Systems
V. Manral
Ionos Networks
S. Aldrin
Huawei Technologies, Inc.
November 2014
Definition of Time to Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
Abstract
LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the
present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of
a segment of a Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) and/or bidirectional
co-routed Label Switched Path (LSP) from any node on the path of the
MS-PW and/or bidirectional co-routed LSP. This document defines a
TLV to address this shortcoming.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7394.
Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7394 TTL TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms November 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Time To Live TLV ................................................4
3.1. TTL TLV Format .............................................4
3.2. Usage ......................................................4
4. Operation .......................................................5
4.1. Traceroute Mode ............................................6
4.2. Error Scenario .............................................6
5. Security Considerations .........................................6
6. IANA Considerations .............................................7
7. References ......................................................7
7.1. Normative References .......................................7
Acknowledgements ...................................................7
Contributors .......................................................7
Authors' Addresses .................................................8
1. Introduction
An MS-PW may span across multiple service provider networks. In
order to allow Service Providers (SPs) to verify segments of such
MS-PWs from any node on the path of the MS-PW, any node along the
path of the MS-PW, should be able to originate an MPLS Echo Request
packet to any other node along the path of the MS-PW and receive the
corresponding MPLS Echo Reply. If the originator of the MPLS Echo
Request is at the end of a MS-PW, the receiver of the request can
send the reply back to the sender without knowing the hop-count
distance of the originator. The reply will be intercepted by the
originator regardless of the TTL value on the reply packet. But, if
the originator is not at the end of the MS-PW, the receiver of the
MPLS Echo Request may need to know how many hops away the originator
Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7394 TTL TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms November 2014
of the MPLS Echo Request is so that it can set the TTL value on the
MPLS header for the MPLS Echo Reply to be intercepted at the
originator node.
In MPLS networks, for bidirectional co-routed LSPs, if it is desired
to verify connectivity from any intermediate node Label Switching
Router (LSR) on the LSP to the any other LSR on the LSP the receiver
may need to know the TTL to send the MPLS Echo Reply with, so as the
packet is intercepted by the originator node.
A new optional TTL TLV is defined in this document. This TLV will be
added by the originator of the MPLS Echo Request to inform the
receiver how many hops away the originator is on the path of the
MS-PW or bidirectional LSP.
This mechanism only works if the MPLS Echo Reply is sent down the
co-routed LSP; hence, the scope of this TTL TLV is currently limited
to MS-PW or bidirectional co-routed MPLS LSPs. The presence of the
TLV implies the use of the return path of the co-routed LSP, if the
return path is any other mechanism, then the TLV in the MPLS Echo
Request MUST be ignored.
2. Terminology
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].
LSR: Label Switching Router
MPLS-TP: MPLS Transport Profile
MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire
PW: Pseudowire
TLV: Type Length Value
TTL: Time To Live
Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7394 TTL TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms November 2014
3. Time To Live TLV
3.1. TTL TLV 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 32769 | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value | Reserved | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Time To Live TLV Format
The TTL TLV has the format shown in Figure 1.
Value
The value of the TTL as specified by this TLV
Flags
The Flags field is a bit vector with the following format:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One flag is defined for now, the R flag. The rest of the
flags are Reserved - MUST be zero (MBZ) when sending and
ignored on receipt.
The R flag (Reply TTL) is set signify that the value is
meant to be used as the TTL for the reply packet. Other bits
may be defined later to enhance the scope of this TLV.
3.2. Usage
The TTL TLV MAY be included in the MPLS Echo Request by the
originator of the request.
If the TTL TLV is present and the receiver does not understand TTL
TLVs, it will simply ignore the TLV, as is the case for all optional
TLVs. If the TTL TLV is not present or is not processed by the
receiver, any determination of the TTL value used in the MPLS label
on the LSP-Ping echo reply is beyond the scope of this document.
Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7394 TTL TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms November 2014
If the TTL TLV is present and the receiver understands TTL TLVs, one
of the following two conditions apply:
o If the TTL TLV value field is zero, the LSP-Ping echo request
packet SHOULD be dropped.
o Otherwise, the receiver MUST use the TTL value specified in the
TTL TLV when it creates the MPLS header of the MPLS Echo Reply.
The TTL value in the TTL TLV takes precedence over any TTL value
determined by other means, such as from the Switching Point TLV in
the MS-PW. This precedence will aid the originator of the LSP-
Ping echo request in analyzing the return path.
4. Operation
In this section, we explain a use case for the TTL TLV with an MPLS
MS-PW.
<------------------MS-PW --------------------->
A B C D E
o -------- o -------- o --------- o --------- o
---MPLS Echo Request--->
<--MPLS Echo Reply------
Figure 2: Use-Case with MS-PWs
Let us assume an MS-PW going through LSRs A, B, C, D, and E.
Furthermore, assume that an operator wants to perform a connectivity
check between B and D, from B. Thus, an MPLS Echo Request with the
TTL TLV is originated from B and sent towards D. The MPLS Echo
Request packet contains the FEC of the PW Segment between C and D.
The value field of the TTL TLV and the TTL field of the MPLS label
are set to 2, the choice of the value 2 will be based on the operator
input requesting the MPLS Echo Request or from the optional LDP
switching point TLV. The MPLS Echo Request is intercepted at D
because of TTL expiry. D detects the TTL TLV in the request and uses
the TTL value (i.e., 2) specified in the TLV on the MPLS label of the
MPLS Echo Reply. The MPLS Echo Reply will be intercepted by B
because of TTL expiry.
The same operation will apply when we have a co-routed bidirectional
LSP and we want to check connectivity from an intermediate LSR "B" to
another LSR "D".
Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7394 TTL TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms November 2014
4.1. Traceroute Mode
In traceroute mode, the TTL value in the TLV is set to 1 for the
first Echo Request, then to 2 for the next, and so on. This is
similar to the TTL values used for the label set on the packet.
4.2. Error Scenario
It is possible that the MPLS Echo Request packet was intercepted
before the intended destination for reasons other than label TTL
expiry. This could be due to network faults, misconfiguration, or
other reasons. In such cases, if the return TTL is set to the value
specified in the TTL TLV, then the echo response packet will continue
beyond the originating node. This becomes a security issue.
To prevent this, the label TTL value used in the MPLS Echo Reply
packet MUST be modified by deducting the incoming label TTL on the
received packet from TTL TLV value. If the MPLS Echo Request packet
is punted to the CPU before the incoming label TTL is deducted, then
another 1 MUST be added. In other words:
Return TTL Value on the MPLS Echo Reply packet = (TTL TLV Value) -
(Incoming Label TTL) + 1
5. Security Considerations
This document allows the setting of the TTL value in the MPLS Label
of an MPLS Echo Reply, so that it can be intercepted by an
intermediate device. This can cause a device to get a lot of LSP-
Ping packets that get redirected to the CPU.
However, the same is possible even without the changes mentioned in
this document. A device should rate limit the LSP-Ping packets
redirected to the CPU so that the CPU is not overwhelmed.
The recommendation in the Security Considerations of [RFC4379]
applies, to check the source address of the MPLS Echo Request;
however, the source address can now be any node along the LSP path.
A faulty transit node changing the TTL TLV value could make the wrong
node reply to the MPLS Echo Request, and/or the wrong node to receive
the MPLS Echo Reply. An LSP trace may help identify the faulty
transit node.
Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7394 TTL TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms November 2014
6. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned a TLV type value to the following TLV from the
"Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" registry in the "TLVs" subregistry.
Time To Live TLV (see Section 3).
IANA has allocated the value 32769.
7. References
7.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel
for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5085>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky for his comments.
Contributors
Michael Wildt
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
United States
EMail: mwildt@cisco.com
Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7394 TTL TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms November 2014
Authors' Addresses
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
EMail: sboutros@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada
EMail: msiva@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
United States
EMail: swallow@cisco.com
Shaleen Saxena
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
United States
EMail: ssaxena@cisco.com
Vishwas Manral
Ionos Networks
4100 Moorpark Ave, Suite 122
San Jose, CA 95117
United States
EMail: vishwas@ionosnetworks.com
Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies, Inc.
1188 Central Express Way,
Santa Clara, CA 95051
United States
EMail: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Boutros, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]