[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya
Internet-Draft G. Swallow
Updates: 4379 (if approved) C. Pignataro
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: March 23, 2014 L. Andersson
M. Chen
Huawei
September 19, 2013
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Reply Mode Simplification
draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-00
Abstract
This document adds two reply modes to be used by Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute: one
reply mode to indicate reverse LSP and one reply mode to allow
responder to choose reply mode from pre-defined set. This document
also adds an optional TLV which can carry ordered list of reply
modes.
This document updates [RFC4379].
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 [RFC2119].
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 March 23, 2014.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 23, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification September 2013
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
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. Problem Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Reply via reverse LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Reply via pre-defined preference . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. New Reply Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. New Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
MPLS LSP Ping, described in [RFC4379], allows initiator to encode
instructions (Reply Mode) on how responder is to send response back
to the initiator. [I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping]
also allows initiator to encode a TLV (Reply Path TLV) which can
instruct responder to use specific LSP to send response back to the
initiator. Both approaches are powerful as they provide ability for
the initiator to control the return path.
It is, however, becoming increasingly difficult for an initiator to
select the "right" return path to encode in MPLS LSP echo request
packets. Consequence of initiator not selecting the "right" return
path encoding can result in false failure of MPLS LSP Ping and
Akiya, et al. Expires March 23, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification September 2013
Traceroute operations, due to initiator not receiving back expected
MPLS LSP echo reply. Resulting from an effort to minimize such false
failures, implementations may result in having different "default"
return path encoding per LSP type and per operational type.
Deviating "default" return path encoding, potentially, per vendor per
LSP type per operational type can drift this technology from
consistency axle. Thus it is desirable to have a single return path
encoding which works across wide range of LSP types and operational
types.
2. Problem Statements
It is becoming increasingly difficult for implementations to
automatically supply a workable return path encoding for all MPLS LSP
Ping and Traceroute operations across all LSP types. There are
several factors which are contributing to this complication.
o Some LSPs have control-channel, and some do not. Some LSPs have
reverse LSP, and some do not. Some LSPs have IP route in reverse
direction, and some do not.
o LSRs on some LSPs can have different available return path(s).
Available return path(s) can depend on whether responder is a
transit LSR or an egress LSR. In case of bi-directional LSP,
available return path(s) on transit LSRs can also depend on
whether LSP is completely co-routed, partially co-routed or non-
co-routed.
o MPLS LSP echo request packets may falsely terminate on an
unintended target which can have different available return
path(s) than intended target.
o MPLS LSP Ping operation is expected to terminate on egress LSR.
However, MPLS LSP Ping operation with specific TTL values and MPLS
LSP Traceroute operation can terminate on both transit LSR(s) and
egress LSR.
Except for the case where responder node does not have an IP route
back to the initiator, it is possible to use Reply Mode of value 2
(Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet) in all cases. However, some
operators are preferring control-channel and reverse LSP as "default"
return path if they are available, which are not always available.
When specific return path encoding is being supplied by users or
applications, then there are no issues in choosing the return path
encoding. When specific return path encoding is not being supplied
by users or applications, then implementations require extended logic
to compute, and sometimes "guess", the "default" return path
Akiya, et al. Expires March 23, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification September 2013
encodings. If a responder received a MPLS LSP echo request
containing return path instruction which cannot be accommodated due
to unavailability, then responder implementations often drop such
packets. This results in initiator to not receive back MPLS LSP echo
reply packets. Consequence may be acceptable for failure cases (ex:
broken LSP) where MPLS LSP echo request terminated on unintended
target. However, initiator not receiving back MPLS LSP echo reply
packets, even when intended target received and verified the
requests, is not desirable as result will be conveyed as false
failures to users.
Some return path(s) are more preferred than others, but preferred
cannot be used in all cases. Thus implementations are required to
compute when preferred return path encoding can and cannot be used,
and that computation is becoming more and more difficult.
This document adds two Reply Modes to be used by MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute. One of which is a Reply Mode which can be used as
"default" for all LSP types and for all operational types. Thus
eliminating the need for initiator to compute, or sometimes "guess",
the "default" return path encoding. This will result in simplified
implementations across vendors, and result in consistent behaviors
across vendor products.
3. Solution
This document adds two Reply Modes to be used by MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute operations. Note: Reply Mode values specified in this
document will be requested for IANA early allocation, but values may
change as result of actual early allocation result.
Value Meaning
----- -------
6 Reply via reverse LSP
7 Reply via pre-defined preference
3.1. Reply via reverse LSP
Some LSP types are capable of having related LSP in reverse
direction, through signaling or other association mechanisms. This
document uses the term "Reverse LSP" to refer to the LSP in reverse
direction of such LSP types. Note that this document isolates the
scope of "Reverse LSP" applicability to those reverse LSPs which are
capable of and permitted to carry the IP encapsulated MPLS LSP echo
reply.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 23, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification September 2013
MPLS LSP echo request with 6 (Reply via reverse LSP) in the Reply
Mode field may be used to instruct responder to use reverse LSP to
send MPLS LSP echo reply. Reverse LSP is in relation to the last FEC
specified in the Target FEC Stack TLV.
When responder is using this Reply Mode, transmitting MPLS LSP echo
reply packet MUST use IP destination address of 127/8 for IPv4 and
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6.
3.2. Reply via pre-defined preference
MPLS LSP echo request with 7 (Reply via pre-defined preference) in
the Reply Mode field may be used to instruct responder to select the
return path based on availability. Receiver of MPLS LSP echo
request, upon reception of 7 (Reply via pre-defined preference) in
the Reply Mode field, MUST choose return path by examining
availability in following order.
1. Examine if Reply Mode 4 (Reply via application level control
channel) is available.
2. Examine if Reply Mode 6 (Reply via reverse LSP) is available.
3. Examine if Reply Mode 2 (Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet) is
available.
First available return path is selected. Reply Mode value
corresponding to selected return path MUST be set in Reply Mode field
of MPLS LSP echo reply to communicate back to the initiator which
return path was chosen.
3.3. Reply Mode Order TLV
This document also introduces a new optional TLV to describe Reply
Mode preference order. The new TLV will contain one or more Reply
Mode value(s) in preferred order, first Reply Mode value appearing
being most preferred. This TLV can be used if a different preference
order than "Reply via pre-defined preference" Reply Mode is desired.
Following rules apply when using Reply Mode Order TLV.
1. Initiator, when supplying Reply Mode Order TLV in transmitting
MPLS echo request, MUST set Reply Mode field of MPLS echo request
header to value 7 (Reply via pre-defined preference).
2. Responder MUST ignore Reply Mode Order TLV if received MPLS echo
request header does not contain value 7 (Reply via pre-defined
preference).
Akiya, et al. Expires March 23, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification September 2013
3. Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode value,
and SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values.
4. Same Reply Mode value MUST NOT appear multiple times in the Reply
Mode Order TLV.
5. Reply Mode value 1 (Do not reply) SHOULD NOT be used in the Reply
Mode Order TLV.
6. Reply Mode value 7 (Reply via pre-defined preference) MUST NOT be
used in the Reply Mode TLV.
The responding node is to select the first available return path in
this TLV. Reply Mode value corresponding to selected return path
MUST be set in Reply Mode field of MPLS LSP echo reply to communicate
back to the initiator which return path was chosen.
The format of the TLV 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reply Mode Order TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reply mode 1 | Reply mode 2 | Reply mode 3 | Reply mode 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 Reply Mode Order TLV
This is a variable length optional TLV. Each Reply Mode field is 1
octet. If this TLV is present and valid, then the described
preference order will override pre-defined preference order described
in Section 3.2.
4. Security Considerations
Beyond those specified in [RFC4379], there are no further security
measured required.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Reply Mode
IANA is requested to assign two new reply modes from the "Reply Mode"
sub-registry within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
(MPLS)" registry.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 23, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification September 2013
Following values appear to be next available MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute
Reply Mode values. Requesting IANA to allow specified values as
early allocation.
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
6 Reply via reverse LSP this document
7 Reply via pre-defined preference this document
5.2. New Reply Mode Order TLV
IANA is requested to assign a new TLV type value from the "TLVs" sub-
registry within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
(MPLS)" registry, for the "Reply Mode Order TLV".
The new TLV Type value should be assigned from the range
(32768-49161) specified in RFC 4379 [RFC4379] section 3 that allows
the TLV type to be silently dropped if not recognized.
Type Meaning Reference
---- ------- ---------
TBD Reply Mode Order TLV this document
6. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Santiago Alvarez and Faisal Iqbal for
discussions which motivated creation of this document.
7. Contributing Authors
Shaleen Saxena
Cisco Systems
Email: ssaxena@cisco.com
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
Akiya, et al. Expires March 23, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Reply Mode Simplification September 2013
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping]
Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., JOUNAY, F., and S. DeLord,
"Return Path Specified LSP Ping", draft-ietf-mpls-return-
path-specified-lsp-ping-13 (work in progress), September
2013.
Authors' Addresses
Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems
Email: nobo@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Loa Andersson
Huawei
Email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Akiya, et al. Expires March 23, 2014 [Page 8]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/