[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-geib-segment-routing-oam-usecase) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase

spring                                                      R. Geib, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          Deutsche Telekom
Intended status: Informational                               C. Filsfils
Expires: January 4, 2016                                    C. Pignataro
                                                                N. Kumar
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                            July 3, 2015


 Use case for a scalable and topology aware MPLS data plane monitoring
                                 system
                    draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase-06

Abstract

   This document describes features and a use case of a path monitoring
   system.  Segment based routing enables a scalable and simple method
   to monitor data plane liveliness of the complete set of paths
   belonging to a single domain.  Compared with legacy MPLS ping and
   path trace, MPLS topology awareness reduces management and control
   plane involvement of OAM measurements while enabling new OAM
   features.

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 4, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   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.  An MPLS topology aware path monitoring system . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  SR based path monitoring use case illustration  . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Use-case 1 - LSP dataplane monitoring . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Use-case 2 - Monitoring a remote bundle . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Use-Case 3 - Fault localization . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Failure Notification from PMS to LERi . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Applying SR to monitor LDP paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  PMS monitoring of different Segment ID types  . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Connectivity Verification using PMS . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Extensions of related standards helpful for this use case . .  10
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   It is essential for a network operator to monitor all the forwarding
   paths observed by the transported user packets.  The monitoring flow
   is expected to be forwarded in dataplane in a similar way as user
   packets.  Segment Routing enables forwarding of packets along pre-
   defined paths and segments and thus a Segment Routed monitoring
   packet can stay in dataplane while passing along one or more segments
   to be monitored.

   This document describes illustrates use-cases based on data plane
   path monitoring capabilities.  The use case is limited to a single
   IGP MPLS domain.

   The use case applies to monitoring of LDP LSP's as well as to
   monitoring of Segment Routed LSP's.  As compared to LDP, Segment
   Routing is expected to simplify the use case by enabling MPLS
   topology detection based on IGP signaled segments as specified by
   [ID.sr-isis].  Thus a centralised and MPLS topology aware monitoring
   unit can be realized in a Segment Routed domain.  This topology



Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   awareness can be used for OAM purposes as described by this use case.
   The MPLS path monitoring system described by this document can be
   realised with pre-Segment based Routing (SR) technology.  Making such
   a pre-SR MPLS monitoring system aware of a domains complete MPLS
   topology requires e.g. management plane access.  To avoid the use of
   stale MPLS label information, IGP must be monitored and MPLS topology
   must be timely aligned with IGP topology.  Obviously, enhancing IGPs
   to exchange of MPLS topology information as done by SR significantly
   simplifies and stabilises such an MPLS path monitoring system.

   This document adopts the terminology and framework described in
   [ID.sr-archi].  It further adopts the editorial simplification
   explained in section 1.2 of the segment routing use-cases
   [ID.sr-use].

   The use case offers several benefits for network monitoring.  A
   single centralized monitoring device is able to monitor the complete
   set of a domains forwarding paths.  Monitoring packets never leave
   data plane.  MPLS path trace function (whose specification and
   features are not part of this use case) is required, if the actual
   data plane of a router should be checked against its control plane.
   SR capabilities allow to direct MPLS OAM packets from a centralized
   monitoring system to any router within a domain whose path should be
   traced.

   In addition to monitoring paths, problem localization is required.
   Faults can be localized:

   o  by IGP LSA analysis.

   o  correlation between different SR based monitoring probes.

   o  by any MPLS traceroute method (possibly in combination with SR
      based path stacks).

   Topology awareness is an essential part of link state IGPs.  Adding
   MPLS topology awareness to an IGP speaking device hence enables a
   simple and scalable data plane based monitoring mechanism.

   MPLS OAM offers flexible features to recognise an execute data paths
   of an MPLS domain.  By utilising the ECMP related tool set offered
   e.g. by RFC 4379 [RFC4379], a segment based routing LSP monitoring
   system may:

   o  easily detect ECMP functionality and properties of paths at data
      level.





Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   o  construct monitoring packets executing desired paths also if ECMP
      is present.

   o  limit the MPLS label stack of an OAM packet to a minmum of 3
      labels.

   Alternatively, any path may be executed by building suitable label
   stacks.  This allows path execution without ECMP awareness.

   The MPLS path monitoring system may be a any server residing at a
   single interface of the domain to be monitored.  It doesn't have to
   support any specialised protocol stack, it just should be capable of
   understanding the topology and building the probe packet with the
   right segment stack.  As long as measurement packets return to this
   or another interface connecting such a server, the MPLS monitoring
   servers are the single entities pushing monitoring packet label
   stacks.  If the depth of label stacks to be pushed by a path
   monitoring system (PMS) are of concern for a domain, a dedicated
   server based path monitoring architecture allows limiting monitoring
   related label stack pushes to these servers.

   First drafts discussing SR OAM requirements and possible solutions to
   allow SR usage as described by this document have been submitted
   already, see [ID.sr-4379ext] and [ID.sr-oam_detect].

2.  An MPLS topology aware path monitoring system

   An MPLS PMS which is able to learn the IGP LSDB (including the SID's)
   is able to execute arbitrary chains of label switched paths.  It can
   send pure monitoring packets along such a path chain or it can direct
   suitable MPLS OAM packets to any node along a path segment.  Segment
   Routing here is used as a means of adding label stacks and hence
   transport to standard MPLS OAM packets, which then detect
   correspondence of control and data plane of this (or any other
   addressed) path.  Any node connected to an SR domain is MPLS topology
   aware (the node knows all related IP addresses, SR SIDs and MPLS
   labels).  Thus a PMS connected to an MPLS SR domain just needs to set
   up a topology data base for monitoring purposes.

   Let us describe how the PMS constructs a labels stack to transport a
   packet to LER i, monitor the path of it to LER j and then receive the
   packet back.

   The PMS may do so by sending packets carrying the following MPLS
   label stack infomation:

   o  Top Label: a path from PMS to LER i, which is expressed as Node
      SID of LER i.



Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   o  Next Label: the path that needs to be monitored from LER i to LER
      j.  If this path is a single physical interface (or a bundle of
      connected interfaces), it can be expressed by the related AdjSID.
      If the shortest path from LER i to LER j is supposed to be
      monitored, the Node-SID (LER j) can be used.  Another option is to
      insert a list of segments expressing the desired path (hop by hop
      as an extreme case).  If LER i pushes a stack of Labels based on a
      SR policy decision and this stack of LSPs is to be monitored, the
      PMS needs an interface to collect the information enabling it to
      address this SR created path.

   o  Next Label or address: the path back to the PMS.  Likely, no
      further segment/label is required here.  Indeed, once the packet
      reaches LER j, the 'steering' part of the solution is done and the
      probe just needs to return to the PMS.  This is best achieved by
      popping the MPLS stack and revealing a probe packet with PMS as
      destination address (note that in this case, the source and
      destination addresses could be the same).  If an IP address is
      applied, no SID/label has to be assigned to the PMS (if it is a
      host/server residing in an IP subnet outside the MPLS domain).

   Note: if the PMS is an IP host not connected to the MPLS domain, the
   PMS can send its probe with the list of SIDs/Labels onto a suitable
   tunnel providing an MPLS access to a router which is part of the
   monitored MPLS domain.

3.  SR based path monitoring use case illustration

3.1.  Use-case 1 - LSP dataplane monitoring

                   +---+     +----+     +-----+
                   |PMS|     |LSR1|-----|LER i|
                   +---+     +----+     +-----+
                      |      /      \    /
                      |     /        \__/
                    +-----+/           /|
                    |LER m|           / |
                    +-----+\         /  \
                            \       /    \
                             \+----+     +-----+
                              |LSR2|-----|LER j|
                              +----+     +-----+

   Example of a PMS based LSP dataplane monitoring

                                 Figure 1





Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that all the nodes are
   configured with the same SRGB [ID.sr-archi], as described by section
   1.2 of [ID.sr-use].

   Let's assign the following Node SIDs to the nodes of the figure: PMS
   = 10, LER i = 20, LER j = 30.

   To be able to work with the smallest possible SR label stack, first a
   suitable MPLS OAM method is used to detect the ECMP routed path
   between LER i to LER j which is to be monitored (and the required
   address information to direct a packet along it).  Afterwards the PMS
   sets up and sends packets to monitor availability of the detected
   path.  The PMS does this by creating a measurement packet with the
   following label stack (top to bottom): 20 - 30 - 10.  The packet will
   only reliably use the monitored path, if the label and address
   information used in combination with the MPLS OAM method of choice is
   identical to that of the monitoring packet.

   LER m forwards the packet received from the PMS to LSR1.  Assuming
   Pen-ultimate Hop Popping to be deployed, LSR1 pops the top label and
   forwards the packet to LER i.  There the top label has a value 30 and
   LER i forwards it to LER j.  This will be done transmitting the
   packet via LSR1 or LSR2.  The LSR will again pop the top label.  LER
   j will forward the packet now carrying the top label 10 to the PMS
   (and it will pass a LSR and LER m).

   A few observations on the example given in figure 1:

   o  The path PMS to LER i must be available.  This path must be
      detectable, but it is usually sufficient to apply a Shortest Path
      First algorithm based path.

   o  If ECMP is deployed, it may be desired to measure along both
      possible paths which a packet may use between LER i and LER j.  To
      do so, the MPLS OAM mechanism chosen to detect ECMP must reveal
      the required information (an example is a so called tree trace)
      between LER i and LER j.  This method of dealing with ECMP based
      load balancing paths requires the smallest SR label stacks if
      monitoring of paths is applied after the tree trace completion.

   o  The path LER j to PMS to must be available.  This path must be
      detectable, but it is usually sufficient to apply an SPF based
      path.

   Once the MPLS paths (Node SIDs) and the required information to deal
   with ECMP has been detected, the paths of LER i to LER j can be
   monitored by the PMS.  Monitoring itself does not require MPLS OAM
   functionality.  All monitoring packets stay on dataplane, hence path



Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   monitoring does no longer require control plane interaction in any
   LER or LSR of the domain.  To ensure reliable results, the PMS should
   be aware of any changes in IGP or MPLS topology.  Further changes in
   ECMP functionality at LER i will impact results.  Either the PMS
   should be notified of such changes or they should be limited to
   planned maintenance.  After a topology change, a suitable MPLS OAM
   mechanism may be useful to detect the impact of the change.

   Determining a path to be executed prior to a measurement may also be
   done by setting up a label stack including all Node SIDs along that
   path (if LSR1 has Node SID 40 in the example and it should be passed
   between LER i and LER j, the label stack is 20 - 40 - 30 - 10).  The
   advantage of this method is, that it does not involve MPLS OAM
   functionality and it is independent of ECMP functionalities.  The
   method still is able to monitor all link combinations of all paths of
   an MPLS domain.  If correct forwarding along the desired paths has to
   be checked, some suitable MPLS OAM mechanism may be applied also in
   this case.

   In theory at least, a single PMS is able to monitor data plane
   availability of all LSPs in the domain.  The PMS may be a router, but
   could also be dedicated monitoring system.  If measurement system
   reliability is an issue, more than a single PMS may be connected to
   the MPLS domain.

   Monitoring an MPLS domain by a PMS based on SR offers the option of
   monitoring complete MPLS domains with little effort and very
   excellent scalability.  Data plane failure detection by circulating
   monitoring packets can be executed at any time.  The PMS further
   could be enabled to send MPLS OAM packets with the label stacks and
   address information identical to those of the monitoring packets to
   any node of the MPLS domain.  It does not require access to LSR/LER
   management interfaces or their control plane to do so.

3.2.  Use-case 2 - Monitoring a remote bundle


               +---+    _   +--+                    +-------+
               |   |   { }  |  |---991---L1---662---|       |
               |PMS|--{   }-|R1|---992---L2---663---|R2 (72)|
               |   |   {_}  |  |---993---L3---664---|       |
               +---+        +--+                    +-------+


   SR based probing of all the links of a remote bundle

                                 Figure 2




Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   R1 addresses Lx by the Adjacency SID 99x, while R2 addresses Lx by
   the Adjacency SID 66(x+1).

   In the above figure, the PMS needs to assess the dataplane
   availability of all the links within a remote bundle connected to
   routers R1 and R2.

   The monitoring system retrieves the SID/Label information from the
   IGP LSDB and appends the following segment list/label stack: {72,
   662, 992, 664} on its IP probe (whose source and destination
   addresses are the address of the PMS).

   PMS sends the probe to its connected router.  If the connected router
   is not SR compliant, a tunneling technique can be used to tunnel the
   probe and its MPLS stack to the first SR router.  The MPLS/SR domain
   then forwards the probe to R2 (72 is the Node SID of R2).  R2
   forwards the probe to R1 over link L1 (Adjacency SID 662).  R1
   forwards the probe to R2 over link L2 (Adjacency SID 992).  R2
   forwards the probe to R1 over link L3 (Adjacency SID 664).  R1 then
   forwards the IP probe to PMS as per classic IP forwarding.

3.3.  Use-Case 3 - Fault localization

   In the previous example, a uni-directional fault on the middle link
   in direction of R2 to R1 would be localized by sending the following
   two probes with respective segment lists:

   o  72, 662, 992, 664

   o  72, 663, 992, 664

   The first probe would fail while the second would succeed.
   Correlation of the measurements reveals that the only difference is
   using the Adjacency SID 662 of the middle link from R1 to R2 in the
   non successful measurement.  Assuming the second probe has been
   routed correctly, the fault must have been occurring in R2 which
   didn't forward the packet to the interface identified by its
   Adjacency SID 662.

4.  Failure Notification from PMS to LERi

   PMS on detecting any failure in the path liveliness may use any out-
   of-band mechanism to signal the failure to LER i.  This document does
   not propose any specific mechanism and operators can choose any
   existing or new approach.

   Alternately, the Operator may log the failure in local monitoring
   system and take necessary action by manual intervention.



Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


5.  Applying SR to monitor LDP paths

   A SR based PMS connected to a MPLS domain consisting of LER and LSR
   supporting SR and LDP in parallel in all nodes may use SR paths to
   transmit packets to and from start and end points of LDP paths to be
   monitored.  In the above example, the label stack top to bottom may
   be as follows, when sent by the PMS:

   o  Top: SR based Node-SID of LER i at LER m.

   o  Next: LDP label identifying the path to LER j at LER i.

   o  Bottom: SR based Node-SID identifying the path to the PMS at LER j

   While the mixed operation shown here still requires the PMS to be
   aware of the LER LDP-MPLS topology, the PMS may learn the SR MPLS
   topology by IGP and use this information.

6.  PMS monitoring of different Segment ID types

   MPLS SR topology awareness should allow the SID to monitor liveliness
   of most types of SIDs (this may not be recommendable if a SID
   identifies an inter domain interface).

   To match control plane information with data plane information, MPLS
   OAM functions as defined by e.g.  RFC4379 should be enhanced to allow
   collection of data relevant to check all relevant types of Segment
   IDs.

7.  Connectivity Verification using PMS

   While the PMS based use cases explained in Section 3 are sufficient
   to provide continuity check between LER i and LER j, it may not help
   perform connectivity verification.  So in some cases like data plane
   programming corruption, it is possible that a transit node between
   LER i and LER j erroneously removes the top segment ID and forwards a
   monitoring packet to the PMS based on the bottom segment ID leading
   to a falsified path liveliness indication by the PMS.

   There are various method to perform basic connectivity verification
   like intermittently setting the TTL to 1 in bottom label so LER j
   selectively perform connectivity verification.  Other methods are
   possible and may be added when requirements and solutions are
   specified.







Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


8.  Extensions of related standards helpful for this use case

   The following activities are welcome enhancements supporting this use
   case, but they are not part of it:

   RFC4379 functions should be extended to support Flow- and Entropy
   Label based ECMP.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

10.  Security Considerations

   As mentioned in the introduction, a PMS monitoring packet should
   never leave the domain where it originated.  It therefore should
   never use stale MPLS or IGP routing information.  Further, assigning
   different label ranges for different purposes may be useful.  A well
   known global service level range may be excluded for utilisation
   within PMS measurement packets.  These ideas shouldn't start a
   discussion.  They rather should point out, that such a discussion is
   required when SR based OAM mechanisms like a SR are standardised.

11.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya for his contribution.
   Raik Leipnitz kindly provided an editorial review.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              February 2006.

12.2.  Informative References

   [ID.sr-4379ext]
              IETF, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment
              Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane", IETF,
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-kumar-mpls-spring-lsp-ping/, 2013.

   [ID.sr-archi]
              IETF, "Segment Routing Architecture", IETF,
              https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-filsfils-spring-
              segment-routing/, 2014.



Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   [ID.sr-isis]
              IETF, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", IETF,
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-previdi-isis-segment-routing-extensions/, 2014.

   [ID.sr-oam_detect]
              IETF, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
              Data Plane Failures in Source Routed LSPs", IETF,
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-kini-spring-mpls-lsp-ping/, 2013.

   [ID.sr-use]
              IETF, "Segment Routing Use Cases", IETF,
              http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases/, 2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Ruediger Geib (editor)
   Deutsche Telekom
   Heinrich Hertz Str. 3-7
   Darmstadt  64295
   Germany

   Phone: +49 6151 5812747
   Email: Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Brussels
   Belgium

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709-4987
   US

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com








Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         SR MPLS monitoring use case             July 2015


   Nagendra Kumar
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   US

   Email: naikumar@cisco.com












































Geib, et al.             Expires January 4, 2016               [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/