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

Versions: (draft-mirsky-bier-path-mtu-discovery) 00 01 02

BIER  Working Group                                            G. Mirsky
Internet-Draft                                                 ZTE Corp.
Intended status: Standards Track                           T. Przygienda
Expires: January 17, 2018                               Juniper Networks
                                                             A. Dolganow
                                                                   Nokia
                                                           July 16, 2017


Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (PMTUD) for Bit Index Explicit
                        Replication (BIER) Layer
                 draft-ietf-bier-path-mtu-discovery-02

Abstract

   This document describes Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery
   (PMTUD) in Bit Indexed Explicit Replication (BIER) layer.

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 17, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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




Mirsky, et al.          Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               PMTUD for BIER                    July 2017


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  PMTUD Mechanism for BIER  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Data TLV for BIER Ping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   In packet switched networks, when a host seeks to transmit data to a
   target destination, the data is transmitted as a set of packets.  In
   many cases it is more efficient to use the largest size packets that
   are less than or equal to the least Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
   for any forwarding device along the routed path to the IP destination
   for these packets.  Such "least MTU" is known as Path MTU (PMTU).
   Fragmentation or packet drop, silent or not, may occur on hops along
   the route where a MTU is smaller than the size of the datagram.  To
   avoid any of the listed above behaviors, the packet source must find
   the value of the least MTU, i.e. PMTU, that will be encountered along
   the route that a set of packets will follow to reach the given set of
   destinations.  Such MTU determination along a specific path is
   referred to as path MTU discovery (PMTUD).

   [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] introduces and explains Bit Index
   Explicit Replication (BIER) architecture and how it supports
   forwarding of multicast data packets.  A BIER domain consists of Bit-
   Forwarding Routers (BFRs) that are uniquely identified by their
   respective BFR-ids.  An ingress border router (acting as a Bit
   Forwarding Ingress Router (BFIR)) inserts a Forwarding Bit Mask
   (F-BM) into a packet.  Each targeted egress node (referred to as a
   Bit Forwarding Egress Router (BFER)) is represented by Bit Mask
   Position (BMP) in the BMS.  A transit or intermediate BIER node,
   referred as BFR, forwards BIER encapsulated packets to BFERs,
   identified by respective BMPs, according to a Bit Index Forwarding
   Table (BIFT).



Mirsky, et al.          Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               PMTUD for BIER                    July 2017


1.1.  Conventions used in this document

1.1.1.  Terminology

   BFR: Bit-Forwarding Router

   BFER: Bit-Forwarding Egress Router

   BFIR: Bit-Forwarding Ingress Router

   BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication

   BIFT: Bit Index Forwarding Tree

   F-BM: Forwarding Bit Mask

   MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit

   OAM: Operations, Administration and Maintenance

   PMTUD: Path MTU Discovery

1.1.2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Problem Statement

   [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements] sets forth the requirement to define
   PMTUD protocol for BIER domain.  This document describes the
   extension to [I-D.ietf-bier-ping] for use in BIER PMTUD solution.

   Current PMTUD mechanisms ([RFC1191], [RFC8201], and [RFC4821]) are
   primarily targeted to work on point-to-point, i.e. unicast paths.
   These mechanisms use packet fragmentation control by disabling
   fragmentation of the probe packet.  As a result, a transient node
   that cannot forward a probe packet that is bigger than its link MTU
   sends to the packet source an error notification, otherwise the
   packet destination may respond with a positive acknowledgement.
   Thus, possibly through a series of iterations, varying the size of
   the probe packet, the packet source discovers the PMTU of the
   particular path.





Mirsky, et al.          Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               PMTUD for BIER                    July 2017


   Thus applied such existing PMTUD solutions are inefficient for point-
   to-multipoint paths constructed for multicast traffic.  Probe packets
   must be flooded through the whole set of multicast distribution paths
   over and over again until the very last egress responds with a
   positive acknowledgement.  Consider without loss of generality an
   example multicast network presented in Figure 1, where MTU on all
   links but one (B,D) is the same.  If MTU on link (B,D) is smaller
   than the MTU on the other links, using existing PMTUD mechanism
   probes will unnecessary flood to leaf nodes E, F, and G for the
   second and consecutive times and positive responses will be generated
   and received by root A repeatedly.


                           -----
                         --| D |
                 -----  /  -----
               --| B |--
              /  -----  \  -----
             /           --| E |
   -----    /              -----
   | A |---                -----
   -----    \            --| F |
             \  -----   /  -----
              --| C |--
                -----   \  -----
                         --| G |
                           -----


                        Figure 1: Multicast network

3.  PMTUD Mechanism for BIER

   A BFIR selects a set of BFERs for the specific multicast
   distribution.  Such a BFIR determines, by explicitly controlling
   subset of targeted BFERs and transmitting series of probe packets,
   the MTU of that multicast distribution tree.  The critical step is
   that in case of failure at an intermediate BFR to forward towards the
   subset of targeted downstream BFERs, the BFR responds with a partial
   (compared to the one it received in the request) bitmask towards the
   originating BFIR in error notification.  That allows for
   retransmission of the next probe with smaller MTU address only
   towards the failed downstream BFERs instead of all BFERs addressed in
   the previous probe.  In the scenario discussed in Section 2 the
   second and all following (if needed) probes will be sent only to the
   node D since MTU discovery of E, F, and G has been completed already
   by the first probe successfully.




Mirsky, et al.          Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               PMTUD for BIER                    July 2017


   [I-D.ietf-bier-ping] introduced BIER Ping as a transport-independent
   OAM mechanism to detect and localize failures in the BIER data plane.
   This document specifies how BIER Ping can be used to perform
   efficient PMTUD in the BIER domain.

   Consider the network displayed in Figure 1 to be presentation of a
   BIER domain and all nodes to be BFRs.  To discover MTU over BIER
   domain to BFERs D, F, E, and G BFIR A will use BIER Ping with Data
   TLV, defined in Section 3.1.  Size of the first probe set to M_max
   determined as minimal MTU value of BFIR's links to BIER domain.  As
   has been assumed in Section 2, MTUs of all links but link (B,D) are
   the same.  Thus BFERs E.  F, and G would receive BIER Echo Request
   and will send their respective replies to BFIR A.  BFR B may pass the
   packet which is too large to forward over egress link (B, D) to the
   appropriate network layer for error processing where it would be
   recognized as a BIER Echo Request packet.  BFR B MUST send BIER Echo
   Reply to BFIR A and MUST include Downstream Mapping TLV, defined in
   [I-D.ietf-bier-ping] setting its fields in the following fashion:

   o  MTU SHOULD be set to the minimal MTU value among all egress BIER
      links, logical links between this and downstream BFRs, that could
      be used to reach B's downstream BFERs;

   o  Address Type MUST be set to 0 [Ed.note: we need to define 0 as
      valid value for the Address Type field with the specific semantics
      to "Ignore" it.]

   o  I flag MUST be cleared;

   o  Downstream Interface Address field (4 octets) MUST be zeroed and
      MUST include in the Egress Bitstring sub-TLV the list of all BFERs
      that cannot be reached because the attempted MTU turned out to be
      too small.

   The BFIR will receive either of the two types of packets:

   o  a positive Echo Reply from one of BFERs to which the probe has
      been sent.  In this case the bit corresponding to the BFER MUST be
      cleared from the BMS;

   o  a negative Echo Reply with bit string listing unreached BFERs and
      recommended MTU value MTU'.  The BFIR MUST add the bit string to
      its BMS and set size of the next probe as min(MTU, MTU')

   If upon expiration of the Echo Request timer BFIR didn't receive any
   Echo Replies, then the size of the probe SHOULD be decreased.  There
   are scenarios when an implementation of the PMTUD would not decrease
   the size of the probe.  For example, if upon expiration of the Echo



Mirsky, et al.          Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               PMTUD for BIER                    July 2017


   Request timer BFIR didn't receive any Echo Reply, then BFIR MAY
   continue to retransmit the probe using the initial size and MAY apply
   probe delay retransmission procedures.  The algorithm used to delay
   retransmission procedures on BFIR is outside the scope of this
   specification.  The BFIR sends probes using BMS and locally defined
   retransmission procedures until either the bit string is clear, i.e.
   contains no set bits, or until the BFIR retransmission procedure
   terminates and PMTU discovery is declared unsuccessful.  In case of
   convergence of the procedure, the size of the last probe indicates
   the PMTU size that can be used for all BFERs in the initial BMS
   without incurring fragmentation.

   Thus we conclude that in order to comply with the requirement in
   [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]:

   o  a BFR SHOULD support PMTUD;

   o  a BFR MAY use defined per BIER sub-domain MTU value as initial MTU
      value for discovery or use it as MTU for this BIER sub-domain to
      reach BFERs;

   o  a BFIR MUST have a locally defined of PMTUD probe retransmission
      procedure.

3.1.  Data TLV for BIER Ping

   There needs to be a control for probe size in order to support the
   BIER PMTUD.  Data TLV format is presented in Figure 2.

     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  (TBA1)         |             Length            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                              Data                             |
    ~                                                               ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                         Figure 2: Data TLV format

   o  Type: indicates Data TLV, to be allocated by IANA Section 4.

   o  Length: the length of the Data field in octets.

   o  Data: n octets (n = Length) of arbitrary data.  The receiver
      SHOULD ignore it.




Mirsky, et al.          Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               PMTUD for BIER                    July 2017


4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign new Type value for Data TLV Type from its
   registry of TLV and sub-TLV Types of BIER Ping as follows:

                  +-------+-------------+---------------+
                  | Value | Description | Reference     |
                  +-------+-------------+---------------+
                  | TBA1  |     Data    | This document |
                  +-------+-------------+---------------+

                          Table 1: Data TLV Type

5.  Security Considerations

   Routers that support PMTUD based on this document are subject to the
   same security considerations as defined in [I-D.ietf-bier-ping]

6.  Acknowledgement

   Authors greatly appreciate thorough review and the most detailed
   comments by Eric Gray.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-bier-ping]
              Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
              and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", draft-ietf-bier-
              ping-01 (work in progress), January 2017.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.



Mirsky, et al.          Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               PMTUD for BIER                    July 2017


   [RFC8201]  McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture]
              Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and
              S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
              Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 (work in
              progress), June 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-bier-oam-requirements]
              Mirsky, G., Nordmark, E., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., Zheng, L., Chen, M., Akiya, N., and S.
              Pallagatti, "Operations, Administration and Maintenance
              (OAM) Requirements for Bit Index Explicit Replication
              (BIER) Layer", draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements-03 (work
              in progress), January 2017.

Authors' Addresses

   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corp.

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


   Tony Przygienda
   Juniper Networks

   Email: prz@juniper.net


   Andrew Dolganow
   Nokia

   Email: andrew.dolganow@nokia.com












Mirsky, et al.          Expires January 17, 2018                [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/