[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-swallow-mpls-ecmp-bcp) 00 01
02 03 RFC 4928
Network Working Group George Swallow
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: August 2007
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Loa Andersson
Acreo
February 2007
Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of
currently deployed MPLS networks. This document makes best practice
recommendations for anyone defining an application to run over an
MPLS network that wishes to avoid the reordering that can result from
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt February 2007
transmission of different packets from the same flow over multiple
different equal cost paths.
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Terminology ............................................... 3
2 Current ECMP Practices .................................... 3
3 Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment ............... 5
4 Security Considerations ................................... 6
5 References ................................................ 6
5.1 Normative References ...................................... 6
5.2 Informative References .................................... 7
6 Authors' Addresses ........................................ 8
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt February 2007
1. Introduction
This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of
currently deployed MPLS networks. We discuss cases where multiple
packets from the same top-level LSP might be transmitted over differ-
ent equal cost paths, resulting in possible mis-ordering of packets
which are part of the same top-level LSP. This document also makes
best practice recommendations for anyone defining an application to
run over an MPLS network that wishes to avoid the resulting potential
for mis-ordered packets. While disabling ECMP behavior is an option
open to most operators, few (if any) have chosen to do so, and the
application designer does not have control over the behavior of the
networks that the application may run over. Thus ECMP behavior is a
reality that must be reckoned with.
1.1. Terminology
ECMP Equal Cost Multipath
FEC Forwarding Equivalence Class
IP ECMP A forwarding behavior in which the selection of the
next-hop between equal cost routes is based on the
header(s) of an IP packet
Label ECMP A forwarding behavior in which the selection of the
next-hop between equal cost routes is based on the
label stack of an MPLS packet
LSP Label Switched Path
LSR Label Switching Router
2. Current ECMP Practices
The MPLS label stack and Forwarding Equivalence Classes are defined
in [RFC3031]. The MPLS label stack does not carry a Protocol Identi-
fier. Instead the payload of an MPLS packet is identified by the
Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) of the bottom most label. Thus it
is not possible to know the payload type if one does not know the
label binding for the bottom most label. Since an LSR which is pro-
cessing a label stack need only know the binding for the label(s) it
must process, it is very often the case that LSRs along an LSP are
unable to determine the payload type of the carried contents.
As a means of potentially reducing delay and congestion, IP networks
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt February 2007
have taken advantage of multiple paths through a network by splitting
traffic flows across those paths. The general name for this practice
is Equal Cost Multipath or ECMP. In general this is done by hashing
on various fields on the IP or contained headers. In practice,
within a network core, the hashing is based mainly or exclusively on
the IP source and destination addresses. The reason for splitting
aggregated flows in this manner is to minimize the re-ordering of
packets belonging to individual flows contained within the aggregated
flow. Within this document we use the term IP ECMP for this type of
forwarding algorithm.
For packets that contain both a label stack and an encapsulated IPv4
(or IPv6) packet, current implementations in some cases may hash on
any combination of labels and IPv4 (or IPv6) source and destination
labels.
In the early days of MPLS, the payload was almost exclusively IP.
Even today the overwhelming majority of carried traffic remains IP.
Providers of MPLS equipment sought to continue this IP ECMP behavior.
As shown above, it is not possible to know whether the payload of an
MPLS packet is IP at every place where IP ECMP needs to be performed.
Thus vendors have taken the liberty of guessing what the payload is.
By inspecting the first nibble beyond the label stack, existing
equipment infers that a packet is not IPv4 or IPv6 if the value of
the nibble (where the IP version number would be found) is not 0x4 or
0x6 respectively. Most deployed LSRs will treat a packet whose first
nibble is equal to 0x4 as if the payload were IPv4 for purposes of IP
ECMP.
A consequence of this is that any application which defines a FEC
which does not take measures to prevent the values 0x4 and 0x6 from
occurring in the first nibble of the payload may be subject to IP
ECMP and thus having their flows take multiple paths and arriving
with considerable jitter and possibly out of order. While none of
this is in violation of the basic service offering of IP, it is
detrimental to the performance of various classes of applications.
It also complicates the measurement, monitoring and tracing of those
flows.
New MPLS payload types are emerging such as those specified by the
IETF PWE3 and AVT working groups. These payloads are not IP and, if
specified without constraint might be mistaken for IP.
It must also be noted that LSRs which correctly identify a payload as
not being IP, most often will load-share traffic across multiple
equal-cost paths based on the label stack. Any reserved label, no
matter where it is located in the stack, may be included in the com-
putation for load balancing. Modification of the label stack between
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt February 2007
packets of a single flow could result in re-ordering that flow. That
is, were an explicit null or a router-alert label to be added to a
packet, that packet could take a different path through the network.
Note that for some applications, being mistaken for IPv4 may not be
detrimental. The trivial case where the payload behind the top label
is a packet belonging to an MPLS IPv4 VPN. Here the real payload is
IP and most (if not all) deployed equipment will locate the end of
the label stack and correctly perform IP ECMP.
A less obvious case is when the packets of a given flow happen to
have constant values in the fields upon which IP ECMP would be per-
formed. For example if an ethernet frame immediately follows the
label and the LSR does not do ECMP on IPv6, then either the first
nibble will be 0x4 or it will be something else. If the nibble is
not 0x4 then no IP ECMP is performed, but Label ECMP may be per-
formed. If it is 0x4, then the constant values of the MAC addresses
overlay the fields that would have been occupied by the source and
destination addresses of an IP header. As a result the ECMP algo-
rithm would be feed a constant value and thus would always return the
same result.
3. Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment
We will use the term "Application Label" to refer to a label that has
been allocated with a FEC Type that is defined (or simply used) by an
application. Such labels necessarily appear at the bottom of the
label stack, that is, below labels associated with transporting the
packet across an MPLS network. The FEC Type of the Application label
defines the payload that follows. Anyone defining an application to
be transported over MPLS is free to define new FEC Types and the for-
mat of the payload which will be carried.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | Exp |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . . .
. . . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | Exp |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Application Label | Exp |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1st Nbl| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt February 2007
In order to avoid IP ECMP treatment it is necessary that an applica-
tion take precautions to not be mistaken as IP by deployed equipment
that snoops on the presumed location of the IP Version field. Thus,
at a minimum, the chosen format must disallow the values 0x4 and 0x6
in the first nibble of their payload.
It is strongly recommended, however, that applications restrict the
first nibble values to 0x0 and 0x1. This will ensure that that their
traffic flows will not be affected if some future routing equipment
does similar snooping on some future version of IP.
For an example of how ECMP is avoided in Pseudowires, see [RFC4385].
4. Security Considerations
This memo discusses the conditions under which MPLS traffic associ-
ated with a single top-level LSP either does or does not have the
possibility of being split between multiple paths, implying the pos-
sibility of mis-ordering between packets belonging to the same top-
level LSP. From a security point of view, the worse that could result
from a security breach of the mechanisms described here would be mis-
ordering of packets, and possible corresponding loss of throughput
(for example, TCP connections may in some cases reduce the window
size in response to mis-ordered packets). However, in order to create
even this limited result, a hacker would need to either change the
configuration or implementation of a router, or change the bits on
the wire as transmitted in a packet.
Other security issues in the deployment of MPLS are outside of the
scope of this document, but are discussed in other MPLS specifica-
tions such as RFCs 3031, 3036, 3107, 3209, 3478, 3479, 4206, 4220,
4221, 4378, AND 4379.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, E. et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt February 2007
5.2. Informative References
[RFC3036] Andersson, L., et. al., "LDP Specification", RFC 3036,
January 2001.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., et. al., "Graceful Restart Mechanism for
Label Distribution Protocol", RFC 3478, February 2003.
[RFC3479] Farrel, A., "Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3479, February 2003.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4220] Dubuc, M., et. al., "Traffic Engineering Link Management
Information Base", RFC 4220, November 2005.
[RFC4221] Nadeau, T., et. al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Management Overview", RFC 4221, November 2005.
[RFC4378] Allan, D. and T. Nadeau, "A Framework for Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management (OAM)",
RFC 4378, February 2006.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., et. al., "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge
(PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385,
February 2006.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt February 2007
6. Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson
Acreo
Email: loa@pi.se
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
250, Longwater,
Green Park,
Reading, RG2 6GB, UK
Email: stbryant@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assur-
ances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-03.txt February 2007
ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the
rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/