[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 RFC 4379
Network Working Group Kireeti Kompella
Internet Draft Juniper Networks, Inc.
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: July 2006
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
January 2006
Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.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 a simple and efficient mechanism that can be
used to detect data plane failures in Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). There are two parts to this
document: information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo
reply" for the purposes of fault detection and isolation; and
mechanisms for reliably sending the echo reply.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 4
1.1 Conventions ............................................... 4
1.2 Structure of this document ................................ 4
1.3 Contributors .............................................. 5
2 Motivation ................................................ 5
2.1 Use of address range 127/8 ................................ 6
3 Packet Format ............................................. 7
3.1 Return Codes .............................................. 12
3.2 Target FEC Stack .......................................... 13
3.2.1 LDP IPv4 Prefix ........................................... 14
3.2.2 LDP IPv6 Prefix ........................................... 14
3.2.3 RSVP IPv4 LSP ............................................. 15
3.2.4 RSVP IPv6 LSP ............................................. 15
3.2.5 VPN IPv4 Prefix ........................................... 16
3.2.6 VPN IPv6 Prefix ........................................... 17
3.2.7 L2 VPN Endpoint ........................................... 17
3.2.8 FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) ........................... 18
3.2.9 FEC 128 Pseudowire (Current) .............................. 19
3.2.10 FEC 129 Pseudowire ........................................ 19
3.2.11 BGP Labeled IPv4 Prefix ................................... 20
3.2.12 BGP Labeled IPv6 Prefix ................................... 21
3.2.13 Generic IPv4 Prefix ....................................... 21
3.2.14 Generic IPv6 Prefix ....................................... 22
3.2.15 Nil FEC ................................................... 22
3.3 Downstream Mapping ........................................ 23
3.3.1 Multipath Information Encoding ............................ 27
3.3.2 Downstream Router and Interface ........................... 29
3.4 Pad TLV ................................................... 30
3.5 Vendor Enterprise Number .................................. 30
3.6 Interface and Label Stack ................................. 31
3.7 Errored TLVs .............................................. 32
3.8 Reply TOS Byte TLV ........................................ 33
4 Theory of Operation ....................................... 33
4.1 Dealing with Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) ................. 33
4.2 Testing LSPs That Are Used to Carry MPLS Payloads ......... 34
4.3 Sending an MPLS Echo Request .............................. 35
4.4 Receiving an MPLS Echo Request ............................ 36
4.4.1 FEC Validation ............................................ 41
4.5 Sending an MPLS Echo Reply ................................ 42
4.6 Receiving an MPLS Echo Reply .............................. 43
4.7 Issue with VPN IPv4 and IPv6 Prefixes ..................... 44
4.8 Non-compliant Routers ..................................... 44
5 References ................................................ 44
6 Security Considerations ................................... 46
7 IANA Considerations ....................................... 47
7.1 Message Types, Reply Modes, Return Codes .................. 47
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
7.2 TLVs ...................................................... 48
8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 49
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
1. Introduction
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism that can be
used to detect data plane failures in MPLS LSPs. There are two parts
to this document: information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and
"echo reply"; and mechanisms for transporting the echo reply. The
first part aims at providing enough information to check correct
operation of the data plane, as well as a mechanism to verify the
data plane against the control plane, and thereby localize faults.
The second part suggests two methods of reliable reply channels for
the echo request message, for more robust fault isolation.
An important consideration in this design is that MPLS echo requests
follow the same data path that normal MPLS packets would traverse.
MPLS echo requests are meant primarily to validate the data plane,
and secondarily to verify the data plane against the control plane.
Mechanisms to check the control plane are valuable, but are not cov-
ered in this document.
This document makes special use of the address range 127/8. This is
an exception to the behavior defined in RFC1122 [RFC1122] and updates
that RFC. The motivation for this change and the details of this
exceptional use are discussed in section 2.1 below.
1.1. Conventions
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 [KEYWORDS].
The term "Must be Zero" (MBZ) is used in object descriptions for
reserved fields. These fields MUST be set to zero when sent and
ignored on receipt.
Terminology pertaining to L2 and L3 VPNs is defined in [RFC4026].
1.2. Structure of this document
The body of this memo contains four main parts: motivation, MPLS echo
request/reply packet format, LSP ping operation, and a reliable
return path. It is suggested that first-time readers skip the actual
packet formats and read the Theory of Operation first; the document
is structured the way it is to avoid forward references.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
1.3. Contributors
The following made vital contributions to all aspects of this docu-
ment, and much of the material came out of debate and discussion
among this group.
Ronald P. Bonica, Juniper Networks, Inc.
Dave Cooper, Global Crossing
Ping Pan, Hammerhead Systems
Nischal Sheth, Juniper Networks, Inc.
Sanjay Wadhwa, Juniper Networks, Inc.
2. Motivation
When an LSP fails to deliver user traffic, the failure cannot always
be detected by the MPLS control plane. There is a need to provide a
tool that would enable users to detect such traffic "black holes" or
misrouting within a reasonable period of time; and a mechanism to
isolate faults.
In this document, we describe a mechanism that accomplishes these
goals. This mechanism is modeled after the ping/traceroute paradigm:
ping (ICMP echo request [ICMP]) is used for connectivity checks, and
traceroute is used for hop-by-hop fault localization as well as path
tracing. This document specifies a "ping mode" and a "traceroute"
mode for testing MPLS LSPs.
The basic idea is to verify that packets that belong to a particular
Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) actually end their MPLS path on a
Label Switching Router (LSR) that is an egress for that FEC. This
document proposes that this test be carried out by sending a packet
(called an "MPLS echo request") along the same data path as other
packets belonging to this FEC. An MPLS echo request also carries
information about the FEC whose MPLS path is being verified. This
echo request is forwarded just like any other packet belonging to
that FEC. In "ping" mode (basic connectivity check), the packet
should reach the end of the path, at which point it is sent to the
control plane of the egress LSR, which then verifies whether it is
indeed an egress for the FEC. In "traceroute" mode (fault isola-
tion), the packet is sent to the control plane of each transit LSR,
which performs various checks that it is indeed a transit LSR for
this path; this LSR also returns further information that helps check
the control plane against the data plane, i.e., that forwarding
matches what the routing protocols determined as the path.
One way these tools can be used is to periodically ping a FEC to
ensure connectivity. If the ping fails, one can then initiate a
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
traceroute to determine where the fault lies. One can also periodi-
cally traceroute FECs to verify that forwarding matches the control
plane; however, this places a greater burden on transit LSRs and thus
should be used with caution.
2.1. Use of address range 127/8
As described above, LSP Ping is intended as a diagnostic tool. It is
intended to enable providers of an MPLS based service to isolate net-
work faults. In particular LSP Ping needs to diagnose situations
where the control and data planes are out of sync. It performs this
by routing an MPLS echo request packet based solely on its label
stack. That is the IP destination address is never used in a for-
warding decision. In fact, the sender of an MPLS echo request packet
may not know, a priori, the address of the router at the end of the
LSP.
Providers of MPLS based services also need the ability to trace all
of the possible paths that an LSP make take. Since most MPLS ser-
vices are based on IP unicast forwarding, these paths are subject to
equal cost multi-path load sharing (ECMP).
This leads to the following requirements:
1. Although the LSP in question may be broken in unknown ways, the
likelihood of a diagnostic packet being delivered to a user of an
MPLS service MUST be held to an absolute minimum.
2. If an LSP is broken in such a way that it prematurely terminates,
the diagnostic packet MUST NOT be IP forwarded.
3. A means of varying the diagnostic packets such that they exercise
all ECMP paths is thus REQUIRED.
Clearly using general unicast addresses satisfies neither of the
first two requirements. A number of other options for addresses were
considered, including a portion of the private address space (as
determined by the network operator) and the newly designated IPv4
link local addresses. Use of the private address space was deemed
ineffective since the leading MPLS based service is IPv4 Virtual Pri-
vate Networks (VPN). VPNs often used private addresses.
The IPv4 link local addresses are more attractive in that scope over
which they can be forwarded is limited. However, if one were to use
an address from this range, it would still be possible for the first
recipient of a diagnostic packet that "escaped" from a broken LSP to
have that addressed assigned to the interface on which it arrived and
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
thus could mistakenly receive such a packet. Further, the IPv4 link
local address range has only recently been allocated. Many deployed
routers would forward a packet with an address from that range toward
the default route.
The 127/8 range for IPv4 and that same range embedded in as
IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses for IPv6 was chosen for a number of rea-
sons.
RFC1122 allocates the 127/8 as "Internal host loopback address" and
states that "Addresses of this form MUST NOT appear outside a host."
Thus the default behavior of hosts is to discard such packets. This
helps to ensure that if a diagnostic packet is mis-directed to a
host, it will be silently discarded.
RFC1812 [RFC1812] states that:
A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any
packet that has a destination address on network 127. A router
MAY have a switch that allows the network manager to disable these
checks. If such a switch is provided, it MUST default to perform-
ing the checks.
This helps to ensure that diagnostic packets are never IP forwarded.
The 127/8 address range provides 16M addresses allowing wide flexi-
bility in varying addresses to exercise ECMP paths. Finally, as an
implementation optimization, the 127/8 provides an easy means of
identifying possible LSP Packets.
3. Packet Format
An MPLS echo request is a (possibly labeled) IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet;
the contents of the UDP packet have the following format:
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version Number | Global Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type | Reply mode | Return Code | Return Subcode|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Sent (seconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Sent (microseconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Received (seconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TimeStamp Received (microseconds) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLVs ... |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Version Number is currently 1. (Note: the Version Number is to
be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the ability of
an implementation to correctly parse or process an MPLS echo
request/reply. These changes include any syntactic or semantic
changes made to any of the fixed fields, or to any TLV or sub-TLV
assignment or format that is defined at a certain version number.
The Version Number may not need to be changed if an optional TLV or
sub-TLV is added.)
The Global 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 |V|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One flag is defined for now, the V bit; the rest MUST be set to zero
when sending, and ignored on receipt.
The V (Validate FEC Stack) flag is set to 1 if the sender wants the
receiver to perform FEC stack validation; if V is 0, the choice is
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
left to the receiver.
The Message Type is one of the following:
Value Meaning
----- -------
1 MPLS Echo Request
2 MPLS Echo Reply
The Reply Mode can take one of the following values:
Value Meaning
----- -------
1 Do not reply
2 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet
3 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert
4 Reply via application level control channel
An MPLS echo request with 1 (Do not reply) in the Reply Mode field
may be used for one-way connectivity tests; the receiving router may
log gaps in the sequence numbers and/or maintain delay/jitter statis-
tics. An MPLS echo request would normally have 2 (Reply via an
IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet) in the Reply Mode field. If the normal IP
return path is deemed unreliable, one may use 3 (Reply via an
IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert). Note that this requires
that all intermediate routers understand and know how to forward MPLS
echo replies. The echo reply uses the same IP version number as the
received echo request, i.e., an IPv4 encapsulated echo reply is sent
in response to an IPv4 encapsulated echo request.
Some applications support an IP control channel. One such example is
the associated control channel defined in Virtual Circuit Connectiv-
ity Verification [VCCV]. Any application which supports an IP con-
trol channel between its control entities may set the Reply Mode to 4
(Reply via application level control channel) to ensure that replies
use that same channel. Further definition of this codepoint is
application specific and thus beyond the scope of this document.
Return Codes and Subcodes are described in the next section.
the Sender's Handle is filled in by the sender, and returned
unchanged by the receiver in the echo reply (if any). There are no
semantics associated with this handle, although a sender may find
this useful for matching up requests with replies.
The Sequence Number is assigned by the sender of the MPLS echo
request, and can be (for example) used to detect missed replies.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
The TimeStamp Sent is the time-of-day (in seconds and microseconds,
according to the sender's clock) in NTP format [NTP] when the MPLS
echo request is sent. The TimeStamp Received in an echo reply is the
time-of-day (according to the receiver's clock) in NTP format that
the corresponding echo request was received.
TLVs (Type-Length-Value tuples) have the following 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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Types are defined below; Length is the length of the Value field in
octets. The Value field depends on the Type; it is zero padded to
align to a four-octet boundary. TLVs may be nested within other
TLVs, in which case the nested TLVs are called sub-TLVs. Sub-TLVs
have independent types and MUST also be four-octet aligned.
Two examples follow. The LDP IPv4 FEC sub-TLV has the following for-
mat:
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 = 1 (LDP IPv4 FEC) | Length = 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Length for this TLV is 5. A Target FEC Stack TLV which contains
an LDP IPv4 FEC sub-TLV and a VPN IPv4 prefix sub-TLV has the format:
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
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 = 1 (FEC TLV) | Length = 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-Type = 1 (LDP IPv4 FEC) | Length = 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-Type = 6 (VPN IPv4 prefix)| Length = 13 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Distinguisher |
| (8 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A description of the Types and Values of the top level TLVs for LSP
ping are given below:
Type # Value Field
------ -----------
1 Target FEC Stack
2 Downstream Mapping
3 Pad
4 Not Assigned
5 Vendor Enterprise Number
6 Not Assigned
7 Interface and Label Stack
8 Not Assigned
9 Errored TLVs
10 Reply TOS Byte
Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high order bit equal to 0) are
mandatory TLVs that MUST either be supported by an implementation or
result in the return code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not
understood") being sent in the echo response.
Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high order bit
equal to 1) are optional TLVs that SHOULD be ignored if the implemen-
tation does not understand or support them.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
3.1. Return Codes
The Return Code is set to zero by the sender. The receiver can set
it to one of the values listed below. The notation <RSC> refers to
the Return Subcode. This field is filled in with the stack-depth for
those codes which specify that. For all other codes the Return Sub-
code MUST be set to zero.
Value Meaning
----- -------
0 No return code
1 Malformed echo request received
2 One or more of the TLVs was not understood
3 Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack
depth <RSC>
4 Replying router has no mapping for the FEC at stack
depth <RSC>
5 Downstream Mapping Mismatch (See Note 1)
6 Upstream Interface Index Unknown (See Note 1)
7 Reserved
8 Label switched at stack-depth <RSC>
9 Label switched but no MPLS forwarding at stack-depth
<RSC>
10 Mapping for this FEC is not the given label at stack
depth <RSC>
11 No label entry at stack-depth <RSC>
12 Protocol not associated with interface at FEC stack
depth <RSC>
13 Premature termination of ping due to label stack
shrinking to a single label
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Note 1
The Return Subcode contains the point in the label stack where pro-
cessing was terminated. If the RSC is 0, no labels were processed.
Otherwise the packet would have been label switched at depth RSC.
3.2. Target FEC Stack
A Target FEC Stack is a list of sub-TLVs. The number of elements is
determined by looking at the sub-TLV length fields.
Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ -----------
1 5 LDP IPv4 prefix
2 17 LDP IPv6 prefix
3 20 RSVP IPv4 LSP
4 56 RSVP IPv6 LSP
5 Not Assigned
6 13 VPN IPv4 prefix
7 25 VPN IPv6 prefix
8 14 L2 VPN endpoint
9 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (deprecated)
10 14 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
11 16+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire
12 5 BGP labeled IPv4 prefix
13 17 BGP labeled IPv6 prefix
14 5 Generic IPv4 prefix
15 17 Generic IPv6 prefix
16 4 Nil FEC
Other FEC Types will be defined as needed.
Note that this TLV defines a stack of FECs, the first FEC element
corresponding to the top of the label stack, etc.
An MPLS echo request MUST have a Target FEC Stack that describes the
FEC stack being tested. For example, if an LSR X has an LDP mapping
[see LDP] for 192.168.1.1 (say label 1001), then to verify that label
1001 does indeed reach an egress LSR that announced this prefix via
LDP, X can send an MPLS echo request with a FEC Stack TLV with one
FEC in it, namely of type LDP IPv4 prefix, with prefix
192.168.1.1/32, and send the echo request with a label of 1001.
Say LSR X wanted to verify that a label stack of <1001, 23456> is the
right label stack to use to reach a VPN IPv4 prefix [see section
3.2.5] of 10/8 in VPN foo. Say further that LSR Y with loopback
address 192.168.1.1 announced prefix 10/8 with Route Distinguisher
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
RD-foo-Y (which may in general be different from the Route Distin-
guisher that LSR X uses in its own advertisements for VPN foo), label
23456 and BGP nexthop 192.168.1.1 [see BGP]. Finally, suppose that
LSR X receives a label binding of 1001 for 192.168.1.1 via LDP. X
has two choices in sending an MPLS echo request: X can send an MPLS
echo request with a FEC Stack TLV with a single FEC of type VPN IPv4
prefix with a prefix of 10/8 and a Route Distinguisher of RD-foo-Y.
Alternatively, X can send a FEC Stack TLV with two FECs, the first of
type LDP IPv4 with a prefix of 192.168.1.1/32 and the second of type
of IP VPN with a prefix 10/8 with Route Distinguisher of RD-foo-Y.
In either case, the MPLS echo request would have a label stack of
<1001, 23456>. (Note: in this example, 1001 is the "outer" label and
23456 is the "inner" label.)
3.2.1. LDP IPv4 Prefix
The IPv4 Prefix FEC is defined in [LDP]. When a LDP IPv4 prefix is
encoded in a label stack, the following format is used. The value
consists of four octets of an IPv4 prefix followed by one octet of
prefix length in bits; the format is given below. The IPv4 prefix is
in network byte order; if the prefix is shorter than 32 bits, trail-
ing bits SHOULD be set to zero. See [LDP] for an example of a Map-
ping for an IPv4 FEC.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.2. LDP IPv6 Prefix
The IPv6 Prefix FEC is defined in [LDP]. When a LDP IPv6 prefix is
encoded in a label stack, the following format is used. The value
consists of sixteen octets of an IPv6 prefix followed by one octet of
prefix length in bits; the format is given below. The IPv6 prefix is
in network byte order; if the prefix is shorter than 128 bits, the
trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero. See [LDP] for an example of a
Mapping for an IPv6 FEC.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 prefix |
| (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.3. RSVP IPv4 LSP
The value has the format below. The value fields are taken from
RFC3209, sections 4.6.1.1 and 4.6.2.1. See [RSVP-TE].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 tunnel end point address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 tunnel sender address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.4. RSVP IPv6 LSP
The value has the format below. The value fields are taken from
RFC3209, sections 4.6.1.2 and 4.6.2.2. See [RSVP-TE].
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel end point address |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Tunnel ID |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 tunnel sender address |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.5. VPN IPv4 Prefix
VPN-IPv4 NLRI (Network Layer Routing Information) is defined in
[MPLS-L3-VPN]. This document uses the term VPN IPv4 prefix for a
VPN-IPv4 NLRI which has been advertised with an MPLS label in BGP.
See [BGP-LABEL].
When a VPN IPv4 prefix is encoded in a label stack, the following
format is used. The value field consists of the Route Distinguisher
advertised with the VPN IPv4 prefix, the IPv4 prefix (with trailing 0
bits to make 32 bits in all) and a prefix length, 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Distinguisher |
| (8 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Route Distinguisher (RD) is an 8-octect identifier; it does not
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
contain any inherent information. The purpose of the RD is solely to
allow one to create distinct routes to a common IPv4 address prefix.
The encoding of the RD is not important here. When matching this
field to the local FEC information, it is treated as an opaque value.
3.2.6. VPN IPv6 Prefix
VPN-IPv6 NLRI (Network Layer Routing Information) is defined in
[MPLS-L3-VPN]. This document uses the term VPN IPv6 prefix for a
VPN-IPv6 NLRI which has been advertised with an MPLS label in BGP.
See [BGP-LABEL].
When a VPN IPv6 prefix is encoded in a label stack, the following
format is used. The value field consists of the Route Distinguisher
advertised with the VPN IPv6 prefix, the IPv6 prefix (with trailing 0
bits to make 128 bits in all) and a prefix length, 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Distinguisher |
| (8 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 prefix |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Route Distiguisher is identical to the VPN IPv4 Prefix RD, except
that it functions here to allow the creation of distict routes to
IPv6 prefixes. See section 3.2.5. When matching this field to local
FEC information, it is treated as an opaque value.
3.2.7. L2 VPN Endpoint
VPLS stands for Virtual Private Lan Service. The terms VPLS BGP NLRI
and VE ID (VPLS Edge Identifier) are defined in [VPLS-BGP]. This
document uses the simpler term L2 VPN endpoint when referring to a
VPLS BGP NLRI. The Route Distiguisher is 8-octet identifier used to
distinguish information about various L2 VPNs advertised by a node.
The VE ID is 2-octet identifier used to identify a particular node
which serves as the service attachment point within a VPLS. The
structure of these two identifiers is uninportant here; when matching
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
these fields to local FEC information, they are treated as opaque
values. The encapsulation type is identical to the PW Type in sec-
tion 3.2.8 below.
When an L2 VPN endpoint is encoded in a label stack, the following
format is used. The value field consists of a Route Distinguisher (8
octets), the sender (of the ping)'s VE ID (2 octets), the receiver's
VE ID (2 octets), and an encapsulation type (2 octets), formatted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Distinguisher |
| (8 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's VE ID | Receiver's VE ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Encapsulation Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.8. FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated)
FEC 128 (0x80) is defined in [PW-CONTROL], as are the terms PW ID
(Pseudowire ID) and PW Type (Pseudowire Type). A PW ID is a non-zero
32-bit connection ID. The PW Type is a 15 bit number indicating the
encapsultion type. It is carried right justified in the field below
termed encapsulation type with the high-order bit set to zero. Both
of these fields are treated in this protocol as opaque values.
When a FEC 128 is encoded in a label stack, the following format is
used. The value field consists of the remote PE address (the desti-
nation address of the targeted LDP session), the PW ID and the encap-
sulation type 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote PE Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
This FEC is deprecated and is retained only for backward compatibil-
ity. Implementations of LSP ping SHOULD accept and process this TLV,
but SHOULD send LSP ping echo requests with the new TLV (see next
section), unless explicitly configured to use the old TLV.
An LSR receiving this TLV SHOULD use the source IP address of the LSP
echo request to infer the Sender's PE Address.
3.2.9. FEC 128 Pseudowire (Current)
FEC 128 (0x80) is defined in [PW-CONTROL], as are the terms PW ID
(Pseudowire ID) and PW Type (Pseudowire Type). A PW ID is a non-zero
32-bit connection ID. The PW Type is a 15 bit number indicating the
encapsultion type. It is carried right justified in the field below
termed encapsulation type with the high-order bit set to zero.
Both of these fields are treated in this protocol as opaque values.
When matching these field to the local FEC information, the match
MUST be exact.
When a FEC 128 is encoded in a label stack, the following format is
used. The value field consists of the sender's PE address (the
source address of the targeted LDP session), the remote PE address
(the destination address of the targeted LDP session), the PW ID and
the encapsulation type 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's PE Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote PE Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.10. FEC 129 Pseudowire
FEC 129 (0x81) and the terms PW Type, Attachment Group Identifier
(AGI), Attachment Group Identifier Type (AGI Type), Attachment Indi-
vidual Identifier Type (AII Type), Source Attachment Individual Iden-
tifier (SAII), Target Attachment Individual Identifier (TAII) are
defined in [PW-CONTROL]. The PW Type is a 15 bit number indicating
the encapsultion type. It is carried right justified in the field
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
below PW type with the high-order bit set to zero. All the other
fields are treated as opaque values and copied directly from the FEC
129 format. All of these values together uniquely define the FEC
with in the scope of the LDP session identified by the source and
remote PE addresses.
When a FEC 129 is encoded in a label stack, the following format is
used. The Length of this TLV is 16 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII
length. Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4;
the length of the padding is not included in the Length field.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sender's PE Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote PE Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ AGI Value ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SAII Value (continued) ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.11. BGP Labeled IPv4 Prefix
BGP labeled IPv4 prefixes are defined in [BGP-LABEL]. When a BGP
labeled IPv4 prefix is encoded in a label stack, the following format
is used. The value field consists the IPv4 prefix (with trailing 0
bits to make 32 bits in all), and the prefix length, as follows:
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.12. BGP Labeled IPv6 Prefix
BGP labeled IPv6 prefixes are defined in [BGP-LABEL]. When a BGP
labeled IPv6 prefix is encoded in a label stack, the following format
is used. The value consists of sixteen octets of an IPv6 prefix fol-
lowed by one octet of prefix length in bits; the format is given
below. The IPv6 prefix is in network byte order; if the prefix is
shorter than 128 bits, the trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 prefix |
| (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.13. Generic IPv4 Prefix
The value consists of four octets of an IPv4 prefix followed by one
octet of prefix length in bits; the format is given below. The IPv4
prefix is in network byte order; if the prefix is shorter than 32
bits, trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero. This FEC is used if the
protocol advertising the label is unknown, or may change during the
course of the LSP. An example is an inter-AS LSP that may be sig-
naled by LDP in one AS, by RSVP-TE [RSVP-TE] in another AS, and by
BGP between the ASes, such as is common for inter-AS VPNs.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.14. Generic IPv6 Prefix
The value consists of sixteen octets of an IPv6 prefix followed by
one octet of prefix length in bits; the format is given below. The
IPv6 prefix is in network byte order; if the prefix is shorter than
128 bits, the trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 prefix |
| (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2.15. Nil FEC
At times labels from the reserved range, e.g. Router Alert and
Explicit-null, may be added to the label stack for various diagnostic
purposes such as influencing load-balancing. These labels may have
no explicit FEC associated with them. The Nil FEC stack is defined
to allow a Target FEC stack sub-TLV to be added to the target FEC
stack to account for such labels so that proper validation can still
be performed.
The Length is 4. Labels are 20 bit values treated as numbers.
stack.
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 | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Label is the actual label value inserted in the label stack; the MBZ
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
fields MUST be zero when sent, and ignored on receipt.
3.3. Downstream Mapping
The Downstream Mapping object is a TLV which MAY be included in an
echo request message. Only one Downstream Mapping object may appear
in an echo request. The presence of a Downstream Mapping object is a
request that Downstream Mapping objects be included in the echo
reply. If the replying router is the destination of the FEC, then a
Downstream Mapping TLV SHOULD NOT be included in the echo reply.
Otherwise the replying router SHOULD include a Downstream Mapping
object for each interface over which this FEC could be forwarded.
For a more precise definition of the notion of "downstream", see sec-
tion 3.3.2, "Downstream Router and Interface".
The Length is K + M + 4*N octets, where M is the Multipath Length,
and N is the number of Downstream Labels. Values for K are found in
the description of Address Type below. The Value field of a Down-
stream Mapping has the following 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MTU | Address Type | DS Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream IP Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Interface Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multipath Type| Depth Limit | Multipath Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. (Multipath Information) .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Label | Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Downstream Label | Protocol |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
The MTU is the size in octets of the largest MPLS frame (including
label stack) that fits on the interface to the Downstream LSR.
Address Type
The Address Type indicates if the interface is numbered or unnum-
bered. It also determines the length of the Downstream IP Address
and Downstream Interface fields. The resulting total for the initial
part of the TLV is listed in the table below as "K Octets". The
Address Type is set to one of the following values:
Type # Address Type K Octets
------ ------------ --------
1 IPv4 Numbered 16
2 IPv4 Unnumbered 16
3 IPv6 Numbered 40
4 IPv6 Unnumbered 28
DS Flags
The DS Flags field is a bit vector with the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Rsvd(MBZ) |I|N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Two flags are defined currently, I and N. The remaining flags MUST
be set to zero when sending, and ignored on receipt.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
I Interface and Label Stack Object Request
When this flag is set, it indicates that the replying
router SHOULD include an Interface and Label Stack
Object in the echo reply message
N Treat as a Non-IP Packet
Echo request messages will be used to diagnose non-IP
flows. However, these messages are carried in IP
packets. For a router which alters its ECMP algorithm
based on the FEC or deep packet examination, this flag
requests that the router treat this as it would if the
determination of an IP payload had failed.
Downstream IP Address and Downstream Interface Address
IPv4 addresses and and interface indices are encoded in 4 octets,
IPv6 addresses are encoded in 16 octets.
If the interface to the downstream LSR is numbered, then the Address
Type MUST be set to IPv4 or IPv6, the Downstream IP Address MUST be
set to either the downstream LSR's Router ID or the interface address
of the downstream LSR, and the Downstream Interface Address MUST be
set to the downstream LSR's interface address.
If the interface to the downstream LSR is unnumbered, the Address
Type MUST be IPv4 Unnumbered or IPv6 Unnumbered, the Downstream IP
Address MUST be the downstream LSR's Router ID, and the Downstream
Interface Address MUST be set to the index assigned by the upstream
LSR to the interface.
If an LSR does not know the IP address of its neighbor, then it MUST
set the Address Type to either IPv4 Unnumbered or IPv6 Unnumbered.
For IPv4 it must set the Downstream IP Address to 127.0.0.1, for IPv6
the address is set to 0::1. In both cases the interface index MUST
be set to 0. If an LSR receives an Echo Request packet with either
of these addresses in the Downstream IP Address field, this indicates
that it MUST bypass interface verification but continue with label
validation.
If the originator of an Echo Request packet wishes to obtain Down-
stream mapping information but does not know the expected label stack
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
then it SHOULD set the Address Type to either IPv4 Unnumbered or IPv6
Unnumbered. For IPv4 it MUST set the Downstream IP Address to
224.0.0.2, for IPv6 the address MUST be set to FF02::2. In both
cases the interface index MUST be set to 0. If an LSR receives an
Echo Request packet with the all-routers multicast address, then this
indicates that it MUST bypass both interface and label stack valida-
tion, but return Downstream Mapping TLVs using the information pro-
vided.
Multipath Type
The following Multipath Types are defined:
Key Type Multipath Information
--- ---------------- ---------------------
0 no multipath Empty (Multipath Length = 0)
2 IP address IP addresses
4 IP address range low/high address pairs
8 Bit-masked IP IP address prefix and bit mask
address set
9 Bit-masked label set Label prefix and bit mask
Type 0 indicates that all packets will be forwarded out this one
interface.
Types 2, 4, 8 and 9 specify that the supplied Multipath Information
will serve to exercise this path.
Depth Limit
The Depth Limit is applicable only to a label stack, and is the maxi-
mum number of labels considered in the hash; this SHOULD be set to
zero if unspecified or unlimited.
Multipath Length
The length in octets of the Multipath Information.
Multipath Information
Address or label values encoded according to the Multipath Type. See
the next section below for encoding details.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Downstream Label(s)
The set of labels in the label stack as it would have appeared if
this router were forwarding the packet through this interface. Any
Implicit Null labels are explicitly included. Labels are treated as
numbers, i.e. they are right justified in the field.
A Downstream Label is 24 bits, in the same format as an MPLS label
minus the TTL field, i.e., the MSBit of the label is bit 0, the LSBit
is bit 19, the EXP bits are bits 20-22, and bit 23 is the S bit. The
replying router SHOULD fill in the EXP and S bits; the LSR receiving
the echo reply MAY choose to ignore these bits.
Protocol
The Protocol is taken from the following table:
Protocol # Signaling Protocol
---------- ------------------
0 Unknown
1 Static
2 BGP
3 LDP
4 RSVP-TE
3.3.1. Multipath Information Encoding
The multipath information encodes labels or addresses which will
exercise this path. The multipath information depends on the multi-
path type. The contents of the field are shown in the table above.
IPv4 addresses are drawn from the range 127/8; IPv6 addresses are
drawn from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104. Labels are treated as
numbers, i.e. they are right justified in the field. For Type 4,
ranges indicated by Address pairs MUST NOT overlap and MUST be in
ascending sequence.
Type 8 allows a denser encoding of IP address. The IP prefix is for-
matted as a base IP address with the non-prefix low order bits set to
zero. The maximum prefix length is 27. Following the prefix is a
mask of length 2^(32-prefix length) bits for IPv4 and 2^(128-prefix
length) bits for IPv6. Each bit set to one represents a valid
address. The address is the base IPv4 address plus the position of
the bit in the mask where the bits are numbered left to right begin-
ning with zero. For example the IPv4 addresses 127.2.1.0,
127.2.1.5-127.2.1.15, and 127.2.1.20-127.2.1.29 would be encoded as
follows:
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Those same addresses embedded in IPv6 would be encoded 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type 9 allows a denser encoding of Labels. The label prefix is for-
matted as a base label value with the non-prefix low order bits set
to zero. The maximum prefix (including leading zeros due to encod-
ing) length is 27. Following the prefix is a mask of length
2^(32-prefix length) bits. Each bit set to one represents a valid
Label. The label is the base label plus the position of the bit in
the mask where the bits are numbered left to right beginning with
zero. Label values of all the odd numbers between 1152 and 1279
would be encoded as follows:
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 28]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
If the received multipath information is non-null, the labels and IP
addresses MUST be picked from the set provided. If none of these
labels or addresses map to a particular downstream interface, then
for that interface, the type MUST be set to 0. If the received mul-
tipath information is null, (i.e. Multipath Length = 0, or for Types
8 and 9 a mask of all zeroes) the receiver the type MUST be set to 0.
For example, suppose LSR X at hop 10 has two downstream LSRs Y and Z
for the FEC in question. The received X could return Multipath Type
4, with low/high IP addresses of 127.1.1.1->127.1.1.255 for down-
stream LSR Y and 127.2.1.1->127.2.1.255 for downstream LSR Z. The
head end reflects this information to LSR Y. Y, which has three
downstream LSRs U, V and W, computes that 127.1.1.1->127.1.1.127
would go to U and 127.1.1.128-> 127.1.1.255 would go to V. Y would
then respond with 3 Downstream Mappings: to U, with Multipath Type 4
(127.1.1.1->127.1.1.127); to V, with Multipath Type 4
(127.1.1.127->127.1.1.255); and to W, with Multipath Type 0.
Note that computing multi-path information may impose a significant
processing burden on the receiver. A receiver MAY thus choose to
process a subset of the received prefixes. The sender, on receiving
a reply to a Downstream Map with partial information, SHOULD assume
that the prefixes missing in the reply were skipped by the receiver,
and MAY re-request information about them in a new echo request.
3.3.2. Downstream Router and Interface
The notion of "downstream router" and "downstream interface" should
be explained. Consider an LSR X. If a packet that was originated
with TTL n>1 arrived with outermost label L and TTL=1 at LSR X, X
must be able to compute which LSRs could receive the packet if it was
originated with TTL=n+1, over which interface the request would
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 29]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
arrive and what label stack those LSRs would see. (It is outside the
scope of this document to specify how this computation is done.) The
set of these LSRs/interfaces are the downstream routers/interfaces
(and their corresponding labels) for X with respect to L. Each pair
of downstream router and interface requires a separate Downstream
Mapping to be added to the reply.
The case where X is the LSR originating the echo request is a special
case. X needs to figure out what LSRs would receive the MPLS echo
request for a given FEC Stack that X originates with TTL=1.
The set of downstream routers at X may be alternative paths (see the
discussion below on ECMP) or simultaneous paths (e.g., for MPLS mul-
ticast). In the former case, the Multipath Information is used as a
hint to the sender as to how it may influence the choice of these
alternatives.
3.4. Pad TLV
The value part of the Pad TLV contains a variable number (>= 1) of
octets. The first octet takes values from the following table; all
the other octets (if any) are ignored. The receiver SHOULD verify
that the TLV is received in its entirety, but otherwise ignores the
contents of this TLV, apart from the first octet.
Value Meaning
----- -------
1 Drop Pad TLV from reply
2 Copy Pad TLV to reply
3-255 Reserved for future use
3.5. Vendor Enterprise Number
SMI Private Enterprise Numbers are maintained by IANA. The Length is
always 4; the value is the SMI Private Enterprise code, in network
octet order, of the vendor with a Vendor Private extension to any of
the fields in the fixed part of the message, in which case this TLV
MUST be present. If none of the fields in the fixed part of the mes-
sage have vendor private extensions, inclusion of this this TLV in is
OPTIONAL. Vendor private ranges for Message Types, Reply Modes, and
Return Codes have been defined. When any of these are used the Ven-
dor Enterprise Number TLV MUST be included in the message.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 30]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
3.6. Interface and Label Stack
The Interface and Label Stack TLV MAY be included in a reply message
to report the interface on which the request message was received and
the label stack which was on the packet when it was received. Only
one such object may appear. The purpose of the object is to allow
the upstream router to obtain the exact interface and label stack
information as it appears at the replying LSR.
The Length is K + 4*N octets, N is the number of labels in the Label
Stack. Values for K are found in the description of Address Type
below. The Value field of a Downstream Mapping has the following
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Type | Must be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. Label Stack .
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Type
The Address Type indicates if the interface is numbered or unnum-
bered. It also determines the length of the IP Address and Interface
fields. The resulting total for the initial part of the TLV is
listed in the table below as "K Octets". The Address Type is set to
one of the following values:
Type # Address Type K Octets
------ ------------ --------
1 IPv4 Numbered 12
2 IPv4 Unnumbered 12
3 IPv6 Numbered 36
4 IPv6 Unnumbered 24
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 31]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
IP Address and Interface
IPv4 addresses and and interface indices are encoded in 4 octets,
IPv6 addresses are encoded in 16 octets.
If the interface upon which the echo request message was received is
numbered, then the Address Type MUST be set to IPv4 or IPv6, the IP
Address MUST be set to either the LSR's Router ID or the interface
address, and the Interface MUST be set to the interface address.
If the interface unnumbered, the Address Type MUST be either IPv4
Unnumbered or IPv6 Unnumbered, the IP Address MUST be the LSR's
Router ID, and the Interface MUST be set to the index assigned to the
interface.
Label Stack
The label stack of the received echo request message. If any TTL
values have been changed by this router, they SHOULD be restored.
3.7. Errored TLVs
The following TLV is a TLV which MAY be included in an echo reply to
inform the sender of an echo request of Mandatory TLVs either not
supported by an implementation, or parsed and found to be in error.
The Value field contains the TLVs that were not understood, encoded
as sub-TLVs.
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 = 9 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 32]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
3.8. Reply TOS Byte TLV
This TLV MAY be used by the originator of the echo request to
request
that a echo reply be sent with the IP header TOS byte set to
the value specified in the TLV. This TLV has a length of 4 with
the following value field.
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-TOS Byte| Must be zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4. Theory of Operation
An MPLS echo request is used to test a particular LSP. The LSP to be
tested is identified by the "FEC Stack"; for example, if the LSP was
set up via LDP, and is to an egress IP address of 10.1.1.1, the FEC
stack contains a single element, namely, an LDP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV
with value 10.1.1.1/32. If the LSP being tested is an RSVP LSP, the
FEC stack consists of a single element that captures the RSVP Session
and Sender Template which uniquely identifies the LSP.
FEC stacks can be more complex. For example, one may wish to test a
VPN IPv4 prefix of 10.1/8 that is tunneled over an LDP LSP with
egress 10.10.1.1. The FEC stack would then contain two sub-TLVs, the
bottom being a VPN IPv4 prefix, and the top being an LDP IPv4 prefix.
If the underlying (LDP) tunnel were not known, or was considered
irrelevant, the FEC stack could be a single element with just the VPN
IPv4 sub-TLV.
When an MPLS echo request is received, the receiver is expected to
verify that the control plane and data plane are both healthy (for
the FEC stack being pinged), and that the two planes are in sync.
The procedures for this are in section 4.4 below.
4.1. Dealing with Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP)
LSPs need not be simple point-to-point tunnels. Frequently, a single
LSP may originate at several ingresses, and terminate at several
egresses; this is very common with LDP LSPs. LSPs for a given FEC
may also have multiple "next hops" at transit LSRs. At an ingress,
there may also be several different LSPs to choose from to get to the
desired endpoint. Finally, LSPs may have backup paths, detour paths
and other alternative paths to take should the primary LSP go down.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 33]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
To deal with the last two first: it is assumed that the LSR sourcing
MPLS echo requests can force the echo request into any desired LSP,
so choosing among multiple LSPs at the ingress is not an issue. The
problem of probing the various flavors of backup paths that will typ-
ically not be used for forwarding data unless the primary LSP is down
will not be addressed here.
Since the actual LSP and path that a given packet may take may not be
known a priori, it is useful if MPLS echo requests can exercise all
possible paths. This, while desirable, may not be practical, because
the algorithms that a given LSR uses to distribute packets over
alternative paths may be proprietary.
To achieve some degree of coverage of alternate paths, there is a
certain latitude in choosing the destination IP address and source
UDP port for an MPLS echo request. This is clearly not sufficient;
in the case of traceroute, more latitude is offered by means of the
Multipath Information of the Downstream Mapping TLV. This is used as
follows. An ingress LSR periodically sends an MPLS traceroute mes-
sage to determine whether there are multipaths for a given LSP. If
so, each hop will provide some information how each of its downstream
paths can be exercised. The ingress can then send MPLS echo requests
that exercise these paths. If several transit LSRs have ECMP, the
ingress may attempt to compose these to exercise all possible paths.
However, full coverage may not be possible.
4.2. Testing LSPs That Are Used to Carry MPLS Payloads
To detect certain LSP breakages, it may be necessary to encapsulate
an MPLS echo request packet with at least one additional label when
testing LSPs that are used to carry MPLS payloads (such as LSPs used
to carry L2VPN and L3VPN traffic. For example, when testing LDP or
RSVP-TE LSPs, just sending an MPLS echo request packet may not detect
instances where the router immediately upstream of the destination of
the LSP ping may forward the MPLS echo request successfully over an
interface not configured to carry MPLS payloads because of the use of
penultimate hop popping. Since the receiving router has no means to
differentiate whether the IP packet was sent unlabeled or implicitly
labeled, the addition of labels shimmed above the MPLS echo request
(using the Nil FEC) will prevent a router from forwarding such a
packet out unlabeled interfaces.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 34]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
4.3. Sending an MPLS Echo Request
An MPLS echo request is a UDP packet. The IP header is set as fol-
lows: the source IP address is a routable address of the sender; the
destination IP address is a (randomly chosen) IPv4 address from the
range 127/8 or IPv6 address from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104.
the IP TTL is set to 1. The source UDP port is chosen by the sender;
the destination UDP port is set to 3503 (assigned by IANA for MPLS
echo requests). The Router Alert option MUST be set in the IP
header.
An MPlS Echo Request is sent with a label stack corresponding to the
FEC stack being tested. Note that further labels could be applied
if, for example, the normal route to the topmost FEC in the stack is
via a Traffic Engineered Tunnel [RSVP-TE]. If all of the FECs in the
stack correspond to Implicit Null Labels the MPLS echo request is
considered unlabeled even if further labels will be applied in send-
ing the packet.
If the echo request is labeled, one MAY (depending on what is being
pinged) set the TTL of the innermost label to 1, to prevent the ping
request going farther than it should. Examples of where this SHOULD
be done include pinging a VPN IPv4 or IPv6 prefix, an L2 VPN end
point or a pseudowire. Preventing the ping request from going to far
can also be accomplished by inserting a router alert label above this
label; however, this may lead to the undesired side effect that MPLS
echo requests take a different data path than actual data. For more
information on how these mechanisms can be used for pseudowire con-
nectivity verification, see [VCCV].
In "ping" mode (end-to-end connectivity check), the TTL in the outer-
most label is set to 255. In "traceroute" mode (fault isolation
mode), the TTL is set successively to 1, 2, ....
The sender chooses a Sender's Handle, and a Sequence Number. When
sending subsequent MPLS echo requests, the sender SHOULD increment
the sequence number by 1. However, a sender MAY choose to send a
group of echo requests with the same sequence number to improve the
chance of arrival of at least one packet with that sequence number.
The TimeStamp Sent is set to the time-of-day (in seconds and
microseconds) that the echo request is sent. The TimeStamp Received
is set to zero.
An MPLS echo request MUST have a FEC Stack TLV. Also, the Reply Mode
must be set to the desired reply mode; the Return Code and Subcode
are set to zero. In the "traceroute" mode, the echo request SHOULD
include a Downstream Mapping TLV.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 35]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
4.4. Receiving an MPLS Echo Request
Sending An MPLS Echo Request to the control plane is triggered by
one of the following packet processing exceptions: Router Alert
Option, IP TTL expiration, MPLS TTL expiration, MPLS Router Alert
Label, or the destination address in the 127/8 address range. The
control plane further identifies it by UDP destination port 3503.
For reporting purposes the bottom of stack is considered to be
stack-depth of 1. This is to establish an absolute reference for
the case where the actual stack may have more labels than there are
FECs in the Target FEC Stack.
Further, in all the error codes listed in this document a
stack-depth of 0 means "no value specified". This allows
compatibility with existing implementations which do not use the
Return Subcode field.
An LSR X that receives an MPLS Echo Request then processes it as
follows.
1. General packet sanity is verified. If the packet is not
well-formed, LSR X SHOULD send an MPLS Echo Reply with the
Return Code set to "Malformed echo request received" and the
Subcode to zero. If there are any TLVs not marked as "Ignore"
that LSR X does not understand, LSR X SHOULD send an MPLS "TLV
not understood" (as appropriate), and the Subcode set to
zero. In the latter case, the misunderstood TLVs (only) are
included as sub-TLVs in an Errored TLVs TLV in the reply. The
header fields Sender's Handle, Sequence Number, and Timestamp
Sent are not examined, but are included in the MPLS Echo Reply
message.
The algorithm uses the following variables and identifiers:
Interface-I: the interface on which the MPLS Echo Request was
received.
Stack-R: the label stack on the packet as it was
received.
Stack-D: the label stack carried in the Downstream
Mapping TLV (not always present)
Label-L: the label from the actual stack currently being
examined. Requires no initialization.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 36]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Label-stack-depth: the depth of label being verified. Initialized
to the number of labels in the received label
stack S.
FEC-stack-depth: depth of the FEC in the Target FEC Stack that
should be used to verify the current actual
label. Requires no initialization.
Best-return-code: contains the return code for the Echo Reply
packet as currently best known. As algorithm
progresses, this code may change depending on
the results of further checks that it performs.
Best-rtn-subcode: similar to Best-return-code, but for the Echo
Reply Subcode.
FEC-status: result value returned by the FEC Checking
algorithm described in section 4.4.1.
/* Save receive context information */
2. If the echo request is good, LSR X stores the interface over
which the echo was received in Interface-I, and the label stack
with which it came in Stack-R.
/* The rest of the algorithm iterates over the labels in Stack-R,
verifies validity of label values, reports associated label
switching operations (for traceroute), verifies correspondence
between the Stack-R and the Target FEC Stack description in the
body of the Echo Request, and reports any errors. */
/* The algorithm iterates as follows. */
3. Label Validation:
If Label-stack-depth is 0 {
/* The LSR needs to report its being a tail-end for the LSP */
Set FEC-stack-depth to 1, set Label-L to 3 (Implicit Null).
Set Best-return-code to 3 ("Replying router is an egress for
the FEC at stack depth"), set Best-rtn-subcode to the
value of FEC-stack-depth (1) and go to step 5 (Egress
Processing).
}
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 37]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
/* This step assumes there's always an entry for well-known
label values */
Set Label-L to the value extracted from Stack-R at depth
Label-stack-depth. Lookup Label-L in the Incoming Label Map
(ILM) to determine if the label has been allocated and an
operation is associated with it.
If there is no entry for L {
/* Indicates a temporary or permanent label synchronization
problem the LSR needs to report an error */
Set Best-return-code to 11 ("No label entry at stack-depth")
and Best-rtn-subcode to Label-stack-depth. Go to step 7
(Send Reply Packet).
}
Else {
Retrieve the associated label operation from the
corresponding NLFE and proceed to step 4 (Label Operation).
}
4. Label Operation Check
If the label operation is "Pop and Continue Processing" {
/* Includes Explicit Null and Router Alert label cases */
Iterate to the next label by decrementing Label-stack-depth
and loop back to step 3 (Label Validation).
}
If the label operation is "Swap or Pop and Switch based on Popped
Label" {
Set Best-return-code to 8 ("Label switched at stack-depth")
and Best-rtn-subcode to Label-stack-depth to report transit
switching.
If a Downstream Mapping TLV is present in the received Echo
Request {
If the IP address in the TLV is 127.0.0.1 or 0::1 {
Set Best-return-code to 6 ("Upstream Interface Index
Unknown"). An Interface and Label Stack TLV SHOULD be
included in the reply and filled with Interface-I and
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 38]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Stack-R.
}
Else {
Verify that the IP address, interface address and label
stack in the Downstream Mapping TLV match Interface-I
and Stack-R. If there is a mismatch, set
Best-return-code to 5, "Downstream Mapping Mismatch".
An Interface and Label Stack TLV SHOULD be included in
the reply and filled in based on Interface-I and
Stack-R. Go to step 7 (Send Reply Packet).
}
}
For each available downstream ECMP path {
Retrieve output interface from the NHLFE entry.
/* Note: this return code is set even if Label-stack-depth
is one */
If the output interface is not MPLS-enabled {
set Best-return-code to Return Code 9, "Label switched
but no MPLS forwarding at stack-depth" and set
Best-rtn-subcode to Label-stack-depth and goto
Send_Reply_Packet.
}
If a Downstream Mapping TLV is present {
A Downstream mapping TLV SHOULD be included in the Echo
Reply (see section 3.3) filled in with information about
the current ECMP path.
}
}
If no Downstream Mapping TLV is present, or the Downstream IP
Address is set to the ALLROUTERS multicast address,
Go to step 7 (Send Reply Packet).
If the "Validate FEC Stack" flag is not set and the LSR is not
configured to perform FEC checking by default, go to step 7
(Send Reply Packet).
/* Validate the Target FEC Stack in the received Echo Request.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 39]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
First determine FEC-stack-depth from the Downstream Mapping
TLV. This is done by walking through Stack-D (the Downstream
Labels) from the bottom, decrementing the number of labels
for each non-Implicit Null label, while incrementing
FEC-stack-depth for each label. If the Downstream Mapping TLV
contains one or more Implicit Null labels, FEC-stack-depth
may be greater than Label-stack-depth. To be consistent with
the above stack-depths, the bottom is considered to entry 1.
*/
Set FEC-stack-depth to 0. Set i to Label-stack-depth.
While (i > 0 ) do {
++FEC-stack-depth.
if Stack-D[FEC-stack-depth] != 3 (Implicit Null)
--i.
}
If the number of labels in the FEC stack is greater
than or equal to FEC-stack-depth {
Perform the FEC Checking procedure (see subsection 4.4.1
below).
If FEC-status is 2 set Best-return-code to 10 ("Mapping
for this FEC is not the given label at stack-depth").
If the return code is 1 set Best-return-code to
FEC-return-code and Best-rtn-subcode to FEC-stack-depth.
}
Go to step 7 (Send Reply Packet).
}
5. Egress Processing:
/* These steps are performed by the LSR that identified itself
as the tail-end LSR for an LSP. */
If received Echo Request contains no Downstream Mapping TLV, or
the Downstream IP Address is set to 127.0.0.1 or 0::1
Go t0 step 6 (Egress FEC Validation).
Verify that the IP address, interface address and label stack in
the Downstream mapping TLV match Interface-I and Stack-R. If
not, set Best-return-code to 5, "Downstream Mapping
Mis-match". A Received Interface and Label Stack TLV SHOULD be
created for the Echo Response packet. Go to step 7 (Send Reply
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 40]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Packet).
6. Egress FEC Validation:
/* This is a loop for all entries in the Target FEC Stack
starting with FEC-stack-depth. */
Perform FEC checking by following the algorithm described in
subsection 4.4.1 for Label-L and the FEC at FEC-stack-depth.
Set Best-return-code to FEC-code and Best-rtn-subcode to the
value in FEC-stack-depth.
If FEC-status (the result of the check) is 1,
Go to step 7 (Send Reply Packet).
/* Iterate to the next FEC entry */
++FEC-stack-depth.
If FEC-stack-depth > the number of FECs in the FEC-stack,
Go to step 7 (Send Reply Packet).
If FEC-status is 0 {
++Label-stack-depth.
If Label-stack-depth > the number of labels in Stack-R,
Go to step 7 (Send Reply Packet).
Label-L = extracted label from Stack-R at depth
Label-stack-depth.
Loop back to step 6 (Egress FEC Validation).
}
7. Send Reply Packet:
Send an MPLS Echo Reply with a Return Code of Best-return-code,
and a Return Subcode of Best-rtn-subcode. Include any TLVs
created during the above process. The procedures for sending
the Echo Reply are found in subsection 4.4.1.
4.4.1. FEC Validation
/* This subsection describes validation of a FEC entry within the
Target FEC Stack and accepts a FEC, Label-L and Interface-I.
The algorithm performs the following steps. */
1. Two return values, FEC-status and FEC-return-code, are initialized
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 41]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
to 0.
2. If the FEC is the Nil FEC {
If Label-L is either Explicit_Null or Router_Alert, return.
Else {
Set FEC-return-code to 10 ("Mapping for this FEC is not
the given label at stack-depth").
Set FEC-status to 1
Return.
}
}
3. Check the FEC label mapping that describes how traffic received
on the LSP is further switched or which application it is
associated with. If no mapping exists, set FEC-return-code to
Return 4, "Replying router has no mapping for the FEC at
stack-depth". Set FEC-status to 1. Return.
4. If the label mapping for FEC is Implicit Null, set FEC-status to
2 and proceed to step 5. Otherwise, if the label mapping for FEC
is Label-L, proceed to step 5. Otherwise, set FEC-return-code to
10 ("Mapping for this FEC is not the given label at
stack-depth"), set FEC-status to 1 and return.
5. This is a protocol check. Check what protocol would be used to
advertise FEC. If it can be determined that no protocol
associated with Interface-I would have advertised a FEC of that
FEC-Type, set FEC-return-code to 12 ("Protocol not associated
with interface at FEC stack-depth"). Set FEC-status to 1.
6. Return.
4.5. Sending an MPLS Echo Reply
An MPLS echo reply is a UDP packet. It MUST ONLY be sent in response
to an MPLS echo request. The source IP address is a routable address
of the replier; the source port is the well-known UDP port for LSP
ping. The destination IP address and UDP port are copied from the
source IP address and UDP port of the echo request. The IP TTL is
set to 255. If the Reply Mode in the echo request is "Reply via an
IPv4 UDP packet with Router Alert", then the IP header MUST contain
the Router Alert IP option. If the reply is sent over an LSP, the
topmost label MUST in this case be the Router Alert label (1) (see
[LABEL-STACK]).
The format of the echo reply is the same as the echo request. The
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 42]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Sender's Handle, the Sequence Number and TimeStamp Sent are copied
from the echo request; the TimeStamp Received is set to the time-of-
day that the echo request is received (note that this information is
most useful if the time-of-day clocks on the requester and the
replier are synchronized). The FEC Stack TLV from the echo request
MAY be copied to the reply.
The replier MUST fill in the Return Code and Subcode, as determined
in the previous subsection.
If the echo request contains a Pad TLV, the replier MUST interpret
the first octet for instructions regarding how to reply.
If the replying router is the destination of the FEC, then Downstream
Mapping TLVs SHOULD NOT be included in the echo reply.
If the echo request contains a Downstream Mapping TLV, and the reply-
ing router is not the destination of the FEC, the replier SHOULD com-
pute its downstream routers and corresponding labels for the incoming
label, and add Downstream Mapping TLVs for each one to the echo reply
it sends back.
If the Downstream Mapping TLV contains multipath information requir-
ing more processing than the receiving router is willing to perform,
the responding router MAY choose to respond with only a subset of
multipaths contained in the echo request Downstream Map. (Note: The
originator of the echo request MAY send another echo request with the
multipath information that was not included in the reply.)
Except in the case of Reply Mode 4, "Reply via application level con-
trol channel", Echo Replies are always sent in the context of the
IP/MPLS network.
4.6. Receiving an MPLS Echo Reply
An LSR X should only receive an MPLS echo reply in response to an
MPLS echo request that it sent. Thus, on receipt of an MPLS echo
reply, X should parse the packet to assure that it is well-formed,
then attempt to match up the echo reply with an echo request that it
had previously sent, using the destination UDP port and the Sender's
Handle. If no match is found, then X jettisons the echo reply; oth-
erwise, it checks the Sequence Number to see if it matches.
If the echo reply contains Downstream Mappings, and X wishes to
traceroute further, it SHOULD copy the Downstream Mapping(s) into its
next echo request(s) (with TTL incremented by one).
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 43]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
4.7. Issue with VPN IPv4 and IPv6 Prefixes
Typically, a LSP ping for a VPN IPv4 prefix or VPN IPv6 prefix is
sent with a label stack of depth greater than 1, with the innermost
label having a TTL of 1. This is to terminate the ping at the egress
PE, before it gets sent to the customer device. However, under cer-
tain circumstances, the label stack can shrink to a single label
before the ping hits the egress PE; this will result in the ping ter-
minating prematurely. One such scenario is a multi-AS Carrier's Car-
rier VPN.
To get around this problem, one approach is for the LSR that receives
such a ping to realize that the ping terminated prematurely, and send
back error code 13. In that case, the initiating LSR can retry the
ping after incrementing the TTL on the VPN label. In this fashion,
the ingress LSR will sequentially try TTL values until it finds one
that allows the VPN ping to reach the egress PE.
4.8. Non-compliant Routers
If the egress for the FEC Stack being pinged does not support MPLS
ping, then no reply will be sent, resulting in possible "false nega-
tives". If in "traceroute" mode, a transit LSR does not support LSP
ping, then no reply will be forthcoming from that LSR for some TTL,
say n. The LSR originating the echo request SHOULD try sending the
echo request with TTL=n+1, n+2, ..., n+k to probe LSRs further down
the path. In such a case, the echo request for TTL > n SHOULD be
sent with Downstream Mapping TLV "Downstream IP Address" field set to
the ALLROUTERs multicast address until a reply is received with a
Downstream Mapping TLV. The Label Stack MAY be omitted from the
Downstream Mapping TLV. Further the "Validate FEC Stack" flag SHOULD
NOT be set until an echo reply packet with a Downstream Mapping TLV
is received.
5. References
Normative References
[BGP] Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
(BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.
[IANA] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for IANA
Considerations", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 44]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
[LABEL-STACK] Rosen, E., et al, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding",
RFC 3032, January 2001.
[NTP] Mills, D., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
Version 4 for IPv4, IPv6 and OSI", RFC 2030, October
1996.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1812] Almquist, P. and F. Kastenholz, "Towards Requirements
for IP Routers", RFC 1716, November 1994.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned
Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
March 2005.
Informative References
[BGP-LABEL] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information
in BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[ICMP] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol",
RFC 792.
[LDP] Andersson, L., et al, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036,
January 2001.
[MPLS-L3-VPN] Rekhter, Y. & Rosen, E., "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs",
draft-ietf-l3vpn-rfc2547bis-03.txt, work-in-progress.
[PW-CONTROL] Martini, L. et al., "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance
using the Label Distribution Protocol",
draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-17.txt,
work-in-progress.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[VCCV] Nadeau, T. & Aggarwal, R., "Pseudo Wire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV),
draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-07.txt, August 2005,
work-in-progress.
[VPLS-BGP] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y., "Virtual Private LAN
Service", draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-bgp-05,
work-in-progress.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 45]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
6. Security Considerations
Overall, the security needs for LSP Ping are are similar to those of
ICMP Ping.
There are at least three approaches to attacking LSRs using the mech-
anisms defined here. One is a Denial of Service attack, by sending
MPLS echo requests/replies to LSRs and thereby increasing their work-
load. The second is obfuscating the state of the MPLS data plane
liveness by spoofing, hijacking, replaying or otherwise tampering
with MPLS echo requests and replies. The third is an unauthorized
source using an LSP Ping to obtain information about the network.
To avoid potential Denial of Service attacks, it is RECOMMENDED that
implementations regulate the LSP ping traffic going to the control
plane. A rate limiter SHOULD be applied to the well-known UDP port
defined below.
Unsophisticated replay and spoofing attacks involving faking or
replaying MPLS Echo Reply Messages are unlikely to be effective.
These replies would have to match the the Sender's Handle and
Sequence Number of an outstanding MPLS Echo Request Message. A non-
matching replay would be discarded as the sequence has moved on, thus
a spoof has only a small window of opportunity. However to provide a
stronger defence, an implementation MAY also validate the TimeStamp
Sent by requiring and exact match on this field.
To protect against unauthorized sources using MPLS Echo Request mes-
sages to obtain network information, it is RECOMMENDED that implemen-
tations provides a means of checking the source addresses of MPLS
Echo Request messages against an access list before accepting the
message.
It is not clear how to prevent hijacking (non-delivery) of echo
requests or replies; however, if these messages are indeed hijacked,
LSP ping will report that the data plane isn't working as it should.
It doesn't seem vital (at this point) to secure the data carried in
MPLS echo requests and replies, although knowledge of the state of
the MPLS data plane may be considered confidential by some. Imple-
mentations SHOULD however provide a means of filtering the addresses
to which Echo Reply messages may be sent.
Although this document makes special use of 127/8 address, these are
used only in conjunction with the UDP port 3503. Further these pack-
ets are only processed by routers. All other hosts MUST treat all
packets with a destination address in the range 127/8 in accordance
to RFC1122. Any packet received by a router with a destination
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 46]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
address in the range 127/8 without a destination UDP port of 3503
MUST be treated in accordance to RFC1812. In particular, the default
behavior is to treat packets destined to a 127/8 address as "mar-
tians".
7. IANA Considerations
The TCP and UDP port number 3503 has been allocated by IANA for LSP
echo requests and replies.
The following sections detail the new name spaces to be managed by
IANA. For each of these name spaces, the space is divided into
assignment ranges; the following terms are used in describing the
procedures by which IANA allocates values: "Standards Action" (as
defined in [IANA]); "Specification Required" and "Vendor Private
Use".
Values from "Specification Required" ranges MUST be registered with
IANA. The request MUST be made via an Experimental RFC that
describes the format and procedures for using the code point; the
actual assignment is made during the IANA actions for the RFC.
Values from "Vendor Private" ranges MUST NOT be registered with IANA;
however, the message MUST contain an enterprise code as registered
with the IANA SMI Private Network Management Private Enterprise Num-
bers. For each name space that has a Vendor Private range, it must
be specified where exactly the SMI Private Enterprise Number resides;
see below for examples. In this way, several enterprises (vendors)
can use the same code point without fear of collision.
7.1. Message Types, Reply Modes, Return Codes
It is requested that IANA maintain registries for Message Types,
Reply Modes, and Return Codes. Each of these can take values in the
range 0-255. Assignments in the range 0-191 are via Standards
Action; assignments in the range 192-251 are made via "Specification
Required"; values in the range 252-255 are for Vendor Private Use,
and MUST NOT be allocated.
If any of these fields fall in the Vendor Private range, a top-level
Vendor Enterprise Number TLV MUST be present in the message.
Message Types defined in this document are:
Value Meaning
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 47]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
----- -------
1 MPLS Echo Request
2 MPLS Echo Reply
Reply Modes defined in this document are:
Value Meaning
----- -------
1 Do not reply
2 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet
3 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert
4 Reply via application level control channel
Return Codes defined in this document are listed in section 3.1.
7.2. TLVs
It is requested that IANA maintain a registry for the Type field of
top-level TLVs as well as for any associated sub-TLVs. Note the
meaning of a sub-TLV is scoped by the TLV. The number spaces for the
sub-TLVs of various TLVs are independent.
The valid range for TLVs and sub-TLVs is 0-65535. Assignments in the
range 0-16383 and 32768-49161 are made via Standards Action as
defined in [IANA]; assignments in the range 16384-31743 and
49162-64511 are made via "Specification Required" as defined above;
values in the range 31744-32767 and 64512-65535 are for Vendor Pri-
vate Use, and MUST NOT be allocated.
If a TLV or sub-TLV has a Type that falls in the range for Vendor
Private Use, the Length MUST be at least 4, and the first four octets
MUST be that vendor's SMI Private Enterprise Number, in network octet
order. The rest of the Value field is private to the vendor.
TLVs and sub-TLVs defined in this document are:
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 Target FEC Stack
1 LDP IPv4 prefix
2 LDP IPv6 prefix
3 RSVP IPv4 LSP
4 RSVP IPv6 LSP
5 Not Assigned
6 VPN IPv4 prefix
7 VPN IPv6 prefix
8 L2 VPN endpoint
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 48]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
9 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
11 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
12 BGP labeled IPv4 prefix
13 BGP labeled IPv6 prefix
14 Generic IPv4 prefix
15 Generic IPv6 prefix
16 Nil FEC
2 Downstream Mapping
3 Pad
4 Not Assigned
5 Vendor Enterprise Number
6 Not Assigned
7 Interface and Label Stack
8 Not Assigned
9 Errored TLVs
Any value The TLV not understood
10 Reply TOS Byte
8. Acknowledgments
This document is the outcome of many discussions among many people,
that include Manoj Leelanivas, Paul Traina, Yakov Rekhter, Der-Hwa
Gan, Brook Bailey, Eric Rosen, Ina Minei, Shivani Aggarwal and Vanson
Lim.
The description of the Multipath Information sub-field of the Down-
stream Mapping TLV was adapted from text suggested by Curtis Vil-
lamizar.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 49]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N.Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
1414 Massachusetts Ave,
Boxborough, MA 01719
Phone: +1 978 936 1398
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Expiration Date
July 2006
Disclaimer of Validity
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 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.
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.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 50]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-13.txt January 2006
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances 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-ipr@ietf.org.
Kompella & Swallow Standards Track [Page 51]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/