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

Versions: (draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 N. Akiya
Internet-Draft                                       Big Switch Networks
Updates: 8029 (if approved)                                   G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: October 5, 2019                                    S. Litkowski
                                                             B. Decraene
                                                                  Orange
                                                                J. Drake
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                                  Huawei
                                                          April 03, 2019


       Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath Support for
                Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
               draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-07

Abstract

   This document defines extensions to the MPLS Label Switched Path
   (LSP) Ping and Traceroute mechanisms as specified in RFC 8029.  The
   extensions allow the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms to
   discover and exercise specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost
   Multipath (ECMP) over Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces.
   Additionally, a mechanism is defined to enable determination of the
   capabilities of an LSR supported.

   This document updates RFC8029.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP14 [RFC2119][RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 5, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Overview of Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  LSR Capability Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Initiator LSR Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Responder LSR Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP Multipath . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Initiator LSR Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Responder LSR Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Additional Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     5.1.  Incoming LAG Member Links Verification  . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.1.1.  Initiator LSR Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.1.2.  Responder LSR Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.1.3.  Additional Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Individual End-to-End Path Verification . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  LSR Capability TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  LAG Description Indicator Flag: G . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  Local Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     10.1.  Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       10.1.1.  Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . .  19



Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


       10.1.2.  Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . .  20
   11. Rate Limiting On Echo Request/Reply Messages  . . . . . . . .  21
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     13.1.  LSR Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       13.1.1.  LSR Capability Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.2.  Local Interface Index Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       13.2.1.  Interface Index Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     13.3.  Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     13.4.  Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . .  23
       13.4.1.  Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       13.4.2.  Interface and Label Stack Address Types  . . . . . .  24
     13.5.  DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Appendix A.  LAG with intermediate L2 Switch Issues . . . . . . .  26
     A.1.  Equal Numbers of LAG Members  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     A.2.  Deviating Numbers of LAG Members  . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     A.3.  LAG Only on Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     A.4.  LAG Only on Left  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Terminology

   The following acronyms/terms are used in this document:

   o  MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching.

   o  LSP - Label Switched Path.

   o  LSR - Label Switching Router.

   o  ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath.

   o  LAG - Link Aggregation Group.

   o  Initiator LSR - The LSR which sends the MPLS echo request message.

   o  Responder LSR - The LSR which receives the MPLS echo request
      message and sends the MPLS echo reply message.







Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


1.2.  Background

   The MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute mechanisms
   [RFC8029] are powerful tools designed to diagnose all available Layer
   3 (L3) paths of LSPs, including diagnostic coverage of L3 Equal-Cost
   Multipath (ECMP).  In many MPLS networks, Link Aggregation Group
   (LAG) as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], which provides Layer 2 (L2) ECMP,
   is often used for various reasons.  MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute
   tools were not designed to discover and exercise specific paths of L2
   ECMP.  This raises a limitation for the following scenario when an
   LSP traverses over a LAG:

   o  Label switching over some member links of the LAG is successful,
      but fails over other member links of the LAG.

   o  MPLS echo request for the LSP over the LAG is load balanced on one
      of the member links which is label switching successfully.

   With the above scenario, MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute will not be
   able to detect the label switching failure of the problematic member
   link(s) of the LAG.  In other words, lack of L2 ECMP diagnostic
   coverage can produce an outcome where MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute
   can be blind to label switching failures over a problematic LAG
   interface.  It is, thus, desirable to extend the MPLS LSP Ping and
   Traceroute to have deterministic diagnostic coverage of LAG
   interfaces.

   The need for a solution of this problem was motivated by issues
   encountered in live networks.

2.  Overview of Solution

   This document defines an new TLV to discover the capabilities of a
   responder LSR and extensions for use with the MPLS LSP Ping and
   Traceroute mechanisms to describe Multipath Information for
   individual LAG member links, thus allowing MPLS LSP Ping and
   Traceroute to discover and exercise specific paths of L2 ECMP over
   LAG interfaces.  The reader is expected to be familiar with mechanics
   Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (DDMAP) described in Section 3.4 of
   [RFC8029].

   The solution consists of the MPLS echo request containing a DDMAP TLV
   and the new LSR Capability TLV to indicate that separate load
   balancing information for each L2 nexthop over LAG is desired in the
   MPLS echo reply.  The Responder LSR places the same LSR capability
   TLV in the MPLS echo reply to provide acknowledgement back to the
   initiator LSR.  It also adds, for each downstream LAG member, load
   balance information (i.e., multipath information and interface



Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   index).  This mechanism is applicable to all types of LSPs which can
   traverse over LAG interfaces.  Many LAGs are built from p2p links,
   with router X and router X+1 having direct connectivity and the same
   number of LAG members.  It is possible to build LAGs asymmetrically
   by using Ethernet switches between two routers.  Appendix A lists
   some use cases for which the mechanisms defined in this document may
   not be applicable.  Note that the mechanisms described in this
   document do not impose any changes to scenarios where an LSP is
   pinned down to a particular LAG member (i.e. the LAG is not treated
   as one logical interface by the LSP).

   The following figure and description provides an example using an LDP
   network.

     <----- LDP Network ----->

             +-------+
             |       |
     A-------B=======C-------E
             |               |
             +-------D-------+

     ---- Non-LAG
     ==== LAG comprising of two member links

         Figure 1: Example LDP Network


   When node A is initiating LSP Traceroute to node E, node B will
   return to node A load balance information for following entries.

   1.  Downstream C over Non-LAG (upper path).

   2.  First Downstream C over LAG (middle path).

   3.  Second Downstream C over LAG (middle path).

   4.  Downstream D over Non-LAG (lower path).

   This document defines:

   o  In Section 3, a mechanism to discover capabilities of responder
      LSRs;

   o  In Section 4, a mechanism to discover L2 ECMP multipath
      information;

   o  In Section 5, a mechanism to validate L2 ECMP traversal;



Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   o  In Section 6, the LSR Capability TLV;

   o  In Section 7, the LAG Description Indicator flag;

   o  In Section 8, the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV;

   o  In Section 9, the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV;

   o  In Section 10, the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV;

3.  LSR Capability Discovery

   The MPLS Ping operates by an initiator LSR sending an MPLS echo
   request message and receiving back a corresponding MPLS echo reply
   message from a responder LSR.  The MPLS Traceroute operates in a
   similar way except the initiator LSR potentially sends multiple MPLS
   echo request messages with incrementing TTL values.

   There have been many extensions to the MPLS Ping and Traceroute
   mechanism over the years.  Thus it is often useful, and sometimes
   necessary, for the initiator LSR to deterministically disambiguate
   the differences between:

   o  The responder LSR sent the MPLS echo reply message with contents C
      because it has feature X, Y and Z implemented.

   o  The responder LSR sent the MPLS echo reply message with contents C
      because it has subset of features X, Y and Z implemented but not
      all.

   o  The responder LSR sent the MPLS echo reply message with contents C
      because it does not have features X, Y and Z implemented.

   To allow the initiator LSR to disambiguate the above differences,
   this document defines the LSR Capability TLV (described in
   Section 6).  When the initiator LSR wishes to discover the
   capabilities of the responder LSR, the initiator LSR includes the LSR
   Capability TLV in the MPLS echo request message.  When the responder
   LSR receives an MPLS echo request message with the LSR Capability TLV
   included, if it knows the LSR Capability TLV, then it MUST include
   the LSR Capability TLV in the MPLS echo reply message with the LSR
   Capability TLV describing features and extensions supported by the
   local LSR.  Otherwise, an MPLS echo reply must be sent back to the
   initiator LSR with the return code set to "One or more of the TLVs
   was not understood", according to the rules as defined Section 3 of
   [RFC8029].  Then the initiator LSR can send another MPLS echo request
   without including the LSR Capability TLV.




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   It is RECOMMENDED that implementations supporting the LAG Multipath
   extensions defined in this document include the LSR Capability TLV in
   MPLS echo request messages.

3.1.  Initiator LSR Procedures

   If an initiator LSR does not know what capabilities a responder LSR
   can support, it can send an MPLS each request message and carry the
   LSR Capability TLV to the responder to discover the capabilities that
   the responder LSR can support.

3.2.  Responder LSR Procedures

   When a responder LSR received an MPLS echo request message that
   carries the LSR Capability TLV, the following procedures are used:

   If the responder knows how to process the LSR Capability TLV, the
   following procedures are used:

   o  The responder LSR MUST include the LSR Capability TLV in the MPLS
      echo reply message.

   o  If the responder LSR understands the "LAG Description Indicator
      flag":

      *  Set the "Downstream LAG Info Accommodation flag" if the
         responder LSR is capable of describing outgoing LAG member
         links separately; otherwise, clear the "Downstream LAG Info
         Accommodation flag".

      *  Set the "Upstream LAG Info Accommodation flag" if responder LSR
         is capable of describing incoming LAG member links separately;
         otherwise, clear the "Upstream LAG Info Accommodation flag".

4.  Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP Multipath

4.1.  Initiator LSR Procedures

   Through the "LSR Capability Discovery" as defined in Section 3, the
   initiator LSR can understand whether the responder LSR can describe
   incoming/outgoing LAG member links separately in the DDMAP TLV.

   Once the initiator LSR knows that a responder can support this
   meachanims, then it sends an MPLS echo request carrying a DDMAP TLV
   with the "LAG Description Indicator flag" (G) set to the responder
   LSR.  The "LAG Description Indicator flag" (G) indicates that
   separate load balancing information for each L2 nexthop over a LAG is




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   desired in the MPLS echo reply.  The new "LAG Description Indicator
   flag" is described in Section 7.

4.2.  Responder LSR Procedures

   When a responder LSR received an MPLS echo request message with the
   "LAG Description Indicator flag" set in the DDMAP TLV, if the
   responder LSR understands the "LAG Description Indicator flag" and is
   capable of describing outgoing LAG member links separately, the
   following procedures are used, regardless of whether or not outgoing
   interfaces include LAG interfaces:

   o  For each downstream that is a LAG interface:

      *  The responder LSR MUST include a DDMAP TLV when sending the
         MPLS echo reply.There is a single DDMAP TLV for the LAG
         interface, with member links described using sub-TLVs.

      *  The responder LSR MUST set the "LAG Description Indicator flag"
         in the DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV.

      *  In the DDMAP TLV, the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV, Remote
         Interface Index Sub-TLV and Multipath Data Sub-TLV are used to
         describe each LAG member link.  All other fields of the DDMAP
         TLV are used to describe the LAG interface.

      *  For each LAG member link of the LAG interface:

         +  The responder LSR MUST add a Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
            (described in Section 8) with the "LAG Member Link Indicator
            flag" set in the Interface Index Flags field, describing the
            interface index of this outgoing LAG member link (the local
            interface index is assigned by the local LSR).

         +  The responder LSR MAY add a Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV
            (described in Section 9) with the "LAG Member Link Indicator
            flag" set in the Interface Index Flags field, describing the
            interface index of the incoming LAG member link on the
            downstream LSR (this interface index is assigned by the
            downstream LSR).  How the local LSR obtains the interface
            index of the LAG member link on the downstream LSR is
            outside the scope of this document.

         +  The responder LSR MUST add an Multipath Data Sub-TLV for
            this LAG member link, if the received DDMAP TLV requested
            multipath information.





Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   Based on the procedures described above, every LAG member link will
   have a Local Interface Index Sub-TLV and a Multipath Data Sub-TLV
   entries in the DDMAP TLV.  The order of the Sub-TLVs in the DDMAP TLV
   for a LAG member link MUST be Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
   immediately followed by Multipath Data Sub-TLV.  A LAG member link
   MAY also have a corresponding Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV.  When a
   Local Interface Index Sub-TLV, a Remote Interface Index-Sub-TLV and a
   Multipath Data Sub-TLV are placed in the DDMAP TLV to describe a LAG
   member link, they MUST be placed in the order of Local Interface
   Index Sub-TLV, Remote Interface Index-Sub-TLV and Multipath Data Sub-
   TLV.  The block of local interface index, (optional remote interface
   index) and multipath data sub-TLVs for each member link MUST appear
   adjacent to each other in order of increasing local interface index.

   A responder LSR possessing a LAG interface with two member links
   would send the following DDMAP for this LAG interface:

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~   DDMAP fields describing LAG interface with DS Flags G set   ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Local Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #1                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Local Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #2           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #2          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #2                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Label Stack Sub-TLV                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 2: Example of DDMAP in MPLS Echo Reply


   When none of the received multipath information maps to a particular
   LAG member link, then the responder LSR MUST still place the Local
   Interface Index Sub-TLV and the Multipath Data Sub-TLV for that LAG
   member link in the DDMAP TLV.  The value of Multipath Length field of
   the Multipath Data Sub-TLV is set to zero.






Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


4.3.  Additional Initiator LSR Procedures

   The procedures above allow an initiator LSR to:

   o  Identify whether or not the responder LSR can describe outgoing
      LAG member links separately, by looking at the LSR Capability TLV.

   o  Utilize the value of the "LAG Description Indicator flag" in DS
      Flags to identify whether each received DDMAP TLV describes a LAG
      interface or a non-LAG interface.

   o  Obtain multipath information which is expected to traverse the
      specific LAG member link described by corresponding interface
      index.

   When an initiator LSR receives a DDMAP containing LAG member
   information from a downstream LSR with TTL=n, then the subsequent
   DDMAP sent by the initiator LSR to the downstream LSR with TTL=n+1
   through a particular LAG member link MUST be updated with following
   procedures:

   o  The Local Interface Index Sub-TLVs MUST be removed in the sending
      DDMAP.

   o  If the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs were present and the
      initiator LSR is traversing over a specific LAG member link, then
      the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV corresponding to the LAG member
      link being traversed SHOULD be included in the sending DDMAP.  All
      other Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs MUST be removed from the
      sending DDMAP.

   o  The Multipath Data Sub-TLVs MUST be updated to include just one
      Multipath Data Sub-TLV.  The initiator LSR MAY just keep the
      Multipath Data Sub-TLV corresponding to the LAG member link being
      traversed, or combine the Multipath Data Sub-TLVs for all LAG
      member links into a single Multipath Data Sub-TLV when diagnosing
      further downstream LSRs.

   o  All other fields of the DDMAP are to comply with procedures
      described in [RFC8029].

   Figure 3 is an example that shows how to use the DDMAP TLV to notify
   which member link (link #1 in the example) will be chosen to send the
   MPLS echo request message to the next downstream LSR:







Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~   DDMAP fields describing LAG interface with DS Flags G set   ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |[OPTIONAL] Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |             Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #1         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Label Stack Sub-TLV                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 3: Example of DDMAP in MPLS Echo Request

5.  Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal

   Section 4 defines the responder LSR procedures to construct a DDMAP
   for a downstream LAG.  The Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs that
   describes the incoming LAG member links of the downstream LSR is
   optional, because this information from the downstream LSR is often
   not available on the responder LSR.  In such case, the traversal of
   LAG member links can be validated with procedures described in
   Section 5.1.  If LSRs can provide the Remote Interface Index Sub-
   TLVs, then the validation procedures described in Section 5.2 can be
   used.

5.1.  Incoming LAG Member Links Verification

   Without downstream LSRs returning remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs in
   the DDMAP, validation of the LAG member link traversal requires that
   initiator LSR traverses all available LAG member links and taking the
   results through a logic.  This section provides the mechanism for the
   initiator LSR to obtain additional information from the downstream
   LSRs and describes the additional logic in the initiator LSR to
   validate the L2 ECMP traversal.

5.1.1.  Initiator LSR Procedures

   An MPLS echo request carrying a DDMAP TLV with the "Interface and
   Label Stack Object Request flag" and "LAG Description Indicator flag"
   set is sent to indicate the request for Detailed Interface and Label
   Stack TLV with additional LAG member link information (i.e.
   interface index) in the MPLS echo reply.








Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


5.1.2.  Responder LSR Procedures

   When received an echo request with the "LAG Description Indicator
   flag" set, a responder LSR that understands the "LAG Description
   Indicator flag" and is capable of describing incoming LAG member link
   SHOULD use the following procedures, regardless of whether or not
   incoming interface was a LAG interface:

   o  When the "I" flag ( "Interface and Label Stack Object Request
      flag") of the DDMAP TLV in the received MPLS echo request is set:

      *  The responder LSR MUST add the Detailed Interface and Label
         Stack TLV (described in Section 10) in the MPLS echo reply.

      *  If the incoming interface is a LAG, the responder LSR MUST add
         the Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV (described in
         Section 10.1.2) in the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.
         The "LAG Member Link Indicator flag" MUST be set in the
         Interface Index Flags field, and the Interface Index field set
         to the LAG member link which received the MPLS echo request.

   These procedures allow initiator LSR to:

   o  Utilize the Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV in the Detailed
      Interface and Label Stack TLV to derive, if the incoming interface
      is a LAG, the identity of the incoming LAG member.

5.1.3.  Additional Initiator LSR Procedures

   Along with procedures described in Section 4, the procedures
   described in this section will allow an initiator LSR to know:

   o  The expected load balance information of every LAG member link, at
      LSR with TTL=n.

   o  With specific entropy, the expected interface index of the
      outgoing LAG member link at TTL=n.

   o  With specific entropy, the interface index of the incoming LAG
      member link at TTL=n+1.

   Depending on the LAG traffic division algorithm, the messages may or
   may not traverse different member links.  The expectation is that
   there's a relationship between the interface index of the outgoing
   LAG member link at TTL=n and the interface index of the incoming LAG
   member link at TTL=n+1 for all entropies examined.  In other words,
   set of entropies that load balances to outgoing LAG member link X at




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   TTL=n should all reach the nexthop on same incoming LAG member link Y
   at TTL=n+1.

   With additional logic, the initiator LSR can perform the following
   checks in a scenario where the initiator LSR knows that there is a
   LAG, with two LAG members, between TTL=n and TTL=n+1, and has the
   multipath information to traverse the two LAG member links.

   The initiator LSR sends two MPLS echo request messages to traverse
   the two LAG member links at TTL=n+1:

   o  Success case:

      *  One MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on an LAG member
         link 1.

      *  The other MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on an LAG
         member link 2.

      The two MPLS echo request messages sent by the initiator LSR reach
      at the immediate downstream LSR from two different LAG member
      links.

   o  Error case:

      *  One MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on an LAG member
         link 1.

      *  The other MPLS echo request message also reaches TTL=n+1 on an
         LAG member link 1.

      *  One or both MPLS echo request messages cannot reach the
         immediate downstream LSR on whichever link.

      One or two MPLS echo request messages sent by the initiator LSR
      cannot reach the immediate downstream LSR, or the two MPLS echo
      request messages reach at the immediate downstream LSR from the
      same LAG member link.

   Note that the above defined procedures will provide a deterministic
   result for LAG interfaces that are back-to-back connected between
   LSRs (i.e. no L2 switch in between).  If there is a L2 switch between
   the LSR at TTL=n and the LSR at TTL=n+1, there is no guarantee that
   traversal of every LAG member link at TTL=n will result in reaching
   from different interface at TTL=n+1.  Issues resulting from LAG with
   L2 switch in between are further described in Appendix A.  LAG
   provisioning models in operated network should be considered when
   analyzing the output of LSP Traceroute exercising L2 ECMPs.



Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


5.2.  Individual End-to-End Path Verification

   When the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs are available from an LSR
   with TTL=n, then the validation of LAG member link traversal can be
   performed by the downstream LSR of TTL=n+1.  The initiator LSR
   follows the procedures described in Section 4.3.

   The DDMAP validation procedures for the downstream responder LSR are
   then updated to include the comparison of the incoming LAG member
   link to the interface index described in the Remote Interface Index
   Sub-TLV in the DDMAP TLV.  Failure of this comparison results in the
   return code being set to "Downstream Mapping Mismatch (5)".

6.  LSR Capability TLV

   This document defines a new TLV which is referred to as the "LSR
   Capability TLV.  It MAY be included in the MPLS echo request message
   and the MPLS echo reply message.  An MPLS echo request message and an
   MPLS echo reply message MUST NOT include more than one LSR Capability
   TLV.  The presence of an LSR Capability TLV in an MPLS echo request
   message is a request that a responder LSR includes an LSR Capability
   TLV in the MPLS echo reply message, with the LSR Capability TLV
   describing features and extensions that the responder LSR supports.

   The format of the LSR Capability TLV is as below:

   LSR Capability TLV Type is TBD1.  Length is 4.  The value field of
   the LSR Capability TLV has 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             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                      LSR Capability Flags                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 4: LSR Capability TLV

   Where:

      The Type field is 2 octets in length and the value is TBD1.

      The Length field is 2 octets in length, and the value is 4.

      The "LSR Capability Flags" field is 4 octets in length, this
      document defines the following flags:




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 Reserved (Must Be Zero)                   |U|D|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      This document defines two flags.  The unallocated flags MUST be
      set to zero when sending and ignored on receipt.  Both the U and
      the D flag MUST be cleared in the MPLS echo request message when
      sending, and ignored on receipt.  Neither, either or both the U
      and the D flag MAY be set in the MPLS echo reply message.

      Flag  Name and Meaning
      ----  ----------------

         U  Upstream LAG Info Accommodation

            An LSR sets this flag when the LSR is capable of
            describing a LAG member link in the Incoming Interface
            Index Sub-TLV in the Detailed Interface and
            Label Stack TLV.

         D  Downstream LAG Info Accommodation

            An LSR sets this flag when the LSR is capable of
            describing LAG member links in the Local Interface
            Index Sub-TLV and the Multipath Data Sub-TLV in the
            Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV.

7.  LAG Description Indicator Flag: G

   This document defines a new flag, the "G" flag (LAG Description
   Indicator), in the DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV.

   The "G" flag in the MPLS echo request message indicates the request
   for detailed LAG information from the responder LSR.  In the MPLS
   echo reply message, the "G" flag MUST be set if the DDMAP TLV
   describes a LAG interface.  It MUST be cleared otherwise.

   The "G" flag is defined as below:

      The Bit Number is TBD5.

       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | MBZ |G|E|L|I|N|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


      RFC-Editor-Note: Please update above figure to place the G flag in
      the bit number TBD5.

  Flag  Name and Meaning
  ----  ----------------

     G  LAG Description Indicator

        When this flag is set in the MPLS echo request, the responder LSR
        is requested to respond with detailed LAG information. When this
        flag is set in the MPLS echo reply, the corresponding DDMAP TLV
        describes a LAG interface.

8.  Local Interface Index Sub-TLV

   The Local Interface Index Sub-TLV is an optional TLV, it describes
   the interface index assigned by the local LSR to an egress interface.
   One or more Local Interface Index sub-TLVs MAY appear in a DDMAP TLV.

   The format of the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV is below:

      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             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Local Interface Index                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 5: Local Interface Index Sub-TLV

   Where:

   o  The "Type" field is 2 octets in length, the value is TBD2.

   o  The "Length" filed 2 octets in length, and the value is 4.

   o  The "Local Interface Index" field is 4 octets in length, it is an
      interface index assigned by a local LSR to an egress interface.
      It's normally an unsigned integer and in network byte order.

9.  Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV

   The Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV is an optional TLV, it describes
   the interface index assigned by a downstream LSR to an ingress
   interface.  One or more Remote Interface Index sub-TLVs MAY appear in
   a DDMAP TLV.




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   The format of the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV is as below:

      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             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                    Remote Interface Index                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 6: Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV

   Where:

   o  The "Type" field is 2 octets in length, and the value is TBD3.

   o  The "Length" field is 2 octets in length, and the value is 4.

   o  The "Remote Interface Index" is 4 octets in length, it is an
      interface index assigned by a downstream LSR to an ingress
      interface.  It's normally an unsigned integer and in network byte
      order.

10.  Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV

   The "Detailed Interface and Label Stack" object is a TLV that MAY be
   included in an MPLS echo reply message to report the interface on
   which the MPLS echo request message was received and the label stack
   that was on the packet when it was received.  A responder LSR MUST
   NOT insert more than one instance of this TLV into the MPLS echo
   reply message.  This TLV allows the initiator LSR to obtain the exact
   interface and label stack information as it appears at the responder
   LSR.

   Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV Type is TBD4.  Length is K +
   Sub-TLV Length (sum of Sub-TLVs).  K is the sum of all fields of this
   TLV prior to Sub-TLVs, but the length of K depends on the Address
   Type.  Details of this information is described below.  The Value
   field has following format:












Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


      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             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Address Type  |             Reserved (Must Be Zero)           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                   IP Address (4 or 16 octets)                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                   Interface (4 or 16 octets)                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .                      List of Sub-TLVs                         .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 7: Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV

   The Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV format is derived from the
   Interface and Label Stack TLV format (from [RFC8029]).  Two changes
   are introduced.  The first is that the label stack is converted into
   a sub-TLV.  The second is that a new sub-TLV is added to describe an
   interface index.  The other fields of Detailed Interface and Label
   Stack TLV have the same use and meaning as in [RFC8029].  A summary
   of these fields is as below:

      Address Type

         The Address Type indicates if the interface is numbered or
         unnumbered.  It also determines the length of the IP Address
         and Interface fields.  The resulting total length of the
         initial part of the TLV is listed 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

      IP Address and Interface

         IPv4 addresses 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



Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


         Numbered or IPv6 Numbered, 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 is 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.

         Note: Usage of IPv6 Unnumbered has the same issue as [RFC8029],
         described in Section 3.4.2 of [RFC7439].  A solution should be
         considered an applied to both [RFC8029] and this document.

10.1.  Sub-TLVs

   This section defines the sub-TLVs that MAY be included as part of the
   Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.  Two sub-TLVs are defined:

           Sub-Type    Sub-TLV Name
           ---------   ------------
             1         Incoming Label stack
             2         Incoming Interface Index

10.1.1.  Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV

   The Incoming Label Stack sub-TLV contains the label stack as received
   by an LSR.  If any TTL values have been changed by this LSR, they
   SHOULD be restored.

   Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV Type is 1.  Length is variable, and its
   format is as below:

      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             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 Label                 | TC  |S|      TTL      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     .                                                               .
     .                                                               .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 Label                 | TC  |S|      TTL      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 8: Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


10.1.2.  Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV

   The Incoming Interface Index object is a Sub-TLV that MAY be included
   in a Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.  The Incoming Interface
   Index Sub-TLV describes the index assigned by a local LSR to the
   interface which received the MPLS echo request message.

   Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is 2.  Length is 8, and its
   format is as below:

      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             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    Interface Index Flags      |       Reserved (Must Be Zero) |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                   Incoming Interface Index                    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Figure 9: Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV

   Interface Index Flags

      Interface Index Flags field is a bit vector with following format.

      0                   1
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Reserved (Must Be Zero)   |M|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      One flag is defined: M.  The remaining flags MUST be set to zero
      when sending and ignored on receipt.

     Flag  Name and Meaning
     ----  ----------------

        M  LAG Member Link Indicator

           When this flag is set, interface index described in
           this sub-TLV is a member of a LAG.


   Incoming Interface Index

      An Index assigned by the LSR to this interface.  It's normally an
      unsigned integer and in network byte order.



Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


11.  Rate Limiting On Echo Request/Reply Messages

   For an LSP path, it may be over several LAGs.  Each LAG may have many
   member links.  To exercise all the links, many Echo Request/Reply
   messages will be sent in a short period.  It's possible that those
   messages may traverse a common path as a burst.  Under some
   circumstances this might cause congestion at the common path.  To
   avoid potential congestion, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations to
   randomly delay the Echo Request and Reply messages at the Initiating
   LSRs and Responder LSRs.  Rate limiting of ping traffic is further
   specified in [RFC8029] (Section 5) and [RFC6425] (Section 4.1) which
   apply to this document as well.

12.  Security Considerations

   This document extends LSP Traceroute mechanism [RFC8029] to discover
   and exercise L2 ECMP paths to determine problematic member link(s) of
   a LAG.  These on-demand diagnostic mechanisms are used by an operator
   within an MPLS control domain.

   [RFC8029] reviews the possible attacks and approaches to mitigate
   possible threats when using these mechanisms.

   To prevent leakage of vital information to untrusted users, a
   responder LSR MUST only accept MPLS echo request messages from
   designated trusted sources via filtering source IP address field of
   received MPLS echo request messages.  As noted in [RFC8029], spoofing
   attacks only have a small window of opportunity.  If these messages
   are indeed hijacked (non-delivery) by an intermediate node, the use
   of these mechanisms will determine the data plane is not working (as
   it should).  Hijacking of a responder node such that it provides a
   legitimate reply would involve compromising the node itself and the
   MPLS control domain.  [RFC5920] provides additional MPLS network-wide
   operation recommendations to avoid attacks and recommendations to
   follow.  Please note that source IP address filtering provides only a
   weak form of access control and is not, in general, a reliable
   security mechanism.  Nonetheless, it is required here in the absence
   of any more robust mechanism that might be used.

13.  IANA Considerations

13.1.  LSR Capability TLV

   The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD1 (from the range
   4-16383) for LSR Capability TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label
   Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping
   Parameters - TLVs" registry.




Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


     Value   Meaning                                      Reference
     -----   -------                                      ---------
     TBD1    LSR Capability TLV                           this document

13.1.1.  LSR Capability Flags

   The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "LSR
   Capability Flags" with following registration procedures:

    Registry Name: LAG Interface Info Flags

    Bit number Name                                        Reference
    ---------- ----------------------------------------    ---------
            31 D: Downstream LAG Info Accommodation        this document
            30 U: Upstream LAG Info Accommodation          this document
          0-29 Unassigned

   Assignments of LSR Capability Flags are via Standards Action
   [RFC8126].

13.2.  Local Interface Index Sub-TLV

   The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD2 (from the range
   4-16383) for the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV from the
   "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV
   Types 20" sub-registry.

     Value   Meaning                                      Reference
     -----   -------                                      ---------
     TBD2    Local Interface Index Sub-TLV                this document

13.2.1.  Interface Index Flags

   The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled
   "Interface Index Flags" with following registration procedures:

    Registry Name: Interface Index Flags

    Bit number Name                                        Reference
    ---------- ----------------------------------------    ---------
            15 M: LAG Member Link Indicator                this document
          0-14 Unassigned

   Assignments of Interface Index Flags are via Standards Action
   [RFC8126].





Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   Note that this registry is used by the Interface Index Flags field of
   following Sub-TLVs:

   o  The Local Interface Index Sub-TLV which may be present in the
      "Downstream Detailed Mapping" TLV.

   o  The Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV which may be present in the
      "Downstream Detailed Mapping" TLV.

   o  The Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV which may be present in the
      "Detailed Interface and Label Stack" TLV.

13.3.  Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV

   The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD3 (from the range
   32768-49161) for the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV from the
   "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV
   Types 20" sub-registry.

     Value   Meaning                                      Reference
     -----   -------                                      ---------
     TBD3    Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV               this document

13.4.  Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV

   The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD4 (from the range
   4-16383) for Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV from the
   "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).

     Value   Meaning                                      Reference
     -----   -------                                      ---------
     TBD4    Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV       this document

13.4.1.  Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD4

   The IANA is requested to create and maintain a sub-registry entitled
   "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD4" under "Multiprotocol Label Switching
   Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters -
   TLVs" registry.

   Initial values for this sub-registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types TBD4",
   are described below.







Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


     Sub-Type     Name                                    Reference
     -----------  --------------------------------------  ---------
     1            Incoming Label Stack                    this document
     2            Incoming Interface Index                this document
     3-16383      Unassigned (mandatory TLVs)
     16384-31743  Specification Required
     32768-49161  Unassigned (optional TLVs)
     49162-64511  Specification Required

   Assignments of Sub-Types in the mandatory and optional spaces are via
   Standards Action [RFC8126].  Assignments of Sub-Types in the
   Specification Required space is via Specification Required [RFC8126].

13.4.2.  Interface and Label Stack Address Types

   Since the "Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV" shares the
   "Interface and Label Stack Address Types" with the "Interface and
   Label Stack TLV".  IANA is requested to update the "Interface and
   Label Stack Address Types" registry to reflect this.

   For example, change the registry name to "Interface and Label Stack
   and Detailed Interface and Label Stack Address Types", and add a
   reference to this document.

13.5.  DS Flags

   The IANA is requested to assign a new bit number from the "DS flags"
   sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry
   ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).

   Note: the "DS flags" sub-registry is created by [RFC8029].

    Bit number Name                                        Reference
    ---------- ----------------------------------------    ---------
          TBD5 G: LAG Description Indicator                this document

14.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Nagendra Kumar, Sam Aldrin, for
   providing useful comments and suggestions.  The authors would like to
   thank Loa Andersson for performing a detailed review and providing
   number of comments.

   The authors also would like to extend sincere thanks to the MPLS RT
   review members who took time to review and provide comments.  The
   members are Eric Osborne, Mach Chen and Yimin Shen.  The suggestion
   by Mach Chen to generalize and create the LSR Capability TLV was



Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   tremendously helpful for this document and likely for future
   documents extending the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanism.  The
   suggestion by Yimin Shen to create two separate validation procedures
   had a big impact to the contents of this document.

15.  References

15.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

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

15.2.  Informative References

   [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
              IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
              mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.

   [IEEE802.1AX]
              IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
              2008.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.






Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   [RFC6425]  Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A.,
              Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane
              Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP
              Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425>.

   [RFC7439]  George, W., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Gap Analysis for
              Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks", RFC 7439,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7439, January 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7439>.

Appendix A.  LAG with intermediate L2 Switch Issues

   Several flavors of "LAG with L2 switch" provisioning models and the
   corresponding MPLS data plane ECMP traversal validation issues are
   described in this section .

A.1.  Equal Numbers of LAG Members

   R1 ==== S1 ==== R2

   The issue with this LAG provisioning model is that packets traversing
   a LAG member from Router 1 (R1) to intermediate L2 switch (S1) can
   get load balanced by S1 towards Router 2 (R2).  Therefore, MPLS echo
   request messages traversing a specific LAG member from R1 to S1 can
   actually reach R2 via any of the LAG members, and the sender of MPLS
   echo request messages has no knowledge of this nor no way to control
   this traversal.  In the worst case, MPLS echo request messages with
   specific entropies to exercise every LAG members from R1 to S1 can
   all reach R2 via same LAG member.  Thus it is impossible for MPLS
   echo request sender to verify that packets intended to traverse
   specific LAG member from R1 to S1 did actually traverse that LAG
   member, and to deterministically exercise "receive" processing of
   every LAG member on R2.  (Notes, AFAICT there's not a better option
   than "try a bunch of entropy labels and see what responses you can
   get back" and that's the same remedy in all the described
   topologies.)

A.2.  Deviating Numbers of LAG Members

              ____
   R1 ==== S1 ==== R2

   There are deviating number of LAG members on the two sides of the L2
   switch.  The issue with this LAG provisioning model is the same as
   previous model, sender of MPLS echo request messages have no
   knowledge of L2 load balance algorithm nor entropy values to control
   the traversal.



Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


A.3.  LAG Only on Right

   R1 ---- S1 ==== R2

   The issue with this LAG provisioning model is that there is no way
   for MPLS echo request sender to deterministically exercise both LAG
   members from S1 to R2.  And without such, "receive" processing of R2
   on each LAG member cannot be verified.

A.4.  LAG Only on Left

   R1 ==== S1 ---- R2

   MPLS echo request sender has knowledge of how to traverse both LAG
   members from R1 to S1.  However, both types of packets will terminate
   on the non-LAG interface at R2.  It becomes impossible for MPLS echo
   request sender to know that MPLS echo request messages intended to
   traverse a specific LAG member from R1 to S1 did indeed traverse that
   LAG member.

Authors' Addresses

   Nobo Akiya
   Big Switch Networks

   Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com


   George Swallow
   Cisco Systems

   Email: swallow@cisco.com


   Stephane Litkowski
   Orange

   Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com


   Bruno Decraene
   Orange

   Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com







Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ping LAG Multipath               April 2019


   John E. Drake
   Juniper Networks

   Email: jdrake@juniper.net


   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com









































Akiya, et al.            Expires October 5, 2019               [Page 28]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/