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

Versions: (draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 7743

Network Working Group                                        J. Luo, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                       ZTE
Updates: 4379 (if approved)                                  L. Jin, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                              Individual
Expires: April 7, 2016                                    T. Nadeau, Ed.
                                                             Lucidvision
                                                         G. Swallow, Ed.
                                                                   Cisco
                                                         October 5, 2015


               Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping
                draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-11

Abstract

   In some inter autonomous system (AS) and inter-area deployment
   scenarios for RFC 4379 "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and
   Traceroute", a replying Label Switching Router (LSR) may not have the
   available route to an initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to
   the initiator would be discarded resulting in false negatives or
   complete failure of operation of LSP Ping and Traceroute.  This
   document describes extensions to LSP Ping mechanism to enable the
   replying LSR to have the capability to relay the Echo Response by a
   set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator.  This document
   updates RFC 4379.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2016.








Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   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.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Relayed Echo Reply message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Relay Node Address Stack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  MTU Exceeded Return Code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Sending an Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2.  Receiving an Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Originating an Relayed Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Relaying an Relayed Echo Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.5.  Sending an Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.6.  Sending Subsequent Echo Requests  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.7.  Impact to Traceroute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply Example . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.1.  New Message Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.2.  New TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.3.  MTU Exceeded Return Code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17






Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


1.  Introduction

   This document describes extensions to the Label Switched Path (LSP)
   Ping as specified in [RFC4379], by adding a relayed echo reply
   mechanism which could be used to report data plane failures for inter
   autonomous system (AS) and inter-area LSPs.  Without these
   extensions, the ping functionality provided by [RFC4379] would fail
   in many deployed inter-AS scenarios, since the replying Label
   Switching Router (LSR) in one AS may not have an available route to
   the initiator in the other AS.  The mechanism in this document
   defines a new message type referred as "Relayed Echo Reply message",
   and a new TLV referred as "Relay Node Address Stack TLV".

   This document is also to update [RFC4379], include updating of Echo
   Request sending procedure in section 4.3 of [RFC4379], Echo Request
   receiving procedure in section 4.4 of [RFC4379], Echo Reply sending
   procedure in Section 4.5 of [RFC4379], Echo Reply receiving procedure
   in section 4.6 of [RFC4379].

1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   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 [RFC2119].

2.  Motivation

   LSP Ping [RFC4379] defines a mechanism to detect data plane failures
   and localize faults.  The mechanism specifies that the Echo Reply
   should be sent back to the initiator using an UDP packet with the
   IPv4/IPv6 destination address set to an address of the LSR that
   originated the Echo Request.  This works in administrative domains
   where IP address reachability is allowed among LSRs, and every LSR is
   able to route back to the originating LSR.  However, in practice,
   this is often not the case due to intra-provider routing policy,
   route hiding, and network address translation at autonomous system
   border routers (ASBR).  In fact, it is almost always the case that in
   inter-AS scenarios the only node in one AS to which direct routing is
   allowed from the other AS is the ASBR, and routing information from
   within one AS is not distributed into another AS.

   Figure 1 demonstrates a case where an LSP is set up between PE1 and
   PE2.  If PE1's IP address is not distributed to AS2, a traceroute
   from PE1 directed towards PE2 can result in a failure because an LSR
   in AS2 may not be able to send the Echo Reply message.  E.g., P2
   cannot forward packets back to PE1 given that it is an routable IP
   address in AS1 but not routable in AS2.  In this case, PE1 would
   detect a path break, as the Echo Reply messages would not be



Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   received.  Then localization of the actual fault would not be
   possible.

   Note that throughout the document, routable address means that it is
   possible to route an IP packet to this address using the normal
   information exchanged by the IGP and BGP (or EGP) operating in the
   AS.



   +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+   +------+   +------+
   |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |   |      |   |      |
   |  PE1  +---+   P1  +---+ ASBR1+---+ ASBR2+---+  P2  +---+  PE2 |
   |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |   |      |   |      |
   +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+   +------+   +------+
   <---------------AS1-------------><---------------AS2------------>
   <---------------------------- LSP ------------------------------>


                Figure 1: Simple Inter-AS LSP Configuration

   A second example that illustrates how [RFC4379] would be insufficient
   would be the inter-area situation in a seamless MPLS architecture
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] as shown below in Figure 2.  In this
   example LSRs in the core network would not have IP reachable route to
   any of the access nodes (AN).  When tracing an LSP from one AN to the
   remote AN, the LSR1/LSR2 node cannot send the Echo Reply either, like
   the P2 node in the inter-AS scenario in Figure 1.


              +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+
              |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |
           +--+ AGN11 +---+ AGN21 +---+ ABR1 +---+ LSR1 +--> to AGN
          /   |       |  /|       |   |      |   |      |
   +----+/    +-------+\/ +-------+   +------+  /+------+
   | AN |              /\                     \/
   +----+\    +-------+  \+-------+   +------+/\ +------+
          \   |       |   |       |   |      |  \|      |
           +--+ AGN12 +---+ AGN22 +---+ ABR2 +---+ LSR2 +--> to AGN
              |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |
              +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+
   static route     ISIS L1 LDP             ISIS L2 LDP
   <-Access-><--Aggregation Domain--><---------Core--------->


                   Figure 2: Seamless MPLS Architecture





Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   This document describes extensions to the LSP Ping mechanism to
   facilitate a response from the replying LSR, by defining a mechanism
   that uses a relay node (e.g, ASBR) to relay the message back to the
   initiator.  Every designated or learned relay node must be reachable
   to the next relay node or to the initiator.  Using a recursive
   approach, relay node could relay the message to the next relay node
   until the initiator is reached.

   The LSP Ping relay mechanism in this document is defined for unicast
   case.  How to apply the LSP Ping relay mechanism in multicast case is
   out of the scope.

3.  Extensions

   [RFC4379] defines two message types, Echo Request and Echo Reply.
   This document defines a new message type, Relayed Echo Reply.  The
   Relayed Echo Reply message is used in place of the Echo Reply message
   when an LSR is replying LSR to a relay node.

   A new TLV named Relay Node Address Stack TLV is defined in this
   document, to carry the IP addresses of the relay nodes for the
   replying LSR.

   In addition, MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) Exceeded Return Code is
   defined to indicate to the initiator that one or more TLVs will not
   be returned due to MTU size.

   It should be noted that this document focuses only on detecting the
   LSP which is set up using a uniform IP address family type.  That is,
   all hops between the source and destination node use the same address
   family type for their LSP ping control planes.  This does not
   preclude nodes that support both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses
   simultaneously, but the entire path must be addressable using only
   one address family type.  Supporting for mixed IPv4-only and
   IPv6-only is beyond the scope of this document.

3.1.  Relayed Echo Reply message

   The Relayed Echo Reply message is a UDP packet, and the UDP payload
   has the same format with Echo Request/Reply message.  A new message
   type is requested from IANA.

   New Message Type:
       Value    Meaning
       -----    -------
       TBD1      MPLS Relayed Echo Reply





Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   The use of TCP and UDP port number 3503 is described in [RFC4379] and
   has been allocated by IANA for LSP Ping messages.  The Relayed Echo
   Reply message will use the same port number.

3.2.  Relay Node Address Stack

   The Relay Node Address Stack TLV is an optional TLV.  It MUST be
   carried in the Echo Request, Echo Reply and Relayed Echo Reply
   messages if the echo reply relayed mechanism described in this
   document is required.  Figure 3 illustrates the TLV 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          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Initiator Source Port       | Reply Add Type|   Reserved    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    Source Address of Replying Router (0, 4, or 16 octets)     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Destination Address Offset   |   Number of Relayed Addresses |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     ~                Stack of Relayed Addresses                     ~
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                  Figure 3: Relay Node Address Stack TLV

   -  Type: value is TBD2.  The value should be assigned by IANA from
      32768-49161 as suggested by [RFC4379] Section 3.

   -  Length: the length of the value field in octets.

   -  Initiator Source Port: the source UDP port that the initiator uses
      in the Echo Request message, and also the port that is expected to
      receive the Echo Reply message.

   -  Reply Address Type: address type of replying router.  This value
      also implies the length of the address field as shown below.

   Type#   Address Type   Address Length
   ----    ------------   ------------
   0       Null           0
   1       IPv4           4
   2       IPv6           16




Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   -  Reserved: This field is reserved and MUST be set to zero.

   -  Source Address of Replying Router: source IP address of the
      originator of Echo Reply or Replay Echo Reply message.

   -  Destination Address Offset: the offset in octets from the top-of-
      stack to the destination address entry.  Each entry size has been
      listed in this section.  Please also refer to section 4.2 for more
      detail of the operation.

   -  Number of Relayed Addresses: an integer indicating the number of
      relayed addresses in the stack.

   -  Stack of Relayed Addresses: a list of relay node address entries.
      This stack grows downward, with relay nodes address further along
      the LSP appearing lower down in the stack.  Please refer to
      section 4.2 for the relay node discovery mechanism.

   The format of each relay node address entry 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Address  Type |K|  Reserved   |          Reserved             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~           Relayed Address (0, 4, or 16 octets)                ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 4: Relay Node Address Entry

   Type#   Address Type   Address Length   Size of the Entry
   ----    ------------   ------------     -----------------
   0       Null           0                4
   1       IPv4           4                8
   2       IPv6           16               20

   Reserved: The two fields are reserved and MUST be set to zero.

   K bit: if the K bit is set to 1, then this address stack entry MUST
   NOT be stripped from the Relay Node Address Stack during processing
   described in Section 4.2.  If the K bit is clear, the entry might be
   stripped according to the processing described in Section 4.2.

   Having the K bit set in the relay node address entry causes that
   entry to be preserved in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV for the
   entire traceroute operation.  A responder node MAY set the K bit to
   ensure its relay node address entry remains as one of the relay nodes
   in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV.  The address with K bit set will



Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   always be a relay node address for the Relayed Echo Reply, see
   section 4.3.

   Relayed Address: this field specifies the node address, either IPv4
   or IPv6.

3.3.  MTU Exceeded Return Code

   Return Code is defined to indicate that one or more TLVs were omitted
   from the Echo Reply or Relayed Echo Reply message to avoid exceeding
   the message's effective MTU size.  These TLVs MAY be included in an
   Errored TLV's Object with their lengths set to 0 and no value.  The
   return sub-code MUST be set to the value that otherwise would have
   been sent.  For more detail, please refer to section 4.2.

   MTU Exceeded Return Code:
       Value    Meaning
       -----    -------
       TBD2      One or more TLVs not returned due to MTU size


   Then section 4.4 of [RFC4379], step 7 will be updated to integrate
   the processing of MTU Exceeded Return Code.The following text will be
   added:

   Before sending Echo Reply, the new packet size should be checked.  If
   Best-return-code is 3 ("Replying router is an egress for the FEC at
   stack depth"), or 8 ("Label switched at stack-depth"), and if the
   packet size exceeds MTU size, then Best-return-code is TBD3 ("One or
   more TLVs not returned due to MTU size")

4.  Procedures

   To preform a ping operation, the initiator first discovers the relay
   nodes.  Once those nodes have been discovered, the initiator includes
   the Relay Node Address Stack TLV into any Echo Request message.  The
   node can then ping as normal.  Note that in some cases, the repeated
   lack of replies to Echo Request messages may be due to a route change
   that has impacted the necessary stack of relay nodes.  In this case
   the initiator may need to re-discover the relay nodes.  The following
   sections describe the procedures for sending and receiving Echo
   Request messages with the the Relay Node Address Stack TLV.  These
   procedures can be used in "trace route" mode to discover the relay
   nodes.







Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


4.1.  Sending an Echo Request

   In addition to the procedures described in section 4.3 of [RFC4379],
   a Relay Node Address Stack TLV MUST be carried in the Echo Request
   message if the relay functionality is required.  The relay function
   initiation is out of the scope of this document, one possible way is
   that the operator will explicitly add an option to the ping command.

   When the initiator sends the first Echo Request with a Relay Node
   Address Stack TLV, the TLV MUST contain the initiator address as the
   first entry of the stack of relayed addresses, the Destination
   Address Offset set to this entry, and the source address of the
   replying router set to null.  The Initiator Source Port field MUST be
   set to the source UDP port.  Note that the first relay node address
   in the stack will always be the initiator's address.

   When sending subsequent Echo Request message, refer to section 4.6.

4.2.  Receiving an Echo Request

   The Type of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is chosen from the range
   defined in [RFC4379] as "optional TLVs that can be silently dropped
   if not recognized.  An LSR that does not recognize the TLV SHOULD
   ignore it.

   In addition to the processes in section 4.4 of [RFC4379], the
   procedures of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV are defined here.

   Upon receiving a Relay Node Address Stack TLV in an Echo Request
   message, the receiver updates the "Source Address of Replying
   Router".  The address MUST be same as the source IP address of Relay
   Echo Reply (section 4.3) or Echo Reply message (section 4.5) being
   sent.

   Those address entries with K bit set to 1 MUST be kept in the stack.
   The receiver MUST check the addresses of the stack in sequence from
   bottom to top to find the last address in the stack with the K bit
   set (or the top of the stack if no K bit was found).  The receiver
   then checks the stack beginning with this entry, proceeding towards
   the bottom to find the first routable address IP address.  The
   Destination Address Offset MUST be set to this entry which is also
   the resolved destination address.  Address entries below the first
   routable IP address MUST be deleted.  At least one address entries of
   the replying LSR MUST be added at the bottom of the stack.  A second
   or more address entries MAY also be added if necessary, depending on
   implementation.  The final address added MUST be an address that is
   reachable through the interface that the Echo Request Message would
   have been forwarded if it had not TTL expired at this node.  The



Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   updated Relay Node Address Stack TLV MUST be carried in the response
   message.

   If the replying LSR is configured to hide its routable address
   information, the address entry added in the stack MUST be a NIL entry
   with Address Type set to NULL.

   If a node spans two addressing domains (with respect to this message)
   where nodes on either side may not be able to reach nodes in the
   other domain, then the final address added SHOULD set the K bit.  One
   example of spanning two address domains is the ASBR node.  Other
   cases are also possible, and out of the scope of this document.

   K bit applies in the case of a NULL address, to serve as a warning to
   the initiator that further Echo Request messages may not result in
   receiving Echo Reply messages.

   If the full reply message would exceed the MTU size, the Relay Node
   Address Stack TLV SHOULD be included in the Echo Reply message (i.e.,
   other optional TLVs are excluded).

4.3.  Originating an Relayed Echo Reply

   The destination address determined in section 4.2 is used as the next
   relay node address.  If the resolved next relay node address is not
   routable, then sending of Relayed Echo Reply or Echo Reply will fail.

   If the first IP address in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is not
   the next relay node address, the replying LSR SHOULD send a Relayed
   Echo Reply message to the next relay node.  The processing of Relayed
   Echo Reply is the same with the procedure of the Echo Reply described
   in Section 4.5 of [RFC4379], except the destination IP address and
   the destination UDP port.  The destination IP address of the Relayed
   Echo Reply is set to the next relay node address from the Relay Node
   Address Stack TLV, and both the source and destination UDP port are
   set to 3503.  The updated Relay Node Address Stack TLV described in
   section 4.2 MUST be carried in the Relayed Echo Reply message.  The
   Source Address of Replying Router field is kept unmodified, and
   Source IP address field of the IP header is set to an address of the
   sending node.

   When the next relay node address is the first one in the address
   list, please refer to section 4.5.








Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


4.4.  Relaying an Relayed Echo Reply

   Upon receiving an Relayed Echo Reply message with its own address as
   the destination address in the IP header, the relay node MUST
   determine the next relay node address as described in section 4.2,
   with the modification that the location of the received destination
   address is used instead of the bottom of stack in the algorithm.  The
   Destination Address Offset in Relay Node Address Stack TLV will be
   set to the next relay node address.  Note that unlike section 4.2 no
   changes are made to the Stack of Relayed Addresses.

   If the next relay node address is not the first one in the address
   list, i.e., another intermediate relay node, the relay node MUST send
   an Relayed Echo Reply message to the determined upstream node with
   the payload unchanged other than the Relay Node Address Stack TLV.
   The TTL SHOULD be copied from the received Relay Echo Reply and
   decremented by 1.  The Source Address of Replying Router field is
   kept unmodified, and Source IP address field of the IP header is set
   to an address of the sending node.

   When the next relay node address is the first one in the address
   list, please refer to section 4.5.

4.5.  Sending an Echo Reply

   The Echo Reply is sent in two cases:

   1.  When the replying LSR receives an Echo Request, and the first IP
   address in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is the next relay node
   address (section 4.3), the replying LSR would send an Echo Reply to
   the initiator.  In addition to the procedure of the Echo Reply
   described in Section 4.5 of [RFC4379], the updated Relay Node Address
   Stack TLV described in section 4.2 MUST be carried in the Echo Reply.

   If the receiver does not recognize the Relay Node Address Stack TLV,
   as per section 3 and 4.5 of [RFC4379], it will send an Echo Reply
   without including the TLV.

   2.  When the intermediate relay node receives a Relayed Echo Reply,
   and the first IP address in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is the
   next relay node address (section 4.4), the intermediate relay node
   would send the Echo Reply to the initiator, and update the Message
   Type field from type of Relayed Echo Reply to Echo Reply.  The
   updated Relay Node Address Stack TLV described in section 4.4 MUST be
   carried in the Echo Reply.  The destination IP address of the Echo
   Reply is set to the first IP address in the stack, and the
   destination UDP port would be copied from the Initiator Source Port
   field of the Relay Node Address Stack TLV.  The source UDP port



Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   should be 3503.  The TTL of the Echo Reply SHOULD be copied from the
   received Relay Echo Reply and decremented by 1.  The Source Address
   of Replying Router field is kept unmodified, and Source IP address
   field of the IP header is set to an address of the sending node.

4.6.  Sending Subsequent Echo Requests

   During a traceroute operation, multiple Echo Request messages are
   sent.  Each time the TTL is increased, the initiator SHOULD copy the
   Relay Node Address Stack TLV received in the previous Echo Reply to
   the next Echo Request.  The Relay Node Address Stack TLV MUST NOT be
   modified except as follows.  A NIL entry with K bit unset MAY be
   removed.  A NIL entry with K bit serves as a warning that further
   Echo Request messages are likely to not result in a reply.  If,
   however, the initiator decides to continue a traceroute operation,
   the NIL entry with the K bit set MUST be removed.  The Source Address
   of Replying Router and Destination Address Offset fields may be
   preserved or reset since these fields are ignored in received MPLS
   Echo Request.

4.7.  Impact to Traceroute

   Source IP address in Echo Reply and Relay Echo Reply is to be of the
   address of the node sending those packets, not the original
   responding node.  Then the traceroute address output module will
   print the source IP address as below:

     if (Relay Node Address Stack TLV exists) {
           Print the Source Address of Replying Router in
           Relay Node Address Stack TLV;
     } else {
           Print the source IP address of Echo Reply message;
     }

5.  LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply Example

   Considering the inter-AS scenario in Figure 5 below.  AS1 and AS2 are
   two independent address domains.  In the example, an LSP has been
   created between PE1 to PE2, but PE1 in AS1 is not reachable by P2 in
   AS2.











Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+   +------+   +------+
   |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |   |      |   |      |
   |  PE1  +---+   P1  +---+ ASBR1+---+ ASBR2+---+  P2  +---+  PE2 |
   |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |   |      |   |      |
   +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+   +------+   +------+
   <---------------AS1-------------><---------------AS2------------>
   <--------------------------- LSP ------------------------------->


                      Figure 5: Example Inter-AS LSP

   When performing LSP traceroute on the LSP, the first Echo Request
   sent by PE1 with outer-most label TTL=1, contains the Relay Node
   Address Stack TLV with PE1's address as the first relayed address.

   After processed by P1, P1's interface address facing ASBR1 without
   the K bit set will be added in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV
   address list following PE1's address in the Echo Reply.

   PE1 copies the Relay Node Address Stack TLV into the next Echo
   Request when receiving the Echo Reply.

   Upon receiving the Echo Request, ASBR1 checks the address list in the
   Relay Node Address Stack TLV, and determines that PE1's address is
   the next relay address.  Then deletes P1's address, and adds its
   interface address facing ASBR2 with the K bit set.  As a result,
   there would be PE1's address followed by ASBR1's interface address
   facing ASBR2 in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV of the Echo Reply
   sent by ASBR1.

   PE1 then sends an Echo Request with outer-most label TTL=3,
   containing the Relay Node Address Stack TLV copied from the received
   Echo Reply message.  Upon receiving the Echo Request message, ASBR2
   checks the address list in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV, and
   determines ASBR1's interface address is the next relay address in the
   stack TLV.  ASBR2 adds its interface address facing P2 with the K bit
   set.  Then ASBR2 sets the next relay address as the destination
   address of the Relayed Echo Reply, and sends the Relayed Echo Reply
   to ASBR1.

   Upon receiving the Relayed Echo Reply from ASBR2, ASBR1 checks the
   address list in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV, and determines that
   PE1's address is the next relay node.  Then ASBR1 sends an Echo Reply
   to PE1.

   For the Echo Request with outer-most label TTL=4, P2 checks the
   address list in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV, and determines that
   ASBR2's interface address is the next relay address.  Then P2 sends



Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   an Relayed Echo Reply to ASBR2 with the Relay Node Address Stack TLV
   containing four addresses, PE1's, ASBR1's interface address, ASBR2's
   interface address and P2's interface address facing PE2 in sequence.

   Then according to the process described in section 4.4, ASBR2 sends
   the Relayed Echo Reply to ASBR1.  Upon receiving the Relayed Echo
   Reply, ASBR1 sends an Echo Reply to PE1.  And as relayed by ASBR2 and
   ASBR1, the Echo Reply would finally be sent to the initiator PE1.

   For the Echo Request with outer-most label TTL=5, the Echo Reply
   would relayed to PE1 by ASBR2 and ASBR1, similar to the case of
   TTL=4.

   The Echo Reply from the replying node which has no IP reachable route
   to the initiator is thus transmitted to the initiator by multiple
   relay nodes.

6.  Security Considerations

   The Relayed Echo Reply mechanism for LSP Ping creates an increased
   risk of DoS by putting the IP address of a target router in the Relay
   Node Address Stack.  These messages then could be used to attack the
   control plane of an LSR by overwhelming it with these packets.  A
   rate limiter SHOULD be applied to the well-known UDP port on the
   relay node as suggested in [RFC4379].  The node which acts as a relay
   node SHOULD validate the relay reply against a set of valid source
   addresses and discard packets from untrusted border router addresses.
   An implementation SHOULD provide such filtering capabilities.

   If an operator wants to obscure their nodes, it is RECOMMENDED that
   they may replace the replying node address that originated the Echo
   Reply with NIL address entry in Relay Node Address Stack TLV.

   A receiver of an MPLS Echo Request could verify that the first
   address in the Relay Node Address Stack TLV is the same address as
   the source IP address field of the received IP header.

   The Relay Node Address Stack TLV has the path information of the LSP,
   and such information may be maliciously used by any uncontrolled LSR/
   LER.  We have two ways to reduce the path information in the TLV:

   1. it is recommended to clear the K bit in the relay address entry
   unless you have to.

   2. it is encouraged to use NIL address entry to hide node information
   if possible.





Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


   Other security considerations discussed in [RFC4379], are also
   applicable to this document.

7.  Backward Compatibility

   When one of the nodes along the LSP does not support the mechanism
   specified in this document, the node will ignore the Relay Node
   Address Stack TLV as described in section 4.2.  Then the initiator
   may not receive the Relay Node Address Stack TLV in Echo Reply
   message from that node.  In this case, an indication should be
   reported to the operator, and the Relay Node Address Stack TLV in the
   next Echo Request message should be copied from the previous Echo
   Request, and continue the ping process.  If the node described above
   is located between the initiator and the first relay node, the ping
   process could continue without interruption.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign one new Message Type, one new TLV and one
   Return Code.

8.1.  New Message Type

   This document requires allocation of one new message type from
   "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
   Ping Parameters" registry, the "Message Type" registry:

        Value    Meaning
        -----    -------
        TBD1      MPLS Relayed Echo Reply

   The value should be assigned from the "Standards Action" range
   (0-191), and using the lowest free value within this range.

8.2.  New TLV

   This document requires allocation of one new TLV from "Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
   registry, the "TLVs" registry:

        Type    Meaning
        ----    --------
        TBD2     Relay Node Address Stack TLV

   A value should be assigned from "Standards Action" range
   (32768-49161) as suggested by [RFC4379] Section 3, using the first
   free value within this range.




Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


8.3.  MTU Exceeded Return Code

   This document requires allocation of MTU Exceeded return code from
   "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
   Ping Parameters" registry, the "Return Codes" registry:

       Value    Meaning
       -----    -------
       TBD3      One or more TLVs not returned due to MTU size


   The value should be assigned from the "Standards Action" range
   (0-191), and using the lowest free value within this range.

9.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Carlos Pignataro, Xinwen Jiao, Manuel
   Paul, Loa Andersson, Wim Henderickx, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin, Gregory
   Mirsky, Nobo Akiya and Joel M.  Halpern for their valuable comments
   and suggestions.

10.  Contributors

   Ryan Zheng
   JSPTPD
   371, Zhongshan South Road
   Nanjing, 210006, China
   Email: ryan.zhi.zheng@gmail.com


11.  References

11.1.  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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.








Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      MPLS LSP Ping Relayed Echo Reply        October 2015


11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls]
              Leymann, N., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Konstantynowicz,
              M., and D. Steinberg, "Seamless MPLS Architecture", draft-
              ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-07 (work in progress), June 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Jian Luo (editor)
   ZTE
   50, Ruanjian Avenue
   Nanjing, 210012, China

   Email: luo.jian@zte.com.cn


   Lizhong Jin (editor)
   Individual
   Shanghai, China

   Email: lizho.jin@gmail.com


   Thomas Nadeau (editor)
   Lucidvision

   Email: tnadeau@lucidvision.com


   George Swallow (editor)
   Cisco
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough , MASSACHUSETTS 01719, USA

   Email: swallow@cisco.com















Luo, et al.               Expires April 7, 2016                [Page 17]


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