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

Versions: (draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

Network Work group                                         N. Kumar, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                         C. Pignataro, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Cisco
Expires: April 20, 2018                                       G. Swallow
                                               Southend Technical Center
                                                                N. Akiya
                                                     Big Switch Networks
                                                                 S. Kini
                                                              Individual
                                                                 M. Chen
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        October 17, 2017


Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP Prefix
                and Adjacency SIDs with MPLS Data-plane
                   draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-13

Abstract

   A Segment Routing architecture leverages source routing and tunneling
   paradigms and can be directly applied to use of a Multi Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) data plane.  A node steers a packet through a
   controlled set of instructions called segments, by prepending the
   packet with a Segment Routing header.

   The segment assignment and forwarding semantic nature of Segment
   Routing raises additional consideration for connectivity verification
   and fault isolation for an LSP within a Segment Routing architecture.
   This document illustrates the problem and defines extensions to
   perform LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP Prefix and
   Adjacency SIDs with an MPLS data plane.

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/.

   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."




Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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.  Coexistence of SR-Capable and Non-SR-Capable Node
           Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Challenges with Existing mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Path validation in Segment Routing networks . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Segment ID sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.2.  IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.3.  IGP-Adjacency Segment ID  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Extension to Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV  . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  FECs in Target FEC Stack TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  FEC Stack Change sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.3.  Segment ID POP Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.4.  Segment ID Check  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.5.  TTL Consideration for traceroute  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   8.  Backward Compatibility with non Segment Routing devices . . .  17
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.1.  New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.2.  Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     9.3.  Adjacency Type in the IGP-Adjacency Segment ID  . . . . .  19
     9.4.  Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
           Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     9.5.  Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   12. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

1.  Introduction

   "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"
   [RFC8029] defines a simple and efficient mechanism to detect data
   plane failures in Label Switched Paths (LSP) by specifying
   information to be carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo reply"
   for the purposes of fault detection and isolation.  Mechanisms for
   reliably sending the echo reply are defined.  The functionality
   defined in [RFC8029] is modeled after the ping/traceroute paradigm
   (ICMP echo request [RFC0792]) and is typically referred to as LSP
   ping and LSP traceroute.  [RFC8029] supports hierarchical and
   stitching LSPs.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] introduces and describes a Segment
   Routing architecture that leverages the source routing and tunneling
   paradigms.  A node steers a packet through a controlled set of
   instructions called segments, by prepending the packet with Segment
   Routing header.  A detailed definition of the Segment Routing
   architecture is available in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].

   As described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] and
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls], the Segment Routing
   architecture can be directly applied to an MPLS data plane, the
   Segment identifier (Segment ID) will be of 20-bits size and the
   Segment Routing header is the label stack.  Consequently, the
   mechanics of data place validation of [RFC8029] can be directly
   applied to SR MPLS.

   Unlike LDP or RSVP which are the other well-known MPLS control plane
   protocols, the basis of segment ID assignment in Segment Routing
   architecture is not always on a hop-by-hop basis.  Depending on the
   type of segment ID, the assignment can be unique to the node or
   within a domain.

   This nature of Segment Routing raises additional considerations for
   validation of fault detection and isolation in a Segment Routing
   network.  This document illustrates the problem and describes a
   mechanism to perform LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP
   Prefix and Adjacency SIDs within an MPLS data plane.







Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


1.1.  Coexistence of SR-Capable and Non-SR-Capable Node Scenarios

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] describes how Segment
   Routing operates in a network where SR-capable and non-SR-capable
   nodes coexist.  In such a network, one or more SR-based LSPs and non-
   SR-based LSPs are stitched together to achieve an end-to-end LSP.
   This is similar to a network where LDP and RSVP nodes coexist and the
   mechanism defined in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC8029] is applicable for LSP
   Ping and Trace.

   Section 8 of this document explains one of the potential gaps that is
   specific to SR-Capable and non-SR-capable node scenarios and explains
   how the existing mechanism defined in [RFC8029] handles it.

2.  Requirements notation

   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].

3.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminologies defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], [RFC8029], readers are expected to
   be familiar with it.

4.  Challenges with Existing mechanisms

   The following example describes the challenges with using the current
   MPLS OAM mechanisms on a Segment Routing network.

4.1.  Path validation in Segment Routing networks

   [RFC8029] defines the MPLS OAM mechanisms that help with fault
   detection and isolation for an MPLS data-plane path by the use of
   various Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs that are carried in MPLS Echo
   Request packets and used by the responder for FEC validation.  While
   it is obvious that new Sub-TLVs need to be assigned for Segment
   Routing, the unique nature of the Segment Routing architecture raises
   the need for additional operational considerations for path
   validation.  This section discusses the challenges as below:










Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


                         L1
                     +--------+
                     |   L2   |
                     R3-------R6
                    /           \
                   /             \
           R1----R2               R7----R8
                   \             /
                    \           /
                     R4-------R5

             Figure 1: Segment Routing network

    The Node Segment IDs for R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are 5001,
    5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5008 respectively.

       9136 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R3 to R6 over link L1.
       9236 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R3 to R6 over link L2.
       9124 --> Adjacency segment ID from R2 to R4.
       9123 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R2 to R3.


   The forwarding semantic of Adjacency Segment ID is to pop the Segment
   ID and send the packet to a specific neighbor over a specific link.
   A malfunctioning node may forward packets using Adjacency Segment ID
   to an incorrect neighbor or over an incorrect link.  The exposed
   Segment ID (of an incorrectly forwarded Adjacency Segment ID) might
   still allow such packet to reach the intended destination, although
   the intended strict traversal has been broken.

   Assume in above topology, R1 sends traffic with segment stack as
   {9124, 5008} so that the path taken will be R1-R2-R4-R5-R7-R8.  If
   the Adjacency Segment ID 9124 is misprogrammed in R2 to send the
   packet to R1 or R3, the packet may still be delivered to R8 (if the
   nodes are configured with same SRGB) but is not via the expected
   path.

   MPLS traceroute may help with detecting such a deviation in the above
   mentioned scenario.  However, in a different example, it may not be
   helpful.  For example if R3, due to misprogramming, forwards a packet
   with Adjacency Segment ID 9236 via link L1, while it is expected to
   be forwarded over Link L2.

5.  Segment ID sub-TLV

   The format of the following Segment ID sub-TLVs follows the
   philosophy of Target FEC Stack TLV carrying FECs corresponding to
   each label in the label stack.  When operated with the procedures



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


   defined in [RFC8029], this allows LSP ping/traceroute operations to
   function when Target FEC Stack TLV contains more FECs than received
   label stack at responder nodes.

   Three new sub-TLVs are defined for Target FEC Stack TLVs (Type 1),
   Reverse-Path Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 16) and Reply Path TLV (Type
   21).

           sub-Type    Value Field
           --------  ---------------
            34      IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
            35      IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
            36      IGP-Adjacency Segment ID


   See Section 9.2 for the registry for the Protocol field specified
   wihtin these sub-TLVs.

5.1.  IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID

   The IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].  The format is as specified 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         IPv4 Prefix                           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Prefix Length  |    Protocol   |         Reserved              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



   IPv4 Prefix

      This field carries the IPv4 prefix to which the Segment ID is
      assigned.  In case of Anycast Segment ID, this field will carry
      IPv4 Anycast address.  If the prefix is shorter than 32 bits,
      trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero.

   Prefix Length

      The Prefix Length field is one octet, it gives the length of the
      prefix in bits (values can be 1 - 32).

   Protocol




Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


      Set to 1, if the Responder MUST perform FEC validation using OSPF
      as IGP protocol.  Set to 2, if the Responder MUST perform Egress
      FEC validation using ISIS as IGP protocol.  Set to 0, if Responder
      can use any IGP protocol for Egress FEC validation.

   Reserved

      MUST be set to 0 on send, and MUST be ignored on receipt.

5.2.  IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID

   The IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].  The format is as specified 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |                         IPv6 Prefix                           |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |Prefix Length  |    Protocol   |              Reserved         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



   IPv6 Prefix

      This field carries the IPv6 prefix to which the Segment ID is
      assigned.  In case of Anycast Segment ID, this field will carry
      IPv4 Anycast address.  If the prefix is shorter than 128 bits,
      trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero.

   Prefix Length

      The Prefix Length field is one octet, it gives the length of the
      prefix in bits (values can be 1 - 128).

   Protocol

      Set to 1, if the Responder MUST perform FEC validation using OSPF
      as IGP protocol.  Set to 2, if the Responder MUST perform Egress
      FEC validation using ISIS as IGP protocol.  Set to 0, if Responder
      can use any IGP protocol for Egress FEC validation.

   Reserved



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


      MUST be set to 0 on send, and MUST be ignored on receipt.

5.3.  IGP-Adjacency Segment ID

   This Sub-TLV is applicable for any IGP-Adjacency defined in
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].  The format is as specified 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   Adj. Type   |    Protocol   |          Reserved             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                                                               ~
     |               Local Interface ID (4 or 16 octets)             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                                                               ~
     |              Remote Interface ID (4 or 16 octets)             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                                                               ~
     |          Advertising Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets)          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                                                               ~
     |           Receiving Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets)           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Adj. Type (Adjacency Type)

      Set to 1, when the Adjacency Segment is Parallel Adjacency as
      defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].  Set to 4, when the
      Adjacency segment is IPv4 based and is not a parallel adjacency.
      Set to 6, when the Adjacency segment is IPv6 based and is not a
      parallel adjacency.  Set to 0, when the Adjacency segment is over
      unnumbered interface.

   Protocol

      Set to 1, if the Responder MUST perform FEC validation using OSPF
      as IGP protocol.  Set to 2, if the Responder MUST perform Egress
      FEC validation using ISIS as IGP protocol.  Set to 0, if Responder
      can use any IGP protocol for Egress FEC validation.

   Reserved

      MUST be set to 0 on send, and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   Local Interface ID



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


      An identifier that is assigned by the local LSR for a link to
      which Adjacency Segment ID is bound.  This field is set to a local
      link address (IPv4 or IPv6).  For IPv4, this field is 4 octets;
      for IPv6, this field is 16 octets.  In case of unnumbered, this
      field is 4 octets and includes a 32 bit link identifier as defined
      in [RFC4203], [RFC5307].  If the Adjacency Segment ID represents
      parallel adjacencies ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]), this
      field is 4 octets and MUST be set to 4 octets of zeroes.

   Remote Interface ID

      An identifier that is assigned by remote LSR for a link on which
      Adjacency Segment ID is bound.  This field is set to remote
      (downstream neighbor) link address (IPv4 or IPv6).  For IPv4, this
      field is 4 octets; for IPv6, this field is 16 oct ets.  In case of
      unnumbered, this field is 4 octets and includes a 32 bit link
      identifier as defined in [RFC4203], [RFC5307].  If the Adjacency
      Segment ID represents parallel adjacencies
      ([I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]), this field is 4 octets and
      MUST be set to 4 octets of zeroes.

   Advertising Node Identifier

      It specifies the advertising node identifier.  When Protocol is
      set to 1, then this field is 4 octets and carries the 32-bit OSPF
      Router ID; if Protocol is set to 2, then this field is 6 octets
      and carries the 48-bit ISIS System ID; if Protocol is set to 0,
      then this field is 4 octets, and MUST be set to zero.

   Receiving Node Identifier

      It specifies the downstream node identifier.  When Protocol is set
      to 1, then this field is 4 octets and carries the 32-bit OSPF
      Router ID; if Protocol is set to 2, then this field is 6 octets
      and carries the 48-bit ISIS System ID; if Protocol is set to 0,
      then this field is 4 octets, and MUST be set to zero.

6.  Extension to Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV

   In an echo reply, the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV [RFC8029] is
   used to report for each interface over which a FEC could be
   forwarded.  For a FEC, there are multiple protocols that may be used
   to distribute label mapping.  The "Protocol" field of the Downstream
   Detailed Mapping TLV is used to return the protocol that is used to
   distribute the label carried in "Downstream Label" field.  The
   following protocols are defined in [RFC8029]:





Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


      Protocol #        Signaling Protocol
      ----------        ------------------
               0        Unknown
               1        Static
               2        BGP
               3        LDP
               4        RSVP-TE

   With segment routing, OSPF or ISIS can be used for label
   distribution, this document adds two new protocols as follows:

      Protocol #        Signaling Protocol
      ----------        ------------------
           5                  OSPF
           6                  ISIS

   See Section 9.4.

7.  Procedures

   This section describes aspects of LSP Ping and traceroute operations
   that require further considerations beyond [RFC8029].

7.1.  FECs in Target FEC Stack TLV

   When LSP echo request packets are generated by an initiator, FECs
   carried in the Target FEC Stack TLV may need to differ to support a
   Segment Routing architecture.  The following defines Target FEC Stack
   TLV construction mechanics by an initiator for Segment Routing
   scenarios.

      Ping

         Initiator MUST include FEC(s) corresponding to the destination
         segment.

         Initiator MAY include FECs corresponding to some or all of
         segments imposed in the label stack by the initiator to
         communicate the segments traversed.

      Traceroute

         Initiator MUST initially include FECs corresponding to all of
         segments imposed in the label stack.

         When a received echo reply contains FEC Stack Change TLV with
         one or more of original segment(s) being popped, initiator MAY
         remove corresponding FEC(s) from Target FEC Stack TLV in the



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


         next (TTL+1) traceroute request as defined in Section 4.6 of
         [RFC8029].

         When a received echo reply does not contain FEC Stack Change
         TLV, initiator MUST NOT attempt to remove FEC(s) from Target
         FEC Stack TLV in the next (TTL+1) traceroute request.

   As defined in [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] and
   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions], Prefix SID can be
   advertised as absolute value, index or as range.  In any of these
   cases, Initiator MUST derive the Prefix mapped to the Prefix SID and
   use it in IGP-Prefix Segment ID defined in Section 5.1 and 5.2.  How
   the Responder uses the details in the SR-FEC Sub-TLV to perform the
   validation is a local implementation matter.

7.2.  FEC Stack Change sub-TLV

   [RFC8029] defines a FEC Stack Change sub-TLV that a router must
   include when the FEC stack changes.

   The network node which advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible
   for generating a FEC Stack Change sub-TLV with pop operation type for
   Node Segment ID, regardless of whether penultimate hop popping (PHP)
   is enabled or not.

   The network node that is immediate downstream of the node which
   advertised the Adjacency Segment ID is responsible for generating FEC
   Stack Change sub-TLV for "POP" operation for Adjacency Segment ID.

7.3.  Segment ID POP Operation

   The forwarding semantic of Node Segment ID with PHP flag is
   equivalent to usage of implicit Null in MPLS protocols.  Adjacency
   Segment ID is also similar in a sense that it can be thought of as
   locally allocated segment that has PHP enabled destined for next hop
   IGP adjacency node.  Procedures described in Section 4.4 of [RFC8029]
   relies on Stack-D and Stack-R explicitly having Implicit Null value.
   Implementations SHOULD use Implicit Null for Node Segment ID PHP and
   Adjacency Segment ID PHP cases.

7.4.  Segment ID Check

   This section modifies the procedure defined in Section 4.4.1 of
   [RFC8029].  Step 4 defined in Section 4.4.1 of [RFC8029] is updated
   as below:






Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


       4.  If the label mapping for FEC is Implicit Null, set FEC-status
           to 2 and proceed to step 4a.  Otherwise, if the label mapping
           for FEC is Label-L, proceed to step 4a.  Otherwise, set
           FEC-return-code to 10 ("Mapping for this FEC is not the given
           label at stack-depth"), set FEC-status to 1, and return.

      4a.  Segment Routing IGP Prefix and Adjacency SID Validation:

         If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC Stack Sub-TLV at
         FEC-stack-depth is 34 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), {

            Set Best return code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not the
            given label at stack-depth <RSC>" if any below conditions
            fail:

            /* The responder LSR is to check if it is the egress of the
            IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID described in the Target FEC Stack
            Sub-TLV, and if the FEC was advertised with the PHP bit
            set.*/



            -  Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv4
               Prefix by IGP Protocol {

               o  When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP
                  protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is an unrecognized value, it MUST
                  be treated as Protocol value of 0.

               }

            -  Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised with No-PHP
               flag {

               o  When Protocol is OSPF, NP-flag defined in Section 5 of
                  [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] MUST be set
                  to 0.




Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


               o  When Protocol is ISIS, P-Flag defined in Section 2.1
                  of [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] MUST be
                  set to 0.

               }

            If it can be determined that no protocol associated with
            Interface-I would have advertised FEC-Type at FEC-stack-
            depth, Set Best return code to 12, "Protocol not associated
            with interface at FEC stack-depth" and return.

            set FEC-Status to 1, and return.

         }

         Else if the Label-stack-depth is greater than 0 and Target FEC
         Stack Sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is 34 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment
         ID), {

            Set Best return code to 10 if any below conditions fail:



            -  Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv4
               Prefix by IGP Protocol {

               o  When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP
                  protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is an unrecognized value, it MUST
                  be treated as Protocol value of 0.

               }

            If it can be determined that no protocol associated with
            Interface-I would have advertised FEC-Type at FEC-stack-
            depth, Set Best return code to 12, "Protocol not associated
            with interface at FEC stack-depth" and return.

            set FEC-Status to 1, and return.



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


         }

         Else if the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC Sub-TLV at
         FEC-stack-depth is 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), {

            Set Best return code to 10 if any of the below conditions
            fail:

            /* The LSR needs to check if its being a tail-end for the
            LSP and have the prefix advertised with PHP bit set*/



            -  Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv6
               Prefix by IGP Protocol {

               o  When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP
                  protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is an unrecognized value, it MUST
                  be treated as Protocol value of 0.

               }

            -  Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised with No-PHP
               flag. {

               o  When Protocol is OSPF, NP-flag defined in Section 5 of
                  [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions] MUST
                  be set to 0.

               o  When Protocol is ISIS, P-Flag defined in Section 2.1
                  of [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] MUST be
                  set to 0.

               }

            If it can be determined that no protocol associated with
            Interface-I would have advertised FEC-Type at FEC-stack-




Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


            depth, Set Best return code to 12, "Protocol not associated
            with interface at FEC stack-depth" and return.

            set FEC-Status to 1, and return.

         }

         Else if the Label-stack-depth is greater than 0 and Target FEC
         Sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID),
         {

            set Best return code to 10 if any below conditions fail:



            -  Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv4
               Prefix by IGP Protocol {

               o  When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP
                  protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.

               o  When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix
                  Segment ID Sub-TLV is an unrecognized value, it MUST
                  be treated as Protocol value of 0.

               }

            If it can be determined that no protocol associated with
            Interface-I would have advertised FEC-Type at FEC-stack-
            depth, Set Best return code to 12, "Protocol not associated
            with interface at FEC stack-depth" and return.

            set FEC-Status to 1, and return.

         }

         Else if the Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-depth is 36 (IGP-
         Adjacency Segment ID), {

            set Best return code to TBD1 (Section 10.3) if any below
            conditions fail:



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


               When the Adj. Type is 1 (Parallel Adjacency):

               o  Validate that Receiving Node Identifier is local IGP
                  identifier.

               o  Validate that IGP-Adjacency Segment ID is advertised
                  by Advertising Node Identifier of Protocol in local
                  IGP database {

                  *  When protocol field in received IGP-Adjacency
                     Segment ID Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled
                     IGP protocol.

                  *  When protocol field in received IGP-Adjacency
                     Segment ID Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.

                  *  When protocol field in received IGP-Adjacency
                     Segment ID Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.

                  *  When protocol field in received IGP-Adjacency
                     Segment ID Sub-TLV is an unrecognized value, it
                     MUST be treated as Protocol value of 0.

                  }

               When the Adj. Type is 4 or 6 (IGP Adjacency or LAN
               Adjacency):

               o  Validate that Remote Interface ID matches the local
                  identifier of the interface (Interface-I) on which the
                  packet was received.

               o  Validate that Receiving Node Identifier is local IGP
                  identifier.

               o  Validate that IGP-Adjacency Segment ID is advertised
                  by Advertising Node Identifier of Protocol in local
                  IGP database {

                  *  When protocol field in received IGP-Adjacency
                     Segment ID Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled
                     IGP protocol.

                  *  When protocol field in received IGP-Adjacency
                     Segment ID Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.

                  *  When protocol field in received IGP-Adjacency
                     Segment ID Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


                  *  When protocol field in received IGP-Adjacency
                     Segment ID Sub-TLV is an unrecognized value, it
                     MUST be treated as Protocol value of 0.

                  }

            set FEC-Status to 1, and return.

         }

7.5.  TTL Consideration for traceroute

   LSP Traceroute operation can properly traverse every hop of Segment
   Routing network for the Uniform Model as described in [RFC3443].  If
   one or more LSRs employ a Short Pipe Model, as described in
   [RFC3443], then LSP Traceroute may not be able to properly traverse
   every hop of Segment Routing network due to the absence of TTL copy
   operation when the outer label is popped.  The Short Pipe is one of
   the most commonly used models.  The following TTL manipulation
   technique MAY be used when the Short Pipe model is used.

   When tracing a LSP according to the procedures in [RFC8029] the TTL
   is incremented by one in order to trace the path sequentially along
   the LSP.  However when a source routed LSP has to be traced there are
   as many TTLs as there are labels in the stack.  The LSR that
   initiates the traceroute SHOULD start by setting the TTL to 1 for the
   tunnel in the LSP's label stack it wants to start the tracing from,
   the TTL of all outer labels in the stack to the max value, and the
   TTL of all the inner labels in the stack to zero.  Thus a typical
   start to the traceroute would have a TTL of 1 for the outermost label
   and all the inner labels would have TTL 0.  If the FEC Stack TLV is
   included it should contain only those for the inner stacked tunnels.
   The Return Code/Subcode and FEC Stack Change TLV should be used to
   diagnose the tunnel as described in [RFC8029].  When the tracing of a
   tunnel in the stack is complete, then the next tunnel in the stack
   should be traced.  The end of a tunnel can be detected from the
   "Return Code" when it indicates that the responding LSR is an egress
   for the stack at depth 1.  Thus the traceroute procedures in
   [RFC8029] can be recursively applied to traceroute a source routed
   LSP.

8.  Backward Compatibility with non Segment Routing devices

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] describes how Segment
   Routing operates in a network where SR-capable and non-SR-capable
   nodes coexist.  In such networks, there may not be any FEC mapping in
   the responder, when the Initiator is SR-capable, while the responder
   is not (or vice-versa).  But this is not different from RSVP and LDP



Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


   interop scenarios.  When LSP Ping is triggered, the responder will
   set the FEC-return-code to Return 4, "Replying router has no mapping
   for the FEC at stack-depth".

   Similarly when a SR-capable node assigns Adj-SID for a non-SR-capable
   node, LSP traceroute may fail as the non-SR-capable node is not aware
   of "IGP Adjacency Segment ID" sub-TLV and may not reply with FEC
   Stack change.  This may result in any further downstream nodes to
   reply back with Return-code as 4, "Replying router has no mapping for
   the FEC at stack-depth".

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs

   IANA is requested to assign three new Sub-TLVs from "Sub-TLVs for TLV
   Types 1, 16 and 21" sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
   [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] registry.

   Sub-Type    Sub-TLV Name                 Reference
   --------    -----------------            ------------
         34    IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID   Section 5.1 of this document
         35    IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID   Section 5.2 of this document
         36    IGP-Adjacency Segment ID     Section 5.3 of this document

   Note to the RFC Editor (please remove before publication): IANA has
   made early allocation for sub-type 34, 35 and 35.  The early
   allocation expires 2018-09-15.

9.2.  Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV

   IANA is requested to create a new "Protocol in the Segment ID sub-
   TLV" (see Section 5) registry under the "Multi-Protocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
   registry.  Code points in the range of 0-250 will be assigned by
   Standards Action.  The range of 251-254 are reserved for experimental
   use and will not be assigned.  The initial entries into the registry
   will be:

     Value           Meaning              Reference
   ----------        ----------------     ------------
     0               Any IGP Protocol     This document
     1               OSPF                 This document
     2               ISIS                 This document






Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


9.3.  Adjacency Type in the IGP-Adjacency Segment ID

   IANA is requested to create a new "Adjacency Type in the IGP-
   Adjacency Segment ID" (see Section 5.3) registry under the "Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping
   Parameters" registry.  Code points in the range of 0-250 will be
   assigned by Standards Action.  The range of 251-254 are reserved for
   experimental use and will not be assigned.  The initial entries into
   the registry will be:

     Value           Meaning
   ----------        ----------------
     0               Unnumbered interface Adjacency
     1               Parallel Adjacency
     4               IPv4, non-parallel Adjacency
     6               IPv6, non-parallel Adjacency

9.4.  Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV

   IANA is requested to create a new "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of
   Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" registry under the "Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
   registry.  Code points in the range of 0-250 will be assigned by
   Standards Action.  The range of 251-254 are reserved for experimental
   use and will not be assigned.  The initial entries into the registry
   will be:

     Value           Meaning              Reference
   ----------        ----------------     ------------
     0               Unknown              Section 3.4.1.2 of RFC8029
     1               Static               Section 3.4.1.2 of RFC8029
     2               BGP                  Section 3.4.1.2 of RFC8029
     3               LDP                  Section 3.4.1.2 of RFC8029
     4               RSVP-TE              Section 3.4.1.2 of RFC8029
     5               OSPF                 Section 6 of this document
     6               ISIS                 Section 6 of this document
     7-250           Unassigned
     251-254         Experimental use     This document
     255             Reserved             This document

9.5.  Return Code

   IANA is requested to assign a new Return Code from the "Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping
   Parameters" in the 0-191 (Standards Action) range from the "Return
   Codes" Sub-registry.





Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


     Value     Meaning                                  Reference
   ----------  -----------------                        ------------
     TBD1      Mapping for this FEC is not associated   Section 7.4 of
               with the incoming interface              this document


10.  Security Considerations

   This document defines additional MPLS LSP Ping Sub-TLVs and follows
   the mechanisms defined in [RFC8029].  All the security considerations
   defined in [RFC8029] will be applicable for this document, and in
   addition, they do not impose any additional security challenges to be
   considered.

11.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Stefano Previdi, Les Ginsberg, Balaji
   Rajagopalan, Harish Sitaraman, Curtis Villamizar, Pranjal Dutta,
   Lizhong Jin, Tom Petch, Victor Ji and Mustapha Aissaoui, Tony
   Przygienda, Alexander Vainshtein and Deborah Brungard for their
   review and comments.

   The authors wold like to thank Loa Andersson for his comments and
   recommendation to merge drafts.

12.  Contributors

   The following are key contributors to this document:

      Hannes Gredler, RtBrick, Inc.

      Tarek Saad, Cisco Systems, Inc.

      Siva Sivabalan, Cisco Systems, Inc.

      Balaji Rajagopalan, Juniper Networks

      Faisal Iqbal, Cisco Systems, Inc.

13.  References

13.1.  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>.




Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


   [RFC3443]  Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
              in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
              RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.

   [RFC4203]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
              Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.

   [RFC5307]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
              in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.

   [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>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
              Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
              Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
              "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
              segment-routing-extensions-13 (work in progress), June
              2017.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-segment-routing-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPFv3
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-
              segment-routing-extensions-10 (work in progress),
              September 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
              Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
              Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
              routing-extensions-19 (work in progress), August 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
              and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
              spring-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June 2017.




Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
              S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
              draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-09 (work in
              progress), September 2017.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
              data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-10
              (work in progress), June 2017.

   [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>.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.

Authors' Addresses

   Nagendra Kumar (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200-12 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709-4987
   US

   Email: naikumar@cisco.com


   Carlos Pignataro (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200-11 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709-4987
   US

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com


   George Swallow
   Southend Technical Center

   Email: swallow.ietf@gmail.com





Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        LSP Ping/Trace for SR on MPLS         October 2017


   Nobo Akiya
   Big Switch Networks

   Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com


   Sriganesh Kini
   Individual

   Email: sriganeshkini@gmail.com


   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com



































Kumar, et al.            Expires April 20, 2018                [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/