[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                       H. Song, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Z. Li
Intended status: Standards Track                                 T. Zhou
Expires: February 9, 2019                                         Huawei
                                                            L. Andersson
                                                Bronze Dragon Consulting
                                                          August 8, 2018


                         MPLS Extension Header
                  draft-song-mpls-extension-header-01

Abstract

   Motivated by the need to support multiple in-network services and
   functions in an MPLS network, this document describes a method to
   encapsulate extension headers into MPLS packets.  The encapsulation
   method allows stacking multiple extension headers and quickly
   accessing any of them as well as the original upper layer protocol
   header and payload.  We show how the extension header can be used to
   support several new network applications.

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 BCP
   14 [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/.

   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 February 9, 2019.





Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  MPLS Extension Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Operation on MPLS Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Motivation

   Some applications require adding instructions and/or metadata to user
   packets within a network.  Such examples include In-situ OAM (IOAM)
   [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements] and Service Function Chaining
   (SFC) [RFC7665].  New applications are emerging.  It is possible that
   the instructions and/or metadata for multiple applications are
   stacked together in one packet to support a compound service.

   However, the encapsulation of the new header(s) poses some challenges
   to the ubiquitous MPLS networks.  The MPLS protocol header contains
   no explicit indicator for the upper layer protocols by design.  The
   compact MPLS header, while beneficial to forwarding, allows little
   room for any extra information.  Moreover, the backward compatibility
   issue discourages any attempts trying to overload the semantics of
   the existing MPLS header fields.  While it is possible to designate
   "service labels" with special semantics by an operator, the non-



Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


   standard approach burdens the control plane and impairs the
   interoperability.

   The similar "header extension" requirement for MPLS has led to
   several proposals.  A special Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL)
   [RFC5586] is assigned to support the identification of an Associated
   Channel Header (ACH).  Later, it was proposed to use GAL to indicate
   the presence of a Metadata Channel Header (MCH)
   [I-D.guichard-sfc-mpls-metadata] as well.

   GAL has several limitations:

   o  It must be located at the bottom of a label stack for its chief
      use case of MPLS-TP.  An LSR needs to search the entire label
      stack for the BoS bit and check if the corresponding label is GAL.
      This can impact the performance when the label stack is deep.

   o  When GAL is present, the first nibble of the word following the
      GAL needs to be checked to determine the header type.  Since the
      value of the nibble cannot be greater than 3 to avoid any possible
      confliction with IP version numbers, this approach is not
      scalable.

   o  By design, GAL can only indicate the presence of a single header.
      Therefore, the solution alone is not sufficient to support adding
      multiple headers at the same time.

   o  The presence of GAL makes the network load balancing or deep
      packet inspection based on upper layer protocol headers and
      payload difficult.

   In addition to the above limitations, it is not desirable to keep
   overloading GAL with new semantics.  Instead of trying to patch on
   existing schemes, we propose a new mechanism to solve the above
   mentioned issues and create new innovation opportunities, similar to
   the way that IPv6 supports extension headers, which offer a huge
   innovation potential (e.g, network security, SRv6
   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], network programming
   [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming], SFC
   [I-D.xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining], etc.).  Thanks to the
   existing of extension headers, it is straightforward to introduce new
   in-network services into IPv6 networks.  For example, it has been
   proposed to carry IOAM header [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport]
   and NSH as new extension headers in IPv6 networks.

   Nevertheless, IPv6 is not perfect either.  It has two main issues.
   First, IPv6's header is large compared to MPLS, claiming extra
   bandwidth overhead and complicating the packet processing.  We prefer



Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


   to retain the header compactness in MPLS networks.  Second, IPv6's
   extension headers are chained with the original upper layer protocol
   headers in a flat stack.  One must scan all the extension headers to
   access the upper layer protocol headers and the payload.  This is
   inconvenient and raises some performance concerns for some
   applications (e.g., DPI and ECMP).  The new scheme for MPLS header
   extension needs to address these issues too.

2.  MPLS Extension Header

   From the previous discussion, we have laid out the design
   requirements to support extension headers in MPLS networks:

   Performance:  If possible, unnecessary label stack scanning for a
      label and extension header stack scanning for the upper layer
      protocol should be avoided.

   Scalability:  New applications can be easily supported by introducing
      new extension headers.  Multiple extension headers can be easily
      stacked together to support multiple services simultaneously.

   Backward Compatibility:  Legacy devices which do not recognize the
      extension header option should still be able to forward the
      packets as usual.  If a device recognize some of the extension
      headers but not the others in an extension header stack, it can
      process the known headers only while ignoring the others.

   Extension headers can be be supported in several ways in an MPLS
   network, we have outlined some of them in this document.  However, it
   should be noted that we do not intend to close this discussion yet,
   and are prepared to listen to arguments why and how any other methods
   could be used.  One interesting line of thought is whether it would
   be possible to let a label that is received on top of the stack
   indicate whether there are extension headers beneath the stack.

   Our investigations indicate that a special purpose label and/or an
   extended special purpose label will be the optimal way to go.  A new
   special purpose label, namely the Extension Header Label (EHL), can
   be used to indicate EHs.  So far 8 special purpose label values are
   left unsigned by IANA (which are 4 to 6 and 8 to 12).  Alternatively,
   a two label scheme with the use of the extension label (XL) plus an
   EHL is possible, but it does use one more label.  It is also possible
   to use FEC labels to indicate the presence of extension headers.
   Although this approach avoid the need of a new special purpose label,
   it introduces a good deal of complexity into the control plane.  In
   the remaining of the document, we assume a special EHL is assigned
   and use it as an example to illustrate the scheme.  A formal




Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


   recommendation on the Extension Header (EH) indicator approach will
   be given in a future revision of this document.

   The format of the MPLS packets with extension headers is shown in
   Figure 1.  An EHL can be located in anywhere in an MPLS label stack.
   However, if there are legacy devices which do not recognize the EHL
   in the network, then for backward compatibility, the EHL must be
   located at the bottom of the stack (i.e., only the MPLS tunnel ends
   and EHL-aware nodes will look up and process it).  Otherwise, the EHL
   can be located close to the top of the stack for better lookup
   performance.

   The format of an EHL is the same as an MPLS label.  The first 20-bit
   label value will be assigned by IANA.  The BoS bit is used to
   indicate the location of the label.  The other fields, CoS and TTL,
   are unused in the context of EHL.



































Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


      0                                  31
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      |                                   |
      ~     MPLS Label Stack              ~
      |                                   |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      |     EHL                           |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      |                                   |
      ~     MPLS Label Stack              ~
      |                                   |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      | Header of Extension Headers (HEH) |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      |                                   |
      ~     Extension Header (EH) 1       ~
      |                                   |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      ~                                   ~
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      |                                   |
      ~     Extension Header (EH) N       ~
      |                                   |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+
      |                                   |
      ~    Upper Layer Protocols/Payload   ~
      |                                   |
      +--------+--------+--------+--------+


                   Figure 1: MPLS with Extension Header

   Following the MPLS label stack is the 4-octet Header of Extension
   Headers (HEH), which indicates the total number of extension headers
   in this packet, the overall length of the extension headers, and the
   type of the next header.  The format of the HEH is shown in Figure 2.


       0          1          2          3
       0123 45678901 234567890123 45678901
      +----+--------+------------+--------+
      | R  | EHCNT  |   EHTLEN   |   NH   |
      +----+--------+------------+--------+


                           Figure 2: HEH Format

   The meaning of the fields in an HEH is as follows:



Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


   R: 4-bit reserved.

   EHCNT:  8-bit unsigned integer for the Extension Header Counter.
      This field keeps the total number of extension headers included in
      this packet.  It does not count the original upper layer protocol
      headers.

   EHTLEN:  12-bit unsigned integer for the Extension Header Total
      Length in 4-octet units.  This field keeps the total length of the
      extension headers in this packet, not including the HEH itself.

   NH:  8-bit selector for the Next Header.  This field identifies the
      type of the header immediately following the HEH.

   The EHCNT field can be used to keep track of the number of extension
   headers when some headers are inserted or removed at some network
   nodes.  The EHLEN field can help to skip all the extension headers in
   one step if the original upper layer protocol headers or payload need
   to be accessed.

   The format of an Extension Header (EH) is shown in Figure 3.


       0          1          2          3
       01234567 89012345 6789012345678901
      +--------+--------+----------------+
      |  NH    |  HLEN  |                |
      +--------+--------+                +
      |                                  |
      ~        Header Specific Data      ~
      |                                  |
      +--------+--------+----------------+


                            Figure 3: EH Format

   The meaning of the fields in an EH is as follows:

   NH:  8-bit selector for the Next Header.  This field identifies the
      type of the EH immediately following this EH.

   HLEN:  8-bit unsigned integer for the Extension Header Length in
      4-octet units, not including the first 4 octets.

   Header Specific Data:  Variable length field for the specification of
      the EH.  This field is 4-octet aligned.





Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


   The extension headers as well as the first original upper layer
   protocol header are chained together through the NH field in HEH and
   EHs.  The encoding of NH uses the same values as the IPv4 protocol
   field.  Values for new EH types shall be assigned by IANA.

   Specifically, the NH field of the last EH in a chain can have two
   special values, which shall be assigned by IANA:

   NONE (No Next Header):  Indicates that there is no other header and
      payload after this header.  This can be used to transport packets
      with only extension header(s).

   UNKNOWN (Unknown Next Header):  Indicates that the type of the header
      after this header is unknown.  This is intended to be compatible
      with the original MPLS design in which the upper layer protocol
      type is unknown from the MPLS header alone.

3.  Operation on MPLS Extension Headers

   When the first EH X needs to be added to an MPLS packet, an EHL is
   inserted into the proper location in the MPLS label stack.  A HEH is
   then inserted after the MPLS label stack, in which EHCNT is set to 1,
   EHTLEN is set to the length of X in 4-octet units, and NH is set to
   the header value of X.  At last, X is inserted after the HEH, in
   which NH and HELN are set accordingly.  Note that if this operation
   happens at a PE device, the upper layer protocol is known before the
   MPLS encapsulation, so its value can be saved in the NH field if
   desired.  Otherwise, the NH field is filled with the value of
   "UNKNOWN".

   When an EH Y needs to be added to an MPLS packet which already
   contains extension header(s), the EHCNT and EHTLEN in the HEH are
   updated accordingly (i.e., EHCNT is incremented by 1 and EHTLEN is
   incremented by the size of Y in 4-octet units).  Then a proper
   location for Y in the EH chain is located.  Y is inserted at this
   location.  The NH field of Y is copied from the previous EH's NH
   field (or from the HEH's NH field, if Y is the first EH in the
   chain).  The previous EH's NH value, or, if Y is the first EH in the
   chain, the HEH's NH, is set to the header value of Y.

   Deleting an EH simply reverses the above operation.  If the deleted
   EH is the last one, the EHL and HEH can also be deleted.

   When processing an MPLS packet with extension headers, the node needs
   to scan through the entire EH chain and process the EH one by one.
   The node should ignore any unrecognized EH.





Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


4.  Use Cases

   In this section, we show how MPLS extension header can be used to
   support several new network applications.

   In-situ OAM:  In-situ OAM (IOAM) records flow OAM information within
      user packets while the packets traverse a network.  The
      instruction and collected data are kept in an IOAM header
      [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].  When applying IOAM in an MPLS network,
      the IOAM header can be encapsulated as an MPLS extension header.

   NSH:  Network Service Header (NSH) [RFC8300] provides a service plane
      for Service Function Chaining (SFC).  NSH maintains the SFC
      context and metadata.  If MPLS is used as the transport protocol
      for NSH, NSH can be encapsulated as an MPLS extension header.

   Network Telemetry and Measurement:  A network telemetry and
      instruction header can be carried as an extension header to
      instruct a node what type of network measurements should be done.
      For example, the method described in [RFC8321] can be implemented
      in MPLS networks since the EH provides a natural way to color MPLS
      packets.

   Network Security:  Security related functions often require user
      packets to carry some metadata.  In a DoS limiting network
      architecture, a "packet passport" header is used to embed packet
      authentication information for each node to verify.

   Segment Routing:  MPLS extension header can support the
      implementation of a new flavor of the MPLS-based segment routing,
      with better performance and richer functionalities.  The details
      will be described in another draft.

   With MPLS extension headers, multiple in-network applications can be
   stacked together.  For example, IOAM and SFC can be applied at the
   same time to support network OAM and service function chaining.  A
   node can stop scanning the extension header stack if all the known
   headers it can process have been located.  For example, if IOAM is
   the first EH in a stack and a node is configured to process IOAM
   only, it will stop searching the EH stack when the IOAM EH is found.

5.  Summary

   Evidenced by the existing and emerging use cases, MPLS networks need
   a standard way to support extension headers.  In Figure 4, we
   summarize the potential schemes that allow MPLS packets to carry
   extension headers and list the main issues for each scheme.




Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


     +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------+
     |No.|    Description            |       Issues                    |
     +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------+
     | 1 | GAL + MCH with multi-     |- Label location limitation lead |
     |   | header extension          |  to performance concern         |
     |   |                           |- Interfere with load balancing  |
     |   |                           |  and DPI functions              |
     |   |                           |- Overload GAL semantics         |
     |   |                           |- Need standard extension        |
     +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------+
     | 2 | GAL + another nibble value|- Same as above                  |
     |   | to encode the EHs (e.g.,  |                                 |
     |   | "0010")                   |                                 |
     +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------+
     | 3 | FEC label to indicate EH  |- Complex control plane          |
     |   |                           |- Interoperability               |
     +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------+
     | 4 | XL(15) + EHL              |- One extra label                |
     |   |                           |- Need standard extension        |
     +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------+
     | 5 | Special purpose EHL       |- Need standard extension        |
     +---+---------------------------+---------------------------------+


          Figure 4: Potential Schemes for MPLS Extension Headers

   Through comprehensive considerations on the pros and cons of each
   scheme, we currently recommend the scheme No.5.  The proposed MPLS
   extension header scheme provides a generic way to support in-network
   services and functions in MPLS networks.

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD

7.  IANA Considerations

   If the EHL approach is adopted to indicate the presence of MPLS
   extension header(s), this document requests IANA to assign a new
   Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value from the Special-Purpose
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Values Registry of
   "Extension Header Label (EHL)".

   This document also requests IANA to assign two new Internet Protocol
   Numbers from the "Protocol Numbers" Registry to indicate "No Next
   Header" or "Unknown Next Header".

   This document does not create any new registries.



Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


8.  Contributors

   The other contributors of this document are listed as follows.

   o  James Guichard

   o  Stewart Bryant

   o  Andrew Malis

9.  Acknowledgments

   TBD.

10.  References

10.1.  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>.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
              "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8300]  Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
              "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.

   [RFC8321]  Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
              L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
              "Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
              Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
              January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.




Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-requirements]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Dara, S., Pignataro, C.,
              Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mozes, D., Mizrahi,
              T., <>, P., and r. remy@barefootnetworks.com,
              "Requirements for In-situ OAM", draft-brockners-inband-
              oam-requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.brockners-inband-oam-transport]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Govindan, V., Pignataro, C.,
              Gredler, H., Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes,
              D., Lapukhov, P., and R. Chang, "Encapsulations for In-
              situ OAM Data", draft-brockners-inband-oam-transport-05
              (work in progress), July 2017.

   [I-D.filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming]
              Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
              daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6
              Network Programming", draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-
              programming-05 (work in progress), July 2018.

   [I-D.guichard-sfc-mpls-metadata]
              Guichard, J., Pignataro, C., Spraggs, S., and S. Bryant,
              "Carrying Metadata in MPLS Networks", draft-guichard-sfc-
              mpls-metadata-00 (work in progress), September 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
              Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
              P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
              "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              data-03 (work in progress), June 2018.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
              Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
              Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
              Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
              in progress), January 2018.

   [I-D.xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining]
              Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., daniel.bernier@bell.ca,
              d., Decraene, B., Yadlapalli, C., Henderickx, W., Salsano,
              S., and S. Ma, "Segment Routing for Service Chaining",
              draft-xu-clad-spring-sr-service-chaining-00 (work in
              progress), December 2017.





Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            MPLS Extension Header              August 2018


Authors' Addresses

   Haoyu Song (editor)
   Huawei
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara
   USA

   Email: haoyu.song@huawei.com


   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei
   156 Beiqing Road
   Beijing, 100095
   P.R. China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com


   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei
   156 Beiqing Road
   Beijing, 100095
   P.R. China

   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com


   Loa Andersson
   Bronze Dragon Consulting
   Stockholm
   Sweden

   Email: loa@pi.nu
















Song, et al.            Expires February 9, 2019               [Page 13]


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