--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt 2006-02-05 00:43:55.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 2006-02-05 00:43:55.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Internet Draft Puneet Agarwal Pluris Bora A. Akyol - Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt Cisco Systems + Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt Cisco Systems Category: Informational Expires: November 2002 May 2002 - TTL Processing in MPLS Networks + Time to Live (TTL) Processing in MPLS Networks Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. @@ -26,39 +26,41 @@ The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document describes TTL processing in hierarchical MPLS networks. TTL processing in both pipe and uniform model hierarchical tunnels are specified with examples for both "push" and "pop" cases. - The document also complements [MPLS-DS] and ties together the - terminology introduced in that document with TTL processing in - hierarchical MPLS networks. + The document also complements rfc-3270 "MPLS Support of + Differentiated Services" and ties together the terminology + introduced in that document with TTL processing in hierarchical MPLS + networks. 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 [RFC-2119]. - Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt 1 + Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 1 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks May 2002 1. Introduction and Motivation - This document describes TTL processing in hierarchical MPLS - networks. We believe that this document adds details that have not - been addressed in [MPLS-ARCH, MPLS-ENCAPS], and that the methods - presented in this document complement [MPLS-DS]. + This document describes Time to Live (TTL) processing in + hierarchical MPLS networks. We believe that this document adds + details that have not been addressed in [MPLS-ARCH, MPLS-ENCAPS], + and that the methods presented in this document complement [MPLS- + DS]. 2. TTL Processing in MPLS Networks 2.1. Changes to RFC 3032 [MPLS-ENCAPS] a) [MPLS-ENCAPS] only covers the Uniform Model and does NOT address the Pipe Model or the Short Pipe Model. This draft will address these 2 models and for completeness will also address the Uniform Model. b) [MPLS-ENCAPS] does not cover hierarchical LSPs. This draft @@ -84,80 +86,81 @@ [MPLS-DS] also defined two models for MPLS tunnel operation: Pipe and Uniform models. In the Pipe model, a MPLS network acts like a circuit when MPLS packets traverse the network such that only the LSP ingress and egress points are visible to nodes that are outside the tunnel. A Short variation of the Pipe Model is also defined in [MPLS-DS] to differentiate between different egress forwarding and QoS treatments. On the other hand, the Uniform model makes all the nodes that a LSP traverses visible to nodes outside the tunnel. We will extend the Pipe and Uniform models to include TTL processing in the following sections. Furthermore, TTL processing when performing - Penultimate Hop Pop (PHP) is also described in this document. For a - detailed description of Pipe and Uniform models, please see [MPLS- - DS]. + PHP is also described in this document. For a detailed description + of Pipe and Uniform models, please see [MPLS-DS]. TTL processing in MPLS networks can be broken down into two logical blocks: (i) the incoming TTL determination to take into account any - Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt 2 + Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 2 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks May 2002 tunnel egress due to MPLS Pop operations; (ii) packet processing of (possibly) exposed packet & outgoing TTL. - We also note here that signaling treatment for TTL behavior using - either RSVP-TE or LDP is out of the scope of this document. + We also note here that signaling the LSP type (pipe, short pipe or + uniform model) is out of the scope of this document, and that is + also not addressed in the current versions of the label distribution + protocols, e.g. LDP [MPLS-LDP] and RSVP-TE [MPLS-RSVP]. 2.3. New Terminology iTTL: The TTL value to use as the incoming TTL. No checks are performed on the iTTL. oTTL: This is the TTL value used as the outgoing TTL value (see section 3.5 for exception). It is always (iTTL - 1) unless otherwise stated. oTTL Check: Check if oTTL is greater than 0. If the oTTL Check is false, then the packet is not forwarded. Note that the oTTL check is performed only if any outgoing TTL (either IP or MPLS) is set to oTTL (see section 3.5 for exception). 3. TTL Processing in different Models - This sections describes the TTL processing for LSPs conforming to + This section describes the TTL processing for LSPs conforming to each of the 3 models (Uniform, Short Pipe and Pipe) in the presence/absence of PHP (where applicable). 3.1. TTL Processing for Uniform Model LSPs (with or without PHP) (consistent with [MPLS-ENCAPS]): ========== LSP =============================> +--Swap--(n-2)-...-swap--(n-i)---+ / (outer header) \ (n-1) (n-i) / \ >--(n)--Push...............(x).....................Pop--(n-i-1)-> (I) (inner header) (E or P) (n) represents the TTL value in the corresponding header - (x) represents non-meaningful TLL information + (x) represents non-meaningful TTL information (I) represents the LSP ingress node (P) represents the LSP penultimate node (E) represents the LSP Egress node This picture shows TTL processing for a uniform model MPLS LSP. Note that the inner and outer TTLs of the packets are synchronized at tunnel ingress and egress. - Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt 3 + Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 3 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks May 2002 3.2. TTL Processing for Short Pipe Model LSPs 3.2.1. TTL Processing for Short Pipe Model LSPs without PHP ========== LSP =============================> +--Swap--(N-1)-...-swap--(N-i)-----+ / (outer header) \ @@ -176,37 +179,36 @@ tunneled packet as opposed to the encapsulating packet. 3.2.2. TTL Processing for Short Pipe Model with PHP: ========== LSP =====================================> +-Swap-(N-1)-...-swap-(N-i)-+ / (outer header) \ (N) (N-i) / \ >--(n)--Push.............(n-1)............Pop-(n-1)-Decr.-(n-2)-> - (I) (inner header) (P) (E) (N) represents the TTL value (may have no relationship to n) (n) represents the tunneled TTL value in the encapsulated header (I) represents the LSP ingress node (P) represents the LSP penultimate node (E) represents the LSP egress node. - Since the label has already the popped by the LSP penultimate node, - the LSP egress node just decrements the header TTL. + Since the label has already been popped by the LSPÆs penultimate + node, the LSP egress node just decrements the header TTL. Also note that at the end of short pipe model LSP, the TTL of the tunneled packet has been decremented by two either with or without PHP. - Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt 4 + Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 4 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks May 2002 3.3. TTL Processing for Pipe Model LSPs (without PHP only): ========== LSP =============================> +--Swap--(N-1)-...-swap--(N-i)-----+ / (outer header) \ (N) (N-i) / \ @@ -244,21 +246,21 @@ i.e. the TTL contained in the subsequent label is essentially ignored and replaced with the iTTL computed during the previous pop. 3.5. Outgoing TTL Determination and Packet Processing After the iTTL computation is performed, the oTTL check is performed. If the oTTL check succeeds, then the outgoing TTL of the (labeled/unlabeled) packet is calculated and packet headers are updated as defined below. - Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt 5 + Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 5 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks May 2002 If the packet was routed as an IP packet, the TTL value of the IP packet is set to oTTL (iTTL - 1). The TTL value(s) for any pushed label(s) are determined as described in section 3.6. For packets that are routed as MPLS, we have four cases: 1) Swap-only: The routed label is swapped with another label and the TTL field of the outgoing label is set to oTTL. @@ -289,27 +291,27 @@ is set to a value configured by the network operator. In most implementations, this value is set to 255 by default. 3.7. Implementation Remarks 1) Although iTTL can be decremented by a value larger than 1 while it is being updated or oTTL is being determined, this feature should be only used for compensating for network nodes that are not capable of decrementing TTL values. - 2) Whenever iTTL is decremented, the implementor must make sure + 2) Whenever iTTL is decremented, the implementer must make sure that the value does not go negative. 3) In the short pipe model with PHP enabled, the TTL of the tunneled packet is unchanged after the PHP operation. - Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt 6 + Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 6 TTL Processing in MPLS Networks May 2002 4. Conclusion This Internet Draft describes how TTL field can be processed in a MPLS network. We clarified the various methods that are applied in the presence of hierarchical tunnels and completed the integration of Pipe and Uniform models with TTL processing. 5. Security Considerations @@ -318,34 +320,50 @@ ones defined in [MPLS-ENCAPS, MPLS-DS]. In particular, the document does not define a new protocol or expand an existing one and does not introduce security problems into the existing protocols. The authors believe that clarification of TTL handling in MPLS networks benefits service providers and their customers since troubleshooting is simplified. 6. References [MPLS-ARCH] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol - Label Switching Architecture," RFC 3031. + Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031. [MPLS-ENCAPS] E. Rosen, D. Tappan, G. Fedorkow, Y. Rekhter, D. - Farinacci, T. Li, A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding," RFC3032. + Farinacci, T. Li, A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC3032. [MPLS-DS] F. Le Faucheur, L. Wu, B. Davie, S. Davari, P. Vaananen, R. Krishnan, P. Cheval, J. Heinanen, "MPLS Support of Differentiated - Services," draft-ietf-mpls-diff-ext-09.txt. (Work in progress) + Services", RFC3270. -7. Author's Addresses + [MPLS-LDP] L. Andersson, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, B. + Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036. + + [MPLS-RSVP] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, G. + Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209. + +7. Acknowledgements + + The authors would like to thank the members of the MPLS working + group for their feedback. We would especially like to thank Shahram + Davari and Loa Andersson for their careful review of the document + and their comments. + + Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 7 + TTL Processing in MPLS Networks May 2002 + +8. Author's Addresses Puneet Agarwal Pluris 10455 Bandley Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Email: puneet@pluris.com Bora Akyol Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 Email: bora@cisco.com - Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-01.txt 7 + Agarwal & Akyol draft-ietf-mpls-ttl-02.txt 8