You are here: irt.org | RFCs | RFC8012 [ previous next ]
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Akiya Request for Comments: 8012 Big Switch Networks Updates: 6790 G. Swallow Category: Standards Track C. Pignataro ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco A. Malis Huawei Technologies S. Aldrin Google November 2016 Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Networks Using Entropy Labels (ELs) Abstract Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) paths. Ping is known as a connectivity-verification method and traceroute is known as a fault-isolation method, as described in RFC 4379. When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described in RFC 6790, the ability for LSP ping and traceroute operations to discover and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where Label Switching Routers (LSRs) apply different load-balancing techniques. One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL-based load balancing while other LSRs apply load balancing that is not EL based (e.g., IP). Another scenario is when an EL-based LSP is stitched with another LSP that can be EL based or not EL based. This document extends the MPLS LSP ping and traceroute multipath mechanisms in RFC 6424 to allow the ability of exercising LSPs that make use of the EL. This document updates RFC 6790. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8012. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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. Terminology ................................................5 1.1.1. Requirements Language ...............................6 1.2. Background .................................................6 2. Multipath Type {9} ..............................................7 3. Pseudowire Tracing ..............................................7 4. Entropy Label FEC ...............................................8 5. DS Flags: L and E ...............................................9 6. New Multipath Information Type {10} ............................10 7. Initiating LSR Procedures ......................................12 8. Responder LSR Procedures .......................................14 8.1. IP-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL ..........15 8.2. IP-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL .................15 8.3. Label-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL .......16 8.4. Label-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL ..............17 8.5. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR ............................18 9. Supported and Unsupported Cases ................................18 10. Security Considerations .......................................20 11. IANA Considerations ...........................................21 11.1. Entropy Label FEC ........................................21 11.2. DS Flags .................................................21 11.3. Multipath Type ...........................................21 12. References ....................................................22 12.1. Normative References .....................................22 12.2. Informative References ...................................22 Acknowledgements ..................................................23 Contributors ......................................................23 Authors' Addresses ................................................23 Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 1. Introduction [RFC4379] describes LSP traceroute as an operation where the initiating LSR sends a series of MPLS echo requests towards the same destination. The first packet in the series has the TTL set to 1. When the echo reply is received from the LSR one hop away, the second echo request in the series is sent with the TTL set to 2. For each additional echo request, the TTL is incremented by one until a response is received from the intended destination. The initiating LSR discovers and exercises ECMP by obtaining Multipath Information from each transit LSR and using a specific destination IP address or specific entropy label. From here on, the notation {x, y, z} refers to Multipath Information Types x, y, or z. Multipath Information Types are defined in Section 3.3 of [RFC4379] . The LSR initiating LSP ping sends an MPLS echo request with the Multipath Information. This Multipath Information is described in the echo request's DDMAP TLV and may contain a set of IP addresses or a set of labels. Multipath Information Types {2, 4, 8} carry a set of IP addresses, and the Multipath Information Type {9} carries a set of labels. The responder LSR (the receiver of the MPLS echo request) will determine the subset of initiator-specified Multipath Information, which load balances to each downstream (outgoing) interface. The responder LSR sends an MPLS echo reply with the resulting Multipath Information per downstream (outgoing interface) back to the initiating LSR. The initiating LSR is then able to use a specific IP destination address or a specific label to exercise a specific ECMP path on the responder LSR. The current behavior is problematic in the following scenarios: o The initiating LSR sends the IP Multipath Information, but the responder LSR load balances on labels. o The initiating LSR sends the Label Multipath Information, but the responder LSR load balances on IP addresses. o The initiating LSR sends the existing Multipath Information to an LSR that pushes ELI/EL in the label stack, but the initiating LSR can only continue to discover and exercise specific paths of the ECMP if the LSR that pushes ELI/EL responds with both IP addresses and the associated EL corresponding to each IP address. This is because: * An ELI/EL-pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load balance based on the IP address. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 * Downstream LSR(s) of an ELI/EL-pushing LSR may load balance based on ELs. o The initiating LSR sends existing Multipath Information to an ELI/ EL-pushing LSR, but the initiating LSR can only continue to discover and exercise specific paths of ECMP if the ELI/EL-pushing LSR responds with both labels and the associated EL corresponding to the label. This is because: * An ELI/EL-pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load balance based on the EL from the previous LSP and push a new EL. * Downstream LSR(s) of ELI/EL-pushing LSR may load balance based on new ELs. The above scenarios demonstrate that the existing Multipath Information is insufficient when LSP traceroute is used on an LSP with entropy labels [RFC6790]. This document defines a new Multipath Information Type to be used in the DDMAP of MPLS echo request/reply packets for [RFC6790] LSPs. The responder LSR can reply with empty Multipath Information if no IP address set or if no label set is received with the Multipath Information. An empty return is also possible if an initiating LSR sends Multipath Information of one type, IP Address or Label, but the responder LSR load balances on the other type. To disambiguate between the two results, this document introduces new flags in the DDMAP TLV to allow the responder LSR to describe the load-balancing technique being used. To use this enhanced method end-to-end, all LSRs along the LSP need to be able to understand the new flags and the new Multipath Information Type. Mechanisms to verify this condition are outside of the scope of this document. The rest of the requirements are detailed in the initiating LSR and responder LSR procedures. Two additional DS Flags are defined for the DDMAP TLV in Section 6. These two flags are used by the responder LSR to describe its load- balancing behavior on a received MPLS echo request. Note that the terms "IP-Based Load Balancer" and "Label-Based Load Balancer" are in context of how a received MPLS echo request is handled by the responder LSR. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 1.1. Terminology The following abbreviations and terms are used in this document: o MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching. o LSP: Label Switched Path. o Stitched LSP: Stitched Label Switched Paths combine several LSPs such that a single end-to-end LSP is realized. [RFC6424] describes LSP ping for Stitched LSPs. o LSR: Label Switching Router. o FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class. o ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath. o EL: Entropy Label. o ELI: Entropy Label Indicator. o GAL: Generic Associated Channel Label. o MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire. o Initiating LSR: An LSR that sends an MPLS echo request. o Responder LSR: An LSR that receives an MPLS echo request and sends an MPLS echo reply. o IP-Based Load Balancer: An LSR that load balances on fields from an IP header (and possibly fields from upper layers) and does not consider an entropy label from an MPLS label stack (i.e., flow label [RFC6391] or entropy label [RFC6790]) for load-balancing purposes. o Label-Based Load Balancer: An LSR that load balances on an entropy label from an MPLS label stack (i.e., flow label or entropy label) and does not consider fields from an IP header (and possibly fields from upper layers) for load-balancing purposes. o Label and IP-Based Load Balancer: An LSR that load balances on both entropy labels from an MPLS label stack and fields from an IP header (and possibly fields from upper layers). Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 1.1.1. Requirements Language 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 [RFC2119]. 1.2. Background MPLS implementations employ a wide variety of load-balancing techniques in terms of fields used for hash "keys". The mechanisms in [RFC4379] and updated by [RFC6424] are designed to provide multipath support for a subset of techniques. The intent of this document is to provide multipath support for the supported techniques that are compromised by the use of ELs [RFC6790]. Section 9 describes supported and unsupported cases, and it may be useful for the reader to first review this section. The Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV [RFC6424] provides Multipath Information, which can be used by an LSP ping initiator to trace and validate ECMP paths between an ingress and egress. The Multipath Information encodings defined by [RFC6424] are sufficient when all the LSRs along the path(s), between ingress and egress, consider the same set of "keys" as input for load-balancing algorithms, e.g., either all IP based or all label based. With the introduction of [RFC6790], some LSRs may perform load balancing based on labels while others may be IP based. This results in an LSP ping initiator that is unable to trace and validate all the ECMP paths in the following scenarios: o One or more transit LSRs along an LSP with ELI/EL in the label stack do not perform ECMP load balancing based on EL (hashes based on "keys" including the IP destination address). This scenario is not only possible but quite common due to transit LSRs not implementing [RFC6790] or transit LSRs implementing [RFC6790] but not implementing the suggested transit LSR behavior in Section 4.3 of [RFC6790]. o Two or more LSPs stitched together with at least one of these LSPs pushing ELI/EL into the label stack. These scenarios can be quite common because deployments of [RFC6790] typically have a mixture of nodes that support ELI/EL and nodes that do not. There will also typically be a mixture of areas that support ELI/EL and areas that do not. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 As pointed out in [RFC6790], the procedures of [RFC4379] (and consequently of [RFC6424]) with respect to Multipath Information Type {9} are incomplete. However, [RFC6790] does not actually update [RFC4379]. Further, the specific EL location is not clearly defined, particularly in the case of Flow-Aware Pseudowires [RFC6391]. This document defines a new FEC Stack sub-TLV for the entropy label. Section 2 of this document updates the procedures for the Multipath Information Type {9} that are described in [RFC4379] and that are applicable to [RFC6424]. The rest of this document describes extensions required to restore ECMP discovery and tracing capabilities for the scenarios described. [RFC4379], [RFC6424], and this document will support IP-based load balancers and label-based load balancers that limit their hash to the first (top-most) or only entropy label in the label stack. Other use cases (refer to Section 9) are out of scope. 2. Multipath Type {9} [RFC4379] defined Multipath Type {9} for the tracing of LSPs where label-based load balancing is used. However, as pointed out in [RFC6790], the procedures for using this type are incomplete as the specific location of the label was not defined. It was assumed that the presence of Multipath Type {9} implied that the value of the bottom-of-stack label should be varied by the values indicated by the multipath to determine the respective outgoing interfaces. Section 4 defines a new FEC-Stack sub-TLV to indicate an entropy label. These labels MAY appear anywhere in a label stack. Multipath Type {9} applies to the first label in the label stack that corresponds to an EL-FEC. If no such label is found, it applies to the label at the bottom of the label stack. 3. Pseudowire Tracing This section defines procedures for tracing Pseudowires. These procedures pertain to the use of Multipath Information Type {9} as well as Type {10}. In all cases below, when a control word is in use, the N flag in the DDMAP MUST be set. Note that when a control word is not in use, the returned DDMAPs may not be accurate. In order to trace a Pseudowire that is not flow aware, the initiator includes an EL-FEC instead of the appropriate PW FEC at the bottom of the FEC Stack. Tracing in this way will cause compliant routers to return the proper outgoing interface. Note that this procedure only traces to the end of the MPLS LSP that is under test and will not verify the PW FEC. To actually verify the PW FEC or in the case of a Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 MS-PW, to determine the next Pseudowire label value, the initiator MUST repeat that step of the trace (i.e., repeating the TTL value used) but with the FEC Stack modified to contain the appropriate PW FEC. Note that these procedures are applicable to scenarios where an initiator is able to vary the bottom label (i.e., Pseudowire label). Possible scenarios are tracing multiple Pseudowires that are not flow aware on the same endpoints or tracing a Pseudowire that is not flow- aware provisioned with multiple Pseudowire labels. In order to trace a flow-aware Pseudowire [RFC6391], the initiator includes an EL FEC at the bottom of the FEC Stack and pushes the appropriate PW FEC onto the FEC Stack. In order to trace through routers that are not compliant, the initiator forms an MPLS echo request message and includes a DDMAP with the Multipath Type {9}. For a Pseudowire that is not flow aware, it includes the appropriate PW FEC in the FEC Stack. For a flow- aware Pseudowire, the initiator includes a Nil FEC at the bottom of the FEC Stack and pushes the appropriate PW FEC onto the FEC Stack. 4. Entropy Label FEC The ELI is a reserved label that has no associated explicit FEC, and has the label value 7 assigned from the reserved range. Use the Nil FEC as the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to account for ELI in a Target FEC Stack TLV. The EL is a special-purpose label with the label value being discretionary (i.e., the label value is not from the reserved range). For LSP verification mechanics to perform its purpose, it is necessary for a Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to clearly describe the EL, particularly in the scenario where the label stack does not carry ELI (e.g., flow-aware Pseudowire [RFC6391]). Therefore, this document defines an EL FEC sub-TLV (33, see Section 11.1) that allows a Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to be added to the Target FEC Stack to account for EL. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 The Length is 4. Labels are 20-bit values treated as numbers. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | MBZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Entropy Label FEC "Label" is the actual label value inserted in the label stack; the "MBZ" field MUST be zero when sent and ignored on receipt. 5. DS Flags: L and E Two flags, L and E, are added to the DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV. Both flags MUST NOT be set in the echo request packets when sending and SHOULD be ignored when received. Zero, one, or both new flags MUST be set in the echo reply packets. DS Flags -------- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MBZ |L|E|I|N| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Flag Name and Meaning ---- ---------------- L Label-based load balance indicator This flag MUST be cleared in the echo request. An LSR that performs load balancing on a label MUST set this flag in the echo reply. An LSR that performs load balancing on IP MUST NOT set this flag in the echo reply. E ELI/EL push indicator This flag MUST be cleared in the echo request. An LSR that pushes ELI/EL MUST set this flag in the echo reply. An LSR that does not push ELI/EL MUST NOT set this flag in the echo reply. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 The two flags result in four load-balancing techniques, which the echo reply generating LSR can indicate: o {L=0, E=0} LSR load balances based on IP and does not push ELI/EL. o {L=0, E=1} LSR load balances based on IP and pushes ELI/EL. o {L=1, E=0} LSR load balances based on labels and does not push ELI/EL. o {L=1, E=1} LSR load balances based on labels and pushes ELI/EL. 6. New Multipath Information Type {10} One new Multipath Information Type is added to be used in DDMAP TLV. This new Multipath Type has the value of 10. Key Type Multipath Information --- ---------------- --------------------- 10 IP and Label set IP addresses and label prefixes Multipath Information Type {10} is comprised of three sections. The first section describes the IP address set. The second section describes the label set. The third section describes another label set, which associates to either the IP address set or the label set specified in the other sections. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 Multipath Information Type {10} has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |IPMultipathType| IP Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ~ | (IP Multipath Information) | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |LbMultipathType| Label Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ~ | (Label Multipath Information) | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Assoc. Label Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ~ | (Associated Label Multipath Information) | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Multipath Information Type {10} o IPMultipathType * 0 when "IP Multipath Information" is omitted. Otherwise, one of the IP Multipath Information values: {2, 4, 8}. o IP Multipath Information * This section is omitted when "IPMultipathType" is 0. Otherwise, this section reuses the IP Multipath Information from [RFC4379]. Specifically, Multipath Information for values {2, 4, 8} can be used. o LbMultipathType * 0 when the "Label Multipath Information" is omitted. Otherwise, the Label Multipath Information value {9}. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 o Label Multipath Information * This section is omitted when the "LbMultipathType" is 0. Otherwise, this section reuses the Label Multipath Information from [RFC4379]. Specifically, the Multipath Information for value {9} can be used. o Associated Label Multipath Information * "Associated Label Multipath Length" is a 16-bit field of Multipath Information that indicates the length in octets of the Associated Label Multipath Information. * "Associated Label Multipath Information" is a list of labels with each label described in 24 bits. This section MUST be omitted in an MPLS echo request message. A midpoint that pushes ELI/EL labels SHOULD include "Associated Label Multipath Information" in its MPLS echo reply message, along with either "IP Multipath Information" or "Label Multipath Information". Each specified associated label described in this section maps to a specific IP address OR label described in the "IP Multipath Information" section or the "Label Multipath Information" section. For example, if three IP addresses are specified in the "IP Multipath Information" section, then there MUST be three labels described in this section. The first label maps to the first IP address specified, the second label maps to the second IP address specified, and the third label maps to the third IP address specified. When a section is omitted, the length for that section MUST be set to zero. 7. Initiating LSR Procedures The following procedure is described in terms of an EL_LSP boolean maintained by the initiating LSR. This value controls the Multipath Information Type to be used in the transmitted echo request packets. When the initiating LSR is transmitting an echo request packet with DDMAP with a non-zero Multipath Information Type, then the EL_LSP boolean MUST be consulted to determine the Multipath Information Type to use. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 In addition to the procedures described in [RFC4379], as updated by Section 2 and [RFC6424], the initiating LSR MUST operate with the following procedures: o When the initiating LSR pushes ELI/EL, initialize EL_LSP=True. Else, set EL_LSP=False. o When the initiating LSR is transmitting a non-zero Multipath Information Type: * If (EL_LSP), the initiating LSR MUST use the Multipath Information Type {10} unless the responder LSR cannot handle Type {10}. When the initiating LSR is transmitting the Multipath Information Type {10}, both "IP Multipath Information" and "Label Multipath Information" MUST be included, and "Associated Label Multipath Information" MUST be omitted (NULL). * Else, the initiating LSR MAY use the Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8, 9, 10}. When the initiating LSR is transmitting the Multipath Information Type {10} in this case, "IP Multipath Information" MUST be included, and "Label Multipath Information" and "Associated Label Multipath Information" MUST be omitted (NULL). o When the initiating LSR receives an echo reply with {L=0, E=1} in the DS Flags with valid contents, set EL_LSP=True. In the following conditions, the initiating LSR may have lost the ability to exercise specific ECMP paths. The initiating LSR MAY continue with "best effort" in the following cases: o Received echo reply contains empty Multipath Information. o Received echo reply contains {L=0, E=<any>} DS Flags, but does not contain IP Multipath Information. o Received echo reply contains {L=1, E=<any>} DS Flags, but does not contain Label Multipath Information. o Received echo reply contains {L=<any>, E=1} DS Flags, but does not contain Associated Label Multipath Information. o IP Multipath Information Types {2, 4, 8} sent, and received echo reply with {L=1, E=0} in DS Flags. o Multipath Information Type {10} sent, and received echo reply with Multipath Information Type other than {10}. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 8. Responder LSR Procedures Common Procedures: o The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request packet MUST first determine whether or not the initiating LSR supports this LSP ping and traceroute extension for entropy labels. If either of the following conditions are met, the responder LSR SHOULD determine that the initiating LSR supports this LSP ping and traceroute extension for entropy labels. 1. Received MPLS echo request contains the Multipath Information Type {10}. 2. Received MPLS echo request contains a Target FEC Stack TLV that includes the entropy label FEC. If the initiating LSR is determined not to support this LSP ping and traceroute extension for entropy labels, then the responder LSR MUST NOT follow further procedures described in this section. Specifically, MPLS echo reply packets: * MUST have the following DS Flags cleared (i.e., not set): "ELI/ EL push indicator" and "Label-based load balance indicator". * MUST NOT use the Multipath Information Type {10}. o The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request packet with the Multipath Information Type {10} MUST validate the following contents. Any deviation MUST result in the responder LSR considering the packet to be malformed and returning code 1 ("Malformed echo request received") in the MPLS echo reply packet. * IP Multipath Information MUST be included. * Label Multipath Information MAY be included. * Associated Label Multipath Information MUST be omitted (NULL). The following subsections describe expected responder LSR procedures when the echo reply is to include DDMAP TLVs, based on the local load balance technique being employed. In case the responder LSR performs deviating load balance techniques on a per-downstream basis, appropriate procedures matched to each downstream load balance technique MUST be followed. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 8.1. IP-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL o The responder MUST set {L=0, E=0} in DS Flags. o If the Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the responder MUST comply with [RFC4379] and [RFC6424]. o If the Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}. o If the Multipath Information Type {10} is received, the following procedures are to be used: * The responder MUST reply with the Multipath Information Type {10}. * The "Label Multipath Information" and "Associated Label Multipath Information" sections MUST be omitted (NULL). * If no matching IP address is found, then the "IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to the Multipath Information Type {0} and the "IP Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted (NULL). * If at least one matching IP address is found, then the "IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to the appropriate Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} and the "IP Multipath Information" section MUST be included. 8.2. IP-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL o The responder MUST set {L=0, E=1} in DS Flags. o If the Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}. o If the Multipath Type {2, 4, 8, 10} is received, the following procedures are to be used: * The responder MUST respond with Multipath Type {10}. See Section 6 for details of Multipath Type {10}. * The "Label Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted (i.e., it is not there). * The IP address set specified in the received IP Multipath Information MUST be used to determine the returned IP/Label pairs. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 * If the received Multipath Information Type was {10}, the received "Label Multipath Information" sections MUST NOT be used to determine the associated label portion of the returned IP/Label pairs. * If no matching IP address is found, then the "IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to the Multipath Information Type {0} and the "IP Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted. In addition, the "Associated Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to 0, and the "Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted. * If at least one matching IP address is found, then the "IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to the appropriate Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} and the "IP Multipath Information" section MUST be included. In addition, the "Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST be populated with a list of labels corresponding to each IP address specified in the "IP Multipath Information" section. "Associated Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to a value representing the length in octets of the "Associated Label Multipath Information" field. 8.3. Label-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL o The responder MUST set {L=1, E=0} in DS Flags. o If the Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the responder MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}. o If the Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder MUST comply with [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] as updated by Section 2. o If the Multipath Information Type {10} is received, the following procedures are to be used: * The responder MUST reply with the Multipath Information Type {10}. * The "IP Multipath Information" and "Associated Label Multipath Information" sections MUST be omitted (NULL). * If no matching label is found, then the "LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to the Multipath Information Type {0} and the "Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted (NULL). Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 * If at least one matching label is found, then the "LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to the appropriate Multipath Information Type {9} and the "Label Multipath Information" section MUST be included. 8.4. Label-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL o The responder MUST set {L=1, E=1} in DS Flags. o If the Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the responder MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}. o If the Multipath Type {9, 10} is received, the following procedures are to be used: * The responder MUST respond with the Multipath Type {10}. * The "IP Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted. * The label set specified in the received Label Multipath Information MUST be used to determine the returned Label/Label pairs. * If the received Multipath Information Type was {10} received, the "Label Multipath Information" sections MUST NOT be used to determine the associated label portion of the returned Label/ Label pairs. * If no matching label is found, then the "LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to the Multipath Information Type {0} and the "Label Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted. In addition, the "Associated Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to 0, and the "Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted. * If at least one matching label is found, then the "LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to the appropriate Multipath Information Type {9} and the "Label Multipath Information" section MUST be included. In addition, the "Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST be populated with a list of labels corresponding to each label specified in the "Label Multipath Information" section. The "Associated Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to a value representing the length in octets of the "Associated Label Multipath Information" field. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 8.5. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR A stitching LSR that cross-connects flow-aware Pseudowires behaves in one of two ways: o Load balances on the previous flow label and carries over the same flow label. For this case, the stitching LSR is to behave as described in Section 8.3. o Load balances on the previous flow label and replaces the flow label with a newly computed label. For this case, the stitching LSR is to behave as described in Section 8.4. 9. Supported and Unsupported Cases The MPLS architecture does not define strict rules on how implementations are to identify hash "keys" for load-balancing purposes. As a result, implementations may be of the following load balancer types: 1. IP-based load balancer. 2. Label-based load balancer. 3. Label- and IP-based load balancer. For cases (2) and (3), an implementation can include different sets of labels from the label stack for load-balancing purpose. Thus, the following sub-cases are possible: a. Entire label stack. b. Top N labels from label stack where the number of labels in label stack is > N. c. Bottom N labels from label stack where the number of labels in label stack is > N. In a scenario where there is one flow label or entropy label present in the label stack, the following further cases are possible for (2b), (2c), (3b), and (3c): 1. N labels from label stack include flow label or entropy label. 2. N labels from label stack do not include flow label or entropy label. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 Also, in a scenario where there are multiple entropy labels present in the label stack, it is possible for implementations to employ deviating techniques: o Search for entropy stops at the first entropy label. o Search for entropy includes any entropy label found plus continues to search for entropy in the label stack. Furthermore, handling of reserved (i.e., special) labels varies among implementations: o Reserved labels are used in the hash as any other label would be (not a recommended practice). o Reserved labels are skipped over and, for implementations limited to N labels, the reserved labels do not count towards the limit of N. o Reserved labels are skipped over and, for implementations limited to N labels, the reserved labels count towards the limit of N. It is important to point this out since the presence of GAL will affect those implementations that include reserved labels for load- balancing purposes. As can be seen from the above, there are many types of potential load-balancing implementations. Attempting to get any Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tools to support ECMP discovery and traversal over all types would require fairly complex procedures. Complexities in OAM tools have minimal benefit if the majority of implementations are expected to employ only a small subset of the cases described above. o Section 4.3 of [RFC6790] states that in implementations, for load- balancing purposes, parsing beyond the label stack after finding an entropy label has "limited incremental value". Therefore, it is expected that most implementations will be of types "IP-based load balancer" or "Label-based load balancer". o Section 2.4.5.1 of [RFC7325] recommends that searching for entropy labels in the label stack should terminate upon finding the first entropy label. Therefore, it is expected that implementations will only include the first (top-most) entropy label when there are multiple entropy labels in the label stack. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 o It is expected that, in most cases, the number of labels in the label stack will not exceed the number of labels (N) that implementations can include for load-balancing purposes. o It is expected that labels in the label stack, besides the flow label and entropy label, are constant for the lifetime of a single LSP multipath traceroute operation. Therefore, deviating load- balancing implementations with respect to reserved labels should not affect this tool. Thus, [RFC4379], [RFC6424], and this document support cases (1) and (2a1), where only the first (top-most) entropy label is included when there are multiple entropy labels in the label stack. 10. Security Considerations While [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] already allow for the discovery and exercise of ECMP paths, this document extends the LSP ping and traceroute mechanisms to more precisely discover and exercise ECMP paths when an LSP uses ELI/EL in the label stack. Sourcing or inspecting LSP ping packets can be used for network reconnaissance. The extended capability defined in this document requires minor additional processing for the responder and initiator nodes. The responder node that pushes ELI/EL will need to compute and return multipath data including associated EL. The initiator node will need to store and handle both IP Multipath and Label Multipath Information, and include destination IP addresses and/or ELs in MPLS echo request packets as well as in the Multipath Information sent to downstream nodes. The security considerations of [RFC4379] already cover Denial-of-Service attacks by regulating LSP ping traffic going to the control plane. Finally, the security measures described in [RFC4379], [RFC6424], and [RFC6790] are applicable. [RFC6424] provides guidelines if a network operator wants to prevent tracing or does not want to expose details of the tunnel and [RFC6790] provides guidance on the use of the EL. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 11. IANA Considerations 11.1. Entropy Label FEC IANA has assigned a new sub-TLV from the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21" section from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry under "TLVs" ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference -------- ------------ --------- 33 Entropy label FEC this document 11.2. DS Flags IANA has assigned new bit numbers from the "DS Flags" subregistry from the "TLVs" section of the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). Note: The "DS Flags" subregistry was created by [RFC7537]. Bit number Name Reference ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 5 E: ELI/EL push indicator this document 4 L: Label-based load balance indicator this document 11.3. Multipath Type IANA has assigned a new value from the "Multipath Type" subregistry from the "TLVs" section of the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). Note: The "Multipath Type" subregistry was created by [RFC7537]. Value Meaning Reference ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- 10 IP and label set this document Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 12. References 12.1. 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>. [RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels", RFC 6424, DOI 10.17487/RFC6424, November 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6424>. [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. [RFC7537] Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and S. Aldrin, "IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points", RFC 7537, DOI 10.17487/RFC7537, May 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537>. 12.2. Informative References [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters>. [RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>. [RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325, August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>. Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 8012 LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Curtis Villamizar, Daniel King, Sriganesh Kini, Victor Ji, Acee Lindem, Deborah Brungard, Shawn M Emery, Scott O. Bradner, and Peter Yee for performing thorough reviews and providing very valuable comments. Carlos Pignataro would like to acknowledge his lifetime friend Martin Rigueiro, with deep gratitude and esteem, for sharing his contagious passion for engineering and sciences, and for selflessly teaching so many lessons. Contributors Nagendra Kumar Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: naikumar@cisco.com Authors' Addresses Nobo Akiya Big Switch Networks Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com George Swallow Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: swallow@cisco.com Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: cpignata@cisco.com Andrew G. Malis Huawei Technologies Email: agmalis@gmail.com Sam Aldrin Google Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]