Internet DRAFT - draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath
draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya
Internet-Draft G. Swallow
Updates: 4379,6424 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track S. Litkowski
Expires: June 24, 2015 B. Decraene
Orange
J. Drake
Juniper Networks
December 21, 2014
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath Support for
Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-05
Abstract
This document defines an extension to the MPLS Label Switched Path
(LSP) Ping and Traceroute as specified in RFC 4379. The extension
allows the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover and exercise
specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) over Link
Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces.
This document updates RFC4379 and RFC6424.
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].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 24, 2015.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. LSR Capability Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Incoming LAG Member Links Verification . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.1. Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.2. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Individual End-to-End Path Verification . . . . . . . . . 13
6. LSR Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. LAG Description Indicator Flag: G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Local Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1.1. Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10.1.2. Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.1. LSR Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.1.1. LSR Capability Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.2. Local Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12.2.1. Interface Index Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.3. Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.4. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . 23
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
12.4.1. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12.5. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A. LAG with L2 Switch Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.1. Equal Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.2. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.3. LAG Only on Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.4. LAG Only on Left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology
The following acronyms/terms are used in this document:
o MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching.
o LSP - Label Switched Path.
o LSR - Label Switching Router.
o ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath.
o LAG - Link Aggregation Group.
o Initiator LSR - LSR which sends MPLS echo request.
o Responder LSR - LSR which receives MPLS echo request and sends
MPLS echo reply.
1.2. Background
The MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute as specified
in [RFC4379] are powerful tools designed to diagnose all available
layer 3 (L3) paths of LSPs, i.e., provides diagnostic coverage of L3
Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP). In many MPLS networks, Link Aggregation
Group (LAG) as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], which provide Layer 2 (L2)
ECMP, are often used for various reasons. MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute tools were not designed to discover and exercise specific
paths of L2 ECMP. The result raises a limitation for following
scenario when LSP X traverses over LAG Y:
o Label switching of LSP X over one or more member links of LAG Y
have succeeded.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
o Label switching of LSP X over one or more member links of LAG Y
have failed.
o MPLS echo request for LSP X over LAG Y is load balanced over a
member link which is label switching successfully.
With the above scenario, MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute will not be
able to detect the label switching failure of problematic member
link(s) of the LAG. In other words, lack of L2 ECMP diagnostic
coverage can produce an outcome where MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute
can be blind to label switching failures over problematic LAG
interface. It is, thus, desirable to extend the MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute to have deterministic diagnostic coverage of LAG
interfaces.
Creation of this document was motivated by issues encountered in live
networks.
2. Overview
This document defines an extension to the MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute to describe Multipath Information for LAG member links
separately, thus allowing MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover
and exercise specific paths of L2 ECMP over LAG interfaces. Reader
is expected to be familiar with mechanics of the MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute described in Section 3.3 of [RFC4379] and Downstream
Detailed Mapping TLV (DDMAP) described in Section 3.3 of [RFC6424].
MPLS echo request carries a DDMAP and an optional TLV to indicate
that separate load balancing information for each L2 nexthop over LAG
is desired in MPLS echo reply. Responder LSR places the same
optional TLV in the MPLS echo reply to provide acknowledgement back
to the initiator. It also adds, for each downstream LAG member, a
load balance information (i.e. multipath information and interface
index). The following figure and the texts provides an example using
an LDP network. However the problem and the mechanism is applicable
to all types of LSPs which can traverse over LAG interfaces.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
<----- LDP Network ----->
+-------+
| |
A-------B=======C-------E
| |
+-------D-------+
---- Non-LAG
==== LAG comprising of two member links
Figure 1: Example LDP Network
When node A is initiating LSP Traceroute to node E, node B will
return to node A load balance information for following entries.
1. Downstream C over Non-LAG (upper path).
2. First Downstream C over LAG (middle path).
3. Second Downstream C over LAG (middle path).
4. Downstream D over Non-LAG (lower path).
This document defines:
o In Section 3, a mechanism discover capabilities of responder LSRs;
o In Section 4, a mechanism to discover L2 ECMP multipath
information;
o In Section 5, a mechanism to validate L2 ECMP traversal in some
LAG provisioning models;
o In Section 6, the LSR Capability TLV;
o In Section 7, the LAG Description Indicator flag;
o In Section 8, the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV;
o In Section 9, the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV;
o In Section 10, the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV;
o In Appendix A, issues with LAG having an L2 Switch.
Note that the mechanism described in this document does not impose
any changes to scenarios where an LSP is pinned down to a particular
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
LAG member (i.e. the LAG is not treated as one logical interface by
the LSP).
Also note that many LAGs are built from p2p links, and thus router X
and router X+1 have the same number of LAG members. It is possible
to build LAGs asymmetrically by using Ethernet switches in the
middle. Appendix A lists some cases which this document does not
address; if an operator deploys LAGs in a manner similar to what's
shown in Appendix A, the mechanisms in this document may not suit
them.
3. LSR Capability Discovery
The MPLS Ping operates by an initiator LSR sending an MPLS echo
request message and receiving back a corresponding MPLS echo reply
message from a responder LSR. The MPLS Traceroute operates in a
similar way except the initiator LSR potentially sends multiple MPLS
echo request messages with incrementing TTL values.
There has been many extensions to the MPLS Ping and Traceroute
mechanism over the years. Thus it is often useful, and sometimes
necessary, for the initiator LSR to deterministically disambiguate
the difference between:
o The responder LSR sent the MPLS echo reply message with contents C
because it has feature X, Y and Z implemented.
o The responder LSR sent the MPLS echo reply message with contents C
because it has subset of features X, Y and Z implemented but not
all.
o The responder LSR sent the MPLS echo reply message with contents C
because it does not have features X, Y and Z implemented.
To allow the initiator LSR to disambiguate the above differences,
this document defines the LSR Capability TLV (described in
Section 6). When the initiator LSR wishes to discover the
capabilities of the responder LSR, the initiator LSR includes the LSR
Capability TLV in the MPLS echo request message. When the responder
LSR receives an MPLS echo reply message with the LSR Capability TLV
included, then the responder LSR MUST include the LSR Capability TLV
in the MPLS echo reply message with the LSR Capability TLV describing
features and extensions supported by the local LSR.
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations supporting the LAG Multipath
extensions defined in this document include the LSR Capability TLV in
MPLS echo request messages.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
4. Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP Multipath
4.1. Initiator LSR Procedures
The MPLS echo request carries a DDMAP with the "LAG Description
Indicator flag" (G) set in the DS Flags to indicate that separate
load balancing information for each L2 nexthop over LAG is desired in
MPLS echo reply. The new "LAG Description Indicator flag" is
described in Section 7.
4.2. Responder LSR Procedures
This section describes the handling of the new TLVs by nodes which
understand the "LAG Description Indicator flag". There are two cases
- nodes which understand the "LAG Description Indicator flag" but
which for some reason cannot describe LAG members separately, and
nodes which both understand the "LAG Description Indicator flag" and
are able to describe LAG members separately. Note that Section 6,
Section 8 and Section 9 describe the new TLVs referenced by this
section , and looking over the definition of the new TLVs first may
make it easier to read this section.
A responder LSR that understand the "LAG Description Indicator flag"
but is not capable of describing outgoing LAG member links separately
uses the following procedures:
o If the received MPLS echo request message had the LSR Capability
TLV, the responder LSR MUST include the LSR Capability TLV in the
MPLS echo reply message.
o The responder LSR MUST clear the "Downstream LAG Info
Accommodation flag" in the LSR Capability Flags field of the LSR
Capability TLV. This will allow the initiator LSR to understand
that the responder LSR cannot describe outgoing LAG member links
separately in the DDMAP.
A responder LSR that understands the "LAG Description Indicator flag"
and is capable of describing outgoing LAG member links separately
uses the follow procedures, regardless of whether or not outgoing
interfaces include LAG interfaces:
o If the received MPLS echo request message had the LSR Capability
TLV, the responder LSR MUST include the LSR Capability TLV in the
MPLS echo reply message.
o The responder LSR MUST set the "Downstream LAG Info Accommodation
flag" in the LSR Capability Flags field of the LSR Capability TLV.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
o For each downstream that is a LAG interface:
* The responder LSR MUST add DDMAP in the MPLS echo reply.
* The responder LSR MUST set the "LAG Description Indicator flag"
in the DS Flags field of the DDMAP.
* In the DDMAP, Local Interface Index Sub-TLV, Remote Interface
Index Sub-TLV and Multipath Data Sub-TLV are to describe each
LAG member link. All other fields of the DDMAP are to describe
the LAG interface.
* For each LAG member link of this LAG interface:
+ The responder LSR MUST add a Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
(described in Section 8) with the "LAG Member Link Indicator
flag" set in the Interface Index Flags field, describing the
interface index of this outgoing LAG member link (the local
interface index is assigned by the local LSR).
+ The responder LSR MAY add a Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV
(described in Section 9) with the "LAG Member Link Indicator
flag" set in the Interface Index Flags field, describing the
interface index of the incoming LAG member link on the
downstream LSR (this interface index is assigned by the
downstream LSR). How the local LSR obtains the interface
index of the LAG member link on the downstream LSR is
outside the scope of this document.
+ The responder LSR MUST add an Multipath Data Sub-TLV for
this LAG member link, if received DDMAP requested multipath
information.
Based on the procedures described above, every LAG member link will
have a Local Interface Index Sub-TLV and a Multipath Data Sub-TLV
entries in the DDMAP. The order of the Sub-TLVs in the DDMAP for a
LAG member link MUST be Local Interface Index Sub-TLV immediately
followed by Multipath Data Sub-TLV. A LAG member link may also have
a corresponding Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV. When a Local
Interface Index Sub-TLV, a Remote Interface Index-Sub-TLV and a
Multipath Data Sub-TLV are placed in the DDMAP to describe a LAG
member link, they MUST be placed in the order of Local Interface
Index Sub-TLV, Remote Interface Index-Sub-TLV and Multipath Data Sub-
TLV.
A responder LSR possessing a LAG interface with two member links
would send the following DDMAP for this LAG interface:
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ DDMAP fields describing LAG interface with DS Flags G set ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|[MANDATORY] Local Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|[OPTIONAL] Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|[MANDATORY] Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|[MANDATORY] Local Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #2|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|[OPTIONAL] Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #2|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|[MANDATORY] Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Stack Sub-TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Example of DDMAP in MPLS Echo Reply
When none of the received multipath information maps to a particular
LAG member link, then the responder LSR MUST still place the Local
Interface Index Sub-TLV and the Multipath Data Sub-TLV for that LAG
member link in the DDMAP, with the Multipath Length field of the
Multipath Data Sub-TLV being zero.
4.3. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures
The procedures above allow an initiator LSR to:
o Identify whether or not the responder LSR can describe outgoing
LAG member links separately, by looking at the LSR Capability TLV.
o Utilize the value of the "LAG Description Indicator flag" in DS
Flags to identify whether each received DDMAP describes a LAG
interface or a non-LAG interface.
o Obtain multipath information which is expected to traverse the
specific LAG member link described by corresponding interface
index.
When an initiator LSR receives a DDMAP containing LAG member
information from a downstream LSR with TTL=n, then the subsequent
DDMAP sent by the initiator LSR to the downstream LSR with TTL=n+1
through a particular LAG member link MUST be updated with following
procedures:
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
o The Local Interface Index Sub-TLVs MUST be removed in the sending
DDMAP.
o If the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs were present and the
initiator LSR is traversing over a specific LAG member link, then
the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV corresponding to the LAG member
link being traversed SHOULD be included in the sending DDMAP. All
other Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs MUST be removed from the
sending DDMAP.
o The Multipath Data Sub-TLVs MUST be updated to include just one
Multipath Data Sub-TLV. The initiator MAY keep just the Multipath
Data Sub-TLV corresponding to the LAG member link being traversed,
or combine the Multipath Data Sub-TLVs for all LAG member links
into a single Multipath Data Sub-TLV when diagnosing further
downstream LSRs.
o All other fields of the DDMAP are to comply with procedures
described in [RFC6424].
Using the DDMAP example described in the Figure 2, the DDMAP being
sent by the initiator LSR through LAG member link #1 to the next
downstream LSR should be:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ DDMAP fields describing LAG interface with DS Flags G set ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|[OPTIONAL] Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Stack Sub-TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Example of DDMAP in MPLS Echo Request
5. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal
Section 4 defines the responder LSR procedures to constructs a DDMAP
for a downstream LAG, and also defines that inclusion of the Remote
Interface Index Sub-TLVs describing the incoming LAG member links of
the downstream LSR is optional. The reason why it is optional for
the responder LSR to include the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs is
that this information from the downstream LSR is often not available
on the responder LSR. In such case, the traversal of LAG member
links can be validated with procedures described in Section 5.1. If
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
LSRs can provide the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs in DDMAP
objects, then the validation procedures described in Section 5.2 can
be used.
5.1. Incoming LAG Member Links Verification
Without downstream LSRs returning remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs in
the DDMAP, validation of the LAG member link traversal requires that
initiator LSR traverses all available LAG member links and taking the
results through a logic. This section provides the mechanism for the
initiator LSR to obtain additional information from the downstream
LSRs and describes the additional logic in the initiator LSR to
validate the L2 ECMP traversal.
5.1.1. Initiator LSR Procedures
The MPLS echo request is sent with a DDMAP with the "Interface and
Label Stack Object Request flag" and "LAG Description Indicator flag"
set in the DS Flags to indicate the request for Detailed Interface
and Label Stack TLV with additional LAG member link information (i.e.
interface index) in the MPLS echo reply.
5.1.2. Responder LSR Procedures
A responder LSR that understands the "LAG Description Indicator flag"
but is not capable of describing incoming LAG member link is to use
following procedures:
o If the received MPLS echo request message had the LSR Capability
TLV, the responder LSR MUST include the LSR Capability TLV in the
MPLS echo reply message.
o The responder LSR MUST clear the "Upstream LAG Info Accommodation
flag" in the LSR Capability Flags field of the LSR Capability TLV.
This will allow the initiator LSR to understand that the responder
LSR cannot describe incoming LAG member link.
A responder LSR that understands the "LAG Description Indicator flag"
and is capable of describing incoming LAG member link MUST use the
following procedures, regardless of whether or not incoming interface
was a LAG interface:
o If the received MPLS echo request message had the LSR Capability
TLV, the responder LSR MUST include the LSR Capability TLV in the
MPLS echo reply message.
o The responder LSR MUST set the "Upstream LAG Info Accommodation
flag" in the LSR Capability Flags field of the LSR Capability TLV.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
o When the received DDMAP had "Interface and Label Stack Object
Request flag" set in the DS Flags field, the responder LSR MUST
add the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV (described in
Section 10) in the MPLS echo reply.
o When the received DDMAP had "Interface and Label Stack Object
Request flag" set in the DS Flags field and the incoming interface
was a LAG, the responder LSR MUST add the Incoming Interface Index
Sub-TLV (described in Section 10.1.2) in the Detailed Interface
and Label Stack TLV. The "LAG Member Link Indicator flag" MUST be
set in the Interface Index Flags field, and the Interface Index
field set to the LAG member link which received the MPLS echo
request.
These procedures allow initiator LSR to:
o Identify whether or not the responder LSR can describe the
incoming LAG member link, by looking at the LSR Capability TLV.
o Utilize the Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV in the Detailed
Interface and Label Stack TLV to identify, if the incoming
interface was a LAG, the identity of the incoming LAG member.
5.1.3. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures
Along with procedures described in Section 4, the procedures
described in this section will allow an initiator LSR to know:
o The expected load balance information of every LAG member link, at
LSR with TTL=n.
o With specific entropy, the expected interface index of the
outgoing LAG member link at TTL=n.
o With specific entropy, the interface index of the incoming LAG
member link at TTL=n+1.
Expectation is that there's a relationship between the interface
index of the outgoing LAG member link at TTL=n and the interface
index of the incoming LAG member link at TTL=n+1 for all discovered
entropies. In other words, set of entropies that load balances to
outgoing LAG member link X at TTL=n should all reach the nexthop on
same incoming LAG member link Y at TTL=n+1.
With additional logics, the initiator LSR can perform following
checks in a scenario where the initiator knows that there is a LAG,
with two LAG members, between TTL=n and TTL=n+1, and has the
multipath information to traverse the two LAG members.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
The initiator LSR sends two MPLS echo request messages to traverse
the two LAG members at TTL=1:
o Success case:
* One MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on an LAG member
1.
* The other MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on an LAG
member 2.
The two MPLS echo request messages sent by the initiator LSR reach
two different LAG members at the immediate downstream LSR.
o Error case:
* One MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on an LAG member
1.
* The other MPLS echo request message also reaches TTL=n+1 on an
LAG member 1.
One or two MPLS echo request messages sent by the initiator LSR
does not reach the immediate downstream LSR, or the two MPLS echo
request messages reach a same LAG member at the immediate
downstream LSR.
Note that defined procedures will provide a deterministic result for
LAG interfaces that are back-to-back connected between routers (i.e.
no L2 switch in between). If there is a L2 switch between LSR at
TTL=n and LSR at TTL=n+1, there is no guarantee that traversal of
every LAG member link at TTL=n will result in reaching different
interface index at TTL=n+1. Issues resulting from LAG with L2 switch
in between are further described in Appendix A. LAG provisioning
models in operated network should be considered when analyzing the
output of LSP Traceroute exercising L2 ECMPs.
5.2. Individual End-to-End Path Verification
When the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs are available from an LSR
with TTL=n, then the validation of LAG member link traversal can be
performed by the downstream LSR of TTL=n+1. The initiator LSR
follows the procedures described in Section 4.3.
The DDMAP validation procedures by the downstream responder LSR are
then updated to include the comparison of the incoming LAG member
link (which MPLS echo request was received on) to the interface index
described in the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV in the DDMAP.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
Failure of this comparison results in the return code being set to
"Downstream Mapping Mismatch (5)".
A responder LSR that is not able to perform the above additional
DDMAP validation procedures is considered to lack the upstream LAG
capability. Thus, if the received MPLS echo request contained the
LSR Capability TLV, then the responder LSR MUST include the LSR
Capability TLV in the MPLS echo reply and the LSR Capability TLV MUST
have the "Upstream LAG Info Accomodation flag" cleared.
6. LSR Capability TLV
The LSR Capability object is a new TLV that MAY be included in the
MPLS echo request message and the MPLS echo reply message. An MPLS
echo request message and an MPLS echo reply message MUST NOT include
more than one LSR Capability object. Presence of an LSR Capability
object in an MPLS echo request message is a request that a responder
LSR includes an LSR Capability object in the MPLS echo reply message,
with the LSR Capability object describing features and extensions
supported. When the received MPLS echo request message contains an
LSR Capability object, an responder LSR MUST include the LSR
Capability object in the MPLS echo reply message.
LSR Capability TLV Type is TBD1. Length is 4. The value field of
the LSR Capability TLV has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR Capability Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: LSR Capability TLV
LSR Capability Flags
The LSR Capability Flags field is a bit vector with 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero (Reserved) |U|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
Two flags are defined: U and D. The remaining flags MUST be set
to zero when sending and ignored on receipt. Both U and D flags
MUST be cleared in MPLS echo request message when sending, and
ignored on receipt. Neither, either or both U and D flags MAY be
set in MPLS echo reply message.
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
U Upstream LAG Info Accommodation
An LSR sets this flag when the node is capable of
describing a LAG member link in the Incoming Interface
Index Sub-TLV in the in the Detailed Interface and
Label Stack TLV.
D Downstream LAG Info Accommodation
An LSR sets this flag when the node is capable of
describing LAG member links in the Local Interface
Index Sub-TLV and the Multipath Data Sub-TLV in the
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV.
7. LAG Description Indicator Flag: G
One flag, G, is added in DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV. The G flag
of the DS Flags field in the MPLS echo request message indicates the
request for detailed LAG information from the responder LSR. In the
MPLS echo reply message, the G flag MUST be set if the DDMAP TLV
describes a LAG interface. It MUST be cleared otherwise.
DS Flags
DS Flags G is added, in Bit Number TBD5, in DS Flags bit vector.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |G|MBZ|I|N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
RFC-Editor-Note: Please update above figure to place the flag G in
the bit number TBD5.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
G LAG Description Indicator
When this flag is set in the MPLS echo request, responder is
requested to respond with detailed LAG information. When this
flag is set in the MPLS echo reply, the corresponding DDMAP
describes a LAG interface.
8. Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
The Local Interface Index object is a Sub-TLV that MAY be included in
a DDMAP TLV. Zero or more Local Interface Index object MAY appear in
a DDMAP TLV. The Local Interface Index Sub-TLV describes the index
assigned by the local LSR to the egress interface.
The Local Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is TBD2. Length is 8, and the
Value field has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index Flags | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
Interface Index Flags
Interface Index Flags field is a bit vector with following format.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero (Reserved) |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One flag is defined: M. The remaining flags MUST be set to zero
when sending and ignored on receipt.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
M LAG Member Link Indicator
When this flag is set, interface index described in
this sub-TLV is a member of a LAG.
Local Interface Index
An Index assigned by the LSR to this interface.
9. Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV
The Remote Interface Index object is a Sub-TLV that MAY be included
in a DDMAP TLV. Zero or more Remote Interface Index object MAY
appear in a DDMAP TLV. The Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV describes
the index assigned by the downstream LSR to the ingress interface.
The Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is TBD3. Length is 8, and
the Value field has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index Flags | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV
Interface Index Flags
Interface Index Flags field is a bit vector with following format.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero (Reserved) |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One flag is defined: M. The remaining flags MUST be set to zero
when sending and ignored on receipt.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
M LAG Member Link Indicator
When this flag is set, interface index described in
this sub-TLV is a member of a LAG.
Remote Interface Index
An Index assigned by the downstream LSR to the ingress interface.
10. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV
The "Detailed Interface and Label Stack" object is a TLV that MAY be
included in a MPLS echo reply message to report the interface on
which the MPLS echo request message was received and the label stack
that was on the packet when it was received. A responder LSR MUST
NOT insert more than one instance of this TLV. This TLV allows the
initiator LSR to obtain the exact interface and label stack
information as it appears at the responder LSR.
Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV Type is TBD4. Length is K +
Sub-TLV Length (sum of Sub-TLVs). K is the sum of all fields of this
TLV prior to Sub-TLVs, but the length of K depends on the Address
Type. Details of this information is described below. The Value
field has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero | Sub-TLV Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
The Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV format is derived from the
Interface and Label Stack TLV format (from [RFC4379]). Two changes
are introduced. First is that label stack, which is of variable
length, is converted into a sub-TLV. Second is that a new sub-TLV is
added to describe an interface index. The fields of Detailed
Interface and Label Stack TLV have the same use and meaning as in
[RFC4379]. A summary of the fields taken from the Interface and
Label Stack TLV is as below:
Address Type
The Address Type indicates if the interface is numbered or
unnumbered. It also determines the length of the IP Address
and Interface fields. The resulting total for the initial part
of the TLV is listed in the table below as "K Octets". The
Address Type is set to one of the following values:
Type # Address Type K Octets
------ ------------ --------
1 IPv4 Numbered 16
2 IPv4 Unnumbered 16
3 IPv6 Numbered 40
4 IPv6 Unnumbered 28
IP Address and Interface
IPv4 addresses and interface indices are encoded in 4 octets;
IPv6 addresses are encoded in 16 octets.
If the interface upon which the echo request message was
received is numbered, then the Address Type MUST be set to IPv4
Numbered or IPv6 Numbered, the IP Address MUST be set to either
the LSR's Router ID or the interface address, and the Interface
MUST be set to the interface address.
If the interface is unnumbered, the Address Type MUST be either
IPv4 Unnumbered or IPv6 Unnumbered, the IP Address MUST be the
LSR's Router ID, and the Interface MUST be set to the index
assigned to the interface.
Note: Usage of IPv6 Unnumbered has the same issue as [RFC4379],
described in Section 3.4.2 of [I-D.ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap]. A
solution should be considered an applied to both [RFC4379] and
this document.
Sub-TLV Length
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
Total length in octets of the sub-TLVs associated with this
TLV.
10.1. Sub-TLVs
This section defines the sub-TLVs that MAY be included as part of the
Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.
Sub-Type Value Field
--------- ------------
1 Incoming Label stack
2 Incoming Interface Index
10.1.1. Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV
The Incoming Label Stack sub-TLV contains the label stack as received
by the LSR. If any TTL values have been changed by this LSR, they
SHOULD be restored.
Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV Type is 1. Length is variable, and the
Value field has 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV
10.1.2. Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV
The Incoming Interface Index object is a Sub-TLV that MAY be included
in a Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV. The Incoming Interface
Index Sub-TLV describes the index assigned by this LSR to the
interface which received the MPLS echo request message.
Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is 2. Length is 8, and the
Value field has the same format as the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
described in Section 8, and has following format:
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Index Flags | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Incoming Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV
Interface Index Flags
Interface Index Flags field is a bit vector with following format.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Must Be Zero (Reserved) |M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One flag is defined: M. The remaining flags MUST be set to zero
when sending and ignored on receipt.
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
M LAG Member Link Indicator
When this flag is set, interface index described in
this sub-TLV is a member of a LAG.
Incoming Interface Index
An Index assigned by the LSR to this interface.
11. Security Considerations
This document extends LSP Traceroute mechanism to discover and
exercise L2 ECMP paths. As a result of supporting the code points
and procedures described in this document, additional processing are
required by initiator LSRs and responder LSRs, especially to compute
and handle increasing number of multipath information. Due to
additional processing, it is critical that proper security measures
described in [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] are followed.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
The LSP Traceroute allows an initiator LSR to discover the paths of
tested LSPs, providing deep knowledge of the MPLS network. Exposing
such information to a malicious user is considered dangerous. To
prevent leakage of vital information to untrusted users, a responder
LSR MUST only accept MPLS echo request messages from trusted sources
via filtering source IP address field of received MPLS echo request
messages.
12. IANA Considerations
12.1. LSR Capability TLV
The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD1 for LSR Capability TLV
from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry.
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBD1 LSR Capability TLV this document
12.1.1. LSR Capability Flags
The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled "LSR
Capability Flags" with following registration procedures:
Registry Name: LAG Interface Info Flags
Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
31 D: Downstream LAG Info Accommodation this document
30 U: Upstream LAG Info Accommodation this document
0-29 Unassigned
Assignments of LSR Capability Flags are via Standards Action
[RFC5226].
12.2. Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD2 (from the range
4-31743) for the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV from the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV
Types 20" sub-registry.
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBD2 Local Interface Index Sub-TLV this document
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
12.2.1. Interface Index Flags
The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry entitled
"Interface Index Flags" with following registration procedures:
Registry Name: Interface Index Flags
Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
15 M: LAG Member Link Indicator this document
0-14 Unassigned
Assignments of Interface Index Flags are via Standards Action
[RFC5226].
Note that this registry is used by the Interface Index Flags field of
following Sub-TLVs:
o The Local Interface Index Sub-TLV which may be present in the
"Downstream Detailed Mapping" TLV.
o The Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV which may be present in the
"Downstream Detailed Mapping" TLV.
o The Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV which may be present in the
"Detailed Interface and Label Stack" TLV.
12.3. Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV
The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD3 (from the range
32768-49161) for the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV from the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV
Types 20" sub-registry.
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBD3 Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV this document
12.4. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV
The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD4 for Detailed Interface
and Label Stack TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters -
TLVs" registry ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
TBD4 Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV this document
12.4.1. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD4
The IANA is requested to create and maintain a sub-registry entitled
"Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD4" under "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters -
TLVs" registry.
Initial values for this sub-registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types TBD4",
are described below.
Sub-Type Name Reference
----------- -------------------------------------- ---------
1 Incoming Label Stack this document
2 Incoming Interface Index this document
3-16383 Unassigned (mandatory TLVs)
16384-31743 Experimental
32768-49161 Unassigned (optional TLVs)
49162-64511 Experimental
Assignments of Sub-Types in the mandatory and optional spaces are are
via Standards Action [RFC5226]. Assignments of Sub-Types in the
experimental space is via Specification Required [RFC5226].
12.5. DS Flags
The IANA is requested to assign a new bit number from the "DS flags"
sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry
([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).
Note: the "DS flags" sub-registry is created by
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry].
Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
TBD5 G: LAG Description Indicator this document
13. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Nagendra Kumar and Sam Aldrin for
providing useful comments and suggestions. The authors would like to
thank Loa Andersson for performing a detailed review and providing
number of comments.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
The authors also would like to extend sincere thanks to the MPLS RT
review members who took time to review and provide comments. The
members are Eric Osborne, Mach Chen and Yimin Shen. The suggestion
by Mach Chen to generalize and create the LSR Capability TLV was
tremendously helpful for this document and likely for future
documents extending the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanism. The
suggestion by Yimin Shen to create two separate validation procedures
had a big impact to the contents of this document.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry]
Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and
S. Aldrin, "IANA registries for LSP ping Code Points",
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-00 (work in progress),
November 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap]
George, W. and C. Pignataro, "Gap Analysis for Operating
IPv6-only MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04
(work in progress), November 2014.
[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>.
[IEEE802.1AX]
IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November
2008.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Appendix A. LAG with L2 Switch Issues
Several flavors of "LAG with L2 switch" provisioning models are
described in this section, with MPLS data plane ECMP traversal
validation issues with each.
A.1. Equal Numbers of LAG Members
R1 ==== S1 ==== R2
The issue with this LAG provisioning model is that packets traversing
a LAG member from R1 to S1 can get load balanced by S1 towards R2.
Therefore, MPLS echo request messages traversing specific LAG member
from R1 to S1 can actually reach R2 via any LAG members, and sender
of MPLS echo request messages have no knowledge of this nor no way to
control this traversal. In the worst case, MPLS echo request
messages with specific entropies to exercise every LAG members from
R1 to S1 can all reach R2 via same LAG member. Thus it is impossible
for MPLS echo request sender to verify that packets intended to
traverse specific LAG member from R1 to S1 did actually traverse that
LAG member, and to deterministically exercise "receive" processing of
every LAG member on R2.
A.2. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members
____
R1 ==== S1 ==== R2
There are deviating number of LAG members on the two sides of the L2
switch. The issue with this LAG provisioning model is the same as
previous model, sender of MPLS echo request messages have no
knowledge of L2 load balance algorithm nor entropy values to control
the traversal.
A.3. LAG Only on Right
R1 ---- S1 ==== R2
The issue with this LAG provisioning model is that there is no way
for MPLS echo request sender to deterministically exercise both LAG
members from S1 to R2. And without such, "receive" processing of R2
on each LAG member cannot be verified.
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping LAG Multipath December 2014
A.4. LAG Only on Left
R1 ==== S1 ---- R2
MPLS echo request sender has knowledge of how to traverse both LAG
members from R1 to S1. However, both types of packets will terminate
on the non-LAG interface at R2. It becomes impossible for MPLS echo
request sender to know that MPLS echo request messages intended to
traverse a specific LAG member from R1 to S1 did indeed traverse that
LAG member.
Authors' Addresses
Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems
Email: nobo@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
John E. Drake
Juniper Networks
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Akiya, et al. Expires June 24, 2015 [Page 27]
