1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Akiya
Request for Comments: 8012 Big Switch Networks
Updates: <a href="./rfc6790">6790</a> G. Swallow
Category: Standards Track C. Pignataro
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
A. Malis
Huawei Technologies
S. Aldrin
Google
November 2016
<span class="h1">Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace</span>
<span class="h1">over MPLS Networks Using Entropy Labels (ELs)</span>
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 <a href="./rfc4379">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc4379">4379</a>. When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described
in <a href="./rfc6790">RFC 6790</a>, 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 <a href="./rfc6424">RFC 6424</a> to allow the ability of exercising LSPs that
make use of the EL. This document updates <a href="./rfc6790">RFC 6790</a>.
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 <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 7841</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8012">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8012</a>.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Terminology ................................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-1.1.1">1.1.1</a>. Requirements Language ...............................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Background .................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Multipath Type {9} ..............................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Pseudowire Tracing ..............................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Entropy Label FEC ...............................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. DS Flags: L and E ...............................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. New Multipath Information Type {10} ............................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Initiating LSR Procedures ......................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Responder LSR Procedures .......................................<a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. IP-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL ..........<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. IP-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL .................<a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-8.3">8.3</a>. Label-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL .......<a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-8.4">8.4</a>. Label-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL ..............<a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-8.5">8.5</a>. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR ............................<a href="#page-18">18</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Supported and Unsupported Cases ................................<a href="#page-18">18</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. Security Considerations .......................................<a href="#page-20">20</a>
<a href="#section-11">11</a>. IANA Considerations ...........................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Entropy Label FEC ........................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. DS Flags .................................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-11.3">11.3</a>. Multipath Type ...........................................<a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-12">12</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-22">22</a>
<a href="#section-12.1">12.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-22">22</a>
<a href="#section-12.2">12.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-22">22</a>
Acknowledgements ..................................................<a href="#page-23">23</a>
Contributors ......................................................<a href="#page-23">23</a>
Authors' Addresses ................................................<a href="#page-23">23</a>
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4379">RFC4379</a>] 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
<a href="./rfc4379#section-3.3">Section 3.3 of [RFC4379]</a> .
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
* 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 [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>]. This document defines a new Multipath
Information Type to be used in the DDMAP of MPLS echo request/reply
packets for [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>] 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 <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a>.
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Terminology</span>
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. [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>]
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 [<a href="./rfc6391" title=""Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network"">RFC6391</a>] or entropy label [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>]) 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).
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1.1" href="#section-1.1.1">1.1.1</a>. Requirements Language</span>
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 <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Background</span>
MPLS implementations employ a wide variety of load-balancing
techniques in terms of fields used for hash "keys". The mechanisms
in [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] and updated by [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>] 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 [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>]. <a href="#section-9">Section 9</a>
describes supported and unsupported cases, and it may be useful for
the reader to first review this section.
The Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>] 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 [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>] 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 [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>], 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 [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>] or transit LSRs implementing [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>] but
not implementing the suggested transit LSR behavior in <a href="./rfc6790#section-4.3">Section 4.3
of [RFC6790]</a>.
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 [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>]
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
As pointed out in [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>], the procedures of [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] (and
consequently of [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>]) with respect to Multipath Information Type
{9} are incomplete. However, [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>] does not actually update
[<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>]. Further, the specific EL location is not clearly defined,
particularly in the case of Flow-Aware Pseudowires [<a href="./rfc6391" title=""Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network"">RFC6391</a>]. This
document defines a new FEC Stack sub-TLV for the entropy label.
<a href="#section-2">Section 2</a> of this document updates the procedures for the Multipath
Information Type {9} that are described in [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] and that are
applicable to [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>]. The rest of this document describes
extensions required to restore ECMP discovery and tracing
capabilities for the scenarios described.
[<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>], [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>], 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 <a href="#section-9">Section 9</a>) are out of scope.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Multipath Type {9}</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4379">RFC4379</a>] defined Multipath Type {9} for the tracing of LSPs where
label-based load balancing is used. However, as pointed out in
[<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>], 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.
<a href="#section-4">Section 4</a> 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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Pseudowire Tracing</span>
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
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc6391" title=""Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network"">RFC6391</a>], 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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Entropy Label FEC</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc6391" title=""Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network"">RFC6391</a>]). Therefore, this document
defines an EL FEC sub-TLV (33, see <a href="#section-11.1">Section 11.1</a>) that allows a Target
FEC Stack sub-TLV to be added to the Target FEC Stack to account for
EL.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. DS Flags: L and E</span>
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. New Multipath Information Type {10}</span>
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>]. 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}.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
o Label Multipath Information
* This section is omitted when the "LbMultipathType" is 0.
Otherwise, this section reuses the Label Multipath Information
from [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>]. 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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Initiating LSR Procedures</span>
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
In addition to the procedures described in [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>], as updated by
<a href="#section-2">Section 2</a> and [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>], 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}.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Responder LSR Procedures</span>
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. IP-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] and [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>].
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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2" href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. IP-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL</span>
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
<a href="#section-6">Section 6</a> 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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
* 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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.3" href="#section-8.3">8.3</a>. Label-Based Load Balancer That Does Not Push ELI/EL</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] and [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>] as updated by <a href="#section-2">Section 2</a>.
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).
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
* 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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.4" href="#section-8.4">8.4</a>. Label-Based Load Balancer That Pushes ELI/EL</span>
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.5" href="#section-8.5">8.5</a>. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR</span>
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 <a href="#section-8.3">Section 8.3</a>.
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 <a href="#section-8.4">Section 8.4</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Supported and Unsupported Cases</span>
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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
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 <a href="./rfc6790#section-4.3">Section 4.3 of [RFC6790]</a> 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 <a href="./rfc7325#section-2.4.5.1">Section 2.4.5.1 of [RFC7325]</a> 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.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
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, [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>], [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>], 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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Security Considerations</span>
While [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] and [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>] 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 [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>] already
cover Denial-of-Service attacks by regulating LSP ping traffic going
to the control plane.
Finally, the security measures described in [<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>], [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>], and
[<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>] are applicable. [<a href="./rfc6424" title=""Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels"">RFC6424</a>] provides guidelines if a network
operator wants to prevent tracing or does not want to expose details
of the tunnel and [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>] provides guidance on the use of the EL.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.1" href="#section-11.1">11.1</a>. Entropy Label FEC</span>
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"
([<a href="#ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>]).
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
-------- ------------ ---------
33 Entropy label FEC this document
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.2" href="#section-11.2">11.2</a>. DS Flags</span>
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
([<a href="#ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>]).
Note: The "DS Flags" subregistry was created by [<a href="./rfc7537" title=""IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points"">RFC7537</a>].
Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
5 E: ELI/EL push indicator this document
4 L: Label-based load balance indicator this document
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-11.3" href="#section-11.3">11.3</a>. Multipath Type</span>
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
([<a href="#ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>]).
Note: The "Multipath Type" subregistry was created by [<a href="./rfc7537" title=""IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points"">RFC7537</a>].
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
10 IP and label set this document
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-12" href="#section-12">12</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.1" href="#section-12.1">12.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4379">RFC4379</a>] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", <a href="./rfc4379">RFC 4379</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6424">RFC6424</a>] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", <a href="./rfc6424">RFC 6424</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6424, November 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6424">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6424</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6790">RFC6790</a>] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
<a href="./rfc6790">RFC 6790</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7537">RFC7537</a>] Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and
S. Aldrin, "IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points",
<a href="./rfc7537">RFC 7537</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7537, May 2015,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-12.2" href="#section-12.2">12.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6391">RFC6391</a>] 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",
<a href="./rfc6391">RFC 6391</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7325">RFC7325</a>] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,
and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
Performance Requirements", <a href="./rfc7325">RFC 7325</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,
August 2014, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325</a>>.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8012">RFC 8012</a> LSP Ping over Entropy November 2016</span>
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]
</pre>
|
