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
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Akiya
Request for Comments: 8611 Big Switch Networks
Updates: <a href="./rfc8029">8029</a> G. Swallow
Category: Standards Track SETC
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Litkowski
B. Decraene
Orange
J. Drake
Juniper Networks
M. Chen
Huawei
June 2019
<span class="h1">Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Multipath Support</span>
<span class="h1">for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces</span>
Abstract
This document defines extensions to the MPLS Label Switched Path
(LSP) Ping and Traceroute mechanisms as specified in <a href="./rfc8029">RFC 8029</a>. The
extensions allow the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms to
discover and exercise specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost
Multipath (ECMP) over Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces.
Additionally, a mechanism is defined to enable the determination of
the capabilities supported by a Label Switching Router (LSR).
This document updates <a href="./rfc8029">RFC 8029</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="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8611">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8611</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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://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>. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Overview of Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. LSR Capability Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Incoming LAG Member Links Verification . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-5.1.1">5.1.1</a>. Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-5.1.2">5.1.2</a>. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-5.1.3">5.1.3</a>. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Individual End-to-End Path Verification . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. LSR Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-14">14</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. LAG Description Indicator Flag: G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Local Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-10.1.1">10.1.1</a>. Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-19">19</a>
<a href="#section-10.1.2">10.1.2</a>. Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-20">20</a>
<a href="#section-11">11</a>. Rate-Limiting on Echo Request/Reply Messages . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-12">12</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-21">21</a>
<a href="#section-13">13</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-22">22</a>
<a href="#section-13.1">13.1</a>. LSR Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-22">22</a>
<a href="#section-13.1.1">13.1.1</a>. LSR Capability Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-22">22</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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<a href="#section-13.2">13.2</a>. Local Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-22">22</a>
<a href="#section-13.2.1">13.2.1</a>. Interface Index Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-22">22</a>
<a href="#section-13.3">13.3</a>. Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-23">23</a>
<a href="#section-13.4">13.4</a>. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-23">23</a>
<a href="#section-13.4.1">13.4.1</a>. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-23">23</a>
<a href="#section-13.4.2">13.4.2</a>. Interface and Label Stack Address Types . . . . . . <a href="#page-25">25</a>
<a href="#section-13.5">13.5</a>. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-25">25</a>
<a href="#section-14">14</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-25">25</a>
<a href="#section-14.1">14.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-25">25</a>
<a href="#section-14.2">14.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-26">26</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. LAG with Intermediate L2 Switch Issues . . . . . . . <a href="#page-27">27</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. Equal Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-27">27</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-27">27</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.3">A.3</a>. LAG Only on Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-27">27</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.4">A.4</a>. LAG Only on Left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-28">28</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-28">28</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-29">29</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Background</span>
The MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute mechanisms
[<a href="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>] are powerful tools designed to diagnose all available
Layer 3 (L3) paths of LSPs, including diagnostic coverage of L3
Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP). In many MPLS networks, Link Aggregation
Groups (LAGs), as defined in [<a href="#ref-IEEE802.1AX">IEEE802.1AX</a>], provide Layer 2 (L2) ECMP
and are often used for various reasons. MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute
tools were not designed to discover and exercise specific paths of L2
ECMP. This produces a limitation for the following scenario when an
LSP traverses a LAG:
o Label switching over some member links of the LAG is successful,
but fails over other member links of the LAG.
o MPLS echo request for the LSP over the LAG is load-balanced on one
of the member links that is label switching successfully.
With the above scenario, MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute will not be
able to detect the label-switching failure of the 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 a problematic LAG
interface. It is, thus, desirable to extend the MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute to have deterministic diagnostic coverage of LAG
interfaces.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
The work toward a solution to this problem was motivated by issues
encountered in live networks.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Terminology</span>
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 - The LSR that sends the MPLS echo request message.
o Responder LSR - The LSR that receives the MPLS echo request
message and sends the MPLS echo reply message.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.3" href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Requirements Language</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title=""Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words"">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Overview of Solution</span>
This document defines a new TLV to discover the capabilities of a
responder LSR and extensions for use with the MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute mechanisms to describe Multipath Information for
individual LAG member links, thus allowing MPLS LSP Ping and
Traceroute to discover and exercise specific paths of L2 ECMP over
LAG interfaces. The reader is expected to be familiar with the
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (DDMAP) described in <a href="./rfc8029#section-3.4">Section 3.4 of
[RFC8029]</a>.
The solution consists of the MPLS echo request containing a DDMAP TLV
and the new LSR Capability TLV to indicate that separate load-
balancing information for each L2 next hop over LAG is desired in the
MPLS echo reply. The responder LSR places the same LSR Capability
TLV in the MPLS echo reply to provide acknowledgement back to the
initiator LSR. It also adds, for each downstream LAG member, load-
balancing information (i.e., multipath information and interface
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
index). This mechanism is applicable to all types of LSPs that can
traverse LAG interfaces. Many LAGs are built from peer-to-peer
links, with router X and router X+1 having direct connectivity and
the same number of LAG members. It is possible to build LAGs
asymmetrically by using Ethernet switches between two routers.
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> lists some use cases for which the mechanisms defined in
this document may not be applicable. Note that the mechanisms
described in this document do not impose any changes to scenarios
where an LSP is pinned down to a particular LAG member (i.e., the LAG
is not treated as one logical interface by the LSP).
The following figure and description provide an example of an LDP
network.
<----- 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-balancing information for the 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 <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>, a mechanism to discover capabilities of responder
LSRs;
o in <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>, a mechanism to discover L2 ECMP information;
o in <a href="#section-5">Section 5</a>, a mechanism to validate L2 ECMP traversal;
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
o in <a href="#section-6">Section 6</a>, the LSR Capability TLV;
o in <a href="#section-7">Section 7</a>, the LAG Description Indicator flag;
o in <a href="#section-8">Section 8</a>, the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV;
o in <a href="#section-9">Section 9</a>, the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV; and
o in <a href="#section-10">Section 10</a>, the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. LSR Capability Discovery</span>
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 have been many extensions to the MPLS Ping and Traceroute
mechanisms over the years. Thus, it is often useful, and sometimes
necessary, for the initiator LSR to deterministically disambiguate
the differences 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 a subset of features X, Y, and Z (i.e., not all of
them) implemented.
o The responder LSR sent the MPLS echo reply message with contents C
because it does not have features X, Y, or Z implemented.
To allow the initiator LSR to disambiguate the above differences,
this document defines the LSR Capability TLV (described in
<a href="#section-6">Section 6</a>). 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 request message with the LSR Capability TLV
included, if it knows the LSR Capability TLV, then it MUST include
the LSR Capability TLV in the MPLS echo reply message with the LSR
Capability TLV describing the features and extensions supported by
the local LSR. Otherwise, an MPLS echo reply must be sent back to
the initiator LSR with the return code set to "One or more of the
TLVs was not understood", according to the rules defined in <a href="./rfc8029#section-3">Section 3
of [RFC8029]</a>. Then, the initiator LSR can send another MPLS echo
request without including the LSR Capability TLV.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations supporting the LAG multipath
extensions defined in this document include the LSR Capability TLV in
MPLS echo request messages.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Initiator LSR Procedures</span>
If an initiator LSR does not know what capabilities a responder LSR
can support, it can send an MPLS echo request message and carry the
LSR Capability TLV to the responder to discover the capabilities that
the responder LSR can support.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Responder LSR Procedures</span>
When a responder LSR receives an MPLS echo request message that
carries the LSR Capability TLV, the following procedures are used:
If the responder knows how to process the LSR Capability TLV, the
following procedures are used:
o The responder LSR MUST include the LSR Capability TLV in the MPLS
echo reply message.
o If the responder LSR understands the LAG Description Indicator
flag:
* Set the Downstream LAG Info Accommodation flag if the responder
LSR is capable of describing the outgoing LAG member links
separately; otherwise, clear the Downstream LAG Info
Accommodation flag.
* Set the Upstream LAG Info Accommodation flag if the responder
LSR is capable of describing the incoming LAG member links
separately; otherwise, clear the Upstream LAG Info
Accommodation flag.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Initiator LSR Procedures</span>
Through LSR Capability Discovery as defined in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>, the
initiator LSR can understand whether the responder LSR can describe
incoming/outgoing LAG member links separately in the DDMAP TLV.
Once the initiator LSR knows that a responder can support this
mechanism, then it sends an MPLS echo request carrying a DDMAP TLV
with the LAG Description Indicator flag (G) set to the responder LSR.
The LAG Description Indicator flag (G) indicates that separate load-
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
balancing information for each L2 next hop over a LAG is desired in
the MPLS echo reply. The new LAG Description Indicator flag is
described in <a href="#section-7">Section 7</a>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Responder LSR Procedures</span>
When a responder LSR receives an MPLS echo request message with the
LAG Description Indicator flag set in the DDMAP TLV, if the responder
LSR understands the LAG Description Indicator flag and is capable of
describing outgoing LAG member links separately, the following
procedures are used, regardless of whether or not the outgoing
interfaces include LAG interfaces:
o For each downstream interface that is a LAG interface:
* The responder LSR MUST include a DDMAP TLV when sending the
MPLS echo reply. There is a single DDMAP TLV for the LAG
interface, with member links described using sub-TLVs.
* The responder LSR MUST set the LAG Description Indicator flag
in the DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV.
* In the DDMAP TLV, the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV, Remote
Interface Index Sub-TLV, and Multipath Data Sub-TLV are used to
describe each LAG member link. All other fields of the DDMAP
TLV are used to describe the LAG interface.
* For each LAG member link of the LAG interface:
+ The responder LSR MUST add a Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
(described in <a href="#section-8">Section 8</a>) with the LAG Member Link Indicator
flag set in the Interface Index Flags field. It describes
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 <a href="#section-9">Section 9</a>) with the LAG Member Link Indicator
flag set in the Interface Index Flags field. It describes
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 a Multipath Data Sub-TLV for this
LAG member link, if the received DDMAP TLV requested
multipath information.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
Based on the procedures described above, every LAG member link will
have a Local Interface Index Sub-TLV and a Multipath Data Sub-TLV
entry in the DDMAP TLV. The order of the sub-TLVs in the DDMAP TLV
for a LAG member link MUST be Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
immediately followed by Multipath Data Sub-TLV, except as follows. 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
TLV 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. The blocks of Local Interface Index, Remote
Interface Index (optional), and Multipath Data Sub-TLVs for each
member link MUST appear adjacent to each other and be in order of
increasing local interface index.
A responder LSR possessing a LAG interface with two member links
would send the following DDMAP for this LAG interface:
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 (DS Flags with G set) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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 TLV. The value of the Multipath Length
field of the Multipath Data Sub-TLV is set to zero.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures</span>
The procedures in <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a> 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 TLV describes a LAG
interface or a non-LAG interface.
o Obtain multipath information that is expected to traverse the
specific LAG member link described by the 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 according to the
following procedures:
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 LSR MAY just keep 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 [<a href="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>].
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
Figure 3 is an example that shows how to use the DDMAP TLV to send a
notification about which member link (link #1 in the example) will be
chosen to send the MPLS echo request message to the next downstream
LSR:
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 (DS Flags with 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
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal</span>
<a href="#section-4">Section 4</a> defines the responder LSR procedures to construct a DDMAP
for a downstream LAG. The Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV that
describes the incoming LAG member links of the downstream LSR is
optional, because 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
<a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>. If LSRs can provide the Remote Interface Index Sub-
TLVs, then the validation procedures described in <a href="#section-5.2">Section 5.2</a> can be
used.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Incoming LAG Member Links Verification</span>
Without downstream LSRs returning Remote Interface Index Sub-TLVs in
the DDMAP, validation of the LAG member link traversal requires that
the initiator LSR traverses all available LAG member links and takes
the results through additional 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.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.1" href="#section-5.1.1">5.1.1</a>. Initiator LSR Procedures</span>
An MPLS echo request carrying a DDMAP TLV with the Interface and
Label Stack Object Request flag and LAG Description Indicator flag
set is sent 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.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.2" href="#section-5.1.2">5.1.2</a>. Responder LSR Procedures</span>
When it receives an echo request with the LAG Description Indicator
flag set, a responder LSR that understands that flag and is capable
of describing the incoming LAG member link SHOULD use the following
procedures, regardless of whether or not the incoming interface was a
LAG interface:
o When the I flag (Interface and Label Stack Object Request flag) of
the DDMAP TLV in the received MPLS echo request is set:
* The responder LSR MUST add the Detailed Interface and Label
Stack TLV (described in <a href="#section-10">Section 10</a>) in the MPLS echo reply.
* If the incoming interface is a LAG, the responder LSR MUST add
the Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV (described in
<a href="#section-10.1.2">Section 10.1.2</a>) 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 that received the MPLS echo request.
These procedures allow the initiator LSR to utilize the Incoming
Interface Index Sub-TLV in the Detailed Interface and the Label Stack
TLV to derive, if the incoming interface is a LAG, the identity of
the incoming LAG member.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1.3" href="#section-5.1.3">5.1.3</a>. Additional Initiator LSR Procedures</span>
Along with procedures described in <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>, 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.
Depending on the LAG traffic division algorithm, the messages may or
may not traverse different member links. The 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 entropies examined. In other words,
the messages with a set of entropies that load-balances to outgoing
LAG member link X at TTL=n should all reach the next hop on the same
incoming LAG member link Y at TTL=n+1.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
With additional logic, the initiator LSR can perform the following
checks in a scenario where it (a) knows that there is a LAG that has
two LAG members, between TTL=n and TTL=n+1, and (b) has the multipath
information to traverse the two LAG member links.
The initiator LSR sends two MPLS echo request messages to traverse
the two LAG member links at TTL=n+1:
o Success case:
* One MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on LAG member
link 1.
* The other MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on LAG
member link 2.
The two MPLS echo request messages sent by the initiator LSR reach
the immediate downstream LSR from two different LAG member links.
o Error case:
* One MPLS echo request message reaches TTL=n+1 on LAG member
link 1.
* The other MPLS echo request message also reaches TTL=n+1 on LAG
member link 1.
* One or both MPLS echo request messages cannot reach the
immediate downstream LSR on whichever link.
One or two MPLS echo request messages sent by the initiator LSR
cannot reach the immediate downstream LSR, or the two MPLS echo
request messages reach at the immediate downstream LSR from the
same LAG member link.
Note that the procedures defined above will provide a deterministic
result for LAG interfaces that are back-to-back connected between
LSRs (i.e., no L2 switch in between). If there is an L2 switch
between the LSR at TTL=n and the LSR at TTL=n+1, there is no
guarantee that every incoming interface at TTL=n+1 can be traversed,
even when traversing every outgoing LAG member link at TTL=n. Issues
resulting from LAG with an L2 switch in between are further described
in <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. LAG provisioning models in operator networks should
be considered when analyzing the output of LSP Traceroute that is
exercising L2 ECMPs.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Individual End-to-End Path Verification</span>
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 <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>.
The DDMAP validation procedures for the downstream responder LSR are
then updated to include the comparison of the incoming LAG member
link to the interface index described in the Remote Interface Index
Sub-TLV in the DDMAP TLV. Failure of this comparison results in the
return code being set to "Downstream Mapping Mismatch (5)".
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. LSR Capability TLV</span>
This document defines a new TLV that is referred to as the LSR
Capability TLV. It 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
TLV. The presence of an LSR Capability TLV in an MPLS echo request
message is a request that a responder LSR includes an LSR Capability
TLV in the MPLS echo reply message, with the LSR Capability TLV
describing features and extensions that the responder LSR supports.
The format of the LSR Capability TLV is as below:
LSR Capability TLV Type is 4. Length is 4. The LSR Capability TLV
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR Capability Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: LSR Capability TLV
Where:
The Type field is 2 octets in length, and the value is 4.
The Length field is 2 octets in length, and the value is 4.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
The LSR Capability Flags field is 4 octets in length; this
document defines the following flags:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (Must Be Zero) |U|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This document defines two flags. The unallocated flags MUST be
set to zero when sending and ignored on receipt. Both the U and
the D flag MUST be cleared in the MPLS echo request message when
sending and ignored on receipt. Zero, one, or both of the flags
(U and D) MAY be set in the MPLS echo reply message.
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
U Upstream LAG Info Accommodation
An LSR sets this flag when the LSR is capable of describing
a LAG member link in the Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV
in the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.
D Downstream LAG Info Accommodation
An LSR sets this flag when the LSR 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.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. LAG Description Indicator Flag: G</span>
This document defines a new flag, the G flag (LAG Description
Indicator), in the DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV.
The G flag 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.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
The G flag is defined as below:
The Bit Number is 3.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |G|E|L|I|N|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
G LAG Description Indicator
When this flag is set in the MPLS echo request, the responder
LSR is requested to respond with detailed LAG information.
When this flag is set in the MPLS echo reply, the corresponding
DDMAP TLV describes a LAG interface.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Local Interface Index Sub-TLV</span>
The Local Interface Index Sub-TLV describes the interface index
assigned by the local LSR to an egress interface. One or more Local
Interface Index sub-TLVs MAY appear in a DDMAP TLV.
The format of the Local Interface Index Sub-TLV is below:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Local Interface Index Sub-TLV
Where:
o The Type field is 2 octets in length, and the value is 4.
o The Length field is 2 octets in length, and the value is 4.
o The Local Interface Index field is 4 octets in length; it is an
interface index assigned by a local LSR to an egress interface.
It's normally an unsigned integer and in network byte order.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV</span>
The Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV is an optional TLV; it describes
the interface index assigned by a downstream LSR to an ingress
interface. One or more Remote Interface Index sub-TLVs MAY appear in
a DDMAP TLV.
The format of the Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV is below:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV
Where:
o The Type field is 2 octets in length, and the value is 5.
o The Length field is 2 octets in length, and the value is 4.
o The Remote Interface Index field is 4 octets in length; it is an
interface index assigned by a downstream LSR to an ingress
interface. It's normally an unsigned integer and in network byte
order.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV</span>
The Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV MAY be included in an 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 into the MPLS echo reply message. 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 6. Length is K + Sub-
TLV Length (sum of Sub-TLVs). K is the sum of all fields of this TLV
prior to the list of Sub-TLVs, but the length of K depends on the
Address Type. Details of this information is described below. The
Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV has the following format:
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
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 | Reserved (Must Be Zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface (4 or 16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. List of Sub-TLVs .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV
The Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV format is derived from the
Interface and Label Stack TLV format (from [<a href="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>]). Two changes
are introduced. The first is that the label stack is converted into
a sub-TLV. The second is that a new sub-TLV is added to describe an
interface index. The other fields of the Detailed Interface and
Label Stack TLV have the same use and meaning as in [<a href="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>]. A
summary of these fields 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 length of the
initial part of the TLV is listed 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
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>],
which is described in <a href="./rfc7439#section-3.4.2">Section 3.4.2 of [RFC7439]</a>. A solution
should be considered and applied to both [<a href="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>] and this
document.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.1" href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Sub-TLVs</span>
This section defines the sub-TLVs that MAY be included as part of the
Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV. Two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name
--------- ------------
1 Incoming Label Stack
2 Incoming Interface Index
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.1.1" href="#section-10.1.1">10.1.1</a>. Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV</span>
The Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV contains the label stack as received
by an 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 its
format is as below:
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
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.1.2" href="#section-10.1.2">10.1.2</a>. Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV</span>
The Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV MAY be included in a Detailed
Interface and Label Stack TLV. The Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV
describes the index assigned by a local LSR to the interface that
received the MPLS echo request message.
Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is 2. Length is 8, and its
format is as below:
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 | Reserved (Must Be Zero) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Incoming Interface Index |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV
Interface Index Flags
The 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (Must Be Zero) |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, the 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. It's normally an
unsigned integer and in network byte order.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-11" href="#section-11">11</a>. Rate-Limiting on Echo Request/Reply Messages</span>
An LSP may be over several LAGs. Each LAG may have many member
links. To exercise all the links, many echo request/reply messages
will be sent in a short period. It's possible that those messages
may traverse a common path as a burst. Under some circumstances,
this might cause congestion at the common path. To avoid potential
congestion, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations randomly delay the
echo request and reply messages at the initiator LSRs and responder
LSRs. Rate-limiting of ping traffic is further specified in
<a href="./rfc8029#section-5">Section 5 of [RFC8029]</a> and <a href="./rfc6425#section-4.1">Section 4.1 of [RFC6425]</a>, which apply to
this document as well.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-12" href="#section-12">12</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document extends the LSP Traceroute mechanism [<a href="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>] to
discover and exercise L2 ECMP paths to determine problematic member
link(s) of a LAG. These on-demand diagnostic mechanisms are used by
an operator within an MPLS control domain.
[<a id="ref-RFC8029">RFC8029</a>] reviews the possible attacks and approaches to mitigate
possible threats when using these mechanisms.
To prevent leakage of vital information to untrusted users, a
responder LSR MUST only accept MPLS echo request messages from
designated trusted sources via filtering the source IP address field
of received MPLS echo request messages. As noted in [<a href="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>],
spoofing attacks only have a small window of opportunity. If an
intermediate node hijacks these messages (i.e., causes non-delivery),
the use of these mechanisms will determine the data plane is not
working as it should. Hijacking of a responder node such that it
provides a legitimate reply would involve compromising the node
itself and the MPLS control domain. [<a href="./rfc5920" title=""Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks"">RFC5920</a>] provides additional
MPLS network-wide operation recommendations to avoid attacks. Please
note that source IP address filtering provides only a weak form of
access control and is not, in general, a reliable security mechanism.
Nonetheless, it is required here in the absence of any more robust
mechanisms that might be used.
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-13" href="#section-13">13</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.1" href="#section-13.1">13.1</a>. LSR Capability TLV</span>
IANA has assigned value 4 (from the range 0-16383) for the LSR
Capability TLV from the "TLVs" registry under the "Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
registry [<a href="#ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>].
Type TLV Name Reference
----- -------- ---------
4 LSR Capability <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.1.1" href="#section-13.1.1">13.1.1</a>. LSR Capability Flags</span>
IANA has created a new "LSR Capability Flags" registry. The initial
contents are as follows:
Value Meaning Reference
----- ------- ---------
31 D: Downstream LAG Info Accommodation <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
30 U: Upstream LAG Info Accommodation <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
0-29 Unassigned
Assignments of LSR Capability Flags are via Standards Action
[<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.2" href="#section-13.2">13.2</a>. Local Interface Index Sub-TLV</span>
IANA has assigned value 4 (from the range 0-16383) for the Local
Interface Index Sub-TLV from the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20"
subregistry of the "TLVs" registry in the "Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
registry [<a href="#ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>].
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
-------- ------------ ---------
4 Local Interface Index <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.2.1" href="#section-13.2.1">13.2.1</a>. Interface Index Flags</span>
IANA has created a new "Interface Index Flags" registry. The initial
contents are as follows:
Bit Number Name Reference
---------- -------------------------------- ---------
15 M: LAG Member Link Indicator <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
0-14 Unassigned
<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="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
Assignments of Interface Index Flags are via Standards Action
[<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>].
Note that this registry is used by the Interface Index Flags field of
the 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.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.3" href="#section-13.3">13.3</a>. Remote Interface Index Sub-TLV</span>
IANA has assigned value 5 (from the range 0-16383) for the Remote
Interface Index Sub-TLV from the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20"
subregistry of the "TLVs" registry in the "Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
registry [<a href="#ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>].
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
-------- ------------ ---------
5 Remote Interface Index <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.4" href="#section-13.4">13.4</a>. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV</span>
IANA has assigned value 6 (from the range 0-16383) for the Detailed
Interface and Label Stack TLV from the "TLVs" registry in the
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Ping Parameters" registry [<a href="#ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>].
Type TLV Name Reference
----- -------- ---------
6 Detailed Interface and Label Stack <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.4.1" href="#section-13.4.1">13.4.1</a>. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6</span>
<a href="./rfc8029">RFC 8029</a> changed the registration procedures for TLV and sub-TLV
registries for LSP Ping.
IANA has created a new "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" subregistry under
the "TLVs" registry of the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry
[<a href="#ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>].
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
This registry conforms with <a href="./rfc8029">RFC 8029</a>.
The registration procedures for this sub-TLV registry are:
Range Registration Procedure Note
----- ---------------------- -----
0-16383 Standards Action This range is for mandatory
TLVs or for optional TLVs that
require an error message if
not recognized.
16384-31743 RFC Required This range is for mandatory
TLVs or for optional TLVs that
require an error message if
not recognized.
31744-32767 Private Use Not to be assigned
32768-49161 Standards Action This range is for optional TLVs
that can be silently dropped if
not recognized.
49162-64511 RFC Required This range is for optional TLVs
that can be silently dropped if
not recognized.
64512-65535 Private Use Not to be assigned
The initial allocations for this registry are:
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference Comment
-------- ------------ --------- -------
0 Reserved <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
1 Incoming Label Stack <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
2 Incoming Interface Index <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
3-31743 Unassigned
31744-32767 <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> Reserved for
Private Use
32768-64511 Unassigned
64512-65535 <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> Reserved for
Private Use
Note: IETF does not prescribe how the Private Use sub-TLVs are
handled; however, if a packet containing a sub-TLV from a Private Use
ranges is received by an LSR that does not recognize the sub-TLV, an
error message MAY be returned if the sub-TLV is from the range
31744-32767, and the packet SHOULD be silently dropped if it is from
the range 64511-65535.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.4.2" href="#section-13.4.2">13.4.2</a>. Interface and Label Stack Address Types</span>
The Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV shares the Interface and
Label Stack Address Types with the Interface and Label Stack TLV. To
reflect this, IANA has updated the name of the registry from
"Interface and Label Stack Address Types" to "Interface and Label
Stack and Detailed Interface and Label Stack Address Types".
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-13.5" href="#section-13.5">13.5</a>. DS Flags</span>
IANA has assigned a new bit number from the "DS Flags" subregistry of
the "Multiprotocol 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="./rfc8029" title=""Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures"">RFC8029</a>].
Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
3 G: LAG Description Indicator <a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-14" href="#section-14">14</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-14.1" href="#section-14.1">14.1</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="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8029">RFC8029</a>] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", <a href="./rfc8029">RFC 8029</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8126">RFC8126</a>] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>,
<a href="./rfc8126">RFC 8126</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2119">2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>>.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-14.2" href="#section-14.2">14.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING">IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING</a>]
IANA, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<<a href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/">https://www.iana.org/assignments/</a>
<a href="https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/">mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/</a>>.
[<a id="ref-IEEE802.1AX">IEEE802.1AX</a>]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Link Aggregation", IEEE Std. 802.1AX.
[<a id="ref-RFC5920">RFC5920</a>] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", <a href="./rfc5920">RFC 5920</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6425">RFC6425</a>] Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A.,
Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane
Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP
Ping", <a href="./rfc6425">RFC 6425</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7439">RFC7439</a>] George, W., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Gap Analysis for
Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks", <a href="./rfc7439">RFC 7439</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7439, January 2015,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7439">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7439</a>>.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. LAG with Intermediate L2 Switch Issues</span>
Several flavors of provisioning models that use a "LAG with L2
switch" and the corresponding MPLS data-plane ECMP traversal
validation issues are described in this appendix.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.1" href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. Equal Numbers of LAG Members</span>
R1 ==== S1 ==== R2
The issue with this LAG provisioning model is that packets traversing
a LAG member from Router 1 (R1) to intermediate L2 switch (S1) can
get load-balanced by S1 towards Router 2 (R2). Therefore, MPLS echo
request messages traversing a specific LAG member from R1 to S1 can
actually reach R2 via any of the LAG members, and the sender of the
MPLS echo request messages has no knowledge of this nor any way to
control this traversal. In the worst case, MPLS echo request
messages with specific entropies will exercise every LAG member link
from R1 to S1 and can all reach R2 via the same LAG member link.
Thus, it is impossible for the MPLS echo request sender to verify
that packets intended to traverse a specific LAG member link from R1
to S1 did actually traverse that LAG member link and to
deterministically exercise "receive" processing of every LAG member
link on R2. (Note: As far as we can tell, there's not a better
option than "try a bunch of entropy labels and see what responses you
can get back", and that's the same remedy in all the described
topologies.)
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.2" href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members</span>
____
R1 ==== S1 ==== R2
There are deviating numbers of LAG members on the two sides of the L2
switch. The issue with this LAG provisioning model is the same as
with the previous model: the sender of MPLS echo request messages has
no knowledge of the L2 load-balancing algorithm nor entropy values to
control the traversal.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.3" href="#appendix-A.3">A.3</a>. LAG Only on Right</span>
R1 ---- S1 ==== R2
The issue with this LAG provisioning model is that there is no way
for an MPLS echo request sender to deterministically exercise both
LAG member links from S1 to R2. And without such, "receive"
processing of R2 on each LAG member cannot be verified.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.4" href="#appendix-A.4">A.4</a>. LAG Only on Left</span>
R1 ==== S1 ---- R2
The 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
the 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.
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 a
number of comments.
The authors also would like to extend sincere thanks to the MPLS RT
review members who took the 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 mechanisms. The
suggestion by Yimin Shen to create two separate validation procedures
had a big impact on the contents of this document.
<span class="grey">Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8611">RFC 8611</a> LSP Ping for LAG June 2019</span>
Authors' Addresses
Nobo Akiya
Big Switch Networks
Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
George Swallow
Southend Technical Center
Email: swallow.ietf@gmail.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
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Akiya, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
</pre>
|
