Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya
Internet-Draft G. Swallow
Updates: 4379,6424 (if approved) Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track S. Litkowski
Expires: December 15, 2014 B. Decraene
Orange
J. Drake
Juniper Networks
June 13, 2014

Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-00

Abstract

This document defines an extension to the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute to describe Multipath Information for Link Aggregation (LAG) member links separately, thus allowing MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover and exercise specific paths of layer 2 Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) over LAG interfaces.

This document updates RFC4379 and RFC6424.

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 15, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Terminology

The following acronyms/terminologies are used in this document:

1.2. Background

The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute [RFC4379] are powerful tools designed to diagnose all available layer 3 paths of LSPs, i.e. provides diagnostic coverage of layer 3 Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP). In many MPLS networks, Link Aggregation (LAG) as defined in [IEEE802.1AX], which provide layer 2 ECMP, are often used for various reasons. MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute tools were not designed to discover and exercise specific paths of layer 2 ECMP. Result raises a limitation for following scenario when LSP X traverses over LAG Y:

With above scenario, MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute will not be able to detect the MPLS switching failure of problematic member link(s) of the LAG. In other words, lack of layer 2 ECMP discovery and exercise capability can produce an outcome where MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute can be blind to MPLS switching failures over LAG interface that are impacting MPLS traffic. It is, thus, desirable to extend the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to have deterministic diagnostic coverage of LAG interfaces.

2. Overview

This document defines an extension to the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to describe Multipath Information for LAG member links separately, thus allowing MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover and exercise specific paths of layer 2 ECMP over LAG interfaces. Reader is expected to be familiar with mechanics of the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute described in Section 3.3 of [RFC4379] and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (DDMAP) described in Section 3.3 of [RFC6424].

MPLS echo request carries a DDMAP and an optional TLV to indicate that separate load balancing information for each layer 2 nexthop over LAG is desired in MPLS echo reply. Responder LSR places the same optional TLV in the MPLS echo reply to provide acknowledgement back to the initiator. It also adds, for each downstream LAG member, a load balance information (i.e. multipath information and interface index). For example:

  <----- LDP Network ----->

          +-------+
          |       |
  A-------B=======C-------E
          |               |
          +-------D-------+

  ---- Non-LAG
  ==== LAG comprising of two member links

                 Figure 1: Example LDP Network
	
  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:

3. Mechanism to Discover L2 ECMP Multipath

The MPLS echo request carries a DDMAP and the LAG Interface Info TLV (described in Section 5) to indicate that separate load balancing information for each layer 2 nexthop over LAG is desired in MPLS echo reply. Responder LSR:

Each LAG member link is described with Interface Index Sub-TLV and conditionally with Multipath Data Sub-TLV (if multipath information is requested). If both Sub-TLVs are placed in the DDMAP to describe a LAG member link, Interface Index Sub-TLV MUST be added first with Multipath Data Sub-TLV immediately following.

For example, 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 with DS Flags G set   |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |         Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #1         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #1         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |         Interface Index Sub-TLV of LAG member link #2         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Multipath Data Sub-TLV LAG member link #2         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                       Label Stack Sub-TLV                     |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 2: LAG Interface DDMAP Example

4. Mechanism to Validate L2 ECMP Traversal

The MPLS echo request is sent with a DDMAP with DS Flags I set and the optional LAG Interface Info TLV 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. Responder LSR MUST: Appendix A. LAG provisioning models in operated network should be considered when analyzing the output of LSP Traceroute exercising L2 ECMPs.

Described procedures allow initiating LSR to know:

Note that defined procedures will provide a deterministic result for LAG interfaces that are back-to-back connected between routers (i.e. no L2 switch in between). If there is a L2 switch between LSR at TTL=n and LSR at TTL=n+1, there is no guarantee that traversal of every LAG member link at TTL=n will result in reaching different interface index at TTL=n+1. Issues resulting from LAG with L2 switch in between are further described in

5. LAG Interface Info TLV

The LAG Interface Info object is a new TLV that MAY be included in the MPLS echo request message. An MPLS echo request MUST NOT include more than one LAG Interface Info object. Presence of LAG Interface Info object is a request that responder LSR describes upstream and downstream LAG interfaces according to procedures defined in this document. If the responder LSR is able to accommodate this request, then the LAG Interface Info object MUST be included in the MPLS echo reply message.

LAG Interface Info TLV Type is TBD1. Length is 4. The Value field of LAG Interface TLV has following format:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   LAG Interface Info Flags    |         Must Be Zero          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 3: LAG Interface Info TLV

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Must Be Zero (Reserved) |U|D|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Flag  Name and Meaning
   ----  ----------------

      U  Upstream LAG Info Accommodation

         When this flag is set, LSR is capable of placing Incoming
         Interface Index Sub-TLV, describing LAG member link, in
         the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.

      D  Downstream LAG Info Accommodation

         When this flag is set, LSR is capable of placing Interface
         Index Sub-TLV and Multipath Data Sub-TLV, describing LAG
         member link, in the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV.

6. DDMAP TLV DS Flags: G

One flag, G, is added in DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV. In the MPLS echo request message, G flag MUST be cleared when sending, and ignored on receipt. In the MPLS echo reply message, G flag MUST be set if the DDMAP TLV describes a LAG interface. It MUST be cleared otherwise.

DS Flags

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | MBZ |G|MBZ|I|N|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Flag  Name and Meaning
   ----  ----------------

      G  LAG Description Indicator

         When this flag is set, DDMAP describes a LAG interface.

7. Interface Index Sub-TLV

The Interface Index object is a Sub-TLV that MAY be included in a DDMAP TLV. Zero or more Interface Index object MAY appear in a DDMAP TLV. The Interface Index Sub-TLV describes the index assigned by the upstream LSR to the interface.

Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is TBD2. Length is 8, and the Value field has following format:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    Interface Index Flags      |         Must Be Zero          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                        Interface Index                        |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 4: Interface Index Sub-TLV

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Must Be Zero (Reserved)   |M|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Flag  Name and Meaning
   ----  ----------------

      M  LAG Member Link Indicator

         When this flag is set, interface index described in
         this sub-TLV is member of a LAG.

Interface Index

8. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV

The Detailed Interface and Label Stack object is a TLV that MAY be included in a MPLS echo reply message to report the interface on which the MPLS echo request message was received and the label stack that was on the packet when it was received. A responder LSR MUST NOT insert more than one instance of this TLV. This TLV allows the initiating 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 TBD3. Length is K + Sub-TLV Length, and the Value field has following format:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | Address Type  |             Must Be Zero                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                   IP Address (4 or 16 octets)                 |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                   Interface (4 or 16 octets)                  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |          Must Be Zero         |        Sub-TLV Length         |   
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  .                                                               .   
  .                      List of Sub-TLVs                         .   
  .                                                               .   
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 5: Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV

         Type #        Address Type           K Octets
         ------        ------------           --------
              1        IPv4 Numbered                16
              2        IPv4 Unnumbered              16
              3        IPv6 Numbered                40
              4        IPv6 Unnumbered              28

8.1. Sub-TLVs

This section defines the sub-TLVs that MAY be included as part of the Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV.

        Sub-Type    Value Field
        ---------   ------------
          1         Incoming Label stack
          2         Incoming Interface Index

8.1.1. Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV

The Incoming Label Stack sub-TLV contains the label stack as received by the LSR. If any TTL values have been changed by this LSR, they SHOULD be restored.

Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV Type is 1. Length is variable, and the Value field has following format:

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                 Label                 | TC  |S|      TTL      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  .                                                               .
  .                                                               .
  .                                                               .
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                 Label                 | TC  |S|      TTL      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 6: Incoming Label Stack Sub-TLV

8.1.2. Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV

The Incoming Interface Index object is a Sub-TLV that MAY be included in a Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV. The Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV describes the index assigned by this LSR to the interface which received the MPLS echo request message.

Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV Type is 2. Length is 8, and the Value field has 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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    Interface Index Flags      |         Must Be Zero          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                        Interface Index                        |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 7: Incoming Interface Index Sub-TLV

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Must Be Zero (Reserved)   |M|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   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.

Interface Index

9. Security Considerations

This document extends LSP Traceroute mechanism to discover and exercise layer 2 ECMP paths. Additional processing are required for initiating LSR and responder LSR, especially to compute and handle increasing number of multipath information. Due to additional processing, it is critical that proper security measures described in [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] are followed.

10. IANA Considerations

10.1. LAG Interface Info TLV

The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD1 for LAG Interface Info TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry.

   Value   Meaning                                      Reference
   -----   -------                                      ---------
   TBD1    LAG Interface Info TLV                       this document

10.2. Interface Index Sub-TLV

The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD2 for Interface Index Sub-TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 20" sub-registry.

   Value   Meaning                                      Reference
   -----   -------                                      ---------
   TBD2    Interface Index Sub-TLV                      this document

10.3. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV

The IANA is requested to assign new value TBD3 for Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry.

   Value   Meaning                                      Reference
   -----   -------                                      ---------
   TBD3    Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV       this document

10.4. New Sub-Registry

10.4.1. DS Flags

[RFC4379] defines the Downstream Mapping TLV, which has the Type 2 assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. [RFC6424] defines the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV, which has the Type 20 assigned from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. DSMAP has been deprecated by DDMAP, but both TLVs shares a field: "DS Flags". This document requires allocation of a new value in the "DS Flags" field, which is not maintained by IANA today. Therefore, this document requests IANA to create new registries within [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] protocol to maintain "DS Flags" field. Initial values for this registry, "DS Flags", are described below.

 Bit number Name                                        Reference
 ---------- ----------------------------------------    ---------
       7    N: Treat as a Non-IP Packet                 RFC4379
       6    I: Interface and Label Stack Object Request RFC4379
     5-4    Unassigned
       3    G: LAG Description Indicator                this document
     2-0    Unassigned

Note that "DS Flags" is a field included in two TLVs defined in "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry: Downstream Mapping TLV (value 2) and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (value 20). Modification to "DS Flags" registry will affect both TLVs.

Also note that [I-D.akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] makes request to create a new retry for "DS Flags", with new values being added for Bit Number 4 and 5. If [I-D.akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] becomes RFC and "DS Flags" IANA registry is created as result, then this document simply requests Bit Number 3 (G: LAG Description Indicator) to be added to the registry.

10.4.2. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD3

The IANA is requested to make a new "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD3" sub-registry under "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry. Initial values for this sub-registry, "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types TBD3", are described below.

 Sub-Type   Name                                        Reference
 ---------  ----------------------------------------    ---------
   1        Incoming Label Stack                        this document
   2        Incoming Interface Index                    this document
   4-65535  Unassigned

11. Acknowledgements

TBD

12. References

12.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.

12.2. Informative References

[I-D.akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping] Akiya, N., Swallow, G. and C. Pignataro, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)", Internet-Draft draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-01, December 2013.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap] George, W. and C. Pignataro, "Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-00, April 2014.
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", .
[IEEE802.1AX] IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.

Appendix A. LAG with L2 Switch Issues

Several flavors of "LAG with L2 switch" provisioning models are described in this section, with MPLS data plane ECMP traversal validation issues with each.

A.1. Equal Numbers of LAG Members

R1 ==== S1 ==== R2

A.2. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members

           ____
R1 ==== S1 ==== R2

A.3. LAG Only on Right

R1 ---- S1 ==== R2

A.4. LAG Only on Left

R1 ==== S1 ---- R2

Authors' Addresses

Nobo Akiya Cisco Systems EMail: nobo@cisco.com
George Swallow Cisco Systems EMail: swallow@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski Orange EMail: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Bruno Decraene Orange EMail: bruno.decraene@orange.com
John E. Drake Juniper Networks EMail: jdrake@juniper.net