Network Working Group S. Boutros, Ed. Internet-Draft S. Sivabalan, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Expires: June 12, 2011 V. Manral, Ed. IPInfusion Inc. G. Swallow S. Saxena Cisco Systems December 09, 2010 Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-02 Abstract LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a segment of a Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW) from any node on the path of the MS-PW. This document defines a TLV to address this shortcoming. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2011. Copyright Notice Boutros, et al. Expires June 12, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft LSP-Ping TTL TLV December 2010 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Time to Live (TTL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Boutros, et al. Expires June 12, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft LSP-Ping TTL TLV December 2010 1. Introduction A MS-PW can span across multiple service provider networks. In order to allow Service Providers (SP) to verify segments of such MS-PW from any node on the path of the MS-PW, any node along the path of the MS-PW, should be able to originate an LSP-Ping echo request packet to any another node along the path of the MS-PW and receive the corresponding echo reply. If the originator of the echo request is at the end of a MS-PW, the receiver of the request can send the reply back to the sender without knowing the hop-count distance of the originator. For example, the reply will be intercepted by the originator regardless of the TTL value on the reply packet. But, if the originator is not at the end of the MS-PW, the receiver of the echo request MAY need to know how many hops away the originator of the echo request is so that it can set the TTL value on the MPLS header for the echo reply to be intercepted at the originator node. In MPLS networks (also applicable to MPLS-TP) for bidirectional co- routed LSPs, if it is desired to verify connectivity from any intermediate node (LSR) on the LSP to the any other LSR on the LSP the receiver may need to know the TTL to send the Echo reply with, so as the packet is intercepted by the originator node. A new optional TTL TLV is being proposed in this document this TLV will be added by the originator of the echo request to inform the receiver how many hops away the originator is on the path of the MS-PW or Bidirectional LSP. 2. Terminology LSR: Label Switching Router MPLS-OAM: MPLS Operations, Administration and Maintenance MPLS-TP: MPLS Transport Profile MS-PW: Multi-Segment PseudoWire PW: PseudoWire TLV: Type Length Value TTL: Time To Live Boutros, et al. Expires June 12, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft LSP-Ping TTL TLV December 2010 3. Time to Live (TTL) 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 = TBD | Length = 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Time To Live TLV format The TTL TLV has the format shown in Figure 1. This TLV shall be included in the echo request by the originator of request. The use of this TLV is optional. If the value field is zero, the LSP Ping Echo request packet will be dropped. If a receiver does not understand the TTL TLV, it will simply ignore the TLV (Type value of TLV is assumed to be in the range of optional TLVs which SHOULD be ignored if an implementation does not support or understand them). In the absence of TTL TLV or if TTL TLV is ignored by a receiver, the determination of the TTL value used in the MPLS label on the echo reply is beyond the scope of this document. If a receiver understands the TTL TLV, and the TTL TLV is present in the echo request, the receiver MUST use the TTL value specified in TLV in the MPLS header of the echo reply. In the traceroute mode TTL value in the TLV is successively set to 1, 2, and so on. 4. Operation In this section, we explain a use case for the TTL TLV with an MPLS MS-PW. <------------------MS-PW ---------------------> A B C D E o -------- o -------- o --------- o --------- o ------Echo Request-----> <-----Echo Reply-------- Figure 2: Use-case with MS-PWs Let us assume a MS-PW going through LSRs A, B, C, D, and E. Furthermore, assume that an operator wants to perform a connectivity check between B and D from B. Thus, an LSP-Ping request with the TTL Boutros, et al. Expires June 12, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft LSP-Ping TTL TLV December 2010 TLV is originated from B and sent towards D. The echo request packet contains the FEC of the PW Segment between C and D. The value field of the TTL TLV and the TTL field of the MPLS label are set to 2. The echo request is intercepted at D because of TTL expiry. D detects the TTL TLV in the request, and use the TTL value (i.e., 2) specified in the TLV on the MPLS label of the echo reply. The echo reply will be intercepted by B because of TTL expiry. The same operation will apply in the case a co-routed bidirectional LSP and we want to check connectivity from an intermediate LSR B to another LSR D, from B. 5. Security Considerations This draft allows the setting of the TTL value in the MPLS Label of an echo reply, so that it can be intercepted by an intermediate device. This can cause a device to get a lot of LSP Ping packets which get redirected to the CPU. However the same is possible even without the changes mentioned in this document. A device should rate limit the LSP ping packets redirected to the CPU so that the CPU is not overwhelmed. 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to assign TLV type value to the following TLV from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub- registry. Optional Time To Live TLV (See Section 3). The Suggested value is 32769 as suggested by RFC 4379 Section 3. 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Laxmi Narasimaha Reddy Devireddy and Mahesh Akula for their comments. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Boutros, et al. Expires June 12, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft LSP-Ping TTL TLV December 2010 [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006. [RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007. 8.2. Informative References Authors' Addresses Sami Boutros (editor) Cisco Systems 3750 Cisco Way San Jose, CA 95134 US Phone: undefined Fax: Email: sboutros@cisco.com URI: Siva Sivabalan (editor) Cisco Systems 2000 Innovation Drive Kanata, Ontario K2K 3E8 Canada Phone: undefined Fax: Email: msiva@cisco.com URI: Vishwas Manral (editor) IPInfusion Inc. 1188 E. Arques Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94085 USA Phone: 408-400-1900 Fax: Email: vishwas@ipinfusion.com URI: Boutros, et al. Expires June 12, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft LSP-Ping TTL TLV December 2010 George Swallow Cisco Systems 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough, MA 01719 USA Phone: undefined Fax: Email: swallow@cisco.com URI: Shaleen Saxena Cisco Systems 300 Beaver Brook Road Boxborough, MA 01719 USA Phone: undefined Fax: Email: ssaxena@cisco.com URI: Boutros, et al. Expires June 12, 2011 [Page 7]