wdiff rfc8012.original rfc8012.txt

MPLS Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) N. Akiya
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8012 Big Switch Networks
Updates: 6790 (if approved) G. Swallow
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track C. Pignataro
Expires: March 9, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
A. Malis
Huawei Technologies
S. Aldrin
Google
September 5,
November 2016

Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace
over MPLS Network using Networks Using Entropy Labels (EL)
draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-05 (ELs)

Abstract

Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping ping
and Traceroute traceroute are methods used to test Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP)
paths. Ping is known as a connectivity verification connectivity-verification method and
Traceroute
traceroute is known as a fault isolation fault-isolation method, as described in RFC
4379. When an LSP is signaled using the Entropy Label (EL) described
in RFC 6790, the ability for LSP Ping ping and Traceroute traceroute operations to
discover and exercise ECMP paths is lost for scenarios where Label
Switching Routers (LSRs) apply different load balancing load-balancing techniques.
One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL-based load balancing
while other LSRs apply non-EL-based load balancing that is not EL based (e.g.,
IP). Another scenario is when an EL-based LSP is stitched with
another LSP which that can be EL- EL based or non-EL-based. not EL based.

This document extends the MPLS LSP Ping ping and Traceroute traceroute multipath
mechanisms in RFC 6424 to allow the ability of exercising LSPs which that
make use of the EL. This document updates RFC 6790.

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

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

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 March 9, 2017.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8012.

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 ....................................................3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ................................................5
1.1.1. Requirements Language ...............................6
1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .................................................6
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Multipath Type 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. {9} ..............................................7
3. Pseudowire Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. ..............................................7
4. Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. ...............................................8
5. DS Flags: L and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. ...............................................9
6. New Multipath Information Type: TBD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Type {10} ............................10
7. Initiating LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. ......................................12
8. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. IP-based .......................................14
8.1. IP-Based Load Balancer & That Does Not Pushing Push ELI/EL . . . . . . . 14
9.2. IP Based ..........15
8.2. IP-Based Load Balancer & That Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . . . 14
9.3. Label-based .................15
8.3. Label-Based Load Balancer & That Does Not Pushing Push ELI/EL . . . . . 15
9.4. Label-based .......16
8.4. Label-Based Load Balancer & That Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . . 16
9.5. ..............17
8.5. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. ............................18
9. Supported and Unsupported Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. ................................18
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. .......................................20
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. ...........................................21
11.1. Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. ........................................21
11.2. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.3. .................................................21
11.3. Multipath Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15. ...........................................21
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.1. ....................................................22
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.2. .....................................22
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ...................................22
Acknowledgements ..................................................23
Contributors ......................................................23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ................................................23

1. Introduction

1.1. Terminology

The following acronyms and terms are used in this document:

o MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching.

o LSP - Label Switched Path.

o Stitched LSP - Stitched Label Switched Paths combine several LSPs
such that a single end-to-end (e2e) LSP is realized. [RFC6424]

[RFC4379] describes LSP Ping for Stitched LSPs.

o LSR - Label Switching Router.

o FEC - Forwarding Equivalence Class.

o ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath.

o EL - Entropy Label.

o ELI - Entropy Label Indicator.

o GAL - Generic Associated Channel Label.

o MS-PW - Multi-Segment Pseudowire.

o Initiating LSR - traceroute as an operation where the
initiating LSR which sends an a series of MPLS echo request.

o Responder LSR - requests towards the same
destination. The first packet in the series has the TTL set to 1.
When the echo reply is received from the LSR which receives an MPLS one hop away, the second
echo request and sends
an MPLS in the series is sent with the TTL set to 2. For each
additional echo reply.

o IP-Based Load Balancer - LSR which load balances on fields from an
IP header (and possibly fields from upper layers), and does not
consider an entropy label request, the TTL is incremented by one until a
response is received from an MPLS label stack (i.e., flow
label [RFC6391] or entropy label [RFC6790]) for load balancing
purposes.

o Label-Based Load Balancer - the intended destination. The initiating
LSR which load balances on an entropy
label from an MPLS label stack (i.e., flow label or entropy
label), and does not consider fields from an IP header (and
possibly fields from upper layers) for load balancing purposes.

o Label discovers and IP-Based Load Balancer - exercises ECMP by obtaining Multipath Information
from each transit LSR which load balances on both and using a specific destination IP address or
specific entropy labels from label.

From here on, the notation {x, y, z} refers to Multipath Information
Types x, y, or z. Multipath Information Types are defined in
Section 3.3 of [RFC4379] .

The LSR initiating LSP ping sends an MPLS label stack echo request with the
Multipath Information. This Multipath Information is described in
the echo request's DDMAP TLV and fields from an may contain a set of IP
header (and possibly fields from upper layers).

1.2. Background

MPLS implementations employ addresses or
a wide variety set of load balancing
techniques in terms labels. Multipath Information Types {2, 4, 8} carry a set
of fields used for hash "keys". The mechanisms
in [RFC4379] IP addresses, and updated by [RFC6424] are designed to provide
multipath support for the Multipath Information Type {9} carries a subset set
of techniques. labels. The intent responder LSR (the receiver of this
document is to provide multipath support for the supported techniques
which are compromised by MPLS echo request)
will determine the use subset of ELs [RFC6790]. Section 10
describes supported and unsupported cases, and it may be useful for
the reader initiator-specified Multipath
Information, which load balances to first review this section. each downstream (outgoing)
interface. The Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV [RFC6424] provides responder LSR sends an MPLS echo reply with the
resulting Multipath Information which can be used by an LSP Ping initiator per downstream (outgoing interface)
back to the initiating LSR. The initiating LSR is then able to use a
specific IP destination address or a specific label to
trace and validate exercise a
specific ECMP paths between an ingress and egress. path on the responder LSR.

The
Multipath Information encodings defined by [RFC6424] are sufficient
when all current behavior is problematic in the LSRs along following scenarios:

o The initiating LSR sends the path(s), between ingress and egress,
consider IP Multipath Information, but the same set of "keys" as input for
responder LSR load balancing
algorithms, e.g., either all IP-based or all label-based.

With balances on labels.

o The initiating LSR sends the introduction of [RFC6790], some LSRs may perform Label Multipath Information, but the
responder LSR load
balancing based balances on labels while others may be IP-based. This results
in IP addresses.

o The initiating LSR sends the existing Multipath Information to an LSP Ping initiator
LSR that is unable pushes ELI/EL in the label stack, but the initiating LSR
can only continue to trace discover and validate all exercise specific paths of the
ECMP paths in if the following scenarios:

o One or more transit LSRs along an LSP with LSR that pushes ELI/EL in responds with both IP addresses
and the label
stack do not perform ECMP load balancing based on associated EL (hashes corresponding to each IP address. This is
because:

* An ELI/EL-pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load
balance based on "keys" including the IP destination address). This scenario is
not only possible but quite common due address.

* Downstream LSR(s) of an ELI/EL-pushing LSR may load balance
based on ELs.

o The initiating LSR sends existing Multipath Information to transit LSRs not
implementing [RFC6790] or transit LSRs implementing [RFC6790], an ELI/
EL-pushing LSR, but
not implementing the suggested transit initiating LSR behavior in Section 4.3
of [RFC6790].

o Two or more LSPs stitched together with at least one of these LSPs
pushing ELI/EL into the label stack.

These scenarios can be quite common because deployments of [RFC6790]
typically have a mixture only continue to
discover and exercise specific paths of nodes that support ELI/EL ECMP if the ELI/EL-pushing
LSR responds with both labels and nodes the associated EL corresponding
to the label. This is because:

* An ELI/EL-pushing LSR that
do not. There is a stitching point will also typically be load
balance based on the EL from the previous LSP and push a mixture new
EL.

* Downstream LSR(s) of areas that support
ELI/EL and areas ELI/EL-pushing LSR may load balance based
on new ELs.

The above scenarios demonstrate that do not.

As pointed out in [RFC6790], the procedures of [RFC4379] (and
consequently of [RFC6424]) with respect to existing Multipath
Information Type
{9} are incomplete. However, [RFC6790] does not actually update
[RFC4379]. Further, the specific EL location is not clearly defined,
particularly in the case of Flow Aware Pseudowires [RFC6391]. insufficient when LSP traceroute is used on an LSP
with entropy labels [RFC6790]. This document defines a new FEC Stack sub-TLV for the entropy label.
Section 3 of this document updates the procedures for Multipath
Information Type {9} described in [RFC4379] and applicable to
[RFC6424]. The rest be used in the DDMAP of this document describes extensions required
to restore ECMP discovery and tracing capabilities MPLS echo request/reply
packets for the scenarios
described.

[RFC4379], [RFC6424], and this document will support IP-based load
balancers and label-based load balancers which limit their hash to
the first (top-most) [RFC6790] LSPs.

The responder LSR can reply with empty Multipath Information if no IP
address set or only entropy if no label in set is received with the label stack. Other
use cases (refer to Section 10) are out of scope.

2. Overview

[RFC4379] describes LSP traceroute as Multipath
Information. An empty return is also possible if an operation where the initiating LSR
sends a series Multipath Information of MPLS echo requests towards one type, IP Address or Label, but the same
destination. The first packet in
responder LSR load balances on the series has other type. To disambiguate
between the TTL set to 1.
When two results, this document introduces new flags in the echo reply is received from
DDMAP TLV to allow the responder LSR one hop away, the second
echo request in to describe the series is sent with load-balancing
technique being used.

To use this enhanced method end-to-end, all LSRs along the TTL set LSP need
to 2. For each
additional echo request be able to understand the TLL is incremented by one until a
response is received from new flags and the intended destination. new Multipath
Information Type. Mechanisms to verify this condition are outside of
the scope of this document. The rest of the requirements are
detailed in the initiating LSR discovers and exercises ECMP by obtaining Multipath Information
from each transit responder LSR and using a specific destination IP address or
specific entropy label.

From here on, procedures. Two
additional DS Flags are defined for the notation {x, y, z} refers DDMAP TLV in Section 6.
These two flags are used by the responder LSR to Multipath Information
Types x, y, or z. Multipath Information Types describe its load-
balancing behavior on a received MPLS echo request.

Note that the terms "IP-Based Load Balancer" and "Label-Based Load
Balancer" are defined in
Section 3.3 context of [RFC4379].

The LSR initiating LSP Ping sends an how a received MPLS echo request with Multipath
Information. This Multipath Information is described in
handled by the echo
request's DDMAP TLV, and may contain a set of IP addresses or a set
of labels. Multipath Information Types {2, 4, 8} carry a set of IP
addresses, responder LSR.

1.1. Terminology

The following abbreviations and Multipath Information Type {9} carries terms are used in this document:

o MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.

o LSP: Label Switched Path.

o Stitched LSP: Stitched Label Switched Paths combine several LSPs
such that a set of
labels. The responder single end-to-end LSP is realized. [RFC6424]
describes LSP ping for Stitched LSPs.

o LSR: Label Switching Router.

o FEC: Forwarding Equivalence Class.

o ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath.

o EL: Entropy Label.

o ELI: Entropy Label Indicator.

o GAL: Generic Associated Channel Label.

o MS-PW: Multi-Segment Pseudowire.

o Initiating LSR: An LSR (the receiver of the that sends an MPLS echo request)
will determine the subset of initiator-specified Multipath
Information which load balances to each downstream (outgoing)
interface. The responder request.

o Responder LSR: An LSR that receives an MPLS echo request and sends
an MPLS echo reply with resulting
Multipath Information per downstream (outgoing interface) back to the
initiating LSR. The initiating reply.

o IP-Based Load Balancer: An LSR is then able to use a specific IP
destination address or a specific label to exercise a specific ECMP
path that load balances on the responder LSR.

The current behavior is problematic in the following scenarios: fields from
an IP header (and possibly fields from upper layers) and does not
consider an entropy label from an MPLS label stack (i.e., flow
label [RFC6391] or entropy label [RFC6790]) for load-balancing
purposes.

o The initiating LSR sends IP Multipath Information, but the
responder Label-Based Load Balancer: An LSR that load balances on labels. an entropy
label from an MPLS label stack (i.e., flow label or entropy label)
and does not consider fields from an IP header (and possibly
fields from upper layers) for load-balancing purposes.

o The initiating LSR sends Label Multipath Information, but the
responder and IP-Based Load Balancer: An LSR that load balances on
both entropy labels from an MPLS label stack and fields from an IP addresses.

o
header (and possibly fields from upper layers).

1.1.1. Requirements Language

The initiating LSR sends existing Multipath Information key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to an LSR
which pushes ELI/EL be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.2. Background

MPLS implementations employ a wide variety of load-balancing
techniques in terms of fields used for hash "keys". The mechanisms
in [RFC4379] and updated by [RFC6424] are designed to provide
multipath support for a subset of techniques. The intent of this
document is to provide multipath support for the label stack, but supported techniques
that are compromised by the initiating LSR use of ELs [RFC6790]. Section 9
describes supported and unsupported cases, and it may be useful for
the reader to first review this section.

The Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV [RFC6424] provides
Multipath Information, which can
only continue be used by an LSP ping initiator to discover
trace and exercise specific validate ECMP paths of between an ingress and egress. The
Multipath Information encodings defined by [RFC6424] are sufficient
when all the ECMP,
if LSRs along the LSR which pushes ELI/EL responds with both IP addresses path(s), between ingress and egress,
consider the associated EL corresponding to each same set of "keys" as input for load-balancing
algorithms, e.g., either all IP address. This is
because:

* An ELI/EL-pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load
balance based on or all label based.

With the IP address.

* Downstream LSR(s) introduction of an ELI/EL-pushing LSR [RFC6790], some LSRs may perform load balance
balancing based on ELs.

o The initiating LSR sends existing Multipath Information to labels while others may be IP based. This results
in an ELI/
EL-pushing LSR, but the initiating LSR can only continue LSP ping initiator that is unable to
discover trace and exercise specific validate all the
ECMP paths of ECMP, if in the ELI/EL-
pushing LSR responds following scenarios:

o One or more transit LSRs along an LSP with both labels and ELI/EL in the associated label
stack do not perform ECMP load balancing based on EL
corresponding to (hashes based
on "keys" including the label. IP destination address). This scenario is because:

* An ELI/EL-pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load
balance based on
not only possible but quite common due to transit LSRs not
implementing [RFC6790] or transit LSRs implementing [RFC6790] but
not implementing the EL from suggested transit LSR behavior in Section 4.3
of [RFC6790].

o Two or more LSPs stitched together with at least one of these LSPs
pushing ELI/EL into the previous LSP label stack.

These scenarios can be quite common because deployments of [RFC6790]
typically have a mixture of nodes that support ELI/EL and pushes nodes that
do not. There will also typically be a new
EL.

* Downstream LSR(s) mixture of ELI/EL-pushing LSR may load balance based
on new ELs.

The above scenarios demonstrate areas that support
ELI/EL and areas that do not.

As pointed out in [RFC6790], the existing procedures of [RFC4379] (and
consequently of [RFC6424]) with respect to Multipath Information Type
{9} are incomplete. However, [RFC6790] does not actually update
[RFC4379]. Further, the specific EL location is
insufficient when LSP traceroute is used on an LSP with entropy
labels [RFC6790]. not clearly defined,
particularly in the case of Flow-Aware Pseudowires [RFC6391]. This
document defines a new Multipath Information
Type to be used in the DDMAP of MPLS echo request/reply packets FEC Stack sub-TLV for
[RFC6790] LSPs.

The responder LSR can reply with empty Multipath Information if no IP
address is set or label set is received with the Multipath
Information. An empty return is also possible if an initiating LSR
sends Multipath Information entropy label.
Section 2 of one type, IP Address or Label, but the
responder LSR load balances on the other type. To disambiguate
between the two results, this document introduces new flags in the
DDMAP TLV to allow the responder LSR to describe the load balancing
technique being used.

To use this enhanced method end-to-end, all LSRs along the LSP need
to be able to understand updates the new flags and procedures for the new Multipath
Information Type. Mechanisms to verify this condition Type {9} that are outside of
the scope of this document. described in [RFC4379] and that are
applicable to [RFC6424]. The rest of the requirements are
detailed in the initiating LSR this document describes
extensions required to restore ECMP discovery and responder LSR procedures. Two
additional DS Flags are defined tracing
capabilities for the DDMAP TLV in Section 6.
These two flags are used by the responder LSR to describe its scenarios described.

[RFC4379], [RFC6424], and this document will support IP-based load
balance behavior on a received MPLS echo request.

Note
balancers and label-based load balancers that limit their hash to the terms "IP-Based Load Balancer" and "Label-Based Load
Balancer" are
first (top-most) or only entropy label in context of how a received MPLS echo request is
handled by the responder LSR.

3. label stack. Other use
cases (refer to Section 9) are out of scope.

2. Multipath Type 9 {9}

[RFC4379] defined Multipath Type {9} for the tracing of LSPs where label-
based
label-based load balancing is used. However, as pointed out in
[RFC6790], the procedures for using this type are incomplete as the
specific location of the label was not defined. It was assumed that
the presence of Multipath Type {9} implied that the value of the bottom-of-
stack
bottom-of-stack label should be varied by the values indicated by the
multipath to determine the respective outgoing interfaces.

Section 5 4 defines a new FEC-Stack sub-TLV to indicate an entropy
label. These labels MAY appear anywhere in a label stack.

Multipath Type {9} applies to the first label in the label stack that
corresponds to an EL-FEC. If no such label is found, it applies to
the label at the bottom of the label stack.

3. Pseudowire Tracing

This section defines procedures for tracing pseudowires. Pseudowires. These
procedures pertain to the use of Multipath Information Type {9} as
well as Type {TBD4}. {10}. In all cases below, when a control word is in
use, the N-flag N flag in the DDMAP MUST be set. Note that when a control
word is not in use, the returned DDMAPs may not be accurate.

In order to trace a non-flow-aware Pseudowire, Pseudowire that is not flow aware, the initiator
includes an EL-FEC instead of the appropriate PW FEC at the bottom of
the FEC
stack. Stack. Tracing in this way will cause compliant routers to
return the proper outgoing interface. Note that this procedure only
traces to the end of the MPLS LSP that is under test and will not
verify the PW FEC. To actually verify the PW FEC or in the case of a
MS-PW, to determine the next pseudowire Pseudowire label value, the initiator
MUST repeat that step of the trace (i.e., repeating the TTL value
used) but with the FEC Stack modified to contain the appropriate PW
FEC. Note that these procedures are applicable to scenarios where an
initiator is able to vary the bottom label (i.e., Pseudowire label).
Possible scenarios are tracing multiple non-flow-aware Pseudowires that are not flow
aware on the same endpoints or tracing a non-flow-aware Pseudowire that is not flow-
aware provisioned with multiple Pseudowire labels.

In order to trace a flow-aware Pseudowire [RFC6391], the initiator
includes an EL FEC at the bottom of the FEC Stack and pushes the
appropriate PW FEC onto the FEC Stack.

In order to trace through non-compliant routers, routers that are not compliant, the
initiator forms an MPLS echo request message and includes a DDMAP
with the Multipath Type {9}. For a non-flow-aware Pseudowire that is not flow aware,
it includes the appropriate PW FEC in the FEC Stack. For a flow-aware flow-
aware Pseudowire, the initiator includes a Nil FEC at the bottom of
the FEC Stack and pushes the appropriate PW FEC onto the FEC Stack.

4. Entropy Label FEC

The entropy label indicator (ELI) ELI is a reserved label that has no associated explicit FEC associated, FEC, and
has the label value 7 assigned from the reserved range. Use the Nil
FEC as the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to account for ELI in a Target
FEC Stack TLV.

The entropy label (EL) EL is a special purpose special-purpose label with the label value being
discretionary (i.e., the label value is not from the reserved range).
For LSP verification mechanics to perform its purpose, it is
necessary for a Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to clearly describe the EL,
particularly in the scenario where the label stack does not carry ELI
(e.g., flow-aware Pseudowire [RFC6391]). Therefore, this document
defines an EL FEC sub-TLV (TBD1, (33, see Section 12.1) to allow 11.1) that allows a Target
FEC Stack sub-TLV to be added to the Target FEC Stack to account for
EL.

The Length is 4. Labels are 20-bit values treated as numbers.

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | MBZ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1: Entropy Label FEC

Label

"Label" is the actual label value inserted in the label stack; the MBZ
"MBZ" field MUST be zero when sent and ignored on receipt.

5. DS Flags: L and E

Two flags, L and E, are added to the DS Flags field of the DDMAP TLV.
Both flags MUST NOT be set in the echo request packets when sending, sending
and SHOULD be ignored when received. Zero, one one, or both new flags
MUST be set in the echo reply packets.

DS Flags
--------

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

RFC-Editor-Note: Please update the above figure to place the flag E
in the bit number TBD2 and the flag L in the bit number TBD3.

Flag Name and Meaning
---- ----------------
L Label-based load balance indicator
This flag MUST be cleared in the echo request. An LSR
which
that performs load balancing on a label MUST set this
flag in the echo reply. An LSR which that performs load
balancing on IP MUST NOT set this flag in the echo
reply.

E ELI/EL push indicator
This flag MUST be cleared in the echo request. An LSR
which
that pushes ELI/EL MUST set this flag in the echo
reply. An LSR which that does not push ELI/EL MUST NOT set
this flag in the echo reply.

The two flags result in four load balancing techniques load-balancing techniques, which the
echo reply generating LSR can indicate:

o {L=0, E=0} LSR load balances based on IP and does not push ELI/EL.

o {L=0, E=1} LSR load balances based on IP and pushes ELI/EL.

o {L=1, E=0} LSR load balances based on labels and does not push
ELI/EL.

o {L=1, E=1} LSR load balances based on labels and pushes ELI/EL.

6. New Multipath Information Type: TBD4 Type {10}

One new Multipath Information Type is added to be used in DDMAP TLV.
This new Multipath Type has the value of TBD4. 10.

Key Type Multipath Information
--- ---------------- ---------------------
TBD4
10 IP and Label set IP addresses and label prefixes

Multipath Information Type TBD4 {10} is comprised of three sections. The
first section describes the IP address set. The second section
describes the label set. The third section describes another label set
set, which associates to either the IP address set or the label set
specified in the other sections.

Multipath Information Type TBD4 {10} has the following format:

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IPMultipathType| IP Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| (IP Multipath Information) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|LbMultipathType| Label Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| (Label Multipath Information) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Assoc Assoc. Label Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| (Associated Label Multipath Information) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2: Multipath Information Type TBD4 {10}

o IPMultipathType

* 0 when "IP Multipath Information" is omitted. Otherwise, one
of the IP Multipath Information values: {2, 4, 8}.

o IP Multipath Information

* This section is omitted when "IPMultipathType" is 0.
Otherwise, this section reuses the IP Multipath Information
from [RFC4379]. Specifically, Multipath Information for values
{2, 4, 8} can be used.

o LbMultipathType

* 0 when the "Label Multipath Information" is omitted.
Otherwise, the Label Multipath Information value {9}.

o Label Multipath Information

* This section is omitted when the "LbMultipathType" is 0.
Otherwise, this section reuses the Label Multipath Information
from [RFC4379]. Specifically, the Multipath Information for
value {9} can be used.

o Associated Label Multipath Information

* "Assoc "Associated Label Multipath Length" is a 16-bit field of
Multipath Information which that indicates the length in octets of
the Associated Label Multipath Information.

* "Associated Label Multipath Information" is a list of labels
with each label described in 24 bits. This section MUST be
omitted in an MPLS echo request message. A midpoint which that
pushes ELI/EL labels SHOULD include "Assoc "Associated Label Multipath
Information" in its MPLS echo reply message, along with either
"IP Multipath Information" or "Label Multipath Information".
Each specified associated label described in this section maps
to a specific IP address OR label described in the "IP
Multipath Information" section or the "Label Multipath
Information" section. For example, if three IP addresses are
specified in the "IP Multipath Information" section, then there
MUST be three labels described in this section. The first
label maps to the first IP address specified, the second label
maps to the second IP address specified, and the third label
maps to the third IP address specified.

When a section is omitted, the length for that section MUST be set to
zero.

7. Initiating LSR Procedures

The following procedure is described in terms of an EL_LSP boolean
maintained by the initiating LSR. This value controls the Multipath
Information Type to be used in the transmitted echo request packets.
When the initiating LSR is transmitting an echo request packet with
DDMAP with a non-zero Multipath Information Type, then the EL_LSP
boolean MUST be consulted to determine the Multipath Information Type
to use.

In addition to the procedures described in [RFC4379], as updated by
Section 3 2 and [RFC6424], the initiating LSR MUST operate with the
following procedures:

o When the initiating LSR pushes ELI/EL, initialize EL_LSP=True.
Else
Else, set EL_LSP=False.

o When the initiating LSR is transmitting a non-zero Multipath
Information Type:

* If (EL_LSP), the initiating LSR MUST use the Multipath
Information Type {TBD4} {10} unless the responder LSR cannot handle
Type {TBD4}. {10}. When the initiating LSR is transmitting the
Multipath Information Type {TBD4}, {10}, both "IP Multipath
Information" and "Label Multipath Information" MUST be
included, and "Associated Label Multipath Information" MUST be
omitted (NULL).

* Else Else, the initiating LSR MAY use the Multipath Information Type
{2, 4, 8, 9, TBD4}. 10}. When the initiating LSR is transmitting the
Multipath Information Type {TBD4} {10} in this case, "IP Multipath
Information" MUST be included, and "Label Multipath
Information" and "Associated Label Multipath Information" MUST
be omitted (NULL).

o When the initiating LSR receives an echo reply with {L=0, E=1} in
the DS flags Flags with valid contents, set EL_LSP=True.

In the following conditions, the initiating LSR may have lost the
ability to exercise specific ECMP paths. The initiating LSR MAY
continue with "best effort" in the following cases:

o Received echo reply contains empty Multipath Information.

o Received echo reply contains {L=0, E=<any>} DS flags, Flags, but does not
contain IP Multipath Information.

o Received echo reply contains {L=1, E=<any>} DS flags, Flags, but does not
contain Label Multipath Information.

o Received echo reply contains {L=<any>, E=1} DS flags, Flags, but does not
contain Associated Label Multipath Information.

o IP Multipath Information Types {2, 4, 8} sent, and received echo
reply with {L=1, E=0} in DS flags. Flags.

o Multipath Information Type {TBD4} {10} sent, and received echo reply with
Multipath Information Type other than {TBD4}.

9. {10}.

8. Responder LSR Procedures

Common Procedures:

o The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request packet MUST first
determine whether or not the initiating LSR supports this LSP Ping ping
and Traceroute traceroute extension for Entropy Labels. entropy labels. If either of the
following conditions are met, the responder LSR SHOULD determine
that the initiating LSR supports this LSP Ping ping and Traceroute traceroute
extension for entropy labels.

1. Received MPLS echo request contains the Multipath Information
Type {TBD4}. {10}.

2. Received MPLS echo request contains a Target FEC Stack TLV
that includes the entropy label FEC.

If the initiating LSR is determined not to support this LSP Ping ping
and Traceroute traceroute extension for entropy labels, then the responder
LSR MUST NOT follow further procedures described in this section.
Specifically, MPLS echo reply packets:

* MUST have the following DS Flags cleared (i.e., not set): "ELI/
EL push indicator" and "Label-based load balance indicator".

* MUST NOT use the Multipath Information Type {TBD4}. {10}.

o The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request packet with the
Multipath Information Type {TBD4} {10} MUST validate the following
contents. Any deviation MUST result in the responder LSR
considering the packet as to be malformed and returning code 1
("Malformed echo request received") in the MPLS echo reply packet.

* IP Multipath Information MUST be included.

* Label Multipath Information MAY be included.

* Associated Label Multipath Information MUST be omitted (NULL).

The following subsections describe expected responder LSR procedures
when the echo reply is to include DDMAP TLVs, based on the local load
balance technique being employed. In case the responder LSR performs
deviating load balance techniques on a per downstream per-downstream basis,
appropriate procedures matched to each downstream load balance
technique MUST be followed.

9.1. IP-based

8.1. IP-Based Load Balancer & That Does Not Pushing Push ELI/EL

o The responder MUST set {L=0, E=0} in DS flags. Flags.

o If the Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the
responder MUST comply with [RFC4379] and [RFC6424].

o If the Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder
MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}.

o If the Multipath Information Type {TBD4} {10} is received, the following
procedures are to be used:

* The responder MUST reply with the Multipath Information Type
{TBD4}.
{10}.

* The "Label Multipath Information" and "Associated Label
Multipath Information" sections MUST be omitted (NULL).

* If no matching IP address is found, then the "IPMultipathType"
field MUST be set to the Multipath Information Type {0} and the
"IP Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted (NULL).

9.2. IP Based

8.2. IP-Based Load Balancer & That Pushes ELI/EL

o The responder MUST set {L=0, E=1} in DS flags. Flags.

o If the Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder
MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}.

o If the Multipath Type {2, 4, 8, TBD4} 10} is received, the following
procedures are to be used:

* The responder MUST respond with Multipath Type {TBD4}. {10}. See
Section 7 6 for details of Multipath Type {TBD4}. {10}.

* The "Label Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted
(i.e., it is not there).

* The IP address set specified in the received IP Multipath
Information MUST be used to determine the returned IP/Label
pairs.

* If the received Multipath Information Type was {TBD4}, {10}, the
received "Label Multipath Information" sections MUST NOT be
used to determine the associated label portion of the returned
IP/Label pairs.

* If no matching IP address is found, then the "IPMultipathType"
field MUST be set to the Multipath Information Type {0} and the
"IP Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted. In
addition, the "Assoc "Associated Label Multipath Length" MUST be set
to 0, and the "Associated Label Multipath Information" section
MUST also be omitted.

* If at least one matching IP address is found, then the
"IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to the appropriate
Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} and the "IP Multipath
Information" section MUST be included. In addition, the
"Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST be
populated with a list of labels corresponding to each IP
address specified in the "IP Multipath Information" section. "Assoc
"Associated Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to a value
representing the length in octets of the "Associated Label
Multipath Information" field.

9.3. Label-based

8.3. Label-Based Load Balancer & That Does Not Pushing Push ELI/EL

o The responder MUST set {L=1, E=0} in DS flags. Flags.

o If the Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the
responder MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}.

o If the Multipath Information Type {9} is received, the responder
MUST comply with [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] as updated by Section 3. 2.

o If the Multipath Information Type {TBD4} {10} is received, the following
procedures are to be used:

* The responder MUST reply with the Multipath Information Type
{TBD4}.
{10}.

* The "IP Multipath Information" and "Associated Label Multipath
Information" sections MUST be omitted (NULL).

* If no matching label is found, then the "LbMultipathType" field
MUST be set to the Multipath Information Type {0} and the
"Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted
(NULL).

9.4. Label-based

8.4. Label-Based Load Balancer & That Pushes ELI/EL

o The responder MUST set {L=1, E=1} in DS flags. Flags.

o If the Multipath Information Type {2, 4, 8} is received, the
responder MUST reply with Multipath Type {0}.

o If the Multipath Type {9, TBD4} 10} is received, the following
procedures are to be used:

* The responder MUST respond with the Multipath Type {TBD4}. {10}.

* The "IP Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted.

* The label set specified in the received Label Multipath
Information MUST be used to determine the returned Label/Label
pairs.

* If the received Multipath Information Type was {TBD4}, received {10} received,
the "Label Multipath Information" sections MUST NOT be used to
determine the associated label portion of the returned Label/
Label pairs.

* If no matching label is found, then the "LbMultipathType" field
MUST be set to the Multipath Information Type {0} and the
"Label Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted. In
addition,
"Assoc the "Associated Label Multipath Length" MUST be set
to 0, and the "Associated Label Multipath Information" section
MUST also be omitted.

* If at least one matching label is found, then the
"LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to the appropriate
Multipath Information Type {9} and the "Label Multipath
Information" section MUST be included. In addition, the
"Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST be
populated with a list of labels corresponding to each label
specified in the "Label Multipath Information" section. "Assoc The
"Associated Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to a value
representing the length in octets of the "Associated Label
Multipath Information" field.

9.5.

8.5. Flow-Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR

A stitching LSR that cross-connects flow-aware Pseudowires behaves in
one of two ways:

o Load balances on the previous flow label, label and carries over the same
flow label. For this case, the stitching LSR is to behave as
described in Section 9.3. 8.3.

o Load balances on the previous flow label, label and replaces the flow
label with a newly computed label. For this case, the stitching
LSR is to behave as described in Section 9.4.

10. 8.4.

9. Supported and Unsupported Cases

The MPLS architecture does not define strict rules on how
implementations are to identify hash "keys" for load balancing load-balancing
purposes. As a result, implementations may be of the following load
balancer types:

1. IP-based load balancer.
2. Label-based load balancer.
3. Label- and IP-based load balancer.

For cases (2) and (3), an implementation can include different sets
of labels from the label stack for load balancing load-balancing purpose. Thus Thus, the
following sub-cases are possible:

a. Entire label stack.
b. Top N labels from label stack where the number of labels in label
stack is > N.
c. Bottom N labels from label stack where the number of labels in
label stack is > N.

In a scenario where there is one flow label or entropy label present
in the label stack, the following further cases are possible for
(2b), (2c), (3b) (3b), and (3c):

1. N labels from label stack include flow label or entropy label.
2. N labels from label stack do not include flow label or entropy
label.

Also

Also, in a scenario where there are multiple entropy labels present
in the label stack, it is possible for implementations to employ
deviating techniques:

o Search for entropy stops at the first entropy label.

o Search for entropy includes any entropy label found plus continues
to search for entropy in the label stack.

Furthermore, handling of reserved (i.e., special) labels varies among
implementations:

o Reserved labels are used in the hash as any other label would be
(not a recommended practice.) practice).

o Reserved labels are skipped over and, for implementations limited
to N labels, the reserved labels do not count towards the limit of
N.

o Reserved labels are skipped over and, for implementations limited
to N labels, the reserved labels count towards the limit of N.

It is important to point this out since the presence of GAL will
affect those implementations which that include reserved labels for load load-
balancing purposes.

As can be seen from the above, there are many types of potential load
balancing
load-balancing implementations. Attempting for to get any OAM Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tools to support ECMP discovery
and traversal over all types would require fairly complex procedures.
Complexities in OAM tools have minimal benefit if the majority of
implementations are expected to employ only a small subset of the
cases described above.

o Section 4.3 of [RFC6790] states that in implementations, for load load-
balancing purposes, parsing beyond the label stack after finding
an entropy label has "limited incremental value". Therefore, it
is expected that most implementations will be of types "IP-based
load balancer" or "Label-based load balancer".

o Section 2.4.5.1 of [RFC7325] recommends that searching for entropy
labels in the label stack should terminate upon finding the first
entropy label. Therefore, it is expected that implementations
will only include the first (top-most) entropy label when there
are multiple entropy labels in the label stack.

o It is expected that, in most cases, the number of labels in the
label stack will not exceed the number of labels (N) which that
implementations can include for load balancing load-balancing purposes.

o It is expected that labels in the label stack, besides the flow
label and entropy label, are constant for the lifetime of a single
LSP multipath traceroute operation. Therefore, deviating load load-
balancing implementations with respect to reserved labels should
not affect this tool.

Thus

Thus, [RFC4379], [RFC6424], and this document support cases (1) and
(2a1), where only the first (top-most) entropy label is included when
there are multiple entropy labels in the label stack.

11.

10. Security Considerations

While [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] already allow for the discovery and
exercise of ECMP paths, this document extends the LSP Ping ping and
Traceroute
traceroute mechanisms to more precisely discover and exercise ECMP
paths when an LSP uses ELI/EL in the label stack. Sourcing or
inspecting LSP Ping ping packets can be used for network reconnaissance.

The extended capability defined in this document requires small minor
additional processing for the responder and initiator nodes. The
responder node that pushes ELI/EL will need to compute and return
multipath data including associated EL. The initiator node will need
to store and handle both IP Multipath and Label Multipath
Information, and include destination IP addresses and/or ELs in MPLS
echo request packets as well as in the Multipath Information sent to
downstream nodes. The security considerations of [RFC4379] already
cover Denial-of-Service attacks by regulating LSP Ping ping traffic going
to the control plane.

Finally, the security measures described in [RFC4379], [RFC6424], and
[RFC6790] are applicable. [RFC6424] provides guidelines if a network
operator wants to prevent tracing or does not want to expose details
of the tunnel and [RFC6790] provides guidance on the use of the EL.

12.

11. IANA Considerations

12.1.

11.1. Entropy Label FEC

The

IANA is requested to assign has assigned a new sub-TLV from the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1,
16, and 21" section from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" Parameters" registry under "TLVs"
([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).

Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
-------- ------------ ---------
TBD1
33 Entropy label FEC this document

12.2.

11.2. DS Flags

The

IANA is requested to assign has assigned new bit numbers from the "DS flags"
sub-registry Flags" subregistry
from the "TLVs" section of the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" Parameters" registry
([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).

Note: the The "DS flags" sub-registry is Flags" subregistry was created by [RFC7537].

Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
TBD2
5 E: ELI/EL push indicator this document
TBD3
4 L: Label-based load balance indicator this document

12.3.

11.3. Multipath Type

The

IANA is requested to assign has assigned a new value from the "Multipath Type"
sub-registry subregistry
from the "TLVs" section of the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" Parameters" registry
([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).

Note: The "Multipath Type" sub-registry is subregistry was created by [RFC7537].

Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
TBD4
10 IP and label set this document

13. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Curtis Villamizar,
Daniel King, Sriganesh Kini, Victor Ji, Acee Lindem, Deborah
Brungard, Shawn M Emery, Scott O. Bradner, and Peter Yee for
performing thorough reviews and providing most valuable comments.

Carlos Pignataro would like to acknowledge his lifetime friend Martin
Rigueiro, with deep gratutide and esteem, for sharing his contagious
passion for engineering and sciences, and for selflessly teaching so
many lessons.

14. Contributing Authors

Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.

Email: naikumar@cisco.com

15.

12. References

15.1.

12.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.

[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, DOI 10.17487/RFC6424, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6424>.

[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.

[RFC7537] Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and
S. Aldrin, "IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points",
RFC 7537, DOI 10.17487/RFC7537, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7537>.

15.2.

12.2. Informative References

[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.

[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.

[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,
and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,
August 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.

Acknowledgements

Carlos Pignataro would like to acknowledge his lifetime friend Martin
Rigueiro, with deep gratitude and esteem, for sharing his contagious
passion for engineering and sciences, and for selflessly teaching so
many lessons.

Contributors

Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: naikumar@cisco.com

Authors' Addresses

Nobo Akiya
Big Switch Networks
Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com

George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: swallow@cisco.com

Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: cpignata@cisco.com

Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com

Sam Aldrin
Google
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com