[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 N. Akiya
Internet-Draft                                                G. Swallow
Updates: 4379,6790 (if approved)                            C. Pignataro
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: June 18, 2014                                 December 15, 2013


         Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network
                       using Entropy Labels (EL)
                  draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-01

Abstract

   The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
   Ping and Traceroute are used to exercise specific paths of Equal Cost
   Multipath (ECMP).  When LSP is signaled to use Entropy Label (EL)
   described in RFC6790, the ability for LSP Ping and Traceroute
   operation to discover and exercise ECMP paths has been lost in
   scenarios which LSRs apply deviating load balance techniques.  One
   such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL based load balancing while
   other LSRs apply non-EL based load balancing (ex: IP).  Another
   scenario is when EL based LSP is stitched with another LSP which can
   be EL based or non-EL based.

   This document extends the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms to
   restore the ability of exercising specific paths of ECMP over LSP
   which make use of Entropy Label.  This document updates RFC4379 and
   RFC6790.

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/.







Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   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 18, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Multipath Type 9  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Initiating LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Responder LSR Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     5.1.  IP Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  IP Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL  . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  Label Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL  . . . . .   9
     5.4.  Label Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . .   9
     5.5.  FAT MS-PW Stitching LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  DS Flags: L and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  New Multipath Information Type: 10  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Unsupported Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.1.  New Sub-Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       11.1.1.  DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       11.1.2.  Multipath Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     11.2.  Entropy Label FEC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   12. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   13. Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16



Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   Section 3.3.1 of [RFC4379] specifies multipath information encoding
   which can be used by LSP Ping initiator to trace and validate all
   ECMP paths between ingress and egress.  These encodings are
   sufficient when all the LSRs along the path(s), between ingress and
   egress, consider same set of "keys" as input for load balancing
   algorithm: all IP based or all label based.

   With introduction of [RFC6790], it is quite normal to see set of LSRs
   performing load balancing based on EL/ELI while others still follow
   the traditional way (IP based).  This results in LSP Ping initiator
   not be able to trace and validate all ECMP paths in following
   scenarios:

   o  One or more transit LSRs along LSP with ELI/EL in label stack do
      not perform ECMP load balancing based on EL (hashes based on
      "keys" including IP destination address).  This scenario is not
      only possible but quite common due transit LSRs not implementing
      [RFC6790] or transit LSRs implementing [RFC6790] but not
      implementing suggested transit LSR behavior in Section 4.3 of
      [RFC6790].

   o  Two or more LSPs stitched together with at least one of these LSP
      pushing ELI/EL in label stack.  Such scenarios are described in
      [I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls].

   These scenarios will be quite common because every deployment of
   [RFC6790] will invariably end up with nodes that support ELI/EL and
   nodes that do not.  There will typically be areas that support ELI/EL
   and areas that do not.

   As pointed out in [RFC6790] the procedures of [RFC4379] with respect
   to 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
   Transport Pseudowires [RFC6391].  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] Rest of this document describes extensions required to
   restore ECMP discovery and tracing capabilities for scenarios
   described.

2.  Overview




Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   [RFC4379] describes LSP traceroute as an operation where the
   initiating LSR send a series of MPLS echo requests towards the same
   destination.  The first packet in the series have the TTL set to 1.
   When the echo reply is received from the LSR one hop away the second
   echo request in the series is sent with the TTL set to 2, for each
   echo request the TLL is incremented by one until a response is
   received from the intended destination.  Initiating LSR discovers and
   exercises ECMP by obtaining multipath information from each transit
   LSR and using specific destination IP address or specific entropy
   label.

   LSP Ping initiating LSR sends MPLS echo request with multipath
   information.  This multipath information is described in DSMAP/DDMAP
   TLV of echo request, and can contain set of IP addresses or set of
   labels today.  Multipath information types {2, 4, 8} carry set of IP
   addresses and multipath information type {9} carries set of labels.
   Responder LSR (receiver of MPLS echo request) is to determine subset
   of initiator specified multipath information which load balances to
   each downstream (outgoing interface).  Responder LSR sends MPLS echo
   reply with resulting multipath information per downstream (outgoing
   interface) back to the initiating LSR.  Initiating LSR is then able
   to use specific IP destination address or specific label to exercise
   specific ECMP path on the responder LSR.

   Current behavior is problematic in following scenarios:

   o  Initiating LSR sends IP multipath information, but responder LSR
      load balances on labels.

   o  Initiating LSR sends label multipath information, but responder
      LSR load balances on IP addresses.

   o  Initiating LSR sends one of existing multipath information to LSR
      which pushes ELI/EL in label stack, but initiating LSR can only
      continue to discover and exercise specific path of ECMP if LSR
      which pushes ELI/EL responds with both IP addresses and associated
      EL corresponding to each IP address.  This is because:

      *  ELI/EL pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load balance
         based on IP address.

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








Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   o  Initiating LSR sends one of existing multipath information to ELI/
      EL pushing LSR, but initiating LSR can only continue to discover
      and exercise specific path of ECMP if ELI/EL pushing LSR responds
      with both labels and associated EL corresponding to label.  This
      is because:

      *  ELI/EL pushing LSR that is a stitching point will load balance
         based on EL from previous LSP and pushes new EL.

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

   The above scenarios point to how the existing multipath information
   is insufficient when LSP traceroute is operated on an LSP with
   Entropy Labels described by [RFC6790].  Therefore, this document
   defines a multipath information type to be used in the DSMAP/DDMAP of
   MPLS echo request/reply packets in Section 8.

   In addition, responder LSR can reply with empty multipath information
   if no IP address set or label set from received multipath information
   matched load balancing to a downstream.  Empty return is also
   possible if initiating LSR sends multipath information of one type,
   IP address or label, but responder LSR load balances on the other
   type.  To disambiguate between the two results, this document
   introduces new flags in the DSMAP/DDMAP TLV to allow responder LSR to
   describe the load balance technique being used.

   It is required that all LSRs along the LSP understand new flags as
   well as new multipath information type.  It is also required that
   initiating LSR can select both IP destination address and label to
   use on transmitting MPLS echo request packets.  Two additional DS
   Flags are defined for the DSMAP and DDMAP TLVs in Section 7.

3.  Multipath Type 9

   [RFC4379] defined multipath type {9} for tracing of LSPs where label
   based load-balancing is used.  However, as pointed out in [RFC6790],
   the procedures for using this type are incomplete.  First, the
   specific location of the label was not defined.  What was assumed,
   but not spelled out, was that the presence of multipath type {9}
   meant the responder should act as if the payload of the received
   packet were non-IP and that the bottom-of-stack label should be
   replaced by the values indicated by multipath type {9} to determine
   their respective out-going interfaces.

   Further, with the introduction of [RFC6790], entropy labels may now
   appear anywhere in a label stack.




Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   This section defines to which labels multipath type {9} can apply.
   Additionally it defines procedures for tracing pseudowires and flow-
   aware pseudowires.  These procedures pertain to the use of multipath
   information type {9} as well as type {10}.

   Section 6 defines a new FEC-Stack sub-TLV to indicate and entropy
   label.  Multipath type {9} applies exclusively to this sub-TLV.  Any
   LSP Ping message containing a DD-MAP or DS-MAP with multipath type
   {9} MUST include an EL_FEC at the bottom of the FEC-Stack.

   When an MPLS echo request message is received containing a FEC-Stack
   with an EL-FEC at the bottom of the FEC stack and is not preceded by
   an entropy label, the responder must behave (for load balancing
   purposes) as if the first word of the message were a Pseudowire
   Control Word.

   In order to trace a non-FAT pseudowire, instead of including the
   appropriate PW-FEC in the FEC-Stack, an EL-FEC is included.  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 at transport layer (e.g. LDP and/or RSVP).  To
   actually verify the PW-FEC or in the case of a MS-PW, to determine
   the next pseudowire label value, the initiator MUST repeat that step
   of the trace, (i.e., repeating the TTL value used) but with the FEC-
   Stack modified to contain the appropriate PW-FEC.

   In order to trace a Flow-Aware Transport Pseudowire, the initiator
   includes an EL-FEC at the bottom of the FEC-Stack and pushes the
   appropriate PW-FEC onto the FEC-Stack.

4.  Initiating LSR Procedures

   In order to facilitate the flow of the following text we speak in
   terms of a boolean called EL_LSP maintained by the initiating LSR.
   This value controls the multipath information type to be used in
   transmitted echo request packets.  When the initiating LSR is
   transmitting an echo request packet with DSMAP/DDMAP with a non-zero
   multipath information type, then EL_LSP boolean MUST be consulted to
   determine the multipath information type to use.

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

   o  When initiating LSR is IP based load balancer (not pushing ELI/
      EL), initialize EL_LSP=False.

   o  When initiating LSR pushes ELI/EL, initialize EL_LSP=True.



Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   o  When initiating LSR is transmitting non-zero multipath information
      type:

      *  If (EL_LSP) initiating LSR MUST use multipath information type
         {10}.

      *  Else initiating LSR MUST use multipath information type {2, 4,
         8, 9}.

   o  When initiating LSR is transmitting multipath information type
      {10}, both "IP Multipath Information" and "Label Multipath
      Information" MUST be included, and "IP Associated Label Multipath
      Information" MUST be omitted (NULL).

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

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

   o  Received echo reply contains empty multipath information.

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

   o  Received echo reply contains {L=1, E=<any>} DS flags, but does not
      contain label multipath information.

   o  Received echo reply contains {L=<any>, E=1} DS flags, but does not
      contain associated label multipath information.

   o  IP multipath information types {2, 4, 8} sent, and received echo
      reply with {L=1, E=0} in DS flags.

   o  Multipath information type {10} sent, and received echo reply with
      multipath information type other than {10}.

5.  Responder LSR Procedures

   Common Procedures: Responder LSR receiving MPLS echo request packet
   with multipath information type {10} MUST validate following
   contents.  Any deviation MUST result in responder LSR to consider the
   packet as malformed and return code 1 (Malformed echo request
   received) in MPLS echo reply packet.

   o  IP multipath information MUST be included.




Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   o  Label multipath information MUST be included.

   o  IP associated label multipath information MUST be omitted (NULL).

   Following subsections describe expected responder LSR procedures when
   echo reply is to include DSMAP/DDMAP TLVs, based on local load
   balance technique being employed.  In case responder LSR performs
   deviating load balance techniques per downstream basis, appropriate
   procedures matching to each downstream load balance technique MUST be
   operated.

5.1.  IP Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL

   o  Responder MUST set {L=0, E=0} in DS flags.

   o  If multipath information type {2, 4, 8} is received, responder
      MUST comply with [RFC4379]/[RFC6424].

   o  If multipath information type {9} is received, responder MUST
      reply with multipath type {0}.

   o  If multipath information type {10} is received, responder MUST
      reply with multipath information type {10}. "Label Multipath
      Information" and "Associated Label Multipath Information" sections
      MUST be omitted (NULL).  If no matching IP address is found, then
      "IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to multipath information type
      {0} and "IP Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted
      (NULL).  If at least one matching IP address is found, then
      "IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to appropriate multipath
      information type {2, 4, 8} and "IP Multipath Information" section
      MUST be included.

5.2.  IP Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL

   o  Responder MUST set {L=0, E=1} in DS flags.

   o  If multipath information type {9} is received, responder MUST
      reply with multipath type {0}.

   o  If multipath type {2, 4, 8, 10} is received, responder MUST
      respond with multipath type {10}. See Section 8 for details of
      multipath type {10}. "Label Multipath Information" section MUST be
      omitted (i.e. is it not there).  IP address set specified in
      received IP multipath information MUST be used to determine the
      returning IP/Label pairs.  If received multipath information type
      was {10}, received "Label Multipath Information" sections MUST NOT
      be used to determine the associated label portion of returning IP/
      Label pairs.  If no matching IP address is found, then



Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


      "IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to multipath information type
      {0} and "IP Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted.  In
      addition, "Assoc Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to 0, and
      "Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be
      omitted.  If at least one matching IP address is found, then
      "IPMultipathType" field MUST be set to appropriate multipath
      information type {2, 4, 8} and "IP Multipath Information" section
      MUST be included.  In addition, "Associated Label Multipath
      Information" section MUST be populated with list of labels
      corresponding to each IP address specified in "IP Multipath
      Information" section.  "Assoc Label Multipath Length" MUST be set
      to a value representing length in octets of "Associated Label
      Multipath Information" field.

5.3.  Label Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL

   o  Responder MUST set {L=1, E=0} in DS flags.

   o  If multipath information type {2, 4, 8} is received, responder
      MUST reply with multipath type {0}.

   o  If multipath information type {9} is received, responder MUST
      comply with [RFC4379] /[RFC6424] as updated by Section 3.

   o  If multipath information type {10} is received, responder MUST
      reply with multipath information type {10}. "IP Multipath
      Information" and "Associated Label Multipath Information" sections
      MUST be omitted (NULL).  If no matching label is found, then
      "LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to multipath information type
      {0} and "Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted
      (NULL).  If at least one matching label is found, then
      "LbMultipathType" field MUST be set to appropriate multipath
      information type {9} and "Label Multipath Information" section
      MUST be included.

5.4.  Label Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL

   o  Responder MUST set {L=1, E=1} in DS flags.

   o  If multipath information type {2, 4, 8} is received, responder
      MUST reply with multipath type {0}.

   o  If multipath type {9, 10} is received, responder MUST respond with
      multipath type {10}. "IP Multipath Information" section MUST be
      omitted.  Label set specified in received label multipath
      information MUST be used to determine the returning Label/Label
      pairs.  If received multipath information type was {10}, received
      "Label Multipath Information" sections MUST NOT be used to



Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


      determine the associated label portion of returning Label/Label
      pairs.  If no matching label is found, then "LbMultipathType"
      field MUST be set to multipath information type {0} and "Label
      Multipath Information" section MUST be omitted.  In addition,
      "Assoc Label Multipath Length" MUST be set to 0, and "Associated
      Label Multipath Information" section MUST also be omitted.  If at
      least one matching label is found, then "LbMultipathType" field
      MUST be set to appropriate multipath information type {9} and
      "Label Multipath Information" section MUST be included.  In
      addition, "Associated Label Multipath Information" section MUST be
      populated with list of labels corresponding to each label
      specified in "Label Multipath Information" section.  "Assoc Label
      Multipath Length" MUST be set to a value representing length in
      octets of "Associated Label Multipath Information" field.

5.5.  FAT MS-PW Stitching LSR

   Stitching LSR that xconnects Flow-Aware Transport Pseudowires behave
   in one of two ways:

   o  Load balances on previous flow label, and carries over same flow
      label.  For this case, stitching LSR is to behave as procedures
      described in Section 5.3.

   o  Load balances on previous flow label, and replaces flow label with
      newly computed.  For this case, stitching LSR is to behave as
      procedures described in Section 5.4.

6.  Entropy Label FEC

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

   Entropy Label (EL) is a special purpose label with label value being
   discretionary (i.e. label value may not be 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 EL,
   particularly in the scenario where label stack does not carry ELI
   (ex: FAT-PW [RFC6391]).  Therefore, this document defines a EL FEC to
   allow 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.






Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


    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          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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

7.  DS Flags: L and E

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

    DS Flags
    --------

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

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

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

   Two flags result in four load balancing techniques which 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 label and does not push ELI/
      EL.



Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


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

8.  New Multipath Information Type: 10

   One new multipath information type is added to be used in DSMAP/DDMAP
   TLVs.  New multipath type has value of 10.

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

   Multipath type 10 is comprised of three sections.  One section to
   describe IP address set.  One section to describe label set.  One
   section to describe another label set which associates to either IP
   address set or label set specified in the other section.

   Multipath information type 10 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |IPMultipathType| Reserved(MBZ) |     IP Multipath Length       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   |                  (IP Multipath Information)                   |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |LbMultipathType| Reserved(MBZ) |    Label Multipath Length     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   |                 (Label Multipath Information)                 |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Reserved(MBZ)         |  Assoc Label Multipath Length |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   |            (Associated Label Multipath Information)           |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  IPMultipathType

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

   o  IP Multipath Information





Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


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

   o  LbMultipathType

      *  0 when "Label Multipath Information" is omitted.  Otherwise
         label multipath information value {9}.

   o  Label Multipath Information

      *  This section is omitted when "LbMultipathType" is 0.  Otherwise
         this section reuses label multipath information from [RFC4379].
         Specifically, multipath information for value {9} can be used.

   o  Associated Label Multipath Information

      *  "Assoc Label Multipath Length" is a 16 bit field of multipath
         information which indicates 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
         pushes ELI/EL labels SHOULD include "Assoc 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 specific IP address OR label described in the "IP Multipath
         Information" section or "Label Multipath Information" section.
         For example, if 3 IP addresses are specified in the "IP
         Multipath Information" section, then there MUST be 3 labels
         described in this section.  First label maps to the lowest IP
         address specified, second label maps to the second lowest IP
         address specified and third label maps to the third lowest IP
         address specified.

9.  Unsupported Cases

   There are couple of scenarios where LSP path tracing mechanics are
   not supported in this draft revision.

   o  When one or more LSP transit node(s) performs label based load
      balancing on a label that is not bottom-of-stack label when
      Entropy Label Indicator is not included.





Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   o  When one or more LSP transit node(s) performs label based load
      balancing on a label other than Entropy Label when Entropy Label
      Indicator and Entropy Label pair is included.

10.  Security Considerations

   This document extends LSP Traceroute mechanism to discover and
   exercise ECMP paths when LSP uses ELI/EL in label stack.  Additional
   processings are required for responder and initiator nodes.
   Responder node that pushes ELI/EL will need to compute and return
   multipath data including associated EL.  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
   packet as well as in carried multipath information to downstream
   nodes.  Due to additional processing, it is critical that proper
   security measures described in [RFC4379] and [RFC6424] are followed.

11.  IANA Considerations

11.1.  New Sub-Registries

   [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.  Both TLVs
   shares two fields: "DS Flags" and "Multipath Type".  This document
   requires allocation of new values in both the "DS Flags" and
   "Multipath Type" fields, which are not maintained by IANA today.
   Therefore, this document requests IANA to create new registries
   within [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] protocol to maintain "DS Flags" and
   "Multipath Type" fields.  Name of registries and initial values are
   described in immediate sub-sections to follow.

11.1.1.  DS Flags

    Bit number Name                                        Reference
    ---------- ----------------------------------------    ---------
          7    N: Treat as a Non-IP Packet                 RFC4379
          6    I: Interface and Label Stack Object Request RFC4379
          5    E: ELI/EL push indicator                    this document
          4    L: Label based load balance indicator       this document
        3-0    Unassigned

   Assignments of DS Flags are via Standards Action [RFC5226] or IESG
   Approval [RFC5226].




Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   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.

11.1.2.  Multipath Type

    Value      Meaning                                  Reference
    ---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
          0    no multipath                             RFC4379
          1    Unassigned
          2    IP address                               RFC4379
          3    Unassigned
          4    IP address range                         RFC4379
        5-7    Unassigned
          8    Bit-masked IP address set                RFC4379
          9    Bit-masked label set                     RFC4379
         10    IP and label set                         this document
     11-255    Unassigned

   Assignments of Multipath Type are via IETF Review [RFC5226] or IESG
   Approval [RFC5226].

   Note that "Multipath Type" 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
   "Multipath Type" registry will affect both TLVs.

11.2.  Entropy Label FEC

   IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV from the "Sub-TLVs for TLV
   Types 1 and 16" section from "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry.

    Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name          Reference
    -------- ------------          ---------
        TBD1 Entropy Label FEC     this document

12.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Loa Andersson for performing thorough
   review and providing valuable comments.

13.  Contributing Authors

   Nagendra Kumar



Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   Cisco Systems
   Email: naikumar@cisco.com

14.  References

14.1.  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.

   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, November 2012.

14.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls]
              Singh, R., Shen, Y., and J. Drake, "Entropy label for
              seamless MPLS", draft-ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-
              mpls-01 (work in progress), October 2013.

   [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>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC6391]  Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
              J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires
              over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, November
              2011.

   [RFC6424]  Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
              Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
              Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.

Authors' Addresses






Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft            LSP Ping over Entropy            December 2013


   Nobo Akiya
   Cisco Systems

   Email: nobo@cisco.com


   George Swallow
   Cisco Systems

   Email: swallow@cisco.com


   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com



































Akiya, et al.             Expires June 18, 2014                [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/