Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-04

Network Working Group                                          A. Farrel
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Informational                                   H. Endo
Expires: May 16, 2013                                      Hitachi, Ltd.
                                                               R. Winter
                                                                     NEC
                                                                Y. Koike
                                                                     NTT
                                                                 M. Paul
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                       November 12, 2012

         Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs
                   draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-04

Abstract

   The Framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
   within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes how Maintenance
   Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) may be situated within
   network nodes at the incoming and outgoing interfaces.

   This document describes a way of forming OAM messages so that they
   can be targeted at MIPs on incoming or MIPs on outgoing interfaces,
   forwarded correctly through the forwarding engine, and handled
   efficiently in node implementations where there is no distinction
   between the incoming and outgoing MIP.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

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

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Requirements notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Summary of the Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Rejected Partial Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Per-Interface MIP Message Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

1.  Introduction

   The Framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
   within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)(the MPLS-TP OAM
   Framework, [RFC6371]) distinguishes two configurations for
   Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) on a node.  It
   defines per-node MIPs and per-interface MIPs, where a per-node MIP is
   a single MIP per node in an unspecified location within the node and
   per-interface MIPs are two (or more) MIPs per node on both sides of
   the forwarding engine.

   In-band OAM messages are sent using the Generic Associated Channel
   (G-ACh) [RFC5586].  OAM messages for the transit points of
   pseudowires (PWs) or Label Switched Paths (LSPs) are delivered using
   the expiration of the MPLS shim header time-to-live (TTL) field.  OAM
   messages for the end points of PWs and LSPs are simply delivered as
   normal.

   OAM messages delivered to end points or transit points are
   distinguished from other (data) packets so that they can be processed
   as OAM.  In LSPs, the mechanism used is the presence of the Generic
   Associated Channel Label (GAL) in the Label Stack Entry (LSE) under
   the top LSE [RFC5586].  In PWs, the mechanism used is the presence of
   the PW Associated Channel Header (PWACH) [RFC4385] or the presence of
   a GAL [RFC6423].

   In case multiple MIPs are present on a single node, these mechanisms
   alone provide no way to address one particular MIP out of the set of
   MIPs.

   This document describes a way of forming OAM messages so that they
   can be targeted at incoming MIPs and outgoing MIPs, forwarded
   correctly through the forwarding engine, and handled efficiently in
   node implementations where there is no distinction between the
   incoming and outgoing MIP.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF)/International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architecture to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

   Note that the acronym "OAM" is used in conformance with [RFC6291].

2.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  Terminology

   In this document we use the term in-MIP (incoming MIP) to refer to
   the MIP which processes OAM messages before they pass through the
   forwarding engine of a node.  An out-MIP (outgoing MIP) processes OAM
   messages after they have passed the forwarding engine of the node.
   The two together are referred to as internal MIPs.

4.  Summary of the Problem Statement

   Figure 1 shows an abstract functional representation of an MPLS-TP
   node.  It is decomposed as an incoming interface, a forwarding engine
   (FW), and an outgoing interface.  As per the discussion in [RFC6371],
   MIPs may be placed in each of the functional interface components.

                         ------------------------
                        |-----              -----|
                        | MIP |            | MIP |
                        |     |    ----    |     |
                 ----->-| In  |->-| FW |->-| Out |->----
                        | i/f |    ----    | i/f |
                        |-----              -----|
                         ------------------------

      Figure 1: Abstract Functional Representation of an MPLS-TP Node

   Several distinct OAM functions are required within this architectural
   model for both PWs and LSPs such as:

   o  CV between a MEP and a MIP
   o  traceroute over an MPLS-TP LSP and/or an MPLS-TP PW containing
      MIPs
   o  data-plane loopback configuration at a MIP
   o  diagnostic tests

   The MIPs in these OAM functions may equally be the MIPs at the
   incoming or outgoing interfaces.

   Per-interface MIPs have the advantage that they enable a more
   accurate localization and identification of faults and diagnostic
   test.  In particular, the identification of whether a problem is
   located between nodes or on a particular node and where on that node
   is greatly enhanced.  For obvious reasons, it is important to narrow

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

   the cause of a fault down quickly to initiate a timely, and well-
   directed maintenance action to resume normal network operation.

   The following two figures illustrate the fundamental difference of
   using per-node and per-interface MEPs and MIPs for OAM.  Figure 2
   depicts OAM using per-node MIPs and MEPs.  For reasons of exposition
   we pick a location for the MIPs on the nodes but the standard does
   not mandate the exact location for the per-node model.  Figure 3 on
   the other hand shows the same basic network but for OAM operations
   per-interface maintenance points are configured.

      Customer|           Operator's administrative     | Customer
      Domain  |           Domain                        | Domain
      ------> |<--------------------------------------->| <------
        CE1   |     PE1            P1           PE2     |   CE2
              |  <-------->    <-------->    <--------> |
       +---+  | +-+ +-+ +-+   +-+ +-+ +-+   +-+ +-+ +-+ |  +---+
       |   |  | | | | | | |   | | | | | |   | | | | | | |  |   |
       |   |  | | | | | | |   | | | | | |   | | | | | | |  |   |
       +---+  | +-+ +-+ +-+   +-+ +-+ +-+   +-+ +-+ +-+ |  +---+
              | In  FW  Out   In  FW  Out   In  FW  Out |
              |                                         |
      FWD LSP |  o-------------------------- >          |
              |  V-------------*-------------V          |
              | MEP1          MIP1          MEP2        |
      BWD LSP |  <---------------------------o          |
              |  V-------------*-------------V          |
              |         MEP1'        MIP1'         MEP2'|
             (S1)<============>
             (S2)<==========================>

        Figure 2: Example of OAM relying on per-node MIPs and MEPs

   To illustrate the difference between these two modes of operation, we
   use fault detection as an example.  Consider the case where the
   client traffic between CE1 and CE2 experiences a fault.  Also assume
   that an on-demand CV test between PE1 and PE2 was successful.  The
   scenario in Figure 2 therefore leaves the forwarding engine (FW) of
   PE2, the out-going interface of PE2, the transmission line between
   PE2 and CE2 or CE2 itself as a potential location of the fault as on-
   demand CV can only be performed on segment S2.

   The per-interface model in Figure 3 allows more fine-grained OAM
   operations to be performed.  At first, CV on segment S'4 and in
   addition CV on segment S'5 can help to rule out e.g. the forwarding

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

   engine of PE2.  This is of course only a single example, and other
   OAM functions and scenarios are trivially conceivable.  The basic
   message is that with the per-interface OAM model, an operator can
   configure smaller segments on a transport path to which OAM
   operations apply.  This enables a more fine-grained scoping of OAM
   operations such as fault localization and performance monitoring
   which gives operators better information to deal with adverse
   networking conditions.

      Customer           Operator's administrative       Customer
      Domain             Domain                          Domain
      ------->|<--------------------------------------->|<------
        CE1   |     PE1            P1           PE2     |   CE2
              |  <-------->    <-------->    <--------> |
       +---+  | +-+ +-+ +-+   +-+ +-+ +-+   +-+ +-+ +-+ |  +---+
       |   |  | | | | | | |   | | | | | |   | | | | | | |  |   |
       |   |  | | | | | | |   | | | | | |   | | | | | | |  |   |
       +---+  | +-+ +-+ +-+   +-+ +-+ +-+   +-+ +-+ +-+ |  +---+
              | In  FW  Out   In  FW  Out   In  FW  Out |
              |                                         |
      FWD LSP |  o----------------------------------->  |
              |  V-------*------*------*-----*-------V  |
              | MEP1    MIP1   MIP2   MIP3  MIP4    MEP2|
              |                                         |
      BWD LSP |  <-----------------------------------o  |
              | MEP1'   MIP1'  MIP2'  MIP3' MIP4'   MEP2'|
            (S'1)<======>
            (S'2)<=============>
            (S'3)<====================>
            (S'4)<==========================>
            (S'5)<==================================>

      Figure 3: Example of OAM relying on per-interface MIPs and MEPs

5.  Overview

   In-band OAM messages are sent using the G-ACh [RFC5586] for MPLS-TP
   LSPs and MPLS-TP PWs, respectively.  OAM messages for the transit
   points of PWs or LSPs are delivered using the expiration of the time-
   to-live (TTL) field in the top LSE of the MPLS packet header.  OAM
   messages for the end points of PWs and LSPs are simply delivered as
   normal.

   OAM messages delivered to end points or transit points are

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

   distinguished from other (data) packets so that they can be processed
   as OAM.  In LSPs, the mechanism used is the presence of the Generic
   Associated Channel Label (GAL) in the LSE under the top LSE
   [RFC5586].  In PWs, the mechanism used is the presence of the PW
   Associated Channel Header [RFC4385] or the presence of a GAL
   [RFC6423].

   Any solution for sending OAM messages to the in and out-MIPs must fit
   within these existing models of handling OAM.

   Additionally, many MPLS-TP nodes contain an optimization such that
   all queuing and the forwarding function is performed at the incoming
   interface.  The abstract functional representation of such a node is
   shown in Figure 4.  As shown in the figure, the outgoing interfaces
   are minimal and for this reason it may not be possible to include MIP
   functions on those interfaces.  This is in particular the case for
   existing deployed implementations.

   Any solution that attempts to send OAM messages to the outgoing
   interface of an MPLS-TP node must not cause any problems when such
   implementations are present.

                             ------------------
                            |------------      |
                            | MIP        |     |
                            |      ----  |     |
                     ----->-| In  | FW | |-->--|->---
                            | i/f  ----  |     |
                            |------------      |
                             ------------------

   Figure 4: Abstract Functional Representation of an Optimized MPLS-TP
                                   Node

   Lastly, OAM must operate on MPLS-TP nodes that are branch points on
   point-to-multipoint (P2MP) trees.  That means that it must be
   possible to target individual outgoing MIPs as well as all outgoing
   MIPs in the abstract functional representation shown in Figure 5, as
   well as to handle the optimized P2MP node as shown in Figure 6.

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

                         --------------------------
                        |                     -----|
                        |                    | MIP |
                        |                 ->-|     |->----
                        |                |   | Out |
                        |                |   | i/f |
                        |                |    -----|
                        |-----           |    -----|
                        | MIP |    ----  |   | MIP |
                        |     |   |    |-    |     |
                 ----->-| In  |->-| FW |--->-| Out |->----
                        | i/f |   |    |-    | i/f |
                        |-----     ----  |    -----|
                        |                |    -----|
                        |                |   | MIP |
                        |                |   |     |
                        |                 ->-| Out |->----
                        |                    | i/f |
                        |                     -----|
                         --------------------------

      Figure 5: Abstract Functional Representation of an MPLS-TP Node
                              Supporting P2MP

                           ------------------
                          |               ->-|->----
                          |              |   |
                          |------------  |   |
                          |            | |   |
                          | MIP  ----  | |   |
                          |     |    | |-    |
                   ----->-| In  | FW | |--->-|->----
                          | i/f |    | |-    |
                          |      ----  | |   |
                          |            | |   |
                          |------------  |   |
                          |              |   |
                          |               ->-|->----
                           ------------------

   Figure 6: Abstract Functional Representation of an Optimized MPLS-TP
                           Node Supporting P2MP

   In summary, the solution for OAM message delivery must support the
   following features:

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

   o  Forwarding of OAM packets exactly as data packets.
   o  Delivery of OAM messages to the correct MPLS-TP node.
   o  Delivery of OAM instructions to the correct MIP within an MPLS-TP
      node.
   o  Packet inspection at the incoming and outgoing interfaces must be
      minimized.

   Note that although this issue appears superficially to be an
   implementation matter local to an individual node, the format of the
   message needs to be standardised so that:

   o  A MEP can correctly target the outgoing MIP of a specific MPLS-TP
      node.
   o  A node can correctly filter out any OAM messages that were
      intended for its upstream neighbor's outgoing MIP, but which were
      not handled there because the upstream neighbor is an optimized
      implementation.

   Note that the last bullet point describes a safety net and an
   implementation should avoid that this situation ever arises.

5.1.  Rejected Partial Solution

   A rejected solution is depicted in Figure 7.  All data and non-local
   OAM is handled as normal.  Local OAM is intercepted at the incoming
   interface and delivered to the MIP at the incoming interface.  If the
   OAM is intended for the incoming MIP it is handled there with no
   issue.  If the OAM is intended for the outgoing MIP it is forwarded
   to that MIP using some internal messaging system that is
   implementation-specific.

                           ------------------------
                          |-----              -----|
         local OAM ----->-| MIP |----->------| MIP |
                          |     |    ----    |     |
              data =====>=| In  |=>=| FW |=>=| Out |=>==== data
     non-local OAM ~~~~~>~| i/f |~>~|    |~>~| i/f |~>~~~~ non-local OAM
                          |-----     ----     -----|
                           ------------------------

      Figure 7: OAM Control Message Delivery Bypassing the Forwarding
                                  Engine

   This solution is fully functional for the incoming MIP.  It also
   supports control of data loopback for the outgoing MIP, and can
   adequately perform some OAM features such as interface identity
   reporting at the outgoing MIP.

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

   However, because the OAM message is not forwarded through the
   forwarding engine, this solution cannot correctly perform OAM
   loopback, connectivity verification, LSP tracing, or performance
   measurement.

6.  Per-Interface MIP Message Handling

   The preferred solution to per-interface MIP message handling is
   presented in this section.  The appendix of this document contains a
   few solutions that the authors have discarded which have been left in
   the document for informational purposes.

   Per-interface MIP addressing should not require changes to existing
   OAM solutions.  Therefore, identification information that specific
   OAM mechanisms already contain should be (re-)used to address the
   MIPs on a node.  Upcoming OAM solutions therefore need to
   individually make sure that enough of that information is present to
   support the per-interface model.  In particular, the MIP identifiers
   as described in [RFC6370] or [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers]
   need to be present in OAM messages.  [RFC6370] and
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers] define formats that support the
   per-interface model which is sufficient for this purpose.  In
   addition, some constraints must be agreed on.

   Regarding the features we required earlier from a solution this
   translates to:

   o  Feature 1: "Forwarding of OAM packets exactly as data packets"
      *  Using existing identification information in OAM messages for
         internal-MIP addressing has no implications on the way data
         packets and non-local OAM packets are handled as the label
         stack is not altered for the purpose of MIP addressing.  Also
         the TTL processing remains untouched.  This means that the TTL
         will expire on the ingress.
   o  Feature 2: "Delivery of OAM messages to the correct MPLS-TP node"
      *  The node itself is addresses using TTL expiry.  Therefore, per-
         interface MIP addressing does not alter node addressing.
   o  Feature 3: "Delivery of OAM instructions to the correct MIP within
      an MPLS-TP node"
      *  The identification information containted in the OAM packet is
         used to tell whether the packet is for the in-MIP or the out-
         MIP.
   o  Feature 4: "Packet inspection at the incoming and outgoing
      interfaces must be minimized"
      *  Additional packet inspection compared to the per-node case is
         inevitably needed.  The identification information indside the
         OAM message needs to be considered in order to deliver the

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

         packet to the correct MIP.

   The above illustrates how in principle per-MIP addressing operates.
   Another issue of concern was the correct filtering of OAM messages at
   a downstream node, that were intended for an upstream node's outgoing
   MIP.  Since OAM messages expire on the ingress, the legacy upstream
   neighbor will actually process the packet.  Since the identification
   information is not correct, the node should discard that packet.
   Leakage should therefore not occur.

   There might be certain cases where MIP identifiers are not know a
   priori to other nodes in the network, e.g. in scenarios with static
   MPLS-TP LSP and PWs.  A head end performing route tracing e.g. would
   have no means to address MIPs in this model.  In case OAM solutions
   expect MIPs to anwser without prior knowledge of the identifier, it
   is expected that these OAM solutions specify the MIP behaviour in
   these cases.  This could involve unconditional answers from MIPs for
   certain OAM messages or reserved MIP address for certain OAM tools
   but the specification of this behaviour is outside the scope of this
   document.

7.  Security Considerations

   OAM security is discussed in [RFC6371] and security aspects specific
   to MPLS-TP in general are outlined in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework].

   OAM can provide useful information for detecting and tracing security
   attacks.

   OAM can also be used to illicitly gather information or for denial of
   service attacks and other types of attack.  Implementations therefore
   are required to offer security mechanisms for OAM.  Deployments are
   strongly advised to use such mechanisms.

   Mixing of per-node and per-interface OAM on a single node is not
   advised as OAM message leakage could be the result.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This revision of this document does not make any requests of IANA.

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors gratefully acknowledge the substantial contributions of

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

   Zhenlong Cui. We would also like to thank Eric Gray and Sami Boutros
   for interesting input to this document through discussions.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers]
              Winter, R., Gray, E., Helvoort, H., and M. Betts, "MPLS-TP
              Identifiers Following ITU-T Conventions",
              draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers-06 (work in
              progress), November 2012.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
              Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

   [RFC6370]  Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
              Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.

   [RFC6371]  Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
              Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
              RFC 6371, September 2011.

   [RFC6423]  Li, H., Martini, L., He, J., and F. Huang, "Using the
              Generic Associated Channel Label for Pseudowire in the
              MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)", RFC 6423,
              November 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework]
              Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., Mansfield, S., and R.
              Graveman, "MPLS-TP Security Framework",
              draft-ietf-mpls-tp-security-framework-05 (work in
              progress), October 2012.

   [RFC6291]  Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
              D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
              Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291, June 2011.

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            Internal MIP Handling            November 2012

Authors' Addresses

   Adrian Farrel
   Juniper Networks

   Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

   Hideki Endo
   Hitachi, Ltd.

   Email: hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com

   Rolf Winter
   NEC

   Email: rolf.winter@neclab.eu

   Yoshinori Koike
   NTT

   Email: koike.yoshinori@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Manuel Paul
   Deutsche Telekom

   Email: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de

Farrel, et al.            Expires May 16, 2013                 [Page 14]