PMS/Head-end based MPLS Ping and Traceroute in Inter-AS SR Networks
draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Shraddha Hegde , Kapil Arora , Samson Ninan | ||
Last updated | 2019-07-04 | ||
Replaced by | draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Additional resources | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ninan-spring-mpls-inter-as-oam-00
Internet-Draft Inter-as-OAM July 2019 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Type = TBD | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | No. of labels | Reseved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label (20 bits) | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: Reverse Path label stack TLV Type: TBD Length: Length of TLV including TLV header No. Of elements in set: Ordered set of Labels in the Reverse Path label stack Label : Represents 20 bit label. This field should be used to build the return packet. The first label in the label stack represents the top most label that should be encoded in the return packet. 2.2. SRv6 Dataplane A future version of this document will address the SRv6 Dataplane. 3. Detailed Procedures 3.1. Sending an Echo-Request LSP ping initiator MUST add a Return Path Label Stack TLV in the Echo-request message. The return label stack MUST correspond to the return path from the egress. The Reverse Path Label Stack TLV is an ordered list of labels. The first label corresponds to the top label that the reponder should use to construct the Echo-reply. Hegde, et al. Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Inter-as-OAM July 2019 3.2. Receiving an Echo-Request When a receiver does not understand the Reverse Path Label Stack TLV, it SHOULD silently ignore the TLV and proceed with normal processing as described in [RFC8029].When a Reverse Path Label Stack TLV is received, and the responder supports processing it, it MUST use the labels in Reverse Path Label Stack TLV to build the echo-reply. The responder MUST follow the normal FEC validation procedures as described in [RFC8029] and [RFC8287] and this document does not suggest any change to those procedures. When the Echo-reply has to be sent out the Reverse Path label Stack TLV is used to construct the MPLs packet to send out. 3.3. Sending an Echo-Reply The Echo-Reply message is sent as mpls packet with a mpls label stack. The Echo-Reply message MUST be constructed as described in the [RFC8029]. An MPLS packet is constructed with Echo-reply in the payload. The top label MUST be the first label from the Reverse Path Label Stack TLV. The remaining labels MUST follow the order from the Reverse Path Label Stack. The responder MAY check the reachability of the top label in its own LFIB before sending the Echo-Reply. 4. Detailed Example An example topology is given in Figure 1 . This will be used in below sections to explain LSP Ping and Traceroute procedures. The PMS/ Head-end has complete view of topology. PE1, P1, P2, ASBR1 and ASBR2 are in AS1. Similarly ASBR3, ASBR4, P3, P4 and PE4 are in AS2. AS1 and AS2 are Segment Routing enabled. IGPs like OSPF/ISIS are used to flood SIDs in each Autonomous System. The ASBR1, ASBR2, ASBR3, ASBR4 advertise BGP EPE SIDs for the inter-AS links. Topology of AS1 and AS2 are advertised via BGP-LS to the controller/PMS or Head-end node. The EPE-SIDs are also advertised via BGP-LS as described in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] The description in the document uses below notations for Segment Identifiers(SIDs). Node SIDs : N-PE1, N-P1, N-ASBR1 etc. Adjacency SIDs : Adj-PE1-P1, Adj-P1-P2 etc. EPE SIDS : EPE-ASBR2-ASBR3, EPE-ASBR1-ASBR4, EPE-ASBR3-ASBR2 etc. Let us consider a traffic engineered path built from PE1 to PE4 with label stack as below. N-P1, N-ASBR1, EPE-ASBR1-ASBR4, N-PE4 for Hegde, et al. Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Inter-as-OAM July 2019 following procedures. This stack may be programmed by controller/PMS or Head-end router PE1 may have imported the whole topology information from BGP-LS and computed the inter-AS path. 4.1. Procedures for Segment Routing LSP ping To perform LSP ping procedure on an SR-Path from PE1 to PE4 consisting of label stack [N-P1,N-ASBR1,EPE-ASBR1-ASBR4, N-PE4], The remote end(PE4) needs IP connectivity to head end(PE1) for the Segment Routing ping to succeed, because Echo-reply needs to travel back to PE1 from PE4. But in typical deployment scenario there will be no ip route from PE4 to PE1 as they belong to different ASes. PE1 adds Reverse Path from PE4 to PE1 in the MPLS Echo-request using multiple labels in "Reverse Path Label Stack TLV" as defined above. An example return path label stack for PE1 to PE4 for LSP ping i [N-ASBR4, EPE-ASBR4-ASBR1, N-PE1]. An implementation may also build a Reverse Path Label stack consisting of labels to reach its own AS. Once the label stack is popped-off the Echo-reply message will be exposed.The further packet forwarding will be based on ip lookup. An example Reverse Path Label Stack for this case could be [N-ASBR4, EPE-ASBR4-ASBR1]. On receiving MPLS Echo-request PE4 first validates FEC in the Echo- request and calculates label stack to send the response from PE4 to PE1 using "Return label stack TLV". PE4 builds the Echo-reply packet with the mpls label stack constructed out of Reverse Path Label Stack TLV and sends out the Echo-reply to PE1. This label stack can successfully steer reply back to Head-end node(PE1). 4.2. Procedures for Segment Routing LSP Traceroute As described in the procedures for LSP ping, the return label stack may be sent from head-end in which case the LSP Traceroute procedures are similar to mpls-ping. The head-end constructs the Reverse Path Label Stack TLV and the egress node uses the Reverse Path Label Stack to construct the Echo-reply packet header. Head-end/PMS is aware of the return path from every node visited in the network and builds the Reverse Path Label Stack for every visited node accordingly. For Example: For the same traffic engineered path PE1 to PE4 mentioned in above sections, let us assume there is no return path available from the nodes ASBR2 to PE1. During the Traceroute procedure, when PE1 has to visit ASBR2, it builds Return Path Label Stack TLV and includes label to the border-node which has the route to, PE1. In this example the Return Path Label Stack TLV will contain [EPE-ASBR2-ASBR1]. Further Hegde, et al. Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Inter-as-OAM July 2019 down the traceroute procedure when P3 or P4 node is being visited, PE1 build the Return Path Label Stack TLV containing [N-ASBR2, EPE- ASBR2-ASBR1]. The Echo-reply will be an mpls packet with this label stack and will be forwarded to PE1. 5. Security Considerations TBD 6. IANA Considerations Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters TLVs Registry Reverse Path label stack TLV : TBD 7. Acknowledgments 8. References 8.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe] Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Aries, E., and D. Afanasiev, "Segment Routing Centralized BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central- epe-10 (work in progress), December 2017. [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>. 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe] Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray, S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls- segment-routing-epe-19 (work in progress), May 2019. [I-D.ietf-mpls-interas-lspping] Nadeau, T. and G. Swallow, "Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures in Inter-AS and inter-provider Scenarios", draft- ietf-mpls-interas-lspping-00 (work in progress), March 2007. Hegde, et al. Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Inter-as-OAM July 2019 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22 (work in progress), May 2019. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC7743] Luo, J., Ed., Jin, L., Ed., Nadeau, T., Ed., and G. Swallow, Ed., "Relayed Echo Reply Mechanism for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping", RFC 7743, DOI 10.17487/RFC7743, January 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7743>. [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>. [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. [RFC8403] Geib, R., Ed., Filsfils, C., Pignataro, C., Ed., and N. Kumar, "A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane Monitoring System", RFC 8403, DOI 10.17487/RFC8403, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8403>. [RFC8604] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Dawra, G., Ed., Henderickx, W., and D. Cooper, "Interconnecting Millions of Endpoints with Segment Routing", RFC 8604, DOI 10.17487/RFC8604, June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8604>. Authors' Addresses Shraddha Hegde Juniper Networks Inc. Exora Business Park Bangalore, KA 560103 India Email: shraddha@juniper.net Hegde, et al. Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Inter-as-OAM July 2019 Kapil Arora Juniper Networks Inc. Email: kapilaro@juniper.net Samson Ninan Juniper Networks Inc. Email: samsonn@juniper.net Hegde, et al. Expires January 5, 2020 [Page 10]