Network Working Group George Swallow
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: January 2006
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Loa Andersson
Acreo
July 2005
Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 5 of RFC3667. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt July 2005
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Abstract
This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior
of currently deployed MPLS networks and makes best practice
recommendations for anyone defining an application to run over an
MPLS network and wishes to avoid such treatment.
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Terminology ............................................... 3
2 Current EMCP Practices .................................... 3
3 Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment ............... 5
4 Security Considerations ................................... 6
5 References ................................................ 6
5.1 Normative References ...................................... 6
6 Authors' Addresses ........................................ 6
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt July 2005
1. Introduction
This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of
currently deployed MPLS networks and makes best practice recommenda-
tions for anyone defining an application to run over an MPLS network
and wishes to avoid such treatment. While disabling ECMP behavior is
an option open to most operators, few (if any) have chosen to do so.
Thus ECMP behavior is a reality that must be reckoned with.
1.1. Terminology
ECMP Equal Cost Multipath
FEC Forwarding Equivalence Class
IP ECMP A forwarding behavior in which the selection of the
next-hop between equal cost routes is based on the
header(s) of an IP packet
Label ECMP A forwarding behavior in which the selection of the
next-hop between equal cost routes is based on the
label stack of an MPLS packet
LSP Label Switched Path
LSR Label Switching Router
2. Current EMCP Practices
The MPLS label stack and Forwarding Equivalence Classes are defined
in [RFC3031]. The MPLS label stack does not carry a Protocol Identi-
fier. Instead the payload of an MPLS packet is identified by the
Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) of the bottom most label. Thus it
is not possible to know the payload type if one does not know the
label binding for the bottom most label. Since an LSR which is pro-
cessing a label stack need only know the binding for the label(s) it
must process, it is very often the case that LSRs along an LSP are
unable to determine the payload type of the carried contents.
As a means of potentially reducing delay and congestion, IP networks
have taken advantage of multiple paths through a network by splitting
traffic flows across those paths. The general name for this practice
is Equal Cost Multipath or ECMP. In general this is done by hashing
on various fields on the IP or contained headers. In practice,
within a network core, the hashing in based mainly or exclusively on
the IP source and destination addresses. The reason for splitting
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt July 2005
aggregated flows in this manner is to minimize the re-ordering of
packets belonging to individual flows contained within the aggregated
flow. Within this document we use the term IP ECMP for this type of
forwarding algorithm.
In the early days of MPLS, the payload was almost exclusively IP.
Even today the overwhelming majority of carried traffic remains IP.
Providers of MPLS equipment sought to continue this IP ECMP behavior.
As shown above, it is not possible to know whether the payload of an
MPLS packet is IP at every place where IP ECMP needs to be performed.
Thus vendors have taken the liberty of guessing what the payload is.
By inspecting the first nibble beyond the label stack, it can be
inferred that a packet is not IPv4 or IPv6 if the value of the nibble
(where the IP version number would be found) is not 0x4 or 0x6
respectively. Most deployed LSRs will treat a packet whose first
nibble is equal to 0x4 as if the payload were IPv4 for purposes of IP
ECMP.
A consequence of this is that any application which defines a FEC
which does not take measures to prevent the values 0x4 and 0x6 from
occurring in the first nibble of the payload may be subject to IP
ECMP and thus having their flows take multiple paths and arriving
with considerable jitter and possibly out of order. While none of
this is in violation of the basic service offering of IP, it is
detrimental to the performance of various classes of applications.
It also complicates the measurement, monitoring and tracing of those
flows.
New MPLS payload types are emerging such as those specified by the
IETF PWE3 and AVT working groups. These payloads are not IP and, if
specified without constraint might be mistaken for IP.
It must also be noted that LSRs which correctly identify a payload as
not being IP, may still need to load-share this traffic across multi-
ple equal-cost paths. In this case a LABEL ECMP algorithm is
employed, where a hash is computed on all or part(s) of the label
stack. Any reserved label, no matter where it is located in the
stack, may be included in the computation for load balancing. Modi-
fication of the label stack between packets of a single flow could
result in re-ordering that flow. That is, were an explicit null or a
router-alert label to be added to a packet, that packet could take a
different path through the network.
Note that for some applications, being mistaken for IPv4 may not be
detrimental. The trivial case where the payload behind the top label
is a packet belonging to an MPLS IPv4 VPN. Here the real payload is
IP and most (if not all) deployed equipment will locate the end of
the label stack and correctly perform IP ECMP.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt July 2005
A less obvious case is when the packets of a given flow happen to
have constant values in the fields upon which IP ECMP would be per-
formed. For example if an ethernet frame immediately follows the
label and the LSR does not do ECMP on IPv6, then either the first
nibble will be 0x4 or it will be something else. If the nibble is
not 0x4 then no IP ECMP is performed, but Label ECMP may be per-
formed. If it is 0x4, then the constant values of the MAC addresses
overlay the fields that would be occupied by the source and destina-
tion addresses of an IP header.
3. Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment
The field in the figure below tagged "Application Label" is a label
of the FEC Type used/defined by the application. It is the bottom
most label in the label stack. As such its FEC Type defines the pay-
load which follows. Anyone defining an application to be transported
over MPLS is free to define new FEC Types and the format of the pay-
load which will be carried.
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 | Exp |0| TTL | MPLS
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . . . .
. . . . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | Exp |0| TTL | Label
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Application Label | Exp |1| TTL | Stack
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1st Nbl| | Payload
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In order to avoid IP ECMP treatment it is necessary that an applica-
tion take precautions to not be mistaken as IP by deployed equipment
that snoops on the presumed location of the IP Version field. Thus,
at a minimum, the chosen format must disallow the values 0x4 and 0x6
in the first nibble of their payload.
It is strongly recommended, however, that applications restrict the
first nibble values to 0x0 and 0x1. This will ensure that that their
traffic flows will not be affected if some future routing equipment
does similar snooping on some future version of IP.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt July 2005
4. Security Considerations
This memo documents current practices. As such it creates no new
security considerations.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, E. et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture", January 2001.
6. Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson
Acreo
Email: loa@pi.se
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
250, Longwater,
Green Park,
Reading, RG2 6GB, UK
Email: stbryant@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt July 2005
Expiration Date
January 2006
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR-
MATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
