Network Working Group B. Black
Internet Draft Layer8 Networks
Category: Experimental K. Kompella
Juniper Networks
Expires: October 2004 April 2004
Maximum Transmission Unit Signalling Extensions
for the Label Distribution Protocol
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-mtu-extensions-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 1]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
Abstract
Proper functioning of RFC 1191 path Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)
discovery requires that IP routers have knowledge of the MTU for each
link to which they are connected. As currently specified, the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP) does not have the ability to signal the
MTU for a Label Switched Path (LSP) to the ingress Label Switching
Router (LSR). In the absence of this functionality, the MTU for each
LSP must be statically configured by network operators or by
equivalent, off-line mechanisms.
This document specifies experimental extensions to LDP in support of
LSP MTU discovery.
Conventions used in this document
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 [1].
Changes from last version
[Note to RFC Editor: please remove this section before publishing.]
- changed category to Experimental
- incorporated suggestions from WG chairs and IESG
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 2]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
1. Introduction
As currently specified in [2], the LDP protocol for MPLS does not
support signalling of the MTU for LSPs to ingress LSRs. This
functionality is essential to the proper functioning of RFC 1191 path
MTU detection [3]. Without knowledge of the MTU for an LSP, edge
LSRs may transmit packets along that LSP which are, according to [4],
too big. Such packets may be silently discarded by LSRs along the
LSP, effectively preventing communication between certain end hosts.
The solution proposed in this document enables automatic
determination of the MTU for an LSP with the addition of a Type-
Length-Value triplet (TLV) to carry MTU information for a Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) between adjacent LSRs in LDP Label Mapping
messages. This information is sufficient for a set of LSRs along the
path followed by an LSP to discover either the exact MTU for that
LSP, or an approximation which is no worse than could be generated
with local information on the ingress LSR.
2. MTU Signalling
The signalling procedure described in this document employs the
addition of a single TLV to LDP Label Mapping messages and a simple
algorithm for LSP MTU calculation.
2.1. Definitions
Link MTU: the MTU of a given link. This size includes the IP header
and data (or other payload) and the label stack, but does not include
any lower-layer headers. A link may be an interface (such as
Ethernet or Packet-over-SONET), a tunnel (such as GRE or IPsec) or an
LSP.
Peer LSRs: for LSR A and FEC F, this is the set of LSRs that sent a
Label Mapping for FEC F to A.
Downstream LSRs: for LSR A and FEC F, this is the subset of A's peer
LSRs for FEC F to whom A will forward packets for the FEC.
Typically, this subset is determined via the routing table.
Hop MTU: the MTU of an LSP hop between an upstream LSR A and a
downstream LSR B. This size includes the IP header and data (or
other payload) and the part of the label stack that is considered
payload as far as this LSP goes. It does not include any lower-level
headers. (Note: if there are multiple links between A and B, the Hop
MTU is the minimum of the Hop MTU of those links used for
forwarding.)
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 3]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
LSP MTU: the MTU of an LSP from a given LSR to the egress(es), over
each valid (forwarding) path. This size includes the IP header and
data (or other payload) and any part of the label stack that was
received by the ingress LSR before it placed the packet into the LSP
(this part of the label stack is considered part of the payload for
this LSP). The size does not include any lower-level headers.
2.2. Example
Consider LSRs A-F interconnected as follows:
M P
_____ C =====
/ | \
A ~~~~~ B ===== D ----- E ----- F
L N Q R
Say that the link MTU for link L is 9216, for links M, Q and R is
4470, and for N and P is 1500.
Consider a FEC X for which F is the egress, and say that all LSRs
advertise X to their neighbors.
Note that while LDP may be running on the C-D link, it is not used
for forwarding (e.g., because it has a high metric). In particular,
D is an LDP neighbor of C, but D is not one of C's downstream LSRs
for FEC X.
E's peers for FEC X are C, D and F. Say E chooses F as its
downstream LSR for X. E's Hop MTU for link R is 4466. If F
advertised an implicit null label to E, then E MAY set the Hop MTU
for R to 4470.
C's peers for FEC X are B, D and E. Say C chooses E as its
downstream LSR for X. Similarly, A chooses B, B chooses C and D
(equal cost multi-path), D chooses E and E chooses F (respectively)
as their downstream LSRs.
C's Hop MTU to E for FEC X is 1496. B's Hop MTU to C is 4466, and to
D is 1496. A's LSP MTU for FEC X is 1496. If A has another LSP for
FEC Y to F (learned via targetted LDP) that rides over the LSP for
FEC X, the MTU for that LSP would be 1492.
If B had a targetted LDP session to E, say over an RSVP-TE tunnel T,
and B received a Mapping for FEC X over the targetted LDP session,
then E would also be B's peer, and E may be chosen as a downstream
LSR for B. In that case, B's LSP MTU for FEC X would then be the
smaller of {(T's MTU - 4), E's LSP MTU for X}.
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 4]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
This memo describes how A determines its LSP MTU for FECs X and Y.
2.3. Signalling Procedure
The procedure for signalling the MTU is performed hop-by-hop by each
LSR L along an LSP for a given FEC F. The steps are as follows:
1. First, L computes the its LSP MTU for FEC F:
A. If L is the egress for F, L sets the LSP MTU for F to 65535.
B. [OPTIONAL] If L's only downstream LSR is the egress for F
(i.e., L is a penultimate hop for F), and L receives an
implicit null label as its Mapping for F, then L can set the
Hop MTU for its downstream link to the link MTU instead of
(link MTU - 4 octets). L's LSP MTU for F is the Hop MTU.
C. Otherwise (L is not the egress LSR), L computes the LSP MTU
for F as follows:
a) L determines its downstream LSRs for FEC F.
b) For each downstream LSR Z, L computes the minimum of the
Hop MTU to Z and the LSP MTU in the MTU TLV that Z
advertised to L. If Z did not include the MTU TLV in its
Label Mapping, then Z's LSP MTU is set to 65535.
c) L sets its LSP MTU to the minimum of the MTUs it computed
for its downstream LSRs.
2. For each LDP neighbor (direct or targetted) of L to which L
decides to send a Mapping for FEC F, L attaches an MTU TLV with
the LSP MTU that it computed for this FEC. L MAY (because of
policy or other reasons) advertise a smaller MTU than it has
computed, but L MUST NOT advertise a larger MTU.
3. When a new MTU is received for FEC F from a downstream LSR, or
the set of downstream LSRs for F changes, L returns to Step 1.
If the newly computed LSP MTU is unchanged, L SHOULD NOT
advertise new information to its neighbors. Otherwise, L
readvertises its Mappings for F to all its peers with an updated
MTU TLV.
This behavior is standard for attributes such as path vector and
hop count, and the same rules apply, as specified in [2].
If the LSP MTU decreases, L SHOULD readvertise the new MTU
immediately; if the LSP MTU increases, L MAY hold down the
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 5]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
readvertisement.
2.4. MTU TLV
The MTU TLV encodes information on the maximum transmission unit for
an LSP, from the advertising LSR to the egress(es) over all valid
paths.
The encoding for the MTU TLV is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|1| MTU TLV (0x0XXX) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
MTU
This is a 16-bit unsigned integer that represents the MTU in octets
for an LSP or segment of an LSP.
Note that the U and F bits are set. An LSR that doesn't recognize
the MTU TLV MUST ignore it when it processes the Label Mapping
message, and forward the TLV to its peers. This may result in the
incorrect computation of the LSP MTU; however, silently forwarding
the MTU TLV preserves maximal amount of information about the LSP
MTU.
3. Example of Operation
Consider the example network in section 2.2. Table 1 describes, for
each LSR, the links to its downstream LSRs, the Hop MTU for the peer,
the LSP MTU received from the peer, and the LSR's computed LSP MTU.
Now consider the same network with the following changes: there is an
LSP T from B to E, and a targetted LDP session from B to E. B's peer
LSRs are A, C, D and E; B's downstream LSRs are D and E; to reach E,
B chooses to go over T. The LSP MTU for LSP T is 1496. This
information is depicted in Table 2.
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 6]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
LSR | Link | Hop MTU | Recvd MTU | LSP MTU
--------------------------------------------------
F | - | 65535 | - | 65535
--------------------------------------------------
E | R | 4466 | F: 65535 | 4466
--------------------------------------------------
D | Q | 4466 | E: 4466 | 4466
--------------------------------------------------
C | P | 1496 | E: 4466 | 1496
--------------------------------------------------
B | M | 4466 | C: 1496 |
| N | 1496 | D: 4466 | 1496
--------------------------------------------------
A | L | 9212 | B: 1496 | 1496
--------------------------------------------------
Table 1
LSR | Link | Hop MTU | Recvd MTU | LSP MTU
--------------------------------------------------
F | - | 65535 | - | 65535
--------------------------------------------------
E | R | 4466 | F: 65535 | 4466
--------------------------------------------------
D | Q | 4466 | E: 4466 | 4466
--------------------------------------------------
C | P | 1496 | E: 4466 | 1496
--------------------------------------------------
B | T | 1492 | E: 4466 |
| N | 1496 | D: 4466 | 1492
--------------------------------------------------
A | L | 9212 | B: 1492 | 1492
--------------------------------------------------
Table 2
4. Using the LSP MTU
An ingress LSR that forwards an IP packet into an LSP whose MTU it
knows MUST either fragment the IP packet to the LSP's MTU (if the
Don't Fragment bit is clear) or drop the packet and respond with an
ICMP Destination Unreachable message to the source of the packet,
with the Code indicating "fragmentation needed and DF set", and the
Next-Hop MTU set to the LSP MTU. In other words, the LSR behaves as
RFC 1191 says, except it treats the LSP as the next hop "network".
If the payload for the LSP is not an IP packet, the LSR MUST forward
the packet if it fits (size <= LSP MTU), and SHOULD drop it if it
doesn't fit.
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 7]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
5. Protocol Interaction
5.1. Interaction With LSRs Which Do Not Support MTU Signalling
Changes in MTU for sections of an LSP may cause intermediate LSRs to
generate unsolicited label Mapping messages to advertise the new MTU.
LSRs which do not support MTU signalling will accept these messages,
but will ignore them (see Section 2.4).
5.2. Interaction with CR-LDP and RSVP-TE
The MTU TLV can be used to discover the Path MTU of both LDP LSPs and
CR-LDP LSPs. This proposal is not impacted in the presence of LSPs
created using CR-LDP, as specified in [5].
Note that LDP/CR-LDP LSPs may tunnel through other LSPs signalled
using LDP, CR-LDP or RSVP-TE [6]; the mechanism suggested here
applies in all these cases, essentially by treating the tunnel LSPs
as links.
Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[2] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and B.
Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001
[3] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191,
November 1990
[4] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Federkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D.,
Li, T. and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032,
January 2001
[6] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V. and G.
Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
3209, December 2001
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 8]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
Informative References
[5] Jamoussi, B., Ed., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup Using LDP", RFC
3212, January 2002
Security Considerations
This mechanism does not introduce any new weaknesses in LDP. It is
possible to spoof TCP packets belonging to an LDP session to
manipulate the LSP MTU, but LDP has mechanisms (see Section 5 of [2])
to thwart these types of attacks.
IANA Considerations
A new LDP TLV Type is defined in section 2.4. A Type has to be
allocated by IANA; a number from the range 0x0000 - 0x3DFF is
requested.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Andre Fredette for a number of detailed
comments on earlier versions of the signalling mechanism. Eric Gray,
Giles Heron and Mark Duffy have contributed numerous useful
suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
Benjamin Black
Layer8 Networks
EMail: ben@layer8.net
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 9]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
IPR Notice
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 10]
Internet Draft MTU Signalling Extensions for LDP April 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement:
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Black & Kompella Experimental [Page 11]