MPLS WG Meeting IETF 58 Paris Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures in Inter-AS and inter-provider Scenarios draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-00.txt Tom.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
OLD DOG CONSULTING Challenges and Solutions for OAM in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Ltd. Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Advertisements

© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Addressing the Network – IPv4 Network Fundamentals – Chapter 6.
© 2001, Cisco Systems, Inc. Ethernet over Multiprotocol Label Switching.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 W. Schulte Chapter 5: Inter-VLAN Routing Routing And Switching.
IPv4 and IPv6 Mobility Support Using MPLS and MP-BGP draft-berzin-malis-mpls-mobility-00 Oleg Berzin, Andy Malis {oleg.berzin,
Pseudowire Endpoint Fast Failure Protection draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00 Rahul Aggarwal Yimin Shen
MPLS over L2TPv3 for support of RFC 2547-based BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
A General approach to MPLS Path Protection using Segments Ashish Gupta Ashish Gupta.
MPLS L3 and L2 VPNs Virtual Private Network –Connect sites of a customer over a public infrastructure Requires: –Isolation of traffic Terminology –PE,
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v2.2—5#-1 MPLS VPN Implementation Configuring OSPF as the Routing Protocol Between PE and CE Routers.
1 ICMP – Using Ping and Trace CCNA Semester
LSP-Ping extensions for MPLS-TP draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping- extensions-00 Nitin Bahadur Sami Boutros Rahul Aggarwal Eric Gray.
1 LSP-Trace over MPLS tunnels draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-00 Nitin BahadurJuniper Networks Kireeti KompellaJuniper Networks IETF 69, MPLS WG,
November th Requirements for supporting Customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN draft-kumaki-l3VPN-e2e-mpls-rsvp-te-reqts-05.txt.
61st IETF Washington DC November 2004 Detecting P2MP Data Plane Failures draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt Seisho Yasukawa -
Draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple Nobo Akiya George Swallow Carlos Pignataro Loa Andersson Mach Chen Shaleen Saxena IETF 88, Vancouver, Canada.
21.1 Chapter 21 Network Layer: Address Mapping, Error Reporting, and Multicasting Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction.
© 2008 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 Chapter 5: Inter-VLAN Routing Routing And Switching.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Addressing the Network – IPv4 Network Fundamentals – Chapter 6.
LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation over ACH draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures Nitin BahadurRahul Aggarwal Dave WardTom Nadeau Nurit SprecherYaacov.
LSP Ping Relay Reply L. Jin J. Luo T. Nadeau G. Swallow.
Lectured By: Vivek Dimri Asst Professor CSE Deptt. Sharda University, Gr. Noida.
1 Version 3.1 modified by Brierley Module 8 TCP/IP Suite Error and Control Messages.
1 LSP-Trace over MPLS tunnels draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 Nitin BahadurJuniper Networks Kireeti KompellaJuniper Networks George SwallowCisco.
PA3: Router Junxian (Jim) Huang EECS 489 W11 /
© 2002, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved..
1 IETF- 56 – TE WG- SAN FRANCISCO Inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering draft-vasseur-inter-AS-TE-00.txt Jean-Philippe Vasseur – Cisco Systems Raymond Zhang.
Using BGP between PE and CE in EVPN draft-li-l2vpn-evpn-pe-ce-01 Zhenbin Li, Junlin Zhuang, Shunwan Zhuang (Huawei Technologies) IETF 90, Toronto, Canada.
Operations and Maintenance Next Generation Requirements draft-amante-oam-ng-requirements-01 Shane Amante Alia Atlas Andrew Lange Danny McPherson March.
Support for RSVP in Layer 3 VPNs draft-davie-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-01.txt Bruce Davie François le Faucheur Ashok Narayanan Cisco Systems.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 IETF 84 – Vancouver August 2012 LSP Ping Support for E-VPN and PBB-
Inter-AS Options for NVO3 and BGP/MPLS VPN Weiguo Hao, Lucy Yong, Sue Hares, Robert Raszuk Luyuan Fang, Osama Zia, Shahram Davari, Andrew Qu March 2015.
Segment-based EVPN (S-EVPN) draft-li-l2vpn-segment-evpn-01 Zhenbin Li (Presenter) Lucy Yong Junlin Zhang March, 2014 London United Kingdom.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 Upstream mapping in Echo Request draft-ankur-mpls-upstream-mapping-00 Ankur.
Draft-li-mpls-proxy-te-lsp-01IETF 90 MPLS1 Proxy MPLS Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path(LSP) draft-li-mpls-proxy-te-lsp-01 Zhenbin Li, Xinzong Zeng.
LSP-Ping extensions for MPLS-TP draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions-01 Nitin Bahadur Sami Boutros Rahul Aggarwal Eric Gray 1IETF 77 MPLS WG IETF 77,
Pseudo Wire (PW) Virtual Circuit Connection Verification (VCCV) Update Thomas D. Nadeau Cisco Systems, Inc Rahul Aggarwal (Presenter) Juniper Networks.
MULTI-PROTOCOL LABEL SWITCHING By: By: YASHWANT.V YASHWANT.V ROLL NO:20 ROLL NO:20.
L3VPN WG mLDP Recursive FEC Using mLDP through a Backbone where there is no Route to the Root draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-recurs-fec Name changed.
Inter-AS Option C between NVO3 and BGP/MPLS IP VPN network draft-hao-bess-inter-nvo3-vpn-optionc-00 Weiguo Hao Lucy Yong Susan Hares Nov, 2014 Honolulu.
76rd IETF - Hiroshima, Japan I. M. draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc-02.
RSVP Setup Protection draft-shen-mpls-rsvp-setup-protection-00 Yimin Shen (Juniper Networks) Yuji Kamite (NTT Communication) IETF 83, Paris, France.
82 nd Taipei Protection Mechanisms for LDP P2MP/MP2MP LSP draft-zhao-mpls-mldp-protections-00.txt Quintin Zhao, Emily Chen, Huawei.
Cisco Routers Routers collectively provide the main feature of the network layer—the capability to forward packets end-to-end through a network. routers.
1 © 2004, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. CCNA 2 v3.1 Module 8 TCP/IP Suite Error and Control Messages.
IETF 67, Nov 2006Slide 1 VCCV Extensions for Multi- Segment Pseudo-Wire draft-hart-pwe3-segmented-pw-vccv-01.txt draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-04.txt Mustapha.
Lecture#6:Connectivity Verification
Requirements for LER Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
draft-patel-raszuk-bgp-vector-routing-01
Connectivity Verification
Jean-Philippe Vasseur – Cisco Systems Raymond Zhang - Infonet
Chapter 6 – Routing.
Yimin Shen (Juniper) Rahul Aggarwal (Arktan Inc)
ICMP – Using Ping and Trace
Lecture#7:Connectivity Verification
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in OSPF
ICMP – Using Ping and Trace
RFC 3036 FECs RFC 3036 defines FECs used to bind labels to address prefixes in routing table Two FECs defined: Address Prefix FEC Host Address FEC Not.
ITL Simple Diagnostic Tools
Zhenbin Li, Shunwan Zhuang Huawei Technologies
Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin
Satya Mohanty, Arjun Sreekantiah, Dhananjaya Rao, Cisco Systems
Lecture#6:Connectivity Verification
Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing draft-gulkohegde-spring-separating-routing-planes-using-sr-00 IETF 98 – Chicago, USA Shraddha Hegde
Ryan Zheng Lizhong Jin Thomas Nadeau George Swallow
Technical Issues with draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
Figure 6.11 Configuration for Example 4
Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
Inter-AS OAM for SR Networks IETF 105, Montreal
Presentation transcript:

MPLS WG Meeting IETF 58 Paris Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures in Inter-AS and inter-provider Scenarios draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-00.txt Tom Nadeau George Swallow Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures in Inter-AS and inter-provider Scenarios draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-00.txt Tom Nadeau George Swallow

Issues With Base LSP Ping Draft LSP ping as specified in draft-ietf-lsp-ping-*.txt does not in itself specify a protocol which will function correctly across autonomous systems (ASs) or across inter-provider boundaries for use in the Carrier of Carriers (CsC) MPLS VPN configuration. This also applies to inter-AS traffic engineering tunnels. The issue is that if an LSP ping request is lost within a remote AS or remote provider ’ s network, the reply may not have a route to return to the originator of the message. Most SPs hide local routing information (inter-AS/provider). –trace-route across provider networks –providers may wish to reject or alter the current protocol message. LSP ping as specified in draft-ietf-lsp-ping-*.txt does not in itself specify a protocol which will function correctly across autonomous systems (ASs) or across inter-provider boundaries for use in the Carrier of Carriers (CsC) MPLS VPN configuration. This also applies to inter-AS traffic engineering tunnels. The issue is that if an LSP ping request is lost within a remote AS or remote provider ’ s network, the reply may not have a route to return to the originator of the message. Most SPs hide local routing information (inter-AS/provider). –trace-route across provider networks –providers may wish to reject or alter the current protocol message.

For example, consider the following topology: AS1 AS2 AS Src PE -- P -- P – ASBR – ASBR – P – P – ASBR – ASBR – P – P – dst PE If the test message is send from Src PE to dst PE without the enhanced processing or the new TLV, the packet could traverse the network shown into AS3. If it encounters an error between the ASBR in AS3 and the first P router – say the packet is for an invalid FEC error case. In this case, the first P router would examine the packet and need to send a reply to the Src PE. However, if the Src PE is using an address for a network that is not distributed outside of AS1 (which might belong to a different provider than the addresses used in AS3), then the reply will never be forwarded back to Src PE. AS1 AS2 AS Src PE -- P -- P – ASBR – ASBR – P – P – ASBR – ASBR – P – P – dst PE If the test message is send from Src PE to dst PE without the enhanced processing or the new TLV, the packet could traverse the network shown into AS3. If it encounters an error between the ASBR in AS3 and the first P router – say the packet is for an invalid FEC error case. In this case, the first P router would examine the packet and need to send a reply to the Src PE. However, if the Src PE is using an address for a network that is not distributed outside of AS1 (which might belong to a different provider than the addresses used in AS3), then the reply will never be forwarded back to Src PE.

Solution The solution described here augments the existing LSP ping implementations, and leverages all existing LSP ping functionality as described in draft-ietf-lsp-ping-07.txt. We propose the addition of a new TLV to be included within the LSP ping request messages. This TLV requires some enhanced processing logic. The solution described here augments the existing LSP ping implementations, and leverages all existing LSP ping functionality as described in draft-ietf-lsp-ping-07.txt. We propose the addition of a new TLV to be included within the LSP ping request messages. This TLV requires some enhanced processing logic.

Solution (Cont) The first addition needed is a new TLV to be included within the LSP ping request messages. This TLV contains the following pieces of information Source PE Addr, Source PE AS #, Destination PE Address, stack of Last ASBR addresses seen. The first addition needed is a new TLV to be included within the LSP ping request messages. This TLV contains the following pieces of information Source PE Addr, Source PE AS #, Destination PE Address, stack of Last ASBR addresses seen.

Conclusions Solves a real problem. Preserves existing functionality. Solves a real problem. Preserves existing functionality.