Kapil Arora Shraddha Hegde IETF-103

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

Protection Mechanisms for LDP P2MP/MP2MP LSP draft-zhao-mpls-mldp-protections-02.txt Quintin Zhao, Emily Chen, Tao Chou Huawei Technology Daniel King OldDog.
CSCI 4550/8556 Computer Networks Comer, Chapter 23: An Error Reporting Mechanism (ICMP)
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v2.2—2-1 Label Assignment and Distribution Introducing Typical Label Distribution in Frame-Mode MPLS.
Pseudowire Endpoint Fast Failure Protection draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00 Rahul Aggarwal Yimin Shen
PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection draft-shen-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-03 Yimin Shen (Juniper) Rahul Aggarwal (Arktan Inc) Wim Henderickx (Alcatel-Lucent)
Introducing MPLS Labels and Label Stacks
MPLS H/W update Brief description of the lab What it is? Why do we need it? Mechanisms and Protocols.
MPLS Multiple Protocol Label Switching 2003/2/19.
Generic Overlay OAM and Datapath Failure Detection
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v2.2—4-1 MPLS VPN Technology Forwarding MPLS VPN Packets.
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,
61st IETF Washington DC November 2004 Detecting P2MP Data Plane Failures draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-00.txt Seisho Yasukawa -
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 IETF 84 – Vancouver August 2012 LSP Ping Support for P2MP PWs (draft-jain-pwe3-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-00.txt)
LSP Ping Relay Reply L. Jin J. Luo T. Nadeau G. Swallow.
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
1 LSP-Trace over MPLS tunnels draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 Nitin BahadurJuniper Networks Kireeti KompellaJuniper Networks George SwallowCisco.
Draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath Authors: Nobo Akiya (presenter) George Swallow Stephane Litkowski Bruno Decraene John E. Drake IETF 90, Toronto,
Quick-Start for TCP and IP draft-ietf-tsvwg-quickstart-01.txt A.Jain, S. Floyd, M. Allman, and P. Sarolahti TSVWG, November 2005 This and earlier presentations::
Draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping Nobo Akiya George Swallow Carlos Pignataro Nagendra Kumar IETF 88, Vancouver, Canada.
MPLS Some notations: LSP: Label Switched Path
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 IETF 84 – Vancouver August 2012 LSP Ping Support for E-VPN and PBB-
IP Traffic Engineering RSP draft-shen-ip-te-rsp-01.txt Naiming Shen Albert Tian Jun Zhuang
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Public Presentation_ID 1 Upstream mapping in Echo Request draft-ankur-mpls-upstream-mapping-00 Ankur.
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,
NVO3 Overlay P2MP Ping draft-xia-nvo3-overlay-p2mp-ping-00 Liang Xia, Weiguo Hao, Greg Mirsky July 2014 Toronto.
Connecting SPRING Islands over IP Networks draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-00 Xiaohu Xu (Huawei) Siva Sivabalan (Cisco) IETF89,
Generic Overlay OAM and Datapath Failure Detection Kanwar Singh (Nuage Networks) Pradeep Jain, Florin Balus Nuage Networks Wim Henderickx Alcatel-Lucent,
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.
MPLS Introduction Computer Networks 2007 Week 9 Lecture 1 by Donald Neal.
Requirements for LER Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
Connecting MPLS-SPRING Islands over IP Networks
Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPN
Residence Time Measurement draft-mirsky-mpls-residence-time-02
Zhenbin Li, Li Zhang(Huawei Technologies)
P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels
George Swallow Martin Vigoureux Rahul Aggerwal July 30, 2008
Presenter: Jeffrey Zhang
MPLS LSP Instant Install draft-saad-mpls-lsp-instant-install-00
Les Ginsberg Stefano Previdi Peter Psenak Martin Pilka
Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Yimin Shen (Juniper) Rahul Aggarwal (Arktan Inc)
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)
MPLS Basics 2 2.
LDP Extensions for RMR draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr- extensions
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP)
draft-chandra-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-np-00
N. Kumar, C. Pignataro, F. Iqbal, Z. Ali (Presenter) - Cisco Systems
Greg Mirsky IETF-99 July 2017, Prague
A Unified Approach to IP Segment Routing
Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin
SFC Path Consistency OAM
draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-00
Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing draft-gulkohegde-spring-separating-routing-planes-using-sr-00 IETF 98 – Chicago, USA Shraddha Hegde
MVPN/EVPN Tunnel Aggregation with Common Labels Zhaohui Zhang (Juniper) Eric Rosen (Juniper) Wen Lin (Juniper) Zhenbin Li (Huawei) BESS WG 20-March-2018.
Segment Routing.
the captured notes and redid - hopefully it all works.
NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-04.txt
Update on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12
Ryan Zheng Lizhong Jin Thomas Nadeau George Swallow
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). 2 MPLS Overview A forwarding scheme designed to speed up IP packet forwarding (RFC 3031) Idea: use a fixed length.
Technical Issues with draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
An MPLS-Based Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining
OAM for Deterministic Networks draft-mirsky-detnet-oam
Royi Zigler(Broadcom)
Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
Pseudo-Wire Protection
Inter-AS OAM for SR Networks IETF 105, Montreal
BIER Penultimate Hop Popping draft-zzhang-bier-php-00
Presentation transcript:

Kapil Arora Shraddha Hegde IETF-103 TTL Procedures for SR-TE Paths in Label Switched Path Traceroute Mechanisms Kapil Arora Shraddha Hegde IETF-103

Problem Short pipe model with PHP on all nodes 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 On R2, iTTL = 1, oTTL = 0 so oTTL check fails, so packet is not forwarded, and R2 generates an MPLS Echo Reply. Step 1: 1004(1) 1005(0) FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 On R3, iTTL = 1, oTTL = 0 so oTTL check fails, so packet is not forwarded, and R3 generates an MPLS Echo Reply. Step 2: 1004(2) 1004(1) 1005(0) 1005(0)

Problem Short pipe model with PHP on all nodes 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 3: 1004(3) 1004(2) Packet may be dropped or rate limited 1005(0) 1005(0) 1005(0) On R3, iTTL = 2, oTTL = 1 so oTTL check succeeds. On R4, iTTL = 0, oTTL = -1 so oTTL check fails. R4 sends an MPLS Echo Reply with stack depth = 1.

Problem Short pipe model with PHP on all nodes 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 3: 1004(255) 1004(254) 1005(1) 1005(1) 1005(1) On R3, iTTL = 255, oTTL = 254 so oTTL check succeeds. On R4, iTTL = 1, oTTL = 0 so oTTL check fails again

Problem Uniform model with PHP on all nodes 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 On R2, iTTL = 1, oTTL = 0 so oTTL check fails, so packet is not forwarded, and R2 generates an MPLS Echo Reply with return code 8. Step 1: 1004(1) 1004(0) 1005(0) 1005(0) On R3, iTTL = 1, oTTL = 0 so oTTL check fails, so packet is not forwarded, and R3 generates an MPLS Echo Reply with return code 8 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 2: 1004(2) 1004(1) 1004(0) 1005(0) 1005(0) 1005(0)

Problem Uniform pipe model with PHP on all nodes 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 3: 1004(3) 1004(2) 1004(1) 1005(0) 1005(0) 1005(0) 1005(0) TTL not copied from top label as it is greater. Problem is same as in short-pipe mode MPLS TTL copy mechanisms should not copy the outer Tunnel TTL to inner Tunnel if the inner Tunnel TTL is lower

Solution Short pipe model with PHP on all nodes 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 1: 1004(1) 1004(0) 1005(0) 1005(0) R3 gets the programmed forwarding entry for label 1004. It’s pop operation, verifies the PHP bit in label advertisement, if it’s a valid PHP router sets the p bit in DDMAP TLV FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 2: 1004(2) 1004(1) 1004(0) 1005(0) 1005(0) 1005(0)

Solution Short pipe model with PHP on all nodes 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 3: 1004(3) 1004(2) 1004(1) 1005(1) 1005(0) 1005(1) 1005(1) When R3 sends DDMAP with p-bit set, the head-end node increments the TTL of the top label as well as next inner label.

New Flag in DDMAP TLV

Alternate Approaches Evaluated PHP router sending egress return code Setting inner labels to 1 Setting inner labels to 255 Setting inner label to 2 on reaching egress

PHP Router sending “egress” return code code > The Tunnel is not being traced till egress. > Can this mechanism effectively detect mis-programmed entries? > What if R2 had programmed a pop operation for 1004? > What if R4 had programmed a swap operation? > When the label-stack [1004,1005] was instantiated at the head-end, the intention was to hit the router R4 and go to R5. Wouldn’t it make sense to return “egress” return code from R4 instead of R3?

Setting Inner Labels to 1 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 “transit for 4.4.4.4” FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Assume R2 is mis-programmed and pops the labels 1004.since egress is not reached, ingress would not increase the TTL of 1005. The FEC validation passes and also the incoming label validation passes Step 1: On R2, iTTL = 1, oTTL = 0 so oTTL check fails, so packet is not forwarded, and R2 generates an MPLS Echo Reply. 1004(1) 1005(1) FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 2: 1004(2) 1005(1) 1005(1) 1005(1)

Setting Inner Labels to 1 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 “transit for 4.4.4.4” FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 3: 1004(3) 1005(1) 1005(1) 1005(1) FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 4: 1004(4) 1005(1) 1005(1) 1005(1)

Setting Inner Labels to 255 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 In short pipe mode, since TTL is not getting copied to bottom label, setting inner label to 255 does not work as the TTL will not expire on next router. On R2, iTTL = 1, oTTL = 0 so oTTL check fails, so packet is not forwarded, and R2 generates an MPLS Echo Reply. Step 1: 1004(1) 1005(255) FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 4.4.4.4, 5.5.5.5 Step 2: 1004(2) 1004(1) 1005(255) 1005(255) 1005(255)

Setting inner label to 2 Short pipe model with PHP on all nodes 1004 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:4 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:1 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:2 SRGB:1000-2000 Sid:3 1005 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 FEC Stack: 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 5.5.5.5 FEC Stack: 5.5.5.5 Step 4: 1004(255) 1004(255) 1005(2) 1005(2) 1005(1) 1005(2) On R4, iTTL = 2, oTTL = 1 so oTTL check succeeds. On R5, iTTL = 1, oTTL = 0 so oTTL check fails. R5 sends an MPLS Echo Reply with stack depth = 1. This has the same problem as setting all inner labels to 1 as the misprogrammed router could lead to looping of OAM procedure.

Next steps Request Feedback from WG

Questions & comments