1 LSP-Trace over MPLS tunnels draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 Nitin BahadurJuniper Networks Kireeti KompellaJuniper Networks George SwallowCisco.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MPLS Multiple Topology Support draft-zhao-mpls-ldp-multiple-topology-01 draft-zhao-mpls-rsvp-te-multiple-topology-01 IETF 80 – Prague.
Advertisements

Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching: An Overview of Signaling Enhancements and Recovery Techniques IEEE Communications Magazine July 2001.
OLD DOG CONSULTING Challenges and Solutions for OAM in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting Ltd. Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc.
MULTIPROTOCOL LABEL SWITCHING Muhammad Abdullah Shafiq.
© 2006 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. MPLS v2.2—8-1 MPLS TE Overview Understanding MPLS TE Components.
© 2010 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1 Segment Routing Clarence Filsfils – Distinguished Engineer Christian Martin –
IPv4 and IPv6 Mobility Support Using MPLS and MP-BGP draft-berzin-malis-mpls-mobility-00 Oleg Berzin, Andy Malis {oleg.berzin,
Application-aware Targeted LDP draft-esale-mpls-app-aware-tldp-01
MPLS H/W update Brief description of the lab What it is? Why do we need it? Mechanisms and Protocols.
CS Summer 2003 Lecture 15 MPLS Fault-Tolerance Architecture ( For details, see class notes)
Seamless MPLS for Mobile Backhaul draft-li-mpls-seamless-mpls-mbh-00
COS 420 Day 16. Agenda Assignment 3 Corrected Poor results 1 C and 2 Ds Spring Break?? Assignment 4 Posted Chap Due April 6 Individual Project Presentations.
IPv4 over IP CS draft-madanapalli-16ng-ipv4-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-00 Soohong Daniel Park Syam Madanapalli 68 – Prague, Czech Republic March 18-23,
© 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,
1 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) presented by: chitralekha tamrakar (B.S.E.) divya krit tamrakar (B.S.E.) Rashmi shrivastava(B.S.E.) prakriti.
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 and BFD encapsulation over ACH draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures Nitin BahadurRahul Aggarwal Dave WardTom Nadeau Nurit SprecherYaacov.
1 Fabio Mustacchio - IPS-MOME 2005 – Warsaw, March 15th 2005 Overview of RSVP-TE Network Simulator: Design and Implementation D.Adami, C.Callegari, S.Giordano,
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.
Introduction to MPLS and Traffic Engineering Zartash Afzal Uzmi.
IETF 68, MPLS WG, Prague P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-01.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal.
Protocol Topology Support for IS-IS Kay Noguchi draft-ietf-noguchi-isis-protocol-topology-01.txt 56th IETF San Francisco, CA, USA March 18, 2003.
Draft-akiya-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath Authors: Nobo Akiya (presenter) George Swallow Stephane Litkowski Bruno Decraene John E. Drake IETF 90, Toronto,
P2MP MPLS-TE FRR with P2MP Bypass Tunnel draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass-00.txt J.L. Le Roux (France Telecom) R. Aggarwal (Juniper) IETF 67, MPLS WG,
Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs draft-farrel-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-04 H. Endo, A. Farrel, Y. Koike, M. Paul, R. Winter.
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
LDP signaled LSPs for external prefixes Ina Minei, Nischal Sheth - Juniper Luyuan Fang – AT&T
WSON Summary Young Lee Document Relationships Information Gen-constraints Encode WSON Encode Signal Compatibility OSPF Gen-constraints.
© 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco ConfidentialPresentation_ID 1 IETF 84 – Vancouver August 2012 LSP Ping Support for E-VPN and PBB-
MPLS WG1 Targeted mLDP Base mLDP spec didn’t consider use of LDP multipoint extensions over Targeted mLDP sessions LDP speaker must choose “upstream LSR”,
LDP extension for Inter-Area LSP draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04 Bruno DecraeneFrance Telecom / Orange Jean-Louis Le RouxFrance Telecom / Orange Ina.
Draft-torvi-mpls-rsvp-ingress-protection-00IETF 84 MPLS: 30 July Ingress Protection for RSVP-TE p2p and p2mp LSPs draft-torvi-mpls-rsvp-ingress-protection-00.
IP Traffic Engineering RSP draft-shen-ip-te-rsp-01.txt Naiming Shen Albert Tian Jun Zhuang
Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding draft-kompella-mpls-entropy-label-02
© 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.
Label Distribution Protocols LDP: hop-by-hop routing RSVP-TE: explicit routing CR-LDP: another explicit routing protocol, no longer under development.
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.
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.
Precision Time Protocol over MPLS draft-ronc-ptp-mpls-00.txt PWE3 WG IETF Chicago 2007 Ron Cohen
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.
76rd IETF - Hiroshima, Japan I. M. draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc-02.
Multi-protocol Label Switching
82 nd Taipei Protection Mechanisms for LDP P2MP/MP2MP LSP draft-zhao-mpls-mldp-protections-00.txt Quintin Zhao, Emily Chen, Huawei.
1 MPLS Source Label Mach Chen Xiaohu Xu Zhenbin Li Luyuan Fang IETF87 MPLS Aug Berlin draft-chen-mpls-source-label-00.
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.
BGP extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery in a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN draft-kumaki-pce-bgp-disco-attribute-03.txt Kenji Kumaki KDDI R&D Labs,
Requirements for LER Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
MPLS LSP Instant Install draft-saad-mpls-lsp-instant-install-00
78th IETF Meeting - Maastricht 27th, July 2010
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in OSPF
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.
MPLS Basics 2 2.
LDP Extensions for RMR draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr- extensions
CHAPTER 8 Network Management
N. Kumar, C. Pignataro, F. Iqbal, Z. Ali (Presenter) - Cisco Systems
Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin
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
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs
draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00
Kapil Arora Shraddha Hegde IETF-103
Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
Inter-AS OAM for SR Networks IETF 105, Montreal
Presentation transcript:

1 LSP-Trace over MPLS tunnels draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 Nitin BahadurJuniper Networks Kireeti KompellaJuniper Networks George SwallowCisco Systems IETF 70, MPLS WG, Vancouver

2 Tracing a hierarchical LSP ABC E D LDP RSVP Options available at node B: Do not allow tracing inside RSVP LSP Allow tracing inside RSVP LSP

3 Problem scenario (1): Tracing a hierarchical LSP ABCED LDP RSVP Node B’s “effective” next-hop for LDP LSP is node D However the “real” next-hop is node C Node A sends echo request with LDP FEC to node C Node C knows nothing about LDP FEC, so cannot perform FEC validation. Node A cannot tell why it is getting a response from node C

4 Solution ABC E D LDP RSVP Intermediate node (router B) provides a PUSH FEC stack tlv containing in DSMAP of echo response Ingress (router A) pushes RSVP onto it’s FEC stack in echo request when sending next echo request (to router C) When router D receives echo request with FEC stack containing, it sends Egress-Ok for RSVP FEC Implicitly conveys that RSVP LSP is over -- pop it Ingress (router A) now pops an entry from (local) FEC stack and resends echo request to router D with LDP FEC

5 Problem Scenario (II): Tracing a stitched LSP ABCED RSVPLDPeBGPLDP F RSVP No current mechanism to perform end-to-end trace of stitched LSPs. Current trace mechanisms will only trace till router C.

6 Solution Intermediate node (router C) provides a POP FEC stack sub-tlv (LDP) and PUSH FEC stack sub-tlv (eBGP) in DSMAP of echo response. Ingress (router A) performs the corresponding stitch operation and sends eBGP FEC in next echo request (to router D) Router D provides a POP FEC stack tlv (eBGP) and PUSH FEC stack sub-tlv (RSVP) in DSMAP of echo response. Ingress (router A) performs the corresponding stitch operation and sends RSVP FEC in next echo request (to router E) Router F responds with EGRESS_OK for the end-to-end LSP. ABCED RSVPLDPeBGPLDP F RSVP

7 Solution concept Intermediate routers provide ingress information regarding: – start of a new tunnel – end of a tunnel – tunnel stitch. FEC details can be hidden by sending a NIL FEC, instead of actual FEC being pushed. Analogous to push/pop operations in the data-plane. Main logic at ingress application to correctly traverse the tunnels

8 TLV changes proposed … Builds on RFC 4379 (LSP-Ping) Downstream Mapping TLV deprecated –Not extensible: can’t have sub-TLVs (blame Kireeti!) –Not easy to associate new information in echo response Downstream detailed mapping TLV introduced –Similar to previous one –Contains sub-TLVs to represent all variable length things –New sub-TLVs can be added in future to associate things with DSMAP. Procedures outlined to deal with old and new TLV formats.

9 Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV | MTU | Address Type | DS Flags | | Downstream IP Address (4 or 16 octets) | | Downstream Interface Address (4 or 16 octets) | | Sub-tlv length | Reserved | List of Sub TLVs

10 DDMAP Sub-TLVs Multipath Sub-TLV |Multipath Type| Multipath Length | Reserved | | | | (Multipath Information) | Label-stack Sub-TLV | Downstream Label | Protocol | | Downstream Label | Protocol |

11 DDMAP Sub-TLVs (contd.) Stack change sub-TLV |Operation Type| Address type| FEC-tlv length | | Remote Peer Address (0, 4 or 16 octets | FEC TLV Operation Type # Operation Push 2 Pop

12 Next Steps WG feedback on problem/solution Adopt as WG doc ?