draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04.txt 
MPLS S. Bryant MPLS S. Bryant
Internet-Draft S. Sivabalan Internet-Draft S. Sivabalan
Intended status: Standards Track S. Soni Intended status: Standards Track S. Soni
Expires: October 31, 2015 Cisco Systems Expires: February 27, 2016 Cisco Systems
April 29, 2015 August 26, 2015
RFC6374 UDP Return Path RFC6374 UDP Return Path
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-03 draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-04
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the proceedure to be used by the Packet Loss This document specifies the procedure to be used by the Packet Loss
and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks protocol defined in RFC6374 and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks protocol defined in RFC6374
when sending and processing MPLS performance management out-of-band when sending and processing MPLS performance management out-of-band
responses for delay and loss measurements over an IP/UDP return path. responses for delay and loss measurements over an IP/UDP return path.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 31, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 27, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes how Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for This document describes how Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for
MPLS Networks protocol (MPLS-PLDM) [RFC6374] out-of-band responses MPLS Networks protocol (MPLS-PLDM) [RFC6374] out-of-band responses
can be delivered to the Querier using UDP/IP. can be delivered to the querier using UDP/IP.
The use of UDP may be required to support data path management such The use of UDP may be required to support data path management such
as passage through firewalls, or to provide the necessary as passage through firewalls, or to provide the necessary
multiplexing needed in bistatic operation where the querier and the multiplexing needed in bistatic operation where the querier and the
collector are not co-located and the collector is gathering the collector are not co-located and the collector is gathering the
response information for a number of responders. In a highly scaled response information for a number of responders. In a highly scaled
system some MPLS-PLDM sessions may be off-loaded to a specific node system some MPLS-PLDM sessions may be off-loaded to a specific node
within the distributed system that comprises the Label Switching within the distributed system that comprises the Label Switching
Router (LSR) as a whole. In such systems the response may arrive via Router (LSR) as a whole. In such systems the response may arrive via
any interface in the LSR and need to internally forwarded to the any interface in the LSR and need to internally forwarded to the
processor tasked with handling the particular MPLS-PLDM measurement. processor tasked with handling the particular MPLS-PLDM measurement.
Currently the MPLS-PLDM protocol does not have any mechanism to Currently the MPLS-PLDM protocol does not have any mechanism to
deliver the PLDM Response message to particular node within a multi- deliver the PLDM Response message to particular node within a multi-
CPU LSR. CPU LSR.
The procedure described in this specification describes how the The procedure described in this specification describes how the
queryer requests delivery of the MPLS-PLDM response over IP to a querier requests delivery of the MPLS-PLDM response over IP to a
dynamic UDP port. It makes no other changes to the protocol and thus dynamic UDP port. It makes no other changes to the protocol and thus
does not affect the case where the reponse is delivered over a MPLS does not affect the case where the reponse is delivered over a MPLS
Associated Channel [RFC5586]. Associated Channel [RFC5586].
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Solution Overview 3. Solution Overview
This document specifies that, unless configured otherwise, if a UDP This document specifies that, unless configured otherwise, if a UDP
Return Object (URO) is present in a MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder Return Object (URO) is present in a MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder
MUST use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to the MUST use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to the
querier. Multiple UROs MAY be present in a MPLS-PLDM Query querier. Multiple UROs MAY be present in a MPLS-PLDM Query
indicating that an identical responses SHOULD be sent to each addess- indicating that an identical responses SHOULD be sent to each
port pair. A responder MAY be designed or configured to only address-port pair. A responder MAY be designed or configured to only
transmit a single response, in which case the response MUST be sent transmit a single response, in which case the response MUST be sent
using the parameters specified in the first URO in the querry packet. using the parameters specified in the first URO in the query packet.
The procedures defined in this document may be applied to both The procedures defined in this document may be applied to both
unidirectional and bidirectional LSPs. In this document, the term unidirectional and bidirectional LSPs. In this document, the term
bidirectional LSP includes the co-routed bidirectional LSP defined in bidirectional LSP includes the co-routed bidirectional LSP defined in
[RFC3945] and the associated bidirectional LSP that is constructed [RFC3945] and the associated bidirectional LSP that is constructed
from a pair of unidirectional LSPs (one for each direction) that are from a pair of unidirectional LSPs (one for each direction) that are
associated with one another at the LSP's ingress/egress points associated with one another at the LSP's ingress/egress points
[RFC5654]. The mechanisms defined in this document can apply to both [RFC5654]. The mechanisms defined in this document can apply to both
IP/MPLS and to the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)[RFC5654], IP/MPLS and to the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)[RFC5654],
[RFC5921] [RFC5921]
3.1. UDP Return Object 3.1. UDP Return Object
NOTE TO RFC Editor please delete the following paragraph before NOTE TO RFC Editor please delete the following paragraph before
publication. publication.
START DELETE START DELETE
Note to reviewers - We considered a number of approaches to the Note to reviewers - We considered a number of approaches to the
design. The first was to use the existing address object and a design. The first was to use the existing address object and a
separate UDP object, but concern in the WG was that there may be more separate UDP object, but concern was expressed in the WG that there
than one collector that required this information, and the combined may be more than one collector that required this information, and
size of the two objects. The next approach considered by the authors the combined size of the two objects was large. The next approach
was to create a new object by appending a UDP port to the existing considered by the authors was to create a new object by appending a
generalized address object. However by noting that UDP is only UDP port to the existing generalized address object. However, noting
likely to be sent over IP and that it will be a long time before we that UDP is only likely to be sent over IP and that it will be a long
design a third major version of IP we can compress the object either time before we design a third major version of IP we can compress the
by having separate IPv4 and an IPv4 objects, or using the address object either by having separate IPv4 and IPv6 objects, or using the
length as the discriminator. The object design below uses the latter address length as the discriminator. The object design below uses
approach. The resultant combined UDP port + address object is thus the latter approach. The resultant combined UDP port + address
the same size as the original address object. object is thus the same size as the original address object.
END DELETE END DELETE
The format of the UDP Return Object (URO) is as follows: The format of the UDP Return Object (URO) is as follows:
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| URO TLV Type | Length={6,18} | UDP-Destination-Port | | URO TLV Type | Length={6,18} | UDP-Destination-Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 4, line 15 skipping to change at page 4, line 15
The UDP Destination Port is a UDP Destination port as specified in The UDP Destination Port is a UDP Destination port as specified in
[RFC0768]. [RFC0768].
The Address is either an IPv4 or an IPv6 address. The Address is either an IPv4 or an IPv6 address.
The URO MUST NOT appear in a response. The URO MUST NOT appear in a response.
4. Theory of Operation 4. Theory of Operation
This document defines the UDP Return Object to enable the MPLS-PLDM This document defines the UDP Return Object to enable the MPLS-PLDM
Querier to specify the return path for the MPLS-PLDM reply using IP/ querier to specify the return path for the MPLS-PLDM reply using IP/
UDP encapsulation. UDP encapsulation.
When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting the When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting the
Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM Query to "Out-of-band Response Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM query to "Out-of-band Response
Requested", and the URO is present, the responder SHOULD send the Requested", and the URO is present, the responder SHOULD send the
response back to Querier on the specified destination UDP port at the response back to querier on the specified destination UDP port at the
specified destination IP address contained in the URO. specified destination IP address contained in the URO.
If the URO is expected but is not present in a Query message and an If the URO is expected but is not present in a query message and an
MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band, the Query message MUST MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band, the query message MUST
NOT be processed further, and if posisble an "Error - Invalid NOT be processed further, and if possible an "Error - Invalid
Message" ([RFC6374] Section 3.1) SHOULD be send to the Querrier and Message" ([RFC6374] Section 3.1) SHOULD be send to the querier and
the operator notified via the management system (see Section 4.2 for the operator notified via the management system (see Section 4.2 for
rurther details. further details.
4.1. Sending an MPLS-PM Query 4.1. Sending an MPLS-PM Query
When sending an MPLS-PLDM Query message, in addition to the rules and When sending an MPLS-PLDM query message, in addition to the rules and
procedures defined in [RFC6374]; the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM procedures defined in [RFC6374]; the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM
Query MUST be set to "Out-of-band Response Requested", and a URO MUST query MUST be set to "Out-of-band Response Requested", and a URO MUST
be carried in the MPLS-PLDM Query message. be carried in the MPLS-PLDM query message.
If the Querier uses the UDP port to de-multiplexing of the response If the querier uses the UDP port to de-multiplexing of the response
for different measurement type, there MUST be a different UDP port for different measurement type, there MUST be a different UDP port
for each measurement type (Delay, loss and delay-loss combined). for each measurement type (Delay, loss and delay-loss combined).
An implementation MAY use multiple UDP ports for same measurement An implementation MAY use multiple UDP ports for same measurement
type to direct the response to the correct management process in the type to direct the response to the correct management process in the
LSR. LSR.
4.2. Receiving an MPLS PM Query Request 4.2. Receiving an MPLS PM Query Request
The processing of MPLS-PLDM query messages as defined in [RFC6374] The processing of MPLS-PLDM query messages as defined in [RFC6374]
applies in this document. In addition, when an MPLS-PLDM Query applies in this document. In addition, when an MPLS-PLDM query
request is received, with the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM Query set message is received, with the control code of the MPLS-PLDM query set
to "Out-of-band Response Requested" with a URO present, then the to "Out-of-band Response Requested" with a URO present, then the
Responder SHOULD use that IP address and UDP port to send MPLS-PLDM responder SHOULD use that IP address and UDP port to send MPLS-PLDM
response back to Querier. response back to querier.
If an Out-of-band response is requested and the Address object or the If an Out-of-band response is requested and the Address object or the
URO is missing, the Query SHOULD be dropped in the case of a URO is missing, the query SHOULD be dropped in the case of a
unidirectional LSP. If both these TLVs are missing on a unidirectional LSP. If both these TLVs are missing on a
bidirectional LSP, the control code of Response message should set to bidirectional LSP, the control code of Response message should set to
0x1C indicating "Error - Invalid Message" ([RFC6374] Section 3.1) and 0x1C indicating "Error - Invalid Message" ([RFC6374] Section 3.1) and
the response SHOULD be sent over the reverse LSP. The receipt of the response SHOULD be sent over the reverse LSP. The receipt of
such a mal-formed request SHOULD be notified to the operator through such a mal-formed request SHOULD be notified to the operator through
the management system, taking the normal precautions with respect to the management system, taking the normal precautions with respect to
the prevention of overload of the error reporting system. the prevention of overload of the error reporting system.
4.3. Sending an MPLS-PM Response 4.3. Sending an MPLS-PM Response
As specified in [RFC6374] the MPLS-PLDM Response can be sent over As specified in [RFC6374] the MPLS-PLDM Response can be sent over
either the reverse MPLS LSP for a bidirectional LSP or over an IP either the reverse MPLS LSP for a bidirectional LSP or over an IP
path. It MUST NOT be sent other than in response to an MPLS-PLDM path. It MUST NOT be sent other than in response to an MPLS-PLDM
Query message. query message.
When the requested return path is an IP forwarding path and this When the requested return path is an IP forwarding path and this
method is in use, the destination IP address and UDP port MUST be method is in use, the destination IP address and UDP port MUST be
copied from the URO. The source IP address and the source UDP Port copied from the URO. The source IP address and the source UDP Port
of Response packet is left to discretion of the Responder subject to of Response packet is left to discretion of the Responder subject to
the normal management and security considerations. The packet format the normal management and security considerations. The packet format
for the MPLS-PLDM response after the UDP header is as specified in for the MPLS-PLDM response after the UDP header is as specified in
[RFC6374]. As shown in Figure 1 the Associate Channel Header (ACH) [RFC6374]. As shown in Figure 1 the Associate Channel Header (ACH)
[RFC5586] is not incuded. The information provided by the ACH is not [RFC5586] is not included. The information provided by the ACH is
needed since the correct binding between the Querry and Response not needed since the correct binding between the query and response
messages is achieved though the UDP Port and the Session Indentifier messages is achieved though the UDP Port and the session indentifier
contained in the RFC6374 message. contained in the RFC6374 message.
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header | | IP Header |
. Source Address = Responders IP Address | . Source Address = Responders IP Address |
. Destination Addess = URO.Address | . Destination Address = URO.Address |
. Protocol = UDP . . Protocol = UDP .
. . . .
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header | | UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Responder . . Source Port = As chosen by Responder .
. Destination Port = URO.UDP-Destination-Port . . Destination Port = URO.UDP-Destination-Port .
. . . .
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
| Message as specified in RFC6374 | | Message as specified in RFC6374 |
. . . .
skipping to change at page 7, line 8 skipping to change at page 7, line 8
document. document.
Nothing in this document precludes the use of a configured UDP/IP Nothing in this document precludes the use of a configured UDP/IP
return path in a deployment in which configuration is preferred to return path in a deployment in which configuration is preferred to
signalling. In these circumstances the URO MAY be omitted from the signalling. In these circumstances the URO MAY be omitted from the
MPLS-PLDM messages. MPLS-PLDM messages.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The MPLS-PLDM system is not intended to be deployed on the public The MPLS-PLDM system is not intended to be deployed on the public
Internet. It is intended for deployment in well manages private and Internet. It is intended for deployment in well managed private and
service provider networks. The security considerations described in service provider networks. The security considerations described in
Section 8 of [RFC6374] are applicable to this specification and the Section 8 of [RFC6374] are applicable to this specification and the
reader's attention is drawn to the last two paragraphs. reader's attention is drawn to the last two paragraphs.
Cryptographic measures may be enhanced by the correct configuration Cryptographic measures may be enhanced by the correct configuration
of access control lists and firewalls. of access control lists and firewalls.
There is no additional exposure of information to pervasive There is no additional exposure of information to pervasive
monitoring systems observing LSPs that are being monitored. monitoring systems observing LSPs that are being monitored.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA has made an early allocation of a new Optional TLV type from IANA has made an early allocation of a new Optional TLV type from
MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object Registry contained within the MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object Registry contained within the
g-ach-parameters registry set. IANA is requested to modify the Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters registry set. IANA is
description text as shown below. requested to modify the description text as shown below.
Code Description Reference Code Description Reference
131 UDP Return [This] 131 UDP Return [This]
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contribution of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi, We acknowledge the contribution of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi,
both with Cisco Systems. We thank Loa Andersson, Eric Osborne, both with Cisco Systems. We thank Loa Andersson, Eric Osborne,
Mustapha Aissaoui, and Jeffrey Zhang for their review comments. Mustapha Aissaoui, Jeffrey Zhang and Ross Callon for their review
comments.
We thank all who have reviewed this text and provided feedback. We thank all who have reviewed this text and provided feedback.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
RFC 5654, September 2009. Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011. Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L. [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
5921, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: stbryant@cisco.com Email: stbryant@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
60 lines changed or deleted 72 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/