RFC 8029
Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures
Pages: 78
Proposed Standard
→ Errata
Obsoletes: 4379 6424 6829 7537
Updates: 1122
Updated by: 8611 9041 9570
Proposed Standard
→ Errata
Obsoletes: 4379 6424 6829 7537
Updates: 1122
Updated by: 8611 9041 9570
Part 1 of 4 – Pages 1 to 17
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Kompella Request for Comments: 8029 Juniper Networks, Inc. Obsoletes: 4379, 6424, 6829, 7537 G. Swallow Updates: 1122 C. Pignataro, Ed. Category: Standards Track N. Kumar ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco S. Aldrin Google M. Chen Huawei March 2017 Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane FailuresAbstract
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism to detect data-plane failures in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). It defines a probe message called an "MPLS echo request" and a response message called an "MPLS echo reply" for returning the result of the probe. The MPLS echo request is intended to contain sufficient information to check correct operation of the data plane and to verify the data plane against the control plane, thereby localizing faults. This document obsoletes RFCs 4379, 6424, 6829, and 7537, and updates RFC 1122. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029.
Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Structure of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3. Scope of This Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1. Use of Address Range 127/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Router Alert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1. Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2. Target FEC Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.1. LDP IPv4 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.2. LDP IPv6 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.3. RSVP IPv4 LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.4. RSVP IPv6 LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.5. VPN IPv4 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.2.6. VPN IPv6 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2.7. L2 VPN Endpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.2.8. FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated) . . . . . . . 23 3.2.9. FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv4 (Current) . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2.10. FEC 129 Pseudowire - IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2.11. FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.2.12. FEC 129 Pseudowire - IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.2.13. BGP Labeled IPv4 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.2.14. BGP Labeled IPv6 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.2.15. Generic IPv4 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.2.16. Generic IPv6 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.2.17. Nil FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.3. Downstream Mapping (Deprecated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.4. Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.4.1. Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.4.2. Downstream Router and Interface . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.5. Pad TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.6. Vendor Enterprise Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3.7. Interface and Label Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.8. Errored TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.9. Reply TOS Octet TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.1. Dealing with Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) . . . . . . . . 44 4.2. Testing LSPs That Are Used to Carry MPLS Payloads . . . . 45 4.3. Sending an MPLS Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.4. Receiving an MPLS Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 4.4.1. FEC Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.5. Sending an MPLS Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.5.1. Addition of a New Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.5.2. Transition between Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.6. Receiving an MPLS Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.7. Issue with VPN IPv4 and IPv6 Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.8. Non-compliant Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.1. TCP and UDP Port Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2. MPLS LSP Ping Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2.1. Message Types, Reply Modes, Return Codes . . . . . . 61
6.2.2. TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.2.3. Global Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6.2.4. Downstream Detailed Mapping Address Type . . . . . . 64
6.2.5. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.2.6. Multipath Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.2.7. Pad Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.2.8. Interface and Label Stack Address Type . . . . . . . 67
6.3. IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry . . . . . . . . . . 67
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix A. Deprecated TLVs and Sub-TLVs (Non-normative) . . . . 72
A.1. Target FEC Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
A.1.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated) . . . . . . . 72
A.2. Downstream Mapping (Deprecated) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
1. Introduction
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism to detect data-plane failures in MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). It defines a probe message called an "MPLS echo request" and a response message called an "MPLS echo reply" for returning the result of the probe. The MPLS echo request is intended to contain sufficient information to check correct operation of the data plane, as well as a mechanism to verify the data plane against the control plane, thereby localizing faults. An important consideration in this design is that MPLS echo requests follow the same data path that normal MPLS packets would traverse. MPLS echo requests are meant primarily to validate the data plane and secondarily to verify the data plane against the control plane. Mechanisms to check the control plane are valuable but are not covered in this document. This document makes special use of the address range 127/8. This is an exception to the behavior defined in RFC 1122 [RFC1122], and this specification updates that RFC. The motivation for this change and the details of this exceptional use are discussed in Section 2.1 below. This document obsoletes RFC 4379 [RFC4379], RFC 6424 [RFC6424], RFC 6829 [RFC6829], and RFC 7537 [RFC7537].1.1. Conventions
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 [RFC2119]. The term "Must Be Zero" (MBZ) is used in object descriptions for reserved fields. These fields MUST be set to zero when sent and ignored on receipt. Terminology pertaining to L2 and L3 Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) is defined in [RFC4026]. Since this document refers to the MPLS Time to Live (TTL) far more frequently than the IP TTL, the authors have chosen the convention of using the unqualified "TTL" to mean "MPLS TTL" and using "IP TTL" for the TTL value in the IP header.
1.2. Structure of This Document
The body of this memo contains four main parts: motivation, MPLS echo request/reply packet format, LSP ping operation, and a reliable return path. It is suggested that first-time readers skip the actual packet formats and read the "Theory of Operation" (Section 4) first; the document is structured the way it is to avoid forward references.1.3. Scope of This Specification
The primary goal of this document is to provide a clean and updated LSP ping specification. [RFC4379] defines the basic mechanism for MPLS LSP validation that can be used for fault detection and isolation. The scope of this document also includes various updates to MPLS LSP ping, including: o Update all references and citations. * Obsoleted RFCs 2434, 2030, and 3036 are respectively replaced with RFCs 5226, 5905, and 5036. * Additionally, some informative references were published as RFCs: RFCs 4761, 5085, 5885, and 8077. o Incorporate all outstanding RFC errata. * See [Err108], [Err742], [Err1418], [Err1714], [Err1786], [Err2978], [Err3399]. o Replace EXP with Traffic Class (TC), based on the update from RFC 5462. o Incorporate the updates from RFC 6829, by adding the pseudowire (PW) Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) advertised over IPv6 and obsoleting RFC 6829. o Incorporate the updates from RFC 7506, by adding the IPv6 Router Alert Option (RAO) for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). o Incorporate newly defined bits on the Global Flags field from RFCs 6425 and 6426. o Update the IPv4 addresses used in examples to utilize the documentation prefix. Add examples with IPv6 addresses.
o Incorporate the updates from RFC 6424, by deprecating the Downstream Mapping TLV (DSMAP) and adding the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (DDMAP); updating two new Return Codes; adding the motivations of tunneled or stitched LSPs; updating the procedures, IANA considerations, and security considerations; and obsoleting RFC 6424. o Incorporate the updates from RFC 7537, by updating the IANA Considerations section and obsoleting RFC 7537. o Finally, obsolete RFC 4379.2. Motivation
When an LSP fails to deliver user traffic, the failure cannot always be detected by the MPLS control plane. There is a need to provide a tool that would enable users to detect such traffic "black holes" or misrouting within a reasonable period of time and a mechanism to isolate faults. In this document, we describe a mechanism that accomplishes these goals. This mechanism is modeled after the ping/traceroute paradigm: ping (ICMP echo request [RFC0792]) is used for connectivity checks, and traceroute is used for hop-by-hop fault localization as well as path tracing. This document specifies a "ping" mode and a "traceroute" mode for testing MPLS LSPs. The basic idea is to verify that packets that belong to a particular FEC actually end their MPLS path on a Label Switching Router (LSR) that is an egress for that FEC. This document proposes that this test be carried out by sending a packet (called an "MPLS echo request") along the same data path as other packets belonging to this FEC. An MPLS echo request also carries information about the FEC whose MPLS path is being verified. This echo request is forwarded just like any other packet belonging to that FEC. In "ping" mode (basic connectivity check), the packet should reach the end of the path, at which point it is sent to the control plane of the egress LSR, which then verifies whether it is indeed an egress for the FEC. In "traceroute" mode (fault isolation), the packet is sent to the control plane of each transit LSR, which performs various checks to confirm that it is indeed a transit LSR for this path; this LSR also returns further information that helps check the control plane against the data plane, i.e., that forwarding matches what the routing protocols determined as the path.
An LSP traceroute may cross a tunneled or stitched LSP en route to
the destination. While performing end-to-end LSP validation in such
scenarios, the FEC information included in the packet by the
Initiator may be different from the one assigned by the transit node
in a different segment of a stitched LSP or tunnel. Let us consider
a simple case.
A B C D E
o -------- o -------- o --------- o --------- o
\_____/ | \______/ \______/ | \______/
LDP | RSVP RSVP | LDP
| |
\____________________/
LDP
When an LSP traceroute is initiated from Router A to Router E, the
FEC information included in the packet will be LDP while Router C
along the path is a pure RSVP node and does not run LDP.
Consequently, node C will be unable to perform FEC validation. The
MPLS echo request should contain sufficient information to allow any
transit node within a stitched or tunneled LSP to perform FEC
validations to detect any misrouted echo requests.
One way these tools can be used is to periodically ping a FEC to
ensure connectivity. If the ping fails, one can then initiate a
traceroute to determine where the fault lies. One can also
periodically traceroute FECs to verify that forwarding matches the
control plane; however, this places a greater burden on transit LSRs
and thus should be used with caution.
2.1. Use of Address Range 127/8
As described above, LSP ping is intended as a diagnostic tool. It is
intended to enable providers of an MPLS-based service to isolate
network faults. In particular, LSP ping needs to diagnose situations
where the control and data planes are out of sync. It performs this
by routing an MPLS echo request packet based solely on its label
stack. That is, the IP destination address is never used in a
forwarding decision. In fact, the sender of an MPLS echo request
packet may not know, a priori, the address of the router at the end
of the LSP.
Providers of MPLS-based services also need the ability to trace all
of the possible paths that an LSP may take. Since most MPLS services
are based on IP unicast forwarding, these paths are subject to Equal-
Cost Multipath (ECMP) load sharing.
This leads to the following requirements:
1. Although the LSP in question may be broken in unknown ways, the
likelihood of a diagnostic packet being delivered to a user of an
MPLS service MUST be held to an absolute minimum.
2. If an LSP is broken in such a way that it prematurely terminates,
the diagnostic packet MUST NOT be IP forwarded.
3. A means of varying the diagnostic packets such that they exercise
all ECMP paths is thus REQUIRED.
Clearly, using general unicast addresses satisfies neither of the
first two requirements. A number of other options for addresses were
considered, including a portion of the private address space (as
determined by the network operator) and the IPv4 link-local
addresses. Use of the private address space was deemed ineffective
since the leading MPLS-based service is an IPv4 VPN. VPNs often use
private addresses.
The IPv4 link-local addresses are more attractive in that the scope
over which they can be forwarded is limited. However, if one were to
use an address from this range, it would still be possible for the
first recipient of a diagnostic packet that "escaped" from a broken
LSP to have that address assigned to the interface on which it
arrived and thus could mistakenly receive such a packet. Older
deployed routers may not (correctly) implement IPv4 link-local
addresses and would forward a packet with an address from that range
toward the default route.
The 127/8 range for IPv4 and that same range embedded in an
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address for IPv6 was chosen for a number of reasons.
RFC 1122 allocates the 127/8 as the "Internal host loopback address"
and states: "Addresses of this form MUST NOT appear outside a host."
Thus, the default behavior of hosts is to discard such packets. This
helps to ensure that if a diagnostic packet is misdirected to a host,
it will be silently discarded.
RFC 1812 [RFC1812] states:
A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any
packet that has a destination address on network 127. A router
MAY have a switch that allows the network manager to disable these
checks. If such a switch is provided, it MUST default to
performing the checks.
This helps to ensure that diagnostic packets are never IP forwarded.
The 127/8 address range provides 16M addresses allowing wide flexibility in varying addresses to exercise ECMP paths. Finally, as an implementation optimization, the 127/8 range provides an easy means of identifying possible LSP packets.2.2. Router Alert Option
This document requires the use of the RAO set in an IP header in order to have the transit node process the MPLS OAM payload. [RFC2113] defines a generic Option Value 0x0 for IPv4 RAO that alerts the transit router to examine the IPv4 packet. [RFC7506] defines MPLS OAM Option Value 69 for IPv6 RAO to alert transit routers to examine the IPv6 packet more closely for MPLS OAM purposes. The use of the Router Alert IP Option in this document is as follows: In case of an IPv4 header, the generic IPv4 RAO value 0x0 [RFC2113] SHOULD be used. In case of an IPv6 header, the IPv6 RAO value (69) for MPLS OAM [RFC7506] MUST be used.
3. Packet Format
An MPLS echo request/reply is a (possibly labeled) IPv4 or IPv6 UDP packet; the contents of the UDP packet have the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Version Number | Global Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Message Type | Reply Mode | Return Code | Return Subcode| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sender's Handle | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Sequence Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TimeStamp Sent (seconds) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TimeStamp Sent (seconds fraction) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TimeStamp Received (seconds) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TimeStamp Received (seconds fraction) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TLVs ... | . . . . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Version Number is currently 1. (Note: the version number is to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the ability of an implementation to correctly parse or process an MPLS echo request/ reply. These changes include any syntactic or semantic changes made to any of the fixed fields, or to any Type-Length-Value (TLV) or sub-TLV assignment or format that is defined at a certain version number. The version number may not need to be changed if an optional TLV or sub-TLV is added.)
The Global Flags field is a bit vector with the following format:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MBZ |R|T|V|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
At the time of writing, three flags are defined: the R, T, and V
bits; the rest MUST be set to zero when sending and ignored on
receipt.
The V (Validate FEC Stack) flag is set to 1 if the sender wants the
receiver to perform FEC Stack validation; if V is 0, the choice is
left to the receiver.
The T (Respond Only If TTL Expired) flag MUST be set only in the echo
request packet by the sender. If the T flag is set to 1 in an
incoming echo request, and the TTL of the incoming MPLS label is more
than 1, then the receiving node MUST drop the incoming echo request
and MUST NOT send any echo reply to the sender. This flag MUST NOT
be set in the echo reply packet. If this flag is set in an echo
reply packet, then it MUST be ignored. The T flag is defined in
Section 3.4 of [RFC6425].
The R (Validate Reverse Path) flag is defined in [RFC6426]. When
this flag is set in the echo request, the Responder SHOULD return
reverse-path FEC information, as described in Section 3.4.2 of
[RFC6426].
The Message Type is one of the following:
Value Meaning
----- -------
1 MPLS Echo Request
2 MPLS Echo Reply
The Reply Mode can take one of the following values:
Value Meaning
----- -------
1 Do not reply
2 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet
3 Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert
4 Reply via application-level control channel
An MPLS echo request with 1 (Do not reply) in the Reply Mode field may be used for one-way connectivity tests; the receiving router may log gaps in the Sequence Numbers and/or maintain delay/jitter statistics. An MPLS echo request would normally have 2 (Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet) in the Reply Mode field. If the normal IP return path is deemed unreliable, one may use 3 (Reply via an IPv4/ IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert). Note that this requires that all intermediate routers understand and know how to forward MPLS echo replies. The echo reply uses the same IP version number as the received echo request, i.e., an IPv4 encapsulated echo reply is sent in response to an IPv4 encapsulated echo request. Some applications support an IP control channel. One such example is the associated control channel defined in Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085][RFC5885]. Any application that supports an IP control channel between its control entities may set the Reply Mode to 4 (Reply via application-level control channel) to ensure that replies use that same channel. Further definition of this code point is application specific and thus beyond the scope of this document. Return Codes and Subcodes are described in Section 3.1. The Sender's Handle is filled in by the sender and returned unchanged by the receiver in the echo reply (if any). There are no semantics associated with this handle, although a sender may find this useful for matching up requests with replies. The Sequence Number is assigned by the sender of the MPLS echo request and can be (for example) used to detect missed replies. The TimeStamp Sent is the time of day (according to the sender's clock) in 64-bit NTP timestamp format [RFC5905] when the MPLS echo request is sent. The TimeStamp Received in an echo reply is the time of day (according to the receiver's clock) in 64-bit NTP timestamp format in which the corresponding echo request was received.
TLVs (Type-Length-Value tuples) have the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
. .
. .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Types are defined below; Length is the length of the Value field in
octets. The Value field depends on the Type; it is zero padded to
align to a 4-octet boundary. TLVs may be nested within other TLVs,
in which case the nested TLVs are called sub-TLVs. Sub-TLVs have
independent types and MUST also be 4-octet aligned.
Two examples of how TLV and sub-TLV lengths are computed, and how
sub-TLVs are padded to be 4-octet aligned, are as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (LDP IPv4 FEC) | Length = 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Length for this TLV is 5. A Target FEC Stack TLV that contains
an LDP IPv4 FEC sub-TLV and a VPN IPv4 prefix sub-TLV has the
following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (FEC TLV) | Length = 32 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type = 1 (LDP IPv4 FEC) | Length = 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Type = 6 (VPN IPv4 prefix)| Length = 13 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route Distinguisher |
| (8 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A description of the Types and Values of the top-level TLVs for LSP
ping are given below:
Type # Value Field
------ -----------
1 Target FEC Stack
2 Downstream Mapping (Deprecated)
3 Pad
4 Unassigned
5 Vendor Enterprise Number
6 Unassigned
7 Interface and Label Stack
8 Unassigned
9 Errored TLVs
10 Reply TOS Byte
20 Downstream Detailed Mapping
Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 0) are
mandatory TLVs that MUST either be supported by an implementation or
result in the Return Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not
understood") being sent in the echo response.
Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 1) are optional TLVs that SHOULD be ignored if the implementation does not understand or support them. In Sections 3.2 through 3.9 and their various subsections, only the Value field of the TLV is included.3.1. Return Codes
The Return Code is set to zero by the sender of an echo request. The receiver of said echo request can set it to one of the values listed below in the corresponding echo reply that it generates. The notation <RSC> refers to the Return Subcode. This field is filled in with the stack-depth for those codes that specify that. For all other codes, the Return Subcode MUST be set to zero. Value Meaning ----- ------- 0 No Return Code 1 Malformed echo request received 2 One or more of the TLVs was not understood 3 Replying router is an egress for the FEC at stack-depth <RSC> 4 Replying router has no mapping for the FEC at stack-depth <RSC> 5 Downstream Mapping Mismatch (See Note 1) 6 Upstream Interface Index Unknown (See Note 1) 7 Reserved 8 Label switched at stack-depth <RSC> 9 Label switched but no MPLS forwarding at stack-depth <RSC> 10 Mapping for this FEC is not the given label at stack-depth <RSC> 11 No label entry at stack-depth <RSC> 12 Protocol not associated with interface at FEC stack-depth <RSC> 13 Premature termination of ping due to label stack shrinking to a single label 14 See DDMAP TLV for meaning of Return Code and Return Subcode (See Note 2) 15 Label switched with FEC change Note 1 The Return Subcode (RSC) contains the point in the label stack where processing was terminated. If the RSC is 0, no labels were processed. Otherwise, the packet was label switched at depth RSC.
Note 2
The Return Code is per "Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"
(Section 3.4). This Return Code MUST be used only in the message
header and MUST be set only in the MPLS echo reply message. If
the Return Code is set in the MPLS echo request message, then it
MUST be ignored. When this Return Code is set, each Downstream
Detailed Mapping TLV MUST have an appropriate Return Code and
Return Subcode. This Return Code MUST be used when there are
multiple downstreams for a given node (such as Point-to-Multipoint
(P2MP) or ECMP), and the node needs to return a Return Code/Return
Subcode for each downstream. This Return Code MAY be used even
when there is only one downstream for a given node.
(page 17 continued on part 2)