Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
9190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 4928

Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks

Pages: 8
Best Current Practice: 128
Errata
Updated by:  7274

Top   ToC   RFC4928 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                         G. Swallow
Request for Comments: 4928                                     S. Bryant
BCP: 128                                             Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Best Current Practice                             L. Andersson
                                                                Acreo AB
                                                               June 2007


        Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
   Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of currently deployed MPLS networks. This document makes best practice recommendations for anyone defining an application to run over an MPLS network that wishes to avoid the reordering that can result from transmission of different packets from the same flow over multiple different equal cost paths. These recommendations rely on inspection of the IP version number field in packets. Despite the heuristic nature of the recommendations, they provide a relatively safe way to operate MPLS networks, even if future allocations of IP version numbers were made for some purpose.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................2 1.1. Terminology ................................................2 2. Current ECMP Practices ..........................................2 3. Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment .....................4 4. Security Considerations .........................................5 5. IANA Considerations .............................................5 6. References ......................................................6 6.1. Normative References .......................................6 6.2. Informative References .....................................6
Top   ToC   RFC4928 - Page 2

1. Introduction

This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of currently deployed MPLS networks. We discuss cases where multiple packets from the same top-level LSP might be transmitted over different equal cost paths, resulting in possible mis-ordering of packets that are part of the same top-level LSP. This document also makes best practice recommendations for anyone defining an application to run over an MPLS network that wishes to avoid the resulting potential for mis-ordered packets. While disabling ECMP behavior is an option open to most operators, few (if any) have chosen to do so, and the application designer does not have control over the behavior of the networks that the application may run over. Thus, ECMP behavior is a reality that must be reckoned with.

1.1. Terminology

ECMP Equal Cost Multipath FEC Forwarding Equivalence Class IP ECMP A forwarding behavior in which the selection of the next-hop between equal cost routes is based on the header(s) of an IP packet Label ECMP A forwarding behavior in which the selection of the next-hop between equal cost routes is based on the label stack of an MPLS packet LSP Label Switched Path LSR Label Switching Router

2. Current ECMP Practices

The MPLS label stack and Forwarding Equivalence Classes are defined in [RFC3031]. The MPLS label stack does not carry a Protocol Identifier. Instead the payload of an MPLS packet is identified by the Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) of the bottom most label. Thus, it is not possible to know the payload type if one does not know the label binding for the bottom most label. Since an LSR, which is processing a label stack, need only know the binding for the label(s) it must process, it is very often the case that LSRs along an LSP are unable to determine the payload type of the carried contents. As a means of potentially reducing delay and congestion, IP networks have taken advantage of multiple paths through a network by splitting
Top   ToC   RFC4928 - Page 3
   traffic flows across those paths.  The general name for this practice
   is Equal Cost Multipath or ECMP.  In general, this is done by hashing
   on various fields on the IP or contained headers.  In practice,
   within a network core, the hashing is based mainly or exclusively on
   the IP source and destination addresses.  The reason for splitting
   aggregated flows in this manner is to minimize the re-ordering of
   packets belonging to individual flows contained within the aggregated
   flow.  Within this document, we use the term IP ECMP for this type of
   forwarding algorithm.

   For packets that contain both a label stack and an encapsulated IPv4
   (or IPv6) packet, current implementations in some cases may hash on
   any combination of labels and IPv4 (or IPv6) source and destination
   addresses.

   In the early days of MPLS, the payload was almost exclusively IP.
   Even today the overwhelming majority of carried traffic remains IP.
   Providers of MPLS equipment sought to continue this IP ECMP behavior.
   As shown above, it is not possible to know whether the payload of an
   MPLS packet is IP at every place where IP ECMP needs to be performed.
   Thus vendors have taken the liberty of guessing the payload.  By
   inspecting the first nibble beyond the label stack, existing
   equipment infers that a packet is not IPv4 or IPv6 if the value of
   the nibble (where the IP version number would be found) is not 0x4 or
   0x6 respectively.  Most deployed LSRs will treat a packet whose first
   nibble is equal to 0x4 as if the payload were IPv4 for purposes of IP
   ECMP.

   A consequence of this is that any application that defines an FEC
   that does not take measures to prevent the values 0x4 and 0x6 from
   occurring in the first nibble of the payload may be subject to IP
   ECMP and thus having their flows take multiple paths and arriving
   with considerable jitter and possibly out of order.  While none of
   this is in violation of the basic service offering of IP, it is
   detrimental to the performance of various classes of applications.
   It also complicates the measurement, monitoring, and tracing of those
   flows.

   New MPLS payload types are emerging, such as those specified by the
   IETF PWE3 and AVT working groups.  These payloads are not IP and, if
   specified without constraint, might be mistaken for IP.

   It must also be noted that LSRs that correctly identify a payload as
   not being IP most often will load-share traffic across multiple
   equal-cost paths based on the label stack.  Any reserved label, no
   matter where it is located in the stack, may be included in the
   computation for load balancing.  Modification of the label stack
   between packets of a single flow could result in re-ordering that
Top   ToC   RFC4928 - Page 4
   flow.  That is, were an explicit null or a router-alert label to be
   added to a packet, that packet could take a different path through
   the network.

   Note that for some applications, being mistaken for IPv4 may not be
   detrimental.  The trivial case being where the payload behind the top
   label is a packet belonging to an MPLS IPv4 VPN.  Here the real
   payload is IP and most (if not all) deployed equipment will locate
   the end of the label stack and correctly perform IP ECMP.

   A less obvious case is when the packets of a given flow happen to
   have constant values in the fields upon which IP ECMP would be
   performed.  For example, if an Ethernet frame immediately follows the
   label and the LSR does ECMP on IPv4, but does not do ECMP on IPv6,
   then either the first nibble will be 0x4, or it will be something
   else.  If the nibble is not 0x4 then no IP ECMP is performed, but
   Label ECMP may be performed.  If it is 0x4, then the constant values
   of the MAC addresses overlay the fields that would have been occupied
   by the source and destination addresses of an IP header.  In this
   case, the input to the ECMP algorithm would be a constant value and
   thus the algorithm would always return the same result.

3. Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment

We will use the term "Application Label" to refer to a label that has been allocated with an FEC Type that is defined (or simply used) by an application. Such labels necessarily appear at the bottom of the label stack, that is, below labels associated with transporting the packet across an MPLS network. The FEC Type of the Application label defines the payload that follows. Anyone defining an application to be transported over MPLS is free to define new FEC Types and the format of the payload that will be carried. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | Exp |0| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . . . . . . . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Label | Exp |0| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Application Label | Exp |1| TTL | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |1st Nbl| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Top   ToC   RFC4928 - Page 5
   In order to avoid IP ECMP treatment, it is necessary that an
   application take precautions to not be mistaken as IP by deployed
   equipment that snoops on the presumed location of the IP Version
   field.  Thus, at a minimum, the chosen format must disallow the
   values 0x4 and 0x6 in the first nibble of their payload.

   It is REQUIRED, however, that applications depend upon in-order
   packet delivery restrict the first nibble values to 0x0 and 0x1.
   This will ensure that their traffic flows will not be affected if
   some future routing equipment does similar snooping on some future
   version(s) of IP.

   This behavior implies that if in the future an IP version is defined
   with a version number of 0x0 or 0x1, then equipment complying with
   this BCP would be unable to look past one or more MPLS headers, and
   loadsplit traffic from a single LSP across multiple paths based on a
   hash of specific fields in the IPv0 or IPv1 headers.  That is, IP
   traffic employing these version numbers would be safe from
   disturbances caused by inappropriate loadsplitting, but would also
   not be able to get the performance benefits.

   For an example of how ECMP is avoided in Pseudowires, see [RFC4385].

4. Security Considerations

This memo discusses the conditions under which MPLS traffic associated with a single top-level LSP either does or does not have the possibility of being split between multiple paths, implying the possibility of mis-ordering between packets belonging to the same top-level LSP. From a security point of view, the worse that could result from a security breach of the mechanisms described here would be mis-ordering of packets, and possible corresponding loss of throughput (for example, TCP connections may in some cases reduce the window size in response to mis-ordered packets). However, in order to create even this limited result, an attacker would need to either change the configuration or implementation of a router, or change the bits on the wire as transmitted in a packet. Other security issues in the deployment of MPLS are outside the scope of this document, but are discussed in other MPLS specifications, such as [RFC3031], [RFC3036], [RFC3107], [RFC3209], [RFC3478], [RFC3479], [RFC4206], [RFC4220], [RFC4221], [RFC4378], AND [RFC4379].

5. IANA Considerations

IANA has marked the value 0x1 in the IP protocol version number space as "Reserved" and placed a reference to this document to both values 0x0 and 0x1.
Top   ToC   RFC4928 - Page 6
   Note that this document does not in any way change the policies
   regarding the allocation of version numbers, including the possible
   use of the reserved numbers for some future purpose.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. [RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol", RFC 3478, February 2003. [RFC3479] Farrel, A., Ed., "Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3479, February 2003. [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. [RFC4220] Dubuc, M., Nadeau, T., and J. Lang, "Traffic Engineering Link Management Information Base", RFC 4220, November 2005. [RFC4221] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Farrel, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview", RFC 4221, November 2005. [RFC4378] Allan, D., Ed., and T. Nadeau, Ed., "A Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management (OAM)", RFC 4378, February 2006.
Top   ToC   RFC4928 - Page 7
   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              February 2006.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

Authors' Addresses

Loa Andersson Acreo AB Electrum 236 SE-146 40 Kista Sweden EMail: loa@pi.se Stewart Bryant Cisco Systems 250, Longwater, Green Park, Reading, RG2 6GB, UK EMail: stbryant@cisco.com George Swallow Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Ave Boxborough, MA 01719 EMail: swallow@cisco.com
Top   ToC   RFC4928 - Page 8
Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.