Network Working Group                                     George Swallow
Internet Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: January March 2006
                                                          Stewart Bryant
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                           Loa Andersson
                                                                   Acreo

                                                               July

                                                          September 2005

        Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks

                    draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-01.txt

                    draft-ietf-mpls-ecmp-bcp-02.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 5 of RFC3667.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   Abstract

      This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior
      of currently deployed MPLS networks and makes best practice
      recommendations for anyone defining an application to run over an
      MPLS network and wishes to avoid such treatment.

Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 1.1    Terminology  ...............................................   3
 2      Current EMCP ECMP Practices  ....................................   3
 3      Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment  ...............   5
 4      Security Considerations  ...................................   6
 5      References  ................................................   6
 5.1    Normative References  ......................................   6
 6      Authors' Addresses  ........................................   6

1. Introduction

   This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of
   currently deployed MPLS networks and makes best practice recommenda-
   tions for anyone defining an application to run over an MPLS network
   and wishes to avoid such treatment.  While disabling ECMP behavior is
   an option open to most operators, few (if any) have chosen to do so.
   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 EMCP ECMP Practices

   The MPLS label stack and Forwarding Equivalence Classes are defined
   in [RFC3031].  The MPLS label stack does not carry a Protocol Identi-
   fier.  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 pro-
   cessing 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
   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 in 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.

   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 what the payload is.
   By inspecting the first nibble beyond the label stack, it can be
   inferred 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 which defines a FEC
   which 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 which correctly identify a payload as
   not being IP, may still need to most often will load-share this traffic across multi-
   ple multiple
   equal-cost paths.  In this case a LABEL ECMP algorithm is
   employed, where a hash is computed paths based on all or part(s) of the label stack.  Any reserved label, no
   matter where it is located in the stack, may be included in the computation com-
   putation for load balancing.  Modi-
   fication  Modification of the label stack between
   packets of a single flow could result in re-ordering that 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 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 per-
   formed.  For example if an ethernet frame immediately follows the
   label and the LSR 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 per-
   formed.  If it is 0x4, then the constant values of the MAC addresses
   overlay the fields that would be occupied by the source and destina-
   tion addresses of an IP header.

3. Recommendations for Avoiding ECMP Treatment

   The field in

   We will use the figure below tagged term "Application Label" is to refer to a label
   of the that has
   been allocated with a FEC Type used/defined that is defined (or simply used) by the an
   application.  It is  Such labels necessarily appear at the bottom
   most label in of the
   label stack.  As such its stack, that is, below labels associated with transporting the
   packet across an MPLS network.  The FEC Type of the Application label
   defines the pay-
   load which payload that follows.  Anyone defining an application to
   be transported over MPLS is free to define new FEC Types and the format for-
   mat of the pay-
   load payload which 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     | MPLS
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   .                                       .     . .               .
   .                                       .     . .               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Label                  | Exp |0|       TTL     | Label
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Application Label            | Exp |1|       TTL     | Stack
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1st Nbl|                                                       | Payload
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   In order to avoid IP ECMP treatment it is necessary that an applica-
   tion 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 strongly recommended, however, that applications restrict the
   first nibble values to 0x0 and 0x1.  This will ensure that that their
   traffic flows will not be affected if some future routing equipment
   does similar snooping on some future version of IP.

4. Security Considerations

   This memo documents current practices.  As such it creates no new
   security considerations.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E. et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              Architecture", January 2001.

6. Authors' Addresses

      Loa Andersson
      Acreo

      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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.

Expiration Date

   January

   March 2006

Disclaimer of Validity

   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 AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFOR-
   MATION
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

   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.