<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
     which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>

<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
     please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
     (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
     (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->


<rfc category="std" docName="draft-akiya-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-01" ipr="trust200902" updates="4379,6790">
  <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
     ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
     you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
     they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <title abbrev="LSP Ping over Entropy">
	Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace over MPLS Network using&nbsp;Entropy&nbsp;Labels (EL)
    </title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->

    <author fullname="Nobo Akiya" initials="N."
            surname="Akiya">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>nobo@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="George Swallow" initials="G."
            surname="Swallow">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>swallow@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Carlos Pignataro" initials="C."
            surname="Pignataro">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>cpignata@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date year="2013" />

    <area>MPLS Working Group</area>
    <workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>

    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
    IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
	If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
    which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>MPLS</keyword>
    <keyword>LSP Ping</keyword>
    <keyword>Entropy</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
         files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
         output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
         keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path
	(LSP) Ping and Traceroute are used to exercise specific paths of
	Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP). When LSP is signaled to use Entropy
	Label (EL) described in RFC6790, the ability for LSP
	Ping and Traceroute operation to discover and exercise ECMP paths has
	been lost in scenarios which LSRs apply deviating load balance
	techniques. One such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL based load
	balancing while other LSRs apply non-EL based load balancing (ex: IP).
	Another scenario is when EL based LSP is stitched with another LSP
	which can be EL based or non-EL based.
      </t>
      
      <t>This document extends the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute
        mechanisms to restore the ability of exercising specific paths
        of ECMP over LSP which make use of Entropy Label. This
        document updates RFC4379 and RFC6790.
      </t>

    </abstract>
	
	<note title="Requirements Language">
	<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119">RFC 2119</xref>.</t>
	</note>
  </front>

  <middle>

    <section title="Introduction" anchor="INTRO">

      <t>Section 3.3.1 of <xref target="RFC4379" /> specifies
      multipath information encoding which can be used by LSP Ping
      initiator to trace and validate all ECMP paths between ingress
      and egress. These encodings are sufficient when all the LSRs along
      the path(s), between ingress and egress, consider same set of
      &quot;keys&quot; as input for load balancing algorithm: all IP
      based or all label based.</t>

      <t>With introduction of <xref target="RFC6790" />, it is quite
        normal to see set of LSRs performing load balancing based on
        EL/ELI while others still follow the traditional way (IP
        based). This results in LSP Ping initiator not be able to
        trace and validate all ECMP paths in following scenarios:

	<list style="symbols">

	  <t>One or more transit LSRs along LSP with ELI/EL in label
	  stack do not perform ECMP load balancing based on EL
	  (hashes based on &quot;keys&quot; including IP destination
	  address). This scenario is not only possible but quite common
	  due transit LSRs not implementing <xref target="RFC6790" />
	  or transit LSRs implementing <xref target="RFC6790" /> but
	  not implementing suggested transit LSR behavior in Section
	  4.3 of <xref target="RFC6790" />.</t>

	  <t>Two or more LSPs stitched together with at least one of these
	  LSP pushing ELI/EL in label stack. Such scenarios are described
	  in <xref target="I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls" />.
	  </t>

	</list>

	These scenarios will be quite common because every deployment
	of <xref target="RFC6790" /> will invariably end up with nodes
	that support ELI/EL and nodes that do not. There will
	typically be areas that support ELI/EL and areas that do
	not.</t>

      <t>As pointed out in <xref target="RFC6790" /> the procedures of
	<xref target="RFC4379" /> with respect to multipath
	information type {9} are incomplete.  However
	<xref target="RFC6790" /> does not actually update
	<xref target="RFC4379" />.  Further the specific EL location
	is not clearly defined, particularly in the case of Flow-Aware
	Transport Pseudowires <xref target="RFC6391" />. This document
	defines a new FEC Stack sub-TLV for the Entropy Label.
	<xref target="MPT9-Sec" /> of this document updates the
	procedures for multipath information type {9} described in
	<xref target="RFC4379" /> Rest of this document describes
	extensions required to restore ECMP discovery and tracing
	capabilities for scenarios described.
      </t>

    </section>

    <section title="Overview">

      <t><xref target="RFC4379" /> describes LSP traceroute as an operation where the initiating LSR send a series of MPLS echo requests towards the same destination. The first packet in the series have the TTL set to 1. When the echo reply is received from the LSR one hop away the second echo request in the series is sent with the TTL set to 2, for each echo request the TLL is incremented by one until a response is received from the intended destination. Initiating LSR discovers and exercises ECMP by
      obtaining multipath information from each transit LSR and using
      specific destination IP address or specific entropy label.</t>

      <t>LSP Ping initiating LSR sends MPLS echo request with multipath
      information. This multipath information is described in
      DSMAP/DDMAP TLV of echo request, and can contain set of IP
      addresses or set of labels today. Multipath information types
      {2, 4, 8} carry set of IP addresses and multipath information
      type {9} carries set of labels. Responder LSR (receiver of MPLS
      echo request) is to determine subset of initiator specified
      multipath information which load balances to each downstream
      (outgoing interface). Responder LSR sends MPLS echo reply with
      resulting multipath information per downstream (outgoing
      interface) back to the initiating LSR. Initiating LSR is then able
      to use specific IP destination address or specific label to
      exercise specific ECMP path on the responder LSR.</t>

      <t>Current behavior is problematic in following scenarios:

	<list style="symbols">

	  <t>Initiating LSR sends IP multipath information, but
	    responder LSR load balances on labels.</t>

	  <t>Initiating LSR sends label multipath information, but
	    responder LSR load balances on IP addresses.</t>

	  <t>Initiating LSR sends one of existing multipath information
	    to LSR which pushes ELI/EL in label stack, but initiating
	    LSR can only continue to discover and exercise specific
	    path of ECMP if LSR which pushes ELI/EL responds with both
	    IP addresses and associated EL corresponding to each IP
	    address. This is because:

	    <list style="symbols">

	      <t>ELI/EL pushing LSR that is a stitching point will
	      load balance based on IP address.</t>

	      <t>Downstream LSR(s) of ELI/EL pushing LSR may load
	      balance based on ELs.</t>

	    </list>

	  </t>

	  <t>Initiating LSR sends one of existing multipath information
             to ELI/EL pushing LSR, but initiating LSR can only
             continue to discover and exercise specific path of ECMP
             if ELI/EL pushing LSR responds with both labels and
             associated EL corresponding to label. This is because:

	    <list style="symbols">

	      <t>ELI/EL pushing LSR that is a stitching point will
	      load balance based on EL from previous LSP and pushes
	      new EL.</t>

	      <t>Downstream LSR(s) of ELI/EL pushing LSR may load
	      balance based on new ELs.</t>

	    </list>

	  </t>

	</list>

	The above scenarios point to how the existing multipath
	information is insufficient when LSP traceroute is operated on
	an LSP with Entropy Labels described by <xref target="RFC6790"
	/>. Therefore, this document defines a multipath information
	type to be used in the DSMAP/DDMAP of MPLS echo request/reply
	packets in <xref target="MPT10" />.
      </t>

      <t>In addition, responder LSR can reply with empty multipath
      information if no IP address set or label set from received
      multipath information matched load balancing to a
      downstream. Empty return is also possible if initiating LSR sends
      multipath information of one type, IP address or label, but
      responder LSR load balances on the other type. To disambiguate
      between the two results, this document introduces new flags in
      the DSMAP/DDMAP TLV to allow responder LSR to describe the load
      balance technique being used.</t>

      <t>It is required that all LSRs along the LSP understand new
      flags as well as new multipath information type. It is also
      required that initiating LSR can select both IP destination
      address and label to use on transmitting MPLS echo request
      packets. Two additional DS Flags are defined for the DSMAP and
      DDMAP TLVs in <xref target="DS_Flags" />.
      </t>

    </section>

    <section title="Multipath Type 9" anchor="MPT9-Sec">

      <t>
	<xref target="RFC4379" /> defined multipath type {9} for tracing of LSPs where
        label based load-balancing is used.  However, as pointed out
        in <xref target="RFC6790" />, the procedures for using this type are incomplete.
	First, the specific location of the label was not defined.
        What was assumed, but not spelled out, was that the presence
        of multipath type {9} meant the responder
        should act as if the payload of the received packet were
        non-IP and that the bottom-of-stack label should be replaced
        by the values indicated by multipath type {9} to determine
        their respective out-going interfaces.
      </t>

      <t>
	Further, with the introduction of <xref target="RFC6790" />, entropy labels may
	now appear anywhere in a label stack.
      </t>

      <t>
	This section defines to which labels multipath type {9} can
	apply.  Additionally it defines procedures for tracing
	pseudowires and flow-aware pseudowires.  These procedures
	pertain to the use of multipath information type {9} as well
	as type {10}.
      </t> 

      <t>
	<xref target="EL_FEC" /> defines a new FEC-Stack sub-TLV to
	indicate and entropy label.  Multipath type {9} applies
	exclusively to this sub-TLV.  Any LSP Ping message containing
	a DD-MAP or DS-MAP with multipath type {9} MUST include an
	EL_FEC at the bottom of the FEC-Stack.
      </t>

      <t>When an MPLS echo request message is received containing a
	FEC-Stack with an EL-FEC at the bottom of the FEC stack and is
	not preceded by an entropy label, the responder must behave
	(for load balancing purposes) as if the first word of the
	message were a Pseudowire Control Word.
      </t>  

      <t>In order to trace a non-FAT pseudowire, instead of
	including the appropriate PW-FEC in the FEC-Stack, an EL-FEC
	is included.  Tracing in this way will cause compliant routers
	to return the proper outgoing interface.  Note that this
	procedure only traces to the end of the MPLS LSP at transport layer
	(e.g. LDP and/or RSVP).  To actually verify the PW-FEC or in
	the case of a MS-PW, to determine the next pseudowire label
	value, the initiator MUST repeat that step of the trace, (i.e.,
	repeating the TTL value used) but with the FEC-Stack
	modified to contain the appropriate PW-FEC.
      </t>

      <t>In order to trace a Flow-Aware Transport Pseudowire, the initiator
	includes an EL-FEC at the bottom of the FEC-Stack and pushes
	the appropriate PW-FEC onto the FEC-Stack.  
      </t>

    </section>

    <section title="Initiating LSR Procedures">
      
      <t>In order to facilitate the flow of the following text we
	speak in terms of a boolean called EL_LSP maintained by the
	initiating LSR. This value controls the multipath information type to be
	used in transmitted echo request packets. When the initiating LSR is
	transmitting an echo request packet with DSMAP/DDMAP with a non-zero
	multipath information type, then EL_LSP boolean MUST be consulted to
	determine the multipath information type to use.
      </t>

      <t>In addition to procedures described in <xref target="RFC4379"
						      /> as updated by <xref target="MPT9-Sec" /> and <xref target="RFC6424" />, initiating LSR MUST operate
	with following procedures.
	
	<list style="symbols">
	  
	  <t>When initiating LSR is IP based load balancer (not pushing ELI/EL), initialize EL_LSP=False.</t>
	  
	  <t>When initiating LSR pushes ELI/EL, initialize
	    EL_LSP=True.</t>
	  
	  <t>When initiating LSR is transmitting non-zero multipath
	    information type:
	    <list>
	      <t>If (EL_LSP) initiating LSR MUST use multipath
		information type {10}.</t>
	      <t>Else initiating LSR MUST use multipath
		information type {2, 4, 8, 9}.</t>
	    </list>
	  </t>
	  
	  <t>When initiating LSR is transmitting multipath information
            type {10}, both &quot;IP Multipath Information&quot; and
            &quot;Label Multipath Information&quot; MUST be included,
            and &quot;IP Associated Label Multipath Information&quot;
            MUST be omitted (NULL).</t>
	  
	  <t>When initiating LSR receives echo reply with {L=0, E=1} in
            DS flags with valid contents, set EL_LSP=True.</t>
	  
	</list>
	
      </t>
      
      <t>In following conditions, initiating LSR may have lost the
        ability to exercise specific ECMP paths. Initiating LSR MAY
        continue with &quot;best effort&quot;.

	<list style="symbols">

	  <t>Received echo reply contains empty multipath
	  information.</t>

	  <t>Received echo reply contains {L=0, E=&lt;any&gt;} DS
	  flags, but does not contain IP multipath information.</t>

	  <t>Received echo reply contains {L=1, E=&lt;any&gt;} DS
	  flags, but does not contain label multipath information.</t>

	  <t>Received echo reply contains {L=&lt;any&gt;, E=1} DS
	  flags, but does not contain associated label multipath
	  information.</t>

	  <t>IP multipath information types {2, 4, 8} sent, and
	  received echo reply with {L=1, E=0} in DS flags.</t>

	  <t>Multipath information type {10} sent, and received echo
	  reply with multipath information type other than {10}.</t>

	</list>

      </t>

    </section>

    <section title="Responder LSR Procedures" anchor="Res_LSR_Proc">

      <t>Common Procedures: Responder LSR receiving MPLS echo request
        packet with multipath information type {10} MUST validate
        following contents. Any deviation MUST result in responder LSR
        to consider the packet as malformed and return code 1
        (Malformed echo request received) in MPLS echo reply packet.

	<list style="symbols">
	  <t>IP multipath information MUST be included.</t>
	  <t>Label multipath information MUST be included.</t>
	  <t>IP associated label multipath information MUST be omitted (NULL).</t>
	</list>

	Following subsections describe expected responder LSR
	procedures when echo reply is to include DSMAP/DDMAP TLVs,
	based on local load balance technique being employed. In case
	responder LSR performs deviating load balance techniques per
	downstream basis, appropriate procedures matching to each
	downstream load balance technique MUST be operated.
      </t>

      <section title="IP Based Load Balancer &amp; Not Pushing ELI/EL">

	<t>
	  <list style="symbols">

	    <t>Responder MUST set {L=0, E=0} in DS flags.</t>

	    <t>If multipath information type {2, 4, 8} is received,
	    responder MUST comply with <xref target="RFC4379"
	    />/<xref target="RFC6424" />.</t>

	    <t>If multipath information type {9} is received,
	    responder MUST reply with multipath type {0}.</t>

	    <t>If multipath information type {10} is received,
	    responder MUST reply with multipath information type
	    {10}. &quot;Label Multipath Information&quot; and
	    &quot;Associated Label Multipath Information&quot;
	    sections MUST be omitted (NULL). If no matching IP address
	    is found, then &quot;IPMultipathType&quot; field MUST be
	    set to multipath information type {0} and &quot;IP
	    Multipath Information&quot; section MUST also be omitted
	    (NULL). If at least one matching IP address is found, then
	    &quot;IPMultipathType&quot; field MUST be set to
	    appropriate multipath information type {2, 4, 8} and
	    &quot;IP Multipath Information&quot; section MUST be
	    included.</t>
	  </list>
	</t>
      </section>

      <section title="IP Based Load Balancer &amp; Pushes ELI/EL">
	<t>
	  <list style="symbols">

	    <t>Responder MUST set {L=0, E=1} in DS flags.</t>

	    <t>If multipath information type {9} is received,
	      responder MUST reply with multipath type {0}.
	    </t>

	    <t>If multipath type {2, 4, 8, 10} is received, responder
	      MUST respond with multipath type {10}. See
	      <xref target="MPT10" /> for details of multipath type
	      {10}. &quot;Label Multipath Information&quot; section
	      MUST be omitted (i.e. is it not there). IP address set
	      specified in received IP multipath information MUST be
	      used to determine the returning IP/Label pairs. If
	      received multipath information type was {10}, received
	      &quot;Label Multipath Information&quot; sections MUST NOT
	      be used to determine the associated label portion of
	      returning IP/Label pairs. If no matching IP address is
	      found, then &quot;IPMultipathType&quot; field MUST be
	      set to multipath information type {0} and &quot;IP
	      Multipath Information&quot; section MUST be omitted. In
	      addition, &quot;Assoc Label Multipath Length&quot; MUST
	      be set to 0, and &quot;Associated Label Multipath
	      Information&quot; section MUST also be omitted. If at
	      least one matching IP address is found,
	      then &quot;IPMultipathType&quot; field MUST be set to
	      appropriate multipath information type {2, 4, 8} and
	      &quot;IP Multipath Information&quot; section MUST be
	      included. In addition, &quot;Associated Label Multipath
	      Information&quot; section MUST be populated with list of
	      labels corresponding to each IP address specified in
	      &quot;IP Multipath Information&quot;
	      section. &quot;Assoc Label Multipath Length&quot; MUST
	      be set to a value representing length in octets of
	      &quot;Associated Label Multipath Information&quot; field.
	    </t>

	  </list>
	</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Label Based Load Balancer &amp; Not Pushing ELI/EL" anchor="ResLSR_Label_No_ELI">
	<t>
	  <list style="symbols">

	    <t>Responder MUST set {L=1, E=0} in DS flags.</t>

	    <t>If multipath information type {2, 4, 8} is received,
	      responder MUST reply with multipath type {0}.</t>

	    <t>If multipath information type {9} is received,
	      responder MUST comply with <xref target="RFC4379" />
	      /<xref target="RFC6424" /> as updated by
	      <xref target="MPT9-Sec" />.
	    </t>

	    <t>If multipath information type {10} is received,
	    responder MUST reply with multipath information type
	    {10}. &quot;IP Multipath Information&quot; and
	    &quot;Associated Label Multipath Information&quot;
	    sections MUST be omitted (NULL). If no matching label is
	    found, then &quot;LbMultipathType&quot; field MUST be set
	    to multipath information type {0} and &quot;Label
	    Multipath Information&quot; section MUST also be omitted
	    (NULL). If at least one matching label is found, then
	    &quot;LbMultipathType&quot; field MUST be set to
	    appropriate multipath information type {9} and &quot;Label
	    Multipath Information&quot; section MUST be included.</t>
	  </list>
	</t>
      </section>

      <section title="Label Based Load Balancer &amp; Pushes ELI/EL" anchor="ResLSR_Label_ELI">
	<t>
	  <list style="symbols">

	    <t>Responder MUST set {L=1, E=1} in DS flags.</t>

	    <t>If multipath information type {2, 4, 8} is received,
	    responder MUST reply with multipath type {0}.</t>

	    <t>If multipath type {9, 10} is received, responder MUST
	    respond with multipath type {10}. &quot;IP Multipath
	    Information&quot; section MUST be omitted. Label
	    set specified in received label multipath information MUST
	    be used to determine the returning Label/Label pairs. If
	    received multipath information type was {10}, received
	    &quot;Label Multipath Information&quot; sections MUST NOT
	    be used to determine the associated label portion of
	    returning Label/Label pairs. If no matching label is
	    found, then &quot;LbMultipathType&quot; field MUST be set
	    to multipath information type {0} and &quot;Label
	    Multipath Information&quot; section MUST be omitted. In
	    addition, &quot;Assoc Label Multipath
	    Length&quot; MUST be set to 0, and &quot;Associated Label
	    Multipath Information&quot; section MUST also be omitted.
	    If at least one matching label is found, then
	    &quot;LbMultipathType&quot; field MUST be set to
	    appropriate multipath information type {9} and &quot;Label
	    Multipath Information&quot; section MUST be included. In
	    addition, &quot;Associated Label Multipath
	    Information&quot; section MUST be populated with list of
	    labels corresponding to each label specified in
	    &quot;Label Multipath Information&quot;
	    section. &quot;Assoc Label Multipath Length&quot; MUST
	    be set to a value representing length in octets of
	    &quot;Associated Label Multipath Information&quot; field.</t>

	  </list>
	</t>
      </section>

	<section title="FAT MS-PW Stitching LSR">

	<t>Stitching LSR that xconnects Flow-Aware Transport
	Pseudowires	behave in one of two ways:

	<list style="symbols">
	<t>Load balances on previous flow label, and carries over
	same flow label. For this case, stitching LSR is to behave as
	procedures described in <xref target="ResLSR_Label_No_ELI" />.</t>
	<t>Load balances on previous flow label, and replaces flow label
	with newly computed. For this case, stitching LSR is to behave
	as procedures described in <xref target="ResLSR_Label_ELI" />.</t>
	</list>
	</t>
	</section>

    </section>

    <section anchor="EL_FEC" title="Entropy Label FEC">

      <t>Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) is a reserved label that has no
        explicit FEC associated, and has label value 7 assigned from
        the reserved range. Use Nil FEC as Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to
        account for ELI in a Target FEC Stack TLV.</t>

      <t>Entropy Label (EL) is a special purpose label with label
        value being discretionary (i.e. label value may not be from
        the reserved range). For LSP verification mechanics to perform
        its purpose, it is necessary for a Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to
        clearly describe EL, particularly in the scenario where label
        stack does not carry ELI (ex: FAT-PW <xref target="RFC6391"
        />). Therefore, this document defines a EL FEC to allow a
        Target FEC Stack sub-TLV to be added to the Target FEC Stack
        to account for EL.</t>

      <t>The Length is 4. Labels are 20-bit values treated as numbers.

	<figure align="left"><preamble></preamble><artwork align="left">
 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                 |          MBZ          |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	</artwork></figure>

	Label is the actual label value inserted in the label stack;
	the MBZ fields MUST be zero when sent and ignored on
	receipt.</t>

    </section>

    <section title="DS Flags: L and E" anchor="DS_Flags">

      <t>Two flags, L and E, are added in DS Flags field of the
      DSMAP/DDMAP TLVs. Both flags MUST NOT be set in echo request
      packets when sending, and ignored when received. Zero, one or
      both new flags MUST be set in echo reply packets.

	<figure align="left"><preamble></preamble><artwork align="left">
 DS Flags
 --------

     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |  MBZ  |L|E|I|N|
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
</artwork></figure>

	<figure align="left"><preamble></preamble><artwork align="left">
 Flag  Name and Meaning
 ----  ----------------
    L  Label based load balance indicator
       This flag MUST be set to zero in the echo request. LSR
       which performs load balancing on a label MUST set this
       flag in the echo reply. LSR which performs load
       balancing on IP MUST NOT set this flag in the echo
       reply.

    E  ELI/EL push indicator
       This flag MUST be set to zero in the echo request. LSR
       which pushes ELI/EL MUST set this flag in the echo
       reply. LSR which does not push ELI/EL MUST NOT set
       this flag in the echo reply.
	</artwork></figure>

	Two flags result in four load balancing techniques which echo
	reply generating LSR can indicate:

	<list style="symbols">
	  <t>{L=0, E=0} LSR load balances based on IP and does not
	  push ELI/EL.</t>
	  <t>{L=0, E=1} LSR load balances based on IP and pushes
	  ELI/EL.</t>
	  <t>{L=1, E=0} LSR load balances based on label and does not
	  push ELI/EL.</t>
	  <t>{L=1, E=1} LSR load balances based on label and pushes
	  ELI/EL.</t>
	</list>
      </t>

    </section>

    <section title="New Multipath Information Type: 10" anchor="MPT10">

      <t>One new multipath information type is added to be used in
      DSMAP/DDMAP TLVs. New multipath type has value of 10.

	<figure align="left"><preamble></preamble><artwork align="left">
  Key   Type                  Multipath Information
  ---   ----------------      ---------------------
   10   IP and label set      IP addresses and label prefixes
	</artwork></figure>
      </t>
      <t>Multipath type 10 is comprised of three sections. One section
      to describe IP address set. One section to describe label
      set. One section to describe another label set which associates
      to either IP address set or label set specified in the other
      section.</t>
      <t>Multipath information type 10 has following format:

	<figure align="left"><preamble></preamble><artwork align="left">
 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IPMultipathType| Reserved(MBZ) |     IP Multipath Length       |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                                                               ~
|                  (IP Multipath Information)                   |
~                                                               ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|LbMultipathType| Reserved(MBZ) |    Label Multipath Length     |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                                                               ~
|                 (Label Multipath Information)                 |
~                                                               ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|         Reserved(MBZ)         |  Assoc Label Multipath Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                                                               ~
|            (Associated Label Multipath Information)           |
~                                                               ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	</artwork></figure>

	<list style="symbols">

	  <t>IPMultipathType
	    <list>
	      <t>0 when &quot;IP Multipath Information" is omitted.
	      Otherwise one of IP multipath information values:
	      {2, 4, 8}.</t>
	    </list>
	  </t>
	      
	  <t>IP Multipath Information
	    <list>
	      <t>This section is omitted when &quot;IPMultipathType&quot;
	      is 0. Otherwise this section reuses IP multipath information
	      from <xref target="RFC4379" />. Specifically, multipath
	      information for values {2, 4, 8} can be used.</t>
	    </list>
	  </t>

	  <t>LbMultipathType
	    <list>
	      <t>0 when &quot;Label Multipath Information" is omitted.
	      Otherwise label multipath information value {9}.</t>
	    </list>
	  </t>

	  <t>Label Multipath Information
	    <list>
	      <t>This section is omitted when &quot;LbMultipathType&quot;
	      is 0. Otherwise this section reuses label multipath
	      information from <xref target="RFC4379" />. Specifically,
	      multipath information for value {9} can be used.</t>
	    </list>
	  </t>

	  <t>Associated Label Multipath Information
	    <list>
	      <t>&quot;Assoc Label Multipath Length&quot; is a 16 bit field of multipath information which indicates length in octets of the associated label multipath information.</t>
	      <t>&quot;Associated Label Multipath Information&quot; is a list of labels with each label described in 24 bits. This section MUST be omitted in an MPLS echo request message. A midpoint which pushes ELI/EL labels SHOULD include &quot;Assoc Label Multipath Information&quot; in its MPLS echo reply message, along with either &quot;IP Multipath Information&quot; or &quot;Label Multipath Information&quot;. Each specified associated label described in this section maps to specific IP address OR label described in the &quot;IP Multipath Information&quot; section or &quot;Label Multipath Information&quot; section. For example, if 3 IP addresses are specified in the &quot;IP Multipath Information&quot; section, then there MUST be 3 labels described in this section. First label maps to the lowest IP address specified, second label maps to the second lowest IP address specified and third label maps to the third lowest IP address specified.</t>
	    </list>
	  </t>
	  
	</list>
	
      </t>
      
    </section>
    
    <section title="Unsupported Cases">

      <t>There are couple of scenarios where LSP path tracing
	mechanics are not supported in this draft revision.

	<list style="symbols">
	<t>When one or more LSP transit node(s) performs label based
	load balancing on a label that is not bottom-of-stack label
	when Entropy Label Indicator is not included.</t>
	<t>When one or more LSP transit node(s) performs label based
	load balancing on a label other than Entropy Label when
	Entropy Label Indicator and Entropy Label pair is included.</t>
	</list>
	</t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">

      <t>This document extends LSP Traceroute mechanism to discover
	and exercise ECMP paths when LSP uses ELI/EL in label stack.
	Additional processings are required for responder and initiator
	nodes. Responder node that pushes ELI/EL will need to compute
	and return multipath data including associated EL. Initiator
	node will need to store and handle both IP multipath and label
	multipath information, and include destination IP addresses
	and/or ELs in MPLS echo request packet as well as in carried
	multipath information to downstream nodes. Due to additional
	processing, it is critical that proper security measures
	described in <xref target="RFC4379" /> and
	<xref target="RFC6424" /> are followed.</t>

    </section>

    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">

      <section title="New Sub-Registries">

<t><xref target="RFC4379" /> defines the Downstream Mapping TLV, which has the Type 2 assigned from the &quot;Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs&quot; registry.  [RFC6424] defines the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV, which has the Type 20 assigned from the &quot;Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs&quot; registry.  Both TLVs shares two fields: &quot;DS Flags&quot; and &quot;Multipath Type&quot;.  This document requires allocation of new values in both the &quot;DS Flags&quot; and &quot;Multipath Type&quot; fields, which are not maintained by IANA today.  Therefore, this document requests IANA to create new registries within <xref target="IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING" /> protocol to maintain &quot;DS Flags&quot; and &quot;Multipath Type&quot; fields.  Name of registries and initial values are described in immediate sub-sections to follow.</t>

      <section title="DS Flags">

<t>

<figure align="left"><preamble></preamble><artwork align="left">
 Bit number Name                                        Reference
 ---------- ----------------------------------------    ---------
       7    N: Treat as a Non-IP Packet                 RFC4379
       6    I: Interface and Label Stack Object Request RFC4379
       5    E: ELI/EL push indicator                    this document
       4    L: Label based load balance indicator       this document
     3-0    Unassigned
</artwork></figure>

Assignments of DS Flags are via Standards  Action <xref target="RFC5226" /> or IESG Approval <xref target="RFC5226" />.</t>

<t>Note that &quot;DS Flags&quot; is a field included in two TLVs defined in &quot;Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs&quot; registry: Downstream Mapping TLV (value 2) and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (value 20).  Modification to &quot;DS Flags&quot; registry will affect both TLVs.</t>

      </section>

      <section title="Multipath Type">

<t>
<figure align="left"><preamble></preamble><artwork align="left">
 Value      Meaning                                  Reference
 ---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
       0    no multipath                             RFC4379
       1    Unassigned
       2    IP address                               RFC4379
       3    Unassigned
       4    IP address range                         RFC4379
     5-7    Unassigned
       8    Bit-masked IP address set                RFC4379
       9    Bit-masked label set                     RFC4379
      10    IP and label set                         this document
  11-255    Unassigned
</artwork></figure>

Assignments of Multipath Type are via IETF Review <xref target="RFC5226" /> or IESG Approval <xref target="RFC5226" />.</t>

<t>Note that &quot;Multipath Type&quot; is a field included in two TLVs defined in &quot;Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs&quot; registry: Downstream Mapping TLV (value 2) and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (value 20).  Modification to &quot;Multipath Type&quot; registry will affect both TLVs.</t>

      </section>

      </section>

      <section title="Entropy Label FEC">

<t>IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV from the &quot;Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1 and 16&quot; section from &quot;Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs&quot; registry.

	  <figure align="left"><preamble></preamble><artwork align="left">
 Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name          Reference
 -------- ------------          ---------
     TBD1 Entropy Label FEC     this document
	  </artwork></figure>

	</t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section title="Acknowledgements">

      <t>Authors would like to thank Loa Andersson for performing thorough review and providing valuable comments.</t>

    </section>

    <section title="Contributing Authors">

      <t>Nagendra Kumar
	<vspace blankLines="0" />
	Cisco Systems
	<vspace blankLines="0" />
	Email: naikumar@cisco.com</t>

    </section>

  </middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <references title="Normative References">
	  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
         <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4379"?>
	  <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6790"?>
    </references>
    
    <references title="Informative References">
       <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6424"?>
       <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6391"?>
       <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5226"?>
       <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls"?>
<reference anchor="IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING" target="http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml">
  <front>
    <title>Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters</title>
    <author><organization>IANA</organization></author>
    <date/>
  </front>
</reference>
    </references>



    <!-- Change Log
v00-a 2013-05-29 Nobo: Initial version
    -->
  </back>
</rfc>
