MPLS Ping and Traceroute operations for Prefix SID are supported for various BGP and IGP scenarios, for example:

• Within an IS-IS level or OSPF area

• Across IS-IS levels or OSPF areas

• Route redistribution from IS-IS to OSPF and from OSPF to IS-IS

• Anycast Prefix SID

• Combinations of BGP and LDP signaled LSPs

The MPLS LSP Ping feature is used to check the connectivity between ingress Label Switch Routers (LSRs) and egress LSRs along an LSP. MPLS LSP ping uses MPLS echo request and reply messages, similar to Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) echo request and reply messages, to validate an LSP. The destination IP address of the MPLS echo request packet is different from the address used to select the label stack. The destination IP address is defined as a 127.x.y.z/8 address and it prevents the IP packet from being IP switched to its destination, if the LSP is broken.

The MPLS LSP Traceroute feature is used to isolate the failure point of an LSP. It is used for hop-by-hop fault localization and path tracing. The MPLS LSP Traceroute feature relies on the expiration of the Time to Live (TTL) value of the packet that carries the echo request. When the MPLS echo request message hits a transit node, it checks the TTL value and if it is expired, the packet is passed to the control plane, else the message is forwarded. If the echo message is passed to the control plane, a reply message is generated based on the contents of the request message.

The MPLS LSP Tree Trace (traceroute multipath) operation is also supported for BGP and IGP Prefix SID. MPLS LSP Tree Trace provides the means to discover all possible equal-cost multipath (ECMP) routing paths of an LSP to reach a destination Prefix SID. It uses multipath data encoded in echo request packets to query for the load-balancing information that may allow the originator to exercise each ECMP. When the packet TTL expires at the responding node, the node returns the list of downstream paths, as well as the multipath information that can lead the operator to exercise each path in the MPLS echo reply. This operation is performed repeatedly for each hop of each path with increasing TTL values until all ECMP are discovered and validated.

MPLS echo request packets carry Target FEC Stack sub-TLVs. The Target FEC sub-TLVs are used by the responder for FEC validation. The BGP and IGP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV has been added to the Target FEC Stack sub-TLV. The IGP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV contains the prefix SID, the prefix length, and the protocol (IS-IS or OSPF). The BGP IPv4 prefix sub-TLV contains the prefix SID and the prefix length.

Segment routing OAM supports Nil-FEC LSP ping and traceroute operations to verify the connectivity for segment routing MPLS data plane. For the existing Nil-FEC ping and traceroute commands, you need to specify the entire outgoing label stack, outgoing interface, as well as the next hop. SR policy Nil-FEC ping and SR policy Nil-FEC traceroute enhancements extend the data plane validation functionality of installed SR policies through Nil-FEC ping and traceroute commands while simplifying the operational process. Instead of specifying the entire outgoing label-stack, interface, and next-hop, you can use the policy name or the policy binding-SID label value to initiate Nil-FEC ping and traceroute operations for the SR policies. Specification of outgoing interface and next-hop is also not required for policy Nil-FEC OAM operations.

RP/0/0/CPU0:router# ping sr-mpls nil-fec policy name POLICY1  
Thu Feb 22 06:56:50.006 PST
Sending 5, 100-byte MPLS Echos with Nil FEC for SR-TE Policy POLICY1,
      timeout is 2 seconds, send interval is 0 msec:
Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
  'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface, 
  'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch,
  'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no rx label, 
  'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP, 
  'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index,
  'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0
Type escape sequence to abort.
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/5/22 ms

RP/0/0/CPU0:router# ping sr-mpls nil-fec policy binding-sid  100001   
Thu Dec 17 12:41:02.381 EST
Sending 5, 100-byte MPLS Echos with Nil FEC with labels [16002,16003],
      timeout is 2 seconds, send interval is 0 msec:
Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
  'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface, 
  'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch,
  'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no rx label, 
  'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP, 
  'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index,
  'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0

Type escape sequence to abort.
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 2/3/3 ms

RP/0/0/CPU0:router#  traceroute sr-mpls nil-fec policy name POLICY1 
Thu Feb 22 06:57:03.637 PST
Tracing MPLS Label Switched Path with Nil FEC for SR-TE Policy POLICY1, timeout is 2 seconds
Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
  'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface, 
  'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch,
  'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no rx label, 
  'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP, 
  'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index,
  'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0
Type escape sequence to abort.
  0 11.11.11.1 MRU 1500 [Labels: 16003/explicit-null Exp: 0/0]
L 1 11.11.11.2 MRU 1500 [Labels: implicit-null/explicit-null Exp: 0/0] 4 ms
! 2 14.14.14.3 2 ms

RP/0/0/CPU0:router# traceroute sr-mpls nil-fec binding-sid 100001 
Tracing MPLS Label Switched Path with Nil FEC with labels [16002/16004], timeout is 2 seconds

Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
  'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface, 
  'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch,
  'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no rx label, 
  'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP, 
  'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index,
  'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0
Type escape sequence to abort.
  0 99.1.2.1 MRU 4470 [Labels: 16002/16004/explicit-null Exp: 0/0/0]
L 1 99.1.2.2 MRU 4470 [Labels: 16004/explicit-null Exp: 0/0] 3 ms
L 2 99.2.6.6 MRU 4470 [Labels: implicit-null Exp: 0] 3 ms
! 3 99.4.6.4 11 ms

The primary benefits of SR DPM include:

• Automation – A node automatically verifies the integrity of the actual forwarding entries exercised by transit traffic.

• Comprehensive Coverage – Tests validate forwarding consistency for each set of destination prefixes across each combination of upstream and downstream neighbors and across all ECMP possibilities.

• Scalability – SR DPM is a highly scalable solution due to its localized detection process.

• Proactive and Reactive modes of operation – Solution caters to both continuous and on-demand verification.

• Standards-based – SR DPM uses existing MPLS OAM tools and leverages SR to enforce test traffic path.

DPM performs data plane validation in two phases:

• Adjacency Validation—Using special MPLS echo request packets, adjacency validation ensures that all local links are able to forward and receive MPLS traffic correctly from their neighbors. It also ensures that DPM is able to verify all local adjacency SID labels and to flag any inconsistencies, including traffic drops, forwarding by the local or neighboring device to an incorrect neighbor that is not associated with the specified adjacency, or forwarding by the local or neighboring device to the correct neighbor but over an incorrect link not associated with the specified adjacency. DPM validates the following adjacencies for each link when available:

  • Unprotected adjacency

  • Protected adjacency

  • Static adjacency

  • Dynamic adjacency

  • Shared adjacency

  Note

  Observe the following limitations for adjacency validation: The adjacency validation phase only validates links that are participating in IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) instances. If one or more link is not part of the IGP, it will not be validated since there are no Adjacency SID labels. Adjacency validation only validates physical and bundle links, including broadcast links.

• Prefix Validation—Prefix validation identifies any forwarding inconsistency of any IGP Prefix SID reachable from the device. The validation is done for all upstream and downstream neighbor combinations of each prefix SID, and identifies inconsistencies in the downstream neighbor. The prefix validation phase simulates customer traffic path by validating both ingress and egress forwarding chain at the DPM processing node.

  Since prefix validation is localized to a device running DPM as well as its immediate neighbors, it does not suffer from scale limitations of end-to-end monitoring.

  Prefix validation builds on top of adjacency validation by using special MPLS echo requests that travel to the upstream node, return to the DPM-processing node, and time-to-live (TTL) expire at the immediate downstream node, thus exercising entire forwarding path towards the downstream.

  Note

  Observe the following limitations for prefix validation: Because prefix validation builds on top of adjacency validation, if a link is not part of adjacency validation, it is not used in prefix validation. If all adjacencies are marked as “Faulty” during adjacency validation, prefix validation is not performed. If a node only has downstream links at a specific node, but no upstream node (possible in certain PE node scenarios), Prefix Validation is not performed. Prefix validation does not support TI-LFA.

DPM maintains a database of all prefixes and adjacencies being monitored.

The prefix database is populated by registering as a redistribution client to RIB, which enables DPM to keep the database up-to-date whenever IGP pushes a new prefix SID to RIB, deletes an existing prefix SID, or when the path of an existing prefix SID is modified.

DPM maintains the following prefix data:

• IPv4 Prefix

• Prefix Length

• Prefix SID label

• Error stats

DPM also maintains a list of all local adjacencies. DPM maintains a database that contains local links, their respective local and remote adjacency labels and IP addresses, and error stats.

SR-DPM Operation: Example

The following SR-DPM operation example use the following scenarios:

Node 2 is a DPM-capable device. DPM is enabled in proactive mode to perform forwarding consistency tests for all prefix-SIDs in the network. For each destination prefix, the router identifies the directly connected upstream and downstream neighbors used to reach a given destination.

Using node 9 as the prefix under test (prefix-SID = 16009), node 1 is designated as the upstream node and node 3 as the downstream nodes with 2 ECMPs.

1. Node 2 generates test traffic (MPLS OAM ping with source_ip of node 2) to test its forwarding for every upstream/downstream combination. In this case, two combinations exist:

   • Prefix-SID node 9 - test iteration A path = Node 2 to Node 1 to Node 2 to Node 3 (via top ECMP)

   • Prefix-SID node 9 - test iteration B path = Node 2 to Node 1 to Node 2 to Node 3 (via bottom ECMP)

2. Node 2 adds a label stack in order to enforce the desired path for the test traffic. For example, two labels are added to the packet for test iterations A and B:

   • The top label is equal to the adjacency-SID on node 1 for the interface facing node 2 (adjacency SID = 24012). The bottom label is the prefix-SID under test (16009). The test traffic is sent on the interface facing node 1.

   • The top label (after being POPed at node 1) causes the test traffic to come back to node 2. This returning traffic is completely hardware-switched based on the forwarding entry for the prefix-SID under test (16009). Note that the labeled test traffic has a time-to-live (TTL) of 2 and it will never be forwarded beyond the downstream router(s).

   • When test traffic reaches node 3, a TTL expired response is sent back to node 2. If the response packet arrives over the expected interface (top ECMP link) then the forwarding verification on node 2 for the first iteration towards node 9 is considered to be a success.

   • The difference between the test traffic for test iteration A and B in this example is the destination_ip of the MPLS OAM ping. Node 2 calculates them in this order to exercise a given ECMP path (if present). Thus, test traffic for iteration A is hashed onto the top ECMP and test traffic for iteration B is hashed onto the bottom ECMP link.

3. The DPM tests are then repeated for the remaining prefix-SIDs in the network