Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling
draft-ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling
Network Working Group IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track P. Hitchen
Expires: July 21, 2014 BT
N. Leymann
Deutsche Telekom
W. Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
A. Gulko
Thomson Reuters
J. Tantsura
Ericsson
January 17, 2014
Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol
In-Band Signaling in a VRF Context
draft-ietf-l3vpn-mldp-vrf-in-band-signaling-03
Abstract
An IP Multicast Distribution Tree (MDT) may traverse both label
switching (i.e. - Multi-Protocol Label Switching, or MPLS) and non-
label switching regions of a network. Typically the MDT begins and
ends in non-MPLS regions, but travels through an MPLS region. In
such cases, it can be useful to begin building the MDT as a pure IP
MDT, then convert it to an MPLS Multipoint Label Switched Path (MP-
LSP) when it enters an MPLS-enabled region, and then convert it back
to a pure IP MDT when it enters a non-MPLS-enabled region. Other
documents specify the procedures for building such a hybrid MDT,
using Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) in the non-MPLS region of
the network, and using Multipoint Extensions to Label Distribution
Protocol (mLDP) in the MPLS region. This document extends those
procedures to handle the case where the link connecting the two
regions is a "Virtual Routing and Forwarding Table" (VRF) link, as
defined in the "BGP IP/MPLS VPN" specifications. However, this
document is primarily aimed at particular use cases where VRFs are
used to support multicast applications other than Multicast VPN.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 21, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. VRF In-band signaling for MP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Encoding the Opaque Value of an LDP MP FEC . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Transit VPNv4 Source TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Transit VPNv6 Source TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Transit VPNv4 bidir TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Transit VPNv6 bidir TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
1. Introduction
Sometimes an IP multicast distribution tree (MDT) traverses both
MPLS-enabled and non-MPLS-enabled regions of a network. Typically
the MDT begins and ends in non-MPLS regions, but travels through an
MPLS region. In such cases, it can be useful to begin building the
MDT as a pure IP MDT, then convert it to an MPLS Multipoint LSP
(Label Switched Path) when it enters an MPLS-enabled region, and then
convert it back to a pure IP MDT when it enters a non-MPLS-enabled
region. Other documents specify the procedures for building such a
hybrid MDT, using Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) in the non-
MPLS region of the network, and using Multipoint Extensions to Label
Distribution Protocol (mLDP) in the MPLS region. This document
extends the procedures from [RFC6826] to handle the case where the
link connecting the two regions is a "Virtual Routing and Forwarding
Table" (VRF) link, as defined in the "BGP IP/MPLS VPN" specifications
[RFC6513]. However, this document is primarily aimed at particular
use cases where VRFs are used to support multicast applications other
than Multicast VPN.
In PIM, a tree is identified by a source address (or in the case of
bidirectional trees [RFC5015], a rendezvous point address or "RPA")
and a group address. The tree is built from the leaves up, by
sending PIM control messages in the direction of the source address
or the RPA. In mLDP, a tree is identified by a root address and an
"opaque value", and is built by sending mLDP control messages in the
direction of the root. The procedures of [RFC6826] explain how to
convert a PIM <source address or RPA, group address> pair into an
mLDP <root node, opaque value> pair and how to convert the mLDP <root
node, opaque value> pair back into the original PIM <source address
or RPA, group address> pair.
However, the procedures in [RFC6826] assume that the routers doing
the PIM/mLDP conversion have routes to the source address or RPA in
their global routing tables. Thus the procedures cannot be applied
exactly as specified when the interfaces connecting the non-MPLS-
enabled region to the MPLS-enabled region are interfaces that belong
to a VRF as described in [RFC4364]. This specification extends the
procedures of [RFC6826] so that they may be applied in the VRF
context.
As in [RFC6826], the scope of this document is limited to the case
where the multicast content is distributed in the non-MPLS-enabled
regions via PIM-created Source-Specific or Bidirectional trees.
Bidirectional trees are always mapped onto Multipoint-to-Multipoint
LSPs, and source-specific trees are always mapped onto Point-to-
Multipoint LSPs.
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
Note that the procedures described herein do not support non-
bidirectional PIM ASM groups, do not support the use of multicast
trees other than mLDP multipoint LSPs in the core, and do not provide
the capability to aggregate multiple PIM trees onto a single
multipoint LSP. If any of those features are needed, they can be
provided by the procedures of [RFC6513] and [RFC6514]. However,
there are cases where multicast services are offered through
interfaces associated with a VRF, and where mLDP is used in the core,
but where aggregation is not desired. For example, some service
providers offer multicast content to their customers, but have chosen
to use VRFs to isolate the various customers and services. This is a
simpler scenario than one in which the customers provide their own
multicast content, out of the control of the service provider, and
can be handled with a simpler solution. Also, when PIM trees are
mapped one-to-one to multipoint LSPs, it is helpful for
troubleshooting purposes to have the PIM source/group addresses
encoded into the mLDP FEC element.
In order to use the mLDP in-band signaling procedures for a
particular group address in the context of a particular set of VRFs,
those VRFs MUST be configured with a range of multicast group
addresses for which mLDP in-band signaling is to be enabled. This
configuration is per VRF ("Virtual Routing and Forwarding table",
defined in [RFC4364]). For those groups, and those groups only, the
procedures of this document are used. For other groups the general
purpose Multicast VPN procedures MAY be used, although it is more
likely this VRF is dedicated to mLDP in-band signaling procedures and
all other groups are discarded. The configuration MUST be present in
all PE routers that attach to sites containing senders or receivers
for the given set of group addresses. Note, since the provider most
likely owns the multicast content and how it is transported across
the network is transparent to the end-user, no co-oordination needs
to happen between the end-user and the provider.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
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].
1.2. Terminology
IP multicast tree: An IP multicast distribution tree identified by a
source IP address and/or IP multicast destination address, also
referred to as (S,G) and (*,G).
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
mLDP : Multicast LDP.
In-band signaling: Using the opaque value of a mLDP FEC element to
encode the (S,G) or (*,G) identifying a particular IP multicast
tree.
P2MP LSP: An LSP that has one Ingress LSR and one or more Egress
LSRs (see [RFC6388]).
MP2MP LSP: An LSP that connects a set of leaf nodes, acting
indifferently as ingress or egress (see [RFC6388]).
MP LSP: A multipoint LSP, either a P2MP or an MP2MP LSP.
Ingress LSR: Source of a P2MP LSP, also referred to as root node.
VRF: Virtual Routing and Forwarding table.
2. VRF In-band signaling for MP LSPs
Suppose that a PE router, PE1, receives a PIM Join(S,G) message over
one of its interfaces that is associated with a VRF. Following the
procedure of section 5.1 of [RFC6513], PE1 determines the "upstream
RD", the "upstream PE", and the "upstream multicast hop" (UMH) for
the source address S.
In order to transport the multicast tree via an MP LSP using VRF in-
band signaling, an mLDP Label Mapping Message is sent by PE1. This
message will contain either a P2MP FEC or an MP2MP FEC (see
[RFC6388]), depending upon whether the PIM tree being transported is
a source-specific tree, or a bidirectional tree, respectively. The
FEC contains a "root" and an "opaque value".
If the UMH and the upstream PE have the same IP address (i.e., the
Upstream PE is the UMH), then the root of the Multipoint FEC is set
to the IP address of the Upstream PE. If, in the context of this
VPN, (S,G) refers to a source-specific MDT, then the values of S, G,
and the upstream RD are encoded into the opaque value. If, in the
context of this VPN, G is a bidirectional group address, then S is
replaced with the value of the RPA associated with G.
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
The encoding details are specified in Section 3. Conceptually, the
Multipoint FEC can be thought of as an ordered pair:
{root=<Upstream-PE>; opaque_value=<S or RPA , G, Upstream-RD>}. The
mLDP Label Mapping Message is then sent by PE1 on its LDP session to
the "next hop" on the message's path to the upstream PE. The "next
hop" is usually the directly connected next hop, but see [RFC7060]
for cases in which the next hop is not directly connected.
If the UMH and the upstream PE do not have the same IP address, the
procedures of section 2 of [RFC6512] should be applied. The root
node of the multipoint FEC is set to the UMH. The recursive opaque
value is then set as follows: the root node is set to the upstream
PE, and the opaque value is set to the multipoint FEC described in
the previous paragraph. That is, the multipoint FEC can be thought
of as the following recursive ordered pair: {root=<UMH>;
opaque_value=<root=Upstream-PE, opaque_value=<S or RPA, G,
Upstream-RD>>}.
The encoding of the multipoint FEC also specifies the "type" of PIM
MDT being spliced onto the multipoint LSP. Four types of MDT are
defined in [RFC6826]: IPv4 source-specific tree, IPv6 source-specific
tree, IPv4 bidirectional tree, and IPv6 bidirectional tree.
When a PE router receives an mLDP message with a P2MP or MP2MP FEC,
where the PE router itself is the root node, and the opaque value is
one of the types defined in Section 3, then it uses the RD encoded in
the opaque value field to determine the VRF context. (This RD will
be associated with one of the PEs VRFs.) Then, in the context of
that VRF, the PE follows the procedure specified in section 2 of
[RFC6826].
3. Encoding the Opaque Value of an LDP MP FEC
This section documents the different transit opaque encodings.
3.1. Transit VPNv4 Source TLV
This opaque value type is used when transporting a source-specific
mode multicast tree whose source and group addresses are IPv4
addresses.
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
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 | Source
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ RD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: 16
Source: IPv4 multicast source address, 4 octets.
Group: IPv4 multicast group address, 4 octets.
RD: Route Distinguisher, 8 octets.
3.2. Transit VPNv6 Source TLV
This opaque value type is used when transporting a source-specific
mode multicast tree whose source and group addresses are IPv6
addresses.
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 | Source ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Group ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ RD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
Type: (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: 40
Source: IPv6 multicast source address, 16 octets.
Group: IPv6 multicast group address, 16 octets.
RD: Route Distinguisher, 8 octets.
3.3. Transit VPNv4 bidir TLV
This opaque value type is used when transporting a bidirectional
multicast tree whose group address is an IPv4 address. The RP
address is also an IPv4 address in this case.
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 | Mask Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ RD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: 17
Mask Len: The number of contiguous one bits that are left justified
and used as a mask, 1 octet.
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
RP: Rendezvous Point (RP) IPv4 address used for encoded Group, 4
octets.
Group: IPv4 multicast group address, 4 octets.
RD: Route Distinguisher, 8 octets.
3.4. Transit VPNv6 bidir TLV
This opaque value type is used when transporting a bidirectional
multicast tree whose group address is an IPv6 address. The RP
address is also an IPv6 address in this case.
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 | Mask Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RP ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ RD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: (to be assigned by IANA).
Length: 41
Mask Len: The number of contiguous one bits that are left justified
and used as a mask, 1 octet.
RP: Rendezvous Point (RP) IPv6 address used for encoded group, 16
octets.
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
Group: IPv6 multicast group address, 16 octets.
RD: Route Distinguisher, 8 octets.
4. Security Considerations
The same security considerations apply as for the base LDP
specification, described in [RFC5036], and the base mLDP
specification, described in [RFC6388]
5. IANA considerations
[RFC6388] defines a registry for the "LDP MP Opaque Value Element
Basic Type". This document requires the assignment of four new code
points in this registry:
Transit VPNv4 Source TLV type - requested 250
Transit VPNv6 Source TLV type - requested 251
Transit VPNv4 Bidir TLV type - requested TBD-1
Transit VPNv6 Bidir TLV type - requested TBD-2
6. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Eric Rosen, Andy Green, Yakov Rekhter and Eric Gray for
their comments on the draft.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC5015] Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
"Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
"Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.
[RFC6512] Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Napierala, M., and N. Leymann,
"Using Multipoint LDP When the Backbone Has No Route to
the Root", RFC 6512, February 2012.
[RFC6826] Wijnands, IJ., Eckert, T., Leymann, N., and M. Napierala,
"Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-Multipoint
and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths",
RFC 6826, January 2013.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC7060] Napierala, M., Rosen, E., and IJ. Wijnands, "Using LDP
Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions", RFC 7060,
November 2013.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, February 2012.
Authors' Addresses
IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)
Cisco Systems
De kleetlaan 6a
Diegem 1831
Belgium
Email: ice@cisco.com
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft mLDP In-band Signaling in VRF Context January 2014
Paul Hitchen
BT
BT Adastral Park
Ipswich IP53RE
UK
Email: paul.hitchen@bt.com
Nicolai Leymann
Deutsche Telekom
Winterfeldtstrasse 21
Berlin 10781
Germany
Email: n.leymann@telekom.de
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Arkadiy Gulko
Thomson Reuters
195 Broadway
New York NY 10007
USA
Email: arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com
Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson
300 Holger Way
San Jose, california 95134
usa
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
Wijnands, et al. Expires July 21, 2014 [Page 13]
