Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv
MPLS Working Group Kamran Raza
Internet Draft Sami Boutros
Updates: 3212, 4447, 5036, 5918, 6388, 7140 Luca Martini
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: October 01, 2014
Nicolai Leymann
Deutsche Telekom
April 02, 2014
Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-03.txt
Abstract
The label advertising behavior of an LDP speaker for a given FEC is
governed by the FEC type and not necessarily by the LDP session's
negotiated label advertisement mode. This document updates RFC 5036
to make that fact clear, as well as updates RFC 3212, RFC 4447, RFC
5918, RFC 6388, and RFC 7140 by specifying the label advertisement
mode for all currently defined LDP FEC types.
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 01, 2014.
Raza, et. al Expires Oct 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs Apr 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Label Advertisement Discipline 3
2.1. Update to RFC-5036 3
2.2. Specification for LDP FECs 4
3. Security Considerations 4
4. IANA Considerations 5
5. References 7
5.1. Normative References 7
5.2. Informative References 7
6. Acknowledgments 8
1. Introduction
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] allows label
advertisement mode negotiation at the time of session establishment.
LDP specification also dictates that only single label advertisement
mode is negotiated, agreed and used for a given LDP session between
two LSRs.
The negotiated label advertisement mode defined in RFC 5036 and
carried in the LDP Initialization message is only indicative. It
indicates how the LDP speakers on a session will advertise labels for
some FECs, but it is not a rule that restricts the speakers to behave
in a specific way. Furthermore, for some FEC types the advertising
behavior of the LDP speaker is governed by the FEC type and not by
Raza, et. al Expires Oct 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs Apr 2014
the negotiated behavior.
This document updates [RFC5036] to make that fact clear, as well as
updates [RFC3212], [RFC4447], [RFC5918], [RFC6388], and [RFC7140] to
indicate for each FEC type that has already been defined whether the
label binding advertisements for the FEC are constrained by the
negotiated label advertisement mode or not. Furthermore, this
document specifies the label advertisement mode to be used for all
currently defined FECs.
2. Label Advertisement Discipline
To remove any ambiguity and conflict regarding label advertisement
discipline amongst different FEC types sharing a common LDP session,
this document specifies a label advertisement disciplines for FEC
types.
This document introduces following types for specifying a label
advertisement discipline for a FEC type:
- DU (Downstream Unsolicited)
- DoD (Downstream On Demand)
- As negotiated (DU or DoD)
- Upstream ([RFC6389])
- Not Applicable
- Unknown
2.1. Update to RFC-5036
The section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036] is updated to add following two
statements under the description of "A, Label Advertisement
Discipline":
- Each document defining an LDP FEC must state the applicability
of the negotiated label advertisement discipline for label
binding advertisements for that FEC. If the negotiated label
advertisement discipline does not apply to the FEC, the
document must also explicitly state the discipline to be used
for the FEC.
- This document defines the label advertisement discipline for
the following FEC types:
Raza, et. al Expires Oct 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs Apr 2014
+----------+----------+--------------------------------+
| FEC Type | FEC Name | Label advertisement discipline |
+----------+----------+--------------------------------+
| 0x01 | Wildcard | Not applicable |
| 0x02 | Prefix | As negotiated (DU or DoD) |
+----------+----------+--------------------------------+
2.2. Specification for LDP FECs
Following is the specification of label advertisement disciplines to
be used for currently defined LDP FEC types.
FEC FEC Label advertisement Notes
Type Name discipline
---- ---------------- ------------------- ----------------------
0x01 Wildcard Not applicable
0x02 Prefix As negotiated
(DU or DoD)
0x04 CR-LSP DoD
0x05 Typed Wildcard Not applicable
0x06 P2MP DU
0x07 MP2MP-up DU
0x08 MP2MP-down DU
0x09 HSMP-upstream DU
0x10 HSMP-downstream DU, Upstream [RFC7140] Section 4
0x80 PWid DU
0x81 Gen. PWid DU
0x82 P2MP PW Upstream Upstream [ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw]
0x84 P2MP PW Downstream DU [ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw]
0x83 Protection DU [ID.pwe3-endpoint-
fast-protection]
This document updates the RFCs in which above FECs are defined.
3. Security Considerations
This document specification only clarifies the applicability of LDP
session's label advertisement mode, and hence does not add any LDP
security mechanics and considerations to those already defined in
the LDP specification [RFC5036].
Raza, et. al Expires Oct 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs Apr 2014
4. IANA Considerations
This document mandates the specification of a label advertisement
discipline for each defined FEC type, and hence extends IANA's
"Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space" registry under
IANA's "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" as follows:
- Add a new column titled "Label Advertisement Discipline" with
following possible values:
o DU
o DoD
o As negotiated (DU or DoD)
o Upstream
o Not applicable
o Unknown
- For the existing FEC types, populate this column with the
values listed under section 2.2.
- Keep all other columns of the registry in place and populated
as currently.
For the currently assigned FEC types, the updated registry looks
like:
+=====+====+===============+==============+=========+============+
|Value|Hex | Name |Label |Reference|Notes/ |
| | | |Advertisement | |Registration|
| | | |Discipline | |Date |
+=====+====+===============+==============+=========+============+
| 0 |0x00|Reserved | | | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 1 |0x01|Wildcard |Not applicable|[RFC5036]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 2 |0x02|Prefix |As negotiated |[RFC5036]| |
| | | |(DU or DoD) |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 4 |0x04|CR-LSP |DoD |[RFC3212]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
Raza, et. al Expires Oct 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs Apr 2014
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 5 |0x05|Typed Wildcard |Not applicable|[RFC5918]| |
| | |FEC Element | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 6 |0x06|P2MP |DU |[RFC6388]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 7 |0x07|MP2MP-up |DU |[RFC6388]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 8 |0x08|MP2MP-down |DU |[RFC6388]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 9 |0x09|HSMP-upstream |DU |[RFC7140]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 10 |0x0A|HSMP-downstream|DU, Upstream |[RFC7140]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 128 |0x80|PWid |DU |[RFC4447]| |
| | |FEC Element | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 129 |0x81|Generalized |DU |[RFC4447]| |
| | |PWid | |[thisRFC]| |
| | |FEC Element | | | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 130 |0x82|P2MP PW |Upstream |[draft- | |
| | |Upstream | |ietf-pwe3| |
| | |FEC Element | |-p2mp-pw]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 131 |0x83|Protection |DU |[draft-ietf| |
| | |FEC Element | |-pwe3-end | |
| | | | |point-fast | |
| | | | |protection]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
| 132 |0x84|P2MP PW |DU |[draft- | |
| | |Downstream | |ietf-pwe3| |
| | |FEC Element | |-p2mp-pw]| |
| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
Raza, et. al Expires Oct 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs Apr 2014
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC5036] L. Andersson, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.
[RFC3212] B. Jamoussi, et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using
LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002
[RFC4447] L. Martini, Editor, E. Rosen, El-Aawar, T. Smith, G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label
Distribution Protocol", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC5918] R. Asati, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
Protocol Typed Wildcard FEC", RFC 5918, August 2010.
[RFC6388] I. Minei, I. Wijnands, K. Kompella, and B. Thomas, "LDP
Extensions for P2MP and MP2MP LSPs", RFC 6388, November
2011.
[RFC6389] R. Aggarwal, and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011.
[RFC7140] L. Jin, F. Jounay, I. Wijnands , and N. Leymann, "LDP
Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched
Path", RFC 7140, March 2014.
[ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw] S. Sivabalan et al., "Signaling Root-Initiated
Point-to-Multipoint PseudoWire using LDP", draft-ietf-
pwe3-p2mp-pw-04, Work in progress, March 2012.
[ID.pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection] Y. Shen, R. Aggarwal, W.
Henderickx, and Y. Jiang, "PW Endpoint Fast Failure
Protection", draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00,
Work in progress, December 2013.
5.2. Informative References
None.
6. Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Eric Rosen and Rajiv Asati for their initial review
and input on the document.
Raza, et. al Expires Oct 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs Apr 2014
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Authors' Addresses
Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive,
Ottawa, ON K2K-3E8, Canada.
E-mail: skraza@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way,
San Jose, CA 95134, USA.
E-mail: sboutros@cisco.com
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400,
Englewood, CO 80112, USA.
E-mail: lmartini@cisco.com
Nicolai Leymann
Deutsche Telekom AG,
Winterfeldtstrasse 21,
Berlin 10781, Germany.
E-mail: N.Leymann@telekom.de
Raza, et. al Expires Oct 2014 [Page 8]
