Internet DRAFT - draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream
draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream
Network Working Group R. Aggarwal
Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: April 2006
J. L. Le Roux
France Telecom
October 2005
MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for RSVP-TE
draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream-00.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.
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.
Abstract
This document describes procedures for distributing upstream-assigned
labels for Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-
TE). It also describes how these procedures can be used for avoiding
branch LSR traffic replication on a LAN for RSVP-TE point-to-
multipoint (P2MP)LSPs.
Raggarwa & LeRoux [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream-00.txt October 2005
Table of Contents
1 Specification of requirements ......................... 2
2 Introduction .......................................... 2
3 RSVP-TE Upstream Label Assignment Capability .......... 3
4 Distributing Upstream-Assigned Labels in RSVP-TE ...... 4
4.1 Procedures ............................................ 4
5 RSVP-TE Tunnel Identifier Exchange .................... 5
6 RSVP-TE Point-to-Multipoint LSPs on a LAN ............. 5
7 Acknowledgements ...................................... 6
8 References ............................................ 6
8.1 Normative References .................................. 6
8.2 Informative References ................................ 7
9 Author Information .................................... 7
10 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 8
11 Full Copyright Statement .............................. 8
1. Specification of requirements
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 [RFC2119].
2. Introduction
This document describes procedures for distributing upstream-assigned
labels [MPLS-UPSTREAM] for Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE). These procedures follow the architecture for
MPLS Upstream Label Assignment described in [MPLS-UPSTREAM].
This document describes extensions to RSVP-TE that a LSR can use to
advertise to its neighboring LSRs whether the LSR supports upstream
label assignment.
This document also describes extensions to RSVP-TE to distribute
upstream-assigned labels.
The usage of MPLS upstream label assignment using RSVP-TE for avoid-
ing branch LSR [RSVP-P2MP] traffic replication on a LAN for RSVP-TE
P2MP TE LSPs [RSVP-TE-P2MP] is also described.
Raggarwa & LeRoux [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream-00.txt October 2005
3. RSVP-TE Upstream Label Assignment Capability
According to [MPLS-UPSTREAM], upstream-assigned label bindings MUST
NOT be used unless it is known that a downstream LSR supports them.
This implies that there MUST be a mechanism to enable a LSR to adver-
tise to its RSVP-TE neighbor LSR(s) its support of upstream-assigned
labels.
[RSVP-RESTART] defines a CAPABILITY object to be carried within Hello
messages, and used to indicate the set of capabilities supported by a
node. Currently one flag is defined, the R flag indicating the sup-
port for RecoveryPath Srefresh. This document defines a new flag, the
U flag, to signal a LSR's support of upstream label assignment to its
RSVP-TE neighbors.
The format of a Capability object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(TBA)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |U|R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Recovery Path Srefresh Capable (R): 1 bit, defined in [RSVP-RESTART].
Upstream Label Assignement Capable (U): 1 bit When set this means
that the LSR is capable of both distributing upstream-assigned label
bindings and receiving upstream-assigned label bindings
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored
on receipt.
The usage of RSVP-TE Hello messages for exchanging upstream label
assignment capability implies that a LSR MAY exchange RSVP-TE Hellos
with a neighbor before sending/receiving any other RSVP-TE messages
to/from that neighbor.
Raggarwa & LeRoux [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream-00.txt October 2005
4. Distributing Upstream-Assigned Labels in RSVP-TE
An optional RSVP-TE object, the UPSTREAM_ASSIGNED_LABEL object is
introduced to signal an upstream-assigned label. The Class-Num for
this object comes from the 0bbbbbbb space and is to be determined by
IANA.
UPSTREAM_ASSIGNED_LABEL C-Num = TBD
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label |
| .... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The label can be encoded as in [RFC3209] when the C-Type is 1 or as a
Generalized Label [RFC3473] when the C-Type is 2 or 3.
4.1. Procedures
A RSVP-TE LSR that assigns Upstream-Assigned Labels, distributes them
to the downstream LSRs by including them in RSVP-TE Path messages.
A RSVP-TE LSR MUST NOT distribute the UPSTREAM_ASSIGNED_LABEL Object
to a downstream LSR if the downstream LSR had not previously adver-
tised the CAPABILITY object with the U bit set in its RSVP-TE Hello
messages.
If a downstream RSVP-TE LSR receives a Path message that carries an
UPSTREAM_ASSIGNED_LABEL Object and the LSR does not support the
object C-Num/C-Type it will return an "Unknown Object C-Num/C-Type"
error. If the LSR does support the object, but is unable to process
the upstream-assigned label as described in [MPLS-UPSTREAM] it SHOULD
send a PathErr with the error code "Routing problem" and the error
value "MPLS Upstream Assigned Label Processing Failure". If the LSR
successfully processes the Path message and the upstream-assigned
label it MUST send a Resv message upstream as per [RFC3209] but it
MUST NOT include the LABEL object with a downstream assigned label in
the Resv Message. This is because as described in [MPLS-UPSTREAM] two
LSRs Ru and Rd for a LSP that is bound to FEC F, MUST use either
downstream-assigned label distribution or upstream-assigned label
distribution,for FEC F, but NOT both, for packets that are to be
transmitted on the LSP from Ru to Rd.
Raggarwa & LeRoux [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream-00.txt October 2005
5. RSVP-TE Tunnel Identifier Exchange
As described in [MPLS-UPSTREAM] an upstream LSR Ru MAY transmit a
MPLS packet, the top label of which (L) is upstream-assigned, to a
downstream LSR Rd, by encapsulating it in an IP or MPLS tunnel. In
this case the fact that L is upstream-assigned is determined by Rd by
the tunnel on which the packet is received. There must be a mechanism
for Ru to inform Rd that a particular tunnel from Ru to Rd will be
used by Ru for transmitting MPLS packets with upstream-assigned MPLS
labels.
When RSVP-TE is used for upstream label assignment, the IF_ID
RSVP_HOP object is used for signaling the Tunnel Identifier. If Ru
uses an IP or MPLS tunnel to transmit MPLS packets with upstream
assigned labels to Rd, Ru MUST include the IF_ID RSVP_HOP object
[RFC3473] in Path messages along with the UPSTREAM_ASSIGNED_LABEL
Object.
Two new TLVs are introduced in the IF_ID RSVP_HOP object [RFC3471] to
support RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs and IP Multicast Tunnels. The TLV value
acts as the tunnel identifier.
1. RSVP-TE P2MP LSP TLV. Type = TBD. Value of the TLV is the RSVP-TE
P2MP Session Object and optionally the P2MP Sender Template Object
[RSVP-TE-P2MP]. The TLV value identifies the RSVP-TE P2MP LSP. This
mechanism extends RSVP-TE P2P Hierarchy [LSP-HIER] to RSVP-TE P2MP
Hierarchy. It allows Ru to tunnel an "inner" P2MP LSP, the label for
which is upstream assigned, over an "outer" P2MP LSP that has leaves
<Rd1...Rdn>. The P2MP LSP IF_ID TLV allows Ru to signal to
<Rd1...Rdn> the binding of the inner P2MP LSP to the outer P2MP LSP.
The control plane signaling between Ru and <Rd1...Rdn> for the inner
P2MP LSP uses directed RSVP-TE signaling messages as in [LSP-HIER].
2. IP Multicast Tunnel TLV. Type = TBD. In this case the TLV value is
a <Source Address, Multicast Group Address> tuple.
6. RSVP-TE Point-to-Multipoint LSPs on a LAN
This section describes one application of upstream label assignment
using RSVP-TE. Further applications are to be described in separate
documents.
[RSVP-TE-P2MP] describes how to setup RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs. On a LAN the
solution described in [RSVP-TE-P2MP] relies on "ingress replication".
A LSR on a LAN, that is a branch LSR for a P2MP LSP, (say Ru) sends a
separate copy of a packet that it receives on the P2MP LSP to each of
Raggarwa & LeRoux [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream-00.txt October 2005
the downstream LSRs on the LAN (say <Rd1...Rdn> that are adjacent to
it in the P2MP LSP.
In order to increase efficiency of bandwidth utilization, it is
desirable for Ru to send a single copy of the packet for the P2MP LSP
on the LAN, when there are multiple downstream routers on the LAN
that are adjacent in that P2MP LSP. This requires that each of
<Rd1...Rdn> must be able to associate the label L, used by Ru to
transmit packets for the P2MP LSP on the LAN, with that P2MP LSP. It
is possible to achieve this using RSVP-TE upstream-assigned labels
with the following procedures. Assume that Ru and <Rd1...Rdn> support
upstream label assignment.
Ru sends a Path message for the P2MP LSP to each of <Rd1...Rdn> that
is adjacent on the P2MP LSP, with the same UPSTREAM_ASSIGNED_LABEL
object. This object carries an upstream assigned label, L.
<Rd1...Rdn> "reserve" the upstream assigned label in the separate
Upstream Neighbor Label Space that they maintain for Ru [MPLS-
UPSTREAM]. Ru can then transmit a single packet for the P2MP LSP to
<Rd1..Rdn> with a top label L using procedures defined in [MPLS-
UPSTREAM] and [MPLS-MCAST-ENCAPS].
If a subset of <Rd1...Rdn> does not support upstream label assignment
these procedures can still be used between Ru and the remaining sub-
set of <Rd1...Rdn>. Ingress replication and downstream label assign-
ment will continue to be used for LSRs that do not support upstream
label assignment.
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Yakov Rekhter for his contribution. Thanks to Ina Minei and
Thomas Morin for their comments.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC3031] "MPLS Architecture", E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon,
RFC 3031.
[MPLS-UPSTREAM] R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context Specific Label Space", draft-raggarwa-
mpls-upstream-label-00.txt
Raggarwa & LeRoux [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream-00.txt October 2005
[MPLS-MCAST-ENCAPS] T. Eckert, E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal, Y. Rekhter,
draft-rosen-mpls-codepoint-00.txt
[RFC3209] Awduche et. al." "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tun-
nels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC2119] "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Lev-
els.", Bradner, March 1997
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3471] Berger, L. Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471 January
2003.
[RSVP-RESTART] A. Satyanarayana et. al., "Extensions to GMPLS RSVP
Graceful Restart", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-02.txt
8.2. Informative References
[MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal [Editors], "Multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs"
[RSVP-TE-P2MP] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa [Editors],
"Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to Multipoint TE LSPs"
9. Author Information
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
E-mail: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
Raggarwa & LeRoux [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-upstream-00.txt October 2005
10. Intellectual Property Statement
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 assur-
ances 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.
11. Full Copyright Statement
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.
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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Raggarwa & LeRoux [Page 8]
