wdiff rfc7060.original rfc7060.txt

MPLS Working Group Maria Napierala
Internet Draft Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Napierala
Request for Comments: 7060 AT&T
Intended Status:
Category: Standards Track
Expires: March 4, 2014 Eric C. E. Rosen
IJsbrand
ISSN: 2070-1721 IJ. Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc.

September 4,
November 2013

Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions

draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-04.txt

Abstract

Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) can be used to set up Point-to-
Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched
Paths. However, the specification for the Multipoint Extensions to
LDP presupposes that the two endpoints of an LDP session are directly
connected. The LDP base specification allows for the case where the
two endpoints of an LDP session are not directly connected; such a
session is known as a "Targeted LDP" session. This document provides
the specification for using the LDP Multipoint Extensions over a
Targeted LDP session.

Status of this This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product 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
(IETF). It represents the consensus of six months the IETF community. It has
received public review and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted has been approved for publication by other documents at any
time. It the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work available in progress."

The list Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list status of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be accessed obtained at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7060.

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 .......................................... 3
2 ....................................................2
2. Targeted mLDP and the Upstream LSR .................... 3
2.1 ..............................3
2.1. Selecting the Upstream LSR ............................ 3
2.2 .................................3
2.2. Sending data Data from U to D .............................. 4
3 ...................................4
3. Applicability of Targeted mLDP ........................ 5
4 ..................................4
4. LDP Capabilities ...................................... 5
5 ................................................5
5. Targeted mLDP with Unicast Replication ................ 6
6 ..........................5
6. Targeted mLDP with Multicast Tunneling ................ 7
7 IANA Considerations ................................... 8
8 ..........................6
7. Security Considerations ............................... 8
9 .........................................8
8. Acknowledgments ....................................... 8
10 Authors' Addresses .................................... 9
11 .................................................8
9. Normative References .................................. 9 ............................................8

1. Introduction

The

Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) extensions for setting up
Point-to-MultiPoint Point-to-
Multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and
Multipoint-to-Multipoint Multipoint-to-
Multipoint (MP2MP) LSPs are specified in [mLDP]. This set of
extensions is generally known as "Multipoint LDP" (mLDP).

A pair of Label Switched Routers (LSRs) that are the endpoints of an
LDP session are considered to be "LDP peers". When a pair of LDP
peers are "directly connected" (e.g., they are connected by a layer 2
medium,
medium or are otherwise considered to be neighbors by the network's
interior routing protocol), the LDP session is said to be a "directly
connected" LDP session. When the pair of LDP peers are not directly
connected, the session between them is said to be a "Targeted" LDP
session.

The base specification for mLDP does not explicitly cover the case
where the LDP multipoint extensions are used over a targeted Targeted LDP
session. This document provides that specification.

We will use the term "Multipoint" to mean "either P2MP or MP2MP".

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. Targeted mLDP and the Upstream LSR

2.1. Selecting the Upstream LSR

In mLDP, a multipoint LSP (MP-LSP) has a unique identifier that is an
ordered pair of the form <root, opaque value>. The first element of
the ordered pair is the IP address of the MP-LSP's "root node". The
second element of the ordered pair is an identifier that is unique in
the context of the root node.

If LSR D is setting up the MP-LSP <R, X>, D must determine the
"upstream LSR" for <R, X>. In [mLDP], the upstream LSR for <R, X>,
U, is defined to be the "next hop" on D's path to R, and "next hop"
is tacitly assumed to mean "IGP next hop". It is thus assumed that
there is a direct LDP session between D and U. In this
specification, we extend the notion of "upstream LSR" to cover the
following cases:

- U is the "BGP next hop" on D's path to R, where U and D are not
necessarily IGP neighbors, and where there is a Targeted LDP
session between U and D. In this case, we allow D to select U
as the "upstream LSR" for <R,X>.

- If the "next hop "next-hop interface" on D's path to R is an RSVP-TE RSVP Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) P2P tunnel whose remote endpoint is U,
and if there is known to be an RSVP-TE P2P tunnel from U to D,
and if there is a Targeted LDP session between U and D, then we
allow D to select U as the "upstream LSR" for <R,X>. This is
useful when D and U are part of a network area that is fully
meshed via RSVP-TE P2P tunnels.

The particular method used to select an "upstream LSR" is determined
by the Service Provider (SP), (SP) and must be made known a priori (i.e.,
by provisioning) to all the LSRs involved.

Other methods than the two specified above MAY be used; however however, the
specification of other methods is outside the scope of this document.

2.2. Sending data Data from U to D

By using Targeted mLDP, we can construct an MP-LSP <R,X> containing
an LSR U, where U has one or more downstream LSR neighbors (D1, ...,
Dn) to which it is not directly connected. In order for a data
packet to travel along this MP-LSP, U must have some way of
transmitting the packet to D1, ..., Dn. We will cover two methods of
transmission:

- Unicast Replication. Replication

In this method, U creates n copies of the packet, packet and unicasts
each copy to exactly one of D1, ..., Dn.

- Multicast tunneling. Tunneling

In this method, U becomes the root node of a multicast tunnel,
with D1, ..., Dn as leaf nodes. When a packet traveling along
the MP-LSP <R,X> arrives at U, U transmits it through the
multicast tunnel, and as a result it arrives at D1, ..., Dn.

When this method is used, it may be desirable to carry traffic
of multiple MP-LSPs through a single multicast tunnel. We
specify procedures that allow for the proper demultiplexing of
the MP-
LSPs MP-LSPs at the leaf nodes of the multicast tunnel. We do
not assume that all the leaf nodes of the tunnel are on all the
MP-LSPs traveling through the tunnel; thus thus, some of the tunnel
leaf nodes may need to discard some of the packets received
through the tunnel. For example, suppose MP-LSP <R1,X1>
contains node U with downstream LSRs D1 and D2, while MP-LSP
<R2,X2> contains node U with downstream LSRs D2 and D3.
Suppose also that there is a multicast tunnel with U as root
and with D1, D2, and D3 as leaf nodes. U can aggregate both
MP-LSPs in this one tunnel. However, D1 will have to discard
packets that are traveling on <R2,X1>, while D3 will have to
discard packets that are traveling on <R1,X2>.

3. Applicability of Targeted mLDP

When LSR D is setting up MP-LSP <R,X>, it MUST NOT use targeted Targeted mLDP
unless D implements a procedure that can select, as the "upstream
LSR" for <R,X>, select an LSR U that is a
Targeted mLDP peer of D. D as the "upstream LSR" for <R,X>. See
section Section
2.1.

Whether D uses Targeted mLDP when this condition holds is determined
by provisioning, provisioning or by other methods that are outside the scope of
this specification.

When Targeted mLDP is used, the choice between unicast replication
and multicast tunneling is determined by provisioning, provisioning or by other
methods that are outside the scope of this specification. It is
presupposed that all nodes will have a priori knowledge of whether to
use unicast replication or to use multicast tunneling. If the
latter, it is presupposed that all nodes will have a priori knowledge
of the type of multicast tunneling to use.

4. LDP Capabilities

Per [mLDP], any LSR that needs to set up an MP-LSP must support the
procedures of [LDP-CAP], and in particular must send and receive the
P2MP Capability and/or the MP2MP Capability. This specification does
not define any new capabilities; the advertisement of the P2MP and/or
MP2MP Capabilities on a Targeted LDP session means that the
advertising LSR is capable of following the procedures of set forth in
this document.

Some of the procedures of described in this document require the use of upstream-
assigned
upstream-assigned labels [LDP-UP]. In order to use upstream-assigned
labels as part of Targeted mLDP, an LSR must advertise the LDP Upstream-
Assigned
Upstream-Assigned Label Capability [LDP-UP] on the Targeted LDP
session.

5. Targeted mLDP with Unicast Replication

When unicast replication is used, the mLDP procedures are exactly the
same as described in [mLDP], with the following exception. If LSR D
is setting up MP-LSP <R,X>, its "upstream LSR" is selected according
to the procedures of section Section 2.1, and is not necessarily the "IGP
next hop" on D's path to R.

Suppose that LSRs D1 and D2 are both setting up the P2MP MP-LSP
<R,X>, and that LSR U is the upstream LSR on each of their paths to
R. D1 and D2 each binds a label to <R,X>, <R,X> and each uses a label
mapping Label
Mapping message to inform U of the label binding. Suppose D1 has
assigned label L1 to <R,X> and D2 has assigned label L2 to <R,X>.
(Note that L1 and L2 could have the same value or different values;
D1 and D2 do not coordinate their label assignments.) When U has a
packet to transmit on the MP-LSP <R,X>, it makes a copy of the
packet, pushes on label L1, and unicasts the resulting packet to D1.
It also makes a second copy of the packet, pushes on label L2, and
then unicasts the resulting packet to D2.

This procedure also works when the MP-LSP <R,X> is a an MP2MP LSP.
Suppose that in addition to labels L1 and L2 described above, U has
assigned label L3 for <R,X> traffic received from D1, D1 and label L4 for
<R,X> traffic received from D2. When U processes a packet with label
L3 at the top of its label stack, it knows the packet is from D1, so
U sends a unicast copy of the packet to D2, after swapping L3 for L2.
U does not send a copy back to D1.

Note that all labels used in this procedure are downstream-assigned
labels.

The method of unicast is a local matter, outside the scope of this
specification. The only requirement is that D1 will receive the copy
of the packet carrying label L1, L1 and that D1 will process the packet
by looking up label L1. (And similarly, D2 must receive the copy of
the packet carrying label L2, L2 and must process the packet by looking
up label L2.)

Note that if the method of unicast is MPLS, U will need to push
another label on each copy of the packet before transmitting it.
This label needs to ensure that delivery of the packet to the
appropriate LSR, D1 or D2. Use of penultimate-hop popping for that
label is perfectly legitimate.

6. Targeted mLDP with Multicast Tunneling

Suppose that LSRs D1 and D2 are both setting up MP-LSP <R,X>, <R,X> and that
LSR U is the upstream LSR on each of their paths to R. Since
multicast tunneling is being used, when U has a packet to send on
this MP-LSP, it does not necessarily send two copies, one to D1 and
one to D2. It may send only one copy of the packet, which will get
replicated somewhere downstream in the multicast tunnel. Therefore,
the label that gets bound to the MP-LSP must be an upstream-assigned
label,
label assigned by U. This requires a change from the procedures of
[mLDP]. D1 and D2 do not send label mapping Label Mapping messages to U; instead instead,
they send label request Label Request messages to U, following the procedures of
Section 4 of [LDP-UP], asking U to assign a label to the MP-LSP
<R,X>. U responds with a label mapping Label Mapping message containing an
upstream-assigned label, label L (using the procedures specified in [LDP-
UP]).
[LDP-UP]). As part of the same label mapping Label Mapping message, U also sends
an Interface TLV (as specified in [LDP-UP]) identifying the multicast
tunnel in which data on the MP-LSP will be carried. When U transmits
a packet on this tunnel, it first pushes on the upstream-assigned
label L, L and then pushes on the label that corresponds to the
multicast tunnel.

If the numerical value L of the upstream-assigned label is the value
3, defined in [LDP] and [RFC3032] as "Implicit NULL", then the
specified multicast tunnel will carry only the specified MP-LSP.
That is, aggregation of multiple MP-LSPs into a single multicast
tunnel is not being done. In this case, no upstream-assigned label
is pushed onto a packet that is transmitted through the multicast
tunnel.

Various types of multicast tunnel may be used. The choice of tunnel
type is determined by provisioning, or by some other method that is
outside the scope of this document. [LDP-UP] specifies encodings
allowing U to identify an mLDP MP-LSP, and RSVP-TE P2MP LSP, as well
as other types of multicast tunnel.

Procedures for tunneling MP2MP LSPs through P2MP or MP2MP LSPs are
outside the scope of this document.

If the multicast tunnel is an mLDP MP-LSP or an RSVP-TE P2MP LSP,
when U transmits a packet on the MP-LSP <R,X>, the upstream-assigned
label L will be the second label in the label stack. Penultimate-hop
popping MUST NOT be done, because the top label provides the context
in which the second label is to be interpreted. See [RFC5331].

When LSR U uses these procedures to inform LSR D that a particular
MP-LSP is being carried in a particular multicast tunnel, U and D
MUST take appropriate steps to ensure that the packets U sends into
this tunnel will be received by D. The exact steps to take depend on
the tunnel type. As long as U is D's upstream LSR for any MP-LSP
that has been assigned to this tunnel, D must remain joined to the
tunnel.

Note that U MAY assign the same multicast tunnel for multiple
different MP-LSPs. However, U MUST assign a distinct upstream-
assigned label to each MP-LSP. This allows the packets traveling
through the tunnel to be demultiplexed into the proper MP-LSPs.

If U has an MP-LSP <R1,X1> with downstream LSRs D1 and D2, and an MP-
LSP <R2,X2> with downstream LSRs D2 and D3, U may assign both MP-LSPs
to the same multicast tunnel. In this case, D3 will receive packets
traveling on <R1,X1>. However, the upstream-assigned label carried
by those packets will not be recognized by D3, hence D3 will discard
those packets. Similarly, D1 will discard the <R2,X2> packets.

This document does not specify any rules for deciding whether to
aggregate two or more MP-LSPs into a single multicast tunnel. Such
rules are outside the scope of this document.

Except for the procedures explicitly detailed in this document, the
procedures of [mLDP] and [LDP-UP] apply unchanged.

7. IANA Considerations

This document has no considerations for IANA.

8. Security Considerations

This document raises no new security considerations beyond those
discussed in [LDP], [LDP-UP], and [RFC5331].

8. Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Lizhong Jin and Lizhen Bin for their
comments.

10. Authors' Addresses

Maria Napierala
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue, Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
E-mail: mnapierala@att.com

Eric C. Rosen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA, 01719
USA
E-mail: erosen@cisco.com

IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De kleetlaan 6a Diegem 1831
Belgium
E-mail: ice@cisco.com

11.

9. Normative References

[LDP] Loa Andersson, Ina L., Ed., Minei, Bob I., Ed., and B. Thomas, editors, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007 2007.

[LDP-CAP] Bob Thomas, Kamran B., Raza, Shivani K., Aggarwal, Rahul S., Aggarwal,
Jean-Louis R., and JL.
Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009 2009.

[mLDP] IJsbrand Wijnands, Ina IJ., Ed., Minei, Kireeti I., Ed., Kompella, Bob K., and B.
Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for
Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label
Switched Paths", RFC 6388, November
2011 2011.

[LDP-UP] Rahul Aggarwal, Jean-Louis R. and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011 2011.

[RFC2119] "Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement
Levels.", Bradner, Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997 1997.

[RFC3032] Eric Rosen, et. al., E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001 2001.

[RFC5331] Rahul Aggarwal, Yakov R., Rekhter, Eric Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", RFC
5331, August
2009 2008.

Authors' Addresses

Maria Napierala
AT&T Labs
200 Laurel Avenue, Middletown, NJ 07748
USA
EMail: mnapierala@att.com

Eric C. Rosen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA, 01719
USA
EMail: erosen@cisco.com

IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De kleetlaan 6a Diegem 1831
Belgium
EMail: ice@cisco.com