[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-asati-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5919

MPLS Working Group                                          Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft                                            Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: Feb 2010                                     Pradosh Mohapatra
                                                          Cisco Systems

                                                             Emily Chen
                                                    Huawei Technologies

                                                             Bob Thomas

                                                        August 28, 2009


               Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion
                   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-04.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
   from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
   available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
   copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
   Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
   IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
   the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
   document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
   derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
   Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.

   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



Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009


   This Internet-Draft will expire on Feb 28, 2010.



Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.





Abstract

   There are situations following Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
   session establishment where it would be useful for an LDP speaker to
   know when its peer has advertised all of its labels.  The LDP
   specification provides no mechanism for an LDP speaker to notify a
   peer when it has completed its initial label advertisements to that
   peer.  This document specifies means for an LDP speaker to signal
   completion of its initial label advertisements following session
   establishment.



Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Specification Language.........................................3
   3. Unrecognized Notification Capability...........................4
   4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement....................4
      4.1. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications.................5
   5. Usage Guidelines...............................................6
      5.1. LDP-IGP Sync..............................................7
      5.2. LDP Graceful Restart......................................7
      5.3. Wildcard Label Request....................................8
   6. Security Considerations........................................8
   7. IANA Considerations............................................8
   8. Acknowledgments................................................9


Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009


   9. References....................................................10
      9.1. Normative References.....................................10
      9.2. Informative References...................................10
   Author's Addresses...............................................11





1. Introduction

   There are situations following LDP session establishment where it
   would be useful for an LDP speaker to know when its peer has
   advertised all of the labels from its Label Information Base (LIB).
   For example, when an LDP speaker is using LDP-IGP synchronization
   procedures [RFC5443], it would be useful for the speaker to know when
   its peer has completed advertisement of its IP label bindings.
   Similarly, after an LDP session is re-established when LDP Graceful
   Restart [RFC3478] is in effect, it would be helpful for each peer to
   signal the other after it has advertised all its label bindings.

   The LDP specification [RFC5036] provides no mechanism for an LDP
   speaker to notify a peer when it has completed its initial label
   advertisements to that peer.

   This document specifies use of a Notification message with the "End-
   of-LIB" Status Code for an LDP speaker to signal completion of its
   label advertisements following session establishment.

   RFC5036 implicitly assumes that new Status Codes will be defined over
   the course of time.  However, it does not explicitly define the
   behavior of an LDP speaker which does not understand the Status Code
   in a Notification message.  To avoid backward compatibility issues
   this document specifies use of the LDP capability mechanism [RFC5561]
   at session establishment time for informing a peer that an LDP
   speaker is capable of handling a Notification message that carries an
   unrecognized Status Code.





2. Specification Language

   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].


Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009




3. Unrecognized Notification Capability

   An LDP speaker MAY include a Capability Parameter [RFC5561] in the
   Initialization message to inform a peer that it ignores Notification
   Messages that carry a Status Type-Length-Value (TLV) with a non-fatal
   Status Code unknown to it.

   The Capability Parameter for the Unrecognized Notification capability
   is a TLV with the following format:



   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F| Unrecog Notif (IANA)      |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |S| Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 1 Unrecognized Notification Capability format



   Where:

      U and F bits: MUST be 1 and 0 respectively as per section 3 of LDP
   Capabilities [RFC5561].

      Unrecog Notif: TLV code point to be assigned by IANA.

      S-bit: MUST be 1 (indicates that capability is being advertised).

   Upon receiving a Notification with an unrecognized Status Code an LDP
   speaker MAY generate a console or system log message for trouble
   shooting purposes.



4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement

   An LDP speaker that conforms to this specification SHOULD signal
   completion of its label advertisements to a peer by means of a
   Notification message, if its peer has advertised the Unrecognized
   Notification capability during session establishment. The LDP speaker


Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009


   SHOULD send the Notification message (per Forwarding Equivalence
   Class (FEC) Type) to a peer even if the LDP speaker had zero Label
   bindings to advertise to that peer.

   Such a Notification message MUST carry:

      - A status TLV (with TLV E- and F-bits set to zero) that carries
        an "End-of-LIB" Status Code (value to be assigned by IANA).

      - A FEC TLV with the Typed Wildcard FEC Element [TypedWC] that
        identifies the FEC type for which initial label advertisements
        have been completed.  In terms of Section 3.5.1 of RFC5036,
        this TLV is an "Optional Parameter" of the Notification
        message.

   An LDP speaker MUST NOT send a Notification which carries a Status
   TLV with the End-of-LIB Status Code to a peer unless the peer had
   advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability during session
   establishment.

   This applies to any LDP peers discovered via either basic discovery
   or extended discovery mechanism (per section 2.4 of [RFC5036]).



4.1. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications

   There is no guarantee that an LDP speaker will receive (or send) End-
   of-LIB Notification from (or to) a peer even if the LDP speaker has
   signaled the 'Unrecognized Notification' capability (section 3).

     Although it is expected that an LDP speaker supporting Unrecognized
     Notification Capability would support sending and receiving End-of-
     LIB Notication, it is not mandatory by definition.

     Please note that this is not a concern since the LDP speaker would
     simply ignore the received Notification with End-of-LIB status code
     (or any status code) that is not recognized or supported, by
     definition.

   To deal with the possibility of missing End-of-LIB Notifications
   after the LDP session establishment, an LDP speaker MAY time out
   receipt of an expected End-of-LIB Notification. An LDP speaker SHOULD
   start a per-peer internal timer, called 'EOL Notification' timer (the
   default value of 60 seconds is RECOMMENDED, though the value of this
   timer SHOULD be configurable) immediately following the LDP session
   establishment.


Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009


   This timer is reset by the subsequent label advertisement, and
   stopped by the End-of-LIB Notification message. Lacking any label
   advertisement from the peer, the timer would expire, resulting in the
   LDP speaker to behave as if it had received the End-of-LIB
   notification from the peer.

   If the End-of-LIB Notification message is received after the timer
   expires, then the message SHOULD be ignored.



5. Usage Guidelines

   The FECs known to an LDP speaker and the labels the speaker has bound
   to those FECs may change over the course of time.  This makes
   determining when an LDP speaker has advertised "all" of its label
   bindings for a given FEC type an issue.  Ultimately, this
   determination is a judgment call the LDP speaker makes.  The
   following guidelines may be useful.

   An LDP speaker is assumed to "know" a set of FECs.  Depending on a
   variety of criteria, such as:

      - The label distribution control mode in use (Independent or
        Ordered);

      - The set of FEC's to which the speaker has bound local labels;

      - Configuration settings which may constrain which label bindings
        the speaker may advertise to peers;

   the speaker can determine the set of bindings for a given FEC type
   that it is permitted to advertise to a given peer.

   LDP-IGP Sync, LDP Graceful Restart, and the response to a Wildcard
   Label Request [TypedWC] are situations that would benefit from End-
   of-LIB Notification.  In these situations, after an LDP speaker
   completes its label binding advertisements to a peer, sending an End-
   of-LIB Notification to the peer makes their outcome deterministic.
   The following subsections further explain each of these situations
   one by one.








Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009


5.1. LDP-IGP Sync

   The LDP-IGP Synchronization [RFC5443] specifies a mechanism by which
   directly connected LDP speakers may delay the use of the link between
   them, for transit IP traffic forwarding until the labels required to
   support IP over MPLS traffic forwarding have been distributed and
   installed.

   Without an End-of-LIB Notification, the speaker must rely on some
   heuristic to determine when it has received all of its peer's label
   bindings.  The heuristic chosen could cause LDP to signal the IGP too
   soon in which case the likelihood that traffic will be dropped
   increases, or too late in which case traffic is kept on sub-optimal
   paths longer than necessary.

   Following session establishment, with a directly connected peer that
   has advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability, an LDP
   speaker using LDP-IGP Sync may send the peer an End-of-LIB
   Notification after it completes advertisement of its IP label
   bindings to the peer. Similarly, the LDP speaker may use the End-of-
   LIB Notification received from a directly connected peer to determine
   when the peer has completed advertisement of its label bindings for
   IP prefixes.  After receiving the notification, the LDP speaker
   should consider LDP to be fully operational for the link and signal
   the IGP to start advertising the link with normal cost.



5.2. LDP Graceful Restart

   LDP Graceful Restart [RFC3478] helps to reduce the loss of MPLS
   traffic caused by the restart of a router's LDP component.  It
   defines procedures that allow routers capable of preserving MPLS
   forwarding state across the restart to continue forwarding MPLS
   traffic using forwarding state installed prior to the restart for a
   configured time period.

   The current behavior without End-of-LIB Notification is as follows:
   the restarting router and its peers consider the preserved forwarding
   state to be usable but stale until it is refreshed by receipt of new
   label advertisements following re-establishment of new LDP sessions
   or until the time period expires.  When the time period expires, any
   remaining stale forwarding state is removed by the router.

   Receiving End-of-LIB Notification from a peer in an LDP Graceful
   Restart scenario enables an LDP speaker to stop using stale
   forwarding information learned from that peer and to recover the


Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009


   resources it requires without having to wait until the time period
   expiry. The time period expiry can still be used if the End-of-LIB-
   Notification message is not received.



5.3. Wildcard Label Request

   When an LDP speaker receives a Label Request message for a Typed
   Wildcard FEC (e.g. a particular FEC element type) from a peer it
   determines the set of bindings, it is permitted to advertise the peer
   for the FEC type specified by the request.  Assuming the peer had
   advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability at session
   initialization time, the speaker should send the peer an End-of-LIB
   Notification for the FEC type when it completes advertisement of the
   permitted bindings.

   As in the previous applications, receipt of the Notification
   eliminates uncertainty as to when the peer has completed its
   advertisements of label bindings for the requested Wildcard FEC
   Element Type.



6. Security Considerations

   No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP
   specification [RFC5036] and further described in [MPLSsec] apply to
   signaling the End-of-LIB condition as described in this document.



7. IANA Considerations

   This draft introduces a new LDP Status Code and a new LDP Capability
   both of which require IANA assignment -

      The 'End-of-LIB' status code requires a code point from the Status
      Code Name Space.  [RFC5036] partitions the Status Code Name Space
      into 3 regions:  IETF Consensus region, First Come First Served
      region, and Private Use region.  The authors recommend that a code
      point from the IETF Consensus range be assigned to the 'End-of-
      LIB' status code.

      The 'Unrecognized Notification' Capability requires a code point
      from the TLV Type name space.  [RFC5036] partitions the TLV TYPE
      name space into 3 regions:  IETF Consensus region, First Come


Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009


      First Served region, and Private Use region.  The authors
      recommend that a code point from the IETF Consensus range be
      assigned to the 'Unrecognized Notification' Capability.



8. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to recognize Kamran Raza, who helped to
   formulate this draft.

   The authors would like to thank Ina Minei, Alia Atlas, Yakov Rekhter,
   Loa Andersson and Luyuan Fang for their valuable feedback and
   contribution.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

































Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009




9. References

9.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
             Thomas, B., "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, January 2001.

   [RFC5561] Thomas, B., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., Le Roux, J.L., "LDP
             Capabilities", RFC5561, May 2007.

   [TypedWC] Thomas, B., Minei, I., "LDP Typed Wildcard FEC", draft-
             ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-03, Work in Progress, March
             2008.



9.2. Informative References

   [RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., Fang, L., "LDP IGP Synchronization",
             RFC5443, Dec 2007.

   [RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., Aggarwal, R., "Graceful
             Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol",
             February 2003.

   [MPLSsec] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks",
             draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-06, Work
             in Progress, July 13 2009.
















Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib          August 2009


Author's Addresses

   Rajiv Asati
   Cisco Systems,
   7025-6 Kit Creek Rd, RTP, NC, 27709-4987
   Email: rajiva@cisco.com

   Pradosh Mohapatra
   Cisco Systems,
   3750 Cisco Way, San Jose, CA, 95134
   Email: pmohapat@cisco.com

   Bob Thomas
   Email: bobthomas@alum.mit.edu

   Emily Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   No.5 Street, Shangdi Information, Haidian, Beijing, China
   Email: chenying220@huawei.com






























Asati, et al.            Expires Feb 28, 2010                 [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/