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

Versions: (draft-minei-wijnands-mpls-ldp-p2mp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 RFC 6388

Network Working Group                                  I. Minei (Editor)
Internet-Draft                                               K. Kompella
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: August 25, 2008                            I. Wijnands (Editor)
                                                               B. Thomas
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                       February 22, 2008


   Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
             Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths
                      draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-04

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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 25, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document describes extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol
   (LDP) for the setup of point to multi-point (P2MP) and multipoint-to-
   multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) networks.  The solution relies on LDP without



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   requiring a multicast routing protocol in the network.  Protocol
   elements and procedures for this solution are described for building
   such LSPs in a receiver-initiated manner.  There can be various
   applications for P2MP/MP2MP LSPs, for example IP multicast or support
   for multicast in BGP/MPLS L3VPNs.  Specification of how such
   applications can use a LDP signaled P2MP/MP2MP LSP is outside the
   scope of this document.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Setting up P2MP LSPs with LDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Support for P2MP LSP setup with LDP  . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  The P2MP FEC Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.3.  The LDP MP Opaque Value Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.3.1.  The Generic LSP Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.4.  Using the P2MP FEC Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.4.1.  Label Map  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.4.2.  Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   3.  Shared Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Setting up MP2MP LSPs with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.1.  Support for MP2MP LSP setup with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.2.  The MP2MP downstream and upstream FEC Elements.  . . . . . 13
     4.3.  Using the MP2MP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.3.1.  MP2MP Label Map upstream and downstream  . . . . . . . 15
       4.3.2.  MP2MP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  The LDP MP Status TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.1.  The LDP MP Status Value Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.2.  LDP Messages containing LDP MP Status messages . . . . . . 20
       5.2.1.  LDP MP Status sent in LDP notification messages  . . . 20
       5.2.2.  LDP MP Status TLV in Label Mapping Message . . . . . . 20
   6.  Upstream label allocation on a LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.1.  LDP Multipoint-to-Multipoint on a LAN  . . . . . . . . . . 21
       6.1.1.  MP2MP downstream forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       6.1.2.  MP2MP upstream forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.  Root node redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.1.  Root node redundancy - procedures for P2MP LSPs  . . . . . 23
     7.2.  Root node redundancy - procedures for MP2MP LSPs . . . . . 23
   8.  Make Before Break (MBB)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     8.1.  MBB overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     8.2.  The MBB Status code  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     8.3.  The MBB capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     8.4.  The MBB procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       8.4.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       8.4.2.  Accepting elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


       8.4.3.  Procedures for upstream LSR change . . . . . . . . . . 27
       8.4.4.  Receiving a Label Map with MBB status code . . . . . . 28
       8.4.5.  Receiving a Notification with MBB status code  . . . . 28
       8.4.6.  Node operation for MP2MP LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   10. IANA considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   11. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   12. Contributing authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 34






































Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


1.  Introduction

   The LDP protocol is described in [1].  It defines mechanisms for
   setting up point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-point (MP2P) LSPs
   in the network.  This document describes extensions to LDP for
   setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and multipoint-to-multipoint
   (MP2MP) LSPs.  These are collectively referred to as multipoint LSPs
   (MP LSPs).  A P2MP LSP allows traffic from a single root (or ingress)
   node to be delivered to a number of leaf (or egress) nodes.  A MP2MP
   LSP allows traffic from multiple ingress nodes to be delivered to
   multiple egress nodes.  Only a single copy of the packet will be sent
   on any link traversed by the MP LSP (see note at end of
   Section 2.4.1).  This is accomplished without the use of a multicast
   protocol in the network.  There can be several MP LSPs rooted at a
   given ingress node, each with its own identifier.

   The solution assumes that the leaf nodes of the MP LSP know the root
   node and identifier of the MP LSP to which they belong.  The
   mechanisms for the distribution of this information are outside the
   scope of this document.  The specification of how an application can
   use a MP LSP signaled by LDP is also outside the scope of this
   document.

   Interested readers may also wish to peruse the requirements draft [9]
   and other documents [8] and [10].

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 [2].

1.2.  Terminology

   The following terminology is taken from [9].

   P2P LSP:  An LSP that has one Ingress LSR and one Egress LSR.


   P2MP LSP:  An LSP that has one Ingress LSR and one or more Egress
      LSRs.


   MP2P LSP:  An LSP that has one or more Ingress LSRs and one unique
      Egress LSR.






Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   MP2MP LSP:  An LSP that connects a set of leaf nodes, acting
      indifferently as ingress or egress.


   MP LSP:  A multipoint LSP, either a P2MP or an MP2MP LSP.


   Ingress LSR:  Source of the P2MP LSP, also referred to as root node.


   Egress LSR:  One of potentially many destinations of an LSP, also
      referred to as leaf node in the case of P2MP and MP2MP LSPs.


   Transit LSR:  An LSR that has one or more directly connected
      downstream LSRs.


   Bud LSR:  An LSR that is an egress but also has one or more directly
      connected downstream LSRs.



2.  Setting up P2MP LSPs with LDP

   A P2MP LSP consists of a single root node, zero or more transit nodes
   and one or more leaf nodes.  Leaf nodes initiate P2MP LSP setup and
   tear-down.  Leaf nodes also install forwarding state to deliver the
   traffic received on a P2MP LSP to wherever it needs to go; how this
   is done is outside the scope of this document.  Transit nodes install
   MPLS forwarding state and propagate the P2MP LSP setup (and tear-
   down) toward the root.  The root node installs forwarding state to
   map traffic into the P2MP LSP; how the root node determines which
   traffic should go over the P2MP LSP is outside the scope of this
   document.

2.1.  Support for P2MP LSP setup with LDP

   Support for the setup of P2MP LSPs is advertised using LDP
   capabilities as defined in [6].  An implementation supporting the
   P2MP procedures specified in this document MUST implement the
   procedures for Capability Parameters in Initialization Messages.

   A new Capability Parameter TLV is defined, the P2MP Capability.
   Following is the format of the P2MP Capability Parameter.






Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1|0| P2MP Capability (TBD IANA) |     Length (= 1)             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1| Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The P2MP Capability TLV MUST be supported in the LDP Initialization
   Message.  Advertisement of the P2MP Capability indicates support of
   the procedures for P2MP LSP setup detailed in this document.  If the
   peer has not advertised the corresponding capability, then no label
   messages using the P2MP FEC Element should be sent to the peer.

2.2.  The P2MP FEC Element

   For the setup of a P2MP LSP with LDP, we define one new protocol
   entity, the P2MP FEC Element to be used as a FEC Element in the FEC
   TLV.  Note that the P2MP FEC Element does not necessarily identify
   the traffic that must be mapped to the LSP, so from that point of
   view, the use of the term FEC is a misnomer.  The description of the
   P2MP FEC Element follows.

   The P2MP FEC Element consists of the address of the root of the P2MP
   LSP and an opaque value.  The opaque value consists of one or more
   LDP MP Opaque Value Elements.  The opaque value is unique within the
   context of the root node.  The combination of (Root Node Address,
   Opaque Value) uniquely identifies a P2MP LSP within the MPLS network.

   The P2MP FEC Element is encoded as follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |P2MP Type (TBD)|        Address Family         | Address Length|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                       Root Node Address                       ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Opaque Length              |    Opaque Value ...           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      ~                                                               ~
      |                                                               |
      |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+






Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   Type:  The type of the P2MP FEC Element is to be assigned by IANA.


   Address Family:  Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS
      FAMILY NUMBERS in [3] that encodes the address family for the Root
      LSR Address.


   Address Length:  Length of the Root LSR Address in octets.


   Root Node Address:  A host address encoded according to the Address
      Family field.


   Opaque Length:  The length of the Opaque Value, in octets.


   Opaque Value:  One or more MP Opaque Value elements, uniquely
      identifying the P2MP LSP in the context of the Root Node.  This is
      described in the next section.

   If the Address Family is IPv4, the Address Length MUST be 4; if the
   Address Family is IPv6, the Address Length MUST be 16.  No other
   Address Lengths are defined at present.

   If the Address Length doesn't match the defined length for the
   Address Family, the receiver SHOULD abort processing the message
   containing the FEC Element, and send an "Unknown FEC" Notification
   message to its LDP peer signaling an error.

   If a FEC TLV contains a P2MP FEC Element, the P2MP FEC Element MUST
   be the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.

2.3.  The LDP MP Opaque Value Element

   The LDP MP Opaque Value Element is used in the P2MP and MP2MP FEC
   Elements defined in subsequent sections.  It carries information that
   is meaningful to leaf (and bud) LSRs, but need not be interpreted by
   non-leaf LSRs.











Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   The LDP MP Opaque Value Element is encoded as follows:

       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(TBD)     | Length                        | Value ...     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               |
       ~                                                               ~
       |                                                               |
       |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                               |

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Type:  The type of the LDP MP Opaque Value Element is to be assigned
      by IANA.


   Length:  The length of the Value field, in octets.


   Value:  String of Length octets, to be interpreted as specified by
      the Type field.

2.3.1.  The Generic LSP Identifier

   The generic LSP identifier is a type of Opaque Value Element encoded
   as follows:

   Type:  1 (to be assigned by IANA)


   Length:  4


   Value:  A 32bit integer, unique in the context of the root, as
      identified by the root's address.

   This type of Opaque Value Element is recommended when mapping of
   traffic to LSPs is non-algorithmic, and done by means outside LDP.

2.4.  Using the P2MP FEC Element

   This section defines the rules for the processing and propagation of
   the P2MP FEC Element.  The following notation is used in the
   processing rules:




Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   1.  P2MP FEC Element <X, Y>: a FEC Element with Root Node Address X
       and Opaque Value Y.


   2.  P2MP Label Map <X, Y, L>: a Label Map message with a FEC TLV with
       a single P2MP FEC Element <X, Y> and Label TLV with label L.


   3.  P2MP Label Withdraw <X, Y, L>: a Label Withdraw message with a
       FEC TLV with a single P2MP FEC Element <X, Y> and Label TLV with
       label L.


   4.  P2MP LSP <X, Y> (or simply <X, Y>): a P2MP LSP with Root Node
       Address X and Opaque Value Y.

   5.  The notation L' -> {<I1, L1> <I2, L2> ..., <In, Ln>} on LSR X
       means that on receiving a packet with label L', X makes n copies
       of the packet.  For copy i of the packet, X swaps L' with Li and
       sends it out over interface Ii.

   The procedures below are organized by the role which the node plays
   in the P2MP LSP.  Node Z knows that it is a leaf node by a discovery
   process which is outside the scope of this document.  During the
   course of protocol operation, the root node recognizes its role
   because it owns the Root Node Address.  A transit node is any node
   (other than the root node) that receives a P2MP Label Map message
   (i.e., one that has leaf nodes downstream of it).

   Note that a transit node (and indeed the root node) may also be a
   leaf node.

2.4.1.  Label Map

   The following lists procedures for generating and processing P2MP
   Label Map messages for nodes that participate in a P2MP LSP.  An LSR
   should apply those procedures that apply to it, based on its role in
   the P2MP LSP.

   For the approach described here we use downstream assigned labels.
   On Ethernet networks this may be less optimal, see Section 6.

2.4.1.1.  Determining one's 'upstream LSR'

   A node Z that is part of P2MP LSP <X, Y> determines the LDP peer U
   which lies on the best path from Z to the root node X. If there are
   more than one such LDP peers, only one of them is picked.  U is Z's
   "Upstream LSR" for <X, Y>.



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   When there are several candidate upstream LSRs, the LSR MAY select
   one upstream LSR using the following procedure:

   1.  The candidate upstream LSRs are numbered from lower to higher IP
       address

   2.  The following hash is performed: H = (Sum Opaque value) modulo N,
       where N is the number of candidate upstream LSRs

   3.  The selected upstream LSR U is the LSR that has the number H.

   This allows for load balancing of a set of LSPs among a set of
   candidate upstream LSRs, while ensuring that on a LAN interface a
   single upstream LSR is selected.

2.4.1.2.  Leaf Operation

   A leaf node Z of P2MP LSP <X, Y> determines its upstream LSR U for
   <X, Y> as per Section 2.4.1.1, allocates a label L, and sends a P2MP
   Label Map <X, Y, L> to U.

2.4.1.3.  Transit Node operation

   Suppose a transit node Z receives a P2MP Label Map <X, Y, L> from LDP
   peer T. Z checks whether it already has state for <X, Y>.  If not, Z
   allocates a label L', and installs state to swap L' with L over
   interface I associated with peer T. Z also determines its upstream
   LSR U for <X, Y> as per Section 2.4.1.1, and sends a P2MP Label Map
   <X, Y, L'> to U.

   If Z already has state for <X, Y>, then Z does not send a Label Map
   message for P2MP LSP <X, Y>.  All that Z needs to do in this case is
   update its forwarding state.  Assuming its old forwarding state was
   L'-> {<I1, L1> <I2, L2> ..., <In, Ln>}, its new forwarding state
   becomes L'-> {<I1, L1> <I2, L2> ..., <In, Ln>, <I, L>}.

2.4.1.4.  Root Node Operation

   Suppose the root node Z receives a P2MP Label Map <X, Y, L> from peer
   T. Z checks whether it already has forwarding state for <X, Y>.  If
   not, Z creates forwarding state to push label L onto the traffic that
   Z wants to forward over the P2MP LSP (how this traffic is determined
   is outside the scope of this document).

   If Z already has forwarding state for <X, Y>, then Z adds "push label
   L, send over interface I" to the nexthop, where I is the interface
   associated with peer T.




Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


2.4.2.  Label Withdraw

   The following lists procedures for generating and processing P2MP
   Label Withdraw messages for nodes that participate in a P2MP LSP.  An
   LSR should apply those procedures that apply to it, based on its role
   in the P2MP LSP.

2.4.2.1.  Leaf Operation

   If a leaf node Z discovers (by means outside the scope of this
   document) that it is no longer a leaf of the P2MP LSP, it SHOULD send
   a Label Withdraw <X, Y, L> to its upstream LSR U for <X, Y>, where L
   is the label it had previously advertised to U for <X, Y>.

2.4.2.2.  Transit Node Operation

   If a transit node Z receives a Label Withdraw message <X, Y, L> from
   a node W, it deletes label L from its forwarding state, and sends a
   Label Release message with label L to W.

   If deleting L from Z's forwarding state for P2MP LSP <X, Y> results
   in no state remaining for <X, Y>, then Z propagates the Label
   Withdraw for <X, Y>, to its upstream T, by sending a Label Withdraw
   <X, Y, L1> where L1 is the label Z had previously advertised to T for
   <X, Y>.

2.4.2.3.  Root Node Operation

   The procedure when the root node of a P2MP LSP receives a Label
   Withdraw message are the same as for transit nodes, except that it
   would not propagate the Label Withdraw upstream (as it has no
   upstream).

2.4.2.4.  Upstream LSR change

   If, for a given node Z participating in a P2MP LSP <X, Y>, the
   upstream LSR changes, say from U to U', then Z MUST update its
   forwarding state by deleting the state for label L, allocating a new
   label, L', for <X,Y>, and installing the forwarding state for L'.  In
   addition Z MUST send a Label Map <X, Y, L'> to U' and send a Label
   Withdraw <X, Y, L> to U.


3.  Shared Trees

   The mechanism described above shows how to build a tree with a single
   root and multiple leaves, i.e., a P2MP LSP.  One can use essentially
   the same mechanism to build Shared Trees with LDP.  A Shared Tree can



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   be used by a group of routers that want to multicast traffic among
   themselves, i.e., each node is both a root node (when it sources
   traffic) and a leaf node (when any other member of the group sources
   traffic).  A Shared Tree offers similar functionality to a MP2MP LSP,
   but the underlying multicasting mechanism uses a P2MP LSP.  One
   example where a Shared Tree is useful is video-conferencing.  Another
   is Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [7], where for some types of
   traffic, each device participating in a VPLS must send packets to
   every other device in that VPLS.

   One way to build a Shared Tree is to build an LDP P2MP LSP rooted at
   a common point, the Shared Root (SR), and whose leaves are all the
   members of the group.  Each member of the Shared Tree unicasts
   traffic to the SR (using, for example, the MP2P LSP created by the
   unicast LDP FEC advertised by the SR); the SR then splices this
   traffic into the LDP P2MP LSP.  The SR may be (but need not be) a
   member of the multicast group.

   A major advantage of this approach is that no further protocol
   mechanisms beyond the one already described are needed to set up a
   Shared Tree.  Furthermore, a Shared Tree is very efficient in terms
   of the multicast state in the network, and is reasonably efficient in
   terms of the bandwidth required to send traffic.

   A property of this approach is that a sender will receive its own
   packets as part of the multicast; thus a sender must be prepared to
   recognize and discard packets that it itself has sent.  For a number
   of applications (for example, VPLS), this requirement is easy to
   meet.  Another consideration is the various techniques that can be
   used to splice unicast LDP MP2P LSPs to the LDP P2MP LSP; these will
   be described in a later revision.


4.  Setting up MP2MP LSPs with LDP

   An MP2MP LSP is much like a P2MP LSP in that it consists of a single
   root node, zero or more transit nodes and one or more leaf LSRs
   acting equally as Ingress or Egress LSR.  A leaf node participates in
   the setup of an MP2MP LSP by establishing both a downstream LSP,
   which is much like a P2MP LSP from the root, and an upstream LSP
   which is used to send traffic toward the root and other leaf nodes.
   Transit nodes support the setup by propagating the upstream and
   downstream LSP setup toward the root and installing the necessary
   MPLS forwarding state.  The transmission of packets from the root
   node of a MP2MP LSP to the receivers is identical to that for a P2MP
   LSP.  Traffic from a leaf node follows the upstream LSP toward the
   root node and branches downward along the downstream LSP as required
   to reach other leaf nodes.  Mapping traffic to the MP2MP LSP may



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   happen at any leaf node.  How that mapping is established is outside
   the scope of this document.

   Due to how a MP2MP LSP is built a leaf LSR that is sending packets on
   the MP2MP LSP does not receive its own packets.  There is also no
   additional mechanism needed on the root or transit LSR to match
   upstream traffic to the downstream forwarding state.  Packets that
   are forwarded over a MP2MP LSP will not traverse a link more than
   once, with the exception of LAN links which are discussed in
   Section 4.3.1

4.1.  Support for MP2MP LSP setup with LDP

   Support for the setup of MP2MP LSPs is advertised using LDP
   capabilities as defined in [6].  An implementation supporting the
   MP2MP procedures specified in this document MUST implement the
   procedures for Capability Parameters in Initialization Messages.

   A new Capability Parameter TLV is defined, the MP2MP Capability.
   Following is the format of the MP2MP Capability Parameter.

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1|0| MP2MP Capability (TBD IANA) |    Length (= 1)             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1| Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The MP2MP Capability TLV MUST be supported in the LDP Initialization
   Message.  Advertisement of the MP2MP Capability indicates support of
   the procedures for MP2MP LSP setup detailed in this document.  If the
   peer has not advertised the corresponding capability, then no label
   messages using the MP2MP upstream and downstream FEC Elements should
   be sent to the peer.

4.2.  The MP2MP downstream and upstream FEC Elements.

   For the setup of a MP2MP LSP with LDP we define 2 new protocol
   entities, the MP2MP downstream FEC and upstream FEC Element.  Both
   elements will be used as FEC Elements in the FEC TLV.  Note that the
   MP2MP FEC Elements do not necessarily identify the traffic that must
   be mapped to the LSP, so from that point of view, the use of the term
   FEC is a misnomer.  The description of the MP2MP FEC Elements follow.

   The structure, encoding and error handling for the MP2MP downstream
   and upstream FEC Elements are the same as for the P2MP FEC Element
   described in Section 2.2.  The difference is that two new FEC types



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   are used: MP2MP downstream type (TBD) and MP2MP upstream type (TBD).

   If a FEC TLV contains an MP2MP FEC Element, the MP2MP FEC Element
   MUST be the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.

4.3.  Using the MP2MP FEC Elements

   This section defines the rules for the processing and propagation of
   the MP2MP FEC Elements.  The following notation is used in the
   processing rules:

   1.  MP2MP downstream LSP <X, Y> (or simply downstream <X, Y>): an
       MP2MP LSP downstream path with root node address X and opaque
       value Y.


   2.  MP2MP upstream LSP <X, Y, D> (or simply upstream <X, Y, D>): a
       MP2MP LSP upstream path for downstream node D with root node
       address X and opaque value Y.


   3.  MP2MP downstream FEC Element <X, Y>: a FEC Element with root node
       address X and opaque value Y used for a downstream MP2MP LSP.


   4.  MP2MP upstream FEC Element <X, Y>: a FEC Element with root node
       address X and opaque value Y used for an upstream MP2MP LSP.


   5.  MP2MP Label Map downstream <X, Y, L>: A Label Map message with a
       FEC TLV with a single MP2MP downstream FEC Element <X, Y> and
       label TLV with label L.


   6.  MP2MP Label Map upstream <X, Y, Lu>: A Label Map message with a
       FEC TLV with a single MP2MP upstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label
       TLV with label Lu.


   7.  MP2MP Label Withdraw downstream <X, Y, L>: a Label Withdraw
       message with a FEC TLV with a single MP2MP downstream FEC Element
       <X, Y> and label TLV with label L.


   8.  MP2MP Label Withdraw upstream <X, Y, Lu>: a Label Withdraw
       message with a FEC TLV with a single MP2MP upstream FEC Element
       <X, Y> and label TLV with label Lu.




Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   The procedures below are organized by the role which the node plays
   in the MP2MP LSP.  Node Z knows that it is a leaf node by a discovery
   process which is outside the scope of this document.  During the
   course of the protocol operation, the root node recognizes its role
   because it owns the root node address.  A transit node is any node
   (other then the root node) that receives a MP2MP Label Map message
   (i.e., one that has leaf nodes downstream of it).

   Note that a transit node (and indeed the root node) may also be a
   leaf node and the root node does not have to be an ingress LSR or
   leaf of the MP2MP LSP.

4.3.1.  MP2MP Label Map upstream and downstream

   The following lists procedures for generating and processing MP2MP
   Label Map messages for nodes that participate in a MP2MP LSP.  An LSR
   should apply those procedures that apply to it, based on its role in
   the MP2MP LSP.

   For the approach described here if there are several receivers for a
   MP2MP LSP on a LAN, packets are replicated over the LAN.  This may
   not be optimal; optimizing this case is for further study, see [4].

4.3.1.1.  Determining one's upstream MP2MP LSR

   Determining the upstream LDP peer U for a MP2MP LSP <X, Y> follows
   the procedure for a P2MP LSP described in Section 2.4.1.1.

4.3.1.2.  Determining one's downstream MP2MP LSR

   A LDP peer U which receives a MP2MP Label Map downstream from a LDP
   peer D will treat D as downstream MP2MP LSR.

4.3.1.3.  MP2MP leaf node operation

   A leaf node Z of a MP2MP LSP <X, Y> determines its upstream LSR U for
   <X, Y> as per Section 4.3.1.1, allocates a label L, and sends a MP2MP
   Label Map downstream <X, Y, L> to U.

   Leaf node Z expects an MP2MP Label Map upstream <X, Y, Lu> from node
   U in response to the MP2MP Label Map downstream it sent to node U. Z
   checks whether it already has forwarding state for upstream <X, Y>.
   If not, Z creates forwarding state to push label Lu onto the traffic
   that Z wants to forward over the MP2MP LSP.  How it determines what
   traffic to forward on this MP2MP LSP is outside the scope of this
   document.





Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


4.3.1.4.  MP2MP transit node operation

   When node Z receives a MP2MP Label Map downstream <X, Y, L> from peer
   D associated with interface I, it checks whether it has forwarding
   state for downstream <X, Y>.  If not, Z allocates a label L' and
   installs downstream forwarding state to swap label L' with label L
   over interface I. Z also determines its upstream LSR U for <X, Y> as
   per Section 4.3.1.1, and sends a MP2MP Label Map downstream <X, Y,
   L'> to U.

   If Z already has forwarding state for downstream <X, Y>, all that Z
   needs to do is update its forwarding state.  Assuming its old
   forwarding state was L'-> {<I1, L1> <I2, L2> ..., <In, Ln>}, its new
   forwarding state becomes L'-> {<I1, L1> <I2, L2> ..., <In, Ln>, <I,
   L>}.

   Node Z checks whether it already has forwarding state upstream <X, Y,
   D>.  If it does, then no further action needs to happen.  If it does
   not, it allocates a label Lu and creates a new label swap for Lu from
   the label swap(s) from the forwarding state downstream <X, Y>,
   omitting the swap on interface I for node D. This allows upstream
   traffic to follow the MP2MP tree down to other node(s) except the
   node from which Z received the MP2MP Label Map downstream <X, Y, L>.
   Node Z determines the downstream MP2MP LSR as per Section 4.3.1.2,
   and sends a MP2MP Label Map upstream <X, Y, Lu> to node D.

   Transit node Z will also receive a MP2MP Label Map upstream <X, Y,
   Lu> in response to the MP2MP Label Map downstream sent to node U
   associated with interface Iu.  Node Z will add label swap Lu over
   interface Iu to the forwarding state upstream <X, Y, D>.  This allows
   packets to go up the tree towards the root node.

4.3.1.5.  MP2MP root node operation

4.3.1.5.1.  Root node is also a leaf

   Suppose root/leaf node Z receives a MP2MP Label Map downstream <X, Y,
   L> from node D associated with interface I. Z checks whether it
   already has forwarding state downstream <X, Y>.  If not, Z creates
   forwarding state for downstream to push label L on traffic that Z
   wants to forward down the MP2MP LSP.  How it determines what traffic
   to forward on this MP2MP LSP is outside the scope of this document.
   If Z already has forwarding state for downstream <X, Y>, then Z will
   add the label push for L over interface I to it.

   Node Z checks if it has forwarding state for upstream <X, Y, D>.  If
   not, Z allocates a label Lu and creates upstream forwarding state to
   push Lu with the label push(s) from the forwarding state downstream



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   <X, Y>, except the push on interface I for node D. This allows
   upstream traffic to go down the MP2MP to other node(s), except the
   node from which the traffic was received.  Node Z determines the
   downstream MP2MP LSR as per section Section 4.3.1.2, and sends a
   MP2MP Label Map upstream <X, Y, Lu> to node D. Since Z is the root of
   the tree Z will not send a MP2MP downstream map and will not receive
   a MP2MP upstream map.

4.3.1.5.2.  Root node is not a leaf

   Suppose the root node Z receives a MP2MP Label Map downstream <X, Y,
   L> from node D associated with interface I. Z checks whether it
   already has forwarding state for downstream <X, Y>.  If not, Z
   creates downstream forwarding state and installs a outgoing label L
   over interface I. If Z already has forwarding state for downstream
   <X, Y>, then Z will add label L over interface I to the existing
   state.

   Node Z checks if it has forwarding state for upstream <X, Y, D>.  If
   not, Z allocates a label Lu and creates forwarding state to swap Lu
   with the label swap(s) from the forwarding state downstream <X, Y>,
   except the swap for node D. This allows upstream traffic to go down
   the MP2MP to other node(s), except the node is was received from.
   Root node Z determines the downstream MP2MP LSR D as per
   Section 4.3.1.2, and sends a MP2MP Label Map upstream <X, Y, Lu> to
   it.  Since Z is the root of the tree Z will not send a MP2MP
   downstream map and will not receive a MP2MP upstream map.

4.3.2.  MP2MP Label Withdraw

   The following lists procedures for generating and processing MP2MP
   Label Withdraw messages for nodes that participate in a MP2MP LSP.
   An LSR should apply those procedures that apply to it, based on its
   role in the MP2MP LSP.

4.3.2.1.  MP2MP leaf operation

   If a leaf node Z discovers (by means outside the scope of this
   document) that it is no longer a leaf of the MP2MP LSP, it SHOULD
   send a downstream Label Withdraw <X, Y, L> to its upstream LSR U for
   <X, Y>, where L is the label it had previously advertised to U for
   <X,Y>.

   Leaf node Z expects the upstream router U to respond by sending a
   downstream label release for L and a upstream Label Withdraw for <X,
   Y, Lu> to remove Lu from the upstream state.  Node Z will remove
   label Lu from its upstream state and send a label release message
   with label Lu to U.



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


4.3.2.2.  MP2MP transit node operation

   If a transit node Z receives a downstream label withdraw message <X,
   Y, L> from node D, it deletes label L from its forwarding state
   downstream <X, Y> and from all its upstream states for <X, Y>.  Node
   Z sends a label release message with label L to D. Since node D is no
   longer part of the downstream forwarding state, Z cleans up the
   forwarding state upstream <X, Y, D> and sends a upstream Label
   Withdraw for <X, Y, Lu> to D.

   If deleting L from Z's forwarding state for downstream <X, Y> results
   in no state remaining for <X, Y>, then Z propagates the Label
   Withdraw <X, Y, L> to its upstream node U for <X,Y>.

4.3.2.3.  MP2MP root node operation

   The procedure when the root node of a MP2MP LSP receives a label
   withdraw message is the same as for transit nodes, except that the
   root node would not propagate the Label Withdraw upstream (as it has
   no upstream).

4.3.2.4.  MP2MP Upstream LSR change

   The procedure for changing the upstream LSR is the same as documented
   in Section 2.4.2.4, except it is applied to MP2MP FECs, using the
   procedures described in Section 4.3.1 through Section 4.3.2.3.


5.  The LDP MP Status TLV

   An LDP MP capable router MAY use an LDP MP Status TLV to indicate
   additional status for a MP LSP to its remote peers.  This includes
   signaling to peers that are either upstream or downstream of the LDP
   MP capable router.  The value of the LDP MP status TLV will remain
   opaque to LDP and MAY encode one or more status elements.
















Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   The LDP MP Status TLV is encoded as follows:

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1|0| LDP MP Status Type(TBD)   |            Length             |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                           Value                               |
       ~                                                               ~
       |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   LDP MP Status Type:  The LDP MP Status Type to be assigned by IANA.


   Length:  Length of the LDP MP Status Value in octets.


   Value:  One or more LDP MP Status Value elements.

5.1.  The LDP MP Status Value Element

   The LDP MP Status Value Element that is included in the LDP MP Status
   TLV Value has the following encoding.

       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(TBD)     | Length                        | Value ...     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               |
       ~                                                               ~
       |                                                               |
       |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                               |

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Type:  The type of the LDP MP Status Value Element is to be assigned
      by IANA.


   Length:  The length of the Value field, in octets.






Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   Value:  String of Length octets, to be interpreted as specified by
      the Type field.

5.2.  LDP Messages containing LDP MP Status messages

   The LDP MP status message may appear either in a label mapping
   message or a LDP notification message.

5.2.1.  LDP MP Status sent in LDP notification messages

   An LDP MP status TLV sent in a notification message must be
   accompanied with a Status TLV.  The general format of the
   Notification Message with an LDP MP status TLV 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|   Notification (0x0001)     |      Message Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Message ID                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Status TLV                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   LDP MP Status TLV                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Optional LDP MP FEC TLV                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Optional Label TLV                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Status TLV status code is used to indicate that LDP MP status TLV
   and an additional information follows in the Notification message's
   "optional parameter" section.  Depending on the actual contents of
   the LDP MP status TLV, an LDP P2MP or MP2MP FEC TLV and Label TLV may
   also be present to provide context to the LDP MP Status TLV.  (NOTE:
   Status Code is pending IANA assignment).

   Since the notification does not refer to any particular message, the
   Message Id and Message Type fields are set to 0.

5.2.2.  LDP MP Status TLV in Label Mapping Message

   An example of the Label Mapping Message defined in RFC3036 is shown
   below to illustrate the message with an Optional LDP MP Status TLV
   present.






Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


      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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|   Label Mapping (0x0400)    |      Message Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Message ID                                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     FEC TLV                                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Label TLV                                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Optional LDP MP Status TLV                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Additional Optional Parameters            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



6.  Upstream label allocation on a LAN

   On a LAN the upstream LSR will send a copy of the packet to each
   receiver individually.  If there is more then one receiver on the LAN
   we don't take full benefit of the multi-access capability of the
   network.  We may optimize the bandwidth consumption on the LAN and
   replication overhead on the upstream LSR by using upstream label
   allocation [4].  Procedures on how to distribute upstream labels
   using LDP is documented in [5].

6.1.  LDP Multipoint-to-Multipoint on a LAN

   The procedure to allocate a context label on a LAN is defined in [4].
   That procedure results in each LSR on a given LAN having a context
   label which, on that LAN, can be used to identify itself uniquely.
   Each LSR advertises its context label as an upstream-assigned label,
   following the procedures of [5].  Any LSR for which the LAN is a
   downstream link on some P2MP or MP2MP LSP will allocate an upstream-
   assigned label identifying that LSP.  When the LSR forwards a packet
   downstream on one of those LSPs, the packet's top label must be the
   LSR's context label, and the packet's second label is the label
   identifying the LSP.  We will call the top label the "upstream LSR
   label" and the second label the "LSP label".

6.1.1.  MP2MP downstream forwarding

   The downstream path of a MP2MP LSP is much like a normal P2MP LSP, so
   we will use the same procedures as defined in [5].  A label request
   for a LSP label is send to the upstream LSR.  The label mapping that
   is received from the upstream LSR contains the LSP label for the



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   MP2MP FEC and the upstream LSR context label.  The MP2MP downstream
   path (corresponding to the LSP label) will be installed the context
   specific forwarding table corresponding to the upstream LSR label.
   Packets sent by the upstream router can be forwarded downstream using
   this forwarding state based on a two label lookup.

6.1.2.  MP2MP upstream forwarding

   A MP2MP LSP also has an upstream forwarding path.  Upstream packets
   need to be forwarded in the direction of the root and downstream on
   any node on the LAN that has a downstream interface for the LSP.  For
   a given MP2MP LSP on a given LAN, exactly one LSR is considered to be
   the upstream LSR.  If an LSR on the LAN receives a packet from one of
   its downstream interfaces for the LSP, and if it needs to forward the
   packet onto the LAN, it ensures that the packet's top label is the
   context label of the upstream LSR, and that its second label is the
   LSP label that was assigned by the upstream LSR.

   Other LSRs receiving the packet will not be able to tell whether the
   packet really came from the upstream router, but that makes no
   difference in the processing of the packet.  The upstream LSR will
   see its own upstream LSR in the label, and this will enable it to
   determine that the packet is traveling upstream.


7.  Root node redundancy

   The root node is a single point of failure for an MP LSP, whether
   this is P2MP or MP2MP.  The problem is particularly severe for MP2MP
   LSPs.  In the case of MP2MP LSPs, all leaf nodes must use the same
   root node to set up the MP2MP LSP, because otherwise the traffic
   sourced by some leafs is not received by others.  Because the root
   node is the single point of failure for an MP LSP, we need a fast and
   efficient mechanism to recover from a root node failure.

   An MP LSP is uniquely identified in the network by the opaque value
   and the root node address.  It is likely that the root node for an MP
   LSP is defined statically.  The root node address may be configured
   on each leaf statically or learned using a dynamic protocol.  How
   leafs learn about the root node is out of the scope of this document.

   Suppose that for the same opaque value we define two (or more) root
   node addresses and we build a tree to each root using the same opaque
   value.  Effectively these will be treated as different MP LSPs in the
   network.  Once the trees are built, the procedures differ for P2MP
   and MP2MP LSPs.  The different procedures are explained in the
   sections below.




Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


7.1.  Root node redundancy - procedures for P2MP LSPs

   Since all leafs have set up P2MP LSPs to all the roots, they are
   prepared to receive packets on either one of these LSPs.  However,
   only one of the roots should be forwarding traffic at any given time,
   for the following reasons: 1) to achieve bandwidth savings in the
   network and 2) to ensure that the receiving leafs don't receive
   duplicate packets (since one cannot assume that the receiving leafs
   are able to discard duplicates).  How the roots determine which one
   is the active sender is outside the scope of this document.

7.2.  Root node redundancy - procedures for MP2MP LSPs

   Since all leafs have set up an MP2MP LSP to each one of the root
   nodes for this opaque value, a sending leaf may pick either of the
   two (or more) MP2MP LSPs to forward a packet on.  The leaf nodes
   receive the packet on one of the MP2MP LSPs.  The client of the MP2MP
   LSP does not care on which MP2MP LSP the packet is received, as long
   as they are for the same opaque value.  The sending leaf MUST only
   forward a packet on one MP2MP LSP at a given point in time.  The
   receiving leafs are unable to discard duplicate packets because they
   accept on all LSPs.  Using all the available MP2MP LSPs we can
   implement redundancy using the following procedures.

   A sending leaf selects a single root node out of the available roots
   for a given opaque value.  A good strategy MAY be to look at the
   unicast routing table and select a root that is closest in terms of
   the unicast metric.  As soon as the root address of the active root
   disappears from the unicast routing table (or becomes less
   attractive) due to root node or link failure, the leaf can select a
   new best root address and start forwarding to it directly.  If
   multiple root nodes have the same unicast metric, the highest root
   node addresses MAY be selected, or per session load balancing MAY be
   done over the root nodes.

   All leafs participating in a MP2MP LSP MUST join to all the available
   root nodes for a given opaque value.  Since the sending leaf may pick
   any MP2MP LSP, it must be prepared to receive on it.

   The advantage of pre-building multiple MP2MP LSPs for a single opaque
   value is that convergence from a root node failure happens as fast as
   the unicast routing protocol is able to notify.  There is no need for
   an additional protocol to advertise to the leaf nodes which root node
   is the active root.  The root selection is a local leaf policy that
   does not need to be coordinated with other leafs.  The disadvantage
   of pre-building multiple MP2MP LSPs is that more label resources are
   used, depending on how many root nodes are defined.




Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


8.  Make Before Break (MBB)

   An LSR selects as its upstream LSR for a MP LSP the LSR that is its
   next hop to the root of the LSP.  When the best path to reach the
   root changes the LSR must choose a new upstream LSR.  Sections
   Section 2.4.2.4 and Section 4.3.2.4 describe these procedures.

   When the best path to the root changes the LSP may be broken
   temporarily resulting in packet loss until the LSP "reconverges" to a
   new upstream LSR.  The goal of MBB when this happens is to keep the
   duration of packet loss as short as possible.  In addition, there are
   scenarios where the best path from the LSR to the root changes but
   the LSP continues to forward packets to the prevous next hop to the
   root.  That may occur when a link comes up or routing metrics change.
   In such a case a new LSP should be established before the old LSP is
   removed to limit the duration of packet loss.  The procedures
   described below deal with both scenarios in a way that an LSR does
   not need to know which of the events described above caused its
   upstream router for an MBB LSP to change.

   This MBB procedures are an optional extension to the MP LSP building
   procedures described in this draft.

8.1.  MBB overview

   The MBB procedues use additional LDP signaling.

   Suppose some event causes a downstream LSR-D to select a new upstream
   LSR-U for FEC-A.  The new LSR-U may already be forwarding packets for
   FEC-A; that is, to downstream LSR's other than LSR-D.  After LSR-U
   receives a label for FEC-A from LSR-D, it will notify LSR-D when it
   knows that the LSP for FEC-A has been established from the root to
   itself.  When LSR-D receives this MBB notification it will change its
   next hop for the LSP root to LSR-U.

   The assumption is that if LSR-U has received an MBB notification from
   its upstream router for the FEC-A LSP and has installed forwarding
   state the LSP it is capable of forwarding packets on the LSP.  At
   that point LSR-U should signal LSR-D by means of an MBB notification
   that it has become part of the tree identified by FEC-A and that
   LSR-D should initiate its switchover to the LSP.

   At LSR-U the LSP for FEC-A may be in 1 of 3 states.

   1.  There is no state for FEC-A.

   2.  State for FEC-A exists and LSR-U is waiting for MBB notification
       that the LSP from the root to it exists.



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   3.  State for FEC-A exists and the MBB notification has been
       received.

   After LSR-U receives LSR-D's Label Mapping message for FEC-A LSR-U
   MUST NOT reply with an MBB notification to LSR-D until its state for
   the LSP is state #3 above.  If the state of the LSP at LSR-U is state
   #1 or #2, LSR-U should remember receipt of the Label Mapping message
   from LSR-D while waiting for an MBB notification from its upstream
   LSR for the LSP.  When LSR-U receives the MBB notification from its
   upstream LSR it transitions to LSP state #3 and sends an MBB
   notification to LSR-D.

8.2.  The MBB Status code

   As noted in Section 8.1, the procedures to establish an MBB MP LSP
   are different from those to establish normal MP LSPs.

   When a downstream LSR sends a Label Mapping message for MP LSP to its
   upstream LSR it MAY include an LDP MP Status TLV that carries a MBB
   Status Code to indicate MBB procedures apply to the LSP.  This new
   MBB Status Code MAY also appear in an LDP Notification message used
   by an upstream LSR to signal LSP state #3 to the downstream LSR; that
   is, that the upstream LSR's state for the LSP exists and that it has
   received notification from its upstream LSR that the LSP is in state
   #3.

   The MBB Status is a type of the LDP MP Status Value Element as
   described in Section 5.1.  It is encoded as follows:


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | MBB Type = 1  |      Length = 1               | Status code   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   MBB Type:  Type 1 (to be assigned by IANA)


   Length:  1


   Status code:  1 = MBB request







Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


                 2 = MBB ack

8.3.  The MBB capability

   An LSR MAY advertise that it is capable of handling MBB LSPs using
   the capability advertisement as defined in [6].  The LDP MP MBB
   capability has 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1|0| LDP MP MBB Capability     |           Length = 1          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1| Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Note:  LDP MP MBB Capability (Pending IANA assignment)



        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1|0| LDP MP MBB Capability     |           Length = 1          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |1| Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   If an LSR has not advertised that it is MBB capable, its LDP peers
   MUST NOT send it messages which include MBB parameters.  If an LSR
   receives a Label Mapping message with a MBB parameter from downstream
   LSR-D and its upstream LSR-U has not advertised that it is MBB
   capable, the LSR MUST send an MBB notification immediatly to LSR-U
   (see Section 8.4).  If this happens an MBB MP LSP will not be
   established, but normal a MP LSP will be the result.

8.4.  The MBB procedures

8.4.1.  Terminology

   1.  MBB LSP <X, Y>: A P2MP or MP2MP Make Before Break (MBB) LSP entry
       with Root Node Address X and Opaque Value Y.

   2.  A(N, L): An Accepting element that consists of an upstream
       Neighbor N and Local label L. This LSR assigned label L to



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


       neighbor N for a specific MBB LSP.  For an active element the
       corresponding Label is stored in the label forwarding database.

   3.  iA(N, L): An inactive Accepting element that consists of an
       upstream neighbor N and local Label L. This LSR assigned label L
       to neighbor N for a specific MBB LSP.  For an inactive element
       the corresponding Label is not stored in the label forwarding
       database.

   4.  F(N, L): A Forwarding state that consists of downstream Neighbor
       N and Label L. This LSR is sending label packets with label L to
       neighbor N for a specific FEC.

   5.  F'(N, L): A Forwarding state that has been marked for sending a
       MBB Notification message to Neighbor N with Label L.

   6.  MBB Notification <X, Y, L>: A LDP notification message with a MP
       LSP <X, Y>, Label L and MBB Status code 2.

   7.  MBB Label Map <X, Y, L>: A P2MP Label Map or MP2MP Label Map
       downstream with a FEC element <X, Y>, Label L and MBB Status code
       1.

8.4.2.  Accepting elements

   An accepting element represents a specific label value L that has
   been advertised to a neighbor N for a MBB LSP <X, Y> and is a
   candidate for accepting labels switched packets on.  An LSR can have
   two accepting elements for a specific MBB LSP <X, Y> LSP, only one of
   them MUST be active.  An active element is the element for which the
   label value has been installed in the label forwarding database.  An
   inactive accepting element is created after a new upstream LSR is
   chosen and is pending to replace the active element in the label
   forwarding database.  Inactive elements only exist temporarily while
   switching to a new upstream LSR.  Once the switch has been completed
   only one active element remains.  During network convergence it is
   possible that an inactive accepting element is created while an other
   inactive accepting element is pending.  If that happens the older
   inactive accepting element MUST be replaced with an newer inactive
   element.  If an accepting element is removed a Label Withdraw has to
   be send for label L to neighbor N for <X, Y>.

8.4.3.  Procedures for upstream LSR change

   Suppose a node Z has a MBB LSP <X, Y> with an active accepting
   element A(N1, L1).  Due to a routing change it detects a new best
   path for root X and selects a new upstream LSR N2.  Node Z allocates
   a new local label L2 and creates an inactive accepting element iA(N2,



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   L2).  Node Z sends MBB Label Map <X, Y, L2>to N2 and waits for the
   new upstream LSR N2 to respond with a MBB Notification for <X, Y,
   L2>.  During this transition phase there are two accepting elements,
   the element A(N1, L1) still accepting packets from N1 over label L1
   and the new inactive element iA(N2, L2).

   While waiting for the MBB Notification from upstream LSR N2, it is
   possible that an other transition occurs due to a routing change.
   Suppose the new upstream LSR is N3.  An inactive element iA(N3, L3)
   is created and the old inactive element iA(N2, L2) MUST be removed.
   A label withdraw MUST be sent to N2 for <X, Y, L2&gt.  The MBB
   Notification for <X, Y, L2> from N2 will be ignored because the
   inactive element is removed.

   It is possible that the MBB Notification from upstream LSR is never
   received due to link or node failure.  To prevent waiting
   indefinitely for the MBB Notification a timeout SHOULD be applied.
   As soon as the timer expires, the procedures in Section 8.4.5 are
   applied as if a MBB Notification was received for the inactive
   element.

8.4.4.  Receiving a Label Map with MBB status code

   Suppose node Z has state for a MBB LSP <X, Y> and receives a MBB
   Label Map <X, Y, L2> from N2.  A new forwarding state F(N2, L2) will
   be added to the MP LSP if it did not already exist.  If this MBB LSP
   has an active accepting element or node Z is the root of the MBB LSP
   a MBB notification <X, Y, L2)> is send to node N2.  If node Z has an
   inactive accepting element it marks the Forwarding state as <X, Y,
   F'(N2, L2)>.

8.4.5.  Receiving a Notification with MBB status code

   Suppose node Z receives a MBB Notification <X, Y, L> from N. If node
   Z has state for MBB LSP <X, Y> and an inactive accepting element
   iA(N, L) that matches with N and L, we activate this accepting
   element and install label L in the label forwarding database.  If an
   other active accepting was present it will be removed from the label
   forwarding database.

   If this MBB LSP <X, Y> also has Forwarding states marked for sending
   MBB Notifications, like <X, Y, F'(N2, L2)>, MBB Notifications are
   send to these downstream LSRs.  If node Z receives a MBB Notification
   for an accepting element that is not inactive or does not match the
   Label value and Neighbor address, the MBB notification is ignored.






Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


8.4.6.  Node operation for MP2MP LSPs

   The procedures described above apply to the downstream path of a
   MP2MP LSP.  The upstream path of the MP2MP is setup as normal without
   including a MBB Status code.  If the MBB procedures apply to a MP2MP
   downstream FEC element, the upstream path to a node N is only
   installed in the label forwarding database if node N is part of the
   active accepting element.  If node N is part of an inactive accepting
   element, the upstream path is installed when this inactive accepting
   element is activated.


9.  Security Considerations

   The same security considerations apply as for the base LDP
   specification, as described in [1].


10.  IANA considerations

   This document creates a new name space (the LDP MP Opaque Value
   Element type) that is to be managed by IANA, and the allocation of
   the value 1 for the type of Generic LSP Identifier.

   This document requires allocation of three new LDP FEC Element types:

   1.  the P2MP FEC type - requested value 0x04

   2.  the MP2MP-up FEC type - requested value 0x05

   3.  the MP2MP-down FEC type - requested value 0x06

   This document requires the assignment of three new code points for
   three new Capability Parameter TLVs, corresponding to the
   advertisement of the P2MP, MP2MP and MBB capabilities.  The values
   requested are:

      P2MP Capability Parameter - requested value 0x0508

      MP2MP Capability Parameter - requested value 0x0509

      MBB Capability Parameter - requested value 0x050A

   This document requires the assignment of a LDP Status TLV code to
   indicate a LDP MP Status TLV is following in the Notification
   message.  The value requested is:





Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


      LDP MP status - requested value 0x0000002C

   This document requires the assigment of a new code point for a LDP MP
   Status TLV.  The value requested is:

      LDP MP Status TLV Type - requested value 0x096D

   This document creates a new name space (the LDP MP Status Value
   Element type) that is to be managed by IANA, and the allocation of
   the value 1 for the type of MBB Status.


11.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
   review and contribution: Nischal Sheth, Yakov Rekhter, Rahul
   Aggarwal, Arjen Boers, Eric Rosen, Nidhi Bhaskar, Toerless Eckert,
   George Swallow, Jin Lizhong, Vanson Lim and Adrian Farrel.


12.  Contributing authors

   Below is a list of the contributing authors in alphabetical order:

   Shane Amante
   Level 3 Communications, LLC
   1025 Eldorado Blvd
   Broomfield, CO 80021
   US
   Email: Shane.Amante@Level3.com


   Luyuan Fang
   Cisco Systems
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   US
   Email: lufang@cisco.com


   Hitoshi Fukuda
   NTT Communications Corporation
   1-1-6, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku
   Tokyo 100-8019,
   Japan
   Email: hitoshi.fukuda@ntt.com





Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


   Yuji Kamite
   NTT Communications Corporation
   Tokyo Opera City Tower
   3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku,
   Tokyo 163-1421,
   Japan
   Email: y.kamite@ntt.com


   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   US
   Email: kireeti@juniper.net


   Ina Minei
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US
   Email: ina@juniper.net


   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   Lannion, Cedex 22307
   France
   Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com


   Bob Thomas
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA, 01719
   E-mail: rhthomas@cisco.com


   Lei Wang
   Telenor
   Snaroyveien 30
   Fornebu 1331
   Norway
   Email: lei.wang@telenor.com





Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


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


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and B.
         Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.

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

   [3]   Reynolds, J., "Assigned Numbers: RFC 1700 is Replaced by an On-
         line Database", RFC 3232, January 2002.

   [4]   Aggarwal, R., "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context
         Specific Label Space", draft-ietf-mpls-upstream-label-02 (work
         in progress), March 2007.

   [5]   Aggarwal, R. and J. Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for
         LDP", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream-01 (work in progress),
         March 2007.

   [6]   Thomas, B., "LDP Capabilities",
         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-capabilities-00 (work in progress),
         May 2007.

13.2.  Informative References

   [7]   Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
         Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.

   [8]   Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, "Extensions
         to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
         (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths
         (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.

   [9]   Roux, J., "Requirements for Point-To-Multipoint Extensions to
         the Label Distribution  Protocol",
         draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-02 (work in progress), March 2007.

   [10]  Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs",



Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


         draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-00 (work in progress),
         June 2005.


Authors' Addresses

   Ina Minei
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: ina@juniper.net


   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   US

   Email: kireeti@juniper.net


   IJsbrand Wijnands
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Email: ice@cisco.com


   Bob Thomas
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough  01719
   US

   Email: rhthomas@cisco.com











Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft      P2MP and MP2MP LSP Setup with LDP      February 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   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
   assurances 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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Minei (Editor), et al.   Expires August 25, 2008               [Page 34]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/