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

Versions: (draft-jjwl-mpls-mldp-hsmp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 7140

Network Working Group                                             L. Jin
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track                               F. Jounay
Expires: May 30, 2014                                     France Telecom
                                                             I. Wijnands
                                                      Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                              N. Leymann
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                       November 26, 2013


     LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path
                    draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-04.txt

Abstract

   This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint (HSMP) Label Switched
   Path (LSP), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through
   point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSP and also leaf to root along the
   reverse path.  That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP from
   application/customer at the root node travels downstream to each leaf
   node, exactly as if it is travelling downstream along a P2MP LSP to
   each leaf node.  Upstream traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any leaf
   node travels upstream along the tree to the root, as if it is unicast
   to the root.  The communication among the leaf nodes are not allowed.

Requirements 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 [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2014.



Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Setting up HSMP LSP with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Support for HSMP LSP Setup with LDP  . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  HSMP FEC Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Using the HSMP FEC Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  HSMP LSP Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.4.1.  HSMP LSP Leaf Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.4.2.  HSMP LSP Transit Node Operation  . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.4.3.  HSMP LSP Root Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.5.  HSMP LSP Label Withdraw  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.5.1.  HSMP Leaf Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.5.2.  HSMP Transit Node Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.5.3.  HSMP Root Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.6.  HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.7.  Determining Forwarding Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  HSMP LSP on a LAN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Redundancy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Failure Detection of HSMP LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.1.  New LDP FEC Element types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.2.  HSMP LSP capability TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     8.3.  New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV  . . . . . . . . . . 13
   9.  Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15




Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


1.  Introduction

   The point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Path (LSP) defined in
   [RFC6388] allows traffic to transmit from root to several leaf nodes,
   and multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP) LSP allows traffic from every
   node to transmit to every other node.  This draft introduces a hub &
   spoke multipoint (HSMP) LSP, which has one root node and one or more
   leaf nodes.  HSMP LSP allows traffic both from root to leaf through
   downstream LSP and also leaf to root along the upstream LSP.  That
   means traffic entering the HSMP LSP at the root node travels along
   downstream LSP, exactly as if it is travelling along a P2MP LSP, and
   traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any other leaf nodes travels along
   upstream LSP toward only the root node.  The upstream LSP should be
   thought of unicast LSP to the root node, except that it follows the
   node of reverse downstream path of the tree, rather than routing
   protocol based unicast path.  The combination of upstream LSPs
   initiated from all leaf nodes forms a multipoint-to-point LSP.


2.  Terminology

   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].

   This document uses some terms and acronyms as follows:

      mLDP: Multipoint extensions for Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
      defined in [RFC6388].

      P2MP LSP: point-to-multipoint Label Switched Path.  An LSP that
      has one Ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) and one or more
      Egress LSRs.

      MP2MP LSP: multipoint-to-multipoint Label Switched Path.  An LSP
      that connects a set of nodes, such that traffic sent by any node
      in the LSP is delivered to all others.

      HSMP LSP: hub & spoke multipoint Label Switched Path.  An LSP that
      has one root node and one or more leaf nodes, allows traffic from
      root to all leaf nodes along downstream P2MP LSP and also leaf to
      root node along the upstream unicast LSP.

      PTP: precise time protocol.  The timing and synchronization
      protocol defined by IEEE1588.






Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


3.  Setting up HSMP LSP with LDP

   HSMP LSP is similar to MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388], with the
   difference that, when the leaf LSRs send traffic on the LSP, the
   traffic is first delivered only to the root node and follows the
   upstream path from the leaf node to the root node.  The root node
   then distributes the traffic on the P2MP tree to all of the leaf
   nodes.

   HSMP LSP consists of a downstream path and upstream path.  The
   downstream path is same as P2MP LSP, while the upstream path is only
   from leaf to root node, without communication between leaf and leaf
   nodes.  The transmission of packets from the root node of an HSMP LSP
   to the receivers (the leaf nodes) is identical to that of a P2MP LSP.
   Traffic from a leaf node to the root follows the upstream path that
   is the reverse of the path from the root to the leaf.  Unlike an
   MP2MP LSP, traffic from a leaf node does not branch toward other leaf
   nodes, but is sent direct to the root where it is placed on the P2MP
   path and distributed to all leaf nodes including the original sender.

   To set up the upstream path of an HSMP LSP, ordered mode MUST be
   used.  Ordered mode can guarantee a leaf to start sending packets to
   root immediately after the upstream path is installed, without being
   dropped due to an incomplete LSP.

3.1.  Support for HSMP LSP Setup with LDP

   HSMP LSP requires the LDP capabilities [RFC5561] for nodes to
   indicate that they support setup of HSMP LSPs.  An implementation
   supporting the HSMP LSP procedures specified in this document MUST
   implement the procedures for Capability Parameters in Initialization
   Messages.  Advertisement of the HSMP LSP Capability indicates support
   of the procedures for HSMP LSP setup.

   A new Capability Parameter TLV is defined, the HSMP LSP Capability
   Parameter.  Following is the format of the HSMP LSP 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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F|   HSMP LSP Cap(TBD IANA)    |           Length            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |S|  Reserved   |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    Figure 1. HSMP LSP Capability Parameter encoding




Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


   U-bit: Unknown TLV bit, as described in [RFC5036].  The value MUST be
   1.  The unknown TLV MUST be silently ignored and the rest of the
   message processed as if the unknown TLV did not exist.

   F-bit: Forward unknown TLV bit, as described in [RFC5036].  The value
   of this bit MUST be 0 since a Capability Parameter TLV is sent only
   in Initialization and Capability messages, which are not forwarded.

   The length SHOULD be 1, and the S bit and reserved bits are defined
   in [RFC5561] section 3.

   The HSMP LSP Capability Parameter type is to be assigned by IANA.

   If the peer has not advertised the corresponding capability, then
   label messages using the HSMP FEC Element SHOULD NOT be sent to the
   peer.  Since ordered mode is applied for HSMP LSP signalling, the
   label message break would ensure that the initiating leaf node is
   unable to establish the upstream path to root node.

3.2.  HSMP FEC Elements

   Similar as MP2MP LSP, we define two new protocol entities, the HSMP
   Downstream FEC Element and Upstream FEC Element.  If a FEC TLV
   contains one of the HSMP FEC Elements, the HSMP FEC Element MUST be
   the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.  The structure, encoding and
   error handling for the HSMP Downstream FEC Element and Upstream FEC
   Element are the same as for the P2MP FEC Element described in
   [RFC6388] Section 2.2.  The difference is that two additional new FEC
   types are defined: HSMP Downstream FEC (to be assigned by IANA) and
   HSMP Upstream FEC (to be assigned by IANA).

3.3.  Using the HSMP FEC Elements

   In order to describe the message processing clearly, the entries in
   the list below define the processing of the HSMP FEC Elements.
   Additionally, the entries defined in [RFC6388] section 3.3 are also
   reused in the following sections.

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

   2.  HSMP upstream LSP <X, Y> (or simply upstream <X, Y>): an HSMP LSP
   upstream path for root node address X and opaque value Y which will
   be used by any of downstream node to send traffic upstream to root
   node.

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



Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


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

   5.  HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L>: A Label Mapping message with a
   single HSMP downstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV with label L.
   Label L MUST be allocated from the per-platform label space of the
   LSR sending the Label Mapping Message.

   6.  HSMP-U Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu>: A Label Mapping message with a
   single HSMP upstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV with label Lu.
   Label Lu MUST be allocated from the per-platform label space of the
   LSR sending the Label Mapping Message.

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

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

   9.  HSMP-D Label Release <X, Y, L>: a Label Release message with a
   FEC TLV with a single HSMP downstream FEC Element <X, Y> and Label
   TLV with label L.

   10.  HSMP-U Label Release <X, Y, Lu>: a Label Release message with a
   FEC TLV with a single HSMP upstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV
   with label Lu.

3.4.  HSMP LSP Label Map

   This section specifies the procedures for originating HSMP Label
   Mapping messages and processing received HSMP Label Mapping messages
   for a particular HSMP LSP.  The procedure of downstream HSMP LSP is
   similar as that of downstream MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388].  When
   LDP operates in Ordered Label Distribution Control mode [RFC5036],
   the upstream LSP will be set up by sending HSMP LSP LDP Label Mapping
   message with a label which is allocated by upstream LSR to its
   downstream LSR hop by hop from root to leaf node, installing the
   upstream forwarding table by every node along the LSP.  The detail
   procedure of setting up upstream HSMP LSP is different with that of
   upstream MP2MP LSP, and is specified in below section.

   All labels discussed here are downstream-assigned [RFC5332] except
   those which are assigned using the procedures described in Section 4.

   Determining the upstream LSR for the HSMP LSP <X, Y> follows the
   procedure for a P2MP LSP described in [RFC6388] Section 2.4.1.1.



Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


   That is, a node Z that wants to join an HSMP LSP <X, Y> determines
   the LDP peer U that is Z's next-hop on the best path from Z to the
   root node X. If there are multiple upstream LSRs, local algorithm
   should be applied to ensure that there is a single upstream LSRs for
   a particular LSP.

   To determining one's HSMP downstream LSR, an upstream LDP peer which
   receives a Label Mapping with HSMP downstream FEC Element from an LDP
   peer D will treat D as HSMP downstream LDP peer.

3.4.1.  HSMP LSP Leaf Node Operation

   The leaf node operation is much the same as the operation of MP2MP
   LSP defined in [RFC6388] Section 3.3.1.4.  The only difference is the
   FEC elements as specified below.

   A leaf node Z of an HSMP LSP <X, Y> determines its upstream LSR U for
   <X, Y> as per Section 3.3, allocates a label L, and sends an HSMP-D
   Label Mapping <X, Y, L> to U. Leaf node Z expects an HSMP-U Label
   Mapping <X, Y, Lu> from node U and 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 HSMP LSP.  How it determines what traffic to forward on this HSMP
   LSP is outside the scope of this document.

3.4.2.  HSMP LSP Transit Node Operation

   The procedure of HSMP-D Label Mapping message is much the same as
   processing MP2MP-D Label Mapping message defined in [RFC6388] Section
   3.3.1.5.  The processing of HSMP-U Label Mapping message is different
   with that of MP2MP-U Label Mapping message as specified below.

   Suppose node Z receives an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L> from LSR D.
   Z checks whether it has forwarding state for downstream <X, Y>.  If
   not, Z determines its upstream LSR U for <X, Y> as per Section 3.3.
   Using this Label Mapping to update the label forwarding table MUST
   NOT be done as long as LSR D is equal to LSR U. If LSR U is different
   from LSR D, Z will allocate a label L' and install downstream
   forwarding state to swap label L' with label L over interface I
   associated with LSR D and send an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L'> to
   U. Interface I is determined via the procedures in Section 3.7.

   If Z already has forwarding state for downstream <X, Y>, all that Z
   needs to do in this case is check that LSR D is not equal to the
   upstream LSR of <X, Y> and 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>}.  If the LSR D is equal to the installed upstream LSR, the



Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


   Label Mapping from LSR D MUST be retained and MUST NOT update the
   label forwarding table.

   Node Z checks if upstream LSR U already has assigned a label Lu to
   upstream <X, Y>.  If not, transit node Z waits until it receives an
   HSMP-U Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu> from LSR U. Once the HSMP-U Label
   Mapping is received from LSR U, node Z checks whether it already has
   forwarding state upstream <X, Y> with incoming label Lu' and outgoing
   label Lu.  If it does not, it allocates a label Lu' and creates a new
   label swap for Lu' with Label Lu over interface Iu.  Interface Iu is
   determined via the procedures in Section 3.7.  Node Z determines the
   downstream HSMP LSR as per Section 4.3.1, and sends an HSMP-U Label
   Mapping <X, Y, Lu'> to node D.

   Since a packet from any downstream node is forwarded only to the
   upstream node, the same label (representing the upstream path) SHOULD
   be distributed to all downstream nodes.  This differs from the
   procedures for MP2MP LSPs [RFC6388], where a distinct label must be
   distributed to each downstream node.  The forwarding state upstream
   <X, Y> on node Z will be like this {<Lu'>, <Iu Lu>}.  Iu means the
   upstream interface over which Z receives HSMP-U Label Map <X, Y, Lu>
   from LSR U. Packets from any downstream interface over which Z sends
   HSMP-U Label Map <X, Y, Lu'> with label Lu' will be forwarded to Iu
   with label Lu' swap to Lu.

3.4.3.  HSMP LSP Root Node Operation

   The procedure of HSMP-D Label Mapping message is much the same as
   processing MP2MP-D Label Mapping message defined in [RFC6388] Section
   3.3.1.6.  The processing of HSMP-U Label Mapping message is different
   with that of MP2MP-U Label Mapping message as specified below.

   Suppose the root node Z receives an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L>
   from node D. 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. Interface I is
   determined via the procedures in Section 3.7.  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>.  If
   not, Z creates a forwarding state for incoming label Lu' that
   indicates that Z is the HSMP LSP egress LER.  E.g., the forwarding
   state might specify that the label stack is popped and the packet
   passed to some specific application.  Node Z determines the
   downstream HSMP LSR as per Section 3.3, and sends an HSMP-U Label Map
   <X, Y, Lu'> to node D.




Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


   Since Z is the root of the tree, Z will not send an HSMP-D Label Map
   and will not receive an HSMP-U Label Mapping.

   Root node could also be a leaf node, and it is able to determine what
   traffic to forward on this HSMP LSP which is outside the scope of
   this document.

3.5.  HSMP LSP Label Withdraw

3.5.1.  HSMP Leaf Operation

   If a leaf node Z discovers that it has no need to be an Egress LSR
   for that LSP (by means outside the scope of this document), then it
   SHOULD send an HSMP-D 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 will also send an unsolicited HSMP-U Label
   Release <X, Y, Lu> to U to indicate that the upstream path is no
   longer used and that label Lu can be removed.

   Leaf node Z expects the upstream router U to respond by sending a
   downstream Label Release for L.

3.5.2.  HSMP Transit Node Operation

   If a transit node Z receives an HSMP-D Label Withdraw message <X, Y,
   L> from node D, it deletes label L from its forwarding state
   downstream <X, Y>.  Node Z sends an HSMP-D Label Release message with
   label L to D. There is no need to send an HSMP-U Label Withdraw <X,
   Y, Lu> to D because node D already removed Lu and sent a label
   release for Lu to Z.

   If deleting L from Z's forwarding state for downstream <X, Y> results
   in no state remaining for <X, Y>, then Z propagates the HSMP-D Label
   Withdraw <X, Y, L> to its upstream node U for <X, Y>.  Z should also
   check if there are any incoming interface in forwarding state
   upstream <X, Y>.  If all downstream nodes are released and there is
   no incoming interface, Z should delete the forwarding state upstream
   <X, Y> and send HSMP-U Label Release message to its upstream node.
   Otherwise, no HSMP-U Label Release message will be sent to the
   upstream node.

3.5.3.  HSMP Root Node Operation

   When the root node of an HSMP LSP receives an HSMP-D Label Withdraw
   and HSMP-U Label Release message, the procedure is the same as that
   for transit nodes, except that the root node will not propagate the
   Label Withdraw and Label Release upstream (as it has no upstream).




Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


3.6.  HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change

   The procedure for changing the upstream LSR is the same as defined in
   [RFC6388] Section 2.4.3, only with different processing FEC Element.

   When the upstream LSR changes from U to U', node Z should set up the
   HSMP LSP <X, Y> to U' by applying procedures in Section 3.4.  Z will
   also remove HSMP LSP <X, Y> to U by applying procedure in Section
   3.5.

   To set up HSMP LSP to U' before/after removing HSMP LSP to U is a
   local matter, and the recommended default behavior is to remove
   before adding.

3.7.  Determining Forwarding Interface

   The co-routed path between upstream and downstream LSP would be
   achieved for HSMP LSP.  Both LSR U and LSR D would ensure the same
   interface to send traffic by applying some procedures.  For a network
   with symmetric IGP cost configuration, the following procedure MAY be
   used.  To determine the downstream interface, LSR U MUST do a lookup
   in the unicast routing table to find the best interface and next-hop
   to reach LSR D. If the next-hop and interface are also advertised by
   LSR D via the LDP session, it should be used to transmit the packet
   to LSR D. Determine the upstream interface mechanism is same as
   determining the downstream interface by exchanging the role of LSR U
   and LSR D. If symmetric IGP cost could not be ensured, static route
   configuration on LSR U and D could also be a possible way to ensure
   co-routed path.

   If co-routed is not required for HSMP LSP, the procedure defined in
   [RFC6388] Section 2.4.1.2 could be applied.  LSR U is free to
   transmit the packet on any of the interfaces to LSR D. The algorithm
   it uses to choose a particular interface is a local matter.
   Determine the upstream interface mechanism is the same as determining
   the downstream interface.


4.  HSMP LSP on a LAN

   The procedure to process the downstream HSMP LSP on a LAN is much the
   same as downstream MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388] section 6.1.1.

   When establishing the downstream path of an HSMP LSP, as defined in
   [RFC6389], a Label Request message for an LSP label is sent to the
   upstream LSR.  The upstream LSR should send Label Mapping message
   that contains the LSP label for the downstream HSMP FEC and the
   upstream LSR context label defined in [RFC5331].  When the LSR



Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


   forwards a packet downstream on one of those LSPs, the packet's top
   label must be the "upstream LSR context label", and the packet's
   second label is "LSP label".  The HSMP downstream path will be
   installed in the context-specific forwarding table corresponding to
   the upstream LSR label.  Packets sent by the upstream LSR can be
   forwarded downstream using this forwarding state based on a two-label
   lookup.

   The upstream path of an HSMP LSP on a LAN is the same as the one on
   other kind of links.  That is, the upstream LSR must send Label
   Mapping message that contains the LSP label for upstream HSMP FEC to
   downstream node.  Packets travelling upstream need to be forwarded in
   the direction of the root by using the label allocated for upstream
   HSMP FEC.


5.  Redundancy Considerations

   In some scenario, it is necessary to provide two root nodes for
   redundancy purpose.  One way to implement this is to use two
   independent HSMP LSPs acting as active/standby.  At one time, only
   one HSMP LSP will be active, and the other will be standby.  After
   detecting the failure of active HSMP LSP, the root and leaf nodes
   will switch the traffic to the standby HSMP LSP which takes on the
   role as active HSMP LSP.  The detail of redundancy mechanism is out
   of the scope.


6.  Failure Detection of HSMP LSP

   The idea of LSP ping for HSMP LSPs could be expressed as an intention
   to test the LSP Ping Echo Request packets that enter at the root
   along a particular downstream path of HSMP LSP, and end their MPLS
   path on the leaf.  The leaf node then sends the LSP Ping Echo Reply
   along the upstream path of HSMP LSP, and end on the root that are the
   (intended) root node.

   New sub-TLVs are required to be assigned by IANA in Target FEC Stack
   TLV to define the corresponding HSMP-upstream FEC type and HSMP-
   downstream FEC type.  In order to ensure the leaf node to send the
   LSP Ping Echo Reply along the HSMP upstream path, the R bit (Validate
   Reverse Path) in Global Flags Field defined in [RFC6426] is reused
   here.

   The node processing mechanism of LSP Ping Echo Request and Echo Reply
   for HSMP LSP is inherited from [RFC6425] and [RFC6426] Section 3.4,
   except the following:




Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


   1.  The root node sending LSP Ping Echo Request message for HSMP LSP
   MUST attach Target FEC Stack with HSMP downstream FEC, and set R bit
   to '1' in Global Flags Field.

   2.  When the leaf node receiving the LSP Ping Echo Request, it MUST
   send the LSP Ping Echo Reply to the associated HSMP upstream path.
   The Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV attached by leaf node in Echo
   Reply message SHOULD contain the sub-TLV of associated HSMP upstream
   FEC.


7.  Security Considerations

   The same security considerations apply as for the MP2MP LSP described
   in [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].

   Although this document introduces new FEC Elements and corresponding
   procedures, the protocol does not bring any new security issues
   compared to [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].


8.  IANA Considerations

8.1.  New LDP FEC Element types

   This document requires allocation of two new LDP FEC Element types
   from the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry" the
   "Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space":

   1. the HSMP-upstream FEC type - requested value TBD

   2. the HSMP-downstream FEC type - requested value TBD

   The values should be allocated using the lowest free values from the
   "IETF Consensus"-range (0-127).

8.2.  HSMP LSP capability TLV

   This document requires allocation of one new code points for the HSMP
   LSP capability TLV from "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters
   registry" the "TLV Type Name Space":

   HSMP LSP Capability Parameter - requested value TBD

   The value should be allocated from the range 0x0901-0x3DFF (IETF
   Consensus) using the first free value within this range.





Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


8.3.  New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV

   This document requires allocation of two new sub-TLV types for
   inclusion within the LSP ping [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV
   type 1).

   1. the HSMP-upstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD

   2. the HSMP-downstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD

   The value should be allocated from the IETF Standards Action range
   (0-16383) that is used for mandatory and optional sub-TLVs that
   requires a response if not understood.  The value should be allocated
   using the lowest free value within this range.


9.  Acknowledgement

   The author would like to thank Eric Rosen, Sebastien Jobert, Fei Su,
   Edward, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin, Loa Andersson for their valuable
   comments.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative references

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

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

   [RFC5332]  Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
              Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.

   [RFC5561]  Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL.
              Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009.

   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
              "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
              Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.

   [RFC6389]  Aggarwal, R. and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
              Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011.




Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


   [RFC6425]  Saxena, S., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa,
              S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in
              Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping",
              RFC 6425, November 2011.

   [RFC6426]  Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS
              On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing",
              RFC 6426, November 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]
              Kamite, Y., JOUNAY, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D.,
              and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual
              Private Multicast Service (VPMS)",
              draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-05 (work in
              progress), October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw]
              Sivabalan, S., Boutros, S., and L. Martini, "Signaling
              Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP",
              draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04 (work in progress), March 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls]
              Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L.
              Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
              Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-05 (work in
              progress), June 2013.

   [IEEE1588]
              "IEEE standard for a precision clock synchronization
              protocol for networked measurement and control systems",
              IEEE1588v2 , March 2008.

   [RFC3376]  Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
              Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
              3", RFC 3376, October 2002.

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              February 2006.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
              Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.

   [RFC6826]  Wijnands, IJ., Eckert, T., Leymann, N., and M. Napierala,
              "Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-Multipoint
              and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths",



Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp          November 2013


              RFC 6826, January 2013.


Authors' Addresses

   Lizhong Jin
   Shanghai, China

   Email: lizho.jin@gmail.com


   Frederic Jounay
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex, FRANCE

   Email: frederic.jounay@orange.ch


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

   Email: ice@cisco.com


   Nicolai Leymann
   Deutsche Telekom AG
   Winterfeldtstrasse 21
   Berlin  10781

   Email: N.Leymann@telekom.de


















Jin, et al.               Expires May 30, 2014                 [Page 15]


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