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

Versions: (draft-leymann-mpls-seamless-mpls) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

MPLS Working Group                                       N. Leymann, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Deutsche Telekom AG
Intended status: Informational                               B. Decraene
Expires: November 14, 2013                                France Telecom
                                                             C. Filsfils
                                                 M. Konstantynowicz, Ed.
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            D. Steinberg
                                                    Steinberg Consulting
                                                            May 13, 2013


                       Seamless MPLS Architecture
                    draft-ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls-03

Abstract

   This documents describes an architecture which can be used to extend
   MPLS networks to integrate access and aggregation networks into a
   single MPLS domain ("Seamless MPLS").  The Seamless MPLS approach is
   based on existing and well known protocols.  It provides a highly
   flexible and a scalable architecture and the possibility to integrate
   100.000 of nodes.  The separation of the service and transport plane
   is one of the key elements; Seamless MPLS provides end to end service
   independent transport.  Therefore it removes the need for service
   specific configurations in network transport nodes (without end to
   end transport MPLS, some additional services nodes/configurations
   would be required to glue each transport domain).  This draft defines
   a routing architecture using existing standardized protocols.  It
   does not invent any new protocols or defines extensions to existing
   protocols.

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 November 14, 2013.



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 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
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Why Seamless MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Use Case #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.1.  Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.2.  Typical Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     2.3.  Use Case #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.1.  Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.2.  Typical Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     3.1.  Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.1.1.  Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       3.1.2.  Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       3.1.3.  Core  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.2.  Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.3.  Availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.4.  Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.5.  Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Multi-Domain MPLS networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.3.  Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.4.  Intra-Domain Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.5.  Inter-Domain Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.6.  Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   5.  Deployment Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.1.  Deployment Scenario #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       5.1.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       5.1.2.  General Network Topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


       5.1.3.  Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.1.4.  Intra-Area Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
         5.1.4.1.  Core  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
         5.1.4.2.  Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       5.1.5.  Access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
         5.1.5.1.  LDP Downstream-on-Demand (DoD)  . . . . . . . . .  20
       5.1.6.  Inter-Area Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       5.1.7.  Labled iBGP next-hop handling . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       5.1.8.  Network Availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
         5.1.8.1.  IGP Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
         5.1.8.2.  Per-Prefix LFA FRR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
         5.1.8.3.  Hierarchical Dataplane and BGP Prefix Independent
                   Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
         5.1.8.4.  BGP Egress Node FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
         5.1.8.5.  Assessing loss of connectivity upon any failure .  25
         5.1.8.6.  Network Resiliency and Simplicity . . . . . . . .  29
         5.1.8.7.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       5.1.9.  BGP Next-Hop Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     5.2.  Scalability Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       5.2.1.  Control and Data Plane State for Deployment Scenario
               #1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
         5.2.1.1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
         5.2.1.2.  Core Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
         5.2.1.3.  Aggregation Domain  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
         5.2.1.4.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
         5.2.1.5.  Numerical application for use case #1 . . . . . .  34
         5.2.1.6.  Numerical application for use case #2 . . . . . .  35
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     8.1.  Access Network Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     8.2.  Data Plane Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     8.3.  Control Plane Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41

1.  Introduction

   MPLS as a mature and well known technology is widely deployed in
   today's core and aggregation/metro area networks.  Many metro area
   networks are already based on MPLS delivering Ethernet services to
   residential and business customers.  Until now those deployments are
   usually done in different domains; e.g.  core and metro area networks
   are handled as separate MPLS domains.





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   Seamless MPLS extends the core domain and integrates aggregation and
   access domains into a single MPLS domain ("Seamless MPLS").  This
   enables a very flexible deployment of an end to end service delivery.
   In order to obtain a highly scalable architecture Seamless MPLS takes
   into account that typical access devices (DSLAMs, MSAN) are lacking
   some advanced MPLS features, and may have more scalability
   limitations.  Hence access devices are kept as simple as possible.

   Seamless MPLS is not a new protocol suite but describes an
   architecture by deploying existing protocols like BGP, LDP and ISIS.
   Multiple options are possible and this document aims at defining a
   single architecture for the main function in order to ease
   implementation prioritization and deployments in multi vendor
   networks.  Yet the architecture should be flexible enough to allow
   some level of personalization, depending on use cases, existing
   deployed base and requirements.  Currently, this document focus on
   end to end unicast LSP.

1.1.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.2.  Terminology

   This document uses the following terminology

   o  Access Node (AN): An access node is a node which processes
      customers frames or packets at Layer 2 or above.  This includes
      but is not limited to DSLAMs or OLTs (in case of (G)PON
      deployments).  Access nodes have only limited MPLS functionalities
      in order to reduce complexity in the access network.

   o  Aggregation Node (AGN): An aggregation node (AGN) is a node which
      aggregates several access nodes (ANs).

   o  Area Border Router (ABR): Router between aggregation and core
      domain.

   o  Deployment Scenario: Describes which an implementation of Seamless
      MPLS in order to fullfil the requirements derived from one or more
      use cases.

   o  Seamless MPLS Domain: A set of MPLS equipments which can set MPLS
      LSPs between them.





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   o  Transport Node (TN): Transport nodes are used to connect access
      nodes to service nodes, and services nodes to services nodes.
      Transport nodes ideally have no customer or service state and are
      therefore decoupled from service creation.

   o  Seamless MPLS (S-MPLS): Used as a generic term to describe an
      architecture which integrates access, aggregation and core network
      in a single MPLS domain.

   o  Service Node (SN): A service node is used to create services for
      customers and is connected to one or more transport nodes.
      Typical examples include Broadband Network Gateways (BNGs), video
      servers

   o  Transport Pseudo Wire (T-PW): A transport pseudowire provides
      service independent transport mechanisms based on Pseudo-Wires
      within the Seamless MPLS architecture.

   o  Use Case: Describes a typical network including service creation
      points in order to describe the requirments, typical numbers etc.
      which need to be taken into account when applying the Seamless
      MPLS architecture.

2.  Motivation

   MPLS is deployed in core and aggregation network for several years
   and provides a mature and stable basis for large networks.  In
   addition MPLS is already used in access networks, e.g.  such as
   mobile or DSL backhaul.  Today MPLS as technology is being used on
   two different layers:

   o  the Transport Layer and

   o  the Service Layer (e.g.  for MPLS VPNs)

   In both cases the protocols and the encapsulation are identical but
   the use of MPLS is different especially concerning the signalling,
   the control plane, the provisioning, the scalability and the
   frequency of updates.  On the service layer only service specific
   information is exchanged; every service can potentially deploy it's
   own architecture and individual protocols.  The services are running
   on top of the transport layer.  Nevertheless those deployments are
   usually isolated, focussed on a single use case and not integrated
   into an end-to-end manner.

   The motivation of Seamless MPLS is to provide an architecture which
   supports a wide variety of different services on a single MPLS
   platform fully integrating access, aggregation and core network.  The



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   architecture can be used for residential services, mobile backhaul,
   business services and supports fast reroute, redundancy and load
   balancing.  Seamless MPLS provides the deployment of service creation
   points which can be virtually everywhere in the network.  This
   enables network and service providers with a flexible service and
   service creation.  Service creation can be done based on the existing
   requirements without the needs for dedicated service creation areas
   on fixed locations.  With the flexibility of Seamless MPLS the
   service creation can be done anywhere in the network and easily moved
   between different locations.

2.1.  Why Seamless MPLS

   Multiple SP plan to deploy networks with 10k to 100k MPLS nodes.
   This is typically at least one order of magnitude higher than typical
   deployments and may require a new architecture.  Multiple options are
   possible and it makes sense for the industry (both vendors and SP) to
   restrict the options in order to ease the first deployments (e.g.
   restrict the number of options to implement and/or scales for
   vendors, reduce interoperability and debugging issues for SP).

   Many aggregation networks are already deploying MPLS but are limited
   to the use of MPLS per aggregation area.  Those MPLS based
   aggregation domains are connected to a core network running MPLS as
   well.  Nevertheless most of the services are not limited to an
   aggregation domain but running between several aggregation domains
   crossing the core network.  In the past it was necessary to provide
   connectivity between the different domains and the core on a per
   service level and not based on MPLS (e.g.  by deploying native IP-
   Routing or Ethernet based technologies between aggregation and core).
   In most cases service specific configurations on the border nodes
   between core and aggregation were required.  New services led to
   additional configurations and changes in the provisioning tools (see
   Figure 1).

   With Seamless MPLS there are no technology boundaries and no topology
   boundaries for the services.  Network (or region) boundaries are for
   scaling and manageability, and do not affect the service layer, since
   the Transport Pseudowire that carries packets from the AN to the SN
   doesn't care whether it takes two hops or twenty, nor how many region
   boundaries it needs to cross.  The network architecture is about
   network scaling, network resilience and network manageability; the
   service architecture is about optimal delivery: service scaling,
   service resilience (via replicated SNs) and service manageability.
   The two are decoupled: each can be managed separately and changed
   independently.





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


    +--------------+         +--------------+         +--------------+
    |  Aggregation |         |     Core     |         |  Aggregation |
    |   Domain #1  +---------+    Domain    +---------+   Domain #2  |
    |     MPLS     | ^       |     MPLS     |       ^ |     MPLS     |
    +--------------+ |       +--------------+       | +--------------+
                     |                              |
                     +------ service specific ------+
                              configuration

                 Figure 1: Service Specific Configurations

   One of the main motivations of Seamless MPLS is to get rid of
   services specific configurations between the different MPLS islands.
   Seamless MPLS connects all MPLS domains on the MPLS transport layer
   providing a single transport layer for all services - independent of
   the service itself.  The Seamless MPLS architecture therefore
   decuples the service and transport layer and integrates access,
   aggregation and core into a single platform.  One of the big
   advantages is that problems on the transport layer only need to be
   solved once (and the solutions are available to all services).  With
   Seamless MPLS it is not necessary to use service specific
   configurations on intermediate nodes; all services can be deployed in
   an end to end manner.

2.2.  Use Case #1

2.2.1.  Description

   In most cases at least residential and business services need to be
   supported by a network.  This section describes a Seamless MPLS use
   case which supports such a scenario.  The use case includes point to
   point services for business customers as well as typical service
   creation for residential customers.

                         +-------------+
                         |   Service   |
                         |  Creation   |
                         | Residential |
                         |  Customers  |
                         +------+------+
                                |
                                |
                                |
         PW1    +-------+   +---+---+
        #########################   |
        #    +--+ AGN11 +---+ AGN21 +  +------+
        #   /   |       |  /|       |\ |      |           +--------+
     +--#-+/    +-------+\/ +-------+ \|      |           | remote |



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


     | AN |              /\            + CORE +---......--+   AN   |
     +--#-+\    +-------+  \+-------+ /|      |         #######    |
        #   \   |       |   |       |/################### +--------+
        #    +--+ AGN12 +---+ AGN22 +##+------+  P2P Business Service
        ##############################
         PW2    +-------+   +-------+

                  Figure 2: Use Case #1: Service Creation

   Figure 2 shows the different service creation points and the
   corresponding pseudowires between the access nodes and the service
   creation points.  The use case does not show all PWs (e.g.  not the
   PWs needed to support redundancy) in order to keep the figure simple.
   Node and link failures are handled by rerouting the PWs (based on
   standard mechanisms).  End customers (either residential or business
   customers) are connected to the access nodes using a native
   technology like Ethernet.  The access nodes terminates the PW(s)
   carrying the traffic for the end customers.  The link between the
   access node (AN) and the aggregation node (AGN) is the first MPLS
   enabled link.

   Residential Services:  The service creation for all residential
      customers connected to the Access Nodes in an aggregation domain
      is located on an Service Node connected to the AGN2x.  The PW
      (PW1) originated at the AN and terminates at the AGN2.  A second
      PW is deployed in the case where redundancy is needed on the AN
      (the figure shows redundancy but this might not be the case for
      all ANs in this Use Case).  Additonal PWs can be deployed as well
      in case more than a single service creation is needed for the
      residential service (e.g.  one service creation point for Internet
      access and a second service creation point for IPTV services).

   Business Sercvices:  For business services the use cases shows point
      to point connections between two access nodes.  PW2 originates at
      the AN and terminates on the remote AN crossing two aggregation
      areas and the core network.  If the access node needs connections
      to several remote ANs the corresponding number of PWs will be
      originated at the AN.  Nevertheless taking the number of ports
      available and the number of business customers on a typical access
      node the number of PWs will be relatively small.

                +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+
                |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |
             +--+ AGN11 +---+ AGN21 +---+ ABR1 +---+ LSR1 +--> to AGN
            /   |       |  /|       |   |      |   |      |
     +----+/    +-------+\/ +-------+   +------+  /+------+
     | AN |              /\                     \/
     +----+\    +-------+  \+-------+   +------+/\ +------+



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


            \   |       |   |       |   |      |  \|      |
             +--+ AGN12 +---+ AGN22 +---+ ABR2 +---+ LSR2 +--> to AGN
                |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |
                +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+

     static route     ISIS L1 LDP             ISIS L2 LDP

     <-Access-><--Aggregation Domain--><---------Core--------->

                     Figure 3: Use Case #1: Redundancy

   Figure 3 shows the redundancy at the access and aggregation network
   deploying a two stage aggregation network (AGN1x/AGN2x).
   Nevertheless redundancy is not a MUST in this use case.  It is also
   possible to use non redundant connection between the ANs and AGN1
   stage and/or between the AGN1 and AGN2 stages.  The AGN2x stage is
   used to aggregate traffic from several AGN1x pairs.  In this use case
   an aggregation domain is not limited to the use of a single pair of
   AGN2x; the deployment of several AGN2 pairs within the domain is also
   supported.  As design goal for the scalability of the routing and
   forwarding within the Seamless MPLS architecture the following
   numbers are used:

   o  Number of Aggregation Domains: 100

   o  Number of Backbone Nodes: 1.000

   o  Number of Aggregation Nodes: 10.000

   o  Number of Access Nodes: 100.000

   The access nodes (AN) are dual homed to two different aggregation
   nodes (AGN11 and AGN12) using static routing entries on the AN.  The
   ANs are always source or sink nodes for MPLS traffic but not transit
   nodes.  This allows a light MPLS implementation in order to reduce
   the complexity in the AN.  The aggregation network consists of two
   stages with redundant connections between the stages (AGN11 is
   connected to AGN21 and AGN22 as well as AGN12 to AGN21 and AGN22).
   The gateway between the aggregation and core network is realized
   using the Area Border Routers (ABR).  From the perspective of the
   MPLS transport layer all systems are clearly identified using the
   loopback address of the system.  An ingress node must be able to
   establish a service to an arbitrary egress system by using the
   corresponding MPLS transport label

2.2.2.  Typical Numbers





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   Table 1 shows typical numbers which are expected for Use Case #1
   (access node).

                   +-------------------+---------------+
                   | Parameter         | Typical Value |
                   +-------------------+---------------+
                   | IGP Control Plane | 2             |
                   | IP FIB            | 2             |
                   | LDP Control Plane | 200           |
                   | LDP FIB           | 200           |
                   | BGP Control Plane | 0             |
                   | BGP FIB           | 0             |
                   +-------------------+---------------+

           Table 1: Use Case #1: Typical Numbers for Access Node

2.3.  Use Case #2

2.3.1.  Description

   In most cases, residential, wholesales and business services need to
   be supported by the network.

                            +-------------+
                            |   Service   |
                            |  platforms  |
                            |(VoIP, VoD..)|
                            | Residential |
                            |  Customers  |
                            +------+------+
                                   |
                                   |
              +---+    +-----+  +--+--+   +-----+
              |AN1|----+AGN11+--+AGN21+---+ ABR |
              +---+    +--+--+  +--+--+   +--+--+
                          |        |         |
              +---+    +--+--+     |         |          +----+
              |AN2|----+AGN12+     |         |        --+ PE |
              +---+    +--+--+     |         |          +----+
                          |        |         |
                          .        |         |
                          .        |         |
                          .        |         |
                          |        |         |
      +---+   +---+    +--+--+  +--+--+   +--+--+
      |AN4+---+AN3|----+AGN1x+--+AGN22+---+ ABR |
      +---+   +---+    +-----+  +-----+   +-----+




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


           <-Access-><--Aggregation Domain--><---------Core--------->

                           Figure 4: Use Case #2

   The above topology (see Figure 4) is subject to evolutions, depending
   on AN types and capacities (in terms of number of customers and/or
   aggregated bandwidth).  For examples, AGN1x connection toward AGN2y
   currently forms a ring but may latter evolve in a square or triangle
   topology; AGN2y nodes may not be present...

   Most access nodes (AN) are single attached on one aggregation node
   using static routing entries on the AN and AGN.  Some AN, are dual
   attached on two different AGN using static routes.  Some AN are used
   as transit by some lower level AN.  Static routes are expected to be
   used between those AN.

   IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS interconnection between the aggregation and core
   network is realized using the Area Border Routers (ABR).  Any ingress
   node must be able to establish IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS connections to any
   egress node in the seamless MPLS domain.

   Regarding MPLS connectivity requirements, a full mesh of MPLS LSPs is
   required between the ANs of an aggregation area, at least for 6PE
   purposes.  Some additional LSPs are needed between ANs and some PE in
   the aggregation area or in the core area for access to services,
   wholesale and enterprises services.  In short, a meshing of LSP is
   required between the AGN of the whole seamless MPLS domain.  Finally,
   LSP between any node to any node should be possible.

   From a scalability standpoint, the following numbers are the targets:

   o  Number of Aggregation Domains: 30

   o  Number of Backbone Nodes: 150

   o  Number of Aggregation Nodes: 1.500

   o  Number of Access Nodes: 40.000

2.3.2.  Typical Numbers

   Table 2 shows typical numbers which are expected for Use Case #2 for
   the purpose of establishing the transport LSPs.  They do not take
   into account the services built in addition.  (e.g.  6PE will require
   additional IPv6 routes).

                   +-------------------+---------------+
                   | Parameter         | Typical Value |



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


                   +-------------------+---------------+
                   | IGP Control Plane | 2             |
                   | IP FIB            | 2             |
                   | LDP Control Plane | 1000          |
                   | LDP FIB           | 1000          |
                   +-------------------+---------------+

           Table 2: Use Case #2: Typical Numbers for Access Node

3.  Requirements

   The following section describes the overall requirements which need
   to be fulfilled by the Seamless MPLS architecture.  Beside the
   general requirements of the architecture itself there are also
   certain requirements which are related to the different network
   nodes.

   o  End to End Transport LSP: MPLS based services (pseudowire based,
      L3-VPN or IP) SHALL be provided by the Seamless MPLS based
      infrastructure between any nodes.

   o  Scalability: The network SHALL be scalable to the minimum of
      100.000 nodes.

   o  Fast convergence (sub second resilience) SHALL be supported.  Fast
      reroute (LFA) SHOULD be supported.

   o  Flexibility: The Seamless MPLS architecture SHALL be applied to a
      wide variety of existing MPLS deployments.  It SHALL use a
      flexible approach deploying building blocks with the possiblity to
      use certain features only if those features are needed (e.g.  dual
      homing ANs or fast reroute mechanisms).

   o  Service independence: Service and transport layer SHALL be
      decoupled.  The architecture SHALL remove the need for service
      specific configurations on intermediate nodes.

   o  Native Multicast support: P2MP MPLS LSPs SHOULD be supported by
      the Seamless MPLS architecture.

   o  Interoperable end to end OAM mechanisms SHALL be implemented

3.1.  Overall

3.1.1.  Access

   In respect of MPLS functionality the access network should be kept as
   simple as possible.  Compared to the aggregation and/or core network



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   within Seamless MPLS a typical access node is less powerful.  The
   control plane and the forwarding should be as simple as possible.  To
   reduce the complexity and the costs of an access node not the full
   MPLS functionality need to be supported (control and data plane).
   The use of an IGP should be avoided.  Static routing should be
   sufficient.  Required functionality to reach the required scalability
   should be moved out of the access node.  The number of access nodes
   can be very high.  The support of load balancing for layer 2 services
   should be implemented.

3.1.2.  Aggregation

   The aggregation network aggregates traffic from access nodes.  The
   aggregation Node must have functionalities that enlarge the
   scalability of the simple access nodes that are connected.  The IGP
   must be link state based.  Each aggregation area must be a separated
   area.  All routes that are interarea should use an EGP to keep the
   IGP small.  The aggregation node must have the full scalability
   concerning control plane and forwarding.  The support of load
   balancing for layer 2 services must be implemented.

3.1.3.  Core

   The core connects the aggregation areas.  The core network elements
   must have the full scalability concerning control plane and
   forwarding.  The IGP must be link state based.  The core area must
   not include routes from aggregation areas.  All routes that are
   interarea should use an EGP to keep the IGP small.  Each area of the
   link state based IGP should have less than 2000 routes.  The support
   of load balancing for layer 2 services must be implemented.

3.2.  Multicast

   Compared with unicast connectivity Multicast is more dynamic.  User
   generated messages - like joining or leaving multicast groups - are
   interacting directly with network components in the access and
   aggregation network (in order to build the corresponding forwarding
   states).  This leads to the need for a highly dynamic handling of
   messages on access and aggregation nodes.  Nevertheless the core
   network SHOULD be stable and state changes triggered by user
   generated messages SHOULD be minimized.  This rises the need for an
   hierarchy for the P2MP support in Seamless MPLS hiding the dynamic
   behaviour of the access and aggregation nodes

   o  mLDP

   o  P2MP RSVP-TE




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


3.3.  Availability

   All network elements should be high available (99.999% availability).
   Outage times should be as low as possible.  A repair time of 50
   milliseconds or less should be guarantied at all nodes and lines in
   the network that are redundant.  Fast convergence features SHOULD be
   used in all control plane protocols.  Local Repair functions SHOULD
   be used wherever possible.  Full redundancy is required at all
   equipment that is shared in a network element.

   o  Power Supply

   o  Switch Fabric

   o  Routing Processor

   A change from an active component to a standby component SHOULD
   happen without effecting customers traffic.  The Influence of
   customer traffic MUST be as low as possible.

3.4.  Scalability

   The network must be highly scalable.  As a minimum requirement the
   following scalability figures should be met:

   o  Number of aggregation domains: 100

   o  Number of backbone nodes: 1.000

   o  Number of aggregation nodes: 10.000

   o  Number of access nodes: 100.000

3.5.  Stability

   o  The platform should be stable under certain circumstances (e.g.
      missconfiguration within one area should not cause instability in
      other areas).

   o  Differentiate between "All Loopbacks and Link addresses should be
      ping able from every where."  Vs.  "Link addresses are not
      necessary ping able from everywhere".









Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


4.  Architecture

4.1.  Overall

   One of the key questions that emerge when designing an architecture
   for a seamless MPLS network is how to handle the sheer size of the
   necessary routing and MPLS label information control plane and
   forwarding plane state resulting from the stated scalability goals
   especially with respect to the total number of access nodes.  This
   needs to be done without overwhelming the technical scaling limits of
   any of the involved nodes in the network (access, aggregation and
   core) and without introducing too much complexity in the design of
   the network while at the same time still maintaining good convergence
   properties to allow for quick MPLS transport and service restoration
   in case of network failures.

4.2.  Multi-Domain MPLS networks

   The key design paradigm that leads to a sound and scalable solution
   is the divide and conquer approach, whereby the large problem is
   decomposed into many smaller problems for which the solution can be
   found using well-known standard architectures.

   In the specific case of seamless MPLS the overall MPLS network SHOULD
   be decomposed into multiple MPLS domains, each well within the
   scaling limits of well-known architectures and network node
   implementations.  From an organizational and operational point of
   view it MAY make sense to define the boundaries of such domains along
   the pre-existing boundaries of aggregation networks and the core
   network.

   Examples of how networks can be decomposed include using IGP areas as
   well as using multiple BGP autonomous systems.

4.3.  Hierarchy

   These MPLS domains SHOULD then be then be connected into an MPLS
   multi-domain network in a hierarchical fashion that enables the
   seamless exchange of loopback addresses and MPLS label bindings for
   transport LSPs across the entire MPLS internetwork while at the same
   time preventing the flooding of unnecessary routing and label binding
   information into domains or parts of the network that do not need
   them.  Such a hierarchical routing and forwarding concept allows a
   scalability in different dimensions and allows to hide the complexity
   and size of the aggregation and access networks.

4.4.  Intra-Domain Routing




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   The intra-domain routing within each of the MPLS domains (i.e.
   aggregation domains and core) SHOULD utilize standard IGP protocols
   like OSPF or ISIS.  By definition, each of these domains is small
   enough so that there are no relevant scaling limits within each IGP
   domain, given well-known state-of-the-art IGP design principles and
   recent router technology.

   The intra-domain MPLS LSP setup and label distribution SHOULD utilize
   standard protocols like LDP or RSVP.

4.5.  Inter-Domain Routing

   The inter-domain routing is responsible for establishing connectivity
   between and across all MPLS domains.  The inter-domain routing SHOULD
   establish a routing and forwarding hierarchy in order to achieve the
   scaling goals of seamless MPLS.  Note that the IP aggregation usually
   performed between region (IGP areas/AS) in IP routing does not work
   for MPLS as MPLS is not capable of aggregating FEC (because MPLS
   forwarding use an exact match lookup, while IP uses longest match).

   Therefore it is RECOMMENDED to utilize protocols that support
   indirect next-hops (like BGP with MPLS labels "labled BGP/SAFI4"
   [RFC3107]).

4.6.  Access

   Compared to the aggregation and core parts of the Seamless MPLS
   network the access part is special in two respects:

   o  The number of ndes in the access is at least one order of
      magnitude higher than in any other part of the network.

   o  Because of the large quantity of access nodes, the cost of these
      nodes is extremly relevant for the overall costs of the entire
      network, i.e.  acess nodes are very cost sensitive.

   This makes it desirable to design the architecture such that the AN
   functionality can be kept as simple as possible.  This should always
   be kept in mind when evalulating different seamless MPLS
   architectures.  The goal is to limit both the number of different
   protocols needed on the AN as well as the scale to which each
   protocol must perform to the absolute minimum.









Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


5.  Deployment Scenarios

   This section describes the deployment scenarios based on the use
   cases and the generic architecture above.

5.1.  Deployment Scenario #1

   Section describing the Seamless MPLS implementation of a large
   european ISP.

5.1.1.  Overview

   This deployment scenario describes one way to implement a seamless
   MPLS architecture.  Specific to this implementation is the choice of
   intra- and inter-domain routing and label distribution protocols, as
   well as the details of the interworking of these protocols to achieve
   the overall scalable hierarchical architecture.

5.1.2.  General Network Topology

   There are multiple aggregation domains (in the order of up to 100)
   connected to the core in a star topology, i.e.  aggregation domains
   are never connected among themselves, but only to the core.  The core
   has its own domain.

                +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+
                |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |
             +--+ AGN11 +---+ AGN21 +---+ ABR1 +---+ LSR1 +--> to AGN
            /   |       |  /|       |   |      |   |      |
     +----+/    +-------+\/ +-------+   +------+  /+------+
     | AN |              /\                     \/     |
     +----+\    +-------+  \+-------+   +------+/\ +------+
            \   |       |   |       |   |      |  \|      |
             +--+ AGN12 +---+ AGN22 +---+ ABR2 +---+ LSR2 +--> to AGN
                |       |   |       |   |      |   |      |
                +-------+   +-------+   +------+   +------+

     static route     ISIS L1 LDP             ISIS L2 LDP

     <-Access-><--Aggregation Domain--><---------Core--------->

                     Figure 5: Deployment Scenario #1

   As shown in Figure 5, the access nodes (AN) are connected to the
   aggregation network via aggregation nodes called AGN1x, either to a
   single AGN1x or redundantly to two AGN1x.  Each AGN1x has redundant
   uplinks to a pair of second-level aggregation nodes called AGN2x.




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   Each aggregation domain is connected to the core via exactly two
   border routers (ABR) on the core side.  There can be multiple AGN2
   pairs per aggregation domain, but only one ABR pair for each
   aggregation domain.  Each of the AGN2 in an AGN2 pair connects to one
   of the ABRs in the ABR pair responsible for that aggregation domain.

   The ABRs on the core side have redundant connections to a pair of LSR
   routers.

   The LSR pair is also connected via a direct link.

   The core LSR are connected to other core LSR in a partly meshed
   topology so that there are disjunct, redundant paths from each LSR to
   each other LSR.

5.1.3.  Hierarchy

   As explained before, hierarchy is the key to a scalable seamless MPLS
   architecture.  The hierarchy in this implementation is achieved by
   forming different MPLS domains for aggregation domains and core,
   where within each of these domains a fairly common MPLS deployment
   using ISIS as intradomain link-state routing protocol and using LDP
   for MPLS label distribution is used.

   These MPLS domains are mapped to ISIS areas as follows: Aggregation
   domains are mapped to ISIS L1 areas.  The core is configured as ISIS
   L2.  The border routers connecting aggregation and core are ISIS L1L2
   and are referred to as ABRs.  From a technical and operational point
   of view these ABRs are part of the core, althought they also belong
   to the respective aggregation domain purely from a routing protocol
   point of view.

   For the interdomain-routing BGP with MPLS labels is deployed ("labled
   BGP/SAFI4" [RFC3107]).

5.1.4.  Intra-Area Routing

5.1.4.1.  Core

   The core uses ISIS L2 to distribute routing information for the
   loopback addresses of all core nodes.  The border routers (ABR) that
   connect to the aggregation domains are also part of the respective
   aggregation ISIS L1 area and hence ISIS L1L2.

   LDP is used to distribute MPLS label binding information for the
   loopback addresses of all core nodes.





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


5.1.4.2.  Aggregation

   The aggregation domains uses ISIS L1 as intra-domain routing
   protocol.  All AGN loopback addresses are carried in ISIS.

   As in the core, the aggregation also uses LDP to distribute MPLS
   label bindings for the loopback addresses.

5.1.5.  Access

   Access nodes do not have their own domain or IGP area.  Instead, they
   directly connect to the AGN1 nodes in the aggregation domain.  To
   keep access devices as simple as possible, ANs do not participate in
   ISIS.

   Instead, each AN has two static default routes pointing to each of
   the AGN1 it is connected to.  Appropriate techniques SHOULD be
   deployed to make sure that a given default route is invalidated when
   the link to an AGN1 or that node itself fails.  Examples of such
   techniques include monitoring the pysical link state for loss of
   light/loss of frame, or using Ethernet link OAM or BFD
   [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop].

   The AGN1 MUST have a configured static route to the loopback address
   of each of the ANs it is connected to, because it cannot learn the AN
   loopback address in any other way.  These static routes have to be
   monitored and invalidated if necessary using the same techniques as
   described above for the static default routes on the AN.

   The AGN1 redistributes these routes into ISIS for intra-domain
   reachability of all AN loopback addresses.

   LDP is used for MPLS label distribution between AGN1 and AN.  In
   order to keep the AN control plane as lightweight as possible, and to
   avoid the necessity for the AN to store 100.000 MPLS label bindings
   for each upstream AGN1 peer, LDP is deployed in downstream-on-demand
   (DoD) mode, described below.

   To allow the label bindings received via LDP DoD to be installed into
   the LFIB on the AN without having the specific host route to the
   destination loopback address, but only a default route, use of the
   LDP Extension for Inter-Area Label Switched Paths [RFC5283] is made.









Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


5.1.5.1.  LDP Downstream-on-Demand (DoD)

   LDP downstream-on-demand mode is specified in [RFC5036].  Although it
   was originally intended to be used with ATM switch hardware, there is
   nothing from a protocol perspective preventing its use in a regular
   MPLS frame-based environment.  In this mode the upstream LSR will
   explicitly ask the downstream LSR for a label binding for a
   particular FEC when needed.

   The assumption is that a given AN will only have a limited number of
   services configured to an even more limited number of destinations,
   or egress LER.  Instead of learning and storing all label bindings
   for all possible loopback addresses within the entire Seamless MPLS
   network, the AN will use LDP DoD to only request the label bindings
   for the FECs corresponding to the loopback addresses of those egress
   nodes to which it has services configured.

   For LDP DoD the AGN1 MUST also ask the AN for label bindings for
   specific FECs.  FECs are necessary for all pseudowire destinations at
   the AN.  Most preferable this pseudowire destination is the LSR-ID of
   the AN.  Depending on the AN implementation and architecture multiple
   pseudowire destination addresses and associated FECs could be needed.
   The conclusion of this results to the following requirement:

   o  The AGN1 MUST ask the AN for label bindings for all potential
      pseudowire destination addresses on the AN.  Because the AGN (at
      least in many cases) does not take part in the pseudowire
      signaling an independent way of receiving the AN FEC is necessary
      on the AGN.  These potential pseudowire destinations MUST be known
      on the AGN1, by configuration or otherwise.  These are typically
      the loopback addresses of the AN, to which a static route has been
      configured anyway on the AGN1, as explained above.  In addition to
      these static routes, the AGN1 SHOULD be configured statically to
      request MPLS label bindings for these loopback addresses via LDP
      DoD.

   o  Optionally an automatism that asks for a FEC for the LSR-ID COULD
      be implemented.  A configuration switch that disables this option
      must be implemented.  The label is necessary.  The way of
      initiating the DoD-signaling of the label could be done with both
      methods (configuration/automatism).

   o  The AN knows by configuration to which destination a pseudowire is
      set up.  The AN is always the endpoint of the pseudowire.  Before
      signalling a pseudowire the AN MUST ask (via LDP DoD) the AGN for
      a FEC.  Because of this an independent preconfiguration is not
      necessary on the AN.




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   o  The following are the triggers for ANs to request a label:

   o

      *  When a control session (targeted LDP) to a target has to be
         established

      *  When a service label has been received by a control session
         (e.g.  pseudo wire label)

5.1.6.  Inter-Area Routing

   The inter-domain MPLS connectivity from the aggregation domains to
   and across the core domain is realized primarily using BGP with MPLS
   labels ("labled BGP/SAFI4" [RFC3107]).  A very limited amount of
   route leaking from ISIS L2 into L1 is also used.

   All ABR and PE nodes in the core are part of the labeled iBGP mesh,
   which can be either full mesh or based on route reflectors.  These
   nodes advertise their respective loopback addresses (which are also
   carried in ISIS L2) into labeled BGP.

   Each ABR node has labeled iBGP sessions with all AGN1 nodes inside
   the aggregation domain that they connect to the core.  Since there
   are two ABR nodes per aggregation domain, this leads to each AGN1
   node having an iBGP sessions with each of the two ABR.  Note that the
   use of iBGP implies that the entire seamless MPLS internetwork is
   just a single AS to which all core and aggregation nodes belong.  The
   AGN1 nodes advertise their own loopback addresses into labeled BGP,
   in addition to these loopbacks also being in ISIS L1.

   Additionally the AGN1 nodes also redistribute all the statically
   configured routes to the AN loopback addresses into labeled BGP.
   Note that as stated obove, the AGN1 MUST ask the AN for label
   bindings for the AN loopback FECs via LDP DoD in order to have a
   valid labeled route with a non-null label.

   This architecture results in carrying all loopbacks of all nodes
   except pure P nodes (AN, AGN, ABR and core PE) in labeled BGP, e.g.
   there will be in the order of 100.000 routes in labeled BGP when
   approaching the stated scalability goal.  Note that this only affects
   the BGP RIB size and does not necessarily imply that any node needs
   to actually have active forwarding state (LFIB) in the same order of
   magnitude.  In fact, as will be discussed in the scalability
   analysis, no single node needs to install all labeled BGP routes into
   the LFIB, but each node only needs a small percentage of the RIB as
   active forwarding state in the LFIB.  And from a RIB point of view,
   BGP is known to scale to hundreds of thousands of routes.



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


5.1.7.  Labled iBGP next-hop handling

   The ABR nodes run labeled iBGP both to the core mesh as well as to
   the AGN1 nodes of their respective aggregation domains.  Therefore
   they operate as iBGP route reflectors, reflecting labeled routes from
   the aggregation into the core and vice versa.

   When reflecting routes from the core into the aggregation domain, the
   ABR SHOULD NOT change the BGP NEXT-HOP addresses (next-hop-
   unchanged).  This is the usual behaviour for iBGP route reflection.
   In order to make these routes resolvable to the AGN1 nodes inside the
   aggregation domain, the ABR MUST leak all other ABR and core PE
   loopback addresses from ISIS L2 into ISIS L1 of the aggregation
   domain.  Note that the number of leaked addresses is limited so that
   the overall scalability of the seamless MPLS architecture is not
   impacted.  In the worst case all core loopback addresses COULD be
   leaked into ISIS L1, but even that would not be a scalability
   problem.

   When reflecting routes from the aggregation into the core, the ABR
   MUST set then BGP NEXT-HOP to its own loopback addresses (next-hop-
   self).  This is not the default behaviour for iBGP route reflection,
   but requires special configuration on the ABR.  Note that this also
   implies that the ABR MUST allocate a new local MPLS label for each
   labeled iBGP FEC that it reflects from the aggregation into the core.
   This special next-hop handling is essential for the scalability of
   the overall seamless MPLS architecture since it creates the required
   hierarchy and enables the hiding of all aggregation and access
   addresses behind the ABRs from an IGP point of view.  Leaking of
   aggregation ISIS L1 loopback addresses into ISIS L2 is not necessary
   and MUST NOT be allowed.

   The resulting hierarchical inter-domain MPLS routing structure is
   similar to the one described in [RFC4364] section 10c, only that we
   use one AS with route reflection instead of using multiple ASes.

5.1.8.  Network Availability

   The seamless mpls architecture guarantees a sub-second loss of
   connectivity upon any link or node failures.  Furthermore, in the
   vast majority of cases, the loss of connectivity is limited to sub-
   50msec.

   These network availability properties are provided without any
   degradation on scale and simplicity.  This is a key achievement of
   the design.





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   In the remainder of this section, we first introduce the different
   network availability technologies and then review their applicability
   for each possible failure scenario.

5.1.8.1.  IGP Convergence

   IGP convergence can be modelled as a linear process with an initial
   delay and a linear FIB update [ACM01].

   The initial delay could conservatively be assumed to be 260msec:
   50msec to detect failures with BFD (most failures would be detected
   faster with loss of light for example or with faster BFD timers),
   50msec to throttle the LSP generation, 150msec to throttle the SPF
   computation (making sure than all the required LSP's are received
   even in case of SRLG failures) and 10msec for shortest-path-first
   tree computation.

   Assuming 250usec per update (conservative), this allows for
   (1000-260)/0.250= 2960 prefixes update within a second following the
   outage.  More precisely, this allows for 2960 important IGP prefixes
   updates.  Important prefixes are automatically classified by the
   router implementation through simple heuristic (/32 is more important
   than non-/32).

   The number of IGP important routes (loopbacks) in deployment case
   study 1 is much smaller than 2960, and hence sub-second IGP
   convergence is conservative.

   IGP convergence is a simple technology for the operator provided that
   the router vendor optimizes the default IGP behavior (no need to tune
   any arcane knob).

5.1.8.2.  Per-Prefix LFA FRR

   A per-prefix LFA for a destination D is a precomputed backup IGP
   nexthop for that destination.  This backup IGP nexthop can be link
   protecting or node protecting [RFC5286].

   The analysis of the applicability of Per-Prefix LFA in the deployment
   model 1 of Seamless MPLS architecture is straightforward thanks to
   [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability].










Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   In deployment model 1, each aggregation network either follows the
   triangle or full-mesh topology.  Further more, the backbone region
   implements a dual-plane.  As a consequence, the failure of any link
   or node within an aggregation domain is protected by LFA FRR (sub-
   50msec) for all impacted IGP prefixes, whether intra-area or inter-
   area.  No uloop may form as a result of these failures
   [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability].

   Per-Prefix LFA FRR is generally assessed as a simple technology for
   the operator [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability].  It certainly is
   in the context of deployment case study 1 as the designer enforced
   triangle and full-mesh topologies in the aggregation network as well
   as a dual-plane core network.

5.1.8.3.  Hierarchical Dataplane and BGP Prefix Independent Convergence

   In a hierarchical dataplane, the FIB used by the packet processing
   engine reflects recursions between the routes.  For example, a BGP
   route B recursing on IGP route I whose best path is via interface O
   is encoded as a hierarchy of FIB entry B pointing to a FIB entry I
   pointing to a FIB entry 0.

   BGP Prefix Independent Convergence [BGP-PIC] extends the hierarchical
   dataplane with the concept of a BGP Path-List.  A BGP path-list may
   be abstracted as a set of primary multipath nhops and a backup nhop.
   When the primary set is empty, packets destined to the BGP
   destinations are rerouted via the backup nhop.

   For complete description of BGP-PIC technology and its applicability
   please refer to [BGP-PIC].

   Hierarchical data plane and BGP-PIC are very simple technologies to
   operate.  Their applicability to any topology, any routing policy and
   any BGP unicast address family allows router vendors to enable this
   behavior by default.

5.1.8.4.  BGP Egress Node FRR

   BGP egress node FRR is a Fast ReRoute solution and hence relies on
   local protection and the precomputation and preinstallation of the
   backup path in the FIB.  BGP egress node FRR relies on a transit LSR
   ( Point of Local Repair, PLR ) adjacent to the failed protected BGP
   router to detect the failure and re-route the traffic to the backup
   BGP router.  Number of BGP egress node FRR schemes are being
   investigated: [PE-FRR], [ABR-FRR],
   [I-D.draft-minto-2547-egress-node-fast-protection-00],
   [I-D.draft-minto-2547-egress-node-fast-protection-00],
   [I-D.draft-minto-2547-egress-node-fast-protection-00].



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   Differences between these schemes relate to the way backup and
   protected BGP routers get associated, how the protected router's BGP
   state is signalled to the backup BGP router(s) and if any other state
   is required on protected, backup and PLR routers.  The schemes also
   differ in compatibility with IPFRR and TEFRR schemes to enable PLR to
   switch traffic towards the backup BGP router in case of protected BGP
   router failure.

   In the Seamless MPLS design, BGP egress node FRR schemes can protect
   against the failures of PE, AGN and ABR nodes with no requirements on
   ingress routers.

5.1.8.5.  Assessing loss of connectivity upon any failure

   We select two typical traffic flows and analyze the loss of
   connectivity (LoC) upon each possible failure in the Seamless MPLS
   design in the deployment scenario #1.

   o  Flow F1 starts from an AN1 in a left aggregation region and ends
      on an AN2 in a right aggregation region.  Each AN is dual-homed to
      two AGN's.

   o  Flow F2 starts from a CE1 homed on L3VPN PE1 connected to the core
      LSRs and ends at CE2 dual-homed to L3VPN PE2 and PE3, both
      connected to the core LSRs.

   Note that due to the symmetric network topology in case study 1, uni-
   directional flows F1' and F2', associated with F1 and F2 and
   forwarded in the reversed direction (AN2 to AN1 right-to-left and PE2
   to PE1, respectively), take advantage of the same failure restoration
   mechanisms as F1 and F2.

5.1.8.5.1.  AN1-AGN link failure or AGN node failure

   F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec is possible assuming fast BFD
   detection and fast-switchover implementation on the AN.  F2 is not
   impacted.

5.1.8.5.2.  Link or node failure within the left aggregation region

   F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR.  No uloop will
   occur during the IGP convergence following the LFA protection.  Note:
   if LFA is not available (other topology then case study one) or if
   LFA is not enabled, then the LoC would be < second as the number of
   impacted important IGP route in a seamless architecture is much
   smaller than 2960.

   F2 is not impacted.



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


5.1.8.5.3.  ABR node failure between left region and the core

   F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR.  No uloop will
   occur during the IGP convergence following the LFA protection.

   Note: This case is also called "Local ABR failure" as the ABR which
   fails is the one connected to the aggregation region at the source of
   flow F1.

   Note: remember that the left region receives the routes to all the
   remote ABR's and that the labelled BGP routes are reflected from the
   core to the left region with next-hop unchanged.  This ensures that
   the loss of the (local) ABR between the left region and the core is
   seen as an IGP route impact and hence can be addressed by LFA.

   Note: if LFA is not available (other topology then case study one) or
   if LFA is not enabled, then the LoC would be < second as the number
   of impacted important IGP routes in a seamless architecture is much
   smaller than 2960 routes.

   F2 is not impacted.

5.1.8.5.4.  Link or node failure within the core region

   F1 and F2 are impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR.

   This is specific to the particular core topology used in deployment
   case study 1.  The core topology has been optimized
   [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability] for LFA applicability.

   As explained in [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability], another
   alternative to provide <50msec in this case consists in using an
   MPLS-TE full-mesh and MPLS-TE FRR.  This is required when the
   designer is not able or does not want to optimize the topology for
   LFA applicability and he wants to achieve <50msec protection.

   Alternatively, simple IGP convergence would ensure a LoC < second as
   the number of impacted important IGP routes in a seamless
   architecture is much smaller than 2960 routes.

5.1.8.5.5.  PE2 failure

   F1 is not impacted.

   F2 is impacted and the LoC is sub-300msec thanks to IGP convergence
   and BGP PIC.





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   The detection of the primary nhop failure (PE2 down) is performed by
   a single-area IGP convergence.

   In this specific case, the convergence should be much faster than
   <sec as very few prefixes are impacted upon an edge node failure.
   Reusing the introduction on IGP convergence presented in an earlier
   section and assuming 2 important impacted prefixes (two loopbacks per
   edge node), one would expect that PE2's failure is detected in
   260msec + 2*0.250msec.

   If BGP PIC is used on the ingress PE ( PE1 ) then the LoC is the same
   as for IGP convergence.  The LoC for BGP/L3VPN traffic upon PE2
   failure is thus expected to be <300msec.

   Provided that all the deployment considerations have been met, LoC is
   sub-50msec with BGP egress node FRR.

5.1.8.5.6.  PE2's PE-CE link failure

   F1 is not impacted.

   F2 is impacted and the LoC is sub-50msec thanks to local interface
   failure detection and local forwarding to the backup PE.  Forwarding
   to the backup PE is achieved with hierarchical data plane and local-
   repair of BGP egress link providing fast re-route to the backup BGP
   nhop PE.

5.1.8.5.7.  ABR node failure between right region and the core

   F2 is not impacted.

   F1 is impacted.  We analyze the LoC for F1 for both BGP PIC and BGP
   egress node FRR.

   LoC is sub-600msec thanks to BGP PIC.

   The detection of the primary nhop failure (ABR down) is performed by
   a multi-area IGP convergence.

   First, the two (local) ABR's between the left and core regions must
   complete the core IGP convergence.  The analysis is similar to the
   loss of PE2.  We would thus expect that the core convergence
   completes in ~260msec.

   Second, the IGP convergence in the left region will cause all AGN1
   routers to detect the loss of the remote ABR.  This second IGP
   convergence is very similar to the first one (2 important prefixes to
   remove) and hence should also complete in ~260msec.



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   Once an AGN1 has detected the loss of the remote ABR, thanks to the
   BGP PIC, in-place modification of shared BGP path-list and pre-
   computation of BGP backup nhop, the AGN1 reroutes flow F1 via the
   alternate remote ABR in a few msec's [##BGP-PIC].

   As a consequence, the LoC for F1 upon remote ABR failure is thus
   expected to be <600msec.

   Provided that all the deployment considerations have been met, LoC is
   sub-50msec with BGP egress node FRR.

5.1.8.5.8.  Link or node failure within the right aggregation region

   F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR.  No uloop will
   occur during the IGP convergence following the LFA protection.

   Note: if LFA is not available (other topology then case study one) or
   if LFA is not enabled, then the LoC would be < second as the number
   of impacted important IGP route in a seamless architecture is much
   smaller than 2960.

   F2 is not impacted.

5.1.8.5.9.  AGN (connected to AN2) node failure

   F1 is impacted but LoC <50msec thanks to LFA FRR.  No uloop will
   occur during the IGP convergence following the LFA protection.

   Note: remember that AGN redistributes the static routes to ANs within
   ISIS.  The loss of an AGN on the IGP path to AN2 is thus seen as an
   IGP route impact and hence LFA FRR is applicable.

   Note: if LFA is not available (other topology then case study one) or
   if LFA is not enabled, then the LoC would be < second as the number
   of impacted important IGP route in a seamless architecture is much
   smaller than 2960.

   F2 is not impacted.

5.1.8.5.10.  AGN-AN2 link failure

   F2 is not impacted.

   F1 is impacted.

   LoC is sub-300msec with IGP convergence as only one prefix needs to
   be updated.




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   Sub-50msec could be guaranteed provided that the LFA implementation
   supports a redistributed static as a native IGP route.

5.1.8.5.11.  AN2 failure

   F1 is impacted and the LoC lasts until the AN is recovered.

   F2 is not impacted.

5.1.8.5.12.  Summary - Loss of connectivity upon any failure

   The Seamless MPLS architecture illustrated in deployment case study 1
   guarantees sub-50msec upon any link or node failures.

5.1.8.6.  Network Resiliency and Simplicity

   A fundamental aspect of the Seamless MPLS architecture is the
   requirement for operational simplicity.

   In a network with 10k of IGP/BGP nodes and 100k of MPLS-enabled
   nodes, it is extremely important to provide a simple operational
   process.

   LFA FRR plays a key role in providing simplicity as it is an
   automated behavior which does not require any configuration or
   interoperability testing.

   More specifically, [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability] plays a key
   role in the Seamless MPLS architecture as it describes simple design
   guidelines which determiniscally ensure LFA coverage for any link and
   node in the aggregation regions of the network.  This is key as it
   provides for a simple <50msec protection for the vast majority of the
   node and link failures (>90% of the IGP/BGP3107 footprint at least).

   If the guidelines cannot be met, then either the designer will rely
   on (1) augmenting native LFA coverage with remote LFA
   [I-D.draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00], or (2) augmenting native LFA
   coverage with RSVP, or (3) a full-mesh TE FRR model, or (4) IGP
   convergence.  The first option provides an automatic and fairly
   simple sub-50msec protection as LFA without introducing any
   additional protocols.  The second option provides the same sub-50msec
   protection as LFA, but introduces additional RSVP LSPs.  The thrid
   option optimizes for sub-50msec protection, but implies a more
   complex operational model.  The fourth option optimizes for simple
   operation but only provides <1 sec protection.  Up to each designer
   to arbitrate between these three options versus the possibility to
   engineer the topology for native LFA protection.




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   A similar choice involves protection against ABR node failure and
   L3VPN PE node failure.  The designer can either use BGP PIC or BGP
   egress node FRR.  Up to each designer to asssess the trade-off
   between the valuation of sub-50msec instead of sub-1sec versus
   additional operational considerations related to BGP egress node FRR.

5.1.8.7.  Conclusion

   The Seamless MPLS architecture illustrated in deployment case study 1
   guarantees sub-50msec for majority of link and node failures by using
   LFA FRR, except ABR and L3PE node failures, and PE-CE link failure.

   L3VPN PE-CE link failure can be protected with sub-50msec
   restoration, by using hierarchical data plane and local-repair fast-
   reroute to the backup BGP nhop PE.

   ABR and L3PE node failure can be protected with sub-50msec
   restoration, by using BGP egress node FRR.

   Alternatively, ABR and L3PE node failure can be protected with sub-
   1sec restoration using BGP PIC.

5.1.9.  BGP Next-Hop Redundancy

   An aggregation domain is connected to the core network using two
   redundant area boarder routers, and MPLS hierarchy is applied on
   these ABRs.  MPLS hierarchy helps scale the FIB but introduces
   additional complexity for the rerouting in case of ABR failure.
   Indeed ABR failure requires a BGP converge to update the inner MPLS
   hierarchy, in addition to the IGP converge to update the outer MPLS
   hierarchy.  This is also expected to take more time as BGP
   convergence is performed after the IGP convergence and because the
   number of prefixes to update in the FIB can be significant.  This is
   clearly a drawback, but the architecture allows for two "local
   protection" solutions which restore the traffic before the BGP
   convergence takes place.

   BGP PIC would be required on all edge LSR involved in the inner (BGP)
   MPLS hierarchy.  Namely all routers except the AN which are not
   involved in the inner MPLS hierarchy.  It involves pre-computing and
   pre-installing in the FIB the BGP backup path.  Such back up path are
   activated when the IGP advertise the failure of the primary path.
   For specification see [BGP-PIC1, 2##].

   BGP egress node FRR would be required on the egress LSR involved in
   the inner (BGP) MPLS hierarchy, namely AGN, ABR and L3VPN PEs.  For
   specification see [PE-FRR], [ABR-FRR], [BGP-edge-FRR##].




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   Both approaches have their pros and cons, and the choice is left to
   each Service Provider or deployment based on the different
   requirements.  The key point is that the seamless MPLS architecture
   can handle fast restoration time, even for ABR failures.

5.2.  Scalability Analysis

5.2.1.  Control and Data Plane State for Deployment Scenario #1

5.2.1.1.  Introduction

   Let's call:

   o  #AN the number of Access Node (AN) in the seamless MPLS domain

   o  #AGN the number of AGgregation Node (AGN) in the seamless MPLS
      domain

   o  #Core the number of Core (Core) in the core network

   o  #Area the number of aggregation routing domains.

   Let's take the following assumptions:

   o  Aggregation equipments are equally spread across aggregation
      routing domains

   o  the number of IGP links is three times the number of IGP nodes

   o  the number of IGP prefixes is five times the number of IGP nodes
      (links prefixes + 2 loopbacks)

   o  Access Nodes need to set up 1000 (1k) LSPs.  10% (100) are FEC
      which are outside of their routing domain.  Those 100 remote FEC
      are the same for all Access Nodes of a given AGN.

   The following sections roughly evaluate the scalability, both in
   absolute numbers and relatively with the number of Access Node which
   is the biggest scalability factor.

5.2.1.2.  Core Domain

   The IGP & LDP core domain are not affected by the number of access
   nodes:

   IGP:

         node : #Core ~ o(1)



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


         links : 3*#Core ~ o(1)

         IP prefixes : 5*#Core ~ o(1)

   LDP FEC:

         #Core ~ o(1)

   Core TN FIBs grows linearly with the number of node in the core
   domain.  In other word, they are not affected by AGN and AN nodes:

   Core TN:

         IP FIB : 5*#Core ~ o(1)

         MPLS LFIB : #Core ~ o(1)

   BGP carries all AN routes which is significant.  However, all AN
   routes are only needed in the control plane, possibly in a dedicated
   BGP Route Reflector (just like for BGP/MPLS VPNs) and not in the
   forwarding plane.  The number of routes (100k) is smaller than the
   number of number of routes in the Internet (300k and rising) or in
   major VPN SP (>500k and rising) so the target can be handled with
   current implementations.  In addition, AN routes are internal routes
   whose churn and instability is smaller and more under control than
   external routes.

   BGP Route Reflector (RR)

         NLRI : #AN ~ o(n)

         path : 2*#AN ~ o(2n)

   ABR handles both the core and aggregations routes.  They do not
   depend on the total number of AN nodes, but only on the number of AN
   in their aggregation domain.

   ABR:

         IP FIB : 5*#Core + (5*#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN /#Area)

         MPLS LFIB : #Core + (#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN / #Area)









Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 32]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


5.2.1.3.  Aggregation Domain

   In the aggregation domain, IGP & LDP are not affected by the number
   of access nodes outside of their domain.  They are not affected by
   the total number of AN nodes:

   IGP:

         node : #AGN / #Area ~ o(1)

         links : 3*#AGN / #Area ~ o(1)

         IP prefixes : #Core + #Area + (5*#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN *5
         / #Area)



         +  + 1 loopback per core node + one aggregate per area + 5
            prefixes per AGN in the area + 1 prefix per AN in the area.

   LDP FEC:

         Core + (#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN / #Area)



         +  + 1 loopback per core node + 1 loopback per AGN & AN node in
            the area.

   AGN FIBs grows with the number of node in the core area, in their
   aggregation area, plus the number of inter domain LSP required by the
   AN attached to them.  They do not depend on the total number of AN
   nodes.  In the BGP control plane, AGN also needs to handle all the AN
   routes.

   AGN:

         IP FIB : #Core + #Area + (5*#AGN + #AN) / #Area ~ o(#AN *5/
         #Area)

         MPLS LFIB : #Core + (#AGN + #AN) / #Area + 100 ~ o(#AN / #Area)

   AN FIBs grows with its connectivity requirement.  They do not depend
   on the number of AN, AGN, SN or any others nodes.

   AN:

         IP RIB : 1 ~ o(1)



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 33]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


         MPLS LIB : 1k ~ o(1)

         IP FIB : 1 ~ o(1)

         MPLS LFIB : 1k ~ o(1)

5.2.1.4.  Summary

   AN requirements are kept minimal.  BGP is not required and the size
   of their FIB is limited to their own connectivity requirements.

   In the core area, IGP and LDP are not affected by the node in the
   aggregation domains.  In particular they do not grow with the number
   of AGN or AN.

   In the aggregation areas, IGP and LDP are affected by the number of
   core nodes and the number of AGN and AN in their area.  They are not
   affected by the total number of AGN or AN in the seamless MPLS
   domain.

   No FIB of any node is required to handle the total number of AGN or
   AN in the seamless MPLS domain.  In other word, the number of AGN and
   AN in the seamless MPLS domain is not limited, if the number of areas
   can grow accordingly.  The main limitation is the MPLS connectivity
   requirements on the AN, i.e.  mainly the number of LSP needed on the
   AN.  Another limitation may be the number of different LSP needed by
   AN attached or behind an AGN.  However, given foreseen deployments
   and current AGN capabilities, this is not expected to be a
   limitation.

   In the control plane, BGP will typically handle all AN routes.  This
   is significant but target deployments are well under current
   equipments capacities.  In addition, if required, additional
   techniques could be used to improve this scalability, based on the
   experience gained with scaling BGP/MPLS VPN (e.g.  route partitioning
   between RR planes, route filtering (static or dynamic with ORF or
   route refresh) between AN and on AGN to improve AGN scalability.

5.2.1.5.  Numerical application for use case #1

   As a recap, targets for deployment scenario 1 are:

   o  Number of Aggregation Domains 100

   o  Number of Backbone Nodes 1.000

   o  Number of AGgregation Nodes 10.000




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 34]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   o  Number of Access Nodes 100.000

   This gives the following scaling numbers for each category of nodes:

   o  AN IP FIB 1

   o  AN MPLS LFIB 1 000

   o  AGN IP FIB 2 600

   o  AGN MPLS LFIB 2 200

   o  ABR IP FIB 7 600

   o  ABR MPLS LFIB 2 100

   o  TN IP FIB 5 000

   o  TN MPLS LFIB 1 000

   o  RR BGP NLRI 100 000

   o  RR BGP paths 200 000

5.2.1.6.  Numerical application for use case #2

   As a recap, targets for deployment scenario 1 are:

   o  Number of Aggregation Domains 30

   o  Number of Backbone Nodes 150

   o  Number of AGgregation Nodes 1.500

   o  Number of Access Nodes 40.000

   This gives the following scaling numbers for each category of nodes:

   o  AN IP FIB 1

   o  AN MPLS LFIB 1 000

   o  AGN IP FIB 1 700

   o  AGN MPLS LFIB 1 800

   o  ABR IP FIB 3 700




Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 35]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   o  ABR MPLS LFIB 1 600

   o  TN IP FIB 750

   o  TN MPLS LFIB 150

   o  RR BGP NLRI 40 000

   o  RR BGP paths 80 000

6.  Acknowledgements

   Many people contributed to this document.  The authors would like to
   thank Wim Henderickx, Robert Raszuk, Thomas Beckhaus, Wilfried Maas,
   Roger Wenner, Kireeti Kompella, Yakov Rekhter, Mark Tinka and Simon
   DeLord for their suggestions and review.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

   All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section (see
   the update of RFC 2434 [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
   for a guide).  If the draft does not require IANA to do anything, the
   section contains an explicit statement that this is the case (as
   above).  If there are no requirements for IANA, the section will be
   removed during conversion into an RFC by the RFC Editor.

8.  Security Considerations

   The Seamless MPLS Architecture is subject to similar security threats
   as any MPLS LDP deployment.  It is recommended that baseline security
   measures are considered as described in the LDP specification RFC5036
   [RFC5036] including ensuring authenticity and integrity of LDP
   messages, as well as protection against spoofing and Denial of
   Service attacks.  Some deployments may require increased measures of
   network security if a subset of Access Nodes are placed in locations
   with lower levels of physical security e.g.  street cabinets ( common
   practice for VDSL access ).  In such cases it is the responsibility
   of the system designer to take into account the physical security
   measures ( environmental design, mechanical or electronic access
   control, intrusion detection ), as well as monitoring and auditing
   measures (configuration and Operating System changes, reloads, routes
   advertisements ).  But even with all this in mind, the designer still
   should consider network security risks and adequate measures arising
   from the lower level of physical security of those locations.





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 36]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


8.1.  Access Network Security

   A detailed description for Access Network Security in Seamless MPLS
   can be found in the LDP Downstream on Demand document
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-dod].

8.2.  Data Plane Security

   Data plane security risks applicable to the access MPLS network are
   listed below (a non-exhaustive list):

   a.  packets from a specific access node flow to an altered transport
       layer or service layer destination.

   b.  packets belonging to undefined services flow to and from the
       access network.

   c.  unlabelled packets destined to remote network nodes.

   Following mechanisms should be considered to address listed data
   plane security risks:

   1.  addressing (a) - Access and ABR LSRs SHOULD NOT accept labeled
       packets over a particular data link, unless from the Access or
       ABR LSR perspective this data link is known to attach to a
       trusted system based on employed authentication mechanism(s), and
       the top label has been distributed to the upstream neighbour by
       the receiving Access or ABR LSR.

   2.  addressing (a) - ABR LSR MAY restrict network reachability for
       access devices to a subset of remote network LSR, based on
       authentication or other network security technologies employed
       towards Access LSRs.  Restricted reachability can be enforced on
       the ABR LSR using local routing policies, and can be distributed
       towards the core MPLS network using routing policies associated
       with access MPLS FECs.

   3.  addressing (b) - labeled service routes (e.g.  MPLS/VPN, tLDP)
       are not accepted from unreliable routing peers.  Detection of
       unreliable routing peers is achieved by engaging routing protocol
       detection and alarm mechanisms, and is out of scope of this
       document.

   4.  addressing (a) and (b) - no successful attacks have been mounted
       on the control plane and has been detected.

   5.  addressing (c) - ABR LSR MAY restrict IP network reachability to
       and from the access LSR.



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 37]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


8.3.  Control Plane Security

   Similarly to Inter-AS MPLS/VPN deployments RFC4364 [RFC4364], the
   data plane security depends on the security of the control plane.  To
   ensure control plane security access LDP DoD connections MUST only be
   made with LDP peers that are considered trusted from the local LSR
   perspective, meaning they are reachable over a data link that is
   known to attach to a trusted system based on employed authentication
   mechanism(s) on the local LSR.  The TCP/IP MD5 authentication option
   RFC5925 [RFC5925] should be used with LDP as described in LDP
   specification RFC5036 [RFC5036].  If TCP/IP MD5 authentication is
   considered not secure enough, the designer may consider using a more
   elaborate and advanced TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO RFC5925
   [RFC5925]) for LDP session authentication.  Access IGP (if used) and
   any routing protocols used in access network for signalling service
   routes SHOULD also be secured in a similar manner.  For increased
   level of authentication in the control plane security for a subset of
   access locations with lower physical security, designer could also
   consider using:

   o  different crypto keys for use in authentication procedures for
      these locations.

   o  stricter network protection mechanisms including DoS protection,
      interface and session flap dampening.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

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

9.2.  Informative References

   [ABR-FRR]  Rekhter, Y., "Local Protection for LSP tail-end node
              failure, MPLS World Congress 2009", .

   [ACM01]    , , , , "Archieving sub-second IGP convergence in large IP
              networks, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, v.35
              n.3", July 2005.

   [BGP-PIC]  , "BGP PIC, Technical Report", November 2007.

   [I-D.draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr-03]
              , .

   [I-D.draft-bashandy-bgp-frr-mirror-table-00]



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 38]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


              , .

   [I-D.draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00]
              , .

   [I-D.draft-minto-2547-egress-node-fast-protection-00]
              , .

   [I-D.filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-applicability]
              Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Shand, M., Decraene, B.,
              Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "LFA
              applicability in SP networks", draft-filsfils-rtgwg-lfa-
              applicability-00 (work in progress), March 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop]
              Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single
              Hop)", draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-11 (work in progress),
              January 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-dod]
              Beckhaus, T., Decraene, B., Tiruveedhula, K.,
              Konstantynowicz, M., and L. Martini, "LDP Downstream-on-
              Demand in Seamless MPLS", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-06 (work
              in progress), May 2013.

   [I-D.kothari-henderickx-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming]
              Kothari, B., Kompella, K., Henderickx, W., and F. Balus,
              "BGP based Multi-homing in Virtual Private LAN Service",
              draft-kothari-henderickx-l2vpn-vpls-multihoming-01 (work
              in progress), July 2009.

   [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]
              Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", draft-narten-iana-
              considerations-rfc2434bis-09 (work in progress), March
              2008.

   [I-D.raggarwa-mac-vpn]
              Aggarwal, R., Isaac, A., Uttaro, J., Henderickx, W., and
              F. Balus, "BGP MPLS Based MAC VPN", draft-raggarwa-mac-
              vpn-01 (work in progress), June 2010.

   [I-D.sajassi-l2vpn-rvpls-bgp]
              Sajassi, A., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., Filsfils, C., and
              S. Boutros, "Routed VPLS using BGP", draft-sajassi-l2vpn-
              rvpls-bgp-01 (work in progress), July 2010.





Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 39]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


   [PE-FRR]   Le Roux, J.L., Decraene, B., and Z. Ahmad, "Fast Reroute
              in MPLS L3VPN Networks - Towards CE-to-CE Protection, MPLS
              2006 Conference", .

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M.T., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3107]  Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
              BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3353]  Ooms, D., Sales, B., Livens, W., Acharya, A., Griffoul,
              F., and F. Ansari, "Overview of IP Multicast in a Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Environment", RFC 3353,
              August 2002.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
              2003.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
              2005.

   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

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

   [RFC5283]  Decraene, B., Le Roux, JL., and I. Minei, "LDP Extension
              for Inter-Area Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5283,
              July 2008.

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
              Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.

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

   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
              Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.



Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 40]

Internet-Draft               Seamless MPLS                      May 2013


Authors' Addresses

   Nicolai Leymann (editor)
   Deutsche Telekom AG
   Winterfeldtstrasse 21
   Berlin  10781
   DE

   Phone: +49 30 8353-92761
   Email: n.leymann@telekom.de


   Bruno Decraene
   France Telecom
   38-40 rue du General Leclerc
   Issy Moulineaux cedex 9  92794
   FR

   Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com


   Clarence Filsfils
   Cisco Systems
   Brussels
   Belgium

   Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com


   Maciek Konstantynowicz (editor)
   Cisco Systems
   London
   United Kingdom

   Email: maciek@cisco.com


   Dirk Steinberg
   Steinberg Consulting
   Ringstrasse 2
   Buchholz  53567
   DE

   Email: dws@steinbergnet.net






Leymann, et al.        Expires November 14, 2013               [Page 41]


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