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

Versions: (draft-raza-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec) 00 01 02 03 RFC 6667

Network Working Group                                       Kamran Raza
Internet Draft                                            Cisco Systems
Intended Status: Standards Track
Expiration Date: July 8, 2012                              Sami Boutros
                                                          Cisco Systems

                                                       Carlos Pignataro
                                                          Cisco Systems

                                                        January 9, 2012



                   LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for the PW FEC Elements

                  draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-01.txt


Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
   and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
   as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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




Raza, et. al              Expires July 2012                    [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements    January 2012


   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.

Abstract

   The "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element"
   defines an extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) that
   can be used when it is desired to request or withdraw or release all
   label bindings for a given FEC Element type.  However, a typed
   wildcard FEC element must be individually defined for each FEC
   element type.  This specification defines the typed wildcard FEC
   elements for the PWid (0x80), Generalized PWid (0x81), and P2MP PW
   (0x82) FEC element types.

Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................... 3
2. Typed Wildcard for PW FEC Elements ............................... 3
3. Applicability Statement .......................................... 4
4. Operation ........................................................ 5
 4.1. PW Consistency Check .......................................... 5
 4.2. PW Graceful Shutdown .......................................... 5
 4.3. Wildcard PW Status ............................................ 6
5. Security Considerations .......................................... 6
6. IANA Considerations .............................................. 6
7. Acknowledgments .................................................. 6
8. References ....................................................... 6
 8.1. Normative References .......................................... 6
 8.2. Informative References ........................................ 7
Authors' Addresses .................................................. 7







Raza, et. al              Expires July 2012                    [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements    January 2012


1. Introduction

   An extension [RFC5918] to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
   [RFC5036] defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding
   Equivalence Class (FEC) Element".  This can be used when it is
   desired to request all label bindings for a given type of FEC
   Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for a given
   type of FEC element.  However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be
   individually defined for each type of FEC element.

   [RFC4447] defines the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC
   Element", and [P2MP-PW] defines the "P2MP PW FEC Element". These
   specifications, however, do not specify the Typed Wildcard format
   for these elements. This document specifies the format of the Typed
   Wildcard FEC Element for the "PWid FEC Element", "Generalized PWid
   FEC Element", and "P2MP FEC Element". The procedures for Typed
   Wildcard processing for PWid, Generalized PWid, and P2MP FEC
   Elements are same as described in [RFC5918] for any typed wildcard
   FEC Element type.

2. Typed Wildcard for PW FEC Elements

   The format of the Typed Wildcard FEC Element for PWid, Generalized
   PWid, and P2MP PW FEC Elements is specified as:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Typed Wcard=0x5| Type=PW FEC   |   Len = 2     |R|   PW type   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    . . .      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Figure 1: Format of Typed Wildcard FEC Element for PW FEC Element
                                   Types
   Where:

      Typed Wcard (one octet): Typed Wildcard FEC element type (0x05)
           as specified in [RFC5918]

      [FEC Element] Type (one octet): PW FEC Element type:

        PWid: (type 0x80 [RFC4447])
        Generalized PWid: (type 0x81 [RFC4447])
        P2MP PW: (type 0x82, [P2MP-PW]


Raza, et. al              Expires July 2012                    [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements    January 2012



      Len [FEC Type Info] (one octet):  Two. (i.e. there is additional
           FEC info to scope the Typed Wildcard)

      R bit (Reserved bit): Must be set to ZERO on transmit and ignored
           on receipt.

      PW type (15-bits): PW type as specified in [RFC4447]. This field
           is used to scope the PWid wildcard FEC operation to limit to
           all PWs of a given type. This MUST be set to "Wildcard" type
           (0x7FFF), as defined by[IANA-PWE3], when referring PWs of
           all types (see Section 4 for its usage).

  [RFC4447] defines "PW Grouping ID TLV" that can be used for wildcard
  withdrawal or status messages related to Generalized PWid and P2MP PW
  FECs. When Typed Wildcard FEC for Generalized PWid or P2MP PW FEC
  element is in use, "PW Grouping ID TLV" MUST NOT be present in the
  same message. If found present, the receiving LSR MUST ignore this
  TLV silently, and process the rest of the message.

3. Applicability Statement

   The Typed wildcard FEC Elements defined in this document for the
   PWid, Generalized PWid, and P2MP PW FEC Elements provide a finer
   degree of granularity when compared to the Wildcard FEC mechanics
   defined in [RFC5036].

   The PWid FEC Element as defined in [RFC4447] contains a Group ID
   field. This field is defined as an arbitrary 32-bit value that
   represents a group of PWs, and is used to create groups in the PW
   space, including potentially a single group of all PWs for a given
   FEC Element type. This grouping enables an LSR to send wildcard
   label withdrawals and/or status notification messages corresponding
   to a PW group upon physical port failures. Similarly, [RFC4447]
   defines the "PW Grouping ID TLV" used in the same fashion for the
   Generalized PWid and P2MP PW FEC Elements.

  The PW Typed Wildcard FEC elements defined in this document help us
  achieve the similar functionality as "Group ID" field or "PW Grouping
  ID TLV" for label withdrawal and status notification messages;
  Additionally, the Typed Wildcard procedures [RFC5918] also provide
  more generalized and comprehensive solution by allowing:
  1. Typed-Wildcard Label Request messages




Raza, et. al              Expires July 2012                    [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements    January 2012


  2. Label TLV in label messages to further constraint the wildcard to
      all FECs of the specified FEC type [and its specific filter] that
      are also bound to the specified label.

4. Operation

   The use of Typed Wildcard FEC elements for PW can be useful under
   several scenarios. This section describes some use cases to
   illustrate their usage. The following use cases consider two LSR
   nodes, A and B, with LDP session between them to exchange L2VPN PW
   bindings.

4.1. PW Consistency Check

   A user may request a control plane consistency check at LSR A for
   the Generalized PWid FEC bindings that it had learnt from LSR B over
   LDP session.  To perform this consistency check, LSR A marks all its
   learnt Generalized PWid FEC bindings from LSR B as stale, and then
   sends a Label Request message towards LSR B for Typed Wildcard FEC
   element for Generalized PWid FEC element type with PW type set to
   "Wildcard" (0x7FFF). Upon receipt of such request, LSR B replays its
   database related to Generalized PWid FEC element using one or more
   Label Mapping messages. As a PW binding is received at LSR A, the
   associated binding state is marked as refreshed (no stale).  When
   replay completes for Generalized PWid FEC type, LSR B marks end of
   its replay by sending End-of-LIB notification [RFC5919]
   corresponding to Generalized PWid FEC element type. Upon receipt of
   this notification at LSR A, any remaining stale PW binding of
   Generalized PWid FEC type learnt from the peer LSR B, is cleaned up
   and removed from the database. This completes consistency check with
   LSR B at LSR A for Generalized Pwid FEC type.

4.2. PW Graceful Shutdown

   It may be desirable to perform shutdown/removal of existing PW
   bindings advertised towards a peer in a graceful manner -- i.e. all
   advertised PW bindings to be removed from a peer without session
   flap.  For example, to request a graceful delete of the PWid FEC and
   Generalized PWid FEC bindings at LSR A learnt from LSR B, LSR A
   would send a Label Withdraw message towards LSR B with Typed
   Wildcard FEC elements pertaining to PWid FEC element (with PW type
   set to 0x7FFF) and Generalized PWid FEC element (with PW type set to
   0x7FFF). Upon receipt of such message, LSR B will delete all PWid
   and Generalized PWid bindings learnt from LSR A. Afterwards, LSR B
   would send Label Release messages corresponding to received Label
   Withdraw messages with Typed FEC element.


Raza, et. al              Expires July 2012                    [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements    January 2012


4.3. Wildcard PW Status

  The Typed Wildcard FEC Elements for PW FECs can be very useful when
  used to convey PW status amongst LSRs. The PE devices can send "PW
  Status TLV" in an LDP Notification message to indicate PW status
  (i.e., a Pseudowire Status Code denoting for example a particular
  fault) to their remote peers [RFC4447]. In case of a global failure
  affecting all PWs, an LSR typically sends one PW Status LDP
  Notification message per PW. This per PW Status message has
  scalability implications in a large scale network with large number
  of PWs.

  Using Typed Wildcard FEC Element for given type of PW FEC Element,
  the LSR will need to send only one PW Status Notification message
  with Typed Wildcard PW FEC specified to notify about the common
  status applicable to all PWs as scoped by the PW Typed Wildcard FEC.

5. Security Considerations

  No new security considerations beyond that apply to the base LDP
  specification [RFC5036], [RFC4447] and [RFC5920] apply to the use of
  the PW Typed Wildcard FEC Element types described in this document.

6. IANA Considerations

  None.

7. Acknowledgments

  The authors would like to thank Eric Rosen, Siva Sivabalan, and Zafar
  Ali for their valuable comments.

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

8. References

8.1. Normative References

[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Menei, I., and Thomas, B., Editors, "LDP
          Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.

[RFC5918] Asati, R., Minei, I., and Thomas, B., "LDP Typed Wildcard
         Forwarding Equivalence Class", RFC 5918, August 2010.


Raza, et. al              Expires July 2012                    [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements    January 2012



[RFC5919] Asati, R., Mohapatra, P., Chen, E., and Thomas, B.,
         "Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion", RFC 5919,
         August 2009.

[RFC4447] L. Martini, Editor, E. Rosen, El-Aawar, T. Smith, G. Heron,
          "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label
          Distribution Protocol", RFC 4447, April 2006.

[P2MP-PW] Boutros, S., Martini, L., Sivabalan, S., Del Vecchio, G.,
          Kamite, Jin, L.,  "Signaling Root-Initiated P2MP PWs using
          LDP", draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-03.txt, Work in Progress,
          October 2011.

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

8.2.  Informative References

[RFC5920] L. Fang, L. et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
         Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.


[IANA-PWE3] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Pseudo Wires Name
          Spaces (PWE3)", http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-
         parameters, May 2011.


Authors' Addresses

  Kamran Raza
  Cisco Systems, Inc.,
  2000 Innovation Drive,
  Ottawa, ON K2K-3E8, Canada.
  E-mail: skraza@cisco.com


  Sami Boutros
  Cisco Systems, Inc.,
  3750 Cisco Way,
  San Jose, CA 95134, USA.
  E-mail: sboutros@cisco.com


Raza, et. al              Expires July 2012                    [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements    January 2012





  Carlos Pignataro
  Cisco Systems, Inc.,
  7200 Kit Creek Road,
  Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987, USA.
  Email: cpignata@cisco.com









































Raza, et. al              Expires July 2012                    [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/