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

Versions: (draft-torvi-mpls-rsvp-ingress-protection) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-ingress-protection

Internet Engineering Task Force                             H. Chen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track                           R. Torvi, Ed.
Expires: August 18, 2014                                Juniper Networks
                                                       February 14, 2014


         Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress Local Protection
             draft-chen-mpls-p2mp-ingress-protection-11.txt

Abstract

   This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
   Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node
   of a Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) in a Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 August 18, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Co-authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  An Example of Ingress Local Protection . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Ingress Local Protection with FRR  . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Ingress Failure Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Backup and Source Detect Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Backup Detects Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Source Detects Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  Next Hops Detect Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.5.  Comparing Different Detection Modes  . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Backup Forwarding State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Forwarding State for Backup LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Forwarding State on Next Hops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  INGRESS_PROTECTION Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.1.1.  Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address  . . . . . 10
       5.1.2.  Subobject: Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . . 11
       5.1.3.  Subobject: Traffic Descriptor  . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       5.1.4.  Subobject: Label-Routes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  Behavior of Ingress Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       6.1.1.  Relay-Message Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       6.1.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       6.1.3.  Comparing Two Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     6.2.  Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       6.2.1.  Relay-Message Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       6.2.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.3.  Backup Ingress Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       6.3.1.  Backup Ingress Behavior in Off-path Case . . . . . . . 17
       6.3.2.  Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case  . . . . . . . 20
       6.3.3.  Failure Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.4.  Merge Point Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.5.  Revertive Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.5.1.  Revert to Primary Ingress  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       6.5.2.  Global Repair by Backup Ingress  . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   10. Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   A.  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26






Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


1.  Co-authors

   Ning So, Autumn Liu, Alia Atlas, Yimin Shen, Fengman Xu, Mehmet Toy,
   Lei Liu


2.  Introduction

   For MPLS LSPs it is important to have a fast-reroute method for
   protecting its ingress node as well as transit nodes.  This is not
   covered either in the fast-reroute method defined in [RFC4090] or in
   the P2MP fast-reroute extensions to fast-reroute in [RFC4875].

   An alternate approach to local protection (fast-reroute) is to use
   global protection and set up a second backup LSP (whether P2MP or
   P2P) from a backup ingress to the egresses.  The main disadvantage of
   this is that the backup LSP may reserve additional network bandwidth.

   This specification defines a simple extension to RSVP-TE for local
   protection of the ingress node of a P2MP or P2P LSP.

2.1.  An Example of Ingress Local Protection

   Figure 1 shows an example of using a backup P2MP LSP to locally
   protect the ingress of a primary P2MP LSP, which is from ingress R1
   to three egresses: L1, L2 and L3.  The backup LSP is from backup
   ingress Ra to the next hops R2 and R4 of ingress R1.

                     [R2]******[R3]*****[L1]
                    *  |                               **** Primary LSP
                   *   |                               ---- Backup LSP
                  *    /                               .... BFD Session
                 *    /                                  $  Link
             [R1]*******[R4]****[R5]*****[L2]           $
            $  .    /     /        *                   $
           $   .   /     /          *
        [S]    .  /     /            *
           $   . /     /              *
            $  ./     /                *
             [Ra]----[Rb]               [L3]


         Figure 1: Backup P2MP LSP for Locally Protecting Ingress

   Source S may send the traffic simultaneously to both primary ingress
   R1 and backup ingress Ra.  R1 imports the traffic into the primary
   LSP.  Ra normally does not put the traffic into the backup LSP.




Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   Ra should be able to detect the failure of R1 and switch the traffic
   within 10s of ms.  The exact method by which Ra does so is out of
   scope.  Different options are discussed in this draft.

   When Ra detects the failure of R1, it imports the traffic from S into
   the backup LSP to R1's next hops R2 and R4, where the traffic is
   merged into the primary LSP, and then sent to egresses L1, L2 and L3.

   Note that the backup egress must be one logical hop away from the
   ingress.  A logical hop is a direct link or a tunnel such as a GRE
   tunnel, over which RSVP-TE messages may be exchanged.

2.2.  Ingress Local Protection with FRR

   Through using the ingress local protection and the FRR, we can
   locally protect the ingress node, all the links and the intermediate
   nodes of an LSP.  The traffic switchover time is within tens of
   milliseconds whenever the ingress, any of the links and the
   intermediate nodes of the LSP fails.

   The ingress node of the LSP can be locally protected through using
   the ingress local protection.  All the links and all the intermediate
   nodes of the LSP can be locally protected through using the FRR.


3.  Ingress Failure Detection

   Exactly how the failure of the ingress (e.g.  R1 in Figure 1) is
   detected is out of scope for this document.  However, it is necessary
   to discuss different modes for detecting the failure because they
   determine what must be signaled and what is the required behavior for
   the traffic source, backup ingress, and merge-points.

3.1.  Backup and Source Detect Failure

   Backup and Source Detect Failure or Backup-Source-Detect for short
   means that both the backup ingress and the source are concurrently
   responsible for detecting the failures of the primary ingress.

   In normal operations, the source sends the traffic to the primary
   ingress.  It switches the traffic to the backup ingress when it
   detects the failure of the primary ingress.

   The backup ingress does not import any traffic from the source into
   the backup LSP in normal operations.  When it detects the failure of
   the primary ingress, it imports the traffic from the source into the
   backup LSP to the next hops of the primary ingress, where the traffic
   is merged into the primary LSP.



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   Note that the source may locally distinguish between the failure of
   the primary ingress and that of the link between the source and the
   primary ingress.  When the source detects the failure of the link, it
   may continue to send the traffic to the primary ingress via another
   link between the source and the primary ingress if there is one.

3.2.  Backup Detects Failure

   Backup Detects Failure or Backup-Detect means that the backup ingress
   is responsible for detecting the failure of the primary ingress of an
   LSP.  The source SHOULD send the traffic simultaneously to both the
   primary ingress and backup ingress.

   The backup ingress does not import any traffic from the source into
   the backup LSP in normal operations.  When it detects the failure of
   the primary ingress, it imports the traffic from the source into the
   backup LSP to the next hops of the primary ingress, where the traffic
   is merged into the primary LSP.

   Note that the backup ingress may locally distinguish between the
   failure of the primary ingress and that of the link between the
   backup ingress and the primary ingress through two BFDs between the
   backup ingress and the primary ingress.  One is through the link, and
   the other is not.  If the first BFD is down and the second is up, the
   link fails and the primary ingress does not.

3.3.  Source Detects Failure

   Source Detects Failure or Source-Detect means that the source is
   responsible for detecting the failure of the primary ingress of an
   LSP.  The backup ingress is ready to import the traffic from the
   source into the backup LSP after the backup LSP is up.

   In normal operations, the source sends the traffic to the primary
   ingress.  When the source detects the failure of the primary ingress,
   it switches the traffic to the backup ingress, which delivers the
   traffic to the next hops of the primary ingress through the backup
   LSP, where the traffic is merged into the primary LSP.

3.4.  Next Hops Detect Failure

   Next Hops Detect Failure or Next-Hop-Detect means that each of the
   next hops of the primary ingress of an LSP is responsible for
   detecting the failure of the primary ingress.

   In normal operations, the source sends the traffic to both the
   primary ingress and the backup ingress.  Both ingresses deliver the
   traffic to the next hops of the primary ingress.  Each of the next



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   hops selects the traffic from the primary ingress and sends the
   traffic to the destinations of the LSP.

   When each of the next hops detects the failure of the primary
   ingress, it switches to receive the traffic from the backup ingress
   and then sends the traffic to the destinations.

3.5.  Comparing Different Detection Modes

+----------+--------------+----------------+--------+-------------------+
|\_Behavior|Traffic Always|Backup Ingress  |Next-Hop|Incorrect Failure  |
|  \______ |Sent to       |Activation of   |Select  |Detection Cause    |
|Detection\|Backup Ingress|Forwarding Entry|Stream  |Traffic Duplication|
|Mode      |              |                |        |(Ingress does FRR) |
+----------+--------------+----------------+--------+-------------------+
|Backup-   |              |                |        |                   |
|Source-   |  No          |  Yes           | No     |  No               |
|Detect    |              |                |        |                   |
+----------+--------------+----------------+--------+-------------------+
|Backup-   |  Yes         |  Yes           | No     |  Yes              |
|Detect    |              |                |        |                   |
+----------+--------------+----------------+--------+-------------------+
|Source-   |  No          |  No            | No     |  No               |
|Detect    |              | (Always Active)|        |                   |
+----------+--------------+----------------+--------+-------------------+
|Next-Hop- |  Yes         |  No            | Yes    |(If Ingress-Next-  |
|Detect    |              | (Always Active)|        |Hop link fails,    |
|          |              |                |        |stream selection   |
|          |              |                |        |at Next-Next-Hops  |
|          |              |                |        |can mitigate)      |
+----------+--------------+----------------+--------+-------------------+


   A primary goal of failure detection and FRR protection is to avoid
   traffic duplication, particularly along the P2MP.  A reasonable
   assumption when this ingress protection is in use is that the ingress
   is also trying to provide link and node protection.  When the failure
   cannot be accurately identified as that of the ingress, this can lead
   to the ingress sending traffic on bypass to the next-next-hop(s) for
   node-protection while the backup ingress is sending traffic to its
   next-hop(s) if Next-Hop-Detect mode is used.  RSVP Path messages from
   the bypass may help to eventually resolve this by removing the
   forwarding entry for receiving the traffic from the next-hop.


4.  Backup Forwarding State

   Before the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress is responsible



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   for creating the necessary backup LSPs to the next hops of the
   ingress.  These LSPs might be multiple bypass P2P LSPs that avoid the
   ingress.  Alternately, the backup ingress could choose to use a
   single backup P2MP LSP as a bypass or detour to protect the primary
   ingress of a primary P2MP LSP.

   The backup ingress may be off-path or on-path of an LSP.  When a
   backup ingress is not any node of the LSP, we call the backup ingress
   is off-path.  When a backup ingress is a next-hop of the primary
   ingress of the LSP, we call it is on-path.  If the backup ingress is
   on-path, the primary forwarding state associated with the primary LSP
   SHOULD be clearly separated from the backup LSP(s) state.
   Specifically in Backup-Detect mode, the backup ingress will receive
   traffic from the primary ingress and from the traffic source; only
   the former should be forwarded until failure is detected even if the
   backup ingress is the only next-hop.

4.1.  Forwarding State for Backup LSP

   A forwarding entry for a backup LSP is created on the backup ingress
   after the LSP is set up.  Depending on the failure-detection mode
   (e.g., source-detect), it may be used to forward received traffic or
   simply be inactive (e.g., backup-detect) until required.  In either
   case, when the primary ingress fails, this forwarding entry is used
   to import the traffic into the backup LSP to the next hops of the
   primary ingress, where the traffic is merged into the primary LSP.

   The forwarding entry for a backup LSP is a local implementation
   issue.  In one device, it may have an inactive flag.  This inactive
   forwarding entry is not used to forward any traffic normally.  When
   the primary ingress fails, it is changed to active, and thus the
   traffic from the source is imported into the backup LSP.

4.2.  Forwarding State on Next Hops

   When Next-Hop-Detect is used, a forwarding entry for a backup LSP is
   created on each of the next hops of the primary ingress of the LSP.
   This forwarding entry does not forward any traffic normally.  When
   the primary ingress fails, it is used to import/select the traffic
   from the backup LSP into the primary LSP.


5.  Protocol Extensions

   A new object INGRESS_PROTECTION is defined for signaling ingress
   local protection.  It is backward compatible.





Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


5.1.  INGRESS_PROTECTION Object

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object with the FAST_REROUTE object in a PATH
   message is used to control the backup for protecting the primary
   ingress of a primary LSP.  The primary ingress MUST insert this
   object into the PATH message to be sent to the backup ingress for
   protecting the primary ingress.  It has the following format:

       Class-Num = TBD      C-Type = TBD

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |         Length (bytes)        |    Class-Num  |    C-Type     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |       Secondary LSP ID        |      Flags    | Options | DM  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                         (Subobjects)                          ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Flags
         0x01    Ingress local protection available
         0x02    Ingress local protection in use
         0x04    Bandwidth protection

        Options
         0x01    Revert to Ingress
         0x02    Ingress-Proxy/Relay-Message
         0x04    P2MP Backup

        DM (Detection Mode)
         0x00    Backup-Source-Detect
         0x01    Backup-Detect
         0x02    Source-Detect
         0x03    Next-Hop-Detect


   For backward compatible, the two high-order bits of the Class-Num in
   the object are set as follows:

    o Class-Num = 0bbbbbbb for the object in a message not on LSP path.
      The entire message should be rejected and an "Unknown Object
      Class" error returned.

    o Class-Num = 10bbbbbb for the object in a message on LSP path.  The
      node should ignore the object, neither forwarding it nor sending
      an error message.




Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   The Secondary LSP ID in the object is an LSP ID that the primary
   ingress has allocated for a protected LSP tunnel.  The backup ingress
   will use this LSP ID to set up a new LSP from the backup ingress to
   the destinations of the protected LSP tunnel.  This allows the new
   LSP to share resources with the old one.

   The flags are used to communicate status information from the backup
   ingress to the primary ingress.

    o Ingress local protection available: The backup ingress sets this
      flag after backup LSPs are up and ready for locally protecting the
      primary ingress.  The backup ingress sends this to the primary
      ingress to indicate that the primary ingress is locally protected.

    o Ingress local protection in use: The backup ingress sets this flag
      when it detects a failure in the primary ingress.  The backup
      ingress keeps it and does not send it to the primary ingress since
      the primary ingress is down.

    o Bandwidth protection: The backup ingress sets this flag if the
      backup LSPs guarantee to provide desired bandwidth for the
      protected LSP against the primary ingress failure.

   The options are used by the primary ingress to specify the desired
   behavior to the backup ingress and next-hops.

    o Revert to Ingress: The primary ingress sets this option indicating
      that the traffic for the primary LSP successfully re-signaled will
      be switched back to the primary ingress from the backup ingress
      when the primary ingress is restored.

    o Ingress-Proxy/Relay-Message: This option is set to one indicating
      that Ingress-Proxy method is used.  It is set to zero indicating
      that Relay-Message method is used.

    o P2MP Backup: This option is set to ask for the backup ingress to
      use P2MP backup LSP to protect the primary ingress.  Note that one
      spare bit of the flags in the FAST-REROUTE object can be used to
      indicate whether P2MP or P2P backup LSP is desired for protecting
      an ingress and intermediate node.

   The DM (Detection Mode) is used by the primary ingress to specify a
   desired failure detection mode.

    o Backup-Source-Detect (0x00): The backup ingress and the source are
      concurrently responsible for detecting the failure involving the
      primary ingress and redirecting the traffic.




Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


    o Backup-Detect (0x01): The backup ingress is responsible for
      detecting the failure and redirecting the traffic.

    o Source-Detect (0x02): The source is responsible for detecting the
      failure and redirecting the traffic.

    o Next-Hop-Detect (0x03): The next hops of the primary ingress are
      responsible for detecting the failure and selecting the traffic.

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may contain some of the sub objects
   described below.

5.1.1.  Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address

   When the primary ingress of a protected LSP sends a PATH message with
   an INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the backup ingress, the object may
   have a Backup Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address sub object containing an
   IPv4/IPv6 address belonging to the backup ingress.  The formats of
   the sub object for Backup Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address is given below:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |    Length     |        Reserved (zeros)       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          IPv4 address                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type:         TBD-1    Backup Ingress IPv4 Address
      Length:       Total length of the subobject in bytes, including
                    the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 8.
      Reserved:     Reserved two bytes are set to zeros.
      IPv4 address: A 32-bit unicast, host address.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |    Length     |        Reserved (zeros)       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                   IPv6 address (16 bytes)                     ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Type:         TBD-2    Backup Ingress IPv6 Address
      Length:       Total length of the subobject in bytes, including
                    the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 20.
      Reserved:     Reserved two bytes are set to zeros.
      IPv6 address: A 128-bit unicast, host address.



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


5.1.2.  Subobject: Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object in a PATH message from the primary
   ingress to the backup ingress may have an Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address
   sub object containing an IPv4/IPv6 address belonging to the primary
   ingress.  The sub object has the following format:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |        Reserved (zeros)       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           IPv4 address                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type:          TBD-3    Ingress IPv4 Address
     Length:        Total length of the subobject in bytes, including
                    the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 8.
     Reserved:      Reserved two bytes are set to zeros.
     IPv4 address:  A 32-bit unicast, host address.

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |    Length     |        Reserved (zeros)       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     ~                    IPv6 address (16 bytes)                    ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type:          TBD-4    Backup Ingress IPv6 Address
     Length:        Total length of the subobject in bytes, including
                    the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 20.
     Reserved:      Reserved two bytes are set to zeros.
     IPv6 address:  A 128-bit unicast, host address.


5.1.3.  Subobject: Traffic Descriptor

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object in a PATH message from the primary
   ingress to the backup ingress may have a Traffic Descriptor sub
   object describing the traffic to be mapped to the backup LSP on the
   backup ingress for locally protecting the primary ingress.  The sub
   object has the following format:







Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |    Length     |        Reserved (zeros)       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        Traffic Element 1                      |
       ~                                                               ~
       |                        Traffic Element n                      |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Type:          TBD-5/TBD-6/TBD-7   Interface/IPv4/6 Prefix
       Length:        Total length of the subobject in bytes, including
                      the Type and Length fields.
       Reserved:      Reserved two bytes are set to zeros.


   The Traffic Descriptor sub object may contain multiple Traffic
   Elements of same type as follows.

    o Interface Traffic (Type TBD-5): Each of the Traffic Elements is a
      32 bit index of an interface, from which the traffic is imported
      into the backup LSP.

    o IPv4/6 Prefix Traffic (Type TBD-6/TBD-7): Each of the Traffic
      Elements is an IPv4/6 prefix, containing an 8-bit prefix length
      followed by an IPv4/6 address prefix, whose length, in bits, was
      specified by the prefix length, padded to a byte boundary.

5.1.4.  Subobject: Label-Routes

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object in a PATH message from the primary
   ingress to the backup ingress will have a Label-Routes sub object
   containing the labels and routes that the next hops of the ingress
   use.  The sub object has the following format:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |     Type      |    Length     |        Reserved (zeros)       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                         (Subobjects)                          ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Type:          TBD-8    Label-Routes
       Length:        Total length of the subobject in bytes, including
                      the Type and Length fields.
       Reserved:      Reserved two bytes are set to zeros.




Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   The Subobjects in the Label-Routes are copied from the Subobjects in
   the RECORD_ROUTE objects contained in the RESV messages that the
   primary ingress receives from its next hops for the protected LSP.
   They MUST contain the first hops of the LSP, each of which is paired
   with its label.


6.  Behavior of Ingress Protection

6.1.  Overview

   There are four parts of ingress protection: 1) setting up the
   necessary backup LSP forwarding state; 2) identifying the failure and
   providing the fast repair (as discussed in Sections 2 and 3); 3)
   maintaining the RSVP-TE control plane state until a global repair can
   be done; and 4) performing the global repair(see Section 5.5).

   There are two different proposed signaling approaches to obtain
   ingress protection.  They both use the same new INGRESS-PROTECTION
   object.  The object is sent in both PATH and RESV messages.

6.1.1.  Relay-Message Method

   The primary ingress relays the information for ingress protection of
   an LSP to the backup ingress via PATH messages.  Once the LSP is
   created, the ingress of the LSP sends the backup ingress a PATH
   message with an INGRESS-PROTECTION object with Label-Routes
   subobject, which is populated with the next-hops and labels.  This
   provides sufficient information for the backup ingress to create the
   appropriate forwarding state and backup LSP(s).

   The ingress also sends the backup ingress all the other PATH messages
   for the LSP with an empty INGRESS-PROTECTION object.  Thus, the
   backup ingress has access to all the PATH messages needed for
   modification to be sent to refresh control-plane state after a
   failure.

   The advantages of this method include: 1) the primary LSP is
   independent of the backup ingress; 2) simple; 3) less configuration;
   and 4) less control traffic.

6.1.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method

   Conceptually, a proxy ingress is created that starts the RSVP
   signaling.  The explicit path of the LSP goes from the proxy ingress
   to the backup ingress and then to the real ingress.  The behavior and
   signaling for the proxy ingress is done by the real ingress; the use
   of a proxy ingress address avoids problems with loop detection.



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


                              [ traffic source ]       *** Primary LSP
                               $             $         --- Backup LSP
                               $             $          $$  Link
                               $             $
                       [ proxy ingress ]  [ backup ]
                       [ & ingress     ]     |
                              *              |
                              *****[ MP ]----|


          Figure 2: Example Protected LSP with Proxy Ingress Node

   The backup ingress must know the merge points or next-hops and their
   associated labels.  This is accomplished by having the RSVP PATH and
   RESV messages go through the backup ingress, although the forwarding
   path need not go through the backup ingress.  If the backup ingress
   fails, the ingress simply removes the INGRESS-PROTECTION object and
   forwards the PATH messages to the LSP's next-hop(s).  If the ingress
   has its LSP configured for ingress protection, then the ingress can
   add the backup ingress and itself to the ERO and start forwarding the
   PATH messages to the backup ingress.

   Slightly different behavior can apply for the on-path and off-path
   cases.  In the on-path case, the backup ingress is a next hop node
   after the ingress for the LSP.  In the off-path, the backup ingress
   is not any next-hop node after the ingress for all associated sub-
   LSPs.

   The key advantage of this approach is that it minimizes the special
   handling code requires.  Because the backup ingress is on the
   signaling path, it can receive various notifications.  It easily has
   access to all the PATH messages needed for modification to be sent to
   refresh control-plane state after a failure.

6.1.3.  Comparing Two Methods

   +-------+-----------+------+--------+-----------------+---------+
   |       |Primary LSP|Simple|Config  |PATH Msg from    |Reuse    |
   |Method |Depends on |      |Proxy-  |Backup to primary|Some of  |
   |       |Backup     |      |Ingress-|RESV Msg from    |Existing |
   |       |Ingress    |      |ID      |Primary to backup|Functions|
   +-------+-----------+------+--------+-----------------+---------+
   |Relay- |  No       |Yes   | No     | No              | Yes-    |
   |Message|           |      |        |                 |         |
   +-------+-----------+------+--------+-----------------+---------+
   |Proxy- |  Yes      |Yes-  | Yes    | Yes             | Yes     |
   |Ingress|           |      |        |                 |         |
   +-------+-----------+------+--------+-----------------+---------+



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


6.2.  Ingress Behavior

   The primary ingress must be configured with four pieces of
   information for ingress protection.

    o Backup Ingress Address: The primary ingress must know an IP
      address for it to be included in the INGRESS-PROTECTION object.

    o Failure Detection Mode: The primary ingress must know what failure
      detection mode is to be used: Backup-Source-Detect, Backup-Detect,
      Source-Detect, or Next-Hop-Detect.

    o Proxy-Ingress-Id (only needed for Proxy-Ingress Method): The
      Proxy-Ingress-Id is only used in the Record Route Object for
      recording the proxy-ingress.  If no proxy-ingress-id is specified,
      then a local interface address that will not otherwise be included
      in the Record Route Object can be used.  A similar technique is
      used in [RFC4090 Sec 6.1.1].

    o Application Traffic Identifier: The primary ingress and backup
      ingress must both know what application traffic should be directed
      into the LSP.  If a list of prefixes in the Traffic Descriptor
      sub-object will not suffice, then a commonly understood
      Application Traffic Identifier can be sent between the primary
      ingress and backup ingress.  The exact meaning of the identifier
      should be configured similarly at both the primary ingress and
      backup ingress.  The Application Traffic Identifier is understood
      within the unique context of the primary ingress and backup
      ingress.

   With this additional information, the primary ingress can create and
   signal the necessary RSVP extensions to support ingress protection.

6.2.1.  Relay-Message Method

   To protect the ingress of an LSP, the ingress does the following
   after the LSP is up.

   1.  Select a PATH message.

   2.  If the backup ingress is off-path, then send the backup ingress a
       PATH message with the content from the selected PATH message and
       an INGRESS-PROTECTION object; else (the backup ingress is a next
       hop, i.e., on-path case) add an INGRESS-PROTECTION object into
       the existing PATH message to the backup ingress (i.e., the next
       hop).  The INGRESS-PROTECTION object contains the Traffic-
       Descriptor sub-object, the Backup Ingress Address sub-object and
       the Label-Routes sub-object.  The DM (Detection Mode) in the



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


       object is set to indicate the failure detection mode desired.
       The flags is set to indicate whether a Backup P2MP LSP is
       desired.  If not yet allocated, allocate a second LSP-ID to be
       used in the INGRESS-PROTECTION object.  The Label-Routes sub-
       object contains the next-hops of the ingress and their labels.

   3.  For each of the other PATH messages, if the node to which the
       message is sent is not the backup ingress, then send the backup
       ingress a PATH message with the content copied from the message
       to the node and an empty INGRESS-PROTECTION object; else send the
       node the message with an empty INGRESS-PROTECTION object.

6.2.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method

   The primary ingress is responsible for starting the RSVP signaling
   for the proxy-ingress node.  To do this, the following is done for
   the RSVP PATH message.

   1.  Compute the EROs for the LSP as normal for the ingress.

   2.  If the selected backup ingress node is not the first node on the
       path (for all sub-LSPs), then insert at the beginning of the ERO
       first the backup ingress node and then the ingress node.

   3.  In the PATH RRO, instead of recording the ingress node's address,
       replace it with the Proxy-Ingress-Id.

   4.  Leave the HOP object populated as usual with information for the
       ingress-node.

   5.  Add the INGRESS-PROTECTION object to the PATH message.  Allocate
       a second LSP-ID to be used in the INGRESS-PROTECTION object.
       Include the Backup Ingress Address (IPv4 or IPv6) sub-object and
       the Traffic-Descriptor sub-object.  Set the control-options to
       indicate the failure detection mode desired.  Set or clear the
       flag indicating that a Backup P2MP LSP is desired.

   6.  Optionally, add the FAST-REROUTE object [RFC4090] to the Path
       message.  Indicate whether one-to-one backup is desired.
       Indicate whether facility backup is desired.

   7.  The RSVP PATH message is sent to the backup node as normal.

   If the ingress detects that it can't communicate with the backup
   ingress, then the ingress should instead send the PATH message to the
   next-hop indicated in the ERO computed in step 1.  Once the ingress
   detects that it can communicate with the backup ingress, the ingress
   SHOULD follow the steps 1-7 to obtain ingress failure protection.



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   When the ingress node receives an RSVP PATH message with an INGRESS-
   PROTECTION object and the object specifies that node as the ingress
   node and the PHOP as the backup ingress node, the ingress node SHOULD
   check the Failure Scenario specified in the INGRESS-PROTECTION object
   and, if it is not the Next-Hop-Detect, then the ingress node SHOULD
   remove the INGRESS-PROTECTION object from the PATH message before
   sending it out.  Additionally, the ingress node must store that it
   will install ingress forwarding state for the LSP rather than
   midpoint forwarding.

   When an RSVP RESV message is received by the ingress, it uses the
   NHOP to determine whether the message is received from the backup
   ingress or from a different node.  The stored associated PATH message
   contains an INGRESS-PROTECTION object that identifies the backup
   ingress node.  If the RESV message is not from the backup node, then
   ingress forwarding state should be set up, and the INGRESS-PROTECTION
   object MUST be added to the RESV before it is sent to the NHOP, which
   should be the backup node.  If the RESV message is from the backup
   node, then the LSP should be considered available for use.

   If the backup ingress node is on the forwarding path, then a RESV is
   received with an INGRESS-PROTECTION object and an NHOP that matches
   the backup ingress.  In this case, the ingress node's address will
   not appear after the backup ingress in the RRO.  The ingress node
   should set up ingress forwarding state, just as is done if the LSP
   weren't ingress-node protected.

6.3.  Backup Ingress Behavior

   An LER determines that the ingress local protection is requested for
   an LSP if the INGRESS_PROTECTION object is included in the PATH
   message it receives for the LSP.  The LER can further determine that
   it is the backup ingress if one of its addresses is in the Backup
   Ingress Address sub-object of the INGRESS-PROTECTION object.  The LER
   as the backup ingress will assume full responsibility of the ingress
   after the primary ingress fails.  In addition, the LER determines
   that it is off-path if it is not a next hop of the primary ingress.

6.3.1.  Backup Ingress Behavior in Off-path Case

   The backup ingress considers itself as a PLR and the primary ingress
   as its next hop and provides a local protection for the primary
   ingress.  It behaves very similarly to a PLR providing fast-reroute
   where the primary ingress is considered as the failure-point to
   protect.  Where not otherwise specified, the behavior given in
   [RFC4090] for a PLR should apply.

   The backup ingress SHOULD follow the control-options specified in the



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   INGRESS-PROTECTION object and the flags and specifications in the
   FAST-REROUTE object.  This applies to providing a P2MP backup if the
   "P2MP backup" is set, a one-to-one backup if "one-to-one desired" is
   set, facility backup if the "facility backup desired" is set, and
   backup paths that support the desired bandwidth, and administrative-
   colors that are requested.

   If multiple INGRESS-PROTECTION objects have been received via
   multiple PATH messages for the same LSP, then the most recent one
   that specified a Traffic-Descriptor sub-object MUST be the one used.

   The backup ingress creates the appropriate forwarding state based on
   failure detection mode specified.  For the Source-Detect and Next-
   Hop-Detect, this means that the backup ingress forwards any received
   identified traffic into the backup LSP tunnel(s) to the merge
   point(s).  For the Backup-Detect and Backup-Source-Detect, this means
   that the backup ingress creates state to quickly determine the
   primary ingress has failed and switch to sending any received
   identified traffic into the backup LSP tunnel(s) to the merge
   point(s).

   When the backup ingress sends a RESV message to the primary ingress,
   it should add an INGRESS-PROTECTION object into the message.  It
   SHOULD set or clear the flags in the object to report "Ingress local
   protection available", "Ingress local protection in use", and
   "bandwidth protection".

   If the backup ingress doesn't have a backup LSP tunnel to all the
   merge points, it SHOULD clear "Ingress local protection available".
   [Editor Note: It is possible to indicate the number or which are
   unprotected via a sub-object if desired.]

   When the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress redirects the
   traffic from a source into the backup P2P LSPs or the backup P2MP LSP
   transmitting the traffic to the next hops of the primary ingress,
   where the traffic is merged into the protected LSP.

   In this case, the backup ingress keeps the PATH message with the
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the primary ingress and the
   RESV message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to be sent to the
   primary ingress.  The backup ingress sets the "local protection in
   use" flag in the RESV message, indicating that the backup ingress is
   actively redirecting the traffic into the backup P2P LSPs or the
   backup P2MP LSP for locally protecting the primary ingress failure.

   Note that the RESV message with this piece of information will not be
   sent to the primary ingress because the primary ingress has failed.




Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   If the backup ingress has not received any PATH message from the
   primary ingress for an extended period of time (e.g., a cleanup
   timeout interval) and a confirmed primary ingress failure did not
   occur, then the standard RSVP soft-state removal SHOULD occur.  The
   backup ingress SHALL remove the state for the PATH message from the
   primary ingress, and tear down the one-to-one backup LSPs for
   protecting the primary ingress if one-to-one backup is used or unbind
   the facility backup LSPs if facility backup is used.

   When the backup ingress receives a PATH message from the primary
   ingress for locally protecting the primary ingress of a protected
   LSP, it checks to see if any critical information has been changed.
   If the next hops of the primary ingress are changed, the backup
   ingress SHALL update its backup LSP(s).

6.3.1.1.  Relay-Message Method

   When the backup ingress receives a PATH message with the INGRESS-
   PROTECTION object, it examines the object to learn what traffic
   associated with the LSP and what ingress failure detection mode is
   being used.  It determines the next-hops to be merged to by examining
   the Label-Routes sub-object in the object.  If the Traffic-Descriptor
   sub-object isn't included, this object is considered "empty".

   The backup ingress stores the PATH message received from the primary
   ingress, but does NOT forward it.

   The backup ingress MUST respond with a RESV to the PATH message
   received from the primary ingress.  If the INGRESS-PROTECTION object
   is not "empty", the backup ingress SHALL send the RESV message with
   the state indicating protection is available after the backup LSP(s)
   are successfully established.

6.3.1.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method

   The backup ingress determines the next-hops to be merged to by
   collecting the set of the pair of (IPv4/IPv6 sub-object, Label sub-
   object) from the Record Route Object of each RESV that are closest to
   the top and not the Ingress router; this should be the second to the
   top pair.  If a Label-Routes sub-object is included in the INGRESS-
   PROTECTION object, the included IPv4/IPv6 sub-objects are used to
   filter the set down to the specific next-hops where protection is
   desired.  A RESV message must have been received before the Backup
   Ingress can create or select the appropriate backup LSP.

   When the backup ingress receives a PATH message with the INGRESS-
   PROTECTION object, the backup ingress examines the object to learn
   what traffic associated with the LSP and what ingress failure



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   detection mode is being used.  The backup ingress forwards the PATH
   message to the ingress node with the normal RSVP changes.

   When the backup ingress receives a RESV message with the INGRESS-
   PROTECTION object, the backup ingress records an IMPLICIT-NULL label
   in the RRO.  Then the backup ingress forwards the RESV message to the
   ingress node, which is acting for the proxy ingress.

6.3.2.  Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case

   An LER as the backup ingress determines that it is on-path if one of
   its addresses is a next hop of the primary ingress and the primary
   ingress is not its next hop via checking the PATH message with the
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the primary ingress.  The LER
   on-path sends the corresponding PATH messages without any
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object to its next hops.  It creates a number of
   backup P2P LSPs or a backup P2MP LSP from itself to the other next
   hops (i.e., the next hops other than the backup ingress) of the
   primary ingress.  The other next hops are from the Label-Routes sub
   object.

   It also creates a forwarding entry, which sends/multicasts the
   traffic from the source to the next hops of the backup ingress along
   the protected LSP when the primary ingress fails.  The traffic is
   described by the Traffic-Descriptor.

   After the forwarding entry is created, all the backup P2P LSPs or the
   backup P2MP LSP is up and associated with the protected LSP, the
   backup ingress sends the primary ingress the RESV message with the
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object containing the state of the local
   protection such as "local protection available" flag set to one,
   which indicates that the primary ingress is locally protected.

   When the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress sends/multicasts
   the traffic from the source to its next hops along the protected LSP
   and imports the traffic into each of the backup P2P LSPs or the
   backup P2MP LSP transmitting the traffic to the other next hops of
   the primary ingress, where the traffic is merged into protected LSP.

   During the local repair, the backup ingress continues to send the
   PATH messages to its next hops as before, keeps the PATH message with
   the INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the primary ingress and
   the RESV message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to be sent to the
   primary ingress.  It sets the "local protection in use" flag in the
   RESV message.






Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


6.3.3.  Failure Detection

   Failure detection happens much faster than RSVP, whether via a link-
   level notification or BFD.  As discussed, there are different modes
   for detecting it.  The backup ingress MUST have properly set up its
   forwarding state to either always forward the specified traffic into
   the backup LSP(s) for the Source-Detect and Next-Hop-Detect modes or
   to swap from discarding to forwarding when a failure is detected for
   the Backup-Source-Detect and Backup-Detect modes.

   For facility backup LSPs, the correct inner MPLS label to use must be
   determined.  For the ingress-proxy method, that MPLS label comes
   directly from the RRO of the RESV.  For the relay-message method,
   that MPLS label comes from the Label-Routes sub-object in the non-
   empty INGRESS-PROTECTION object.

   As described in [RFC4090], it is necessary to refresh the PATH
   messages via the backup LSP(s).  The Backup Ingress MUST wait to
   refresh the backup PATH messages until it can accurately detect that
   the ingress node has failed.  An example of such an accurate
   detection would be that the IGP has no bi-directional links to the
   ingress node and the last change was long enough in the past that
   changes should have been received (i.e., an IGP network convergence
   time or approximately 2-3 seconds) or a BFD session to the primary
   ingress' loopback address has failed and stayed failed after the
   network has reconverged.

   As described in [RFC4090 Section 6.4.3], the backup ingress, acting
   as PLR, SHOULD modify - including removing any INGRESS-PROTECTION and
   FAST-REROUTE objects - and send any saved PATH messages associated
   with the primary LSP.

6.4.  Merge Point Behavior

   An LSR that is serving as a Merge Point may need to support the
   INGRESS-PROTECTION object and functionality defined in this
   specification if the LSP is ingress-protected where the failure
   scenario is Next-Hop-Detect.  An LSR can determine that it must be a
   merge point if it is not the ingress, it is not the backup ingress
   (determined by examining the Backup Ingress Address (IPv4 or IPv6)
   sub-object in the INGRESS-PROTECTION object), and the PHOP is the
   ingress node.

   In that case, when the LSR receives a PATH message with an INGRESS-
   PROTECTION object, the LSR MUST remove the INGRESS-PROTECTION object
   before forwarding on the PATH message.  If the failure scenario
   specified is Next-Hop-Detect, the MP must connect up the fast-failure
   detection (as configured) to accepting backup traffic received from



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   the backup node.  There are a number of different ways that the MP
   can enforce not forwarding traffic normally received from the backup
   node.  For instance, first, any LSPs set up from the backup node
   should not be signaled with an IMPLICIT NULL label and second, the
   associated label for the ingress- protected LSP could be set to
   normally discard inside that context.

   When the MP receives a RESV message whose matching PATH state had an
   INGRESS-PROTECTION object, the MP SHOULD add the INGRESS-PROTECTION
   object to the RESV message before forwarding it.  The Backup PATH
   handling is as described in [RFC4090] and [RFC4875].

6.5.  Revertive Behavior

   Upon a failure event in the (primary) ingress of a protected LSP, the
   protected LSP is locally repaired by the backup ingress.  There are a
   couple of basic strategies for restoring the LSP to a full working
   path.

    - Revert to Primary Ingress: When the primary ingress is restored,
      it re-signals each of the LSPs that start from the primary
      ingress.  The traffic for every LSP successfully re-signaled is
      switched back to the primary ingress from the backup ingress.

    - Global Repair by Backup Ingress: After determining that the
      primary ingress of an LSP has failed, the backup ingress computes
      a new optimal path, signals a new LSP along the new path, and
      switches the traffic to the new LSP.

6.5.1.  Revert to Primary Ingress

   If "Revert to Primary Ingress" is desired for a protected LSP, the
   (primary) ingress of the LSP re-signals the LSP that starts from the
   primary ingress after the primary ingress restores.  When the LSP is
   re-signaled successfully, the traffic is switched back to the primary
   ingress from the backup ingress and redirected into the LSP starting
   from the primary ingress.

   It is possible that the Ingress failure was inaccurately detected,
   that the Ingress recovers before the Backup Ingress does Global
   Repair, or that the Ingress has the ability to take over an LSP based
   on receiving the associated RESVs.

   If the ingress can resignal the PATH messages for the LSP, then the
   ingress can specify the "Revert to Ingress" control-option in the
   INGRESS-PROTECTION object.  Doing so may cause a duplication of
   traffic while the Ingress starts sending traffic again before the
   Backup Ingress stops; the alternative is to drop traffic for a short



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   period of time.

   Additionally, the Backup Ingress can set the "Revert To Ingress"
   control-option as a request for the Ingress to take over.

6.5.2.  Global Repair by Backup Ingress

   When the backup ingress has determined that the primary ingress of
   the protected LSP has failed (e.g., via the IGP), it can compute a
   new path and signal a new LSP along the new path so that it no longer
   relies upon local repair.  To do this, the backup ingress uses the
   same tunnel sender address in the Sender Template Object and uses the
   previously allocated second LSP-ID in the INGRESS-PROTECTION object
   of the PATH message as the LSP-ID of the new LSP.  This allows the
   new LSP to share resources with the old LSP.

   When the backup ingress has determined that the primary ingress of
   the protected LSP has failed (e.g., via the IGP), it can compute a
   new path and signal a new LSP along the new path so that it no longer
   relies upon local repair.  To do this, the backup ingress uses the
   same tunnel sender address in the Sender Template Object and uses the
   previously allocated second LSP-ID in the INGRESS-PROTECTION object
   of the PATH message as the LSP-ID of the new LSP.  This allows the
   new LSP to share resources with the old LSP.  In addition, if the
   Ingress recovers, the Backup Ingress SHOULD send it RESVs with the
   INGRESS-PROTECTION object where either the "Force to Backup" or
   "Revert to Ingress" is specified.  The Secondary LSP ID should be the
   unused LSP ID - while the LSP ID signaled in the RESV will be that
   currently active.  The Ingress can learn from the RESVs what to
   signal.  Even if the Ingress does not take over, the RESVs notify it
   that the particular LSP IDs are in use.  The Backup Ingress can
   reoptimize the new LSP as necessary until the Ingress recovers.
   Alternately, the Backup Ingress can create a new LSP with no
   bandwidth reservation that duplicates the path(s) of the protected
   LSP, move traffic to the new LSP, delete the protected LSP, and then
   resignal the new LSP with bandwidth.


7.  Security Considerations

   In principle this document does not introduce new security issues.
   The security considerations pertaining to RFC 4090, RFC 4875 and
   other RSVP protocols remain relevant.


8.  IANA Considerations

   TBD



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


9.  Contributors


        Renwei Li
        Huawei Technologies
        2330 Central Expressway
        Santa Clara, CA  95050
        USA
        Email: renwei.li@huawei.com



        Quintin Zhao
        Huawei Technologies
        Boston, MA
        USA
        Email: quintin.zhao@huawei.com



        Zhenbin Li
        Huawei Technologies
        2330 Central Expressway
        Santa Clara, CA  95050
        USA
        Email: zhenbin.li@huawei.com



        Boris Zhang
        Telus Communications
        200 Consilium Pl Floor 15
        Toronto, ON  M1H 3J3
        Canada
        Email: Boris.Zhang@telus.com



        Markus Jork
        Juniper Networks
        10 Technology Park Drive
        Westford, MA 01886
        USA
        Email: mjork@juniper.net







Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


10.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Rahul Aggarwal, Eric Osborne, Ross
   Callon, Loa Andersson, Michael Yue, Olufemi Komolafe, Rob Rennison,
   Neil Harrison, Kannan Sampath, and Ronhazli Adam for their valuable
   comments and suggestions on this draft.


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1700]  Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
              October 1994.

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

   [RFC3692]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
              Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

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

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

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

   [RFC4461]  Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-
              Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths
              (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


   [P2MP-FRR]
              Le Roux, J., Aggarwal, R., Vasseur, J., and M. Vigoureux,
              "P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels",
              draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass , March 1997.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2702]  Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
              McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
              RFC 2702, September 1999.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.


Appendix A.  Authors' Addresses


        Huaimo Chen
        Huawei Technologies
        Boston, MA
        USA
        Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com



        Ning So
        Tata Communications
        2613 Fairbourne Cir.
        Plano, TX 75082
        USA
        Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com



        Autumn Liu
        Ericsson
        300 Holger Way
        San Jose, CA 95134
        USA
        Email: autumn.liu@ericsson.com









Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


        Raveendra Torvi
        Juniper Networks
        10 Technology Park Drive
        Westford, MA 01886
        USA
        Email: rtorvi@juniper.net



        Alia Atlas
        Juniper Networks
        10 Technology Park Drive
        Westford, MA 01886
        USA
        Email: akatlas@juniper.net



        Yimin Shen
        Juniper Networks
        10 Technology Park Drive
        Westford, MA 01886
        USA
        Email: yshen@juniper.net



        Fengman Xu
        Verizon
        2400 N. Glenville Dr
        Richardson, TX 75082
        USA
        Email: fengman.xu@verizon.com



        Mehmet Toy
        Comcast
        1800 Bishops Gate Blvd.
        Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
        USA
        Email: mehmet_toy@cable.comcast.com



        Lei Liu
        UC Davis
        USA



Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2014


        Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com


















































Chen & Torvi             Expires August 18, 2014               [Page 28]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/