[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-thomas-mpls-ldp-capabilities)
00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5561
Network Working Group Bob Thomas
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 5036
Intended Status: Proposed Standard S. Aggarwal
Expiration Date: October 22, 2009 Juniper Networks
R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
J.L. Le Roux
France Telecom
Syed Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.
April 23, 2009
LDP Capabilities
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-capabilities-04.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or 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.
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, 2009.
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
A number of enhancements to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
have been proposed. Some have been implemented, and some are
advancing toward standardization. It is likely that additional
enhancements will be proposed in the future. This document defines a
mechanism for advertising LDP enhancements at session initialization
time, as well as a mechanism to enable and disable enhancements after
LDP session establishment.
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 [RFC2119].
This document uses the terms "LDP speaker" and "speaker"
interchangably.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. The LDP Capability Mechanism...................................4
2.1. Capability Document.......................................5
3. Specifying Capabilities in LDP Messages........................5
3.1. Backward Compatibility TLVs...............................7
4. Capability Message.............................................7
5. Note on Terminology............................................8
6. Procedures for Capability Parameters in Initialization Messages8
7. Procedures for Capability Parameters in Capability Messages...10
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
8. Extensions to Error Handling..................................10
9. Dynamic Capability Announcement TLV...........................11
10. Backward Compatibility.......................................11
11. Security Considerations......................................12
12. IANA Considerations..........................................12
13. Acknowledgments..............................................12
14. References...................................................13
14.1. Normative References....................................13
14.2. Informative References..................................13
15. Author's Addresses...........................................14
1. Introduction
A number of enhancements to LDP as specified in [RFC5036] have been
proposed. These include LDP Graceful Restart [RFC3478], Fault
Tolerant LDP [RFC3479], multicast extensions [MLDP], signaling for
layer 2 circuits [RFC4447], a method for learning labels advertised
by next-next-hop routers in support of fast reroute node protection
[NNHOP], upstream label allocation [UPSTREAM_LDP], and extensions for
signaling inter-area LSPs [IALDP]. Some have been implemented, and
some are advancing toward standardization. It is also likely that
additional enhancements will be implemented and deployed in the
future.
This document proposes and defines a mechanism for advertising LDP
enhancements at session initialization time. It also defines a
mechanism to enable and disable these enhancements after LDP session
establishment.
LDP capability advertisement provides means for an LDP speaker to
announce what it can receive and process. It also provides means for
a speaker to inform peers of deviationts from behavior specified by
[RFC5036]. An example of such a deviation is LDP graceful restart
where a speaker retains MPLS forwarding state for LDP-signaled LSPs
when its LDP control plane goes down. It is important to point out
that not all LDP enhancements require capability advertisement. For
example, upstream label allocation does but inbound label filtering,
where a speaker installs forwarding state for only certain FECs,
does not.
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
2. The LDP Capability Mechanism
Enhancements are likely to be announced during LDP session
establishment as each LDP speaker advertises capabilities
corresponding to the enhancements it desires.
Beyond that, capability advertisements may be used to dynamically
modify the characteristics of the session to suit the changing
conditions. For example, an LSR capable of a particular enhancement
in support of some "feature" may not have advertised the
corresponding capability to its peers at session establishment time
because the feature was disabled at that time. Later, an operator
may enable the feature, at which time the LSR would react by
advertising the corresponding capability to its peers. Similarly,
when an operator disables a feature associated with a capability, the
LSR reacts by withdrawing the capability advertisement from its
peers.
The LDP capability advertisement mechanism operates as follows:
- Each LDP speaker is assumed to implement a set of enhancements,
each of which has an associated capability. At any time, a
speaker may have none, one, or more of those enhancements
"enabled". When an enhancement is enabled, the speaker
advertises the associated capability to its peers. By
advertising the capability to a peer, the speaker asserts that it
shall perform the protocol actions specified for the associated
enhancement. For example, the actions may require the LDP speaker
to receive and process enhancement-specific messages from its
peer. Unless the capability has been advertised, the speaker will
not perform protocol actions specified for the corresponding
enhancement.
- At session establishment time an LDP speaker MAY advertise a
particular capability by including an optional parameter
associated with the capability in its Initialization message.
- There is a well-known capability called Dynamic Capability
Announcement which an LDP speaker MAY advertise in its
Initialization message to indicate that it is capable of
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
processing capability announcements following a session
establishment.
If a peer had advertised the Dynamic Capability Announcement
capability in its Initialization message, then at any time
following session establishment an LDP speaker MAY announce
changes in its advertised capabilities to that peer. To do this,
the LDP speaker sends the peer a Capability message that
specifies the capabilities being advertised or withdrawn.
2.1. Capability Document
When the capability advertisement mechanism is in place, an LDP
enhancement requiring LDP capability advertisement will be specified
by a document that:
- Describes the motivation for the enhancement;
- Specifies the behavior of LDP when the enhancement is enabled.
This includes the procedures, parameters, messages, and TLVs
required by the enhancement;
- Includes an IANA considerations section that requests IANA
assignment of a code point (from TLV Type namespace) for the
optional capability parameter corresponding to the enhancement.
The capability document MUST also describe the interpretation and
processing of associated capability data, if present.
3. Specifying Capabilities in LDP Messages
This document uses the term "Capability Parameter" to refer to an
optional parameter that may be included in Initialization and
Capability messages to advertise a capability.
The format of a "Capability Parameter" TLV is as follows:
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| TLV Code Point | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Capability Data |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
U-bit:
Unknown TLV bit, as described in [RFC5036]. The value could be
either 0 or 1 as specified in Capability document associated
with given capability.
F-bit:
Forward unknown TLV bit, as described in [RFC5036]. The value of
this bit MUST be 0 since a Capability Paramter TLV is sent only
in Initialization and Capability messages which are not
forwarded.
TLV Code Point:
The TLV type which identifies a specific capability. This is
IANA assigned code point (from TLV Type namespace) for given
capability as requested in the associated capability document.
S-bit:
The State Bit. It indicates whether the sender is advertising or
withdrawing the capability corresponding to the TLV Code Point.
The State bit value is used as follows:
1 - The TLV is advertising the capability specified by the
TLV Code Point.
0 - The TLV is withdrawing the capability specified by the
TLV Code Point.
Capability Data:
Information, if any, about the capability in addition to the TLV
Code Point required to fully specify the capability.
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
The method for interpreting and processing this data is specific
to the TLV Code Point and MUST be described in the document
specifying the capability.
An LDP speaker MUST NOT include more than one instance of a
Capability Parameter (as identified by the same TLV code point) in an
Initialization or Capability message. If an LDP speaker receives more
than one instance of the same Capability Parameter type in a message,
it SHOULD send a Notification message to peer before terminating the
session with peer. The Status Code in the Status TLV of the
Notification message MUST be Malformed TLV, and the message SHOULD
contain the second Capability Parameter TLV of the same type (Code
point) that is received in the message.
3.1. Backward Compatibility TLVs
LDP extensions that require advertisement or negotiation of some
capability at session establishment time typically use TLVs that are
included in an Initialization message. To ensure backward
compatibility with existing implementations, such TLVs continue to be
supported in an Initialization message and are known in this document
as "Backward Compatibility TLVs". A Backward Compatibility TLV plays
the role of a "Capability Parameter" TLV; that is the presence of a
Backward Compatibility TLV has the same meaning as a Capability
Parameter TLV with the S bit set for the same capability.
One example of a Backward Capability TLV is the "FT Session TLV" that
is exchanged in an Initialization message between peers to announce
LDP Fault Tolerance [RFC3479] capability.
4. Capability Message
The LDP Capability message is used by an LDP speaker to announce
changes in the state of one or more of its capabilities subsequent to
session establishment.
The format of the Capability message is as follows:
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0| Capability (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV_1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV_N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where TLV_1 through TLV_N are Capability Parameter TLVs. The S-bit
of each of the TLVs specifies the new state for the corresponding
capability.
Note that Backward Compatibility TLVs (see Section 3.1. ) MUST NOT be
included in Capability messages.
5. Note on Terminology
The following sections in this document talk about enabling and
disabling capabilities. The terminology "enabling (or disabling) a
capability" is short hand for "advertising (or withdrawing) a
capability associated with an enhancement". Bear in mind that it is
an LDP enhancement that is being enabled or disabled, and that it is
the corresponding capability that is being advertisted or withdrawn.
6. Procedures for Capability Parameters in Initialization Messages
The S-bit of a Capability Parameter in an Initialization message MUST
be 1 and SHOULD be ignored on receipt. This ensures that any
Capability Parameter in an Initialization message enables the
corresponding capability.
An LDP speaker determines the capabilities of a peer by examining the
set of of Capability Parameters present in the Initialization message
received from the peer.
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
An LDP speaker MAY use a particular capability with its peer after
the speaker determines that the peer has enabled that capability.
These procedures enable an LDP speaker S1, that advertises a specific
LDP capability C, to establish an LDP session with speaker S2 that
does not advertise C. In this situation whether or not capability C
may be used for the session depends on the semantics of the
enhancement associated with C. If the semantics do not require both
S1 and S2 advertise C to one another, then S2 could use it; i.e. S1's
advertisement of C permits S2 to send messages to S1 used by the
enhancement.
It is the responsibility of the capability designer to specify the
behavior of an LDP speaker that has enabled a certain enhancement,
advertised its capability and determines that its peer has not
advertised the corresponding capability. The document specifying
procedures for the capability MUST describe the behavior in this
situation. If the specified procedure is to terminate the session,
then the LDP speaker SHOULD send a Notification message to the peer
before terminating the session. The Status Code in the Status TLV
of the Notification message MUST be Unsupported Capability, and the
message SHOULD contain the unsupported capability (see Section 8.
for more details).
An LDP speaker that supports capability advertisement and includes a
Capability Parameter in its Initialization message MUST set the TLV
U-bit to 0 or 1, as specified by Capability document. LDP speaker
should set U-bit to 1 if the capability document allows to continue
with a peer that does not understand the enhancement, and set U-bit
to 0 otherwise. If a speaker receives a message containng unsupported
capability, it responds according to U-bit setting in the TLV. If U-
bit is 1, then speaker MUST silently ignore the Capability Parameter
and allow the session to be established. However, if U-bit is 0, then
speaker SHOULD send a Notification message to the peer before
terminating the session. The Status Code in the Status TLV of the
Notification message MUST be Unsupported Capability, and the
message SHOULD contain the unsupported capability (see Section 8.
for more details).
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
7. Procedures for Capability Parameters in Capability Messages
An LDP speaker MUST NOT send a Capability message to a peer unless
its peer had advertised the Dynamic Capability Announcement
capability in its session Initialization message. An LDP speaker MAY
send a Capability message to a peer if its peer had advertised the
Dynamic Capability Announcement capability in its session
Initialization message (see Section 9. ).
An LDP speaker determines the capabilities enabled by a peer by
determining the set of capabilities enabled at session initialization
(as specified in Section 6. ) and tracking changes to that set made
by Capability messages from the peer.
An LDP speaker that has enabled a particular capability MAY use the
enhancement corresponding to the capability with a peer after the
speaker determines that the peer has enabled the capability.
8. Extensions to Error Handling
This document defines a new LDP status code named Unsupported
Capability. The E-bit of the Status TLV carried in a Notification
message that includes this status code MUST be set to 0.
In addition, this document defines a new LDP TLV, named Returned
TLVs, that MAY be carried in a Notification message. The U-bit
setting for a Returned TLVs TLV in a Notification message SHOULD be 1
and the F-bit setting SHOULD be 0.
When the Status Code in a Notification message is Unsupported
Capability, the message SHOULD specify the capabilities that are
unsupported. When the Notification message specifies the unsupported
capabilities, it MUST include a Returned TLVs TLV. The Returned TLVs
TLV MUST include only the Capability Parameters for unsupported
capabilities, and the Capability Parameter for each such capability
SHOULD be encoded as received from the peer.
When the Status Code in a Notification Message is Unknown TLV, the
message SHOULD specify the TLV that was unknown. When the
Notification message specifies the TLV that was unknown, it MUST
include the unknown TLV in a Returned TLVs TLV.
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
9. Dynamic Capability Announcement TLV
The Dynamic Capability Announcement TLV is a Capability Parameter
defined by this document with following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0| DynCap Announcement (IANA)| Length (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The value of U-bit for Dynamic Capability Announcement Parameter TLV
MUST be set to 1 so that a receiver MUST silently ignore this TLV, if
unknown to it, and continue processing the rest of the message. There
is no "Capability Data" associated with this TLV and hence TLV length
MUST be set to 1.
The Dynamic Capability Announcement Parameter MAY be included by an
LDP speaker in an Initialization message to signal its peer that the
speaker is capable of processing Capability messages.
An LDP speaker MUST NOT include the Dynamic Capability Announcement
Parameter in Capability messages sent to its peers. Once enabled
during session initialization, the Dynamic Capability Announcement
capability cannot be disabled. This implies that S-bit is always 1
for Dynamic Capability Announcement.
An LDP speaker that receives a Capability message from a peer that
includes the Dynamic Capability Announcement Parameter SHOULD
silently ignore the parameter and process any other Capability
Parameters in the message.
10. Backward Compatibility
From the point of view of the LDP capability advertisement mechanism,
an [RFC5036] compliant peer has label distribution for IPv4 enabled
by default. To ensure compatibility with an [RFC5036] compliant
peer, LDP implementations that support capability advertisement have
label distribution for IPv4 enabled until it is explicitly disabled
and MUST assume that their peers do as well.
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
Section 3.1 introduces the concept of Backward Compatibility TLVs
that may appear in an Initialization message in the role of a
Capability Parameter. This permits existing LDP enhancements that
use an adhoc mechanism for enabling capabilities at sesssion
initialization time to continue to do so.
11. Security Considerations
[MPLS_SEC] describes the security framework for MPLS networks,
whereas [RFC5036] describes the security considerations that apply to
the base LDP specification. The same security framework and
considerations apply to the capability mechanism described in this
document.
12. IANA Considerations
This document specifies the following which require code points assigned
by IANA:
- LDP message code point for the Capability message. The authors
request message type 0x0202 for the Capability message.
- LDP TLV code point for the Dynamic Capability Announcemnt TLV.
The authors request TLV type code 0x0506.
- LDP TLV code point for the Returned TLVs TLV. The authors
request TLV type 0x304.
- LDP Status Code code point for the Unsupported Capability Status
Code. The authors request Status Code 0x0000002C.
13. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Enke Chen, Vanson Lim, Ina Minei, Bin Mo,
Yakov Rekhter, and Eric Rosen for their comments.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Menei, I., and Thomas, B., Editors, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC3479] Farrel, A., Editor, "Fault Tolerance for the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3479, February 2003.
14.2. Informative References
[IALDP] Decraene, B., Le Roux, JL., Minei, I, "LDP Extensions for
Inter-Area LSPs", draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt,
Work in Progress, March 2007
[MLDP] Minei, I., Wijnamds, I., Editors, "Label Distribution Protocol
Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-
Multipoint Label Switched Paths", draft-minei-wijnands-mpls-
ldp-p2mp-00.txt, Work in Progress, September 2005
[NNHOP] Shen, N., Chen, E., Tian, A. "Discovery LDP Next-Nexthop
Labels", draft-shen-mpls-ldp-nnhop-label-02.txt, Work in
Progress, May 2005
[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.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y, Aggarwal, R., "Graceful Restart
Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3478,
February 2003.
[UPSTREAM_LDP] Aggarwal R., Le Roux, J.L., "MPLS Upstream Label
Assignment for LDP" draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream-00.txt, Work
in Progress, February 2006.
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LDP Capabilities April 2009
[MPLS_SEC] Fang, L. et al., Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks, draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-
05.txt, Work in Progress, March 2009.
15. Author's Addresses
Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
E-mail: bobthomas@alum.mit.edu
Shivani Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: shivani@juniper.net
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, Avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex, France
E-mail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Syed Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Dr.
Kanata, ON K2K-3E8, Canada
E-mail: skraza@cisco.com
Thomas, et al. Expires October 2009 [Page 14]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/