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

Versions: (draft-decraene-mpls-ldp-interarea) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5283

  Network Working Group                                    B. Decraene
  Internet Draft                                          J.L. Le Roux
  Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-03.txt        France Telecom
  Intended status: Standards Track
  Expiration Date: August 2008                                I. Minei
                                                Juniper Networks, Inc.

                                                         February 2008

                    LDP extension for Inter-Area LSP

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   To facilitate the establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSP) that
   would span multiple IGP areas in a given Autonomous System (AS), this
   document proposes a new optional label mapping procedure for the
   Label Distribution Protocol (LDP).

   This procedure allows the use of a label if the Forwarding
   Equivalence Class (FEC) Element matches an entry in the routing table
   (RIB). Matching is defined by an IP longest match search and does not
   mandate an exact match.

Decraene                  Expires August 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

Table of Contents

   1.    Conventions used in this document...........................2
   2.    Terminology.................................................2
   3.    Introduction................................................2
   4.    Problem statement...........................................3
   5.    Label Mapping Procedure.....................................4
   6.    Application examples........................................5
   6.1.  Inter-area LSPs.............................................5
   6.2.  Use of static routes........................................7
   7.    Caveats for deployment......................................7
   7.1.  Deployment consideration....................................7
   7.2.  Impact on routing convergence time..........................8
   8.    Security Considerations.....................................8
   9.    IANA Considerations.........................................8
   10.   References..................................................9
   10.1. Normative References........................................9
   10.2. Informative References......................................9
   11.   Acknowledgments.............................................9
   12.   Author's Addresses.........................................10

1. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

2. Terminology

   IGP Area: OSPF Area or IS-IS level

   ABR: OSPF Area Border Router or IS-IS L1/L2 router

   LSP: Label Switched Path

   Intra-area LSP: LSP that does not traverse any IGP area boundary.

   Inter-area LSP: LSP that traverses at least one IGP area boundary.

3. Introduction

   Link state IGPs such as OSPF [OSPFv2] and IS-IS [IS-IS] allow the
   partition of an autonomous system into areas or levels so as to
   increase routing scalability within a routing domain.

   However, [LDP] requires that the IP address of the FEC Element should
   *exactly* match an entry in the IP RIB: according to [LDP] section

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                    [Page 2]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008 (Label Mapping Messages Procedures) "An LSR receiving a Label
   Mapping message from a downstream LSR for a Prefix SHOULD NOT use the
   label for forwarding unless its routing table contains an entry that
   exactly matches the FEC Element.".

   Therefore, MPLS LSPs between LERs in different areas/levels are not
   setup unless the specific (e.g. /32 for IPv4) loopback addresses of
   all the LERs are redistributed across all areas.

   The problem statement is discussed in section 4. Then, in section 5
   we extend the Label Mapping Procedure defined in [LDP] so as to
   support the setup of contiguous inter-area LSPs while maintaining IP
   prefix aggregation on the ABRs. This basically consists of allowing
   for "Longest Match Based" Label Mapping.

4.      Problem statement

   Provider based MPLS VPN networks are expanding with the success of
   Layer 3 VPN ([L3-VPN]) and the new deployments of layer 2 VPNs
   ([VPLS-BGP], [VPLS-LDP]). Service Provider MPLS backbones are
   significantly growing both in terms of density with the addition of
   PEs to connect new customers and in terms of footprint as traditional
   layer two aggregation networks may be replaced by IP/MPLS networks.
   As a consequence many providers need to introduce IGP areas. Inter-
   area LSPs, that is LSPs that traverse at least two IGP areas, are
   required to ensure MPLS connectivity between PEs located in distinct
   IGP areas.

   To set up the required MPLS LSPs between PEs in different IGP areas,
   services providers have currently three solutions: LDP with IGP route
   leaking, BGP [MPLS-BGP] over LDP with MPLS hierarchy, or also inter-
   area RSVP-TE [ID-RSVP-TE].

   IGP route leaking consists in redistributing all specific PE loopback
   addresses across area boundaries. As a result, LDP finds in the RIB
   an exact match for its FEC and sets up the LSP.
   As a consequence, the potential benefits that a multi-area domain may
   yield are significantly diminished since a lot of addresses have to
   be redistributed by ABRs, and the number of IP entries in the LSDB
   and RIB maintained by every LSR of the domain (whatever the
   area/level it belongs to) cannot be minimized.

   Service providers may also set up these inter-area LSPs by using MPLS
   hierarchy with BGP [MPLS-BGP] as a label distribution protocol
   between areas. The BGP next hop would typically be the ABRs and the
   BGP-created LSPs would be nested within intra-area LSPs setup by LDP
   between PEs and ABRs and between ABRs.
   This solution is not adequate for Service Providers which don't want
   to run BGP on their P routers as it requires BGP on all ABRs. In
   addition, MPLS hierarchy does not allow locally protecting the LSP
   against ABR failures (IP / LDP Fast Reroute), and hence ensuring sub-

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                    [Page 3]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

   50ms recovery upon ABR failure. The resulting convergence time may
   not be acceptable for stringent SLAs required for voice or mission
   critical applications. Finally, this solution requires a significant
   migration effort for Service Providers which started with LDP and IGP
   route leaking to quickly set-up the fist inter-area LSPs.

   Service providers may also setup these inter-area LSPs by using
   inter-area RSVP-TE [ID-RSVP-TE]. This is a relevant solution when
   RSVP-TE is already used for setting up intra-area LSPs, and inter-
   area traffic engineering features are required. In return this is not
   a desired solution when LDP is already used for setting up intra-area
   LSPs, and inter-area traffic engineering features are not required.

   To avoid the above drawbacks, there is a need for an LDP based
   solution which allows setting up contiguous inter-area LSPs while
   avoiding leaking of specific PE loopback addresses across area
   boundaries, and hence keeping all the benefits of IGP hierarchy.

   In that context, this document defines a new LDP Label Mapping
   Procedure so as to support the setup of contiguous inter-area LSPs
   while maintaining IP prefix aggregation on the ABRs. This procedure
   is similar to the one defined in [LDP] but performs a longest match
   when searching the FEC element in the RIB.

5. Label Mapping Procedure

   This document defines a new label mapping procedure for [LDP]. It is
   applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 prefix FEC elements (addresses families 1
   and 2 as per [ASSIGNED_AF]). It MUST be possible to activate /
   deactivate this procedure by configuration and it SHOULD be
   deactivated by default. It MAY be possible to activate it on a per
   prefix basis.

   With this new longest match label mapping procedure, a LSR receiving
   a Label Mapping message from a neighbor LSR for a Prefix Address FEC
   Element (FEC1) SHOULD use the label for MPLS forwarding if its
   routing table contains an entry that matches the FEC Element and the
   advertising LSR is a next hop to reach the FEC. If so, it SHOULD
   advertise the received FEC Element (FEC1) and a label to its LDP
   Note that this is the specific FEC (FEC1) that LDP re-advertise to
   its peers, and not the aggregated prefix found in the IP RIB during
   the longest match search.

   By "matching FEC Element", one should understand an IP longest match.
   That is, either the LDP FEC element exactly matches an entry in the
   IP RIB or the FEC element is a subset of an IP RIB entry. There is no
   match for other cases such as the FEC element is a superset of a RIB

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                    [Page 4]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

   Note that with this longest match Label Mapping Procedure, each LSP
   established by LDP still strictly follows the shortest path(s)
   defined by the IGP.

   FECs selected by this "Longest Match" label mapping procedure are
   distributed in an ordered way. In case of LER failure, the removal of
   reachability to the FEC occurs using standard LDP procedures as
   defined in [LDP]. Similarly, the FEC will be removed in an ordered
   way through the propagation of label withdraw messages. The use of
   this (un)reachability information by application layers using the
   MPLS LSP (e.g., BGP) is outside the scope of this document.

   As per [LDP], LDP has already some interactions with the RIB. In
   particular, it needs to be aware of the following events:
     - prefix UP when a new IP prefix appears in the RIB
     - prefix DOWN when an existing prefix disappears
     - next-hop change when an existing prefix have new next hop
        following a routing change.

   With this longest match procedure, multiple FECs may be concerned by
   a single RIB prefix change. The LSR must check all the FECs which are
   a subset of this RIB prefix. So some LDP reactions following a RIB
   event are changed:
     - When a new prefix appears in the RIB, the LSR MUST check if this
        prefix is a better match for some existing FECs. E.g. the FEC
        elements and used the IP RIB entry
        192.0.0/16 and a new more specific IP RIB entry 192.0.2/24
        appears. This may result in changing the LSR used as next hop
        and hence the NHLFE for this FEC.
     - When a prefix disappears in the RIB, the LSR MUST check all FEC
        elements which are using this RIB prefix as best match. For each
        FEC, if another RIB prefix is found as best match, LDP MUST use
        it. This may result in changing the LSR used as next hop and
        hence the NHLFE for this FEC. Otherwise, the LSR MUST remove the
        FEC binding and send a label withdraw message.
     - When the next-hop of a RIB prefix change, the LSR must change
        the NHLFE of all the FEC elements using this prefix.

6. Application examples

6.1. Inter-area LSPs

   Consider the following example of an autonomous system with one
   backbone area and two edge areas:

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                    [Page 5]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

                            Area "B"

                    Level 2 / Backbone area

        Area "A" |                          |  Area "C"
                 |                          |
        Level 1  |                          |  Level 1 / area
                 |        P1                |
      +----------+                          +-------------+
      |          |                 P2       |         PE1 |
      |          |                          |             |
      |PE4      ABR2                       ABR1       PE2 |
      |          |        P3                |             |
      |          |                          |         PE3 |
      +----------+                          +-------------+
                 |                          |

     Figure 1: An IGP domain with two areas attached to the Backbone

   Note that this applies equally to IS-IS and OSPF. An ABR refers here
   either to an OSPF ABR or to an IS-IS L1/L2 node.

   All routers are MPLS enabled and MPLS connectivity (i.e. an LSP) is
   required between all PE routers.

   In the "egress" area "C", the records available are:
   IGP RIB                          LDP FEC elements:                                    

   The area border router ABR1 advertises in the backbone area:
     - the aggregated IP prefix 192.0.2/24 in the IGP
     - all the specific IP FEC elements (/32) in LDP

   In the "backbone" area "B", the records available are:
   IGP RIB                          LDP FEC elements:

   The area border router ABR2 advertises in the area "A":
     - an aggregated IP prefix 192.0/16 in the IGP
     - all the individual IP FEC elements (/32) in LDP

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                    [Page 6]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

   In the "ingress" area "A", the records available are:
   IGP RIB                          LDP FEC elements:

   In this situation, one LSP is established between the ingress PE4 and
   every egress PE of area C while maintaining IP prefix aggregation on
   the ASBRs.

6.2. Use of static routes

   Consider the following example where a LER is dual-connected to two

                    |         |
                   LER        |
                    |         |

                 Figure 2: LER dual-connected to two LSRs.

   In some situations, especially on the edge of the network, it is
   valid to use static IP routes between the LER and the two LSRs. If
   necessary, the BFD protocol can be used to quickly detect loss of

   The LDP specification defined in [LDP] would require on the ingress
   LER the configuration and the maintenance of one IP route per egress
   LER and per outgoing interface.

   The longest match Label Mapping Procedure described in this document
   only requires one IP route per outgoing interface.

7. Caveats for deployment

7.1. Deployment considerations

   LSRs compliant with this document are backward compatible with LSRs
   that comply with [LDP].

   For the successful establishment of end-to-end MPLS LSPs whose FEC
   are aggregated in the RIB, this specification must be implemented on
   all LSRs in all areas where IP aggregation is used. If an LSR on the
   path does not support this procedure, then the LSP initiated on the
   egress LSR stops at this non compliant LSR. There are no other
   adverse effects.

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                    [Page 7]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

   A service provider currently leaking specific LER's loopback
   addresses in the IGP and now considering performing IP aggregation on
   ABR should be aware that this may result in suboptimal routing as
   discussed in [RFC 2966].

   This extension does not necessarily require an AS wide deployment but
   can be used on a per area basis. For example, if all specific IP
   prefixes are leaked in the IGP backbone area and only stub areas use
   IP aggregation, LSRs in the backbone area don't need to be compliant
   with this document.

7.2. Impact on routing convergence time

   IGP convergence is based on two factors: the SPF calculation and
   FIB/LFIB update time.  The SPF calculation scales O(N*Log(N)) where N
   is the number of Nodes. The FIB/LFIB update scales O(P) where P is
   the number of modified prefixes. Currently, with most routers
   implementations, the FIB/LFIB update is the dominant component [1].
   The solution documented in this draft reduces the link state database
   size and the number of FIB entries. However, it does not decrease the
   number of LFIB entries.

   In case of failure of the egress LER node, given that the IGP
   aggregates IP route on ABRs, the routing convergence behavior is
   changed compared to [LDP]. As the IGP does not carry specifics
   prefixes outside of the egress area, the IGP will not propagate the
   notification of node failure outside of the area. So application
   layers using the LSP may, as a local decision, use the availability
   of the MPLS LSP -as advertised by LDP- to achieve LER egress fault
   notification in addition to application layer fault detection
   mechanisms. For some applications (e.g. BGP) this is expected to be
   faster. LDP will withdraw the FEC(s) of the egress LER in an ordered
   way through the end-to-end propagation of the LDP withdraw message.
   Compared to the IGP, this LDP failure notification may be faster or
   slower depending on the implementations, the IGP timers used and the
   network topology (network diameter). In typical topologies, the
   convergence time is expected to be similar or even faster since there
   is no need to wait for three consecutive SPF/PRC timers.

   For all others failures (links, Ps and ABRs nodes), the failure
   notification and the convergence are unchanged.

8. Security Considerations

   The longest match Label Mapping procedure described in this document
   does not introduce any change as far as the Security Consideration
   section of [LDP] is concerned.

9. IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                    [Page 8]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

10.     References

10.1.   Normative References

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

     [ASSIGNED_AF]     http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-

10.2.   Informative References

     [L3-VPN]  Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y. ," BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
          Networks (VPNs) ", RFC 4374, February 2006

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

     [OSPFv2]  Moy, J.,"OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998

     [IS-IS]   Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and
          Dual Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990

     [VPLS-BGP] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Virtual Private LAN Service
          (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling", RFC 4761,
          January 2007.

     [VPLS-LDP] Lasserre, M., Kompella, V., "Virtual Private LAN Service
          (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", RFC
          4762, January 2007.

     [RFC 2966] Li, T., Przygienda, T., Smit, H., "Domain-wide Prefix
          Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 2966, October 2000.

     [ID-RSVP-TE] Farrel, Ayyangar, Vasseur, " Inter domain MPLS and
          GMPLS Traffic Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions", draft-ietf-
          ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te, work in progress.

     [1] Francois, P., Filsfils, C., and Evans, J. 2005. "Achieving sub-
          second IGP convergence in large IP networks". ACM SIGCOMM
          Computer Communications Review, July 2005

11.     Acknowledgments

   Authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Stefano Previdi, Vach
   Kompella, Bob Thomas, Clarence Filsfils, Kireeti Kompella, Luca
   Martini, Sina Mirtorabi, Dave McDysan, Benoit Fondeviole, Gilles
   Bourdon and Christian Jacquenet for the useful discussions on this
   subject, their review and comments.

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                    [Page 9]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

12.     Authors' Addresses

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

   EMail: bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com

   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex

   EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com

   Ina Minei
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   Email: ina@juniper.net

Intellectual Property Considerations

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                   [Page 10]

Internet Draft     LDP extensions for Inter-Area LSP      February 2008

   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Decraene                    Expires May 2008                   [Page 11]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/