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

Versions: (draft-raza-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 7473

MPLS Working Group                                          Kamran Raza
Internet Draft                                             Sami Boutros
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: February 17, 2013                                Cisco Systems

                                                        August 18, 2012


               Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications

                draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ip-pw-capability-02.txt




Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   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



Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Abstract

   Currently, no LDP capability is exchanged for LDP applications like
   IP label switching and L2VPN P2P PW signaling. When an LDP session
   comes up, an LDP speaker may unnecessarily advertise its local state
   for such LDP applications even when the peer session may be
   established for some other applications like ICCP. This document
   proposes a solution by which an LDP speaker announces its disinterest
   in such non-negotiated application. This, in turn, disables the
   advertisement of corresponding application state, which would have
   otherwise be advertised by default, over the established LDP session.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction                                                     3
  2. Conventions used in this document                                4
  3. Non-negotiated LDP applications                                  4
  4. Controlling State Exchange for Non-negotiated LDP Applications   5
     4.1. Application Control Capability                              5
  5. Capabilities Procedures                                          7
     5.1. Application Control Capability in an Initialization message 7
     5.2. Application Control capability in a Capability message      8
  6. Operational Examples                                             8
     6.1. Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW application on an ICCP session 8
     6.2. Disabling IPoMPLS application on a L2VPN/PW T-LDP session   9
     6.3. Disabling IPoMPLS appl. dynamically on an IP/PW session     9
     6.4. Disabling unwanted state advert. by an IP dual-stack LSR   10
  7. Security Considerations                                         10
  8. IANA Considerations                                             10
  9. Conclusions                                                     11
  10. References                                                     11
     10.1. Normative References                                      11
     10.2. Informative References                                    11
  11. Acknowledgments                                                12





Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


1. Introduction

  LDP Capabilities [RFC5561] introduced a mechanism to negotiate LDP
  capabilities for a given feature amongst peer LSRs. The capability
  mechanism insures that no unnecessary state is exchanged between peer
  LSRs unless corresponding feature capability is successfully
  negotiated between peers.

  While new LDP features and applications, such as Typed Wildcard FEC
  [RFC5918], Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol [ICCP], mLDP
  [RFC6388], and P2MP PW [P2MP-PW] make use of LDP capabilities
  framework for their feature negotiation, the earlier LDP features and
  applications like IP label switching and L2VPN P2P PW signaling
  [RFC4447] [RFC4762] may cause unnecessary state exchange between LDP
  peers even when the given application is not enabled on one of the
  LDP speakers participating in a given session.

  For example, when bringing up and using an LDP peer session with a
  remote PE LSR for purely ICCP signaling purposes, the LDP speaker may
  unnecessarily advertise labels for IP (unicast) prefixes to this ICCP
  related LDP peer as per its default behavior.

  Another example of unnecessary state advertisement can be cited when
  LDP is used in an IP dual-stack environment. For instance, an LSR
  that is locally enabled for both IPv4 and IPv6 label switching may
  advertise address/label bindings for both IPv4 and IPv6 address
  families towards an LDP peer that is interested in IPv4 only. In this
  case, the advertisement of IPv6 addresses and IPv4 prefix labels to
  the peer is unnecessary, as well as wasteful from LSR memory/CPU and
  network resource consumption point of view.

  To avoid this unnecessary state advertisement and exchange, currently
  an operator is typically required to configure and define some sort
  of filtering policies on the box for LDP state exchange, which
  introduces operational overhead and complexity.

  This document proposes an LDP Capabilities [RFC5561] based solution
  by which an LDP speaker may announce its disinterest (or non-
  support/disability) to its peer for IP Label Switching and/or L2VPN
  P2P PW Signaling application at the time of session establishment.
  This helps avoiding unnecessary state exchange for such feature



Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


  applications. The proposal also states the mechanics to disable or
  enable an application dynamically during the session lifetime. The
  document introduces a new LDP capability to implement this proposal.

2. Conventions used in this document

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

   The term "IP" in this document refers to both "IPv4 unicast" and
   "IPv6 unicast" address families.

   This document uses shorthand terms "IPoMPLS" to refer to IP Label
   switching application, and "P2P PW" to refer to L2VPN PW signaling
   for FEC 128 and FEC 129 P2P PWs.

3. Non-negotiated LDP applications

   For the applications that existed before LDP Capabilities [RFC5561]
   procedures were defined, an LDP speaker typically advertises relevant
   application state to its peers after session establishment without
   waiting for any capabilities exchange and negotiation. These LDP
   applications are:

   o  IPv4/IPv6 label switching ("IPoMPLS")

   o  L2VPN P2P PW signaling ("P2P PW")

   To disable unnecessary state exchange for such LDP applications, a
   new capability is being introduced in this document. This new
   capability controls the advertisement of application state and
   enables an LDP speaker to notify its LDP peer its disinterest in one
   or more of these "Non-negotiated" LDP applications at the time of
   session establishment. Upon receipt of such capability, the receiving
   LDP speaker, if supporting the capability, MUST disable the
   advertisement of any state related to the application towards the
   sender. Moreover, the sender LSR SHOULD also disable the
   advertisement of corresponding application state towards the peer.
   This new capability can also be sent later in a Capability message to
   either disable these applications, or to enable previously disabled
   applications dynamically.






Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


4. Controlling State Exchange for Non-negotiated LDP Applications

   To control advertisement of state related to non-negotiated LDP
   applications, namely IPoMPLS and P2P PW signaling, a new capability
   TLVs is defined as follows.

4.1. Application Control Capability

   The "Application Control Capability" is a new Capability Parameter
   TLV defined in accordance with section 3 of LDP Capabilities
   specification [RFC5561]. The format of this new TLV is as follows:

    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| App Control Cap.  (IANA)  |           Length              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |S|  Reserved   |                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~               Application Control Element(s)                  ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Figure 1: Format of an "Application Control Capability" TLV

   The value of the U-bit for the 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. Whereas, The value of F-bit MUST
   be set to 0. Once advertised, this capability cannot be withdrawn and
   hence the S-bit MUST be set to 1 both in Initialization message and
   Capability message.

   The capability data associated with this TLV is one or more
   Application Control Elements, where each element defines
   enabling/disabling of state advertisement for a given application.
   The format of an Application Control Element is defined as follows:

    0                   1
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  App  |D|Rsvd1|    Rsvd2      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

          Figure 2: Format of an "Application Control Element"




Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


  Where:

  App: Defines the (non-negotiated) application type. The value of this
    field is defined as:
       0: IPv4 Label switching
       1: IPv6 Label switching
       2: P2P PW FEC128 signaling
       3: P2P PW FEC129 signaling
    4-15: Reserved.

   D bit: Controls the advertisement of state for the application as
    follows
       1: Disable state advertisement
       0: Enable state advertisement

   Rsvd1, Rsvd2: Reserved for future use. MBZ on transmit and ignored on
    receipt.

   The "Length" field of "Application Control Capability" TLV depends on
   the number of Application Control Elements present in the TLV. For
   example, if there are two elements present, then the Length field is
   set to 5 octets. A receiver of this capability TLV can deduce number
   of application control elements present in the TLV by using Length
   field.

   For now onward, this document uses term "element" to refer to an
   application control element.

   As described earlier, "Application Control Capability" TLV MAY be
   included by an LDP speaker in an Initialization message to signal to
   its peer LSR that state exchange for one or more application(s) need
   to be disabled on a given peer session. This TLV can also be sent
   later in a Capability message to selectively enable or disable these
   applications. An "Application Control Capability" TLV MUST contain
   elements with distinct application types and the TLV MUST NOT contain
   the same application type more than once.

   To control more than one application, a sender LSR can either send a
   single capability TLV in a message with multiple elements present, or
   can send separate messages with capability TLV specifying one or more
   elements. A receiving LSR, however, MUST treat each incoming message
   with capability TLV as an incremental update to the existing control.

   To understand capability updates from an example, let us consider 2
   LSR peers, R1 (sender) and R2 (receiver), both of which support all
   the non-negotiated applications listed earlier. By default, these LSR
   will advertise state for these applications to their peer as soon as


Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


   an LDP session is established. Now assume that R2 receives an
   Application Control capability in the Initialization message with
   "IPv6 Label switching" and "P2P PW FEC129" applications disabled.
   This updates R2's outbound policy towards R1 to advertise state
   related to only "IPv4 Label switching" and "P2P PW FEC 128"
   applications.  Now, R2 receives a capability update from R1 via a
   Capability message with "IPv6 Label switching" enabled and "P2P PW
   FEC128" disabled. This updates R2's outbound policy towards R1 to
   advertise both IPv4 and IPv6 Label switching state, and disable both
   P2P PW FEC128 and FEC 129 signaling. Finally, R2 receives another
   update from R1 via Capability message that specifies to disable all 4
   non-negotiated applications, resulting R2 outbound policy towards R1
   to block/disable state for all these applications, and only advertise
   state for any other application, if present.

5. Capabilities Procedures

   The "Application Control" capability conveys the desire of a sending
   LSR to disable receipt of unwanted/unnecessary state from a peer.
   Hence, this capability is unilateral and uni-directional in nature,
   and a receiving LSR is not required to send a similar capability TLV
   in an Initialization or Capability message towards the sender. This
   unilateral behavior also conforms to the procedures defined in the
   Section 6 of LDP Capabilities [RFC5561].

   After this capability is successfully negotiated (i.e. sent by a
   sender and received/understood by the receiver), then both
   participating LSRs MUST NOT exchange any state related to the
   disabled applications until and unless these applications are
   explicitly enabled again via a capability update.

   If a receiving LDP speaker does not understand the Application
   Control capability TLV, then it MUST respond to the sender with
   "Unsupported TLV" Notification as described in LDP Capabilities
   [RFC5561]. Upon receipt of such Notification, the sender MAY still
   continue to block/disable its outbound state advertisement towards
   the peer for the requested disabled applications. If a receiving LDP
   speaker does not understand or does not support an application
   specified in an application control element, it SHOULD silently
   ignore/skip such an element and continue processing rest of the TLV.

5.1. Application Control Capability in an Initialization message

   LDP Capabilities [RFC5561] dictate that the S-bit of capability
   parameter in an Initialization message MUST be set to 1 and SHOULD be
   ignored on receipt.



Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


   An LDP speaker determines (e.g. via some local configuration or
   default policy) if they need to disable IPoMPLS and/or P2P PW
   applications with a peer LSR. If there is a need to disable, then the
   "Application Control Capability" TLV needs to be included in the
   Initialization message with respective application control elements
   included with their D bit set to 1.

   An LDP speaker that supports the "Application Control" capability
   MUST interpret the capability TLV in a received Initialization
   message such that it disables the advertisement of the application
   state towards the sender LSR for IPoMPLS and/or P2P PW applications
   if their application control element's D bit is set to 1.

5.2. Application Control capability in a Capability message

   If the LDP peer supports "Dynamic Announcement Capability" [RFC5561],
   then an LDP speaker may send Application Control capability in a
   Capability message towards the peer. Once advertised, these
   capabilities cannot be withdrawn and hence the S-bit of the TLV MUST
   be set to 1 when sent in a Capability message.

   An LDP speaker may decide to send this TLV towards an LDP peer if any
   of its IPoMPLS and/or P2P PW signaling applications get disabled, or
   if previously disabled application gets enabled again. In this case,
   LDP speaker constructs the TLV with appropriate application control
   elements and sends the corresponding capability TLV in a Capability
   message. Furthermore, the LDP speaker also withdraws/advertises
   application(s) related state (such as address/label bindings) from/to
   its peer according to the capability update.

   Upon receipt of this TLV in a Capability message, the receiving LDP
   speaker reacts in the same manner as it reacts upon the receipt of
   this TLV in an Initialization message. Additionally, the receiving
   LDP speaker withdraws/advertises application state from/to the
   sending peer according to the capability update.

6. Operational Examples

6.1. Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW applications on an ICCP session

   Consider two PE routers, LSR1 and LSR2, which understand/support
   "Application Control" capability TLV, and have an established LDP
   session due to ICCP application in order to exchange ICCP state
   related to dual-homed devices connected to these LSRs. Let us assume
   that LSR1 is provisioned not to exchange any state for IPoMPLS
   (IPv4/IPv6) and P2P PW (FEC128/129) application with LSR2.



Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


   To indicate its disinterest in these applications, the LSR1 will
   include an "Application Control" capability TLV (with 4 application
   control elements corresponding to these 4 applications with D bit
   set to 1 for each one) in the Initialization message. Upon receipt
   of this TLV in Initialization message, the LSR2 will disable
   advertisement of IPv4/IPv6 bindings (addresses and labels), as well
   as P2P PW FEC128/129 signaling, towards LSR1 after session
   establishment.

   The LSR1 will also disable similar state advertisement for these
   applications towards LSR2 independently, irrespective of the fact
   whether or not LSR2 could disable the corresponding application
   state advertisement towards LSR1.

6.2. Disabling IPoMPLS application on a L2VPN/PW T-LDP session

   Now, consider LSR1 and LSR2 have an established T-LDP session for
   P2P PW application just to exchange label bindings for FEC 128/129.
   Since in most typical deployments, there is no need to exchange IP
   (v4/v6) address/label bindings amongst the PE LSRs, let us assume
   that LSR1 is provisioned to disable IPoMPLS (IPv4/IPv6)application
   on given PW session towards LSR2.

   To indicate its disinterest in IPoMPLS application over PW T-LDP
   session, the LSR1 will follow/apply the same procedures to disable
   IPv4 and IPv6 label switching as described in previous section.
   Similarly, LSR2 will behave accordingly by disabling state
   advertisement for IPoMPLS application towards LSR1.

6.3. Disabling IPoMPLS application dynamically on an established IP/PW
   session

   Assume that LSRs from previous sections were initially provisioned to
   exchange both IPoMPLS and P2P PW state over the session between them,
   and also support "Dynamic Announcement" Capability [RFC5561]. Now,
   assume that LSR1 is dynamically provisioned to disable IPoMPLS
   (IPv4/IPv6) over T-LDP session with LSR2. In this case, LSR1 will
   first disable its future outbound application state towards LSR2, and
   also withdraw all its previously advertised IPoMPLS state (labels and
   addresses) by sending a single Prefix FEC Typed Wildcard Label
   Withdraw message [RFC5918], and an Address Withdraw message
   respectively towards LSR2. LSR1 will also send Application Control
   capability TLV in a Capability message towards LSR2 with application
   control elements defined for IPv4 and IPv6 label switching with D bit
   set to 1. Upon receipt of this TLV, LSR2 will also disable IPoMPLS
   applications towards LSR1 and withdraw all previous IP label/address
   state using the same mechanics as described earlier for LSR1. This


Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


   dynamic disability of IPoMPLS application will not impact L2VPN P2P
   PW application on the given session, and both LSRs should continue to
   exchange PW Signaling application related state.

6.4. Disabling unwanted state advertisement by an IP dual-stack LSR

   In IP dual-stack scenarios, an LSR2 may advertise unnecessary state
   (label/address bindings) towards peer LSR1 corresponding to IPv6
   label switching application once a session is established mainly for
   exchanging state for IPv4. The similar scenario also applies when
   advertising IPv4 label switching state on a session meant for IPv6.
   The Application Control capability and its procedures defined in this
   document can help to avoid such unnecessary state advertisement.

   Consider IP dual-stack environment where LSR2 is enabled for IPoMPLS
   application for both IPv4 and IPv6, but LSR1 is enabled for (or
   interested in) only IPv4oMPLS. To avoid receiving unwanted state
   advertisement for IPv6oMPLS application from LSR2, LSR1 can send
   "Application Control" capability with element for IPv6 label
   switching with D bit set to 1 in the Initialization message towards
   LSR2 at the time of session establishment. Upon receipt of this
   capability, LSR2 will disable all IPv6 label and address binding
   advertisement towards LSR1. If IPv6oMPLS is later enabled on LSR1,
   LSR1 can update the capability by sending Application Control
   capability in Capability message towards LSR2 to enable IPv6oMPLS
   application dynamically.

   [LDPv6] specification section 7 also suggests an alternate way to
   avoid the unnecessary state advertisement in the above scenario.

7. Security Considerations

  The proposal introduced in this document does not introduce any new
  security considerations beyond that already apply to the base LDP
  specification [RFC5036] and [RFC5920].

8. IANA Considerations

  The document defines following a new capability parameter TLV and
  requests following LDP TLV code point assignment by IANA from LDP
  "TLV Type Name Space" registry:

   o  "Application Control Capability" TLV (requested codepoint: 0x50C)





Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


9. Conclusions

   The document proposed a solution using LDP Capabilities [RFC5561]
   mechanics to disable unnecessary state exchange, if/as desired,
   between LDP peers for currently non-negotiated IP/PW LDP
   applications.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC5561] B. Thomas, K. Raza, S. Aggarwal, R. Aggarwal, and JL. Le
             Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009.

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

10.2. Informative References

   [RFC5918] R. Asati, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
             Protocol Typed Wildcard FEC", RFC 5918, August 2010.

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

   [RFC4762] M. Lasserre, and V. Kompella,  "Virtual Private LAN Service
             (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
             RFC 4762, January 2007.

   [P2MP-PW] Martini, L. et. al, "Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to-
             Multipoint Pseudowires using LDP", draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-
             04.txt, Work in Progress, October 2011.

   [ICCP]    L. Martini, S. Salam, A. Sajassi, and S. Matsushima,
             "Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE
             Redundancy", draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09.txt, Work in Progress,
             July 2012.

   [RFC6388] I. Minei, I. Wijnand, K. Kompella, and B. Thomas, "LDP
             Extensions for P2MP and MP2MP LSPs", RFC 6388, November
             2011.




Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft Disabling IPoMPLS and P2P PW LDP Applications August 2012


   [LDPv6]   R. Asati, et al., "Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-
             mpls-ldp-ipv6-07.txt, Work in Progress, June 2012.

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

11. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Eric Rosen for his valuable input and
   comments.

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

Authors' Addresses

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


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




















Raza, et. al            Expires February 2013                 [Page 12]


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