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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4206

Network Working Group                             Kireeti Kompella
Internet Draft                                    Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: January 2001                        Yakov Rekhter
                                                     Cisco Systems


                       LSP Hierarchy with MPLS TE

                  draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt


1. Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.


2. Abstract

   To improve scalability of MPLS TE it may be useful to aggregate TE
   LSPs.  The aggregation is accomplished by (a) an LSR creating a TE
   LSP, (b) the LSR forming a forwarding adjacency out of that LSP
   (advertising this LSP as a link into ISIS/OSPF), (c) allowing other
   LSRs to use forwarding adjacencies for their path computation, and
   (d) nesting of LSPs originated by other LSRs into that LSP (by using
   the label stack construct).

   This document describes the mechanisms to accomplish this.







draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 1]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


3. Overview

   An LSR uses MPLS TE procedures to create and maintain an LSP.  The
   LSR then may (under its local configuration control) announce this
   LSP as a link into ISIS/OSPF.  When this link is advertised into the
   same instance of ISIS/OSPF as the one that determines the route taken
   by the LSP, we call such a link a "forwarding adjacency".  We refer
   to the LSP as the "forwarding adjacency LSP", or just FA-LSP.  Note
   that since the advertised entity is a link in ISIS/OSPF, both the end
   point LSRs of the FA-LSP must belong to the same ISIS level/OSPF
   area.

   In general, creation/termination of a forwarding adjacency and its
   FA-LSP could be driven either by mechanisms outside of MPLS (e.g.,
   via configuration control on the LSR at the head-end of the
   adjacency), or by mechanisms within MPLS (e.g., as a result of the
   LSR at the head-end of the adjacency receiving LSP setup requests
   originated by some other LSRs).

   ISIS/OSPF floods the information about forwarding adjacencies just as
   it floods the information about any other links.  As a result of this
   flooding, an LSR has in its link state database the information about
   not just conventional links, but forwarding adjacencies as well.

   An LSR, when performing path computation, uses not just conventional
   links, but forwarding adjacencies as well.  Once a path is computed,
   the LSR uses RSVP/CR-LDP for establishing label binding along the
   path.

   In this document we define mechanisms/procedures to accomplish the
   above.  These mechanisms/procedures cover both the routing
   (ISIS/OSPF) and the signalling (RSVP/CR-LDP) aspects.


4. Routing aspects

   In this section we describe procedures for constructing forwarding
   adjacencies out of LSPs, and handling of forwarding adjacencies by
   ISIS/OSPF.  Specifically, this section describes how to construct the
   information needed to advertise LSPs as links into ISIS/OSPF
   Procedures for creation/termination of such LSPs are defined in
   Section 5.

   Forwarding adjacencies may be represented as either unnumbered or
   numbered links.  In the former case the link IP addresses of
   forwarding adjacencies are the router IDs on the two ends of the
   link.  In the latter case the link IP addresses of forwarding
   adjacencies could be addresses assigned to some "virtual" interfaces



draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 2]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


   on a router (it is assumed that a router may have multiple virtual
   interfaces).

   If there are multiple LSPs that all originate on one LSR and all
   terminate on another LSR, then at one end of the spectrum all these
   LSPs could be merged (under control of the head-end LSR) into a
   single forwarding adjacency using the concept of Link Bundling (see
   [BUNDLE], while at the other end of the spectrum each such LSP could
   be advertised as its own adjacency.

   When a forwarding adjacency is created under administrative control
   (static provisioning), the attributes of this adjacency have to be
   provided via configuration.  Specifically, the following attributes
   MAY be configured for the FA-LSP: the head-end address (if left
   unconfigured, this must default to the head-end LSR's Router ID); the
   tail-end address (this MUST be configured, and must be either the
   Router ID of the tail-end LSR of the forwarding adjacency, or an
   interface address on the tail-end LSR); bandwidth and resource colors
   constraints.  The path taken by the FA-LSP may be either computed by
   the by the LSR at the head-end of the FA-LSP, or specified by
   explicit configuration; this choice is determined by configuration.

   When a forwarding adjacency is created dynamically, its attributes
   are inherited from the LSP which induced its creation.  Note that the
   bandwidth of the FA-LSP must be at least as big as the LSP that
   induced it, but may be bigger if only discrete bandwidths are
   available for the FA-LSP.  In general, for dynamically provisioned
   forwarding adjacencies, a policy-based mechanism may be needed to
   associate attributes to forwarding adjacencies.

   This document restricts the holding priority of the FA-LSP to 0,
   regardless of how the FA-LSP is created.


4.1. Traffic Engineering parameters

   In this section, the Traffic Engineering parameters (see [OSPF-TE]
   and [ISIS-TE]) for forwarding adjacencies are described.


4.1.1. Link type (OSPF only)

   The Link Type of a forwarding adjacency is set to "point-to-point".








draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 3]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


4.1.2. Link ID (OSPF only)

   The Link ID is set to the Router ID of the tail end of FA-LSP.


4.1.3. Local and remote interface IP address

   The local interface IP address (OSPF) or IPv4 interface address
   (ISIS) is set to the head-end address of the FA-LSP.  The remote
   interface IP address (OSPF) or IPv4 neighbor address (ISIS) is set to
   the tail end address of the FA-LSP.


4.1.4. Traffic Engineering metric

   By default the TE metric on the forwarding adjacency is set to max(1,
   (the TE metric of the FA-LSP path) - 1) so that it attracts traffic
   in preference to setting up a new LSP.  This may be overridden via
   configuration at the head-end of the forwarding adjacency.


4.1.5. Maximum bandwidth

   By default the maximum reservable bandwidth and the initial maximum
   LSP bandwidth for all priorities of the forwarding adjacency is set
   to the bandwidth of the FA-LSP.  These may be overridden via
   configuration at the head-end of the forwarding adjacency (note that
   the maximum LSP bandwidth at any one priority should be no more than
   the bandwidth of the FA-LSP).


4.1.6. Unreserved bandwidth

   By default, the initial unreserved bandwidth for all priority levels
   of the forwarding adjacency is set to the bandwidth of the FA-LSP.


4.1.7. Resource class/color

   By default, a forwarding adjacency does not have resource colors
   (administrative groups).  This may be overridden by configuration at
   the head-end of the forwarding adjacency.









draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 4]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


4.1.8. Link Mux Capability

   The Link Mux Capability (see Section 4.3.1) associated with the
   forwarding adjacency is the Link Mux Capability of the last link in
   the FA-LSP.


4.1.9. Path information

   A forwarding adjacency advertisement could contain the information
   about the path taken by the FA-LSP associated with that forwarding
   adjacency.  This information may be used for path calculation by
   other LSRs.  This information is carried in the Path sub-TLV, which
   is a sub-TLV of the Link Mux Capability TLV.  In both IS-IS and OSPF,
   this sub-TLV is encoded as follows: the type is 1, the length is 4
   times the path length, and the value is a list of 4 octet IPv4
   addresses identifying the links in the order that they form the path
   of the forwarding adjacency.

   It is possible that the underlying Path sub-TLV might change over
   time, via configuration updates, or dynamic route modifications.  If
   forwarding adjacencies are bundled (via link bundling), and if the
   resulting bundled link carries a Path sub-TLV, it MUST be the case
   that the underlying path followed by each of the FA-LSPs that form
   the component links is the same.


4.2. Other considerations

   It is expected that forwarding adjacencies will not be used for
   establishing ISIS/OSPF peering relation between the routers at the
   ends of the adjacency.

   It may be desired in some cases that forwarding adjacencies only be
   used in Traffic Engineering path computations.  In IS-IS, this can be
   accomplished by setting the default metric of the extended IS
   reachability TLV for the FA to the maximum link metric (2^24 - 1).
   In OSPF, this can be accomplished by not advertising the link as a
   regular LSA, but only as a TE opaque LSA.

   Since LSPs are in general unidirectional, it follows that forwarding
   adjacencies are (by definition) unidirectional links.  Therefore, the
   TE path computation procedures should not perform two-way
   connectivity check on the links used by the procedures.







draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 5]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


4.3. Controlling FA-LSPs boundaries

   To facilitate controlling the boundaries of FA-LSPs this document
   introduces two new mechanisms: Link Mux Capability, and "LSP region"
   (or just "region").


4.3.1. Link Mux Capability TLV

   Associated with each link (including forwarding adjacencies) is a new
   attribute - Link Mux Capability.  In this section we define the Link
   Mux Capability TLV and describe the various values it can take.

   A network may have links with different multiplexing/demultiplexing
   capabilities.  For example, a node may not be able to demultiplex
   individual packets on a given link, but it may be able to multiplex/
   demultiplex channels within a SONET payload.  The Link Mux Capability
   TLV identifies the associated multiplexing/demultiplexing capability
   of a link.  At present, the Link Mux Capability TLV has one defined
   sub-TLV, the Path TLV, described in section 4.1.9.

   In ISIS the Link Mux Capability is a sub-TLV of the extended IS
   reachability TLV (type 22) as defined in [ISIS-TE].  The type of the
   Link Mux Capability TLV is 19.  The length of the TLV is one octet
   plus the length of sub-TLVs of the Link Mux Capability TLV. The value
   field of the TLV contains the Link Mux Capability, encoded as
   follows:

       Value         Link Mux Capabilities
           1         Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)
           2         Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
           3         Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
           4         Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
          50         Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
         100         Lambda-Switch Capable   (LSC)
         150         Fiber-Switch Capable    (FSC)


   In the OSPF Traffic Engineering LSA, the Link Mux Capability TLV is a
   sub-TLV of the Link TLV as defined in [OSPF-TE], with type 11 and
   length of four octets plus the length of the sub-TLVs of the Link Mux
   Capability TLV.  The value field is taken from the above list.  The
   format of the Link Mux Capability sub-TLV is as shown below:








draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 6]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              11               |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Link Mux Cap. |                  Reserved                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                    sub-TLVs  (if any)                         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   If a link is of type PSC-1 through PSC-4, that means that the node
   receiving data over this link can demultiplex (switch) the received
   data on a packet-by-packet basis.  The various levels of PSC
   establish a hierarchy of LSPs tunneled within LSPs.

   If a link is of type TDM, that means that the node receiving data
   over this link can multiplex or demultiplex channels within a
   SONET/SDH payload.

   If a link is of type LSC, that means that the node receiving data
   over this link can recognize and switch individual lambdas within the
   link (fiber).

   If a link is of type FSC, that means that the node receiving data
   over this link (fiber) can switch the entire contents to another link
   (fiber) (without distinguishing lambdas, channels or packets).

   Note that the node that is advertising a given link (i.e., the node
   that is transmitting) needs to know the multiplex/demultiplex
   capacbilities at the other end of the link (i.e., the receiving end
   of the link). This is accomplished through coordinated configuration
   between the nodes, at each end of the link.


4.3.2. LSP regions

   The information carried in the Link Mux Capabilities is used to
   construct LSP regions, and determine regions' boundaries as follows.

   Define an ordering among link mux capabilities as follows: PSC-1 <
   PSC-2 < PSC-3 < PSC-4 < TDM < LSC < FSC.  Given two links link-1 and
   link-2 with link types lmc-1 and lmc-2 respectively, say that link-1
   < link-2 iff lmc-1 < lmc-2 or lmc-1 == lmc-2 == TDM, and link-1's
   bandwidth is less than link-2's switching granularity.

   Furthermore, say that link-1 is compatible with link-2 iff:
        lmc-1 equals lmc-2 and neither is of type TDM; OR



draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 7]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


        lmc-1 equals lmc-2 equals TDM and both links have the same speed;
   OR
        lmc-1 and lmc-2 are both packet-switch capable.

   Suppose an LSP's path is as follows: node-0, link-1, node-1, link-2,
   node-2, ..., link-n, node-n.  If link-i < link-(i+1), we say that the
   LSP has crossed a region boundary at node-i; with respect to that LSP
   path, the LSR at node-i is an edge LSR.  The 'other edge' of the
   region with respect to the LSP path is node-k, where k is the
   smallest number greater than i+1 such that link-k is compatible with
   link-i.

   Path computation may take into account region boundaries when
   computing a path for an LSP.  For example, path computation may
   restrict the path taken by an LSP to only the links whose Link Mux
   Capability is PSC-1.


5. Signalling aspects

   In this section we describe procedures that an LSR at the head-end of
   a forwarding adjacency uses for handling LSP setup originated by
   other LSR.

   As we mentioned before, establishment/termination of FA-LSPs may
   triggered either by mechanisms outside of MPLS (e.g., via
   administrative control), or by mechanisms within MPLS (e.g., as a
   result of the LSR at the edge of an aggregate LSP receiving LSP setup
   requests originated by some other LSRs beyond LSP aggregate and its
   edges).  Procedures described in Section 5.1 applied to both cases.
   Procedures described in Section 5.2 apply only to the latter case.


5.1. Common procedures

   For the purpose of processing the ERO in a Path/Request message of an
   LSP that is to be tunneled over a forwarding adjacency, an LSR at the
   head-end of the FA-LSP views the LSR at the tail of that FA-LSP as
   adjacent (one IP hop away).

   If the LSR at the tail of the FA-LSP is capable of packet switching,
   the Path/Request message for the tunneled LSP can itself be tunneled
   over the FA-LSP.  If the encapsulation on the carrier LSP can
   distinguish IP from MPLS, the Path/Request message is sent as a plain
   IP packet.  Otherwise, the Path/Request message is sent with a label
   of 0, meaning "pop the label and treat as IP".

   If the LSR at the tail of the FA-LSP is not capable of packet



draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 8]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


   switching, the Path message is unicast over the control plane to the
   tail of the carrier LSP, without the Router Alert option.  The whole
   Path message, including IP header, MUST also be encapsulated in
   another IP header whose destination IP address matches the tail's IP
   address.

   The Resv/Mapping message back to the head-end of the FA-LSP (PHOP)
   cannot be sent over the same FA-LSP as it is unidirectional.  The
   Resv/Mapping message can either take any LSP whose end-point is the
   head-end of the FA- LSP, or be unicast over the control plane to the
   head-end.  RSVP Resv Messages SHOULD be encapsulated in another IP
   header whose destination IP address matches the head-end's IP
   address.

   When an LSP is tunneled through an FA-LSP, the LSR at the head-end of
   the FA-LSP subtracts the LSP's bandwidth from the unreserved
   bandwidth of the forwarding adjacency.  In the presence of link
   bundling (when link bundling is applied to forwarding adjacencies),
   when an LSP is tunneled through an FA-LSP, the LSR at the head-end of
   the FA-LSP also need to adjust Max LSP bandwidth of the forwarding
   adjacency.


5.2. Specific procedures

   When an LSR receives a Path/Request message, the LSR determines
   whether it is at the edge of a region with respect to the ERO carried
   in the message.  The LSR does this by looking up the link types of
   the previous hop and the next hop in its IGP database, and comparing
   them using the relation defined in Section 4.3.2.  If the LSR is not
   at the edge of a region, the procedures in this section do not apply.

   If the LSR is at the edge of a region, it must then determine the
   other edge of the region with respect to the ERO, again using the IGP
   database.  The LSR then extracts the strict hop subsequence from
   itself to the other end of the region.

   The LSR then compares the strict hop subsequence with all existing
   FA-LSPs originated by the LSR; if a match is found, that FA-LSP has
   enough unreserved bandwidth for the LSP being signaled, and the L3PID
   of the FA-LSP is compatible with the L3PID of the LSP being signaled,
   the LSR uses that FA-LSP as follows.  The Path/Request message for
   the original LSP is sent to the egress of the FA-LSP, not to the next
   hop along the FA- LSP's path.  The PHOP in the message is the address
   of the LSR at the head-end of the FA-LSP.  Before sending the
   Path/Request message, the ERO in that message is adjusted by removing
   the subsequence of the ERO that lies in the FA-LSP, and replacing it
   with just the end point of the FA-LSP.



draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                            [Page 9]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


   Otherwise (if no existing FA-LSP is found), the LSR sets up a new FA-
   LSP.  That is, it initiates  a new LSP setup just for the FA-LSP.

   After the LSR establishes the new FA-LSP, the LSR announces this LSP
   into IS-IS/OSPF as a forwarding adjacency.

   The unreserved bandwidth of the forwarding adjacency is computed by
   subtracting the bandwidth of sessions pending the establishment of
   the FA-LSP associated from the bandwidth of the FA-LSP.

   An FA-LSP could be torn down by the LSR at the head-end of the FA-LSP
   as a matter of policy local to the LSR.  It is expected that the FA-
   LSP would be torn down once there are no more LSPs carried by the FA-
   LSP.  When the FA-LSP is torn down, the forwarding adjacency
   associated with the FA-LSP is no longer advertised into IS-IS/OSPF.


6. Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this document.


7. Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Alan Hannan, whose early discussions with Yakov
   Rekhter contributed greatly to the notion of Forwarding Adjacencies.
   We would also like to thank George Swallow, Quaizar Vohra and Ayan
   Banerjee.


8. References

   [BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in
   MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt (work in
   progress)

   [ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
   Engineering", draft-ietf-isis-traffic-01.txt (work in progress)

   [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
   OSPF", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-01.txt (work in progress)










draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                           [Page 10]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt         July 2000


9. Author Information


Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
385 Ravendale Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043
e-mail: kireeti@juniper.net

Yakov Rekhter
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
e-mail: yakov@cisco.com





































draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt                           [Page 11]


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