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

Versions: (draft-atlas-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 RFC 7812

Routing Area Working Group                                 A. Atlas, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                 R. Kebler
Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Bowers
Expires: January 5, 2015                                Juniper Networks
                                                               G. Enyedi
                                                              A. Csaszar
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                                Ericsson
                                                      M. Konstantynowicz
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                                R. White
                                                                     VCE
                                                            July 4, 2014


An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees
                draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-04

Abstract

   With increasing deployment of Loop-Free Alternates (LFA) [RFC5286],
   it is clear that a complete solution for IP and LDP Fast-Reroute is
   required.  This specification provides that solution.  IP/LDP Fast-
   Reroute with Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR) is a technology that
   gives link-protection and node-protection with 100% coverage in any
   network topology that is still connected after the failure.

   MRT removes all need to engineer for coverage.  MRT is also extremely
   computationally efficient.  For any router in the network, the MRT
   computation is less than the LFA computation for a node with three or
   more neighbors.

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).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2015.



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Importance of 100% Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Partial Deployment and Backwards Compatibility  . . . . .   6
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT) and Fast-Reroute  . . . . . .  10
   6.  Unicast Forwarding with MRT Fast-Reroute  . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.1.  MRT Forwarding Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.1.1.  MRT LDP labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
         6.1.1.1.  Topology-scoped FEC encoded using a single label
                   (Option 1A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         6.1.1.2.  Topology and FEC encoded using a two label stack
                   (Option 1B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
         6.1.1.3.  Compatibility of Option 1A and 1B . . . . . . . .  13
         6.1.1.4.  Mandatory support for MRT LDP Label option 1A . .  13
       6.1.2.  MRT IP tunnels (Options 2A and 2B)  . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Forwarding LDP Unicast Traffic over MRT Paths . . . . . .  14
       6.2.1.  Forwarding LDP traffic using MRT LDP Labels (Option
               1A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.2.2.  Forwarding LDP traffic using MRT LDP Labels (Option
               1B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.2.3.  Other considerations for forwarding LDP traffic using
               MRT LDP Labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.3.  Forwarding IP Unicast Traffic over MRT Paths  . . . . . .  15
       6.3.1.  Tunneling IP traffic using MRT LDP Labels . . . . . .  16
         6.3.1.1.  Tunneling IP traffic using MRT LDP Labels (Option
                   1A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
         6.3.1.2.  Tunneling IP traffic using MRT LDP Labels (Option
                   1B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       6.3.2.  Tunneling IP traffic using MRT IP Tunnels . . . . . .  17



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


       6.3.3.  Required support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   7.  MRT Island Formation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.1.  IGP Area or Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  Support for a specific MRT profile  . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     7.3.  Excluding additional routers and interfaces from the MRT
           Island  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.3.1.  Existing IGP exclusion mechanisms . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.3.2.  MRT-specific exclusion mechanism  . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.4.  Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.5.  Example algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   8.  MRT Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.1.  MRT Profile Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.2.  Router-specific MRT paramaters  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     8.3.  Default MRT profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  LDP signaling extensions and considerations . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. Inter-area Forwarding Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.1.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with MRT LDP Label Option 1A . .  23
       10.1.1.  Motivation for Creating the Rainbow-FEC  . . . . . .  23
     10.2.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with IP Tunneling (option 2) . .  24
     10.3.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with LDP Label option 1B . . . .  24
   11. Prefixes Multiply Attached to the MRT Island  . . . . . . . .  26
     11.1.  Protecting Multi-Homed Prefixes using Tunnel Endpoint
            Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     11.2.  Protecting Multi-Homed Prefixes using Named Proxy-Nodes   29
       11.2.1.  Computing if an Island Neighbor (IN) is loop-free  .  31
     11.3.  MRT Alternates for Destinations Outside the MRT Island .  32
   12. Network Convergence and Preparing for the Next Failure  . . .  33
     12.1.  Micro-forwarding loop prevention and MRTs  . . . . . . .  33
     12.2.  MRT Recalculation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   13. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   14. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   16. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   17. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     17.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     17.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Appendix A.  General Issues with Area Abstraction . . . . . . . .  39
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40

1.  Introduction

   This document gives a complete solution for IP/LDP fast-reroute
   [RFC5714].  MRT-FRR creates two alternate trees separate from the
   primary next-hop forwarding used during stable operation.  These two
   trees are maximally diverse from each other, providing link and node
   protection for 100% of paths and failures as long as the failure does
   not cut the network into multiple pieces.  This document defines the
   architecture for IP/LDP fast-reroute with MRT.  The associated



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   protocol extensions are defined in [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt] and
   [I-D.atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt].  The exact MRT algorithm is defined in
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm].

   IP/LDP Fast-Reroute with MRT (MRT-FRR) uses two maximally diverse
   forwarding topologies to provide alternates.  A primary next-hop
   should be on only one of the diverse forwarding topologies; thus, the
   other can be used to provide an alternate.  Once traffic has been
   moved to one of MRTs, it is not subject to further repair actions.
   Thus, the traffic will not loop even if a worse failure (e.g. node)
   occurs when protection was only available for a simpler failure (e.g.
   link).

   In addition to supporting IP and LDP unicast fast-reroute, the
   diverse forwarding topologies and guarantee of 100% coverage permit
   fast-reroute technology to be applied to multicast traffic as
   described in [I-D.atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-arch].

   Other existing or proposed solutions are partial solutions or have
   significant issues, as described below.

                 Summary Comparison of IP/LDP FRR Methods

   +---------+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------+
   |  Method |   Coverage  |  Alternate  |    Computation (in SPFs)    |
   |         |             |   Looping?  |                             |
   +---------+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------+
   | MRT-FRR |     100%    |     None    |         less than 3         |
   |         |  Link/Node  |             |                             |
   |         |             |             |                             |
   |   LFA   |   Partial   |   Possible  |         per neighbor        |
   |         |  Link/Node  |             |                             |
   |         |             |             |                             |
   |  Remote |   Partial   |   Possible  |    per neighbor (link) or   |
   |   LFA   |  Link/Node  |             |  neighbor's neighbor (node) |
   |         |             |             |                             |
   | Not-Via |     100%    |     None    |      per link and node      |
   |         |  Link/Node  |             |                             |
   +---------+-------------+-------------+-----------------------------+

                                  Table 1

   Loop-Free Alternates (LFA):   LFAs [RFC5286] provide limited
      topology-dependent coverage for link and node protection.
      Restrictions on choice of alternates can be relaxed to improve
      coverage, but this can cause forwarding loops if a worse failure
      is experienced than protected against.  Augmenting a network to
      provide better coverage is NP-hard [LFARevisited].  [RFC6571]



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


      discusses the applicability of LFA to different topologies with a
      focus on common PoP architectures.

   Remote LFA:   Remote LFAs [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] improve
      coverage over LFAs for link protection but still cannot guarantee
      complete coverage.  The trade-off of looping traffic to improve
      coverage is still made.  Remote LFAs can provide node-protection
      [I-D.psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection] but not guaranteed
      coverage and the computation required is quite high (an SPF for
      each PQ-node evaluated).  [I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels] describes
      additional mechanisms to further improve coverage, at the cost of
      added complexity.

   Not-Via:   Not-Via [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses] is the
      only other solution that provides 100% coverage for link and node
      failures and does not have potential looping.  However, the
      computation is very high (an SPF per failure point) and academic
      implementations [LightweightNotVia] have found the address
      management complexity to be high.

1.1.  Importance of 100% Coverage

   Fast-reroute is based upon the single failure assumption - that the
   time between single failures is long enough for a network to
   reconverge and start forwarding on the new shortest paths.  That does
   not imply that the network will only experience one failure or
   change.

   It is straightforward to analyze a particular network topology for
   coverage.  However, a real network does not always have the same
   topology.  For instance, maintenance events will take links or nodes
   out of use.  Simply costing out a link can have a significant effect
   on what LFAs are available.  Similarly, after a single failure has
   happened, the topology is changed and its associated coverage.
   Finally, many networks have new routers or links added and removed;
   each of those changes can have an effect on the coverage for
   topology-sensitive methods such as LFA and Remote LFA.  If fast-
   reroute is important for the network services provided, then a method
   that guarantees 100% coverage is important to accomodate natural
   network topology changes.

   Asymmetric link costs are also a common aspect of networks.  There
   are at least three common causes for them.  First, any broadcast
   interface is represented by a pseudo-node and has asymmetric link
   costs to and from that pseudo-node.  Second, when routers come up or
   a link with LDP comes up, it is recommended in [RFC5443] and
   [RFC3137] that the link metric be raised to the maximum cost; this
   may not be symmetric and for [RFC3137] is not expected to be.  Third,



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   techniques such as IGP metric tuning for traffic-engineering can
   result in asymmetric link costs.  A fast-reroute solution needs to
   handle network topologies with asymmetric link costs.

   When a network needs to use a micro-loop prevention mechanism
   [RFC5715] such as Ordered FIB[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib] or Farside
   Tunneling[RFC5715], then the whole IGP area needs to have alternates
   available so that the micro-loop prevention mechanism, which requires
   slower network convergence, can take the necessary time without
   adversely impacting traffic.  Without complete coverage, traffic to
   the unprotected destinations will be dropped for significantly longer
   than with current convergence - where routers individually converge
   as fast as possible.

1.2.  Partial Deployment and Backwards Compatibility

   MRT-FRR supports partial deployment.  As with many new features, the
   protocols (OSPF, LDP, ISIS) indicate their capability to support MRT.
   Inside the MRT-capable connected group of routers (referred to as an
   MRT Island), the MRTs are computed.  Alternates to destinations
   outside the MRT Island are computed and depend upon the existence of
   a loop-free neighbor of the MRT Island for that destination.

2.  Requirements Language

   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]

3.  Terminology

   network graph:   A graph that reflects the network topology where all
      links connect exactly two nodes and broadcast links have been
      transformed into the standard pseudo-node representation.

   Redundant Trees (RT):   A pair of trees where the path from any node
      X to the root R along the first tree is node-disjoint with the
      path from the same node X to the root along the second tree.
      These can be computed in 2-connected graphs.

   Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT):   A pair of trees where the path
      from any node X to the root R along the first tree and the path
      from the same node X to the root along the second tree share the
      minimum number of nodes and the minimum number of links.  Each
      such shared node is a cut-vertex.  Any shared links are cut-links.
      Any RT is an MRT but many MRTs are not RTs.





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   MRT-Red:   MRT-Red is used to describe one of the two MRTs; it is
      used to described the associated forwarding topology and MT-ID.
      Specifically, MRT-Red is the decreasing MRT where links in the
      GADAG are taken in the direction from a higher topologically
      ordered node to a lower one.

   MRT-Blue:   MRT-Blue is used to describe one of the two MRTs; it is
      used to described the associated forwarding topology and MT-ID.
      Specifically, MRT-Blue is the increasing MRT where links in the
      GADAG are taken in the direction from a lower topologically
      ordered node to a higher one.

   Rainbow MRT:   It is useful to have an MT-ID that refers to the
      multiple MRT topologies and to the default topology.  This is
      referred to as the Rainbow MRT MT-ID and is used by LDP to reduce
      signaling and permit the same label to always be advertised to all
      peers for the same (MT-ID, Prefix).

   MRT Island:   The set of routers that support a particular MRT
      profile and the links connecting them that support MRT.

   Island Border Router (IBR):   A router in the MRT Island that is
      connected to a router not in the MRT Island and both routers are
      in a common area or level.

   Island Neighbor (IN):   A router that is not in the MRT Island but is
      adjacent to an IBR and in the same area/level as the IBR.

   cut-link:   A link whose removal partitions the network.  A cut-link
      by definition must be connected between two cut-vertices.  If
      there are multiple parallel links, then they are referred to as
      cut-links in this document if removing the set of parallel links
      would partition the network graph.

   cut-vertex:   A vertex whose removal partitions the network graph.

   2-connected:   A graph that has no cut-vertices.  This is a graph
      that requires two nodes to be removed before the network is
      partitioned.

   2-connected cluster:   A maximal set of nodes that are 2-connected.

   2-edge-connected:   A network graph where at least two links must be
      removed to partition the network.

   block:   Either a 2-connected cluster, a cut-edge, or an isolated
      vertex.




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   DAG:   Directed Acyclic Graph - a graph where all links are directed
      and there are no cycles in it.

   ADAG:   Almost Directed Acyclic Graph - a graph that, if all links
      incoming to the root were removed, would be a DAG.

   GADAG:   Generalized ADAG - a graph that is the combination of the
      ADAGs of all blocks.

   named proxy-node:   A proxy-node can represent a destination prefix
      that can be attached to the MRT Island via at least two routers.
      It is named if there is a way that traffic can be encapsulated to
      reach specifically that proxy node; this could be because there is
      an LDP FEC for the associated prefix or because MRT-Red and MRT-
      Blue IP addresses are advertised in an undefined fashion for that
      proxy-node.

4.  Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT)

   A pair of Maximally Redundant Trees is a pair of directed spanning
   trees that provides maximally disjoint paths towards their common
   root.  Only links or nodes whose failure would partition the network
   (i.e. cut-links and cut-vertices) are shared between the trees.  The
   algorithm to compute MRTs is given in
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm].  This algorithm can be computed
   in O(e + n log n); it is less than three SPFs.  Modeling results
   comparing the alternate path lengths obtained with MRT to other
   approaches are described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm].  This
   document describes how the MRTs can be used and not how to compute
   them.

   MRT provides destination-based trees for each destination.  Each
   router stores its normal primary next-hop(s) as well as MRT-Blue
   next-hop(s) and MRT-Red next-hop(s) toward each destination.  The
   alternate will be selected between the MRT-Blue and MRT-Red.

   The most important thing to understand about MRTs is that for each
   pair of destination-routed MRTs, there is a path from every node X to
   the destination D on the Blue MRT that is as disjoint as possible
   from the path on the Red MRT.

   For example, in Figure 1, there is a network graph that is
   2-connected in (a) and associated MRTs in (b) and (c).  One can
   consider the paths from B to R; on the Blue MRT, the paths are
   B->F->D->E->R or B->C->D->E->R.  On the Red MRT, the path is B->A->R.
   These are clearly link and node-disjoint.  These MRTs are redundant
   trees because the paths are disjoint.




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   [E]---[D]---|           [E]<--[D]<--|                [E]-->[D]---|
    |     |    |            |     ^    |                       |    |
    |     |    |            V     |    |                       V    V
   [R]   [F]  [C]          [R]   [F]  [C]               [R]   [F]  [C]
    |     |    |                  ^    ^                 ^     |    |
    |     |    |                  |    |                 |     V    |
   [A]---[B]---|           [A]-->[B]---|                [A]<--[B]<--|

         (a)                     (b)                         (c)
   a 2-connected graph     Blue MRT towards R          Red MRT towards R

                      Figure 1: A 2-connected Network

   By contrast, in Figure 2, the network in (a) is not 2-connected.  If
   F, G or the link F<->G failed, then the network would be partitioned.
   It is clearly impossible to have two link-disjoint or node-disjoint
   paths from G, I or J to R.  The MRTs given in (b) and (c) offer paths
   that are as disjoint as possible.  For instance, the paths from B to
   R are the same as in Figure 1 and the path from G to R on the Blue
   MRT is G->F->D->E->R and on the Red MRT is G->F->B->A->R.


                      [E]---[D]---|
                       |     |    |     |----[I]
                       |     |    |     |     |
                      [R]---[C]  [F]---[G]    |
                       |     |    |     |     |
                       |     |    |     |----[J]
                      [A]---[B]---|

                                  (a)
                        a non-2-connected graph

       [E]<--[D]<--|                        [E]-->[D]
        |     ^    |          [I]                  |          |----[I]
        V     |    |           |                   V          V     ^
       [R]   [C]  [F]<--[G]    |            [R]<--[C]  [F]<--[G]    |
              ^    ^     ^     V             ^          |           |
              |    |     |----[J]            |          |          [J]
       [A]-->[B]---|                        [A]<--[B]<--|

                   (b)                                    (c)
            Blue MRT towards R                    Red MRT towards R


                    Figure 2: A non-2-connected network





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


5.  Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT) and Fast-Reroute

   In normal IGP routing, each router has its shortest-path-tree to all
   destinations.  From the perspective of a particular destination, D,
   this looks like a reverse SPT (rSPT).  To use maximally redundant
   trees, in addition, each destination D has two MRTs associated with
   it; by convention these will be called the MRT-Blue and MRT-Red.
   MRT-FRR is realized by using multi-topology forwarding.  There is a
   MRT-Blue forwarding topology and a MRT-Red forwarding topology.

   Any IP/LDP fast-reroute technique beyond LFA requires an additional
   dataplane procedure, such as an additional forwarding mechanism.  The
   well-known options are multi-topology forwarding (used by MRT-FRR),
   tunneling (e.g.  [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses] or
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]), and per-interface forwarding (e.g.
   Loop-Free Failure Insensitive Routing in [EnyediThesis]).

   When there is a link or node failure affecting, but not partitioning,
   the network, each node will still have at least one path via one of
   the MRTs to reach the destination D.  For example, in Figure 2, C
   would normally forward traffic to R across the C<->R link.  If that
   C<->R link fails, then C could use the Blue MRT path C->D->E->R.

   As is always the case with fast-reroute technologies, forwarding does
   not change until a local failure is detected.  Packets are forwarded
   along the shortest path.  The appropriate alternate to use is pre-
   computed.  [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm] describes exactly how
   to determine whether the MRT-Blue next-hops or the MRT-Red next-hops
   should be the MRT alternate next-hops for a particular primary next-
   hop to a particular destination.

   MRT alternates are always available to use.  It is a local decision
   whether to use an MRT alternate, a Loop-Free Alternate or some other
   type of alternate.

   As described in [RFC5286], when a worse failure than is anticipated
   happens, using LFAs that are not downstream neighbors can cause
   micro-looping.  Section 1.1 of [RFC5286] gives an example of link-
   protecting alternates causing a loop on node failure.  Even if a
   worse failure than anticipated happens, the use of MRT alternates
   will not cause looping.  Therefore, while node-protecting LFAs may be
   preferred, the certainty that no alternate-induced looping will occur
   is an advantage of using MRT alternates when the available node-
   protecting LFA is not a downstream path.







Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


6.  Unicast Forwarding with MRT Fast-Reroute

   As mentioned before, MRT FRR needs multi-topology forwarding.
   Unfortunately, neither IP nor LDP provides extra bits for a packet to
   indicate its topology.  Once the MRTs are computed, the two sets of
   MRTs can be used as two additional forwarding topologies.  The same
   considerations apply for forwarding along the MRTs as for handling
   multiple topologies.

   There are three possible types of routers involved in forwarding a
   packet along an MRT path.  At the MRT ingress router, the packet
   leaves the shortest path to the destination and follows an MRT path
   to the destination.  In a FRR application, the MRT ingress router is
   the PLR.  An MRT transit router takes a packet that arrives already
   associated with the particular MRT, and forwards it on that same MRT.
   In some situations (to be discussed later), the packet will need to
   leave the MRT path and return to the shortest path.  This takes place
   at the MRT egress router.  The MRT ingress and egress functionality
   may depend on the underlying type of packet being forwarded (LDP or
   IP).  The MRT transit functionality is independent of the type of
   packet being forwarded.  We first consider several MRT transit
   forwarding mechanisms.  Then we look at how these forwarding
   mechanisms can be applied to carrying LDP and IP traffic.

6.1.  MRT Forwarding Mechanisms

   The following options for MRT forwarding mechanisms are considered.

   1.  MRT LDP Labels

       A.  Topology-scoped FEC encoded using a single label

       B.  Topology and FEC encoded using a two label stack

   2.  MRT IP Tunnels

       A.  MRT IPv4 Tunnels

       B.  MRT IPv6 Tunnels

6.1.1.  MRT LDP labels

   We consider two options for the MRT forwarding mechanisms using MRT
   LDP labels.







Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


6.1.1.1.  Topology-scoped FEC encoded using a single label (Option 1A)

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology] provides a mechanism to distribute
   FEC-Label bindings scoped to a given topology (represented by MT-ID).
   To use multi-topology LDP to create MRT forwarding topologies, we
   associate two MT-IDs with the MRT-Red and MRT-Blue forwarding
   topologies, in addition to the default shortest path forwarding
   topology with MT-ID=0.

   With this forwarding mechanism, a single label is distributed for
   each topology-scoped FEC.  For a given FEC in the default topology
   (call it default-FEC-A), two additional topology-scoped FECs would be
   created, corresponding to the Red and Blue MRT forwarding topologies
   (call them red-FEC-A and blue-FEC-A).  A router supporting this MRT
   transit forwarding mechanism advertises a different FEC-label binding
   for each of the three topology-scoped FECs.  When a packet is
   received with a label corresponding to red-FEC-A (for example), an
   MRT transit router will determine the next-hop for the MRT-Red
   forwarding topology for that FEC, swap the incoming label with the
   outgoing label corresponding to red-FEC-A learned from the MRT-Red
   next-hop router, and forward the packet.

   This forwarding mechanism has the useful property that the FEC
   associated with the packet is maintained in the labels at each hop
   along the MRT.  We will take advantage of this property when
   specifying how to carry LDP traffic on MRT paths using multi-topology
   LDP labels.

   This approach is very simple for hardware to support.  However, it
   reduces the label space for other uses, and it increases the memory
   needed to store the labels and the communication required by LDP to
   distribute FEC-label bindings.

   This forwarding option uses the LDP signaling extensions described in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology].  The MRT-specific LDP extensions
   required to support this option are described in
   [I-D.atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt].

6.1.1.2.  Topology and FEC encoded using a two label stack (Option 1B)

   With this forwarding mechanism, a two label stack is used to encode
   the topology and the FEC of the packet.  The top label (topology-id
   label) identifies the MRT forwarding topology, while the second label
   (FEC label) identifies the FEC.  The top label would be a new FEC
   type with two values corresponding to MRT Red and Blue topologies.

   When an MRT transit router receives a packet with a topology-id
   label, the router pops the top label and uses that it to guide the



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   next-hop selection in combination with the next label in the stack
   (the FEC label).  The router then swaps the FEC label, using the FEC-
   label bindings learned through normal LDP mechanisms.  The router
   then pushes the topology-id label for the next-hop.

   As with Option 1A, this forwarding mechanism also has the useful
   property that the FEC associated with the packet is maintained in the
   labels at each hop along the MRT.

   This forwarding mechanism has minimal usage of additional labels,
   memory and LDP communication.  It does increase the size of packets
   and the complexity of the required label operations and look-ups.

   This forwarding option is consistent with context-specific label
   spaces, as described in [RFC 5331].  However, the precise LDP
   behavior required to support this option for MRT has not been
   specified.

6.1.1.3.  Compatibility of Option 1A and 1B

   In principle, MRT transit forwarding mechanisms 1A and 1B can coexist
   in the same network, with a packet being forwarding along a single
   MRT path using the single label of option 1A for some hops and the
   two label stack of option 1B for other hops.

6.1.1.4.  Mandatory support for MRT LDP Label option 1A

   If a router supports a profile that includes the MRT LDP Label option
   for MRT transit forwarding mechanism, then it MUST support option 1A,
   which encodes topology-scoped FECs using a single label.

6.1.2.  MRT IP tunnels (Options 2A and 2B)

   IP tunneling can also be used as an MRT transit forwarding mechanism.
   Each router supporting this MRT transit forwarding mechanism
   announces two additional loopback addresses and their associated MRT
   color.  Those addresses are used as destination addresses for MRT-
   blue and MRT-red IP tunnels respectively.  The special loopback
   addresses allow the transit nodes to identify the traffic as being
   forwarded along either the MRT-blue or MRT-red topology to reach the
   tunnel destination.  Announcements of these two additional loopback
   addresses per router with their MRT color requires IGP extensions,
   which have not been defined.

   Either IPv4 (option 2A) or IPv6 (option 2B) can be used as the
   tunneling mechanism.





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   Note that the two forwarding mechanisms using LDP Label options do
   not require additional loopbacks per router, as is required by the IP
   tunneling mechanism.  This is because LDP labels are used on a hop-
   by-hop basis to identify MRT-blue and MRT-red forwarding topologies.

6.2.  Forwarding LDP Unicast Traffic over MRT Paths

   In the previous section, we examined several options for providing
   MRT transit forwarding functionality, which is independent of the
   type of traffic being carried.  We now look at the MRT ingress
   functionality, which will depend on the type of traffic being carried
   (IP or LDP).  We start by considering LDP traffic.

   We also simplify the initial discussion by assuming that the network
   consists of a single IGP area, and that all routers in the network
   participate in MRT.  Other deployment scenarios that require MRT
   egress functionality are considered later in this document.

   In principle, it is possible to carry LDP traffic in MRT IP tunnels.
   However, for LDP traffic, it is very desirable to avoid tunneling.
   Tunneling LDP traffic to a remote node requires knowledge of remote
   FEC-label bindings so that the LDP traffic can continue to be
   forwarded properly when it leaves the tunnel.  This requires targeted
   LDP sessions which can add management complexity.  The two MRT LDP
   Label forwarding mechanisms have the useful property that the FEC
   associated with the packet is maintained in the labels at each hop
   along the MRT, as long as an MRT to the originator of the FEC is
   used.  The MRT IP tunneling mechanism does not have this useful
   property.  Therefore, this document only considers the two MRT LDP
   Label forwarding mechanisms for protecting LDP traffic with MRT fast-
   reroute.

6.2.1.  Forwarding LDP traffic using MRT LDP Labels (Option 1A)

   The MRT LDP Label option 1A forwarding mechanism uses topology-scoped
   FECs encoded using a single label as described in section
   Section 6.1.1.1.  When a PLR receives an LDP packet that needs to be
   forwarded on the Red MRT (for example), it does a label swap
   operation, replacing the usual LDP label for the FEC with the Red MRT
   label for that FEC received from the next-hop router in the Red MRT
   computed by the PLR.  When the next-hop router in the Red MRT
   receives the packet with the Red MRT label for the FEC, the MRT
   transit forwarding functionality continues as described in
   Section 6.1.1.1.  In this way the original FEC associated with the
   packet is maintained at each hop along the MRT.






Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


6.2.2.  Forwarding LDP traffic using MRT LDP Labels (Option 1B)

   The MRT LDP Label option 1B forwarding mechanism encodes the topology
   and the FEC using a two label stack as described in Section 6.1.1.2.
   When a PLR receives an LDP packet that needs to be forwarded on the
   Red MRT, it first does a normal LDP label swap operation, replacing
   the incoming normal LDP label associated with a given FEC with the
   outgoing normal LDP label for that FEC learned from the next-hop on
   the Red MRT.  In addition, the PLR pushes the topology-identification
   label associated with the Red MRT, and forward the packet to the
   appropriate next-hop on the Red MRT.  When the next-hop router in the
   Red MRT receives the packet with the Red MRT label for the FEC, the
   MRT transit forwarding functionality continues as described in
   Section 6.1.1.2.  As with option 1A, the original FEC associated with
   the packet is maintained at each hop along the MRT.

6.2.3.  Other considerations for forwarding LDP traffic using MRT LDP
        Labels

   Note that forwarding LDP traffic using MRT LDP Labels requires that
   an MRT to the originator of the FEC be used.  For example, one might
   find it desirable to have the PLR use an MRT to reach the primary
   next-next-hop for the FEC, and then continue forwarding the LDP
   packet along the shortest path tree from the primary next-next-hop.
   However, this would require tunneling to the primary next-next-hop
   and a targeted LDP session for the PLR to learn the FEC-label binding
   for primary next-next-hop to correctly forward the packet.

   For greatest hardware compatibility, routers implementing MRT fast-
   reroute of LDP traffic MUST support Option 1A of encoding the MT-ID
   in the labels (See Section 9).

6.3.  Forwarding IP Unicast Traffic over MRT Paths

   For IP traffic, there is no currently practical alternative except
   tunneling to gain the bits needed to indicate the MRT-Blue or MRT-Red
   forwarding topology.  The choice of tunnel egress MAY be flexible
   since any router closer to the destination than the next-hop can
   work.  This architecture assumes that the original destination in the
   area is selected (see Section 11 for handling of multi-homed
   prefixes); another possible choice is the next-next-hop towards the
   destination.  As discussed in the previous section, for LDP traffic,
   using the MRT to the original destination simplifies MRT-FRR by
   avoiding the need for targeted LDP sessions to the next-next-hop.
   For IP, that consideration doesn't apply.  However, consistency with
   LDP is RECOMMENDED.





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   Some situations require tunneling IP traffic along an MRT to a tunnel
   endpoint that is not the destination of the IP traffic.  These
   situations will be discussed in detail later.  We note here that an
   IP packet with a destination in a different IGP area/level from the
   PLR should be tunneled on the MRT to the ABR/LBR on the shortest path
   to the destination.  For a destination outside of the PLR's MRT
   Island, the packet should be tunneled on the MRT to a non-proxy-node
   immediately before the named proxy-node on that particular color MRT.

6.3.1.  Tunneling IP traffic using MRT LDP Labels

   An IP packet can be tunneled along an MRT path by pushing the
   appropriate MRT LDP label(s).  Tunneling using LDP labels, as opposed
   to IP headers, has the the advantage that more installed routers can
   do line-rate encapsulation and decapsulation using LDP than using IP.
   Also, no additional IP addresses would need to be allocated or
   signaled.

6.3.1.1.  Tunneling IP traffic using MRT LDP Labels (Option 1A)

   The MRT LDP Label option 1A forwarding mechanism uses topology-scoped
   FECs encoded using a single label as described in section
   Section 6.1.1.1.  When a PLR receives an IP packet that needs to be
   forwarded on the Red MRT to a particular tunnel endpoint, it does a
   label push operation.  The label pushed is the Red MRT label for a
   FEC originated by the tunnel endpoint, learned from the next-hop on
   the Red MRT.

6.3.1.2.  Tunneling IP traffic using MRT LDP Labels (Option 1B)

   The MRT LDP Label option 1B forwarding mechanism encodes the topology
   and the FEC using a two label stack as described in Section 6.1.1.2.
   When a PLR receives an IP packet that needs to be forwarded on the
   Red MRT to a particular tunnel endpoint, the PLR pushes two labels on
   the IP packet.  The first (inner) label is the normal LDP label
   learned from the next-hop on the Red MRT, associated with a FEC
   originated by the tunnel endpoint.  The second (outer) label is the
   topology-identification label associated with the Red MRT.

   For completeness, we note here a potential optimization.  In order to
   tunnel an IP packet over an MRT to the destination of the IP packet
   (as opposed to an arbitrary tunnel endpoint), then we could just push
   a topology-identification label directly onto the packet.  An MRT
   transit router would need to pop the topology-id label, do an IP
   route lookup in the context of that topology-id , and push the
   topology-id label.





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


6.3.2.  Tunneling IP traffic using MRT IP Tunnels

   In order to tunnel over the MRT to a particular tunnel endpoint, the
   PLR encapsulates the original IP packet with an additional IP header
   using the MRT-Blue or MRT-Red loopack address of the tunnel endpoint.

6.3.3.  Required support

   For greatest hardware compatibility and ease in removing the MRT-
   topology marking at area/level boundaries, routers that support MPLS
   and implement IP MRT fast-reroute MUST support tunneling of IP
   traffic using MRT LDP Labels Option 1A (topology-scoped FEC encoded
   using a single label).

7.  MRT Island Formation

   The purpose of communicating support for MRT in the IGP is to
   indicate that the MRT-Blue and MRT-Red forwarding topologies are
   created for transit traffic.  The MRT architecture allows for
   different, potentially incompatible options.  In order to create
   constistent MRT forwarding topologies, the routers participating in a
   particular MRT Island need to use the same set of options.  These
   options are grouped into MRT profiles.  In addition, the routers in
   an MRT Island all need to use the same set of nodes and links within
   the Island when computing the MRT forwarding topologies.  This
   section describes the information used by a router to determine the
   nodes and links to include in a particular MRT Island.  Some of this
   information is shared among routers using the newly-defined IGP
   signaling extensions for MRT described in [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt] and
   [I-D.li-isis-mrt].  Other information already exists in the IGPs and
   can be used by MRT in Island formation, subject to the interpretation
   defined here.

   Deployment scenarios using multi-topology OSPF or IS-IS, or running
   both ISIS and OSPF on the same routers is out of scope for this
   specification.  As with LFA, it is expected that OSPF Virtual Links
   will not be supported.

7.1.  IGP Area or Level

   All links in an MRT Island MUST be bidirectional and belong to the
   same IGP area or level.  For ISIS, a link belonging to both level 1
   and level 2 would qualify to be in multiple MRT Islands.  A given ABR
   or LBR can belong to multiple MRT Islands, corresponding to the areas
   or levels in which it participates.  Inter-area forwarding behavior
   is discussed in Section 10.





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


7.2.  Support for a specific MRT profile

   All routers in an MRT Island MUST support the same MRT profile.  A
   router advertises support for a given MRT profile using the IGP
   extensions defined in [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt] and [I-D.li-isis-mrt]
   using an 8-bit Profile ID value.  A given router can support multiple
   MRT profiles and participate in multiple MRT Islands.  The options
   that make up an MRT profile, as well as the default MRT profile, are
   defined in Section 8.

7.3.  Excluding additional routers and interfaces from the MRT Island

   MRT takes into account existing IGP mechanisms for discouraging
   traffic from using particular links and routers, and it introduces an
   MRT-specific exclusion mechanism for links.

7.3.1.  Existing IGP exclusion mechanisms

   Mechanisms for discouraging traffic from using particular links
   already exist in ISIS and OSPF.  In ISIS, an interface configured
   with a metric of 2^24-2 (0xFFFFFE) will only be used as a last
   resort.  (An interface configured with a metric of 2^24-1 (0xFFFFFF)
   will not be advertised into the topology.)  In OSPF, an interface
   configured with a metric of 2^16-1 (0xFFFF) will only be used as a
   last resort.  These metrics can be configured manually to enforce
   administrative policy, or they can be set in an automated manner as
   with LDP IGP synchronization [RFC5443].

   Mechanisms also exist in ISIS and OSPF to prevent transit traffic
   from using a particular router.  In ISIS, the overload bit is used
   for this purpose.  In OSPF, [RFC3137] specifies setting all outgoing
   interface metrics to 0xFFFF to accomplish this.

   The following rules for MRT Island formation ensure that MRT FRR
   protection traffic does not use a link or router that is discouraged
   from carrying traffic by existing IGP mechanisms.

   1.  A bidirectional link MUST be excluded from an MRT Island if
       either the forward or reverse cost on the link is 0xFFFFFE (for
       ISIS) or 0xFFFF for OSPF.

   2.  A router MUST be excluded from an MRT Island if it is advertised
       with the overload bit set (for ISIS), or it is advertised with
       metric values of 0xFFFF on all of its outgoing interfaces (for
       OSPF).






Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


7.3.2.  MRT-specific exclusion mechanism

   This architecture also defines a means of excluding an otherwise
   usable link from MRT Islands.  [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt] and
   [I-D.li-isis-mrt] define the IGP extensions for OSPF and ISIS used to
   advertise that a link is MRT-Ineligible.  A link with either
   interface advertised as MRT-Ineligible MUST be excluded from an MRT
   Island.  Note that an interface advertised as MRT-Ineligigle by a
   router is ineligible with respect to all profiles advertised by that
   router.

7.4.  Connectivity

   All of the routers in an MRT Island MUST be connected by
   bidirectional links with other routers in the MRT Island.
   Disconnected MRT Islands will operate independently of one another.

7.5.  Example algorithm

   An algorithm that allows a computing router to identify the routers
   and links in the local MRT Island satisfying the above rules is given
   in section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm].

8.  MRT Profile

   An MRT Profile is a set of values and options related to MRT
   behavior.  The complete set of options is designated by the
   corresponding 8-bit Profile ID value.

8.1.  MRT Profile Options

   Below is a description of the values and options that define an MRT
   Profile.

   MRT Algorithm:   This identifies the particular MRT algorithm used by
      the router for this profile.  Algorithm transitions can be managed
      by advertising multiple MRT profiles.

   MRT-Red MT-ID:   This specifies the MT-ID to be associated with the
      MRT-Red forwarding topology.  It is needed for use in LDP
      signaling.  All routers in the MRT Island MUST agree on a value.

   MRT-Blue MT-ID:   This specifies the MT-ID to be associated with the
      MRT-Blue forwarding topology.  It is needed for use in LDP
      signaling.  All routers in the MRT Island MUST agree on a value.

   GADAG Root Selection Policy:   This specifes the manner in which the
      GADAG root is selected.  All routers in the MRT island need to use



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


      the same GADAG root in the calculations used construct the MRTs.
      A valid GADAG Root Selection Policy MUST be such that each router
      in the MRT island chooses the same GADAG root based on information
      available to all routers in the MRT island.  GADAG Root Selection
      Priority values, advertised in the IGP as router-specific MRT
      parameters, MAY be used in a GADAG Root Selection Policy.

   MRT Forwarding Mechanism:   This specifies which forwarding mechanism
      the router uses to carry transit traffic along MRT paths.  A
      router which supports a specific MRT forwarding mechanism must
      program appropriate next-hops into the forwarding plane.  The
      current options are MRT LDP Labels, IPv4 Tunneling, IPv6
      Tunneling, and None.  If the MRT LDP Labels option is supported,
      then option 1A and the appropriate signaling extensions MUST be
      supported.  If IPv4 is supported, then both MRT-Red and MRT-Blue
      IPv4 Loopback Addresses SHOULD be specified.  If IPv6 is
      supported, both MRT-Red and MRT-Blue IPv6 Loopback Addresses
      SHOULD be specified.  The None option in may be useful for
      multicast global protection.

   Recalculation:   As part of what process and timing should the new
      MRTs be computed on a modified topology?  Section 12.2 describes
      the minimum behavior required to support fast-reroute.

   Area/Level Border Behavior:   Should inter-area traffic on the MRT-
      Blue or MRT-Red be put back onto the shortest path tree?  Should
      it be swapped from MRT-Blue or MRT-Red in one area/level to MRT-
      Red or MRT-Blue in the next area/level to avoid the potential
      failure of an ABR?  (See [I-D.atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-arch] for use-
      case details.

   Other Profile-Specific Behavior:   Depending upon the use-case for
      the profile, there may be additional profile-specific behavior.

   If a router advertises support for multiple MRT profiles, then it
   MUST create the transit forwarding topologies for each of those,
   unless the profile specifies the None option for MRT Forwarding
   Mechanism.  A router MUST NOT advertise multiple MRT profiles that
   overlap in their MRT-Red MT-ID or MRT-Blue MT-ID.

8.2.  Router-specific MRT paramaters

   For some profiles, additional router-specific MRT parameters may need
   to be distributed via the IGP.  While the set of options indicated by
   the MRT Profile ID must be identical for all routers in an MRT
   Island, these router-specific MRT parameters may differ between
   routers in the same MRT island.  Several such parameters are
   described below.



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   GADAG Root Selection Priority:   A GADAG Root Selection Policy MAY
      rely on the GADAG Root Selection Priority values advertised by
      each router in the MRT island.  A GADAG Root Selection Policy may
      use the GADAG Root Selection Priority to allow network operators
      to configure a parameter to ensure that the GADAG root is selected
      from a particular subset of routers.  An example of this use of
      the GADAG Root Selection Priority value by the GADAG Root
      Selection Policy is given in the Default MRT profile below.

   MRT-Red Loopback Address:   This provides the router's loopback
      address to reach the router via the MRT-Red forwarding topology.
      It can be specified for either IPv4 and IPv6.

   MRT-Blue Loopback Address:   This provides the router's loopback
      address to reach the router via the MRT-Blue forwarding topology.
      It can be specified for either IPv4 and IPv6.

   The extensions to OSPF and ISIS for advertising a router's GADAG Root
   Selection Priority value are defined in [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt] and
   [I-D.li-isis-mrt].  IGP extensions for the advertising a router's
   MRT-Red and MRT-Blue Loopback Addresses have not been defined.

8.3.  Default MRT profile

   The following set of options defines the default MRT Profile.  The
   default MRT profile is indicated by the MRT Profile ID value of 0.

   MRT Algorithm:   MRT Lowpoint algorithm defined in
      [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm].

   MRT-Red MT-ID:   TBA-MRT-ARCH-1, final value assigned by IANA
      allocated from the LDP MT-ID space (prototype experiments have
      used 3997)

   MRT-Blue MT-ID:   TBA-MRT-ARCH-2, final value assigned by IANA
      allocated from the LDP MT-ID space (prototype experiments have
      used 3998)

   GADAG Root Selection Policy:   Among the routers in the MRT Island
      and with the highest priority advertised, an implementation MUST
      pick the router with the highest Router ID to be the GADAG root.

   Forwarding Mechanisms:   MRT LDP Labels

   Recalculation:   Recalculation of MRTs SHOULD occur as described in
      Section 12.2.  This allows the MRT forwarding topologies to
      support IP/LDP fast-reroute traffic.




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   Area/Level Border Behavior:   As described in Section 10, ABRs/LBRs
      SHOULD ensure that traffic leaving the area also exits the MRT-Red
      or MRT-Blue forwarding topology.

9.  LDP signaling extensions and considerations

   The protocol extensions for LDP are defined in
   [I-D.atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt].  A router must indicate that it has the
   ability to support MRT; having this explicit allows the use of MRT-
   specific processing, such as special handling of FECs sent with the
   Rainbow MRT MT-ID.

   A FEC sent with the Rainbow MRT MT-ID indicates that the FEC applies
   to all the MRT-Blue and MRT-Red MT-IDs in supported MRT profiles.
   The FEC-label bindings for the default shortest-path based MT-ID 0
   MUST still be sent (even though it could be inferred from the Rainbow
   FEC-label bindings) to ensure continuous operation of normal LDP
   forwarding.  The Rainbow MRT MT-ID is defined to provide an easy way
   to handle the special signaling that is needed at ABRs or LBRs.  It
   avoids the problem of needing to signal different MPLS labels for the
   same FEC.  Because the Rainbow MRT MT-ID is used only by ABRs/LBRs or
   an LDP egress router, it is not MRT profile specific.

   [I-D.atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt] contains the IANA request for the Rainbow
   MRT MT-ID.

10.  Inter-area Forwarding Behavior

   Unless otherwise specified, in this section we will use the terms
   area and ABR to indicate either an OSPF area and OSPF ABR or ISIS
   level and ISIS LBR.

   An ABR/LBR has two forwarding roles.  First, it forwards traffic
   within areas.  Second, it forwards traffic from one area into
   another.  These same two roles apply for MRT transit traffic.
   Traffic on MRT-Red or MRT-Blue destined inside the area needs to stay
   on MRT-Red or MRT-Blue in that area.  However, it is desirable for
   traffic leaving the area to also exit MRT-Red or MRT-Blue and return
   to shortest path forwarding.

   For unicast MRT-FRR, the need to stay on an MRT forwarding topology
   terminates at the ABR/LBR whose best route is via a different area/
   level.  It is highly desirable to go back to the default forwarding
   topology when leaving an area/level.  There are three basic reasons
   for this.  First, the default topology uses shortest paths; the
   packet will thus take the shortest possible route to the destination.
   Second, this allows failures that might appear in multiple areas
   (e.g.  ABR/LBR failures) to be separately identified and repaired



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   around.  Third, the packet can be fast-rerouted again, if necessary,
   due to a failure in a different area.

   An ABR/LBR that receives a packet on MRT-Red or MRT-Blue towards
   destination Z should continue to forward the packet along MRT-Red or
   MRT-Blue only if the best route to Z is in the same area as the
   interface that the packet was received on.  Otherwise, the packet
   should be removed from MRT-Red or MRT-Blue and forwarded on the
   shortest-path default forwarding topology.

   To avoid per-interface forwarding state for MRT-Red and MRT-Blue, the
   ABR/LBR needs to arrange that packets destined to a different area
   arrive at the ABR/LBR already not marked as MRT-Red or MRT-Blue.

10.1.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with MRT LDP Label Option 1A

   For LDP forwarding where a single label specifies (MT-ID, FEC), the
   ABR/LBR is responsible for advertising the proper label to each
   neighbor.  Assume that an ABR/LBR has allocated three labels for a
   particular destination; those labels are L_primary, L_blue, and
   L_red.  To those routers in the same area as the best route to the
   destination, the ABR/LBR advertises the following FEC-label bindings:
   L_primary for the default topology, L_blue for the MRT-Blue MT-ID and
   L_red for the MRT-Red MT-ID, as expected.  However, to routers in
   other areas, the ABR/LBR advertises the following FEC-label bindings:
   L_primary for the default topology, and L_primary for the Rainbow MRT
   MT-ID.  Associating L_primary with the Rainbow MRT MT-ID causes the
   receiving routers to use L_primary for the MRT-Blue MT-ID and for the
   MRT-Red MT-ID.

   The ABR/LBR installs all next-hops for the best area: primary next-
   hops for L_primary, MRT-Blue next-hops for L_blue, and MRT-Red next-
   hops for L_red.  Because the ABR/LBR advertised (Rainbow MRT MT-ID,
   FEC) with L_primary to neighbors not in the best area, packets from
   those neighbors will arrive at the ABR/LBR with a label L_primary and
   will be forwarded into the best area along the default topology.  By
   controlling what labels are advertised, the ABR/LBR can thus enforce
   that packets exiting the area do so on the shortest-path default
   topology.

10.1.1.  Motivation for Creating the Rainbow-FEC

   The desired forwarding behavior could be achieved in the above
   example without using the Rainbow-FEC.  This could be done by having
   the ABR/LBR advertise the following FEC-label bindings to neighbors
   not in the best area: L1_primary for the default topology, L1_primary
   for the MRT-Blue MT-ID, and L1_primary for the MRT-Red MT-ID.  Doing
   this would require machinery to spoof the labels used in FEC-label



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   binding advertisements on a per-neighbor basis.  Such label-spoofing
   machinery does not currently exist in most LDP implmentations and
   doesn't have other obvious uses.

   Many existing LDP implmentations do however have the ability to
   filter FEC-label binding advertisements on a per-neighbor basis.  The
   Rainbow-FEC allows us to re-use the existing per-neighbor FEC
   filtering machinery to achieve the desired result.  By introducing
   the Rainbow FEC, we can use per-neighbor FEC-filtering machinery to
   advertise the FEC-label binding for the Rainbow-FEC (and filter those
   for MRT-Blue and MRT-Red) to non-best-area neighbors of the ABR.

   The use of the Rainbow-FEC by the ABR for non-best-area
   advertisements is RECOMMENDED.  An ABR MAY advertise the label for
   the default topology in separate MRT-Blue and MRT-Red advertisements.
   However, a router that supports the LDP Label MRT Forwarding
   Mechanism MUST be able to receive and correctly interpret the
   Rainbow-FEC.

10.2.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with IP Tunneling (option 2)

   If IP tunneling is used, then the ABR/LBR behavior is dependent upon
   the outermost IP address.  If the outermost IP address is an MRT
   loopback address of the ABR/LBR, then the packet is decapsulated and
   forwarded based upon the inner IP address, which should go on the
   default SPT topology.  If the outermost IP address is not an MRT
   loopback address of the ABR/LBR, then the packet is simply forwarded
   along the associated forwarding topology.  A PLR sending traffic to a
   destination outside its local area/level will pick the MRT and use
   the associated MRT loopback address of the selected ABR/LBR
   advertising the lowest cost to the external destination.

   Thus, for these two MRT Forwarding Mechanisms( MRT LDP Label option
   1A and IP tunneling option 2), there is no need for additional
   computation or per-area forwarding state.

10.3.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with LDP Label option 1B

   The other MRT forwarding mechanism described in Section 6 uses two
   labels, a topology-id label, and a FEC-label.  This mechanism would
   require that any router whose MRT-Red or MRT-Blue next-hop is an ABR/
   LBR would need to determine whether the ABR/LBR would forward the
   packet out of the area/level.  If so, then that router should pop off
   the topology-identification label before forwarding the packet to the
   ABR/LBR.

   For example, in Figure 3, if node H fails, node E has to put traffic
   towards prefix p onto MRT-Red.  But since node D knows that ABR1 will



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   use a best route from another area, it is safe for D to pop the
   Topology-Identification Label and just forward the packet to ABR1
   along the MRT-Red next-hop.  ABR1 will use the shortest path in Area
   10.

   In all cases for ISIS and most cases for OSPF, the penultimate router
   can determine what decision the adjacent ABR will make.  The one case
   where it can't be determined is when two ASBRs are in different non-
   backbone areas attached to the same ABR, then the ASBR's Area ID may
   be needed for tie-breaking (prefer the route with the largest OPSF
   area ID) and the Area ID isn't announced as part of the ASBR link-
   state advertisement (LSA).  In this one case, suboptimal forwarding
   along the MRT in the other area would happen.  If that becomes a
   realistic deployment scenario, OSPF extensions could be considered.
   This is not covered in [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt].




































Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


       +----[C]----     --[D]--[E]                --[D]--[E]
       |           \   /         \               /         \
   p--[A] Area 10 [ABR1]  Area 0 [H]--p   +-[ABR1]  Area 0 [H]-+
       |           /   \         /        |      \         /   |
       +----[B]----     --[F]--[G]        |       --[F]--[G]   |
                                          |                    |
                                          | other              |
                                          +----------[p]-------+
                                            area

         (a) Example topology        (b) Proxy node view in Area 0 nodes


                   +----[C]<---       [D]->[E]
                   V           \             \
                +-[A] Area 10 [ABR1]  Area 0 [H]-+
                |  ^           /             /   |
                |  +----[B]<---       [F]->[G]   V
                |                                |
                +------------->[p]<--------------+

                  (c) rSPT towards destination p



             ->[D]->[E]                         -<[D]<-[E]
            /          \                       /         \
       [ABR1]  Area 0 [H]-+             +-[ABR1]         [H]
                      /   |             |      \
               [F]->[G]   V             V       -<[F]<-[G]
                          |             |
                          |             |
                [p]<------+             +--------->[p]

     (d) Blue MRT in Area 0           (e) Red MRT in Area 0


                Figure 3: ABR Forwarding Behavior and MRTs

11.  Prefixes Multiply Attached to the MRT Island

   How a computing router S determines its local MRT Island for each
   supported MRT profile is already discussed in Section 7.

   There are two types of prefixes or FECs that may be multiply attached
   to an MRT Island.  The first type are multi-homed prefixes that
   usually connect at a domain or protocol boundary.  The second type
   represent routers that do not support the profile for the MRT Island.



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   The key difference is whether the traffic, once out of the MRT
   Island, remains in the same area/level and might reenter the MRT
   Island if a loop-free exit point is not selected.

   FRR using LFA has the useful property that it is able to protect
   multi-homed prefixes against ABR failure.  For instance, if a prefix
   from the backbone is available via both ABR A and ABR B, if A fails,
   then the traffic should be redirected to B.  This can be accomplished
   with MRT FRR as well.

   If ASBR protection is desired, this has additional complexities if
   the ASBRs are in different areas.  Similarly, protecting labeled BGP
   traffic in the event of an ASBR failure has additional complexities
   due to the per-ASBR label spaces involved.

   As discussed in [RFC5286], a multi-homed prefix could be:

   o  An out-of-area prefix announced by more than one ABR,

   o  An AS-External route announced by 2 or more ASBRs,

   o  A prefix with iBGP multipath to different ASBRs,

   o  etc.

   There are also two different approaches to protection.  The first is
   tunnel endpoint selection where the PLR picks a router to tunnel to
   where that router is loop-free with respect to the failure-point.
   Conceptually, the set of candidate routers to provide LFAs expands to
   all routers that can be reached via an MRT alternate, attached to the
   prefix.

   The second is to use a proxy-node, that can be named via MPLS label
   or IP address, and pick the appropriate label or IP address to reach
   it on either MRT-Blue or MRT-Red as appropriate to avoid the failure
   point.  A proxy-node can represent a destination prefix that can be
   attached to the MRT Island via at least two routers.  It is termed a
   named proxy-node if there is a way that traffic can be encapsulated
   to reach specifically that proxy-node; this could be because there is
   an LDP FEC for the associated prefix or because MRT-Red and MRT-Blue
   IP addresses are advertised in an as-yet undefined fashion for that
   proxy-node.  Traffic to a named proxy-node may take a different path
   than traffic to the attaching router; traffic is also explicitly
   forwarded from the attaching router along a predetermined interface
   towards the relevant prefixes.

   For IP traffic, multi-homed prefixes can use tunnel endpoint
   selection.  For IP traffic that is destined to a router outside the



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   MRT Island, if that router is the egress for a FEC advertised into
   the MRT Island, then the named proxy-node approach can be used.

   For LDP traffic, there is always a FEC advertised into the MRT
   Island.  The named proxy-node approach should be used, unless the
   computing router S knows the label for the FEC at the selected tunnel
   endpoint.

   If a FEC is advertised from outside the MRT Island into the MRT
   Island and the forwarding mechanism specified in the profile includes
   LDP, then the routers learning that FEC MUST also advertise labels
   for (MRT-Red, FEC) and (MRT-Blue, FEC) to neighbors inside the MRT
   Island.  Any router receiving a FEC corresponding to a router outside
   the MRT Island or to a multi-homed prefix MUST compute and install
   the transit MRT-Blue and MRT-Red next-hops for that FEC.  The FEC-
   label bindings for the topology-scoped FECs ((MT-ID 0, FEC), (MRT-
   Red, FEC), and (MRT-Blue, FEC)) MUST also be provided via LDP to
   neighbors inside the MRT Island.

11.1.  Protecting Multi-Homed Prefixes using Tunnel Endpoint Selection

   Tunnel endpoint selection is a local matter for a router in the MRT
   Island since it pertains to selecting and using an alternate and does
   not affect the transit MRT-Red and MRT-Blue forwarding topologies.

   Let the computing router be S and the next-hop F be the node whose
   failure is to be avoided.  Let the destination be prefix p.  Have A
   be the router to which the prefix p is attached for S's shortest path
   to p.

   The candidates for tunnel endpoint selection are those to which the
   destination prefix is attached in the area/level.  For a particular
   candidate B, it is necessary to determine if B is loop-free to reach
   p with respect to S and F for node-protection or at least with
   respect to S and the link (S, F) for link-protection.  If B will
   always prefer to send traffic to p via a different area/level, then
   this is definitional.  Otherwise, distance-based computations are
   necessary and an SPF from B's perspective may be necessary.  The
   following equations give the checks needed; the rationale is similar
   to that given in [RFC5286].

   Loop-Free for S: D_opt(B, p) < D_opt(B, S) + D_opt(S, p)

   Loop-Free for F: D_opt(B, p) < D_opt(B, F) + D_opt(F, p)

   The latter is equivalent to the following, which avoids the need to
   compute the shortest path from F to p.




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   Loop-Free for F: D_opt(B, p) < D_opt(B, F) + D_opt(S, p) - D_opt(S,
   F)

   Finally, the rules for Endpoint selection are given below.  The basic
   idea is to repair to the prefix-advertising router selected for the
   shortest-path and only to select and tunnel to a different endpoint
   if necessary (e.g.  A=F or F is a cut-vertex or the link (S,F) is a
   cut-link).

   1.  Does S have a node-protecting alternate to A?  If so, select
       that.  Tunnel the packet to A along that alternate.  For example,
       if LDP is the forwarding mechanism, then push the label (MRT-Red,
       A) or (MRT-Blue, A) onto the packet.

   2.  If not, then is there a router B that is loop-free to reach p
       while avoiding both F and S?  If so, select B as the end-point.
       Determine the MRT alternate to reach B while avoiding F.  Tunnel
       the packet to B along that alternate.  For example, with LDP,
       push the label (MRT-Red, B) or (MRT-Blue, B) onto the packet.

   3.  If not, then does S have a link-protecting alternate to A?  If
       so, select that.

   4.  If not, then is there a router B that is loop-free to reach p
       while avoiding S and the link from S to F?  If so, select B as
       the endpoint and the MRT alternate for reaching B from S that
       avoid the link (S,F).

   The tunnel endpoint selected will receive a packet destined to itself
   and, being the egress, will pop that MPLS label (or have signaled
   Implicit Null) and forward based on what is underneath.  This
   suffices for IP traffic since the tunnel endpoint can use the IP
   header of the original packet to continue forwarding the packet.
   However, tunneling will not work for LDP traffic without targeted LDP
   sesssions for learning the FEC-label binding at the tunnel endpoint.

11.2.  Protecting Multi-Homed Prefixes using Named Proxy-Nodes

   Instead, the named proxy-node method works with LDP traffic without
   the need for targeted LDP sessions.  It also has a clear advantage
   over tunnel endpoint selection, in that it is possible to explicitly
   forward from the MRT Island along an interface to a loop-free island
   neighbor when that interface may not be a primary next-hop.

   A named proxy-node represents one or more destinations and, for LDP
   forwarding, has a FEC associated with it that is signaled into the
   MRT Island.  Therefore, it is possible to explicitly label packets to
   go to (MRT-Red, FEC) or (MRT-Blue, FEC); at the border of the MRT



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   Island, the label will swap to meaning (MT-ID 0, FEC).  It would be
   possible to have named proxy-nodes for IP forwarding, but this would
   require extensions to signal two IP addresses to be associated with
   MRT-Red and MRT-Blue for the proxy-node.  A named proxy-node can be
   uniquely represented by the two routers in the MRT Island to which it
   is connected.  The extensions to signal such IP addresses are not
   defined in [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt].  The details of what label-bindings
   must be originated are described in [I-D.atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt].

   Computing the MRT next-hops to a named proxy-node and the MRT
   alternate for the computing router S to avoid a particular failure
   node F is straightforward.  The details of the simple constant-time
   functions, Select_Proxy_Node_NHs() and
   Select_Alternates_Proxy_Node(), are given in
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm].  A key point is that computing
   these MRT next-hops and alternates can be done as new named proxy-
   nodes are added or removed without requiring a new MRT computation or
   impacting other existing MRT paths.  This maps very well to, for
   example, how OSPFv2 [[RFC2328] Section 16.5] does incremental updates
   for new summary-LSAs.

   The key question is how to attach the named proxy-node to the MRT
   Island; all the routers in the MRT Island MUST do this consistently.
   No more than 2 routers in the MRT Island can be selected; one should
   only be selected if there are no others that meet the necessary
   criteria.  The named proxy-node is logically part of the area/level.

   There are two sources for candidate routers in the MRT Island to
   connect to the named proxy-node.  The first set are those routers
   that are advertising the prefix; the named-proxy-cost assigned to
   each prefix-advertising router is the announced cost to the prefix.
   The second set are those routers in the MRT Island that are connected
   to routers not in the MRT Island but in the same area/level; such
   routers will be defined as Island Border Routers (IBRs).  The routers
   connected to the IBRs that are not in the MRT Island and are in the
   same area/level as the MRT island are Island Neighbors(INs).

   Since packets sent to the named proxy-node along MRT-Red or MRT-Blue
   may come from any router inside the MRT Island, it is necessary that
   whatever router to which an IBR forwards the packet be loop-free with
   regard to the whole MRT Island for the destination.  Thus, an IBR is
   a candidate router only if it possesses at least one IN whose
   shortest path to the prefix does not enter the MRT Island.  A method
   for identifying loop-free Island Neighbors(LFINs) is discussed below.
   The named-proxy-cost assigned to each (IBR, IN) pair is cost(IBR, IN)
   + D_opt(IN, prefix).





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   From the set of prefix-advertising routers and the set of IBRs with
   at least one LFIN, the two routers with the lowest named-proxy-cost
   are selected.  Ties are broken based upon the lowest Router ID.  For
   ease of discussion, the two selected routers will be referred to as
   proxy-node attachment routers.

   A proxy-node attachment router has a special forwarding role.  When a
   packet is received destined to (MRT-Red, prefix) or (MRT-Blue,
   prefix), if the proxy-node attachment router is an IBR, it MUST swap
   to the default topology (e.g. swap to the label for (MT-ID 0, prefix)
   or remove the outer IP encapsulation) and forward the packet to the
   IN whose cost was used in the selection.  If the proxy-node
   attachment router is not an IBR, then the packet MUST be removed from
   the MRT forwarding topology and sent along the interface(s) that
   caused the router to advertise the prefix; this interface might be
   out of the area/level/AS.

11.2.1.  Computing if an Island Neighbor (IN) is loop-free

   As discussed, the Island Neighbor needs to be loop-free with regard
   to the whole MRT Island for the destination.  Conceptually, the cost
   of transiting the MRT Island should be regarded as 0.  This can be
   done by collapsing the MRT Island into a single node, as seen in
   Figure 4, and then computing SPFs from each Island Neighbor and from
   the MRT Island itself.


























Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


             [G]---[E]---(V)---(U)---(T)
              | \   |     |           |
              |  \  |     |           |
              |   \ |     |           |
             [H]---[F]---(R)---(S)----|

          (1) Network Graph with Partial Deployment

            [E],[F],[G],[H] :  No support for MRT
            (R),(S),(T),(U),(V):  MRT Island - supports MRT


        [G]---[E]----|                     |---(V)---(U)---(T)
         | \   |     |                     |    |           |
         |  \  |  ( MRT Island )      [ proxy ] |           |
         |   \ |     |                     |    |           |
        [H]---[F]----|                     |---(R)---(S)----|

         (2) Graph for determining    (3) Graph for MRT computation
             loop-free neighbors


   Figure 4: Computing alternates to destinations outside the MRT Island

   The simple way to do this without manipulating the topology is to
   compute the SPFs from each IN and a node in the MRT Island (e.g. the
   GADAG root), but use a link metric of 0 for all links between routers
   in the MRT Island.  The distances computed via SPF this way will be
   refered to as Dist_mrt0.

   An IN is loop-free with respect to a destination D if: Dist_mrt0(IN,
   D) < Dist_mrt0(IN, MRT Island Router) + Dist_mrt0(MRT Island Router,
   D).  Any router in the MRT Island can be used since the cost of
   transiting between MRT Island routers is 0.  The GADAG Root is
   recommended for consistency.

11.3.  MRT Alternates for Destinations Outside the MRT Island

   A natural concern with new functionality is how to have it be useful
   when it is not deployed across an entire IGP area.  In the case of
   MRT FRR, where it provides alternates when appropriate LFAs aren't
   available, there are also deployment scenarios where it may make
   sense to only enable some routers in an area with MRT FRR.  A simple
   example of such a scenario would be a ring of 6 or more routers that
   is connected via two routers to the rest of the area.

   Destinations inside the local island can obviously use MRT
   alternates.  Destinations outside the local island can be treated



Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   like a multi-homed prefix and either Endpoint Selection or Named
   Proxy-Nodes can be used.  Named Proxy-Nodes MUST be supported when
   LDP forwarding is supported and a label-binding for the destination
   is sent to an IBR.

   Naturally, there are more complicated options to improve coverage,
   such as connecting multiple MRT islands across tunnels, but the need
   for the additional complexity has not been justified.

12.  Network Convergence and Preparing for the Next Failure

   After a failure, MRT detours ensure that packets reach their intended
   destination while the IGP has not reconverged onto the new topology.
   As link-state updates reach the routers, the IGP process calculates
   the new shortest paths.  Two things need attention: micro-loop
   prevention and MRT re-calculation.

12.1.  Micro-forwarding loop prevention and MRTs

   As is well known[RFC5715], micro-loops can occur during IGP
   convergence; such loops can be local to the failure or remote from
   the failure.  Managing micro-loops is an orthogonal issue to having
   alternates for local repair, such as MRT fast-reroute provides.

   There are two possible micro-loop prevention mechanisms discussed in
   [RFC5715].  The first is Ordered FIB [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib].
   The second is Farside Tunneling which requires tunnels or an
   alternate topology to reach routers on the farside of the failure.

   Since MRTs provide an alternate topology through which traffic can be
   sent and which can be manipulated separately from the SPT, it is
   possible that MRTs could be used to support Farside Tunneling.
   Details of how to do so are outside the scope of this document.

   Micro-loop mitigation mechanisms can also work when combined with
   MRT.

12.2.  MRT Recalculation

   When a failure event happens, traffic is put by the PLRs onto the MRT
   topologies.  After that, each router recomputes its shortest path
   tree (SPT) and moves traffic over to that.  Only after all the PLRs
   have switched to using their SPTs and traffic has drained from the
   MRT topologies should each router install the recomputed MRTs into
   the FIBs.

   At each router, therefore, the sequence is as follows:




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   1.  Receive failure notification

   2.  Recompute SPT

   3.  Install new SPT

   4.  If the network was stable before the failure occured, wait a
       configured (or advertised) period for all routers to be using
       their SPTs and traffic to drain from the MRTs.

   5.  Recompute MRTs

   6.  Install new MRTs.

   While the recomputed MRTs are not installed in the FIB, protection
   coverage is lowered.  Therefore, it is important to recalculate the
   MRTs and install them quickly.

13.  Implementation Status

   [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC6982].
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to
   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC6982], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
   to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
   running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
   and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
   It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
   they see fit".

   Juniper Networks Implementation

   o  Organization responsible for the implementation: Juniper Networks

   o  Implementation name: MRT-FRR algorithm




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   o  Implementation description: The MRT-FRR algorithm using OSPF as
      the IGP has been implemented and verified.

   o  The implementation's level of maturity: prototype

   o  Protocol coverage: This implementation of the MRT algorithm
      includes Island identification, GADAG root selection, Lowpoint
      algorithm, augmentation of GADAG with additional links, and
      calculation of MRT transit next-hops alternate next-hops based on
      draft "draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-00".  This
      implementation also includes the M-bit in OSPF based on "draft-
      atlas-ospf-mrt-01" as well as LDP MRT Capability based on "draft-
      atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt-00".

   o  Licensing: proprietary

   o  Implementation experience: Implementation was useful for verifying
      functionality and lack of gaps.  It has also been useful for
      improving aspects of the algorithm.

   o  Contact information: akatlas@juniper.net, shraddha@juniper.net,
      kishoret@juniper.net

   Huawei Technology Implementation

   o  Organization responsible for the implementation: Huawei Technology
      Co., Ltd.

   o  Implementation name: MRT-FRR algorithm and IS-IS extensions for
      MRT.

   o  Implementation description: The MRT-FRR algorithm, IS-IS
      extensions for MRT and LDP multi-topology have been implemented
      and verified.

   o  The implementation's level of maturity: prototype

   o  Protocol coverage: This implementation of the MRT algorithm
      includes Island identification, GADAG root selection, Lowpoint
      algorithm, augmentation of GADAG with additional links, and
      calculation of MRT transit next-hops alternate next-hops based on
      draft "draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03".  This
      implementation also includes IS-IS extension for MRT based on
      "draft-li-mrt-00".

   o  Licensing: proprietary





Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   o  Implementation experience: It is important produce a second
      implementation to verify the algorithm is implemented correctly
      without looping.  It is important to verify the ISIS extensions
      work for MRT-FRR.

   o  Contact information: lizhenbin@huawei.com, eric.wu@huawei.com

14.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Mike Shand for his valuable review
   and contributions.

   The authors would like to thank Joel Halpern, Hannes Gredler, Ted
   Qian, Kishore Tiruveedhula, Shraddha Hegde, Santosh Esale, Nitin
   Bahadur, Harish Sitaraman, and Raveendra Torvi for their suggestions
   and review.

15.  IANA Considerations

   Please create an MRT Profile registry for the MRT Profile TLV.  The
   range is 0 to 255.  The default MRT Profile has value 0.  Values
   1-200 are by Standards Action.  Values 201-220 are for
   experimentation.  Values 221-255 are for vendor private use.

   Please allocate values from the LDP Multi-Topology (MT) ID Name Space
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology] for the following: Default Profile
   MRT-Red MT-ID (TBA-MRT-ARCH-1) and Default Profile MRT-Blue MT-ID
   (TBA-MRT-ARCH-2).  Please allocate MT-ID values less than 4096 so
   that they can also be signalled in PIM.

16.  Security Considerations

   This architecture is not currently believed to introduce new security
   concerns.

17.  References

17.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm]
              Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A.
              Gopalan, "Algorithms for computing Maximally Redundant
              Trees for IP/LDP Fast-Reroute", draft-rtgwg-mrt-frr-
              algorithm-01 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
              Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   [RFC5714]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC
              5714, January 2010.

17.2.  Informative References

   [EnyediThesis]
              Enyedi, G., "Novel Algorithms for IP Fast Reroute",
              Department of Telecommunications and Media Informatics,
              Budapest University of Technology and Economics Ph.D.
              Thesis, February 2011,
              <http://timon.tmit.bme.hu/theses/thesis_book.pdf>.

   [I-D.atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt]
              Atlas, A., Tiruveedhula, K., Tantsura, J., and IJ.
              Wijnands, "LDP Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant
              Trees", draft-atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt-01 (work in progress),
              July 2014.

   [I-D.atlas-ospf-mrt]
              Atlas, A., Hegde, S., Bowers, C., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions to Support Maximally Redundant Trees", draft-
              atlas-ospf-mrt-02 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [I-D.atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-arch]
              Atlas, A., Kebler, R., Wijnands, I., Csaszar, A., and G.
              Envedi, "An Architecture for Multicast Protection Using
              Maximally Redundant Trees", draft-atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-
              arch-02 (work in progress), July 2013.

   [I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels]
              Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "IP
              Fast Reroute using tunnels", draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-03
              (work in progress), November 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology]
              Zhao, Q., Raza, K., Zhou, C., Fang, L., Li, L., and D.
              King, "LDP Extensions for Multi Topology", draft-ietf-
              mpls-ldp-multi-topology-12 (work in progress), April 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses]
              Bryant, S., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "A Framework for IP
              and MPLS Fast Reroute Using Not-via Addresses", draft-
              ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-11 (work in progress),
              May 2013.







Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib]
              Shand, M., Bryant, S., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C.,
              Francois, P., and O. Bonaventure, "Framework for Loop-free
              convergence using oFIB", draft-ietf-rtgwg-ordered-fib-12
              (work in progress), May 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]
              Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and S.
              Ning, "Remote LFA FRR", draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-06
              (work in progress), May 2014.

   [I-D.li-isis-mrt]
              Li, Z., Wu, N., Zhao, Q., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and J.
              Tantsura, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-
              IS) Extensions for Maximally Redundant Trees(MRT)", draft-
              li-isis-mrt-01 (work in progress), July 2014.

   [I-D.psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection]
              psarkar@juniper.net, p., Gredler, H., Hegde, S.,
              Raghuveer, H., Bowers, C., and S. Litkowski, "Remote-LFA
              Node Protection and Manageability", draft-psarkar-rtgwg-
              rlfa-node-protection-04 (work in progress), April 2014.

   [LFARevisited]
              Retvari, G., Tapolcai, J., Enyedi, G., and A. Csaszar, "IP
              Fast ReRoute: Loop Free Alternates Revisited", Proceedings
              of IEEE INFOCOM , 2011,
              <http://opti.tmit.bme.hu/~tapolcai/papers/
              retvari2011lfa_infocom.pdf>.

   [LightweightNotVia]
              Enyedi, G., Retvari, G., Szilagyi, P., and A. Csaszar, "IP
              Fast ReRoute: Lightweight Not-Via without Additional
              Addresses", Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM , 2009,
              <http://mycite.omikk.bme.hu/doc/71691.pdf>.

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

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC3137]  Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D.
              McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137,
              June 2001.

   [RFC5443]  Jork, M., Atlas, A., and L. Fang, "LDP IGP
              Synchronization", RFC 5443, March 2009.




Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   [RFC5715]  Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free
              Convergence", RFC 5715, January 2010.

   [RFC6571]  Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Shand, M., Decraene, B.,
              Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
              Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
              Networks", RFC 6571, June 2012.

   [RFC6982]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982, July
              2013.

Appendix A.  General Issues with Area Abstraction

   When a multi-homed prefix is connected in two different areas, it may
   be impractical to protect them without adding the complexity of
   explicit tunneling.  This is also a problem for LFA and Remote-LFA.

          50
        |----[ASBR Y]---[B]---[ABR 2]---[C]      Backbone Area 0:
        |                                |           ABR 1, ABR 2, C, D
        |                                |
        |                                |       Area 20:  A, ASBR X
        |                                |
        p ---[ASBR X]---[A]---[ABR 1]---[D]      Area 10: B, ASBR Y
           5                                  p is a Type 1 AS-external


             Figure 5: AS external prefixes in different areas

   Consider the network in Figure 5 and assume there is a richer
   connective topology that isn't shown, where the same prefix is
   announced by ASBR X and ASBR Y which are in different non-backbone
   areas.  If the link from A to ASBR X fails, then an MRT alternate
   could forward the packet to ABR 1 and ABR 1 could forward it to D,
   but then D would find the shortest route is back via ABR 1 to Area
   20.  This problem occurs because the routers, including the ABR, in
   one area are not yet aware of the failure in a different area.

   The only way to get it from A to ASBR Y is to explicitly tunnel it to
   ASBR Y.  If the traffic is unlabeled or the appropriate MPLS labels
   are known, then explicit tunneling MAY be used as long as the
   shortest-path of the tunnel avoids the failure point.  In that case,
   A must determine that it should use an explicit tunnel instead of an
   MRT alternate.






Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Alia Atlas (editor)
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, MA  01886
   USA

   Email: akatlas@juniper.net


   Robert Kebler
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, MA  01886
   USA

   Email: rkebler@juniper.net


   Chris Bowers
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   USA

   Email: cbowers@juniper.net


   Gabor Sandor Enyedi
   Ericsson
   Konyves Kalman krt 11.
   Budapest  1097
   Hungary

   Email: Gabor.Sandor.Enyedi@ericsson.com


   Andras Csaszar
   Ericsson
   Konyves Kalman krt 11
   Budapest  1097
   Hungary

   Email: Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com






Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft        MRT Unicast FRR Architecture             July 2014


   Jeff Tantsura
   Ericsson
   300 Holger Way
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com


   Maciek Konstantynowicz
   Cisco Systems

   Email: maciek@bgp.nu


   Russ White
   VCE

   Email: russw@riw.us
































Atlas, et al.            Expires January 5, 2015               [Page 41]


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