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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                      J. Jeganathan
Internet-Draft                                                H. Gredler
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: April 25, 2013                                     oct 22, 2012


                 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection
            draft-minto-2547-egress-node-fast-protection-01

Abstract

   This document specifies a mechanism for protecting RFC2547 based VPN
   service against egress node failure.  The mechanism enables local
   repair to be performed immediately upon a egress node failure.  In
   particular, the router at point of local repair (PLR) can redirect
   VPN traffic to a protector to repair in the order of tens of
   milliseconds, achieving fast protection that is comparable to MPLS
   fast reroute.

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 April 25, 2013.

Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Specification of Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Theory of Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.1.  Protector and Protection Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       5.1.1.  Co-located protector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       5.1.2.  Centralized protector  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.2.  Context Identifier and VPN prefixes. . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.3.  Forwarding State on Protector PE . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       5.3.1.  Alternate egress PE for protected prefix.  . . . . . .  8
     5.4.  MPLS egress Fast reroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.4.1.  RSVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       5.4.2.  LDP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  Egress node Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
























Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


1.  Introduction

   This document specifies a mechanism for protecting RFC2547 based VPN
   against egress PE failure.  The procedures in this document are
   relevant only when a VPN site is multi-homed to two or more PEs.
   This is designed on the basis of MPLS context specific label
   switching [RFC 5331].  Fast-protection refers to the ability to
   provide local repair upon a failure in the order of tens of
   milliseconds, which is comparable to MPLS fast-reroute [RFC 4090].
   This is achieved by establishing local protection as close to a
   failure as possible.  Compared with the existing global repair
   mechanisms that rely on control plane convergence, these procedures
   can provide faster restoration for VPN traffic.  However, they are
   intended to complement the global repair mechanisms, rather than
   replacing them in any way.


2.  Specification of Requirements

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


3.  Terminology

   Protected PE: A PE which request protection for minimum one VPN
   prefix.

   Protected prefix: A VPN prefix that required protection in case of
   Protected PE goes down.

   Protector: A router which protect one or more VPN prefix when a
   Protected PE goes down.

   BGP nexthop: A nexthop advertised in the BGP-Update for the VPN
   prefix by a BGP speaker.

   VPN label: A label advertised by a BGP speaker for set of VPN
   prefixes.  This label can be per-VRF label or per nexthop label or
   per prefix label.

   Transport LSP: A LSP setup to BGP nexthop either by LDP or RSVP.

   Alternative egress PE: A PE originates same IP prefix as Protected
   prefix in a same VPN.

   VPN transport LSP: A Transport LSP that carries VPN traffic.



Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


   Context table: A context-specific label space routing table.  This
   table is per is populated with VPN labels advertised by the
   protected-PE.

   Context node: A stub router advertised into IGP by protected PE for a
   context-identifier.


4.  Reference topology

   This document refers to the following topologies to describe various
   roles and solution.




                           .......................
                           .                     .
            +-------+--CE1----PE1            PE4----CE5---+-------+
            | red   |      .     \           /   .        | red   |
            | site1 |      .      \         /    .        | site2 |
            +-------+--CE2-----+   P--P--PLR1  +----CE6---+-------+
                           .   |  /   |   | \  | .
                           .   PE2    RR  |  PE5 .
                           .   |  \   |   | /  | .
            +-------+--CE3-----+   P--P--PLR2  +----CE7--+-------+
            | blue  |      .      /        \     .       |blue   |
            | site1 |      .     /          \    .       |site2  |
            +-------+--CE4-----PE3           PE6----CE8--+-------+
                           .                     .
                           .                     .
                           .......................

                                 Figure 1

   In Topology-1 two VPNs red and blue with two sites multihomed with
   PEs.  Let assume blue and red VPN site2 prefixes required egress
   protection in case of PE5 goes down.  PE5 is protected PE for site2
   prefixes for both VPN.  PE4 is alternate PE for red site2 prefixes.
   PE6 is alternate PE for blue site2 prefixes.  For PE4 could act as
   protector for red VPN site2 and PE6 could acts as protector for blue
   VPN site2.  This model is co-located protector model.  RR could act
   as protector for both red and blue VPN site2.  This is Centralized
   protector model (A PE protecting set of VPNs and not connected to any
   VPN site).






Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


                           .......................
                           .                     .
            +-------+--CE1----PE1            PE4----CE5---+-------+
            | red   |      .     \           /   .        | red   |
            | site1 |      .      \         /    .        | site2 |
            +-------+--CE2-----+   P--P--PLR1  +----CE6---+-------+
                           .   |  /   |   | \  | .
                           .   PE2    RR  |  PE5 .
                           .   |  \   |   | /  | .
            +-------+--CE3-----+   P--P--PLR2  +----CE7--+-------+
            | red   |      .      /        \     .       |red    |
            | site5 |      .     /          \    .       |site4  |
            +-------+--CE4-----PE3           PE6----CE8--+-------+
                           .                     .
                           .                     .
                           .......................

                                 Figure 2

   In Topology-2 has a VPNs red with four sites and multihomed with PEs.
   Let assume red VPN site2 and site4 prefixes required egress
   protection in case of PE5 goes down.  PE5 is protected PE for site2,
   site4 prefixes for red VPN.  PE4 is alternate PE for site2 prefixes.
   PE6 is alternate PE for site4 prefixes.  Either PE4 or PE6 could act
   as protector.  This is a slight variation of the co-located model.


5.  Theory of Operation

   The Egress PEs attached to multi-homed site export VPN prefixes with
   different route distinguisher, different nexthop but with same route
   target.  The other PEs attached to other sites with same VPN import
   these route into VRF creates more than one path to multi-homed sites.
   When one egress PE goes down all VPN traffic towards the multihomed
   site moved to alternate egress PEs attached to the multi-homed site
   and this is done by ingress PE.  The VPN traffic going via failed PE
   get dropped in penultimate hop router until ingress PE reroute VPN
   traffic.  Even though connectivity of multi-homed site is not bound
   to an egress PE the transport LSP bind to egress PE.  As result of
   down transport LSP VPN traffic getting dropped in P router.  This
   document specifies a mechanism that repair VPN traffic at point of
   failure (typically a P router which penultimate hop of the transport
   LSP) and still keep P router unaware of the VPN information with the
   help of protector (a new role).  The PLR (point of local repair) send
   VPN traffic to protector through bypass LSP incase of egress PE
   failure.  This protector send VPN traffic received from PLR to the
   alternative egress PE until the ingress reroute traffic to alternate
   egress PE.



Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


5.1.  Protector and Protection Models

   Protector, is a new role for the egress PE failure local repair.
   This protector role could be played by a PE(alternate egress PE) or
   any other nodes which participates in VPN control plane for VPN
   prefixes that required egress node protection.  Hence, there are two
   protection models based on the location and role of a protector.

5.1.1.  Co-located protector

   In this model, the protector is a alternate egress PE for a protected
   prefix.  It is co-located with the alternate PE for the protected
   prefix, and it has a direct connection to the multi-homed site that
   originate the protected prefix.  In the event of an egress node
   failure, the protector receives traffic from the PLR, and sends the
   traffic to the multi-homed site.  In the topology-1 PE4 could act as
   protector for red VPN site2 and PE6 could acts as protector for blue
   VPN site2.  This model is co-located protector model.  RR could act
   as protector for both red and blue VPN site2.  This is Centralized
   protector model (A PE protecting set of VPNs and not connected to any
   VPN site).

   A slight variant of this model is, protector is not alternate PE for
   a protected prefix but has same VRF.  In the topology-2 either PE4 or
   PE6 could act as protector.  This is example for the above model.

5.1.2.  Centralized protector

   In this model, the protector serves as a centralized protector MAY
   NOT have a direct connection to multi-homed site.  This model can be
   played by existing PEs or other PEs.  In the event of an egress PE
   failure, protector MUST send the traffic to a alternate egress PE
   with VPN label advertised alternate egress PE for the prefix which in
   turn sends the traffic to the multi-homed site.  In the topology-1 RR
   could act as protector for both red and blue VPN site2.  This is
   Centralized protector model (A PE protecting set of VPNs and not
   connected to any VPN site).

   A network MAY use either protection model or a combination of both,
   depending on requirements.

5.2.  Context Identifier and VPN prefixes.

   The context-identifier is an IP address that is either globally
   unique or unique in the private address space of the routing domain.
   In Egress PE each VPN prefix is assigned to context-identifier.  The
   granularity of a context identifier is {Egress PE, VPN prefix} tuple.
   However, a given context identifier MAY be assigned to one or



Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


   multiple VPN prefixes.

   Possible context identifier assignments are

   o  Unique context-identifier for all VPN prefixes, both VPN-IPv4 and
      VPN-IPv6.

   o  Unique context-identifier per address family.

   o  Unique context-identifier per site for all VPN prefixes, both VPN-
      IPv4 and VPN-IPv6.

   o  Unique context-identifier per site per address family.

   o  Unique context-identifier per CE address (nexthop).

   o  Unique context identifier for each prefix.

   The first one is coarsest granularity of a context identifier and the
   last one is finest granularity of a context identifier.  While all of
   the above options are possible in principle, their practical usage is
   likely to vary widely, as not all of them may be of practical usage.
   A given context identifier MUST NOT be used by more than one
   protected PE.  The egress PE that required protection for a VPN
   prefix MUST set context-identifier as nexthop for VPN-IPv4 and IPv4-
   Mapped context-identifier for VPN-IPv6 in BGP update.  This context-
   identifier as nexthop indicates to protector that this prefix need
   protection.  For e.g.  In topology 1 PE5(protected PE) advertise VPN
   prefixes with context-identifier as BGP nexthop.

5.3.  Forwarding State on Protector PE

   A protector maintain the forwarding state in context-specific label
   spaces on a per protected PE basis.  In particular, the protector
   MUST learn the VPN label by participating the VPN routing and also
   MUST keep all routes associated with VPN it required to protect.

   For each VPN label with an associated context-identifier protector
   MUST map the context identifier to a context-specific label space
   [RFC 5331], and program the VPN label in that label space in
   forwarding plane.  For each VPN prefix that required protection
   programmed in the forwarding plane with BGP nexthop to alternate
   egress PE.  This VPN label in the context-specific label space
   identify the layer-3 forwarding table that need to lookup to send it
   alternate egress PE.  The protector MAY maintain only VPN prefix
   originated with-in the multi-homed site for given {egress PE, VPN}.
   These VPN labels in context table and VPN context table will not be
   used in forwarding after ingress reroute the traffic to alternative



Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


   PE.  Protector MUST delete VPN label and the VPN context table after
   ingress reroute the traffic.  This shall be achieved with a timer.
   This timer default value is 180 seconds.

5.3.1.  Alternate egress PE for protected prefix.

   Any route with BGP nexthop which has the following properties

      Exact matching route-target set (RD may be different)

      Exact matching Prefix part (excluding the RD)

   will be eligible as alternate egress PE for prefix.

5.4.  MPLS egress Fast reroute

   A Protector should able to receive the traffic from PLR in the event
   of an egress PE failure with forwarding context that enable protector
   to repair the traffic.

5.4.1.  RSVP

   If RSVP LSP is used for transport then protector, primary and PLR
   MUST follow backup egress procedure specified in [rsvp-egress-frr].
   So that P router redirects the traffic during primary PE failure.

5.4.2.  LDP

   If it is LDP LSP then LDP FEC for this LSP MUST be the context
   identifier of the protected segment.  Prefix LFA or remote prefix LFA
   with node protection can be used for redirect traffic to protector.


6.   Egress node Failure

   This section summarizes the procedures egress protection described
   above section for completeness.  A Egress PE, Protector, PLR follows
   the methods described in [rsvp-egress-frr].  The protector programs
   forwarding state in such a way that packets received on the bypass
   LSP will be forwarded based on VPN label in the context table, and
   prefix lookup in VPN context table.  The context table identified by
   the UHP label of the bypass LSP, i.e. the context identifier.

   When the penultimate Hop router receives a VPN packet from the MPLS
   network, if the egress PE is down, the PLR tunnels the packet through
   the bypass LSP to the protector.  The protector PE identifies the
   forwarding context of the egress PE based on the top label of the
   packet which is the UHP label of the bypass LSP.  Then forwards



Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


   protector the packet based on a second label lookup in the protected
   PE's context label space followed by layer-3 lookup in the VPN
   context table.  These UHP label, context table label and layer-3
   lookup results in forwarding the packet to the site or send it to
   alternate egress PE based on protector model.

   For E.g.  In topology-1 RR is act as Protector and PE5 required
   protection for red, blue site2 prefixes.  As red, blue site2 VPN
   prefixes advertised with context-identifier, the protector set up the
   forwarding table for prefixes from site2 with alternative egress PE
   as nexthop.  When PLR detects PE5 failure it send to protector
   through bypass LSP.  In protector the top label identify the context
   space table.  VPN label in the context table identify the VPN layer-3
   forwarding table with contains site2 prefixes with alternate PE as
   nexthop.  A Layer-3 lookup gives mpls path to alternate egress PE and
   protector forward packet to alternate egress PE and reach to the
   site2.


7.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations discussed in RFC 5036, RFC 5331, RFC
   3209, and RFC 4090 apply to this document.


8.  Acknowledgements

   This draft is based on the ideas originally developed by JL Le Roux,
   Bruno Decraene and Zubair Ahmad.  This document leverages work done
   by Yakov Rekhter and several others on LSP tail-end protection.
   Thanks to Nischal Sheth, Nitin Bahadur, Yimin shen and Maciek
   Konstantynowicz for their contribution.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5331]  Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
              Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
              RFC 5331, August 2008.

   [RFC4364]  Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
              Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February  2006.

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




Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


   [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              May 2005.

   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
              January 2003.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [LDP-UPSTREAM]
              Aggarwal, R. and J. Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment
              for LDP", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream (work in progress),
              2011.

   [RSVP-NON-PHP-OOB]
              Ali, A., Swallow, Z., and R. Aggarwal, "Non PHP Behavior
              and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs",
              draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping (work in
              progress), 2011.

9.2.  Informative References

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

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
              IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5920,
              September  2008.

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

   [rsvp-egress-frr]
              Jeganathan, J., Gredler, H., and Y. Shen, "IP Fast Reroute
              Framework", draft-minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection-01
              (work in progress), Oct  2012, <rsvp egress frr>.





Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft   2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection         oct 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Jeyananth Minto Jeganathan
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   USA

   Email: minto@juniper.net


   Hannes Gredler
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   USA

   Email: hannes@juniper.net


   Juniper Networks






























Jeganathan, et al.       Expires April 25, 2013                [Page 11]


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