draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-05.txt 
Network Working Group T. Beckhaus Network Working Group T. Beckhaus
Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom AG Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom AG
Intended status: Informational B. Decraene Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene
Expires: August 7, 2013 France Telecom Expires: August 29, 2013 France Telecom
K. Tiruveedhula K. Tiruveedhula
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
M. Konstantynowicz M. Konstantynowicz
L. Martini L. Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
February 3, 2013 February 25, 2013
LDP Downstream-on-Demand in Seamless MPLS LDP Downstream-on-Demand in Seamless MPLS
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-04 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-05
Abstract Abstract
Seamless MPLS design enables a single IP/MPLS network to scale over Seamless MPLS design enables a single IP/MPLS network to scale over
core, metro and access parts of a large packet network infrastructure core, metro and access parts of a large packet network infrastructure
using standardized IP/MPLS protocols. One of the key goals of using standardized IP/MPLS protocols. One of the key goals of
Seamless MPLS is to meet requirements specific to access, including Seamless MPLS is to meet requirements specific to access, including
high number of devices, their position in network topology and their high number of devices, their position in network topology and their
compute and memory constraints that limit the amount of state access compute and memory constraints that limit the amount of state access
devices can hold.This can be achieved with LDP Downstream-on-Demand devices can hold.This can be achieved with LDP Downstream-on-Demand
skipping to change at page 2, line 8 skipping to change at page 2, line 8
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 7, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 43
4.6. Label Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.6. Label Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.7. Local Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.7. Local Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1. LDP TLV TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.1. LDP TLV TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1. Security and LDP DoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1. Security and LDP DoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1.1. Access to network packet flow direction . . . . . . . 28 6.1.1. Access to network packet flow direction . . . . . . . 28
6.1.2. Network to access packet flow direction . . . . . . . 28 6.1.2. Network to access packet flow direction . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Data Plane Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.2. Data Plane Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3. Control Plane Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.3. Control Plane Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Seamless MPLS design [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] enables a single Seamless MPLS design [I-D.ietf-mpls-seamless-mpls] enables a single
IP/MPLS network to scale over core, metro and access parts of a large IP/MPLS network to scale over core, metro and access parts of a large
packet network infrastructure using standardized IP/MPLS protocols. packet network infrastructure using standardized IP/MPLS protocols.
skipping to change at page 19, line 14 skipping to change at page 19, line 14
part of global-repair. In turn ANs should also sent Label Withdraw part of global-repair. In turn ANs should also sent Label Withdraw
messages for affected /32 FECs to their upstream ANs. messages for affected /32 FECs to their upstream ANs.
If access IGP is used, and AGN1x gets completely isolated from the If access IGP is used, and AGN1x gets completely isolated from the
core network, it should stop advertising the default route 0/0 into core network, it should stop advertising the default route 0/0 into
the access IGP. the access IGP.
4. LDP DoD Procedures 4. LDP DoD Procedures
Label Distribution Protocol is specified in [RFC5036], and all LDP Label Distribution Protocol is specified in [RFC5036], and all LDP
Downstream-on-Demand implementations MUST follow this specification. Downstream-on-Demand implementations MUST follow [RFC5036]
specification.
In the MPLS architecture [RFC3031], network traffic flows from In the MPLS architecture [RFC3031], network traffic flows from
upstream to downstream LSR. The use cases in this document rely on upstream to downstream LSR. The use cases in this document rely on
the downstream assignment of labels, where labels are assigned by the the downstream assignment of labels, where labels are assigned by the
downstream LSR and signaled to the upstream LSR as shown in Figure 7. downstream LSR and signaled to the upstream LSR as shown in Figure 7.
+----------+ +------------+ +----------+ +------------+
| upstream | | downstream | | upstream | | downstream |
------+ LSR +------+ LSR +---- ------+ LSR +------+ LSR +----
traffic | | | | address traffic | | | | address
skipping to change at page 27, line 13 skipping to change at page 27, line 16
/32 static route with LDP DoD label request policy configured. /32 static route with LDP DoD label request policy configured.
d. If the route next-hop changed, and the label does not point to d. If the route next-hop changed, and the label does not point to
the best or alternate next-hop. the best or alternate next-hop.
e. If it receives a label withdraw from a downstream DoD session. e. If it receives a label withdraw from a downstream DoD session.
4.7. Local Repair 4.7. Local Repair
To support local-repair with ECMP and IPFRR LFA, access LSR/ABR MUST To support local-repair with ECMP and IPFRR LFA, access LSR/ABR MUST
request labels on both best next-hop and alternate next-hop LDP DoD request labels on both the best next-hop and the alternate next-hop
sessions as specified in the label request procedures in Section 4.4. LDP DoD sessions, as specified in the label request procedures in
Section 4.4. If remote LFA is enabled, access LSR/ABR needs a label
from its alternate next-hop toward the PQ node and needs a label from
the remote PQ node toward its FEC/destination. If access LSR/ABR
doesn't already know those labels, it MUST request them.
This will enable access LSR/ABR to pre-program the alternate This will enable access LSR/ABR to pre-program the alternate
forwarding path with the alternate label(s), and invoke IPFRR LFA forwarding path with the alternate label(s), and invoke IPFRR LFA
switch-over procedure if the primary next-hop link fails. switch-over procedure if the primary next-hop link fails.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. LDP TLV TYPE 5.1. LDP TLV TYPE
This document uses a new a new Optional Parameter Queue Request TLV This document uses a new a new Optional Parameter Queue Request TLV
in the Label Request message defined in Section 4.4.3. IANA already in the Label Request message defined in Section 4.4.3. IANA already
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 15 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/