--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-04.txt 2013-02-26 03:32:00.495792691 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-05.txt 2013-02-26 03:32:00.555839811 +0100 @@ -1,24 +1,24 @@ Network Working Group T. Beckhaus Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom AG -Intended status: Informational B. Decraene -Expires: August 7, 2013 France Telecom +Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene +Expires: August 29, 2013 France Telecom K. Tiruveedhula Juniper Networks M. Konstantynowicz L. Martini Cisco Systems, Inc. - February 3, 2013 + February 25, 2013 LDP Downstream-on-Demand in Seamless MPLS - draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-04 + draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-05 Abstract Seamless MPLS design enables a single IP/MPLS network to scale over core, metro and access parts of a large packet network infrastructure using standardized IP/MPLS protocols. One of the key goals of Seamless MPLS is to meet requirements specific to access, including high number of devices, their position in network topology and their compute and memory constraints that limit the amount of state access devices can hold.This can be achieved with LDP Downstream-on-Demand @@ -43,21 +43,21 @@ 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 August 7, 2013. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2013. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 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 @@ -98,21 +98,21 @@ 4.6. Label Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.7. Local Repair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.1. LDP TLV TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.1. Security and LDP DoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1.1. Access to network packet flow direction . . . . . . . 28 6.1.2. Network to access packet flow direction . . . . . . . 28 6.2. Data Plane Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.3. Control Plane Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 1. Introduction 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 packet network infrastructure using standardized IP/MPLS protocols. @@ -817,21 +817,22 @@ part of global-repair. In turn ANs should also sent Label Withdraw messages for affected /32 FECs to their upstream ANs. If access IGP is used, and AGN1x gets completely isolated from the core network, it should stop advertising the default route 0/0 into the access IGP. 4. LDP DoD Procedures 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 upstream to downstream LSR. The use cases in this document rely on the downstream assignment of labels, where labels are assigned by the downstream LSR and signaled to the upstream LSR as shown in Figure 7. +----------+ +------------+ | upstream | | downstream | ------+ LSR +------+ LSR +---- traffic | | | | address @@ -1204,22 +1201,27 @@ /32 static route with LDP DoD label request policy configured. d. If the route next-hop changed, and the label does not point to the best or alternate next-hop. e. If it receives a label withdraw from a downstream DoD session. 4.7. Local Repair 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 - sessions as specified in the label request procedures in Section 4.4. + request labels on both the best next-hop and the alternate next-hop + 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 forwarding path with the alternate label(s), and invoke IPFRR LFA switch-over procedure if the primary next-hop link fails. 5. IANA Considerations 5.1. LDP TLV TYPE 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