wdiff draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt

Network Working Group B. Decraene
Internet Draft J.L. Le Roux
Document: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-04.txt France Telecom
Intended status: Standards Track
Expiration Date: August December 2008 I. Minei
Juniper Networks, Inc.

February 2008

LDP extension for Inter-Area LSP

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

To facilitate the establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSP) that
would span multiple IGP areas in a given Autonomous System (AS), this
document proposes describes a new optional label mapping procedure Longest Match Label Mapping
Procedure for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP).

This procedure allows the use of a label if the Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) Element matches an entry in the routing table
(RIB). Matching is defined by an IP longest match search and does not
mandate an exact match.

Table of Contents

1. Conventions used in this document...........................2
2. Terminology.................................................2
3. Introduction................................................2
4. Problem statement...........................................3
5. Longest Match Label Mapping Procedure.....................................4 Message Procedure...............4
6. Application examples........................................5 examples........................................6
6.1. Inter-area LSPs.............................................5 LSPs.............................................6
6.2. Use of static routes........................................7
7. Caveats for deployment......................................7 deployment......................................8
7.1. Deployment consideration....................................7 considerations...................................8
7.2. Impact on routing Routing convergence time..........................8 time considerations.....................8
8. Security Considerations.....................................8 Considerations.....................................9
9. IANA Considerations.........................................8 Considerations.........................................9
10. References..................................................9
10.1. Normative References........................................9
10.2. Informative References......................................9
11. Acknowledgments.............................................9 Acknowledgments............................................10
12. Author's Addresses.........................................10 Authors' Addresses.........................................11

1. Conventions used in this document

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. [RFC 2119].

2. Terminology

IGP Area: OSPF Area or IS-IS level

ABR: OSPF Area Border Router or IS-IS L1/L2 router

LSP: Label Switched Path

Intra-area LSP: LSP that does not traverse any IGP area boundary.

Inter-area LSP: LSP that traverses at least one IGP area boundary.

3. Introduction

Link state IGPs Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) such as OSPF [OSPFv2]
and IS-IS [IS-IS] allow the partition of an autonomous system into
areas or levels so as to increase routing scalability within a
routing domain.

However, [LDP] requires recommends that the IP address of the FEC Element
should *exactly* match an entry in the IP RIB: according to [LDP]
section 3.5.7.1 (Label Mapping Messages Procedures) "An LSR "A Label
Switching Router (LSR) receiving a Label Mapping message from a
downstream LSR for a Prefix SHOULD NOT use the label for forwarding
unless its routing table contains an entry that exactly matches the
FEC Element.".

Therefore, MPLS LSPs between LERs Label Edge Routers (LERs) in different
areas/levels are not setup unless the specific (e.g. /32 for IPv4)
loopback addresses of all the LERs are redistributed across all
areas.

The problem statement is discussed in section 4. Then, in section 5
we extend the Label Mapping Procedure defined in [LDP] so as to
support the setup of contiguous inter-area LSPs while maintaining IP
prefix aggregation on the ABRs. This basically consists of allowing for "Longest Match Based" longest
match based Label Mapping.

4. Problem statement

Provider based MPLS VPN (Multi Protocol Label Switching) networks are
expanding with the success of Layer 3 VPN ([L3-VPN]) (Virtual Private Networks
[L3-VPN]) and the new deployments of layer 2 VPNs ([VPLS-BGP], [VPLS-LDP]). [VPLS-
LDP]). Service Provider providers MPLS backbones are significantly growing
both in terms of density with the addition of
PEs Provider Edge (PE)
routers to connect new customers and in terms of footprint as
traditional layer two aggregation networks may be replaced by IP/MPLS
networks.
As a consequence many providers need to introduce IGP areas. Inter-
area LSPs, that is LSPs that traverse at least two IGP areas, are
required to ensure MPLS connectivity between PEs located in distinct
IGP areas.

To set up the required MPLS LSPs between PEs in different IGP areas,
services
service providers have currently three solutions: 1) LDP with IGP
route leaking, 2) BGP [MPLS-BGP] over LDP with MPLS hierarchy, or also inter-
area and 3)
inter-area RSVP-TE [ID-RSVP-TE]. (Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
[RSVP-TE]).

IGP route leaking consists in redistributing all specific PE loopback
addresses across area boundaries. As a result, LDP finds in the RIB
Routing Information Base (RIB) an exact match for its FEC and sets up
the LSP. As a consequence, the potential benefits that a multi-area
domain may yield are significantly diminished since a lot of
addresses have to be redistributed by ABRs, and the number of IP
entries in the LSDB
and IGP Link State DataBase (LSDB), RIB and FIB maintained
by every LSR of the domain (whatever the area/level it belongs to)
cannot be minimized.

Service providers may also set up these inter-area LSPs by using MPLS
hierarchy with BGP [MPLS-BGP] as a label distribution protocol
between areas. The BGP next hop would typically be the ABRs and the
BGP-created LSPs would be nested within intra-area LSPs setup by LDP
between PEs and ABRs and between ABRs.
This solution is not adequate for Service Providers service providers which don't want
to run BGP on their P routers as it requires BGP on all ABRs. In
addition, MPLS hierarchy does not allow locally protecting the LSP
against ABR failures (IP / LDP (IP/LDP Fast Reroute), and hence ensuring sub-
50ms recovery upon ABR failure. The resulting convergence time may
not be acceptable for stringent SLAs Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
required for voice or mission critical applications. Finally, this
solution requires a significant migration effort for Service Providers service
providers which started with LDP and IGP route leaking to quickly
set-up the fist first inter-area LSPs.

Service providers may also setup these inter-area LSPs by using
inter-area RSVP-TE [ID-RSVP-TE]. [RSVP-TE]. This is a relevant solution when
RSVP-TE RSVP-
TE is already used for setting up intra-area LSPs, and inter-
area inter-area
traffic engineering features are required. In return this is not a
desired solution when LDP is already used for setting up intra-area
LSPs, and inter-area traffic engineering features are not required.

To avoid the above drawbacks, there is a need for an LDP based
solution which allows setting up contiguous inter-area LSPs while
avoiding leaking of specific PE loopback addresses across area
boundaries, and hence keeping all the benefits of IGP hierarchy.

In that context, this document defines a new LDP Label Mapping
Procedure so as to support the setup of contiguous inter-area LSPs
while maintaining IP prefix aggregation on the ABRs. This procedure
is similar to the one defined in [LDP] but performs a an IP longest
match when searching the FEC element in the RIB.

5. Longest Match Label Mapping Message Procedure

This document defines a new label mapping procedure Label Mapping Procedure for [LDP]. It is
applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 prefix FEC elements (addresses (address families 1
and 2 as per [ASSIGNED_AF]). It MUST SHOULD be possible to activate /
deactivate this procedure by configuration and it SHOULD be
deactivated by default. It MAY be possible to activate it on a per
prefix basis.

With this new longest match label mapping procedure, a Longest Match Label Mapping Procedure, an LSR receiving
a Label Mapping message from a neighbor LSR for a Prefix Address FEC
Element (FEC1) FEC1 SHOULD use the label for MPLS forwarding if its routing
table contains an entry that matches the FEC Element FEC1 and the
advertising LSR is a next hop to reach the FEC. FEC1. If so, it SHOULD
advertise the received FEC Element (FEC1) FEC1 and a label to its LDP peers.
Note that this is the specific FEC (FEC1) that LDP re-advertise to
its peers, and not the aggregated prefix found in the IP RIB during
the longest match search.

By "matching FEC Element", one should understand an IP longest match.
That is, either the LDP FEC element exactly matches an entry in the
IP RIB or the FEC element is a subset of an IP RIB entry. There is no
match for other cases such as the FEC element is a superset of a RIB
entry.
Note that with this LDP re-advertises to its peers the specific FEC element
FEC1, and not the aggregated prefix found in the IP RIB during the
longest match search.

Note that with this Longest Match Label Mapping Procedure, each LSP
established by LDP still strictly follows the shortest path(s)
defined by the IGP.

FECs selected by this "Longest Match" label mapping procedure Longest Match Label Mapping Procedure are
distributed in an ordered way. In case of LER failure, the removal of
reachability to the FEC occurs using standard LDP procedures as ordered label distribution
mode procedures. As defined in [LDP]. Similarly, [LDP] in section A.1.5, the FEC will
be removed in an ordered way through the propagation of label withdraw Label
Withdraw messages. The use of this (un)reachability information by
application layers using the this MPLS LSP (e.g., BGP) [MP-BGP]) is outside
the scope of this document.

As per [LDP], LDP has already some interactions with the RIB. In
particular, it needs to be aware of the following events:
- prefix UP up when a new IP prefix appears in the RIB RIB,
- prefix DOWN down when an existing IP prefix disappears disappears,
- next-hop next hop change when an existing IP prefix have has a new next hop
following a routing change.

With this longest match procedure, Longest Match Label Mapping Message Procedure, multiple
FECs may be concerned by a single RIB prefix change. The LSR must MUST
check all the FECs which are a subset of this RIB prefix. So some LDP
reactions following a RIB event are changed:
- When a new prefix appears in the RIB, the LSR MUST check if this
prefix is a better match for some existing FECs. E.g. the FEC
elements 192.0.2.1/32 and 192.0.2.2/32 used the IP RIB entry
192.0.0/16
192.0.2.0/24 and a new more specific IP RIB entry 192.0.2/24 192.0.2.0/26
appears. This may result in changing the LSR used as next hop
and hence the NHLFE Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE) for this
FEC.
- When a prefix disappears in the RIB, the LSR MUST check all FEC
elements which are using this RIB prefix as best match. For each
FEC, if another RIB prefix is found as best match, LDP MUST use
it. This may result in changing the LSR used as next hop and
hence the NHLFE for this FEC. Otherwise, the LSR MUST remove the
FEC binding and send a label withdraw Label Withdraw message.
- When the next-hop next hop of a RIB prefix change, changes, the LSR must MUST change
the NHLFE of all the FEC elements using this prefix.

Future work may define new management objects to the MPLS LDP MIB
modules [LDP-MIB] to activate/deactivate this Longest Match Label
Mapping Message Procedure, possibly on a per prefix basis.

6. Application examples

6.1. Inter-area LSPs

Consider the following example of an autonomous system with one
backbone area and two edge areas:

Area "B"

Level 2 / Backbone area

+--------------------------+
Area "A" | | Area "C"
| |
Level 1 | | Level 1 / area
| P1 |
+----------+ +-------------+
| | P2 | PE1 | 192.0.2.1/32
| | | |
|PE4 ABR2 ABR1 PE2 | 192.0.2.2/32
| | P3 | |
| | | PE3 | 192.0.2.3/32
+----------+ +-------------+
| |
+--------------------------+

Figure 1: An IGP domain with two areas attached to the Backbone
Area.

Note that this applies equally to IS-IS and OSPF. An ABR refers here
either to an OSPF ABR or to an IS-IS L1/L2 node.

All routers are MPLS enabled and MPLS connectivity (i.e. an LSP) is
required between all PE routers.

In the "egress" area "C", the records available are:
IGP RIB LDP FEC elements:
192.0.2.1/32 192.0.2.1/32
192.0.2.2/32 192.0.2.2/32
192.0.2.3/32 192.0.2.3/32

The area border router ABR1 advertises in the backbone area:
- the aggregated IP prefix 192.0.2/24 192.0.2.0/26 in the IGP
- all the specific IP FEC elements (/32) in LDP
In the "backbone" area "B", the records available are:
IGP RIB LDP FEC elements:
192.0.2/24
192.0.2.0/26 192.0.2.1/32
192.0.2.2/32
192.0.2.3/32

The area border router ABR2 advertises in the area "A":
- an aggregated IP prefix 192.0/16 192.0.2.0/24 in the IGP
- all the individual IP FEC elements (/32) in LDP

In the "ingress" area "A", the records available are:
IGP RIB LDP FEC elements:
192.0/16
192.0.2.0/24 192.0.2.1/32
192.0.2.2/32
192.0.2.3/32

In this situation, one LSP is established between the ingress PE4 and
every egress PE of area C while maintaining IP prefix aggregation on
the ASBRs.

6.2. Use of static routes

Consider the following example where a LER is dual-connected to two
LSRs:

+--------LSR1----
| |
LER |
| |
+--------LSR2----

Figure 2: LER dual-connected to two LSRs.

In some situations, especially on the edge of the network, it is
valid to use static IP routes between the LER and the two LSRs. If
necessary, the BFD protocol ([BFD]) can be used to quickly detect
loss of connectivity.

The LDP specification defined in [LDP] would require on the ingress
LER the configuration and the maintenance of one IP route per egress
LER and per outgoing interface.

The longest match Longest Match Label Mapping Procedure described in this document
only requires one IP route per outgoing interface.

7. Caveats for deployment

7.1. Deployment considerations

LSRs compliant with this document are backward compatible with LSRs
that comply with [LDP].

For the successful establishment of end-to-end MPLS LSPs whose FEC
are aggregated in the RIB, this specification must be implemented on
all LSRs in all areas where IP aggregation is used. If an LSR on the
path does not support this procedure, then the LSP initiated on the
egress LSR stops at this non compliant LSR. There are no other
adverse effects.

A service provider currently leaking

This extension can be deployed incrementally:
- It can be deployed on a per area or routing domain basis and
does not necessarily require an AS wide deployment. For example,
if all specific LER's loopback
addresses IP prefixes are leaked in the IGP and now considering performing IP aggregation on
ABR should be aware that this may result in suboptimal routing as
discussed in [RFC 2966].

This extension does not necessarily require an AS wide deployment but
can be used on a per area basis. For example, if all specific IP
prefixes are leaked in the IGP backbone area backbone area
and only stub areas use IP aggregation, LSRs in the backbone
area don't need to be compliant with this document.

7.2. Impact
- Within each routing area, LSRs can be upgraded independently, at
any time, in any order and without service disruption. During
deployment, if those LSPs are already used, one should only make
sure that ABRs keep advertising the specific IP prefixes in the
IGP until all LSR of this area are successfully upgraded. Then,
the ABRs can advertise the aggregated prefix only and stop
advertising the specific ones.

A service provider currently leaking specific LER's loopback
addresses in the IGP and now considering performing IP aggregation on
ABR should be aware that this may result in suboptimal routing as
discussed in [RFC 2966].

7.2. Routing convergence time

IGP convergence considerations

IP and MPLS traffic restoration time is based on two factors: the SPF
Shortest Path First (SPF) calculation in the control plane and
FIB/LFIB
Forwarding Information Base (FIB)/Label FIB (LFIB) update time. time in the
forwarding plane. The SPF calculation scales O(N*Log(N)) where N is
the number of Nodes. The FIB/LFIB update scales O(P) where P is the
number of modified prefixes. Currently, with most routers
implementations, the FIB/LFIB update is the dominant component [1]. [1]
and therefore the bottleneck that should be addressed in priority.
The solution documented in this draft reduces the link state database
size in the control plane and the number of FIB entries. entries in the
forwarding plane. As such it solves the scaling of pure IP routers
sharing the IGP with MPLS routers. However, it does not decrease the
number of LFIB entries.

In case entries so is not sufficient to solve the scaling of failure
MPLS routers. For this, an additional mechanism is required (e.g.
introducing some MPLS hierarchy in LDP). This is out of scope of this
document.

Compared to [LDP], for all failures except LER failure (i.e. links,
Ps and ABRs nodes), the egress failure notification and the convergence is
unchanged. For LER node, failure, given that the IGP aggregates IP route routes
on ABRs, ABRs and no longer advertise specific prefixes, the control plane
and more specifically the routing convergence behavior is
changed compared to [LDP]. As the IGP does not carry specifics
prefixes outside of the egress area, the IGP will not propagate the
notification protocols
(e.g. [MP-BGP]) or applications (e.g. [L3-VPN]) may be changed in
case of node failure outside of the area. So application
layers using egress LER node. For protocols and
applications which need to track egress LER availability, several
solutions can be used, for example:
- Rely on the LSP may, LDP ordered label distribution control mode - as a local decision, use
defined in [LDP] - to know the availability of the MPLS LSP -as advertised by LDP- to achieve LER toward the
egress LER. The egress fault
notification in addition to application layer fault detection
mechanisms. For some applications (e.g. BGP) this ingress propagation time of that
unreachability information is expected to be
faster. LDP will withdraw the FEC(s) of the egress LER in an ordered
way through the end-to-end propagation of the LDP withdraw message.
Compared comparable to the IGP, IGP
(but this LDP failure notification may be faster or
slower depending on the implementations, implementation dependant).
- Advertise LER reachability in the IGP timers used and the
network topology (network diameter). In typical topologies, the
convergence time is expected to be similar or even faster since there
is no need to wait for three consecutive SPF/PRC timers.

For all others failures (links, Ps and ABRs nodes), the failure
notification and purpose of the convergence are unchanged.
control plane in a way that do not create IP FIB entries in the
forwarding plane.

8. Security Considerations

The longest match Longest Match Label Mapping procedure described in this document
does not introduce any change as far as the Security Consideration
section of [LDP] is concerned.

9. IANA Considerations

This document has no actions for IANA.

10. References

10.1. Normative References

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

[ASSIGNED_AF] http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-
numbers

[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

10.2. Informative References

[L3-VPN] Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y. ," BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs) ", RFC 4374, February 2006

[MP-BGP] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., Rekhter, Y.,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January 2007
[MPLS-BGP] Rekhter, Y., Rosen, E., "Carrying Label Information in
[IS-IS] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and
Dual Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990

[VPLS-BGP] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling", RFC 4761,
January 2007.

[VPLS-LDP] Lasserre, M., Kompella, V., "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", RFC
4762, January 2007.

[RFC 2966] Li, T., Przygienda, T., Smit, H., "Domain-wide Prefix
Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 2966, October 2000.

[ID-RSVP-TE]

[RSVP-TE] Farrel, Ayyangar, Vasseur, " Inter "Inter domain MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions", draft-ietf-
ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te, work in progress. RFC 5151, February
2008.

[LDP-MIB] Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., Luciani, J., "Definitions
of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3815, June
2004.

[BFD] Katz, D., Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection",
draft-ietf-bfd-base-08.txt, March 2008.

[1] Francois, P., Filsfils, C., and Evans, J. 2005. "Achieving sub-
second IGP convergence in large IP networks". ACM SIGCOMM

11. Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Stefano Previdi, Vach
Kompella, Bob Thomas, Clarence Filsfils, Kireeti Kompella, Luca
Martini, Sina Mirtorabi, Dave McDysan, Benoit Fondeviole, Gilles
Bourdon and Christian Jacquenet for the useful discussions on this
subject, their review and comments.

12. Authors' Addresses

Bruno Decraene
France Telecom
38 rue du General Leclerc
92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
France

EMail: bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com

Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France

EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com

Ina Minei
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Email: ina@juniper.net

Intellectual Property Considerations

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

Disclaimer of Validity

This document and the information contained herein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgment

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.