draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-01.txt 
Network Working Group L. Jin Network Working Group L. Jin
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track F. Jounay Intended status: Standards Track F. Jounay
Expires: March 24, 2013 France Telecom Expires: October 20, 2013 France Telecom
I. Wijnands I. Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
N. Leymann N. Leymann
Deutsche Telekom AG Deutsche Telekom AG
Sep 20, 2012 April 18, 2013
LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-00.txt draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (short for HSMP This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (short for HSMP
LSP), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through P2MP LSP LSP), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through P2MP LSP
and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse path. That means and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse path. That means
traffic entering the HSMP LSP from application/customer at the root traffic entering the HSMP LSP from application/customer at the root
node travels downstream, exactly as if it was traveling downstream node travels downstream, exactly as if it was traveling downstream
along a P2MP LSP to each leaf node, and traffic entering the HSMP LSP along a P2MP LSP to each leaf node, and traffic entering the HSMP LSP
at any leaf node travels upstream along the tree to the root as if it at any leaf node travels upstream along the tree to the root as if it
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
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 March 24, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
4. Setting up HSMP LSP with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Setting up HSMP LSP with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Support for HSMP LSP setup with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Support for HSMP LSP setup with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3.1. HSMP LSP Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3.1. HSMP LSP Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3.2. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3.2. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.3. HSMP LSP upstream LSR change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3.3. HSMP LSP upstream LSR change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. HSMP LSP on a LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. HSMP LSP on a LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Redundancy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Redundancy considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Co-routed path exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Co-routed path exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The point-to-multipoint LSP defined in [RFC6388] allows traffic to The point-to-multipoint LSP defined in [RFC6388] allows traffic to
transmit from root to several leaf nodes, and multipoint-to- transmit from root to several leaf nodes, and multipoint-to-
multipoint LSP allows traffic from every node to transmit to every multipoint LSP allows traffic from every node to transmit to every
other node. This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP other node. This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP
(short for HSMP LSP), which allows traffic both from root to leaf (short for HSMP LSP), which allows traffic both from root to leaf
through P2MP LSP and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse through P2MP LSP and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse
path. That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP at the root node path. That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP at the root node
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
7. Co-routed path exceptions 7. Co-routed path exceptions
There are some exceptional cases that mLDP based HSMP LSP could not There are some exceptional cases that mLDP based HSMP LSP could not
achieve co-routed path. One possible case is using static routing achieve co-routed path. One possible case is using static routing
between LDP neighbors; another possible case is IGP cost asymmetric between LDP neighbors; another possible case is IGP cost asymmetric
generated by physical link cost asymmetric, or TE-Tunnels used generated by physical link cost asymmetric, or TE-Tunnels used
between LDP neighbors. The LSR/LER in HSMP LSP could detect if the between LDP neighbors. The LSR/LER in HSMP LSP could detect if the
path is co-routed or not, if not co-routed, an indication could be path is co-routed or not, if not co-routed, an indication could be
generated to the management system. generated to the management system.
8. Security Considerations 8. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP
The idea of LSP ping for HSMP LSPs could be expressed as an intention
to test the packets that enter at the root along a particular
downstream path of HSMP LSP, and end their MPLS path on the leaf.
The leaf node then sends the LSP ping response along the co-routed
upstream path of HSMP LSP, and end on the root that are the
(intended) root node.
New sub-TLVs are required to be assigned by IANA in Target FEC Stack
TLV to define the corresponding HSMP-upstream FEC type and HSMP-
downstream FEC type. In order to ensure the leaf node to send the
LSP ping response along the HSMP upstream path, the R bit (Validate
Reverse Path) in Global Flags Field defined in [RFC6426] is reused
here.
The node processing mechanism of LSP ping for HSMP LSP is inherited
from [RFC6425] and [RFC6426] section 3.4, except the following:
1. The root node sending LSP ping message for HSMP LSP MUST attach
Target FEC Stack with HSMP downstream FEC, and set R bit to '1' in
Global Flags Field.
2. When the leaf node receiving the LSP ping, it MUST send the LSP
ping response to the associated HSMP upstream path. The Reverse-path
Target FEC Stack TLV attached by leaf node in reply message SHOULD
contain the sub-TLV of associated HSMP upstream FEC.
9. Security Considerations
The same security considerations apply as for the MP2MP LSP described The same security considerations apply as for the MP2MP LSP described
in [RFC6388]. in [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].
9. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document requires allocation of two new LDP FEC Element types This document requires allocation of two new LDP FEC Element types
from the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry" the from the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry" the
"Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space": "Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space":
1. the HSMP-upstream FEC type - requested value TBD 1. the HSMP-upstream FEC type - requested value TBD
2. the HSMP-downstream FEC type - requested value TBD 2. the HSMP-downstream FEC type - requested value TBD
This document requires allocation of one new code points for the HSMP This document requires allocation of one new code points for the HSMP
LSP capability TLV from "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters LSP capability TLV from "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters
registry" the "TLV Type Name Space": registry" the "TLV Type Name Space":
HSMP LSP Capability Parameter - requested value TBD HSMP LSP Capability Parameter - requested value TBD
10. Acknowledgement This document requires allocation of two new sub-TLV types for
inclusion within the LSP ping [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV
type 1).
1. the HSMP-upstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD
2. the HSMP-downstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD
11. Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Eric Rosen, Sebastien Jobert, Fei Su, The author would like to thank Eric Rosen, Sebastien Jobert, Fei Su,
Edward, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin for their valuable comments. Edward, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin for their valuable comments.
11. References 12. References
11.1. Normative references 12.1. Normative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS [RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008. Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
[RFC5561] Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL. [RFC5561] Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL.
Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009. Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas, [RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
"Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to- "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011. Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.
[RFC6389] Aggarwal, R. and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label [RFC6389] Aggarwal, R. and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011. Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011.
11.2. Informative References [RFC6425] Saxena, S., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa,
S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping",
RFC 6425, November 2011.
[RFC6426] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS
On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing",
RFC 6426, November 2011.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements] [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements]
Kamite, Y., JOUNAY, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Kamite, Y., JOUNAY, F., Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D.,
and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual and L. Jin, "Framework and Requirements for Virtual
Private Multicast Service (VPMS)", Private Multicast Service (VPMS)",
draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-04 (work in draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-05 (work in
progress), July 2011. progress), October 2012.
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw] [I-D.ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw]
Sivabalan, S., Boutros, S., and L. Martini, "Signaling Sivabalan, S., Boutros, S., and L. Martini, "Signaling
Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP", Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP",
draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04 (work in progress), March 2012. draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04 (work in progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls] [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls]
Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L. Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L.
Montini, "Transporting PTP messages (1588) over MPLS Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02 (work in Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 (work in
progress), October 2011. progress), February 2013.
[IEEE1588] [IEEE1588]
"IEEE standard for a precision clock synchronization "IEEE standard for a precision clock synchronization
protocol for networked measurement and control systems", protocol for networked measurement and control systems",
IEEE1588v2 , March 2008. IEEE1588v2 , March 2008.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service [RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
RFC 4762, January 2007. RFC 4762, January 2007.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011. Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Lizhong Jin Lizhong Jin
ZTE Corporation Shanghai, China
889, Bibo Road
Shanghai, 201203, China
Email: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Email: lizho.jin@gmail.com
Frederic Jounay Frederic Jounay
France Telecom France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex, FRANCE 22307 Lannion Cedex, FRANCE
Email: frederic.jounay@orange.ch Email: frederic.jounay@orange.ch
IJsbrand Wijnands IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
De kleetlaan 6a De kleetlaan 6a
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 77 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/