--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-02.txt 2013-10-16 08:14:26.819746563 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-03.txt 2013-10-16 08:14:26.851747347 -0700 @@ -1,23 +1,23 @@ Network Working Group L. Jin Internet-Draft Intended status: Standards Track F. Jounay -Expires: April 14, 2014 France Telecom +Expires: April 19, 2014 France Telecom I. Wijnands Cisco Systems N. Leymann Deutsche Telekom - October 11, 2013 + October 16, 2013 LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path - draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-02.txt + draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-03.txt Abstract This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (or HSMP LSP for short), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through P2MP LSP and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse path. That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP from application/customer at the root node travels downstream to each leaf node, exactly as if it is travelling downstream along a P2MP LSP to each leaf node. Upstream traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any leaf node travels upstream along @@ -38,21 +38,21 @@ 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 April 14, 2014. + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2014. 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 @@ -76,25 +76,28 @@ 4.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3.1. HSMP LSP Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3.2. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.3. HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. HSMP LSP on a LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Redundancy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Co-routed Path Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 10.1. New LDP FEC Element types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 10.2. HSMP LSP capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 10.3. New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . 13 11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Introduction The point-to-multipoint LSP defined in [RFC6388] allows traffic to transmit from root to several leaf nodes, and multipoint-to- multipoint LSP allows traffic from every node to transmit to every other node. This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (or HSMP LSP for short), which allows traffic both from root to leaf 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 @@ -472,42 +475,59 @@ The same security considerations apply as for the MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388] and [RFC6425]. Although this document introduces new FEC Elements and corresponding procedures, the protocol does not bring any new security issues compared to [RFC6388] and [RFC6425]. 10. IANA Considerations +10.1. 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 "Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space": 1. the HSMP-upstream FEC type - requested value TBD 2. the HSMP-downstream FEC type - requested value TBD + The values should be allocated using the lowest free values from the + "IETF Consensus"-range (0-127). + +10.2. HSMP LSP capability TLV + This document requires allocation of one new code points for the HSMP LSP capability TLV from "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry" the "TLV Type Name Space": HSMP LSP Capability Parameter - requested value TBD + The value should be allocated from the range 0x0901-0x3DFF (IETF + Consensus) using the first free value within this range. + +10.3. New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV + 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 + The value should be allocated from the IETF Standards Action range + (0-16383) that is used for mandatory and optional sub-TLVs that + requires a response if not understood. The value should be allocated + using the lowest free value within this range. + 11. Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Eric Rosen, Sebastien Jobert, Fei Su, Edward, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin, Loa Andersson for their valuable comments. 12. References 12.1. Normative references @@ -567,30 +587,23 @@ IEEE1588v2 , March 2008. [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002. [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 - (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", - RFC 4762, January 2007. - [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. - [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay - Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011. - [RFC6826] Wijnands, IJ., Eckert, T., Leymann, N., and M. Napierala, "Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths", RFC 6826, January 2013. Authors' Addresses Lizhong Jin Shanghai, China