draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-04.txt 
Network Working Group L. Jin Network Working Group L. Jin
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track F. Jounay Intended status: Standards Track F. Jounay
Expires: April 19, 2014 France Telecom Expires: May 30, 2014 France Telecom
I. Wijnands I. Wijnands
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems, Inc
N. Leymann N. Leymann
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom AG
October 16, 2013 November 26, 2013
LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-04.txt
Abstract Abstract
This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (or HSMP LSP for This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint (HSMP) Label Switched
short), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through P2MP LSP Path (LSP), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through
and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse path. That means point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSP and also leaf to root along the
traffic entering the HSMP LSP from application/customer at the root reverse path. That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP from
node travels downstream to each leaf node, exactly as if it is application/customer at the root node travels downstream to each leaf
travelling downstream along a P2MP LSP to each leaf node. Upstream node, exactly as if it is travelling downstream along a P2MP LSP to
traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any leaf node travels upstream along each leaf node. Upstream traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any leaf
the tree to the root, as if it is unicast to the root, and strictly node travels upstream along the tree to the root, as if it is unicast
follows the downstream path of the tree rather than routing protocol to the root. The communication among the leaf nodes are not allowed.
based unicast path to the root.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
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 April 19, 2014.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2014.
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
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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Setting up HSMP LSP with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Time Synchronization Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Support for HSMP LSP Setup with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Virtual Private Multicast Service Scenario . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. IPTV Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Setting up HSMP LSP with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. HSMP LSP Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Support for HSMP LSP Setup with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4.1. HSMP LSP Leaf Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.2. HSMP LSP Transit Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.3. HSMP LSP Root Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. HSMP LSP Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5.1. HSMP Leaf Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.3. HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5.2. HSMP Transit Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. HSMP LSP on a LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.5.3. HSMP Root Node Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Redundancy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6. HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Co-routed Path Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.7. Determining Forwarding Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. HSMP LSP on a LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Redundancy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. New LDP FEC Element types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. HSMP LSP capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.3. New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. New LDP FEC Element types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. HSMP LSP capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.3. New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The point-to-multipoint LSP defined in [RFC6388] allows traffic to The point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Path (LSP) defined in
transmit from root to several leaf nodes, and multipoint-to- [RFC6388] allows traffic to transmit from root to several leaf nodes,
multipoint LSP allows traffic from every node to transmit to every and multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP) LSP allows traffic from every
other node. This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (or node to transmit to every other node. This draft introduces a hub &
HSMP LSP for short), which allows traffic both from root to leaf spoke multipoint (HSMP) LSP, which has one root node and one or more
through P2MP LSP and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse leaf nodes. HSMP LSP allows traffic both from root to leaf through
path. That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP at the root node downstream LSP and also leaf to root along the upstream LSP. That
travels downstream, exactly as if it is travelling downstream along a means traffic entering the HSMP LSP at the root node travels along
P2MP LSP, and traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any other node travels downstream LSP, exactly as if it is travelling along a P2MP LSP, and
upstream along the tree to the root. A packet travelling upstream traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any other leaf nodes travels along
should be thought of as being unicast to the root, except that it upstream LSP toward only the root node. The upstream LSP should be
follows the path of the tree rather than routing protocol based thought of unicast LSP to the root node, except that it follows the
unicast path to the root. The combination of upstream LSPs initiated node of reverse downstream path of the tree, rather than routing
from all leaf nodes forms a multipoint-to-point LSP. protocol based unicast path. The combination of upstream LSPs
initiated from all leaf nodes forms a multipoint-to-point LSP.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document uses some terms and acronyms as follows: This document uses some terms and acronyms as follows:
HSMP LSP: hub & spoke multipoint LSP. An LSP allows traffic both mLDP: Multipoint extensions for Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
from root to leaf through P2MP LSP and also leaf to root along the defined in [RFC6388].
co-routed reverse path.
mLDP: Multipoint extensions for LDP
MP2MP LSP: An LSP that connects a set of nodes, such that traffic
sent by any node in the LSP is delivered to all others.
PTP: The timing and synchronization protocol used by IEEE1588
P2MP LSP: An LSP that has one Ingress LSR and one or more Egress
LSRs.
3. Applications
In some cases, the P2MP LSP may not have a reply path for OAM
messages (e.g, LSP Ping Echo Request). If P2MP LSP is provided by
HSMP LSP instead, then the upstream path could be used as the OAM
message reply path. This is especially useful in the case of P2MP
LSP fault detection, performance measurement, root node redundancy
and etc. There are several other applications that could take
advantage of a LDP based HSMP LSP as described below.
3.1. Time Synchronization Scenario
[IEEE1588] over MPLS is defined in [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls].
It is required that the LSP used to transport PTP event message
between a Master Clock and a Slave Clock, and the LSP between the
same Slave Clock and Master Clock must be co-routed. Using point-to-
multipoint technology to transmit PTP event messages from Master
Clock at root side to Slave Clock at leaf side will greatly improve
the bandwidth usage. Unfortunately current point-to-multipoint LSP
only provides unidirectional path from root to leaf, which cannot
provides a co-routed reverse path for the PTP event messages. LDP
based HSMP LSP described in this draft provides unidirectional point-
to-multipoint LSP from root to leaf and co-routed reverse LSP from
leaf to root.
3.2. Virtual Private Multicast Service Scenario
Point to multipoint PW described in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw] requires P2MP LSP: point-to-multipoint Label Switched Path. An LSP that
to set up reverse path from leaf node (referred as egress PE) to root has one Ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) and one or more
node (referred as ingress PE), if HSMP LSP is used to multiplex P2MP Egress LSRs.
PW, the reverse path can also be multiplexed to HSMP upstream path to
avoid setup independent reverse path. In that case, the operational
cost will be reduced for maintaining only one HSMP LSP, instead of
P2MP LSP and n (number of leaf nodes) P2P reverse LSPs.
The VPMS defined in [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements] requires MP2MP LSP: multipoint-to-multipoint Label Switched Path. An LSP
reverse path from leaf to root node. The P2MP PW multiplexed to HSMP that connects a set of nodes, such that traffic sent by any node
LSP can provide VPMS with reverse path, without introducing in the LSP is delivered to all others.
independent reverse path from each leaf to root.
3.3. IPTV Scenario HSMP LSP: hub & spoke multipoint Label Switched Path. An LSP that
has one root node and one or more leaf nodes, allows traffic from
root to all leaf nodes along downstream P2MP LSP and also leaf to
root node along the upstream unicast LSP.
The mLDP based HSMP LSP can also be applied in a typical IPTV PTP: precise time protocol. The timing and synchronization
scenario. There is usually only one location with senders but there protocol defined by IEEE1588.
are many receiver locations. If IGMP is used for signalling between
senders as IGMP querier [RFC3376] and receivers, the IGMP messages
from the receivers are travelling only from the leaves to the root
(and from root towards leaves) but not from leaf to leaf. In
addition traffic from the root is only replicated towards the leaves.
Then leaf node receiving IGMP report message (for source specific
multicast case) will join HSMP LSP(use similar mechanism in [RFC6826]
section 2), and then send IGMP report message upstream to root along
HSMP upstream LSP. Note that in above case, there is no node
redundancy for IGMP querier. And the node redundancy for IGMP
querier[RFC3376] could be provided by two independent VPMS instances
with HSMP applied.
4. Setting up HSMP LSP with LDP 3. Setting up HSMP LSP with LDP
HSMP LSP is similar with MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388], with the HSMP LSP is similar to MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388], with the
difference that the leaf LSRs can only send traffic to root node difference that, when the leaf LSRs send traffic on the LSP, the
along the same path of traffic from root node to leaf node. traffic is first delivered only to the root node and follows the
upstream path from the leaf node to the root node. The root node
then distributes the traffic on the P2MP tree to all of the leaf
nodes.
HSMP LSP consists of a downstream path and upstream path. The HSMP LSP consists of a downstream path and upstream path. The
downstream path is same as MP2MP LSP, while the upstream path is only downstream path is same as P2MP LSP, while the upstream path is only
from leaf to root node, without communication between leaf and leaf from leaf to root node, without communication between leaf and leaf
nodes. The transmission of packets from the root node of an HSMP LSP nodes. The transmission of packets from the root node of an HSMP LSP
to the receivers is identical to that of a P2MP LSP. Traffic from a to the receivers (the leaf nodes) is identical to that of a P2MP LSP.
leaf node follows the upstream path toward the root node, along a Traffic from a leaf node to the root follows the upstream path that
path that traverse the same nodes as the downstream node, but in is the reverse of the path from the root to the leaf. Unlike an
reverse order. MP2MP LSP, traffic from a leaf node does not branch toward other leaf
nodes, but is sent direct to the root where it is placed on the P2MP
For setting up the upstream path of an HSMP LSP, ordered mode MUST be path and distributed to all leaf nodes including the original sender.
used which is same as MP2MP. Ordered mode can guarantee a leaf to
start sending packets to root immediately after the upstream path is
installed, without being dropped due to an incomplete LSP.
Due to much of similar behaviors between HSMP LSP and MP2MP LSP, the To set up the upstream path of an HSMP LSP, ordered mode MUST be
following sections only describe the difference between the two used. Ordered mode can guarantee a leaf to start sending packets to
entities. root immediately after the upstream path is installed, without being
dropped due to an incomplete LSP.
4.1. Support for HSMP LSP Setup with LDP 3.1. Support for HSMP LSP Setup with LDP
HSMP LSP requires the LDP capabilities [RFC5561] for nodes to HSMP LSP requires the LDP capabilities [RFC5561] for nodes to
indicate that they support setup of HSMP LSPs. An implementation indicate that they support setup of HSMP LSPs. An implementation
supporting the HSMP LSP procedures specified in this document MUST supporting the HSMP LSP procedures specified in this document MUST
implement the procedures for Capability Parameters in Initialization implement the procedures for Capability Parameters in Initialization
Messages. Advertisement of the HSMP LSP Capability indicates support Messages. Advertisement of the HSMP LSP Capability indicates support
of the procedures for HSMP LSP setup. of the procedures for HSMP LSP setup.
A new Capability Parameter TLV is defined, the HSMP LSP Capability A new Capability Parameter TLV is defined, the HSMP LSP Capability
Parameter. Following is the format of the HSMP LSP Capability Parameter. Following is the format of the HSMP LSP Capability
Parameter. Parameter.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1|0| HSMP LSP Cap(TBD IANA) | Length | |U|F| HSMP LSP Cap(TBD IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved | |S| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1. HSMP LSP Capability Parameter encoding Figure 1. HSMP LSP Capability Parameter encoding
U-bit: Unknown TLV bit, as described in [RFC5036]. The value MUST be
1. The unknown TLV MUST be silently ignored and the rest of the
message processed as if the unknown TLV did not exist.
F-bit: Forward unknown TLV bit, as described in [RFC5036]. The value
of this bit MUST be 0 since a Capability Parameter TLV is sent only
in Initialization and Capability messages, which are not forwarded.
The length SHOULD be 1, and the S bit and reserved bits are defined The length SHOULD be 1, and the S bit and reserved bits are defined
in [RFC5561] section 3. in [RFC5561] section 3.
The HSMP LSP Capability Parameter type is to be assigned by IANA. The HSMP LSP Capability Parameter type is to be assigned by IANA.
4.2. HSMP FEC Elements If the peer has not advertised the corresponding capability, then
label messages using the HSMP FEC Element SHOULD NOT be sent to the
peer. Since ordered mode is applied for HSMP LSP signalling, the
label message break would ensure that the initiating leaf node is
unable to establish the upstream path to root node.
3.2. HSMP FEC Elements
Similar as MP2MP LSP, we define two new protocol entities, the HSMP Similar as MP2MP LSP, we define two new protocol entities, the HSMP
Downstream FEC Element and Upstream FEC Element. If a FEC TLV Downstream FEC Element and Upstream FEC Element. If a FEC TLV
contains one of the HSMP FEC Elements, the HSMP FEC Element MUST be contains one of the HSMP FEC Elements, the HSMP FEC Element MUST be
the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV. The structure, encoding and the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV. The structure, encoding and
error handling for the HSMP Downstream FEC Element and Upstream FEC error handling for the HSMP Downstream FEC Element and Upstream FEC
Element are the same as for the MP2MP FEC Element described in Element are the same as for the P2MP FEC Element described in
[RFC6388] Section 3.2. The difference is that two additional new FEC [RFC6388] Section 2.2. The difference is that two additional new FEC
types are defined: HSMP Downstream FEC (TBD, IANA) and HSMP Upstream types are defined: HSMP Downstream FEC (to be assigned by IANA) and
FEC(TBD, IANA). HSMP Upstream FEC (to be assigned by IANA).
4.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements 3.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements
In order to describe the message processing clearly, the entries in In order to describe the message processing clearly, the entries in
the list below define the processing of the HSMP FEC Elements. the list below define the processing of the HSMP FEC Elements.
Additionally, the entries defined in [RFC6388] section 3.3 are also Additionally, the entries defined in [RFC6388] section 3.3 are also
reused in the following sections. reused in the following sections.
1. HSMP downstream LSP <X, Y> (or simply downstream <X, Y>): an HSMP 1. HSMP downstream LSP <X, Y> (or simply downstream <X, Y>): an HSMP
LSP downstream path with root node address X and opaque value Y. LSP downstream path with root node address X and opaque value Y.
2. HSMP upstream LSP <X, Y> (or simply upstream <X, Y>): an HSMP LSP 2. HSMP upstream LSP <X, Y> (or simply upstream <X, Y>): an HSMP LSP
skipping to change at page 8, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 18
5. HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L>: A Label Mapping message with a 5. HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L>: A Label Mapping message with a
single HSMP downstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV with label L. single HSMP downstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV with label L.
Label L MUST be allocated from the per-platform label space of the Label L MUST be allocated from the per-platform label space of the
LSR sending the Label Mapping Message. LSR sending the Label Mapping Message.
6. HSMP-U Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu>: A Label Mapping message with a 6. HSMP-U Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu>: A Label Mapping message with a
single HSMP upstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV with label Lu. single HSMP upstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV with label Lu.
Label Lu MUST be allocated from the per-platform label space of the Label Lu MUST be allocated from the per-platform label space of the
LSR sending the Label Mapping Message. LSR sending the Label Mapping Message.
4.3.1. HSMP LSP Label Map 7. HSMP-D Label Withdraw <X, Y, L>: a Label Withdraw message with a
FEC TLV with a single HSMP downstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label
TLV with label L.
8. HSMP-U Label Withdraw <X, Y, Lu>: a Label Withdraw message with a
FEC TLV with a single HSMP upstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV
with label Lu.
9. HSMP-D Label Release <X, Y, L>: a Label Release message with a
FEC TLV with a single HSMP downstream FEC Element <X, Y> and Label
TLV with label L.
10. HSMP-U Label Release <X, Y, Lu>: a Label Release message with a
FEC TLV with a single HSMP upstream FEC Element <X, Y> and label TLV
with label Lu.
3.4. HSMP LSP Label Map
This section specifies the procedures for originating HSMP Label This section specifies the procedures for originating HSMP Label
Mapping messages and processing received HSMP Label Mapping messages Mapping messages and processing received HSMP Label Mapping messages
for a particular HSMP LSP. The procedure of downstream HSMP LSP is for a particular HSMP LSP. The procedure of downstream HSMP LSP is
same as that of downstream MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388]. When similar as that of downstream MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388]. When
LDP operates in Ordered Label Distribution Control mode [RFC5036], LDP operates in Ordered Label Distribution Control mode [RFC5036],
the upstream LSP will be set up by sending HSMP LSP LDP Label Mapping the upstream LSP will be set up by sending HSMP LSP LDP Label Mapping
message with a label which is allocated by upstream LSR to its message with a label which is allocated by upstream LSR to its
downstream LSR hop by hop from root to leaf node, installing the downstream LSR hop by hop from root to leaf node, installing the
upstream forwarding table by every node along the LSP. The detail upstream forwarding table by every node along the LSP. The detail
procedure of setting up upstream HSMP LSP is different with that of procedure of setting up upstream HSMP LSP is different with that of
upstream MP2MP LSP, and is specified in below section. upstream MP2MP LSP, and is specified in below section.
All labels discussed here are downstream-assigned [RFC5332] except All labels discussed here are downstream-assigned [RFC5332] except
those which are assigned using the procedures described in section 5. those which are assigned using the procedures described in Section 4.
Determining the upstream LSR for the HSMP LSP <X, Y> follows the Determining the upstream LSR for the HSMP LSP <X, Y> follows the
procedure for a MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388] Section 3.3.1.1. procedure for a P2MP LSP described in [RFC6388] Section 2.4.1.1.
Determining one's HSMP downstream LSR follows the procedure defined That is, a node Z that wants to join an HSMP LSP <X, Y> determines
in [RFC6388] section 3.3.1.2. That is, an upstream LDP peer which the LDP peer U that is Z's next-hop on the best path from Z to the
root node X. If there are multiple upstream LSRs, local algorithm
should be applied to ensure that there is a single upstream LSRs for
a particular LSP.
To determining one's HSMP downstream LSR, an upstream LDP peer which
receives a Label Mapping with HSMP downstream FEC Element from an LDP receives a Label Mapping with HSMP downstream FEC Element from an LDP
peer D will treat D as HSMP downstream LDP peer. peer D will treat D as HSMP downstream LDP peer.
Determining the forwarding interface to an LSR follows the procedure 3.4.1. HSMP LSP Leaf Node Operation
as defined in [RFC6388] section 2.4.1.2.
4.3.1.1. HSMP LSP Leaf Node Operation The leaf node operation is much the same as the operation of MP2MP
LSP defined in [RFC6388] Section 3.3.1.4. The only difference is the
FEC elements as specified below.
The leaf node operation is same as the operation of MP2MP LSP defined A leaf node Z of an HSMP LSP <X, Y> determines its upstream LSR U for
in [RFC6388] section 3.3.1.4. The only difference is the FEC <X, Y> as per Section 3.3, allocates a label L, and sends an HSMP-D
elements as specified below. Label Mapping <X, Y, L> to U. Leaf node Z expects an HSMP-U Label
Mapping <X, Y, Lu> from node U and checks whether it already has
forwarding state for upstream <X, Y>. If not, Z creates forwarding
state to push label Lu onto the traffic that Z wants to forward over
the HSMP LSP. How it determines what traffic to forward on this HSMP
LSP is outside the scope of this document.
A leaf node Z will send an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L> to U, 3.4.2. HSMP LSP Transit Node Operation
instead of MP2MP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L>, and expects an HSMP-U
Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu> from node U and checks whether it already
has forwarding state for upstream <X, Y>. The created forwarding
state on leaf node Z is same as the leaf node of MP2MP LSP. Z will
push label Lu onto the traffic that Z wants to forward over the HSMP
LSP.
4.3.1.2. HSMP LSP Transit Node Operation The procedure of HSMP-D Label Mapping message is much the same as
processing MP2MP-D Label Mapping message defined in [RFC6388] Section
3.3.1.5. The processing of HSMP-U Label Mapping message is different
with that of MP2MP-U Label Mapping message as specified below.
Suppose node Z receives an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L> from LSR D, Suppose node Z receives an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L> from LSR D.
the procedure is much the same as processing MP2MP-D Label Mapping Z checks whether it has forwarding state for downstream <X, Y>. If
message defined in [RFC6388] section 3.3.1.5, and the processing not, Z determines its upstream LSR U for <X, Y> as per Section 3.3.
protocol entity is HSMP-D Label Mapping message. The only difference Using this Label Mapping to update the label forwarding table MUST
is specified below. NOT be done as long as LSR D is equal to LSR U. If LSR U is different
from LSR D, Z will allocate a label L' and install downstream
forwarding state to swap label L' with label L over interface I
associated with LSR D and send an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L'> to
U. Interface I is determined via the procedures in Section 3.7.
If Z already has forwarding state for downstream <X, Y>, all that Z
needs to do in this case is check that LSR D is not equal to the
upstream LSR of <X, Y> and update its forwarding state. Assuming its
old forwarding state was L'-> {<I1, L1> <I2, L2> ..., <In, Ln>}, its
new forwarding state becomes L'-> {<I1, L1> <I2, L2> ..., <In, Ln>,
<I, L>}. If the LSR D is equal to the installed upstream LSR, the
Label Mapping from LSR D MUST be retained and MUST NOT update the
label forwarding table.
Node Z checks if upstream LSR U already has assigned a label Lu to Node Z checks if upstream LSR U already has assigned a label Lu to
upstream <X, Y>. If not, transit node Z waits until it receives an upstream <X, Y>. If not, transit node Z waits until it receives an
HSMP-U Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu> from LSR U. Once the HSMP-U Label HSMP-U Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu> from LSR U. Once the HSMP-U Label
Mapping is received from LSR U, node Z checks whether it already has Mapping is received from LSR U, node Z checks whether it already has
forwarding state upstream <X, Y> with incoming label Lu' and outgoing forwarding state upstream <X, Y> with incoming label Lu' and outgoing
label Lu. If it does, Z sends an HSMP-U Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu'> to label Lu. If it does not, it allocates a label Lu' and creates a new
downstream node. If it does not, it allocates a label Lu' and label swap for Lu' with Label Lu over interface Iu. Interface Iu is
creates a new label swap for Lu' with Label Lu over interface Iu. determined via the procedures in Section 3.7. Node Z determines the
Interface Iu is determined via the procedures in section 4.3.1. Node downstream HSMP LSR as per Section 4.3.1, and sends an HSMP-U Label
Z determines the downstream HSMP LSR as per section 4.3.1, and sends Mapping <X, Y, Lu'> to node D.
an HSMP-U Label Mapping <X, Y, Lu'> to node D.
Since a packet from any downstream node is forwarded only to the Since a packet from any downstream node is forwarded only to the
upstream node, the same label (representing the upstream path) SHOULD upstream node, the same label (representing the upstream path) SHOULD
be distributed to all downstream nodes. This differs from the be distributed to all downstream nodes. This differs from the
procedures for MP2MP LSPs [RFC6388], where a distinct label must be procedures for MP2MP LSPs [RFC6388], where a distinct label must be
distributed to each downstream node. The forwarding state upstream distributed to each downstream node. The forwarding state upstream
<X, Y> on node Z will be like this {<Lu'>, <Iu Lu>}. Iu means the <X, Y> on node Z will be like this {<Lu'>, <Iu Lu>}. Iu means the
upstream interface over which Z receives HSMP-U Label Map <X, Y, Lu> upstream interface over which Z receives HSMP-U Label Map <X, Y, Lu>
from LSR U. Packets from any downstream interface over which Z sends from LSR U. Packets from any downstream interface over which Z sends
HSMP-U Label Map <X, Y, Lu'> with label Lu' will be forwarded to Iu HSMP-U Label Map <X, Y, Lu'> with label Lu' will be forwarded to Iu
with label Lu' swap to Lu. with label Lu' swap to Lu.
4.3.1.3. HSMP LSP Root Node Operation 3.4.3. HSMP LSP Root Node Operation
Suppose root node Z receives an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L> from The procedure of HSMP-D Label Mapping message is much the same as
node D, the procedure is much the same as processing MP2MP-D Label processing MP2MP-D Label Mapping message defined in [RFC6388] Section
Mapping message defined in [RFC6388] section 3.3.1.6, and the 3.3.1.6. The processing of HSMP-U Label Mapping message is different
processing protocol entity is HSMP-D Label Mapping message. The only with that of MP2MP-U Label Mapping message as specified below.
difference is specified below.
Suppose the root node Z receives an HSMP-D Label Mapping <X, Y, L>
from node D. Z checks whether it already has forwarding state for
downstream <X, Y>. If not, Z creates downstream forwarding state and
installs a outgoing label L over interface I. Interface I is
determined via the procedures in Section 3.7. If Z already has
forwarding state for downstream <X, Y>, then Z will add label L over
interface I to the existing state.
Node Z checks if it has forwarding state for upstream <X, Y>. If Node Z checks if it has forwarding state for upstream <X, Y>. If
not, Z creates a forwarding state for incoming label Lu' that not, Z creates a forwarding state for incoming label Lu' that
indicates that Z is the LSP egress. E.g., the forwarding state might indicates that Z is the HSMP LSP egress LER. E.g., the forwarding
specify that the label stack is popped and the packet passed to some state might specify that the label stack is popped and the packet
specific application. Node Z determines the downstream HSMP LSR as passed to some specific application. Node Z determines the
per section 4.3.1, and sends an HSMP-U Label Map <X, Y, Lu'> to node downstream HSMP LSR as per Section 3.3, and sends an HSMP-U Label Map
D. <X, Y, Lu'> to node D.
Since Z is the root of the tree, Z will not send an HSMP-D Label Map Since Z is the root of the tree, Z will not send an HSMP-D Label Map
and will not receive an HSMP-U Label Mapping. and will not receive an HSMP-U Label Mapping.
4.3.2. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw Root node could also be a leaf node, and it is able to determine what
traffic to forward on this HSMP LSP which is outside the scope of
this document.
The HSMP Label Withdraw procedure is much the same as MP2MP leaf 3.5. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw
operation defined in [RFC6388] section 3.3.2, and the processing FEC
Elements are HSMP FEC Elements. The only difference is the process
of HSMP-U Label Release message, which is specified below.
When a transit node Z receives an HSMP-U Label Release message from 3.5.1. HSMP Leaf Operation
downstream node D, Z should check if there are any incoming interface
in forwarding state upstream <X, Y>. If all downstream nodes are
released and there is no incoming interface, Z should delete the
forwarding state upstream <X, Y> and send HSMP-U Label Release
message to its upstream node. Otherwise, no HSMP-U Label Release
message will be sent to the upstream node.
4.3.3. HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change If a leaf node Z discovers that it has no need to be an Egress LSR
for that LSP (by means outside the scope of this document), then it
SHOULD send an HSMP-D Label Withdraw <X, Y, L> to its upstream LSR U
for <X, Y>, where L is the label it had previously advertised to U
for <X,Y>. Leaf node Z will also send an unsolicited HSMP-U Label
Release <X, Y, Lu> to U to indicate that the upstream path is no
longer used and that label Lu can be removed.
Leaf node Z expects the upstream router U to respond by sending a
downstream Label Release for L.
3.5.2. HSMP Transit Node Operation
If a transit node Z receives an HSMP-D Label Withdraw message <X, Y,
L> from node D, it deletes label L from its forwarding state
downstream <X, Y>. Node Z sends an HSMP-D Label Release message with
label L to D. There is no need to send an HSMP-U Label Withdraw <X,
Y, Lu> to D because node D already removed Lu and sent a label
release for Lu to Z.
If deleting L from Z's forwarding state for downstream <X, Y> results
in no state remaining for <X, Y>, then Z propagates the HSMP-D Label
Withdraw <X, Y, L> to its upstream node U for <X, Y>. Z should also
check if there are any incoming interface in forwarding state
upstream <X, Y>. If all downstream nodes are released and there is
no incoming interface, Z should delete the forwarding state upstream
<X, Y> and send HSMP-U Label Release message to its upstream node.
Otherwise, no HSMP-U Label Release message will be sent to the
upstream node.
3.5.3. HSMP Root Node Operation
When the root node of an HSMP LSP receives an HSMP-D Label Withdraw
and HSMP-U Label Release message, the procedure is the same as that
for transit nodes, except that the root node will not propagate the
Label Withdraw and Label Release upstream (as it has no upstream).
3.6. HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change
The procedure for changing the upstream LSR is the same as defined in The procedure for changing the upstream LSR is the same as defined in
[RFC6388] section 3.3.3, only with different processing FEC Element, [RFC6388] Section 2.4.3, only with different processing FEC Element.
the HSMP FEC Element.
5. HSMP LSP on a LAN When the upstream LSR changes from U to U', node Z should set up the
HSMP LSP <X, Y> to U' by applying procedures in Section 3.4. Z will
also remove HSMP LSP <X, Y> to U by applying procedure in Section
3.5.
To set up HSMP LSP to U' before/after removing HSMP LSP to U is a
local matter, and the recommended default behavior is to remove
before adding.
3.7. Determining Forwarding Interface
The co-routed path between upstream and downstream LSP would be
achieved for HSMP LSP. Both LSR U and LSR D would ensure the same
interface to send traffic by applying some procedures. For a network
with symmetric IGP cost configuration, the following procedure MAY be
used. To determine the downstream interface, LSR U MUST do a lookup
in the unicast routing table to find the best interface and next-hop
to reach LSR D. If the next-hop and interface are also advertised by
LSR D via the LDP session, it should be used to transmit the packet
to LSR D. Determine the upstream interface mechanism is same as
determining the downstream interface by exchanging the role of LSR U
and LSR D. If symmetric IGP cost could not be ensured, static route
configuration on LSR U and D could also be a possible way to ensure
co-routed path.
If co-routed is not required for HSMP LSP, the procedure defined in
[RFC6388] Section 2.4.1.2 could be applied. LSR U is free to
transmit the packet on any of the interfaces to LSR D. The algorithm
it uses to choose a particular interface is a local matter.
Determine the upstream interface mechanism is the same as determining
the downstream interface.
4. HSMP LSP on a LAN
The procedure to process the downstream HSMP LSP on a LAN is much the The procedure to process the downstream HSMP LSP on a LAN is much the
same as downstream MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388] section 6.1.1. same as downstream MP2MP LSP described in [RFC6388] section 6.1.1.
When establishing the downstream path of an HSMP LSP, as defined in When establishing the downstream path of an HSMP LSP, as defined in
[RFC6389], a Label Request message for an LSP label is sent to the [RFC6389], a Label Request message for an LSP label is sent to the
upstream LSR. The upstream LSR should send Label Mapping message upstream LSR. The upstream LSR should send Label Mapping message
that contains the LSP label for the downstream HSMP FEC and the that contains the LSP label for the downstream HSMP FEC and the
upstream LSR context label defined in [RFC5331]. When the LSR upstream LSR context label defined in [RFC5331]. When the LSR
forwards a packet downstream on one of those LSPs, the packet's top forwards a packet downstream on one of those LSPs, the packet's top
skipping to change at page 11, line 9 skipping to change at page 11, line 19
forwarded downstream using this forwarding state based on a two-label forwarded downstream using this forwarding state based on a two-label
lookup. lookup.
The upstream path of an HSMP LSP on a LAN is the same as the one on The upstream path of an HSMP LSP on a LAN is the same as the one on
other kind of links. That is, the upstream LSR must send Label other kind of links. That is, the upstream LSR must send Label
Mapping message that contains the LSP label for upstream HSMP FEC to Mapping message that contains the LSP label for upstream HSMP FEC to
downstream node. Packets travelling upstream need to be forwarded in downstream node. Packets travelling upstream need to be forwarded in
the direction of the root by using the label allocated for upstream the direction of the root by using the label allocated for upstream
HSMP FEC. HSMP FEC.
6. Redundancy Considerations 5. Redundancy Considerations
In some scenario, it is necessary to provide two root nodes for In some scenario, it is necessary to provide two root nodes for
redundancy purpose. One way to implement this is to use two redundancy purpose. One way to implement this is to use two
independent HSMP LSPs acting as active/standby. At one time, only independent HSMP LSPs acting as active/standby. At one time, only
one HSMP LSP will be active, and the other will be standby. After one HSMP LSP will be active, and the other will be standby. After
detecting the failure of active HSMP LSP, the root and leaf nodes detecting the failure of active HSMP LSP, the root and leaf nodes
will switch the traffic to the standby HSMP LSP which takes on the will switch the traffic to the standby HSMP LSP which takes on the
role as active HSMP LSP. The detail of redundancy mechanism is out role as active HSMP LSP. The detail of redundancy mechanism is out
of the scope. of the scope.
7. Co-routed Path Exceptions 6. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP
There are some exceptional cases when mLDP based HSMP LSP could not
achieve co-routed path. One possible case is using static routing
between LDP neighbors; another possible case is IGP cost asymmetric
generated by physical link cost asymmetric, or TE-Tunnels used
between LDP neighbors. The LSR/LER in HSMP LSP should detect if the
path is co-routed or not. If not co-routed, an alarm indication
should be generated to the management system.
8. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP
The idea of LSP ping for HSMP LSPs could be expressed as an intention The idea of LSP ping for HSMP LSPs could be expressed as an intention
to test the LSP Ping Echo Request packets that enter at the root to test the LSP Ping Echo Request packets that enter at the root
along a particular downstream path of HSMP LSP, and end their MPLS along a particular downstream path of HSMP LSP, and end their MPLS
path on the leaf. The leaf node then sends the LSP Ping Echo Reply path on the leaf. The leaf node then sends the LSP Ping Echo Reply
along the co-routed upstream path of HSMP LSP, and end on the root along the upstream path of HSMP LSP, and end on the root that are the
that are the (intended) root node. (intended) root node.
New sub-TLVs are required to be assigned by IANA in Target FEC Stack 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- TLV to define the corresponding HSMP-upstream FEC type and HSMP-
downstream FEC type. In order to ensure the leaf node to send the downstream FEC type. In order to ensure the leaf node to send the
LSP Ping Echo Reply along the HSMP upstream path, the R bit (Validate LSP Ping Echo Reply along the HSMP upstream path, the R bit (Validate
Reverse Path) in Global Flags Field defined in [RFC6426] is reused Reverse Path) in Global Flags Field defined in [RFC6426] is reused
here. here.
The node processing mechanism of LSP Ping Echo Request and Echo Reply The node processing mechanism of LSP Ping Echo Request and Echo Reply
for HSMP LSP is inherited from [RFC6425] and [RFC6426] section 3.4, for HSMP LSP is inherited from [RFC6425] and [RFC6426] Section 3.4,
except the following: except the following:
1. The root node sending LSP Ping Echo Request message for HSMP LSP 1. The root node sending LSP Ping Echo Request message for HSMP LSP
MUST attach Target FEC Stack with HSMP downstream FEC, and set R bit MUST attach Target FEC Stack with HSMP downstream FEC, and set R bit
to '1' in Global Flags Field. to '1' in Global Flags Field.
2. When the leaf node receiving the LSP Ping Echo Request, it MUST 2. When the leaf node receiving the LSP Ping Echo Request, it MUST
send the LSP Ping Echo Reply to the associated HSMP upstream path. send the LSP Ping Echo Reply to the associated HSMP upstream path.
The Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV attached by leaf node in Echo The Reverse-path Target FEC Stack TLV attached by leaf node in Echo
Reply message SHOULD contain the sub-TLV of associated HSMP upstream Reply message SHOULD contain the sub-TLV of associated HSMP upstream
FEC. FEC.
9. Security Considerations 7. 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] and [RFC6425]. in [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].
Although this document introduces new FEC Elements and corresponding Although this document introduces new FEC Elements and corresponding
procedures, the protocol does not bring any new security issues procedures, the protocol does not bring any new security issues
compared to [RFC6388] and [RFC6425]. compared to [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].
10. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
10.1. New LDP FEC Element types 8.1. New LDP FEC Element types
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
The values should be allocated using the lowest free values from the The values should be allocated using the lowest free values from the
"IETF Consensus"-range (0-127). "IETF Consensus"-range (0-127).
10.2. HSMP LSP capability TLV 8.2. HSMP LSP capability TLV
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
The value should be allocated from the range 0x0901-0x3DFF (IETF The value should be allocated from the range 0x0901-0x3DFF (IETF
Consensus) using the first free value within this range. Consensus) using the first free value within this range.
10.3. New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV 8.3. New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV
This document requires allocation of two new sub-TLV types for This document requires allocation of two new sub-TLV types for
inclusion within the LSP ping [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV inclusion within the LSP ping [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV
type 1). type 1).
1. the HSMP-upstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD 1. the HSMP-upstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD
2. the HSMP-downstream 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 The value should be allocated from the IETF Standards Action range
(0-16383) that is used for mandatory and optional sub-TLVs that (0-16383) that is used for mandatory and optional sub-TLVs that
requires a response if not understood. The value should be allocated requires a response if not understood. The value should be allocated
using the lowest free value within this range. using the lowest free value within this range.
11. Acknowledgement 9. 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, Loa Andersson for their valuable Edward, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin, Loa Andersson for their valuable
comments. comments.
12. References 10. References
12.1. Normative references 10.1. 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.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream [RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, August 2008. RFC 5331, August 2008.
[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.
skipping to change at page 14, line 14 skipping to change at page 14, line 14
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa, [RFC6425] Saxena, S., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa,
S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping", Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping",
RFC 6425, November 2011. RFC 6425, November 2011.
[RFC6426] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS [RFC6426] Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS
On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing", On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing",
RFC 6426, November 2011. RFC 6426, November 2011.
12.2. Informative References 10.2. 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-05 (work in draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpms-frmwk-requirements-05 (work in
progress), October 2012. 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
 End of changes. 58 change blocks. 
229 lines changed or deleted 289 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/