--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-02.txt 2016-10-30 16:15:18.437368071 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-03.txt 2016-10-30 16:15:18.457368275 -0700 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ MPLS WG K. Kompella Internet-Draft Juniper Networks, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track L. Contreras -Expires: January 8, 2017 Telefonica - July 7, 2016 +Expires: May 3, 2017 Telefonica + October 30, 2016 Resilient MPLS Rings - draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-02 + draft-ietf-mpls-rmr-03 Abstract This document describes the use of the MPLS control and data planes on ring topologies. It describes the special nature of rings, and proceeds to show how MPLS can be effectively used in such topologies. It describes how MPLS rings are configured, auto-discovered and signaled, as well as how the data plane works. Companion documents describe the details of discovery and signaling for specific protocols. @@ -32,21 +32,21 @@ 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 January 8, 2017. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2017. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 @@ -65,33 +65,33 @@ 3.1. Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Ring Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Ring Links and Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3.1. Express Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Ring LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. Installing Primary LFIB Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6. Installing FRR LFIB Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.7. Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Autodiscovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 4.2. Ring Announcement Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 4.3. Mastership Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 4.4. Ring Identification Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 4.5. Ring Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5. Ring Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 6. Ring OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.2. Ring Announcement Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.3. Mastership Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 4.4. Ring Identification Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 4.5. Ring Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5. Ring Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 6. Ring OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction Rings are a very common topology in transport networks. A ring is the simplest topology offering link and node resilience. Rings are nearly ubiquitous in access and aggregation networks. As MPLS increases its presence in such networks, and takes on a greater role in transport, it is imperative that MPLS handles rings well; this is not the case today. @@ -398,90 +398,57 @@ v . RID = 17 . v R6 R3 . . R5 . . . R4 \ / \ / An Figure 2: Ring with non-ring nodes and links - In what follows, we refer to a ring node and a rink link Type-Length- - Value (TLV). These are new TLVs that contain RIDs and associated - flags. A ring node TLV is a TLV that contains information for each - ring that this node participates in. A ring link TLV identifies a - link and contains information about every ring that that link is part - of. + The format of an RMR Node Type-Length-Value (TLV) is given below. It + consists of information pertaining to the node and optionally, sub- + TLVs. A Neighbor sub-TLV contains information pertaining to the + node's neighbors. Other sub-TLVs may be defined in the future. + Details of the format specific to IS-IS and OSPF will be given in the + corresponding IGP documents. - 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Type (TBD) | Length = 6*N | Ring ID 1 (4 octets) ... | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... (RID continued) | Flags (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Ring ID 2 (4 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Flags (2 octets) | Ring ID 2 (4 octets) ... | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... (RID continued) | Flags (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... etc. | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + [RMR Node Type][RMR Node Length][RID][Node Flags][sub-TLVs] Ring Node TLV Format - 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 - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Type (TBD) | Length=8+6*N | My Interface Index ... | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... (continued, 4 octets) | Remote Interface Index ... | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... (continued, 4 octets) | Ring ID 1 (4 octets) ... | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... (RID continued) | Flags (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Ring ID 2 (4 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | Flags (2 octets) | Ring ID 2 (4 octets) ... | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... (RID continued) | Flags (2 octets) | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | ... etc. | - +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + [RMR Nbr Type][RMR Nbr Length][Nbr Address][Nbr Flags] - Ring Link TLV Format + Ring Neighbor Sub-TLV Format 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - |MV |SS | SO |G| MBZ |SU |M| + |MV |SS | SO | MBZ |SU |M| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MV: Mastership Value SS: Supported Signaling Protocols (10 = RSVP-TE; 01 = LDP) SO: Supported OAM Protocols (100 = BFD; 010 = CFM; 001 = EFM) - G: Node is a Grandmaster Clock (1 = True, 0 = False) SU: Signaling Protocol to Use (00 = none; 01 = LDP; 10 = RSVP-TE) M : Elected Master (0 = no, 1 = yes) Flags for a Ring Node TLV 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |RD |OAM| MBZ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ RD: Ring Direction - OAM: OAM Protocols (00 = none; 01 = BFD; 10 = CFM; 11 = EFM) + OAM: OAM Protocol to use (00 = none; 01 = BFD; 10 = CFM; 11 = EFM) - Flags for a Ring Link TLV + Flags for a Ring Neighbor TLV 4.2. Ring Announcement Phase Each node participating in an MPLS ring is assigned an RID; in the example, RID = 17. A node is also provisioned with a mastership value. Each node advertises a ring node TLV for each ring it is participating in, along with the associated flags. It then starts timer T1. A node in promiscuous mode doesn't advertise any ring node TLVs. @@ -617,21 +584,21 @@ October 2007, . [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008, . Authors' Addresses Kireeti Kompella Juniper Networks, Inc. - 1133 Innovation Drive + 1133 Innovation Way Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Email: kireeti.kompella@gmail.com Luis M. Contreras Telefonica Ronda de la Comunicacion Sur-3 building, 3rd floor Madrid 28050 Spain