Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-06

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02
• 03
• 04
• 05
• 06

MPLS Working Group                                       C. Ramachandran
Internet-Draft                                                   T. Saad
Updates: 4090 (if approved)                       Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                I. Minei
Expires: December 22, 2019                                  Google, Inc.
                                                              D. Pacella
                                                           Verizon, Inc.
                                                           June 20, 2019

          Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
                     draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-06

Abstract

   RSVP-TE relies on periodic refresh of RSVP messages to synchronize
   and maintain the Label Switched Path (LSP) related states along the
   reserved path.  In the absence of refresh messages, the LSP-related
   states are automatically deleted.  Reliance on periodic refreshes and
   refresh timeouts are problematic from the scalability point of view.
   The number of RSVP-TE LSPs that a router needs to maintain has been
   growing in service provider networks and the implementations should
   be capable of handling increase in LSP scale.

   RFC 2961 specifies mechanisms to eliminate the reliance on periodic
   refresh and refresh timeout of RSVP messages, and enables a router to
   increase the message refresh interval to values much longer than the
   default 30 seconds defined in RFC 2205.  However, the protocol
   extensions defined in RFC 4090 for supporting Fast ReRoute (FRR)
   using bypass tunnels implicitly rely on short refresh timeouts to
   cleanup stale states.

   In order to eliminate the reliance on refresh timeouts, the routers
   should unambiguously determine when a particular LSP state should be
   deleted.  Coupling LSP state with the corresponding RSVP-TE signaling
   adjacencies as recommended in RFC 8370 will apply in scenarios other
   than RFC 4090 FRR using bypass tunnels.  In scenarios involving RFC
   4090 FRR using bypass tunnels, additional explicit tear down messages
   are necessary.  Refresh-interval Independent RSVP FRR (RI-RSVP-FRR)
   extensions specified in this document consists of procedures to
   enable LSP state cleanup that are essential in scenarios not covered
   by procedures defined in RSVP-TE Scaling Recommendations.  Hence,
   this document updates the procedures defined in RFC 4090 to support
   Refresh-interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) capability specified in
   RFC 8370.

Ramachandran, et al.    Expires December 22, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             RI-RSVP FRR Bypass                  June 2019

Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   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 https://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 December 22, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Solution Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Requirement on RFC 4090 Capable Node to advertise RI-RSVP
           Capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Signaling Handshake between PLR and MP  . . . . . . . . .   8

Ramachandran, et al.    Expires December 22, 2019               [Page 2]