mLDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing
draft-iwijnand-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | IJsbrand Wijnands , Syed Kamran Raza | ||
| Last updated | 2012-01-09 (Latest revision 2011-11-14) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-multi-topology | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-iwijnand-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-01
MPLS Working Group IJsbrand Wijnand
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: June July 8, 2012 Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.
January 9, 2012
mLDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing
draft-iwijnand-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document.
Abstract
The Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) enables service differentiation
through class-based forwarding. IGP protocols (OSPF and IS-IS) have
already been extended to setup MTR. In order to deploy mLDP in an
MTR setup, mLDP is also required to become topology-aware. This
document specifies extensions to mLDP to support Multi-Topology
Routing.
Table of Contents
1. Glossary .......................................................... 3
2. Introduction ...................................................... 3
3. Conventions used in this document ................................. 3
4. MT-Scoped mLDP FECs ............................................... 4
4.1. MP FEC Extensions for MT ....................................... 4
4.1.1. MP FEC Element ............................................. 4
4.1.2. MT IP Address Families ..................................... 5
4.1.3. MT MP FEC Element .......................................... 5
4.2. Topology IDs ................................................... 6
5. Multipoint MT Capability .......................................... 6
6. MT Applicability on FEC-based features ............................ 7
6.1. MT Typed Wildcard MP FEC Elements .............................. 7
6.2. MT End-of-LIB .................................................. 8
7. Topology-Scoped Forwarding ........................................ 9
7.1. Upstream LSR selection ......................................... 9
7.2. Downstream forwarding interface ................................ 9
8. Security Considerations ........................................... 9
9. IANA Considerations ............................................... 9
10. References ...................................................... 10
10.1. Normative References ......................................... 10
10.2. Informative References ....................................... 10
11. Acknowledgments ................................................. 10
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
Glossary
MT - Multi-Topology
MT-ID - Multi-Topology Identifier
MTR - Multi-Topology Routing
IGP - Interior Gateway Protocol
mLDP - Multi-point LDP
P2MP - Point-to-Multipoint
MP2MP - Multipoint-to-Multipoint
MP - Multi-point (P2MP or MP2MP)
LSP - Label Switched Path
Introduction
The Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) enables service differentiation
through class-based forwarding. For example, MTR can be used to
define separate IP topologies for voice, video, and data traffic
classes. To support MTR, an IGP maintains independent IP topologies,
termed as "Multi-Topologies" (MT), and computes/installs routes per
topology. OSPF extensions [RFC4915] and ISIS extensions [RFC5120]
specify the MT extensions under respective IGP. To support IGP MT,
similar extensions [MT-LDP] have been proposed in LDP to make LDP
MT-aware, and be able to setup unicast Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
along IGP MT routing paths.
Multi-point LDP (mLDP) refers to extensions in LDP to setup multi-
point LSPs, point-to-multipoint (P2MP) or multipoint-to-multipoint
(MP2MP), by means of set of extensions and procedures defined in
[RFC6388]. In order to work in an MTR setup to take advantage of
MTs, it is a natural extension to make mLDP become MT-aware. This
document specifies the extensions to mLDP to support IGP Multi-
Topology Routing (MTR).
Conventions used in this document
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].
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
4. MT-Scoped mLDP FECs
As defined in [MT-LDP], the Multi-Topology Identifier (MT-ID) is an
identifier that is used to associate an LSP with a certain MTR
topology. In the context of MP LSPs, this identifier is part of the
mLDP FEC encoding so that LDP peers are able to setup an MP LSP via
their own defined MTR policy. In order to avoid conflicting MTR
policies for the same mLDP FEC, the MT-ID needs to be a part of the
FEC, so that different MT-ID values will result in unique MP-LSP FEC
elements.
Since the MT-ID is part of the FEC, it will apply to all the LDP
messages that potentially include an mLDP FEC element.
4.1. MP FEC Extensions for MT
Following subsections propose the extensions to bind an mLDP FEC to
a topology. The mLDP MT extensions reuse some of the extensions
specified in [MT-LDP].
4.1.1. MP FEC Element
Base mLDP specification [RFC6388] defines MP FEC Element as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MP FEC type | AF (IP/IPv6) | AF Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root Node Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opaque Length | Opaque Value ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: MP FEC Element Format [RFC6388]
Where "Root Node Address" encoding is as defined for given "Address
Family", and whose length (in octets) is specified by the "AF
Length" field.
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
To extend MP FEC elements for MT, the MT-ID is an identifier that is
relevant in the context of the root address of the MP LSP. The MT-ID
identifier determines in which topology the root address needs to be
resolved. Since the MT-ID should be considered part of the mLDP FEC,
the most natural place to encode the MT-ID is as part of the root
address. To encode MT-ID as part of the root address, we are
proposing to use MT IP Address Families as described in following
sub section.
4.1.2. MT IP Address Families
[MT-LDP] specification proposes new address families, named "MT IP"
and "MT IPv6", to allow specification of an IP prefix within a
topology scope. The Figure 2 of [MT-LDP] specification defines the
format of the data associated with these new Address Families as
follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (IP) Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | MT-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: MT IP Address Families Data Format [MT-LDP]
Where "(IP) Prefix" is an IPv4 and IPv6 address for "MT IP" and "MT
IPv6" AF respectively.
4.1.3. MT MP FEC Element
We extend MP FEC Element for MT by using MT IP Address Family (and
its associated MT-ID) in a MP FEC Element. The resultant MT MP FEC
element will be encoded as follows:
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MP FEC type | AF (MT IP/ MTIPv6) | AF Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Root Node Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | MT-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opaque Length | Opaque Value ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: MT-Scoped MP FEC Element Format
In the context of this document, the applicable LDP FECs for MT mLDP
include:
o MP FEC Elements:
o P2MP (type 0x6)
o MP2MP Upstream (type 0x7)
o MP2MP Downstream (type 0x8)
o Typed Wildcard FEC Element(type 0x5)
In case of "Typed Wildcard FEC Element", the sub FEC Element type
MUST be one of the MP FECs listed above.
This specification allows the use of Topology-scoped mLDP FECs in
LDP label and notification messages, as applicable.
4.2. Topology IDs
This document assumes the same definitions and procedures associated
with MT-ID as defined in [MT-LDP] specification.
5. Multipoint MT Capability
"Multipoint MT Capability" is a new LDP capability, defined in
accordance with LDP Capability definition guidelines [RFC5561], that
is to be advertised to its peers by an mLDP speaker to announce its
capability to support MTR and the procedures specified in this
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
document. This capability MAY be sent either in an Initialization
message at the session establishment time, or in a Capability
message dynamically during the lifetime of a session (only if
"Dynamic Announcement" capability [RFC5561] has been successfully
negotiated with the peer).
The format of this capability is as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Multipoint MT Cap.(IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: "Multipoint MT Capability" TLV Format
Where:
U- and F-bits: MUST be 1 and 0, respectively, as per Section 3 of
LDP Capabilities [RFC5561].
Multipoint MT: TLV type (IANA assigned).
Length: The length (in octets) of TLV. The value of this field
MUST be 1 as there is no Capability-specific data [RFC5561] that
follows in the TLV.
S-bit: MUST be 1 if used in LDP Initialization message. MAY be
set to 0 or 1 in dynamic LDP Capability message to advertise or
withdraw the capability respectively.
An mLDP speaker that has successfully advertised and negotiated
"Multipoint MT" capability MUST support the following:
1. Topology-scoped mLDP FECs in LDP messages ( Section 4.1. )
2. Topology-scoped mLDP forwarding setup ( Section 7. )
6. MT Applicability on FEC-based features
6.1. MT Typed Wildcard MP FEC Elements
RFC5918 extends base LDP and defines Typed Wildcard FEC Element
framework [RFC5918]. Typed Wildcard FEC element can be used in any
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
LDP message to specify a wildcard operation/action for given type of
FEC.
The MT extensions proposed in document do not require any extension
in procedures for Typed Wildcard FEC Element support [RFC5918], and
these procedures apply as-is to Multipoint MT FEC wildcarding. Like
Typed Wildcard MT Prefix FEC Element, as defined in [MT-LDP], the MT
extensions allow use of "MT IP" or "MT IPv6" in the Address Family
field of the Typed Wildcard MP FEC element in order to use wildcard
operations in the context of a given topology as identified by MT-ID
field.
This document proposes following format and encoding for a Typed
Wildcard MP FEC element:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Typed Wcard (5)| Type = MP FEC | Len = 6 | AF = MT IP ..|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|... or MT IPv6 | Reserved | MT ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|MT ID (contd.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: "Typed Wildcard MP FEC Element" for MT
Where:
Type: One of MP FEC Element type (P2MP, MP2MP Upstream, MP2MP
Downstream).
The proposed format allows an LSR to perform wildcard MP FEC
operations under the scope of a topology.
6.2. MT End-of-LIB
[RFC5919] specifies extensions and procedures that allows an LDP
speaker to signal its End-of-LIB (i.e. convergence) for a given FEC
type towards a peer. MT extensions for MP FEC do not require any
change in these procedures and they apply as-is to MT MP FEC
elements. This means that an MT mLDP speaker MAY signal its
convergence per topology using MT Typed Wildcard MP FEC element.
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
7. Topology-Scoped Forwarding
Since the MT-ID is part of the mLDP FEC, there is no need to support
the concept of multiple topology tables in mLDP. Each MP LSP will be
unique due to the MT-ID being part of the FEC. There is also no need
to have specific Label Forwarding Tables per topology. Each MP LSP
will have its own unique local label in the LFT. In order to satisfy
the MTR in mLDP, the upstream LSR and downstream forwarding
interface procedures must be changed.
7.1. Upstream LSR selection
The procedures as described in RFC-6388 section 2.4.1.1
depend on the best path to reach the root. When the MT-ID is
signaled as part of the FEC, the MT-ID is used to select the
topology that must to be used to find the best path to the root
address. Using the next-hop from this best path, a LDP peer is
selected following the procedures as defined in [RFC6388].
7.2. Downstream forwarding interface
The procedures as described in RFC-6388 section-2.4.1.2
describe how a downstream forwarding interface is selected.
In these procedures any interface leading to the downstream LDP
neighbor can be considered as candidate forwarding interface. When
the MT-ID is part of the FEC, this is no longer true. An interface
must only be selected if it is part of the same topology that was
signaled in the mLDP FEC element. Besides this restriction, the
other procedures in [RFC6388] apply.
8. Security Considerations
This extension to mLDP does not introduce any new security
considerations beyond that already apply to the base LDP
specification [RFC5036], base mLDP specification [RFC6388], and MPLS
security framework [RFC5920].
9. IANA Considerations
The document introduces following new protocol element that requires
IANA consideration and code point assignment:
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
o New LDP Capability TLV: "Multipoint MT Capability" TLV (requested
code point: 0x511 from LDP registry "TLV Type Name Space")
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4915] P. Psenak, S. Mirtorabi, A. Roy, L. Nguyen, P. Pillay-
Esnault, "Multi-Topology Routing in OSPF", RFC 4915, June
2007.
[RFC5120] T. Przygienda, Z2 Sagl, N. Shen, N., "M-ISIS: Multi-
Topology Routing in IS-IS", RFC 5120, February 2008.
[MT-LDP] Q. Zhao, L. Fang, C. Zhou, L. Li, N. So, R. Torvi, "LDP
Extension for Multiple Topology Support", draft-ietf-mpls-
ldp-multi-topology-02, Work in progress, November 2011.
[RFC6388] I. Minei, I. Wijnand, K. Kompella, B., "LDP Extensions for
P2MP and MP2MP LSPs", RFC 6388, November 2011.
[RFC5561] Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and Le
Roux, JL., "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC5036] L. Andersson, I. Minei, B. Thomas, "LDP Specification",
RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5919] R. Asati, P. Mohapatra, E. Chen, B. Thomas, "Signaling LDP
Label Advertisement Completion", RFC 5919, August 2010.
[RFC5918] Asati, R., Minei, I., and Thomas, B. "Label Distribution
Protocol Typed Wildcard FEC", RFC 5918, August 2010.
[RFC5920] L. Fang, L. et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
11. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Eric Rosen for his input on
this specification.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing January 2012
Authors' Addresses
IJsbrand Wijnand
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De kleetlaan 6a,
Diegem 1831 Belgium.
Email: ice@cisco.com
Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive,
Ottawa, Ontario K2K-3E8, Canada.
Email: skraza@cisco.com
Wijnands, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 11]