Network Working Group Loa Andersson
Internet Draft Bay Networks Inc.
Expiration Date: February 1999
Paul Doolan
Ennovate Networks
Nancy Feldman
IBM Corp
Andre Fredette
Bay Networks Inc.
Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc.
August 1998
LDP Specification
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. 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."
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
An overview of Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is provided in
[FRAMEWORK] and a proposed architecture in [ARCH]. A fundamental
concept in MPLS is that two Label Switching Routers (LSRs) must agree
on the meaning of the labels used to forward traffic between and
Andersson, et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
through them. This common understanding is achieved by using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) referenced in [FRAMEWORK] and
[ARCH]. This document defines the LDP protocol.
Open Issues
The following LDP issues are left unresolved with this version of the
spec:
- The loop prevention/detection mechanism to be employed by LDP.
This spec has retained the path vector mechanism from previous
drafts. However, draft-ohba-mpls-loop-prevention-01.txt has been
proposed as an alternative.
- Support for explicitly routed LSPs. The need for this feature
has been debated at length. This spec refines the previous
version of the spec in this area. However, there remains some
belief in the WG that explicitly routed LSPs should be supported
by enhancements to RSVP and not LDP.
The support for explicitly routed LSPs in the spec is independent
of other LDP features and could, should the WG decide to do so,
be removed without impact on other LDP features.
- Traffic engineering considerations beyond support for explicit
routing.
- The need for all of the FEC types (called FEC elements in this
version of the spec, SMDs in previous versions) is being debated.
This version of the spec defines fewer FEC types than previous
versions.
- LDP support for multicast is not defined in this version.
Multicast support will be addressed in a future version.
- The message and TLV encodings are likely to change in some minor
ways in the next draft of the spec.
Andersson, et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Table of Contents
1 LDP Overview ....................................... 6
1.1 LDP Peers .......................................... 6
1.2 LDP Message Exchange ............................... 6
1.3 LDP Error Handling ................................. 7
1.4 LDP Extensibility and Future Compatibility ......... 8
2 LDP Operation ...................................... 8
2.1 FEC Types .......................................... 8
2.2 Mapping packets to FECs ........................... 9
2.3 Label Spaces, Identifiers, Sessions and Transport .. 10
2.4 LDP Sessions between non-Directly Connected LSRs ... 11
2.5 LDP Discovery ..................................... 12
2.5.1 Basic Discovery Mechanism .......................... 12
2.5.2 Extended Discovery Mechanism ....................... 12
2.6 Establishing and Maintaining LDP Sessions .......... 13
2.6.1 LDP Session Establishment .......................... 13
2.6.2 Transport Connection Establishment ................. 13
2.6.3 Session Initialization ............................. 14
2.6.4 Initialization State Machine ....................... 16
2.6.5 Maintaining Hello Adjacencies ...................... 19
2.6.6 Maintaining LDP Sessions ........................... 19
2.7 Label Distribution and Management .................. 20
2.7.1 Label Distribution Control Mode .................... 20
2.7.2 Label Retention Mode ............................... 21
2.7.3 Label Advertisement Mode ........................... 22
2.8 LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses ............. 22
2.9 Loop Detection ..................................... 22
2.10 Loop Prevention via Diffusion ...................... 23
2.11 Explicitly Routing LSPs ............................ 24
2.12 ERLSP State Machine ................................ 28
2.12.1 Loose Segment Peg LSR Transitions: ................. 29
2.12.2 Loose Segment Non-Peg LSR Transitions: ............. 33
2.12.2.1 Strict Segment Transitions ......................... 35
2.12.3 ERLSP Timeouts ..................................... 35
2.12.4 ERLSP Error Codes .................................. 35
3 Protocol Specification ............................. 36
3.1 LDP PDUs ........................................... 36
3.2 Type-Length-Value Encoding ......................... 37
3.3 Commonly Used TLVs ................................. 38
3.3.1 FEC TLV ............................................ 38
3.3.1.1 FEC Procedures ..................................... 41
3.3.2 Label TLVs ......................................... 41
3.3.2.1 Generic Label TLV .................................. 42
3.3.2.2 ATM Label TLV ...................................... 42
3.3.2.3 Frame Relay Label TLV .............................. 43
Andersson, et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.3.3 Address List TLV ................................... 43
3.3.4 COS TLV ............................................ 44
3.3.5 Hop Count TLV ...................................... 45
3.3.5.1 Hop Count Procedures ............................... 45
3.3.6 Path Vector TLV .................................... 46
3.3.6.1 Path Vector Procedures ............................. 46
3.3.7 Status TLV ......................................... 47
3.4 LDP Messages ....................................... 48
3.4.1 Notification Message ............................... 50
3.4.1.1 Notification Message Procedures .................... 51
3.4.1.2 Events Signalled by Notification Messages .......... 51
3.4.1.2.1 Malformed PDU or Message ........................... 52
3.4.1.2.2 Unknown or Malformed TLV ........................... 52
3.4.1.2.3 Session Hold Timer Expiration ...................... 53
3.4.1.2.4 Unilateral Session Shutdown ........................ 53
3.4.1.2.5 Initialization Message Events ...................... 53
3.4.1.2.6 Events Resulting From Other Messages ............... 54
3.4.1.2.7 Explicitly Routed LSP Setup Events ................. 54
3.4.1.2.8 Miscellaneous Events ............................... 54
3.4.2 Hello Message ...................................... 54
3.4.2.1 Hello Message Procedures ........................... 55
3.4.3 Initialization Message ............................. 57
3.4.3.1 Initialization Message Procedures .................. 61
3.4.4 KeepAlive Message .................................. 61
3.4.4.1 KeepAlive Message Procedures ....................... 62
3.4.5 Address Message .................................... 62
3.4.5.1 Address Message Procedures ......................... 63
3.4.6 Address Withdraw Message ........................... 64
3.4.6.1 Address Withdraw Message Procedures ................ 64
3.4.7 Label Mapping Message .............................. 64
3.4.7.1 Label Mapping Message Procedures ................... 66
3.4.7.1.1 Independent Control Mapping ........................ 66
3.4.7.1.2 Ordered Control Mapping ............................ 67
3.4.7.1.3 Downstream-on-Demand Label Advertisement ........... 67
3.4.7.1.4 Downstream Allocation Label Advertisement .......... 68
3.4.8 Label Request Message .............................. 68
3.4.8.1 Label Request Message Procedures ................... 69
3.4.9 Label Withdraw Message ............................. 70
3.4.9.1 Label Withdraw Message Procedures .................. 71
3.4.10 Label Release Message .............................. 72
3.4.10.1 Label Release Message Procedures ................... 73
3.4.11 Label Query Message ................................ 73
3.4.11.1 Label Query Message Procecures ..................... 74
3.4.12 Explicit Route Request Message ..................... 74
3.4.12.1 Explicit Route Request Procedures .................. 78
3.4.13 Explicit Route Response Message .................... 78
3.4.13.1 Explicit Route Response Procedures ................. 79
3.5 Messages and TLVs for Extensibility ................ 80
Andersson, et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.5.1 Procedures for Unknown Messages and TLVs ........... 80
3.5.1.1 Unknown Message Types .............................. 80
3.5.1.2 Unknown TLV in Known Message Type .................. 80
3.5.2 LDP Vendor-Private Extensions ...................... 81
3.5.2.1 LDP Vendor-Private TLV ............................. 81
3.5.2.2 LDP Vendor-Private Messages ........................ 82
3.6 TLV Summary ........................................ 83
3.7 Status Code Summary ................................ 84
4 Security ........................................... 84
5 Acknowledgments .................................... 84
6 References ......................................... 84
7 Author Information ................................. 85
Andersson, et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
1. LDP Overview
LDP is the set of procedures and messages by which Label Switched
Routers (LSRs) establish Label Switched Paths (LSPs) through a
network by mapping network-layer routing information directly to
data-link layer switched paths. These LSPs may have an endpoint at a
directly attached neighbor (comparable to IP hop-by-hop forwarding),
or may have an endpoint at a network egress node, enabling switching
via all intermediary nodes.
LDP associates a forwarding equivalence class (FEC) [ARCH] with each
LSP it creates. The FEC associated with an LSP specifies which
packets are "mapped" to that LSP. LSPs are extended through a
network as each LSR "splices" incoming labels for a FEC to the
outgoing label assigned to the next hop for the given FEC.
Note that this document is written with respect to unicast routing
only. Multicast will be addressed in a future revision.
Note that this document is written with respect to control-driven
traffic. It describes mappings which are initiated for routes in the
forwarding table, regardless of traffic over those routes. However,
LDP does not preclude data-driven support.
1.1. LDP Peers
Two LSRs which use LDP to exchange label/stream mapping information
are known as "LDP Peers" with respect to that information and we
speak of there being an "LDP Session" between them. A single LDP
adjacency allows each peer to learn the other's label mappings i.e.
the protocol is bi-directional.
1.2. LDP Message Exchange
There are four categories of LDP messages:
1. Discovery messages, used to announce and maintain the presence
of an LSR in a network.
2. Session messages, used to establish and maintain terminate
sessions between LSR peers.
3. Advertisement messages, used to create, change, and delete
label mappings for FECs.
Andersson, et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
4. Notification messages, used to provide advisory information and
to signal errors.
Discovery messages provide a mechanism whereby LSRs continually
indicate their presence in a network via the Hello message. This is
transmitted as a UDP packet to the LDP port at the `all LSR routers'
group multicast address. When an LSR chooses to establish a session
with an LSR learned via the hello message, it uses the LDP
initialization procedure over TCP transport. Upon successful
completion of the initialization procedure, the two LSRs are LDP
peers, and may exchange advertisement messages.
When to request a label or advertise a label mapping to a peer is
largely a local decision made by an LSR. In general, the LSR
requests a label mapping from a neighboring LSR when it needs one,
and advertises a label mapping to a neighboring LSR when it wishes
the neighbor to use a label.
Correct operation of LDP requires reliable and in order delivery of
mappings (although there are circumstances when this second
requirement could be relaxed). To satisfy these requirements LDP uses
the TCP transport for adjacency, advertisement and notification
messages.
1.3. LDP Error Handling
LDP errors and other events of interest are signaled to an LSR peer
by notification messages.
There are two kinds of LDP notification messages:
1. Error notifications, used to signal fatal errors. If an LSR
receives an error notification for an LDP session with a peer,
it terminates the peer session by closing the TCP transport
connection for the session and discarding all label mappings
learned via the session.
2. Advisory notifications, used to pass an LSR information about
the LDP session or the status of some previous message received
from the peer.
Andersson, et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
1.4. LDP Extensibility and Future Compatibility
It is likely that functionality will be added to LDP after its
initial release. It is also likely that this additional
functionality will utilize new messages and object types (TLVs). It
may be desirable to employ such new messages and TLVs within a
network using older implementations that do not recognize them.
While it is not possible to make every future enhancement backwards
compatible, some prior planning can ease the introduction of new
capabilities. This specification defines rules for handling unknown
message types and unknown TLVs for this purpose.
2. LDP Operation
2.1. FEC Types
It is necessary to precisely define which IP packets may be mapped to
each LSP. This is done by providing a FEC specification for each LSP.
The FEC defines which IP packets may be mapped to the same LSP, using
a unique label.
LDP supports LSP granularity ranging from end-to-end flows to the
aggregation of all traffic through a common egress node; the choice
of granularity is determined by the FEC choice.
Each FEC is specified as a list of one or more FEC elements. Each FEC
element specifies a set of IP packets which may be mapped to the
corresponding LSP.
Following are the currently defined types of FEC elements. New
element types may be added as needed:
1. IP Address Prefix.
This element provides a list of one or more IP address
prefixes. Any IP packet whose destination address matches one
or more of the specified prefixes may be forwarded using the
associated LSP.
2. Router ID
This element provides a Router ID (ie, a 32 bit IP address of a
router). Any IP packet for which the path to the destination is
known to traverse the specified router may be forwarded using
the associated LSP. This element allows the full set of
destinations reachable via a specified router to be indicated
Andersson, et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
in a single FEC element.
3. Flow
This element specifies a set of datagram information, such as
port, dest-addr, src-addr, etc. This element provides LDP with
the ability to support MPLS flows with no aggregation.
Where a packet maps to more than one FEC it is transmitted on the LSP
associated with the FEC to which the packet has the 'most specific'
match.
2.2. Mapping packets to FECs
FEC objects (TLVs) are transmitted in the LDP messages that deal with
(advertise, request, release ad withdraw) FEC-Label mappings.
A stream of packets with a given destination network can be
characterized by a single Address Prefix FEC Element. This results
in each specified address prefix sustaining its own LSP tree. This
singular mapping is recommended in environments where little or no
aggregation information is provided by the routing protocols (such as
within a simple IGP), or in networks where the number of destination
prefixes is limited.
In environments where additional aggregation not provided by the
routing protocols is desired, an aggregation list may be created. In
this, all prefixes that are to share a common egress point may be
advertised within the same FEC. This type of aggregation is
configured.
The router ID FEC type may be used in any environment in which the
routing protocols allow routers to determine the egress point for
specific IP packets. For example, the router ID FEC type may be used
in combination with BGP, OSPF, and/or IS-IS.
For example, the mapping between IP packets and the router ID may be
provided via the BGP NEXT_HOP attribute. When a BGP border LSR
injects routes into the BGP mesh, it may use its own IP address or
the address of its external BGP peer as the value of the NEXT_HOP
attribute. If the BGP border ISR uses its own IP address as the
NEXT_HOP attribute, then one LSP is created which terminates at the
BGP border, and the border LSR will forward traffic at layer-3
towards its external BGP neighbors. If the BGP border LSR uses the
external BGP peer as the NEXT_HOP attribute, then a separate LSP may
be created for each external BGP neighbor, thereby allowing the
border LSR to switch traffic directly to each of its external BGP
Andersson, et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
neighbors.
Similarly, the mapping between IP packet and router ID may be
provided by OSPF. This is comprised of the Router ID of the router
that initiated the link state advertisement. The Router ID may also
be the OSPF Area Border Router.
Note that BGP and OSPF may share the same LSP when a given Router ID
is found in both protocol's Routing Information Base.
The Router ID FEC allows aggregation of multiple IP address prefixes
to the same LSP, without requiring that the prefixes be explicitly
listed in the FEC. Also, it allows addresses advertised using OSPF
and addresses advertised using BGP to be aggregated using the same
LSP. Finally, when the set of addresses reachable via a router
changes, and the changes are announced into the routing protocol
(BGP, OSPF, and/or IS-IS), use of the routerID FEC eliminates the
need to explicitly announce the route changes into LDP.
2.3. Label Spaces, Identifiers, Sessions and Transport
The notion of "label space" is useful for discussing the assignment
and distribution of labels. There are two types of label spaces:
- Per interface label space. Interface-specific incoming
labels are used for interfaces that use interface resources
for labels. An example of such an interface is a label-
controlled ATM interface which uses VCIs as labels, or a
frame Relay interface which uses DLCIs as labels.
Note that the use of a per interface label space only makes
sense when the LDP peers are "directly connected" over an
interface, and the label is only going to be used for
traffic sent over that interface.
- Per platform label space. Platform-wide incoming labels are
used for interfaces that can share the same labels.
An LDP identifier is a six octet quantity used to identify an
LSR label space. The first four octets encode an IP address
assigned to the LSR, and the last two octets identify a specific
label space within the LSR. The last two octets of LDP Identif-
iers for platform-wide label spaces are always both zero. This
document uses the following print representation for LDP Iden-
tifiers:
Andersson, et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
<IP address> : <Label space Id>
for example, 171.32.27.28:0, 192.0.3.5:2.
Note that an LSR that manages and advertises more than one label
space uses a different LDP Identifier for each such label space.
A situation where an LSR would need to advertise more than one
label space to a peer and hence use more than one LDP Identifier
occurs when the LSR has two links to the peer and both are ATM
(and use per interface labels). Another situation would be
where the LSR had two links to the peer, one of which is ether-
net (and uses per platform lables) and the other of which is
ATM.
LDP sessions exist between LSRs to support label exchange
between them.
When a LSR must use LDP to advertise more than one label
space to another LSR it uses a separate LDP session for each
label space rather than a single LDP session for all the
label spaces.
LDP uses TCP as a reliable transport for sessions.
When multiple LDP sessions are required between two platforms
there is one LDP session per TCP connection rather than many
LDP sessions per TCP connection.
2.4. LDP Sessions between non-Directly Connected LSRs
LDP sessions between LSRs that are not directly connected at the link
level may be desirable in some situations.
For example, consider a "traffic engineering" application where LSR
LSR1 sends traffic matching some criteria via an LSP to non-directly
connected LSR LSR2 rather than forwarding the traffic along its nor-
mally routed path.
An LDP session between LSR1 and LSR2 enables LSR2 to label switch
traffic arriving on the LSP from LSR1. In this situation LSR1
applies two labels to traffic it forwards on the LSP. First, it adds
the label learned via the LDP session with LSR2 to the packet label
stack (either by replacing the label on top of the packet label stack
with it if the packet arrives labeled or by pushing it if the packet
arrives unlabeled). Next, it pushes the label for the LSP onto the
label stack.
Andersson, et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
2.5. LDP Discovery
LDP discovery is a mechanism that enables an LSR to discover poten-
tial LDP peers. Discovery makes it unnecessary to explicitly config-
ure an LSR's label switching peers.
There are two variants of the discovery mechanism:
- A basic discovery mechanism used to discover LSR neighbors
that are directly connected at the link level.
- An extended discovery mechanism used to locate LSRs that are
not directly connected at the link level.
2.5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism
To engage in LDP Basic Discovery on an interface an LSR periodically
sends LDP Link Hellos out the interface. LDP Link Hellos are sent as
UDP packets addressed to the well known LDP discovery port for the
"all routers" group multicast address.
An LDP Link Hello sent by an LSR carries the LDP Identifier for the
label space the LSR intends to use for the interface and possibly
additional information.
Receipt of an LDP Link Hello on an interface identifies a "Hello
adjacency" with a potential LDP peer reachable at the link level on
the interface as well as the label space the peer intends to use for
the interface.
2.5.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism
LDP sessions between non-directly connected LSRs are supported by LDP
Extended Discovery.
To engage in LDP Extended Discovery an LSR periodically sends LDP
Targeted Hellos to a specific IP address. LDP Targeted Hellos are
sent as UDP packets addressed to the well known LDP discovery port at
the specific address.
An LDP Targeted Hello sent by an LSR carries the LDP Identifier for
the label space the LSR intends to use and possibly additional
optional information.
Extended Discovery differs from Basic Discovery in the following
ways:
Andersson, et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
- A Targeted Hello is sent to a specific IP address rather than
to the "all routers" group multicast address for the outgoing
interface.
- Unlike Basic Discovery, which is symmetric, Extended Discovery
is asymmetric.
One LSR initiates Extended Discovery with another targeted
LSR, and the targeted LSR decides whether to respond to or
ignore the Targeted Hello. A targeted LSR that chooses to
respond does so by periodically sending Targeted Hellos to the
initiating LSR.
Receipt of an LDP Targeted Hello identifies a "Hello adjacency"
with a potential LDP peer reachable at the network level and the
label space the peer intends to use.
2.6. Establishing and Maintaining LDP Sessions
2.6.1. LDP Session Establishment
The exchange of LDP Discovery Hellos between two LSRs triggers LDP
session establishment. Session establishment is a two step process:
- Transport connection establishment.
- Session initialization
The following describes establishment of an LDP session between LSRs
LSR1 and LSR2 from LSR1's point of view. It assumes the exchange of
Hellos specifying label space LSR1:a for LSR1 and label space LSR2:b
for LSR2.
2.6.2. Transport Connection Establishment
The exchange of Hellos results in a Hello adjacency at LSR1 which
binds the link (L) and the label spaces LSR1:a and LSR2:b.
1. If LSR1 does not already have an LDP session for the exchange
of label spaces LSR1:a and LSR2:b it attempts to open an LDP
TCP connection for a new session with LSR2.
LSR1 determines the transport addresses to be used at its end
(A1) and LSR2's end (A2) of the LDP TCP connection. Address
A1 is determined as follows:
Andersson, et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
a) If LSR1 uses the Transport Address optional object to
specify an address, A1 is the address LSR1 advertises via
the optional object;
b) If LSR1 does not use the Transport Address optional
object, A1 is the source IP address used for Hellos to
LSR2.
Similarly, address A2 is determined as follows:
a) If LSR2 uses the Transport Address optional object (TLV),
A2 is the address LSR2 advertises via the optional
object;
b) If LSR2 does not use the Transport Address optional
object, A2 is the source IP address used for Hellos from
LSR2.
2. LSR1 determines whether it will play the active or passive
role in session establishment by comparing addresses A1 and A2
as unsigned integers. If A1 > A2, LSR1 plays the active role;
otherwise it is passive.
3. If LSR1 is active, it attempts to establish the LDP TCP con-
nection by connecting to the well known LDP port at address
A2. If LSR1 is passive, it waits for LSR2 to establish the
LDP TCP connection to its well known LDP port.
2.6.3. Session Initialization
After LSR1 and LSR2 establish a transport connection they negotiate
session parameters by exchanging LDP Initialization messages. The
parameters negotiated include LDP protocol version, label distribu-
tion method, timer values, VPI/VCI ranges for label controlled ATM,
DLCI ranges for label controlled Frame Relay, etc.
Successful negotiation completes establishment of an LDP session
between LSR1 and LSR2 for the advertisement of label spaces LSR1:a
and LSR2:b.
The following describes the session initialization from LSR1's point
of view.
1. After the connection is established, if LSR1 is playing the
active role, it initiates negotiation of session parameters by
sending an Initialization message to LSR2. If LSR1 is
Andersson, et al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
passive, it waits for LSR2 to initiate the parameter negotia-
tion.
In general when there are multiple links between LSR1 and LSR2
and multiple label spaces to be advertised by each, the pas-
sive LSR cannot know which label space to advertise over a
newly established TCP connection until it receives the first
LDP PDU on the connection.
By waiting for the Initialization message from its peer the
passive LSR can match the label space to be advertised by the
peer (as determined from the LDP Identifier in the common
header for the Initialization message) with a Hello adjacency
previously created when Hellos were exchanged.
2. When LSR1 plays the passive role:
a) If LSR1 receives an Initialization message it attempts to
match the LDP Identifier carried by the message PDU with
a Hello adjacency.
b) If there is a matching Hello adjacency, the adjacency
specifies the local label space for the session.
Next LSR1 checks whether the session parameters proposed
in the message are acceptable. If they are, LSR1 replies
with an Initialization message of its own to propose the
parameters it wishes to use and a KeepAlive message to
signal acceptance of LSR2's parameters. If the parame-
ters are not acceptable, LSR1 responds by sending a Nak
message and closing the TCP connection.
c) If LSR1 cannot find a matching Hello adjacency it sends a
Nak message and closes the TCP connection.
d) If LSR1 receives a KeepAlive in response to its Initiali-
zation message, the session is operational from LSR1's
point of view.
e) If LSR1 receives a Nak message, LSR2 has rejected its
proposed session parameters and LSR1 closes the TCP con-
nection.
3. When LSR1 plays the active role:
a) If LSR1 receives a Nak message, LSR2 has rejected its
proposed session parameters and LSR1 closes the TCP con-
nection.
Andersson, et al. [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
b) If LSR1 receives an Initialization message, it checks
whether the session parameters are acceptable. If so, it
replies with a KeepAlive message. If the session parame-
ters are unacceptable, LSR1 sends a Nak message and
closes the connection.
c) If LSR1 receives a KeepAlive message, LSR2 has accepted
its proposed session parameters.
d) When LSR1 has received both an acceptable Initialization
message and a KeepAlive message the session is opera-
tional from LSR1's point of view.
It is possible for a pair of incompatibly configured LSRs that
disagree on session parameters to engage in an endless sequence of
messages as each Naks the other's Initialization messages. An LSR
must throttle its session setup retry attempts with an exponential
backoff in situations where Initialization messages are being
Nak'd. It is also recommended that an LSR detecting such a situa-
tion take action to notify an operator.
2.6.4. Initialization State Machine
It is convenient to describe LDP session negotiation behavior in
terms of a state machine. We define the LDP state machine to have
five possible states and present the behavior as a state transition
table and as a state transition diagram.
Andersson, et al. [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Session Initialization State Transition Table
STATE EVENT NEW STATE
NON EXISTENT Session TCP connection established INITIALIZED
established
INITIALIZED Transmit Initialization msg OPENSENT
Receive acceptable OPENREC
Initialization msg
Action: Transmit Initialization
msg and KeepAlive msg
Receive Any other LDP msg NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Nak msg and
close transport connection
OPENREC Receive KeepAlive msg OPERATIONAL
Receive Any other LDP msg NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Nak msg and
close transport connection
OPENSENT Receive acceptable OPENREC
Initialization msg
Action: Transmit KeepAlive msg
Receive Any other LDP msg NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Nak msg and
close transport connection
OPERATIONAL Receive Shutdown msg NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Shutdown msg and
close transport connection
Receive other LDP msgs OPERATIONAL
Timeout NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Shutdown msg and
close transport connection
Andersson, et al. [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Session Initialization State Transition Diagram
+------------+
| |
+------------>|NON EXISTENT|<--------------------+
| | | |
| +------------+ |
| Session | ^ |
| connection | | |
| established | | Rx any LDP msg except |
| V | Init msg or Timeout |
| +-----------+ |
Rx Any other | | | |
msg or | |INITIALIZED| |
Timeout / | +---| |-+ |
Tx Nak msg | | +-----------+ | |
| | (Passive Role) | (Active Role) |
| | Rx Init msg / | Tx Init msg |
| | Tx Init msg | |
| | Tx KeepAlive | |
| V msg V |
| +-------+ +--------+ |
| | | | | |
+---|OPENREC| |OPENSENT|----------------->|
+---| | | | Rx Any other msg |
| +-------+ +--------+ or Timeout |
Rx KeepAlive | ^ | Tx Nak msg |
msg | | | |
| | | Rx Init msg / |
| +----------------+ Tx KeepAlive msg |
| |
| +-----------+ |
+----->| | |
|OPERATIONAL| |
| |---------------------------->+
+-----------+ Rx Shutdown msg
All other | ^ or TIMEOUT /
LDP msgs | | Tx Shutdown msg
| |
+---+
Andersson, et al. [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
2.6.5. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies
An LDP session with a peer has one or more Hello adjacencies.
An LDP session has multiple Hello adjacencies when a pair of LSRs are
connected by multiple links that share the same label space; for
example, multiple PPP links between a pair of routers. In this
situation the Hellos an LSR sends on each such link carries the same
LDP Identifier.
LDP includes mechanisms to monitor the necessity of an LDP session
and its Hello adjacencies.
LDP uses the regular receipt of LDP Discovery Hellos to indicate a
peer's intent to use the label space identified by the Hello. An LSR
maintains a hold timer with each Hello adjacency which it restarts
when it receives a Hello that matches the adjacency. If the timer
expires without receipt of a matching Hello from the peer, LDP con-
cludes that the peer no longer wishes to label switch using that
label space for the link (or target, in the case of Targeted Hellos)
in question or that the peer has failed, and it deletes the Hello
adjacency. When the last Hello adjacency for a LDP session is
deleted, the LSR terminates the LDP session by closing the transport
connection.
2.6.6. Maintaining LDP Sessions
LDP includes mechanisms to monitor the integrity of the session tran-
sport connection.
LDP uses the regular receipt of LDP PDUs on the session transport
connection to monitor the integrity of the connection. An LSR main-
tains a keepalive timer for each peer session which it resets when-
ever it receives an LDP PDU from the session peer. If the keepalive
timer expires without receipt of an LDP PDU from the peer the LSR
concludes that the transport connection is bad or that the peer has
failed, and it terminates the peer session by closing the transport
connection.
An LSR must arrange that its LDP peer sees an LDP PDU from it at
least every keepalive time period to ensure the peer restarts the
session keepalive timer. The LSR may send any protocol message to
meet this requirement. In circumstances where an LSR has no other
information to communicate to its peer, it sends a KeepAlive message.
An LSR may choose to terminate an LDP session with a peer at any
time. Should it choose to do so, it informs the peer with a Shutdown
Andersson, et al. [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
message.
2.7. Label Distribution and Management
2.7.1. Label Distribution Control Mode
The behavior of the initial setup of LSPs is determined by whether
the LSR is operating with independent or ordered LSP control. An LSR
may support both types of control as a configurable option.
2.7.1.1. Independent Label Distribution Control
When using independent LSP control, each node may advertise label
mappings to its neighbors at any time it desires. For example, when
operating in independent Downstream-on-Demand mode, an LSR may answer
requests for label mappings immediately, without waiting for a label
mapping from the next hop. When operating in independent Downstream
allocation mode, an LSR may advertise a label mapping for a FEC to
its neighbors whenever it is prepared to label-switch that FEC.
A consequence of using independent mode is that an upstream label can
be advertised before a downstream label is received. This can result
in unlabeled packets being sent to the downstream node.
2.7.1.2. Ordered Label Distribution Control
When using LSP ordered control, an LSR may initiate the transmission
of a label mapping only for an FEC for which it has a label mapping
for the FEC next hop, or for which the LSR is the egress. For each
FEC for which the LSR is not the egress and no mapping exists, the
LSR MUST wait until a label from a downstream LSR for is received
before mapping the FEC and passing corresponding labels to upstream
LSRs.
An LSR may be an egress for some FECs, and a non-egress for others.
An LSR may act as an egress LSR, with respect to a particular FEC,
under any of the following conditions:
1. The FEC refers to the LSR itself (including one of its
directly attached interfaces).
2. The next hop router for the FEC is outside of the Label
Switching Network.
3 FEC elements are reachable by crossing a routing domain boun-
dary, such as another area for OSPF summary net-works, or
another autonomous system for OSPF AS externals and BGP routes
Andersson, et al. [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
[rfc1583] [rfc1771].
2.7.2. Label Retention Mode
2.7.2.1. Conservative Label Retention Mode
In Downstream Allocation mode, label mapping advertisements for all
routes may be received from all peer LSRs. When using conservative
label retention, advertised label mappings are only retained if they
will be used to forward packets (i.e., if they are received from a
valid next hop according to routing). If operating in Downstream-
on-Demand mode, label mappings will only be requested of the
appropriate next hop LSR according to routing. Since Downstream-on-
Demand mode is primarily used when label conservation is desired
(e.g., an ATM switch with limited cross connect space), it is typi-
cally used with the conservative label retention mode.
The main advantage of the conservative mode is that the only the
labels that are required for the forwarding of data are allocated and
maintained. This is particularly important in LSRs where the label
space is inherently limited, such as in an ATM switch. A disadvan-
tage of the conservative mode is that if routing changes the next hop
for a given destination, a new label must be obtained from the new
next hop before labeled packets can be forwarded.
2.7.2.2. Liberal Label Retention Mode
In Downstream Allocation mode, label mapping advertisements for all
routes may be received from all peer LSRs. When using liberal label
retention, advertised label mappings are retained from all next hops
regardless of whether they are valid next hops for the advertised
mapping. When operating in Downstream-on-Demand mode, label mappings
are requested of all peer LSRs. Note, however, that Downstream-on-
Demand mode is typically associated with ATM switch-based LSRs where
the conservative approach is recommended.
The main advantage of the liberal label retention mode is that reac-
tion to routing changes can be quick because labels already exist.
The main disadvantage of the liberal mode is that unneeded label map-
pings are distributed and maintained.
Andersson, et al. [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
2.7.3. Label Advertisement Mode
Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate in either Down-
stream or Downstream-on-Demand allocation mode. LSRs exchange adver-
tisement modes during initialization. The major difference between
Downstream and Downstream-on-Demand modes is in which LSR takes
responsibility for initiating mapping requests and mapping advertise-
ments
2.8. LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses
An LSR maintains learned labels in a Label Information Base (LIB).
When operating in Downstream (as opposed to Downstream-on-Demand)
more, the LIB entry for an address prefix associates a collection of
(LDP Identifier, label) pairs with the prefix, one such pair for each
peer advertising a label for the prefix.
When the next hop for a prefix changes the LSR must retrieve the
label advertised by the new next hop from the LIB for use in forward-
ing. To retrieve the label the LSR must be able to map the next hop
address for the prefix to an LDP Identifier.
Similarly, when the LSR learns a label for a prefix from an LDP peer,
it must be able to determine whether that peer is currently a next
hop for the prefix to determine whether it needs to start using the
newly learned label when forwarding packets that match the prefix.
To make that decision the LSR must be able to map an LDP Identifier
to the peer's addresses to check whether any are a next hop for the
prefix.
To enable LSRs to map between a peer LDP identifier and the peer's
addresses, LSRs advertise their addresses using LDP Address and With-
draw Address messages.
An LSR sends an Address message to advertise its addresses to a peer.
An LSR sends a Withdraw Address message to withdraw previously adver-
tised addresses from a peer
2.9. Loop Detection
Each LSR MUST support the configurable loop-detection option. LSRs
perform loop detection via the LSR-path-vector object (TLV) contained
within each Mapping and Query message. Upon receiving such a mes-
sage, the LSR performs loop detection by verifying that its unique
router-id is not already present in the list. If a loop is detected,
the LSR must transmit a NAK message to the sending node, and does
Andersson, et al. [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
not install the mapping or propagate the message any further. In
addition, if there is an upstream label spliced to the downstream
label for the FEC, the LSR must unsplice the labels. On those mes-
sages in which no loop is detected, the LSR must concatenate itself
to the LSR-path-vector before propagating.
If loop detection is desired in some portion of the network, then it
should be turned on in ALL LSRs within that portion of the network,
else loop detection will not operate properly.
2.10. Loop Prevention via Diffusion
LSR diffusion support is a configurable option, which permits an LSR
to verify that a new routed path is loop free before installing an
LSP on that path. An LSR which supports diffusion does not splice an
upstream label to a new downstream label until it ensures that con-
catenation of the upstream path with the new downstream path will be
loop free.
A LSR which detects a new next hop for an FEC transmits a Query mes-
sage containing its unique router id to each of its upstream peers.
An LSR that receives such a Query message processes the Query as fol-
lows. (The following procedures are described in terms of Ack and
Nak messages. An Ack is a Notification message signalling Success; a
Nak is a Notification message signalling Loop Detected)
o If the downstream LSR not the correct next hop for the given
FEC, the upstream LSR responds with an Ack message, indicating
that the downstream LSR may change to the new path.
o If the downstream LSR is the correct next hop for the given
FEC, the upstream LSR performs loop detection via the LSR-
path-vector.
o If a loop is detected, the upstream LSR responds with a Nak
message that indicates the LSR is to be "pruned, and the LSR
unsplices all connections for that FEC to the downstream node,
thereby pruning itself off of the tree.
o If a loop is not detected, the upstream node concatenates its
unique router-id to the LSR-path-vector, and propagates the
Query message to its upstream peers.
o Each LSR which receives an Ack message from its upstream peer
in response to a query message, in turn forwards the ack-
nowledgement to the downstream LSR which sent the Query mes-
sage.
Andersson, et al. [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
o If an LSR doesn't receive a Ack Message for a given query
within a "reasonable" period of time, it "unsplices" the
upstream peer that has not responded, and responds with a Nak
message to its downstream peer, indicating the pruning of the
upstream peer.
o An LSR which receives a new Query message for an FEC before it
has received responses from all of its upstream peers for a
previous Query message must concatenate the old and the new
LSR-path-vector within the new query advertisement before pro-
pagating.
o The diffusion computation continues until each upstream path
responds with an acknowledgment. An LSR that does not have any
upstream LDP peers must acknowledge the Query message.
The LSR which began the diffusion may splice its upstream label to
the new downstream label only after receiving an acknowledge mes-
sage from the upstream peer.
As LSR diffusion support is a configurable option, an LSR which
does not support diffusion will never originate a Query message.
However, these LSRs must still recognize and process the Query mes-
sages, as described above.
2.11. Explicitly Routing LSPs
The need for explicit routing (ER) in MPLS has been explored else-
where [ARCH] [FRAME]. At the MPLS WG meeting held during the Wash-
ington IETF there was consensus that LDP should support explicit
routing of LSPs with provision for indication of associated (forward-
ing) priority. This section specifies mechanisms to provide that
support, and provides a means to allow the reservation of 'resources'
for the explicitly routed LSP.
In this document we propose an end to end setup mechanism that could,
in principal, be invoked from either end of the explicitly routed LSP
(ERLSP). However we specify it here only for the case of initiation
by the ingress in the belief that such a mechanism maps naturally to
the setup in the opposite direction. We believe that the, inevit-
able, latency associated with this (end to end) setup mechanism is
tolerable since most of the motivations for ERLSPs, for example
'traffic engineering' imply that the LSPs setup in this manner will
have a long lifetime (at least when compared to those setup in
response to dynamic routing).
Andersson, et al. [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
We introduce objects and procedures that provide support for:
- Strict and Loose explicit routing
- Specification of class of service
- Reservation of bandwidth
- Route pinning
- ERLSP preemption
Only unidirectional point-to-point ERLSP is specified currently.
The scheme can be easily extended to accommodate multipoint-to-
point ERLSPs. The FEC object (TLV) may be used to determined which
ERLSPs are "merged" to form a multipoint-to- point ERLSP. Alterna-
tively, a multipoint-to-point ERLSP can be setup from the egress by
completely specifying the multipoint- to-point tree. Also, tunnel-
ing ERLSPs within other ERLSPs is for future study.
To setup a ERLSP an LSR (that will be the 'ingress' of the LSP)
generates an explicit request. The explicit request contains an
explicit route object which in turn contains a sequence of explicit
request next hop objects and a pointer to the current entry in that
sequence. The explicit request next hop objects specify the IP
address of the LSRs through which the ERLSP should pass. These LSR
hops specified in the explicit route are referred to as 'peg LSRs'.
An explicit request MUST specify the stream that will be associated
with the ERLSP by inserting the appropriate FEC value in the
request. The FEC value 'opaque tunnel' exists to support ERLSPs
where the intermediate LSRs on the LSP need know nothing about the
traffic flowing on the LSP.
The setup mechanism for ERLSPs employs an end to end protocol.
Individual ERLSPs are uniquely identified by an ERLSPID associated
with them by the LSR that initiates their setup. The ERLSPID is
generated by the ingress LSR of the LSP. The ERLSPID has another
component called Peg ERLSPID which is generated by each peg LSR
when the next peg LSR from itself is loosely routed. This is used
by the intermediate LSRs to identify a loosely routed segment. The
Peg ERLSPID is not used in a segment that is strictly routed.
Requests travel from the 'ingress' of the LSP toward what will be
the 'egress'. Responses indicating the status of the ERLSP request
travel back toward the ingress of the ERLSP. ERLSPID is used in
both Request and Response messages.
The addresses specified in the next hop objects in the explicit
Andersson, et al. [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
route object should be those of the LSR's IP address or the incom-
ing interfaces on the LSRs through which the LSP should pass. The
ERLSPID, FEC, incoming interface (previous hop) and LDP identifier
of the LSR that generated the message are all stored in an ERLSP
control block. Here's a synopsis of the entire mechanism to
instantiate an ERLSP:
An ingress node originates a ERLSP request message. The message
contains an unique ERLSPID, FEC object, explicit route object,
and an optional object for resource assignment for the ERLSP.
At an intermediate node the 'active' ERNH object is identified
by the pointer in the explicit route object. On message receipt
the pointer always points to the receiving LSR object in the
explicit route message in case of strict routing. If a segment
of ERLSP is loosely routed then pointer always points to the
upstream peg LSR at all the intermediate LSRs in this segment.
The penultimate hop to the downstream peg LSR advances the
pointer to the next ERNH object in the list.
If the ERNH objects subtype indicates 'Strict' then dependent on
the next ERNH IP address the appropriate LDP Identifier for the
LDP session with the next hop and the appropriate output inter-
face are discovered (by using the information learnt from the
address message see Section "LDP Identifiers"). The outgoing
interface (next hop) information is also stored in the ERLSP
control block. In the case of strict ERLSP, the neighbor MUST
be directly adjacent to the current LSR.
If the ERNH object subtype indicates 'Loose' then dependent upon
the next ERNH IP address a next hop is selected as per the FIB
information for the downstream peg LSR. This information is
again maintained in the ERLSP control block. Peg LSRs are
allowed to change the Explicit Route Object if the path to the
next Peg LSR is selected to be 'loose'. This allows the Peg
LSRs to select a specific path to the next Peg LSR. The default
path to the next Peg LSR in case the segment is chosen as
'loose' is determined by the hop-by- hop forwarding path to the
next Peg LSR. However, Peg LSR are allowed only to select a
path downstream to the next Peg LSR, they cannot change paths on
any other segment of the ERLSP.
Bandwidth reservations (if any) are processed. How this hap-
pens, i.e. the precise connection admission procedures is out-
side the scope of the LDP specification. The admission control
must also use the preemption value specified for the LSP in
determining if resources are available for the LSP. If a reser-
vation cannot be accommodated a response indicating that fact is
Andersson, et al. [Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
returned to the previous hop. Note that the resources are only
reserved at this time. The LSRs will commit the bandwidth with
the labels when the response comes back from the egress LSR.
If the ERLSP can be accommodated the pointer in the explicit
request object is incremented to point at the next explicit
request next hop object in case of strict routing and the
request message is sent to the LDP peer discovered as described
above. In case of loose routing, the pointer is incremented
only if the direct next hop is the next downstream peg LSR.
If an LSR finds it impossible to satisfy a Explicit request then
an 'Explicit response' message is created indicating the reason.
The ERLSPID from (failed) request is inserted in the message and
it is sent to the LDP peer identified in the associated entry in
the ERLSP control block after which the ERLSP block is freed.
LSRs receiving Explicit responses indicating failure process
them in a similar manner. They create a new Explicit request
and copy the ERLSPID and Status from the Explicit request they
received into it. They use the ERLSPID to obtain the appropri-
ate ERLSP control block and thus identify the LDP peer toward
which the 'new' Explicit response message should be sent. Hav-
ing done that they free the ERLSP control block.
When an Explicit request reaches the LSR specified in the last
ERNH object in that request and that LSR accedes to the request
it generates an Explicit response indicating successful setup of
the ERLSP. The egress node also includes a label in the
response message. The Explicit response is (reverse path) for-
warded through the LSRs that the original Explicit request
traversed using the mechanism described above (inspection of
ERLSP control block). In this case, of course, the ERLSP con-
trol block is not deleted. An intermediate LSR receiving such a
response message allocates a new label on its incoming interface
and creates a connection between the new and the given label in
the message. The LSR also commits the previously reserved
bandwidth to this connection at the appropriate scheduler(s).
The LSR then forwards the message to its previous hop with the
new label. When the successful response reaches the ingress LSR
the ERLSP is declared in-service.
There is also support for route pinning for loosely routed seg-
ments. When a ERLSP is pinned the loose path is not changed
when `better' paths become available. Once a ERLSP goes in-
service there is protocol support to reassign resources to the
ERLSP if required.
Andersson, et al. [Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
2.12. ERLSP State Machine
The ERLSP control block may contain the following information:
- ERLSPID/Peg ERLSPID
- State
- FEC object
- Flags
o Self is Peg Node
o Pinned path
o Upstream segment (Strict/Loose) type
o downstream segment (Strict/Loose) type
- next peg node
- preemption level
- upstream neighbor (next hop/interface)
- downstream neighbor (next hop/interface)
- BW information (only at peg LSRs with loose downstream
segment)
- Explicit Route Object (only at peg LSRs with loose
downstream segment)
For the purpose of matching message to existing ERLSP control
block, both the ERLSPID and Peg ERLSPID in the message are
matched against the ones in the control block. Its only when
both of them match that the message is considered to be for the
matched control block, otherwise it is treated as a new ERLSP
request. The ingress may use the ERLSPID as the peg ERLSPID.
At the peg nodes, the control block fields ERLSPID and Previous
Peg ERLSDID are compared because Peg ERLSPID contains the self
assigned Peg ERLSPID. Also note that the Request message at
Peg node is only compared for ERLSPID to select a control
block.
The state tables for peg node and non peg nodes are given
separately. Separate state tables are used only for
illustrative purposes. The state engines can be collapsed into
a single state engine. Moreover, a completely strict ERLSP can
be treated as a special case of loosely routed where every
neighbor is a peg LSR with several of the state transitions
optimized.
Andersson, et al. [Page 28]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
2.12.1. Loose Segment Peg LSR Transitions:
Peg LSRs in a loosely routed ERLSP segment are those that are expli-
citly listed in the explicit route object as the starting or ending
of a loose segment.
State NULL
Event Action New State
Request Create ERLSP control block; store Response
relevant information from the Awaited
message into the control block;
select a new peg ERLSPID; reserve
BW specified in the message; obtain
next hop (or interface) towards
next peg LSR; propagate message
towards the obtained next hop.
If last node in the explicit route Established
object, allocate an upstream label;
commit BW; originate a Response
message upstream.
If unable to process request for No change
any reason, issue a NAK message to
the sender with appropriate error
code.
Response Send NAK message to the sender. No change
Others Silently ignore event. No change
State RESPONSE_AWAITED
Event Action New State
Response Install downstream label in Established
message; choose an upstream label;
connect upstream to downstream
label; commit BW to the connection;
propagate Response upstream with
upstream label.
If unable to process Response Null
message for any reason then recover
resources; originate a Nak message
Andersson, et al. [Page 29]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
upstream; originate a Release
message downstream; delete control
block.
Upstream Release resources; propagate Nak Null
lost downstream; delete control block.
Downstream Reassign a new Peg ERLSPID. Start Retry
lost RETRY timer.
Nak from Reassign a new Peg ERLSPID. RETRY Retry
downstream timer.
If error code in Nak is severe then Null
propagate the Nak upstream; release
resources; delete control block.
Nak from Release resources; propagate Nak Null
upstream downstream; delete control block.
New NH If ERLSP is pinned, ignore event. Retry
Otherwise, send a Nak downstream;
change NH in the control block;
reassign a new Peg ERLSPID. Start
RETRY timer.
Others Silently ignore event. No change
State RETRY
Event Action New State
Retry Originate Request message towards Response
Timer the next hop in the control block. Awaited
New NH If ERLSP is pinned, ignore the No change
event. Otherwise change next hop
information in the control block.
Nak from Release all resources (BW, label, Null
upstream timer); delete control block.
Upstream Release all resources (BW, label, Null
lost timer); delete control block.
Release Release all resources (BW, label, Null
timer); delete control block.
Andersson, et al. [Page 30]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Downstream If there is a new next hop, update No change
lost that in the control block.
Otherwise, delete timer; recover Null
resources; send Nak upstream;
delete control block.
Others Silently ignore event. No change
State RECONNECT_AWAITED
Event Action New State
Request Make appropriate changes in the Established
control block; make label
connection; send a Response message
upstream with upstream label.
If unable to process Request Null
message for any reason then send a
Release message downstream and a
Nak message upstream; release
resources; delete control block.
Reconnect Release resources; send Release Null
Awaited message downstream; delete control
Timer block.
Upstream Ignore event. No change
lost
Downstream Release resources; delete control Null
lost block.
New NH Release resources; delete control Null
block.
Nak from Release resources; delete control Null
downstream block.
Others Silently ignore event. No change
State ESTABLISHED
Event Action New State
Andersson, et al. [Page 31]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Upstream Start RECONNECT_AWAITED timer. Reconnect
lost Awaited
Downstream Reassign a new Peg ERLSPID. Start Retry
lost RETRY timer.
Nak from Reassign a new Peg ERLSPID. Start Retry
downstream RETRY timer.
If error code in Nak is severe then Null
propagate the Nak upstream; release
resources; delete control block.
Nak from Reassign a new Peg ERLSPID. Start Reconnect
upstream RECONNECT_AWAITED timer. Awaited
If error code in Nak is severe, Null
then propagate the Nak downstream;
release resources; delete control
block.
New NH If ERLSP is pinned, ignore the Retry
event. Otherwise, send a Nak
downstream; change next hop in
control block; reassign a new Peg
ERLSPID. Start RETRY timer.
Release Release resources; propagate Null
message downstream; delete control
block.
Others Silently ignore event. No change
Andersson, et al. [Page 32]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
2.12.2. Loose Segment Non-Peg LSR Transitions:
Non-peg LSRs in a loose segment of an ERLSP are the LSRs intermediate
to two peg LSRs and through which the loose segment is routed using
the hop-by-hop forwarding path.
State NULL
Event Action New State
Request Create ERLSP control block; reserve Response
BW specified in the message; obtain Awaited
next hop (or interface) towards
next peg LSR; if penultimate hop to
next peg LSR then increment pointer
in ERNH object; propagate message
towards the obtained next hop
If unable to process request for No change
any reason, issue a Nak message to
the sender with appropriate error
code.
Response Send a Nak message to the sender. No change
Others Silently ignore event. No change
State RESPONSE_AWAITED
Event Action New State
Response Install downstream label in Established
message; choose an upstream label;
connect upstream to downstream
label; commit BW to connection;
propagate Response upstream with
upstream label.
If unable to process Response Null
message for any reason then
recovery resources; propagate a Nak
message upstream; originate a
Release message downstream; delete
control block.
Upstream Originate a Nak message downstream; Null
lost delete control block.
Andersson, et al. [Page 33]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Downstream Originate a Nak message upstream; Null
lost delete control block.
Nak from Propagate Nak message upstream; Null
downstream release reserved BW; delete control
block.
Nak from Propagate Nak message downstream; Null
upstream release reserved BW; delete control
block;
New NH If ERLSP is pinned, ignore the Null
event. Otherwise, send Nak message
upstream and downstream; release
reserved BW; delete control block.
Release Propagate message downstream; Null
release resources; delete control
block.
Others Silently ignore event. No change
State ESTABLISHED
Event Action New State
Upstream Send Nak message downstream; Null
lost release resources (BW, label);
delete control block.
Downstream Send Nak message upstream; release Null
lost resources; delete control block.
Nak from Release resources; propagate Nak Null
downstream message upstream; delete control
block.
Nak from Release resources; propagate Null
upstream message Nak downstream; delete
control block.
New NH If ERLSP is pinned, ignore the Null
event. Otherwise, release
resources; originate Nak message
upstream; originate Nak message
downstream; delete control block.
Andersson, et al. [Page 34]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Release Release resources; propagate Null
message downstream; delete control
block.
Others Silently ignore event. No change
2.12.2.1. Strict Segment Transitions
A LSR whose upstream and downstream segment of an ERLSP is
strict has a state transition exactly similar to the non-peg
LSR (only different being does not handle the case of pinned
down option).
2.12.3. ERLSP Timeouts
The following timeouts are used in the state transition:
RETRY
Default value TBD. This timer is set by the peg LSR to ori-
ginate a Request message downstream on the elapse of the timer
when a downstream loose segment is lost.
RECONNECT
Default value TBD. This timer is set by the peg LSR to dein-
stall an ERLSP on the elapse of the timer when a upstream
loose segment is lost.
2.12.4. ERLSP Error Codes
NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE:
To be supplied.
This subsection should be moved to Section 3.
END NOTE * END NOTE * END NOTE:
Andersson, et al. [Page 35]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3. Protocol Specification
Previous sections that describe LDP operation have discussed
scenarios that involve the exchange of messages among LDP peers.
This section specifies the message encodings and procedures for pro-
cessing the messages.
LDP message exchanges are accomplished by sending LDP protocol data
units (PDUs) over LDP session TCP connections.
Each LDP PDU can carry one or more LDP messages. Note that the mes-
sages in an LDP PDU need not be related to one another. For example,
a single PDU could carry a message advertising FEC-label bindings for
several FECs, another message requesting label bindings for several
other FECs, and a third notification message signalling some event.
3.1. LDP PDUs
Each LDP PDU is a fixed LDP header followed by one or more LDP mes-
sages. The fixed LDP header is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version | PDU Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LDP Identifier |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Res |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version
Two octet unsigned integer containing the version number of the
protocol. This version of the specification specifies LDP protocol
version 1.
PDU Length
Two octet integer specifying the total length of this PDU in bytes,
excluding the Version and PDU Length fields.
LDP Identifier
Six octet field that uniquely identifies the label space for which
this PDU applies. The first four octets encode an IP address
assigned to the LSR. This address should be the router-id, also
used in LSR Path Vector used by loop detection and loop prevention
Andersson, et al. [Page 36]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
procedures. The last two octets identify a label space within the
LSR. For a platform-wide label space, these should both be zero.
Res
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission and
must be ignored on receipt.
3.2. Type-Length-Value Encoding
LDP uses a Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding scheme to encode much of
LDP message contents. An LDP TLV is encoded as a 2 octet Type field,
followed by a 2 octet Length Field followed by a variable length
Value field.
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 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Value |
~ ~
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
Encodes how the Value field is to be interpreted.
Length
Specifies the length of the Value field in octets.
Value
Octet string of Length octets that encodes information the
interpretation of which is specfied by the Type field.
Note that the Value field itself may contain TLV encodings. That is,
TLVs may be nested.
The TLV encoding scheme is very general. In principle, everything
appearing in an LDP PDU could be encoded as a TLV. This specifica-
tion does not use the TLV scheme to its full generality. It is not
used where its generality is unnecessary and its use would waste
space unnecessarily. These are usually places where the type of a
Andersson, et al. [Page 37]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
value to be encoded is known, for example by its position in a mes-
sage or an enclosing TLV, and the length of the value is fixed or
readily derivable from the value encoding itself.
Some of the TLVs defined for LDP are similar to one another. For
example, there is a Generic Label TLV, an ATM Label TLV, and a Frame
Relay TLV; see Sections "Generic Label TLV", "ATM Label TLV", and
"Frame Relay TLV".
While is possible to think about TLVs related in this way in terms of
a TLV type that specifies a TLV class and a TLV subtype that speci-
fies a particular kind of TLV within that class, this specification
does not formalize the notion of a TLV subtype.
The specification assigns type values for related TLVs, such as the
label TLVs, from of a contiguous block in the 16-bit TLV type number
space.
Section "TLV Summary" lists the TLVs defined in this version of the
protocol and the document section that describes each.
3.3. Commonly Used TLVs
There are several TLV encodings used by more than one LDP message.
The encodings for these commonly used TLVs are specified in this sec-
tion.
3.3.1. FEC TLV
Labels are bound to Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs). An FEC is
a list of one or more FEC elements. The FEC TLV encodes FEC items.
Its encoding is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 38]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC (0x0100) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC Element 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC Element n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
FEC Element 1 to FEC Element n
There are several types of FEC elements; see Section "FEC Types".
The FEC element encoding depends on the type of FEC element. Note
that while the representation of the FEC element value is type-
dependent that the value encoding itself is one where standard LDP
TLV encoding is not used.
A FEC Element value is encoded as a 1 octet field that specifies
the element type, and a variable length field that is the type-
dependent element value.
The FEC Element value encoding is:
FEC Element Type Value
type name
Wildcard 0x01 No value; i.e., 0 value octets;
see below.
Prefix 0x02 See Prefix value encoding below.
Router Id 0x03 4 octet full IP address.
Flow 0x04 See Flow value encoding below.
Wildcard FEC Element
To be used only in the Label Withdraw and Label Release Messages.
Indicates the withdraw/release is to be applied to all FECs asso-
ciated with the label within the following label TLV. Must be
the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.
Prefix FEC Element value encoding:
Andersson, et al. [Page 39]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Family | PreLen | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Prefix |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Family
Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS in Assigned Numbers [ref] that encodes the address fam-
ily for the address prefix in the Prefix field.
PreLen
One octet unsigned integer containing the length in bits of the
address prefix that follows.
Prefix
An address prefix encoded according to the Address Family
field, whose length, in bits, was specified in the PreLen
field, padded to a byte boundary.
Flow FEC Element value encoding:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Source Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Destination Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port | Dest Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol | Direction | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Network Source Address
Four octet source IPv4 address.
Network Destination Address
Four octet destination IPv4 address.
NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE:
Andersson, et al. [Page 40]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
For generality the address encodings here should include an
Address Family field, etc.
END NOTE * END NOTE * END NOTE:
Source Port
Two octet source port.
Destination Port
Two octet destination port.
Protocol
Protocol type.
Direction
One octet indicating the direction of the LSP. Field is set to
1 on Downstream; field is set to 2 on Upstream.
NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE:
Use of this FEC is not fully specified in this version of the
protocol
END NOTE * END NOTE * END NOTE:
3.3.1.1. FEC Procedures
If in decoding a FEC TLV an LSR encounters a FEC Element type it can-
not decode, it should stop decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the
message containing the TLV, and send an Ack/Nack message to its LSR
peer signalling an error.
3.3.2. Label TLVs
Label TLVs encode labels. Label TLVs are carried by the messages
used to advertise, request, release and withdraw label mappings.
There are several different kinds of Label TLVs which can appear in
situations that require a Label TLV.
Andersson, et al. [Page 41]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.3.2.1. Generic Label TLV
An LSR uses Generic Label TLVs to encode labels for use on links for
which label values are independent of the underlying link technology.
Examples of such links are PPP and Ethernet.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Generic Label (0x0200) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Label
This is a 20-bit label value as specified in [ENCAP] represented as
a 20-bit number in a 4 octet field.
3.3.2.2. ATM Label TLV
An LSR uses ATM Label TLVs to encode labels for use on ATM links.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ATM Label (0x0201) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Res| V | VPI | VCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Res
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission and
must be ignored on receipt.
V-bits
Two-bit switching indicator. If V-bits is 00, both the VPI and VCI
are significant. If V-bits is 01, only the VPI field is signifi-
cant. If V-bit is 10, only the VCI is significant.
VPI
Virtual Path Identifier. If VPI is less than 12-bits it should be
right justified in this field and preceding bits should be set to
0.
Andersson, et al. [Page 42]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
VCI
Virtual Connection Identifier. If the VCI is less than 16- bits, it
should be right justified in the field and the preceding bits must
be set to 0. If Virtual Path switching is indicated in the V-bits
field, then this field must be ignored by the receiver and set to 0
by the sender.
3.3.2.3. Frame Relay Label TLV
An LSR uses Frame Relay Label TLVs to encode labels for use on Frame
Relay links.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frame Relay Label (0x0202) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |Len| DLCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Res
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission and
must be ignored on receipt.
Len
This field specifies the number of bits of the DLCI. The following
values are supported:
0 = 10 bits DLCI
1 = 17 bits DLCI
2 = 23 bits DLCI
DLCI
The Data Link Connection Identifier. Refer to
draft-ietf-mpls-fr-01.txt [FR] for the label values and formats.
3.3.3. Address List TLV
The Address List TLV appears in Address and Address Withdraw mes-
sages.
Its encoding is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 43]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address List (0x0101) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Family | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Addresses |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Family
Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY NUMBERS
in Assigned Numbers [ref] that encodes the addresses contained in
the Addresses field.
Addresses
A list of addresses from the specified Address Family. The encod-
ing of the individual addresses depends on the Address Family.
The following address encodings are defined by this version of the
protocol:
Address Family Address Encoding
IPv4 4 octet full IPv4 address
3.3.4. COS TLV
The COS (Class of Service) TLV may appear as an optional field in
messages that carry label mappings. Its encoding is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| COS (0x0102) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| COS Value |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Andersson, et al. [Page 44]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
COS Value
The COS Value may be one of several types, encoded as a 1 octet
type followed by a variable length, type-dependent value. Note
that the encoding of the COS value is not the standard LDP TLV
encoding. Note also that the length of the type-dependent value
can be derived from the length of the COS TLV.
The following COS value encodings are defined by this version of
the protocol:
COS Name Type code Value
IP Prec 0x01 1 octet IP Precedence
If in decoding a COS TLV an LSR encounters a COS type it cannot
decode, it should stop decoding the COS TLV, abort processing the
message containing the TLV, and send an Ack/Nack message to its LSR
peer signalling an error.
3.3.5. Hop Count TLV
The Hop Count TLV appears as an optional field in messages that set
up LSPs. It calculates the number of LSR hops along an LSP as the
LSP is being setup.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count (0x0103) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HC Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
HC Value
1 octet unsigned integer hop count value.
3.3.5.1. Hop Count Procedures
During setup of an LSP an LSR may receive a Label Mapping or Label
Request message for the LSP that contains the Hop Count TLV. If it
does, it should record the hop count value. If the LSR then passes a
Label Mapping message for the LSP to an upstream peer or a Label
Andersson, et al. [Page 45]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Request to a downstream peer to continue the LSP setup, it must
increment the recorded hop count value and include it in a Hop Count
TLV in the message. The first LSR in the LSP should set the hop
count value to 1.
If an LSR receives a Label Mapping message containing a Hop Count
TLV, it must check the hop count value to determine whether the hop
count has wrapped (hop count value = 0). If so, it must reject the
Label Mapping message in order to prevent a forwarding loop.
3.3.6. Path Vector TLV
The Path Vector TLV is used in messages that implement LDP loop
detection and prevention. It records the path of LSRs a label adver-
tisement has traversed to setup an LSP. Its encoding is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Vector (0x0104) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR Id 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR Id n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One or more LSR Ids
A list of router-identifiers indicating the path of LSRs the map-
ping message has traversed. Each router-id must be the router-id
component of the LDP identifier for the corresponding LSR. This
ensures it is unique within the LSR network.
3.3.6.1. Path Vector Procedures
During setup of an LSP an LSR may receive a Label Mapping message for
the LSP that contains the Path Vector TLV. If it does, the LSR must
pass a Label Mapping message for the LSP to the upstream peer(s) to
continue the LSP setup. This message must include a Path Vector TLV
in the message. The value of the path vector in the Path Vector TLV
Andersson, et al. [Page 46]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
must be the received path vector with the LSRs own LSR Id appended to
it.
If an LSR receives a Label Mapping message containing a Path Vector
TLV, it must check the path vector value to determine whether the
vector contains its own LSR-id. If so, it must reject the Label Map-
ping message in order to prevent a forwarding loop.
The Path Vector TLV is also used in the Label Query message. See
Sections "Loop Detection" and "Loop Prevention via Diffusion" for
more details.
3.3.7. Status TLV
Notification messages carry Status TLVs to specify events being sig-
nalled.
The encoding for the Status TLV is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status (0x0300) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Status Code
32-bit unsigned integer encoding the event being signalled. The
structure of a Status Code is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|E| Status Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
F bit
Fatal error bit. If set (=1), this is a fatal error notifica-
tion. If clear (=0), this is an advisory notification.
Andersson, et al. [Page 47]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
E bit
End-to-end bit. If set (=1), the notification should be for-
warded to the LSR for the next-hop or previous-hop for the LSP,
if any, associated with the event being signalled. If clear
(=0), the notification should not be forwarded.
Status Data
30-bit unsigned integer which specifies the status information.
This specification defines Status Codes (32-bit unsigned integers
with the above encoding).
A Status Code of 0 signals success.
Message ID
If non-zero, 32-bit value that identifies the peer message to which
the Status TLV refers. If zero, no specific peer message is being
identified.
Message Type
If non-zero, the type of the peer message to which the Status TLV
refers. If zero, the Status TLV does not refer to any specific
peer message.
3.4. LDP Messages
All LDP messages have the following 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Mandatory Parameters |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Optional Parameters |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Andersson, et al. [Page 48]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Message Type
Identifies the type of message
Message Length
Specifies the length of the message value component (Mandatory plus
Optional Parameters) in octets
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message. Used by the
sending LSR to facilitate identifying notification messages that
may apply to this message. An LSR sending a notification message
in response to this message will include this Message Id in the
notification message; see Section "Notification Message".
Mandatory Parameters
Variable length set of required message parameters. Some messages
have no required parameters.
For messages that have required parameters, the required parameters
MUST appear in the order specified by the individual message
specifications in the sections that follow.
Optional Parameters
Variable length set of optional message parameters. Many messages
have no optional parameters.
For messages that have optional parameters, the optional parameters
may appear in any order.
The following message types are defined in this version of LDP:
Message Name Type Section Title
Notification 0x0001 "Notification Message"
Hello 0x0100 "Hello Message"
Initialization 0x0200 "Initialization Message"
KeepAlive 0x0201 "KeepAlive Message"
Address 0x0300 "Address Message"
Address Withdraw 0x0301 "Address Withdraw Message"
Label Mapping 0x0401 "Label Mapping Message"
Label Request 0x0402 "Label Request Message"
Label Withdraw 0x0403 "Label Withdraw Message"
Label Release 0x0404 "Label Release Message"
Label Query 0x0405 "Label Query Message"
Explicit Route Request 0x0500 "Explicit Route Request Message"
Explicit Route Response 0x0501 "Explicit Route Response Message"
Andersson, et al. [Page 49]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
The sections that follow specify the encodings and procedures for
these messages.
Some of the above message are related to one another, for example the
Label Mapping, Label Request, Label Withdraw, and Label Release mes-
sages.
While is possible to think about messages related in this way in
terms of a message type that specifies a message class and a message
subtype that specifies a particular kind of message within that
class, this specification does not formalize the notion of a message
subtype.
The specification assigns type values for related messages, such as
the label messages, from of a contiguous block in the 16-bit message
type number space.
3.4.1. Notification Message
An LSR sends a Notification message to inform an LDP peer of a signi-
ficant event. A Notification message signals a fatal error or pro-
vides advisory information regarding an item such as the processing
of LDP messages or the state of the LDP session.
The encoding for the Notification Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Notification (0x0001) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status (TLV) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
Status TLV
Indicates the event being signalled. The encoding for the Status
TLV is specified in Section "Status TLV".
Andersson, et al. [Page 50]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The following Optional Parameters are generic
and may appear in any Notification Message:
Optional Parameter Type Length Value
Extended Status 0x0301 4 See below
Other Optional Parameters, specific to the particular event being
signalled by the Notification Messages may appear. These are
described elsewhere.
Extended Status
The 4 octet value is an Extended Status Code that encodes addi-
tional information that supplements the status information con-
tained in the Notification Status Code.
3.4.1.1. Notification Message Procedures
If an LSR encounters a condition requiring it to notify its peer with
advisory or error information it sends the peer a Notification mes-
sage containing a Status TLV that encodes the information and option-
ally additional TLVs that provide more information about the event.
If the condition is one that is a fatal error the Status Code carried
in the notification will indicate that. In this case, after sending
the Notification message the LSR should terminate the LDP session by
closing the session TCP connection and discard all state associated
with the session, including all label-FEC bindings learned via the
session.
When an LSR receives a Notification message that carries a Status
Code that indicates a fatal error, it should terminate the LDP ses-
sion immediately by closing the session TCP connection and discard
all state associated with the session, including all label-FEC bind-
ings learned via the session.
3.4.1.2. Events Signalled by Notification Messages
It is useful for descriptive purpose to classify events signalled by
Notification Messages into the following categories.
Andersson, et al. [Page 51]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.4.1.2.1. Malformed PDU or Message
Malformed LDP PDUs or Messages that are part of the LDP Discovery
mechanism are handled by silently discarding them.
An LDP PDU received on a TCP connection for an LDP session is mal-
formed if:
- The LDP Identifier in the PDU header is unknown to the receiver,
or it is known but is not the LDP Identifier associated by the
receiver with the LDP session. This is a fatal error signalled
by the Bad LDP Identifier Status Code.
- The LDP protocol version is not supported by the receiver, or it
is supported but is not the version negotiated for the session
during session establishment. This is a fatal error signalled by
the Bad Protocol Version Status Code.
- The PDU Length field is too short (< 20) or too long (> TBD).
This is a fatal error signaled by the Bad PDU Length Status Code.
An LDP Message is malformed if:
- The Message Type is unknown. See Section "Unknown Message Types"
for more detail.
If the Message Type is < 0x80000000 (high order bit = 0) it is a
fatal error signalled by the Unknown Message Type Status Code.
If the Message Type is >= 0x8000000 (high order bit = 1) it is
silently discarded.
- The Message Length is too large, that is, indicates that the mes-
sage extends beyond the end of the containing LDP PDU. This is a
fatal error signalled by the Bad Message Length Status Code.
3.4.1.2.2. Unknown or Malformed TLV
Malformed TLVs contained in LDP messages that are part of the LDP
Discovery mechanism are handled by silently discarding the containing
message.
A TLV contained in an LDP message received on a TCP connection of an
LDP is malformed if:
Andersson, et al. [Page 52]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
- The TLV Length is too large, that is, indicates that the TLV
extends beyond the end of the containing message. This is a
fatal error signalled by the Bad TLV Length Status Code.
- The TLV type is unknown. See Section "Unknown TLV in Known Mes-
sage Type" for more detail.
If the TLV type is < 0x80000000 (high order bit 0) it is a fatal
error signalled by the Unknown TLV Status Code.
If the TLV type is >= 0800000000 (high order bit 1) the TLV is
silently dropped. Section "Unknown TLV in Known Message Type"
elaborates on this behavior.
- The TLV Value is malformed. This occurs when the receiver han-
dles the TLV but cannot decode the TLV Value. This is
intrepreted as indicative of a bug in either the sending or
receiving LSR. It is a fatal error signalled by the Malformed
TLV Value Status Code.
3.4.1.2.3. Session Hold Timer Expiration
This is a fatal error signalled by the Hold Timer Expired Status
Code.
3.4.1.2.4. Unilateral Session Shutdown
This is a non-fatal event signalled by the Shutdown Status Code. The
Notification Message may optionally include an Extended Status TLV to
provide a reason for the Shutdown. Note that although this is a
"non-fatal" event, the sending LSR terminates the session immediately
after sending the Notification.
3.4.1.2.5. Initialization Message Events
The session initialization negotiation (see Section "Session Initial-
ization") may fail if the session parameters received in the Initial-
ization Message are unacceptable. This is a fatal error. The
specific Status Code depends on the parameter deemed unacceptable,
and are defined in Sections "Initialization Message Notification
Status Codes".
Andersson, et al. [Page 53]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.4.1.2.6. Events Resulting From Other Messages
Messages other than the Initialization message may result in events
that must be signalled to LDP peers via Notification Messages. These
events and the Status Codes used in the Notification Messages to sig-
nal them are described in the sections that describe these messages.
3.4.1.2.7. Explicitly Routed LSP Setup Events
Establishment of an Explicitly Routed LSP may fail for a variety of
reasons. All such failures are considered non-fatal conditions and
they are signalled by the Explicit Response Message.
3.4.1.2.8. Miscellaneous Events
These are events that fall into none of the categories above. There
are no miscellaneous events defined in this version of the protocol.
3.4.2. Hello Message
LDP Hello Messages are exchanged as part of the LDP Discovery Mechan-
ism; see Section "LDP Discovery".
The encoding for the Hello Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hello (0x0100) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The optional parameters defined by this version
of the protocol are
Andersson, et al. [Page 54]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Optional Parameter Type Length Value
Targeted Hello 0x0400 0 --
Send Targeted Hello 0x0401 0 --
Transport Address 0x0402 4 See below
Hello Hold Time 0x0403 4 See below
Targeted Hello
This Hello is a Targeted Hello. Without this optional parameter
the Hello is a Link Hello.
Send Targeted Hello
Requests the receiver to send periodic Targeted Hellos to the
source of this Hello. An LSR initiating Extended Discovery uses
this option.
Transport Address
Specifies the IPv4 address to be used for the sending LSR when
opening the LDP session TCP connection. If this optional TLV is
not present the IPv4 source address for the UDP packet carrying
the Hello should be used.
Hello Hold Time
An LSR maintains a record of Hellos received from potential peers
(see below) When present, this parameter specifies the time in
seconds the sending LSR will maintain its record of Hellos from
the receiving LSR without receipt of another Hello. When not
present, the sender will use a default hold time. There are
interface type specific defaults for Link Hellos as well a
default for Targeted Hellos.
3.4.2.1. Hello Message Procedures
An LSR receiving Hellos from another LSR maintains a Hello adjacency
for the Hellos. The LSR maintains a hold timer with the Hello adja-
cency which it restarts whenever it receives a Hello that matches the
Hello adjacency. If the hold timer for a Hello adjacency expires the
LSR discards the Hello adjacency: see sections "Maintaining Hello
Adjacencies" and "Maintaining LDP Sessions".
A LSR processes a received LDP Hello as follows:
Andersson, et al. [Page 55]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
1. The LSR checks whether the Hello is acceptable. The criteria
for determining whether a Hello is acceptable are implementa-
tion dependent (see below for example criteria).
2. If the Hello is not acceptable, the LSR ignores it.
3. If the Hello is acceptable, the LSR checks whether it has a
Hello adjacency for the Hello source. If so, it restarts the
hold timer for the Hello adjacency. If not it creates a Hello
adjacency for the Hello source and starts its hold timer.
4. If the Hello carries any optional TLVs the LSR processes them
(see below).
5. Finally, if the LSR has no LDP session for the label space
specified by the LDP identifier in the common header for the
Hello, it attempts to establish a session for the label space;
see section "LDP Session Establishment".
The following are examples of acceptability criteria for Link and
Targeted Hellos:
A Link Hello is acceptable if the interface on which it was
received has been configured for label switching.
A Targeted Hello from IP source address a.b.c.d is acceptable if
either:
- The LSR has been configured to accept Targeted Hellos, or
- The LSR has been configured to send Targeted Hellos to
a.b.c.d.
The following describes how an LSR processes Hello optional TLVs:
Targeted Hello
No special processing required.
Send Targeted Hello
If the Send Targeted Hello option is carried by the Hello,
the LSR checks whether it has been configured to send Tar-
geted Hellos to the Hello source in response to Hellos with
this option. If not, it ignores the option. If so, it
initiates periodic transmission of Targeted Hellos to the
Hello source.
Transport Address
The LSR associates the specified transport address with the
Andersson, et al. [Page 56]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Hello adjacency.
Hello Hold Time
A pair of LSRs negotiate the hold times they use for Hellos
from each other. Each LSR proposes a hold time in its Hel-
los either explicitly by including the Hold Time optional
TLV or implicitly by omitting it. The hold time used by
the LSRs is the minimum of the hold times proposed in their
Hellos.
We recommend that the interval between Hello transmissions be at
most one third of the Hello hold time.
3.4.3. Initialization Message
The LDP Initialization Message is exchanged as part of the LDP ses-
sion establishment procedure; see Section "LDP Session Establish-
ment".
The encoding for the Initialization Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Initialization (0x0200) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Common Session Parameters TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
Common Session Parameters TLV
Specifies values proposed by the sending LSR for parameters common
to all LDP sessions.
The encoding for the Basic Session Parameters TLV is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 57]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Common Sess Params (0x0500) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol Version | Hold Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiver LDP Identifer |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Protocol Version
Two octet unsigned integer containing the version number of the
protocol. This version of the specification specifies LDP pro-
tocol version 1.
Hold Time
Two octet unsigned non zero integer that indicates the number
of seconds that the sending LSR proposes for the value of the
KeepAlive Interval. The receiving LSR MUST calculate the value
of the KeepAlive Timer by using the smaller of its proposed
Hold Time and the Hold Time received in the PDU. The value
chosen for Hold Time indicates the maximum number of seconds
that may elapse between the receipt of successive PDUs from the
LSR peer. The Keepalive Timer is reset each time a PDU
arrives.
Receiver LDP Identifer
Identifies the receiver's label space. This LDP Identifier,
together with the sender's LDP Identifier in the common header
enables the receiver to match the Initialization message with
one of its Hello adjacencies; see Section "Hello Message Pro-
cedures".
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The optional parameters are:
Andersson, et al. [Page 58]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Optional Parameter Type Length Value
Label Allocation 0x0501 1 See below
Discipline
Loop Detection 0x0502 0 --
Merge 0x0503 1 See below
ATM Null Encapsulation 0x0504 0 --
ATM Label Range 0x0600 8 See below
Frame Relay Label Range 0x0601 8 See below
Label Allocation Discipline
Indicates the type of Label allocation. A value of 0 is
Downstream allocation, A value of 1 is Downstream On Demand.
If this optional parameter is not specfied, Downstream alloca-
tion is used.
Loop Detection
If present, indicates that Loop Detection is enabled. If
absent, Loop Detection is disabled.
Merge
Specifies the merge capabilities of an ATM or Frame Relay
switch. The following values are supported in this version of
the specification:
Value Meaning
0 Merge not supported
For ATM Merge:
1 VP Merge supported
2 VC Merge supported
3 VP & VC Merge supported
For Frame Relay Merge:
Non-zero Merge supported
ATM Null Encapsulation
If present, specifies that the LSR supports the null
encapsulation of [rfc1483] for its data VCs on the ATM link
managed by the LDP session. In this case IP packets are
carried directly inside AAL5 frames. If absent, the null
encapsulation is not supported.
ATM Label Range
Andersson, et al. [Page 59]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Used when an LDP session manages label exchange for an ATM link.
The ATM Label Range TLV contains the label range supported by the
transmitting LSR. A receiving LSR MUST calculate the intersection
between the received range and its own supported label range. The
intersection is the range in which the LSR may allocate and accept
labels. LSRs may NOT establish an adjacency with neighbors whose
intersection range is NULL.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Res | Minimum VPI | Minimum VCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Res | Maximum VPI | Maximum VCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Res
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmis-
sion and must be ignored on receipt.
Minimum VPI (12 bits)
This 12 bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of
Virtual Path Identifiers that is supported on the originating
switch. If the VPI is less than 12-bits it should be right
justified in this field and preceding bits should be set to
0.
Minimum VCI (16 bits)
This 16 bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of
Virtual Connection Identifiers that is supported on the ori-
ginating switch. If the VCI is less than 16-bits it should
be right justified in this field and preceding bits should be
set to 0.
Maximum VPI (12 bits)
This 12 bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of
Virtual Path Identifiers that is supported on the originating
switch. If the VPI is less than 12-bits it should be right
justified in this field and preceding bits should be set to
0.
Maximum VCI (16 bits)
This 16 bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of
Virtual Connection Identifiers that is supported on the ori-
ginating switch. If the VCI is less than 16-bits it should
be right justified in this field and preceding bits should be
set to 0.
Andersson, et al. [Page 60]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Frame Relay Label Range
Used when an LDP session manages label exchange for a Frame
Relay link. The Frame Relay Label Range TLV contains the label
range supported by the transmitting LSR. A receiving LSR MUST
calculate the intersection between the received range and its
own supported label range. The intersection is the range in
which the LSR may allocate and accept labels. LSRs may NOT
establish an adjacency with neighbors whose intersection range
is NULL.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |Len| Minimum DLCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Maximum DLCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Len
This field specifies the number of bits of the DLCI. The
following values are supported:
Len DLCI bits
0 10
1 17
2 23
3.4.3.1. Initialization Message Procedures
See Section "LDP Session Establishment" and particularly Section
"Session Initialization" for general procedures for handling the Ini-
tialization Message.
3.4.4. KeepAlive Message
An LSR sends KeepAlive Messages as part of a mechanism that monitors
the integrity of the LDP session transport connection.
The encoding for the KeepAlive Message is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 61]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| KeepAlive (0x0201) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the KeepAlive message.
3.4.4.1. KeepAlive Message Procedures
The Hold Timer mechanism described in Section "Maintaining LDP Ses-
sions" resets a seesion hold timer every time an LDP PDU is received.
The KeepAlive Message is provided to allow reset of the Hold Timer in
circumstances where an LSR has no other information to communicate to
an LDP peer.
An LSR must arrange that its peer sees an LDP Message from it at
least every Hold Time period. That message may be any other from the
protocol or, in circumstances where there is no need to send one of
them, it must be KeepAlive Message.
3.4.5. Address Message
An LSR sends the Address Message to an LDP peer to advertise its
interface addresses.
The encoding for the Address Message is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 62]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address (0x0300) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address List TLV |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
Address List TLV
The list of interface addresses being advertised by the sending
LSR. The encoding for the Address List TLV is specified in Section
"Address List TLV".
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Address message.
3.4.5.1. Address Message Procedures
An LSR that receives an Address Message message uses the addresses it
learns to maintain a database for mapping between peer LDP Identif-
iers and next hop addresses; see section "LDP Identifiers and Next
Hop Addresses".
When a new LDP session is initialized and before sending Label Map-
ping or Label Request messages and LSR should advertise its interface
addresses with one or more Address messages.
Whenever an LSR "activates" a new interface address, it should adver-
tise the new address with an Address message.
Whenever an LSR "de-activates" a previously advertised address, it
should withdraw the address with an Address Withdraw message; see
Section "Address Withdraw Message".
Andersson, et al. [Page 63]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.4.6. Address Withdraw Message
An LSR sends the Address Message to an LDP peer to withdraw previ-
ously advertised interface addresses.
The encoding for the Address Withdraw Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Withdraw (0x0301) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address List TLV |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
Address list TLV
The list of interface addresses being withdrawn by the sending LSR.
The encoding for the Address list TLV is specified in Section
"Address List TLV".
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Address Withdraw mes-
sage.
3.4.6.1. Address Withdraw Message Procedures
See Section "Address Message Procedures"
3.4.7. Label Mapping Message
An LSR sends a Label Mapping message to an LDP peer to advertise
FEC-label bindings to the peer.
The encoding for the Label Mapping Message is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 64]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Mapping (0x0400) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Label Mapping TLV 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Label Mapping TLV n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
FEC-Label Mapping TLV
Each specifies a binding between an FEC and a label. A FEC-Label
Mapping TLV is a nested TLV that contains a FEC TLV, a Label TLV,
an optional COS TLF, an optional Hop Count TLV, and an optional
Path Vector TLV:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-label Mapping (0x0700) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| COS TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Vector TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The encodings for the FEC, Label, COS, Hop Count, and Path Vector
TLVs can be found in Section "Commonly Used TLVs".
NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE:
Andersson, et al. [Page 65]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Need to add multipath possibility to above by allowing multiple
label TLVs to the FEC-label Mapping TLV. This will be done with
the addition:
Label TLV2 (optional)
...
Label TLVn (optional)
with discussion.
END NOTE * END NOTE * END NOTE:
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Label Mapping message.
3.4.7.1. Label Mapping Message Procedures
The Mapping message is used by an LSR to distribute a label mapping
for a FEC to its LDP peers. If an LSR distributes a mapping for a
FEC to multiple LDP peers, it is a local matter whether it maps a
single label to the FEC, and distributes that mapping to all its
peers, or whether it uses a different mapping for each of its peers.
An LSR is always responsible for the consistency of the label map-
pings it has distributed, and that its peers have these mappings.
3.4.7.1.1. Independent Control Mapping
If an LSR is configured for independent control, a mapping message is
transmitted by an LSR to peers upon any of the following conditions:
1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and the
label advertisement mode is Downstream allocation.
2. The LSR receives a Request message from an upstream peer for an
FEC present in the LSR's forwarding table.
3. The next hop for an FEC changes to another LDP peer, and loop
detection is configured.
Andersson, et al. [Page 66]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
4. The attributes of a mapping change.
5. The receipt of a mapping from the downstream next hop AND
a) no upstream mapping has been created OR
b) loop detection is configured OR
c) the attributes of the mapping have changed.
3.4.7.1.2. Ordered Control Mapping
If an LSR is doing ordered control, a Mapping message is transmitted
by downstream LSRs upon any of the following conditions:
1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and is
the egress for that FEC.
2. The LSR receives a Request message from an upstream peer for an
FEC present in the LSR's forwarding table, and the LSR is the
egress for that FEC OR has a downstream mapping for that FEC.
3. The next hop for an FEC changes to another LDP peer, and loop
detection is configured.
4. The attributes of a mapping change.
5. The receipt of a mapping from the downstream next hop AND
a) no upstream mapping has been created OR
b) loop detection is configured OR
c) the attributes of the mapping have changed.
3.4.7.1.3. Downstream-on-Demand Label Advertisement
In general, the upstream LSR is responsible for requesting label map-
pings when operating in Downstream-on-Demand mode. However, unless
some rules are followed, it is possible for neighboring LSRs with
different advertisement modes to get into a livelock situation where
everything is functioning properly, but no labels are distributed.
For example, consider two LSRs Ru and Rd where Ru is the upstream LSR
and Rd is the downstream LSR for a particular FEC. In this example,
Ru is using Downstream allocation mode and Rd is using Downstream-
on-Demand mode. In this case, Rd may assume that Ru will request a
label mapping when it wants one and Ru may assume that Rd will adver-
tise a label if it wants Ru to use one. If Rd and Ru operate as sug-
gested, no labels will be distributed and packets must be routed at
layer-3.
Andersson, et al. [Page 67]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
This livelock situation can be avoided if the following rule is
observed: an LSR operating in Downstream-on-Demand mode should not be
expected to send unsolicited mapping advertisements. Therefore, if
the downstream LSR is operating in Downstream-on-Demand mode, the
upstream LSR is responsible for requesting label mappings as needed.
However, if all interfaces on an LSR are configured to operate in
Downstream- on-Demand mode the LSR can wait to issue a request until
a corresponding request has been sent from an upstream LSR.
3.4.7.1.4. Downstream Allocation Label Advertisement
In general, the downstream LSR is responsible for advertising a label
mapping when it wants an upstream LSR to use the label. An upstream
LSR may issue a mapping request if it so desires.
3.4.8. Label Request Message
An LSR sends the Label Request Message to an LDP peer to request a
binding (mapping) for one or more specific FECs.
The encoding for the Label Request Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Request (0x0401) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Request TLV 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Request TLV n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
FEC-Request TLV
Andersson, et al. [Page 68]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Each specifies an FEC for which a label mapping is requested. A
FEC-Request TLV is a nested TLV that contains a FEC TLV, an
optional COS TLV, and an optional Hop Count TLV.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Request (0x0701) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| COS TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hop Count TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The encodings for the FEC, COS, and Hop Count TLVs are specified in
Section "Commonly Used TLVs".
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Label Request message.
3.4.8.1. Label Request Message Procedures
The Request message is used by an upstream LSR to explicitly request
that the downstream LSR assign and advertise a label for an FEC.
An LSR transmits a Request message under any of the following condi-
tions:
1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and the
next hop is an Operational LDP peer, and the LSR doesn't
already have a mapping from the next hop for the given FEC.
2. The next hop to the FEC changes, and the LSR doesn't already
have a mapping from that next hop for the given FEC.
If a request cannot be satisfied by the downstream LSR, the request-
ing LSR may optionally choose to request again at a later time, or,
if the downstream LSR is configured for Downstream Allo- cation, the
requesting LSR may wait for the mapping, assuming that the downstream
LSR will provide the mapping automatically when it is available.
NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE:
In the case where the downstream LSR is doing DoD, how does the
Andersson, et al. [Page 69]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
requesting LSR decide when to make its request?
TDP addresses this issue by having a "now I have label resources"
message which it sends to downwstream peers whose requests it has
denied. This serves as a signal to them to re-issue their
requests. LDP should probably have this. Without such a signal,
the denied requester has no recourse but to periodically retry.
END NOTE * END NOTE * END NOTE:
3.4.9. Label Withdraw Message
An LSR sends a Label Withdraw Message to an LDP peer to signal the
peer that the peer may not continue to use specific FEC-label map-
pings the LSR had previously advertised. This breaks the mapping
between the FECs and the labels.
The encoding for the Label Withdraw Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Withdraw (0x0402) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Withdraw-Release TLV 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Withdraw-Release TLV n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
FEC-Withdraw-Release TLV
Each TLV specifies a FEC-label mapping being withdrawn. A FEC-
Withdraw-Release TLV is a nested TLV that contains a FEC TLV and an
optional label TLV.
Andersson, et al. [Page 70]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Withdraw-Release (0x0702) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The encodings for the FEC and Label TLVs are specified in Section
"Commonly Used TLVs".
NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE:
Need to add multipath possibility to above by allowing multiple
label TLVs to the FEC-label Mapping TLV. This will be done with
the addition:
Label TLV2 (optional)
...
Label TLVn (optional)
with discussion.
END NOTE * END NOTE * END NOTE:
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Label Withdraw message.
3.4.9.1. Label Withdraw Message Procedures
An LSR transmits a Withdraw message under the following condition:
1. The LSR no longer recognizes a previously known FEC.
2. Optionally, the LSR has unspliced an upstream label from the
downstream label.
The FEC in the FEC-Withdraw-Release TLV is a FEC for which labels are
to be withdrawn. If no label TLV follows the FEC, all labels associ-
ated with the FEC are to be withdrawn, else only the labels specified
in the following Label TLV are to be withdrawn.
Andersson, et al. [Page 71]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.4.10. Label Release Message
An LSR sends a Label Release message to an LDP peer to signal the
peer that the LSR no longer needs specific FEC-label mappings previ-
ously requested of and/or advertised by the peer.
The encoding for the Label Release Message is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Release (0x0403) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Withdraw-Release TLV 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-Withdraw-Release TLV n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
FEC-Withdraw-Release TLVs
Each TLV specifies a FEC-label mapping being released. The encod-
ing for the FEC-Withdraw-Release TLV is specified in Section "With-
draw Message".
NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE*NOTE:
Need to add multipath possibility to above by allowing multiple
label TLVs to the FEC-label Mapping TLV. This will be done with
the addition:
Label TLV2 (optional)
...
Label TLVn (optional)
with discussion.
END NOTE * END NOTE * END NOTE:
Andersson, et al. [Page 72]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Label Release message.
3.4.10.1. Label Release Message Procedures
An LSR transmits a Release message to a peer when it is no longer
needs a label previously received from or requested of that peer.
An LSR transmits a Release message under any of the following condi-
tions:
1. The LSR which sent the label mapping is no longer the next hop
for the mapped FEC, and the LSR is configured for conservative
operation.
2. The LSR determines that a previously received label is no
longer valid, as the downstream LSR from which it was received
is no longer the next hop for the FEC, and the LSR is config-
ured for conservative operation.
3. The LSR has received a Withdraw message for a previously
received label.
Note that if an LSR is configured for "liberal mode", a release mes-
sage will never be transmitted in the case of conditions (1) and (2)
as specified above. In this case, the upstream LSR keeps each unused
label, so that it can immediately be used later if the downstream
peer becomes the next hop for the FEC.
The FEC in the FEC-Withdraw-Release TLV is a FEC for which labels are
to be released. If no label TLV follows the FEC TLV, all labels
associated with the FEC are to be released, else only the labels
specified in the following Label TLV are to be released.
3.4.11. Label Query Message
An LSR sends a Label Query message to an LDP peer when performing the
loop prevention diffusion algorithm on an FEC.
The encoding for the Label Query Message is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 73]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Query (0x0405) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Path Vector TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
The encodings for the FEC and Path Vector TLVs can be found in Sec-
tion "Commonly Used TLVs".
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Label Query message.
3.4.11.1. Label Query Message Procecures
See Section "Loop Prevention via Diffusion" for general procedures
for handling the Query Message.
3.4.12. Explicit Route Request Message
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ER Request (0x0500) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-ER TLV 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-ER TLV n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Andersson, et al. [Page 74]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
FEC-ER TLV
Each specifies a binding between an FEC and a label. A FEC-ER TLV
is a nested TLV that contains a FEC TLV, a Label TLV, an explicit-
route identifier (ERLSPID) TLV, the explict-route TLV, an optional
COS TLF, and an optional Bandwith Reservation TLV:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC-ER TLV (0x0703) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ERLSPID TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Explicit Route TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| COS TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bandwidth Reservation TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The encodings for the FEC and COS TLVs can be found in Section
"Commonly Used TLVs".
ERLSPID TLV
The globally unique value that identifies the explicit route.
The encoding for the ERLSPID is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ERLSPID (0x0801) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Explicit Identifier |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Peg Explicit Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Explicit Identifier
A 6-octet globally unique value that identifies the explicit
Andersson, et al. [Page 75]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
route LSP. It is generated by the LSR that creates the Expli-
cit Request message. The first four octets is the LSR IP
Address. The last two octets contain a `Local identifier'
value. It is incumbent on an LSR that originates an Explicit
Request message to choose an unused value for the Local Iden-
tifier.
Peg Explicit Identifier
A 6-octet globally unique value that identifies a loose segment
of an explicit route LSP. It is generated by the upstream peg
LSR that creates the loose segment. The first four octets is
the LSR IP Address. The last two octets contain a 'Local iden-
tifier' value. It is incumbent on a peg LSR that creates a
loose segment to choose an unused value for the Local Identif-
ier every time the segment is reestablished. When a segment is
strictly routed this field is set to zero by the sender and
ignored by the receiver.
Explicit Route TLV
The sequence of ER Next Hop (ERNH) TLVs and a pointer to the one
that should be processed by the LSR that receives this ER TLV.
The encoding for the Explicit Route is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Explicit Route TLV (0x0800) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next ERNH TLV Pointer | Reserved |P|Preempt|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ERNH TLV (Variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Next ERNH TLV Pointer
This 16 bit unsigned integer points to the offset in octets of
the next ERNH TLV to be processed. The first octet after the
two reserved octets that follow this pointer is defined to have
an offset value of zero. For example an ERNH TLV Pointer value
of zero would point to the first ERNH TLV in the sequence of
ERNH Objects.
P bit
when set indicates that the loosely routed segments must remain
pinned-down. ERLSP must be rerouted only when adjacency is
lost along the segment. When not set indicates loose segment
is not pinned down and must be changed to match the underlying
hop-by-hop path.
Andersson, et al. [Page 76]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Preempt
A 16 level preemption is provided to facilitate placement of
ERLSP when resources aren't available. Each LSR maintains this
value in the ERLSP control block. A higher preemption value
can preempt LSPs with lower value.
Reserved
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
and must be ignored on receipt.
ERNH TLV
This TLV contains the four octet IP address of an LSR through
which the Explicit Route LSP is to pass and an (optional)
reservation (RES) TLV to be processed by that LSR.
The strict TLV indicates that the ER LSP setup must be routed
directly via the LSR indicated in the ERNH object; i.e. that
that LSR must be the next hop in the Explicit Route LSP's path.
The loose TLV indicates that the LSP may be routed in any way;
i.e. via other unspecified LSRs, so long as it (eventually)
reaches the LSR specified in the ERNH object. This TLV may be
followed by the optional Reservation TLV.
The ERNH encodings are:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ER Strict TLV (0x0802) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ER Loose TLV (0x0803) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ipv4 Address
The IP address of the next LSR in the Explicit Route LSP.
Bandwidth Reservation TLV
Specifies the bandwidth reservation required at each LSR hop.
The encoding for the Bandwidth Reservation is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 77]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bandwidth TLV (0x0804) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BW requirement |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
BW Requirement
Unsigned 32 bit integer representing the bandwidth, in units of
kilo bps, that must be reserved for the LSP at every LSR identi-
fied in the ERNH Object. The bandwidth is guaranteed within a
coarser time period allowing for simpler implementations. The
specified bandwidth is guaranteed within several milliseconds or
a few seconds time period. Nodes may also use this as a minimal
bandwidth guarantee within the same time period.
3.4.12.1. Explicit Route Request Procedures
See Sections "Explicitly Routing LSPs" and "ERLSP State Machine" for
general procedures for handling the Explicit Route Request Message.
3.4.13. Explicit Route Response Message
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ER Response (0x0501) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ERLSPID TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The encodings for the Label, and Status TLVs can be found in Section
3.3.3 ("Commonly Used TLVs").
Message Id
Four octet integer used to identify this message.
Andersson, et al. [Page 78]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
ERLSPID TLV
The globally unique value used for ERLSPID in the Explicit Request
message that elicited this Response message. The encoding for the
ERLSPID (shown above and repeated here for convenience) is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ERLSPID (0x0801) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Explicit Identifier |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Peg Explicit Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Explicit Identifier
A 6-octet globally unique value that identifies the explicit
route LSP. It is generated by the LSR that creates the Explicit
Request message. The first four octets is the LSR IP Address.
The last two octets contain a `Local identifier' value. It is
incumbent on an LSR that originates an Explicit Request message
to choose an unused value for the Local Identifier.
Peg Explicit Identifier
A 6-octet globally unique value that identifies a loose segment
of an explicit route LSP. It is generated by the upstream peg
LSR that creates the loose segment. The first four octets is the
LSR IP Address. The last two octets contain a 'Local identifier'
value. It is incumbent on a peg LSR that creates a loose segment
to choose an unused value for the Local Identifier every time the
segment is reestablished. When a segment is strictly routed this
field is set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver.
3.4.13.1. Explicit Route Response Procedures
See Sections "Explicitly Routing LSPs" and "ERLSP State Machine" for
general procedures for handling the Explicit Response Request Mes-
sage.
Andersson, et al. [Page 79]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.5. Messages and TLVs for Extensibility
The procedures to provide for LDP extensiblity include rules for han-
dling unknown messages and TLVs. The rules described in the sections
that follow make use of the high order bits in the message or TLV
type field. In these rules, "b" represents an arbitray bit value in
a message or TLV type.
3.5.1. Procedures for Unknown Messages and TLVs
3.5.1.1. Unknown Message Types
When a message with an unknown Message Type is received, there are
two possibilities as described below. The choice for how to handle
an unknown Message Type is determined by the high-order bit of the
Message Type field.
- Message Type = 0bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
The entire message must be rejected and the event signalled by a
Notification Message with the Unknown Message Type Status Code.
- Message Type = 1bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
The entire message must be dropped silently (i.e., it should be
ignored and no error should be returned).
In either case described above, an LSR that does not understand
the message type must not attempt to process the message.
3.5.1.2. Unknown TLV in Known Message Type
When an unknown TLV is found in a known Message Type, there are three
possibilities as described below. The choice for how to handle an
unknown TLV is determined by the high-order two bits of the TLV Type
field.
- TLV Type = 0bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
The entire message must be rejected and the event signalled by a
Notification Message with the Unknown TLV Status Code.
- TLV Type = 10bbbbbbbbbbbbbb
The TLV must be dropped silently (i.e., it should be ignored and
no error should be returned). If the semantics of the including
Andersson, et al. [Page 80]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
Message Type dictate that message be forwarded to other nodes,
the TLV must not be forwarded with the message.
- TLV Type = 11bbbbbbbbbbbbbb
The TLV must be silently ignored (i.e., no error should be
returned). If the semantics of the including Message Type dictate
that message be forwarded to other nodes, the TLV must be for-
warded unmodified with the message.
3.5.2. LDP Vendor-Private Extensions
Both Vendor-Private Messages and Vendor-Private Objects are defined
to convey vendor-private information or LDP extensions between LDP
nodes. These extensions may also be useful for experimentation in
existing networks.
3.5.2.1. LDP Vendor-Private TLV
The following three Vendor-Private TLV classes are defined to be used
in any message:
- Vendor Private TLV Class 1. TLV type values:
0x3FXX (boolean 00111111bbbbbbbb)
- Vendor Private TLV Class 2. TLV type values:
0xBFXX (boolean 10111111bbbbbbbb)
- Vendor Private TLV Class 3, TLV type values:
0xFFXX (boolean 11111111bbbbbbbb)
These TLVs are to be handled according to the high order bit(s) of
the TLV type. The unspecified part of the TLV type is assigned by
the vendor and should be interpreted by a receiving LSR only if it
understands the Vendor ID encoded in the TLV Value field.
The Value field of a Vendor Private TLV is defined as follows:
Andersson, et al. [Page 81]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data.... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor Id
802 Vendor ID as assigned by the IEEE.
Data
The remaining octets after the Vendor ID in the Value field
are optional vendor-dependent data.
3.5.2.2. LDP Vendor-Private Messages
The LDP Vendor-Private Message is carried in LDP PDUs to convey
vendor-private information or LDP extensions between LSRs.
The following two Vendor-Private Message classes are defined:
- Vendor Private Message Class 1. Message type values:
0x7FXX (boolean 01111111bbbbbbbb)
- Vendor Private Message Class 2. Message type values:
0xFFXX (boolean 11111111bbbbbbbb)
The first TLV in a vendor private message must be the Vendor
Private ID TLV, a Vendor Private Class 3 TLV, encoded as shown
below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0xFF | 0x00 | 0x04 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor-Private messages are to be handled according to the high
order bit of the message type number. The determination as to
Andersson, et al. [Page 82]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
whether the Vendor-Private message is understood is based on the
Vendor ID in first TLV in the message body.
3.6. TLV Summary
The following are the TLVs defined in this version of the protocol.
TLV Type Section Title
FEC 0x0100 "FEC TLV"
Address List 0x0101 "Address List TLV"
COS 0x0102 "COS TLV"
Hop Count 0x0103 "Hop Count TLV"
Path Vector 0x0104 "Path Vector TLV"
Generic Label 0x0200 "Generic Label TLV"
ATM Label 0x0201 "ATM Label TLV"
Frame Relay Label 0x0202 "Frame Relay Label TLV"
Status 0x0300 "Status TLV"
Extended Status 0x0301 "Notification Message"
Targeted Hello 0x0400 "Hello Message"
Send Targeted Hello 0x0401 "Hello Message"
Transport Address 0x0402 "Hello Message"
Hello Hold Time 0x0403 "Hello Message"
Common Session 0x0500 "Initialization Message"
Parameters
Label Allocation 0x0501 "Initialization Message"
Discipline
Loop Detection 0x0502 "Initialization Message"
Merge 0x0503 "Initialization Message"
ATM Null Encapsulation 0x0504 "Initialization Message"
ATM Label Range 0x0600 "Initialization Message"
Frame Relay Label Range 0x0601 "Initialization Message"
FEC-Label Mapping 0x0700 "Label Mapping Message"
FEC-Request 0x0701 "Label Request Message"
FEC-Withdraw-Release 0x0702 "Label Withdraw Message"
FEC-ER TLV 0x0703 "Explicit Request Message"
Explicit Route 0x0800 "Explicit Request Message"
ERLSPID 0x0801 "Explicit Request Message"
ER Strict 0x0802 "Explicit Request Message"
ER Loose 0x0803 "Explicit Request Message"
Bandwidth 0x0804 "Explicit Request Message"
Andersson, et al. [Page 83]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
3.7. Status Code Summary
The following are the Status Codes defined in this version of the
protocol.
Status Code Type Section Title
Success 0x0000 "Status TLV"
Bad LDP Identifer 0x8001 "Events Signalled by ..."
Bad Protocol Version 0x8002 "Events Signalled by ..."
Bad PDU Length 0x8003 "Events Signalled by ..."
Unknown Message Type 0x8004 "Events Signalled by ..."
Bad Message Length 0x8005 "Events Signalled by ..."
Unknown TLV 0x8006 "Events Signalled by ..."
Bad TLV length 0x8007 "Events Signalled by ..."
Malformed TLV Value 0x8008 "Events Signalled by ..."
Hold Timer Expired 0x8009 "Events Signalled by ..."
Shutdown 0x000A "Events Signalled by ..."
Loop Detected 0x000B "Loop Detection Via Diffusion"
4. Security
Security considerations will be addressed in a future revision of
this document.
5. Acknowledgments
The ideas and text in this document have been collected from a number
of sources. We would like to thank Rick Boivie, Ross Callon, Alex
Conta, Eric Rosen, Bernard Suter, Yakov Rekhter, and Arun
Viswanathan.
6. References
[FRAMEWORK] Callon et al, "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label
Switching" draft-ietf-mpls-framework-01.txt, July 1997
[ARCH] Rosen et al, "A Proposed Architecture for MPLS" draft-ietf-
mpls-arch-02.txt, July 1998
[ENCAP] Farinacci et al, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding" draft-ietf-
mpls-label-encaps-02.txt, July, 1998
[FR] Conta et al, "Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks"
Andersson, et al. [Page 84]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-00.txt August 1998
draft-ietf-mpls-fr-01.txt, August, 1998
[rfc1583] J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1583, Proteon Inc, March 1994
[rfc1771] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC 1771, IBM Corp, Cisco Systems, March 1995
[rfc1483] J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adapta-
tion Layer 5", RFC 1483, Telecom Finland, July 1993
7. Author Information
Loa Andersson
Bay Networks Inc
3 Federal Street
Billerica, MA 01821
email: Loa_Andersson@baynetworks.com
Paul Doolan
Ennovate Networks
330 Codman Hill Rd
Marlborough MA 01719
Phone: 978-263-2002
email: pdoolan@ennovatenetworks.com
Nancy Feldman
IBM Corp.
17 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne NY 10532
Phone: 914-784-3254
email: nkf@us.ibm.com
Andre Fredette
Bay Networks Inc
3 Federal Street
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: 978-916-8524
email: fredette@baynetworks.com
Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Dr.
Chelmsford, MA 01824
Phone: 978-244-8078
email: rhthomas@cisco.com
Andersson, et al. [Page 85]
