Node Protection for RSVP-TE tunnels on a shared MPLS forwarding plane
draft-chandra-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-np-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-07-02
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
MPLS Working Group                                       C. Ramachandran
Internet-Draft                                                 V. Beeram
Intended status: Standards Track                            H. Sitaraman
Expires: January 3, 2019                                Juniper Networks
                                                            July 2, 2018

 Node Protection for RSVP-TE tunnels on a shared MPLS forwarding plane
              draft-chandra-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-np-00

Abstract

   Segment Routed RSVP-TE tunnels provide the ability to use a shared
   MPLS forwarding plane at every hop of the Label Switched Path (LSP).
   The shared forwarding plane is realized with the use of 'Traffic
   Engineering (TE) link labels' that get shared by LSPs traversing
   these TE links.  This paradigm helps significantly reduce the
   forwarding plane state required to support a large number of LSPs on
   a Label Switching Router (LSR).  These tunnels require the ingress
   Label Edge Router (LER) to impose a stack of labels.  If the ingress
   LER cannot impose the full label stack, it can use the assistance of
   one or more delegation hops along the path of the LSP to impose parts
   of the label stack.

   The procedures for a Point of Local Repair (PLR) to provide local
   protection against link failures using facility backup for Segment
   Routed RSVP-TE tunnels are well defined and do not require specific
   protocol extensions.  This document defines the procedures for a PLR
   to provide local protection against transit node failures using
   facility backup for these tunnels.  The procedures defined in this
   document include protection against delegation hop failures.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute

Ramachandran, et al.     Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    NP for Segment Routed RSVP-TE Tunnels        July 2018

   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Node Protection Specific Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Applicability of this Document  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  PLR Procedures for Protecting Next-Hop Non-Delegation LSR   4
     3.3.  PLR Procedures for Protecting Next-Hop Delegation LSR . .   5
       3.3.1.  Label Allocation and Stacking . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.4.1.  LSR does not Support Node Protection for Shared
               Labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.4.2.  Protected Hop does not Support Shared Labels  . . . .   9
       3.4.3.  PLR does not Support Shared Labels  . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1.  DHLD Encoding in ETLD Attributes TLV  . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
Show full document text