Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF
draft-gredler-ospf-label-advertisement-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hannes Gredler , Shane Amante , Tom Scholl , Luay Jalil | ||
| Last updated | 2013-04-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-gredler-ospf-label-advertisement-00
Open Shortest Path First IGP H. Gredler, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Amante
Expires: October 12, 2013 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
T. Scholl
Amazon
L. Jalil
Verizon
April 12, 2013
Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF
draft-gredler-ospf-label-advertisement-00
Abstract
Historically MPLS label distribution was driven by protocols like
LDP, RSVP and LBGP. All of those protocols are session oriented. In
order to obtain label binding for a given destination FEC from a
given router one needs first to establish an LDP/RSVP/LBGP session
with that router.
Advertising MPLS labels in IGPs advertisement [I-D.gredler-rtgwg-igp-
label-advertisement] describes several use cases where utilizing the
flooding machinery of link-state protocols for MPLS label
distribution allows to obtain the binding without requiring to
establish an LDP/RSVP/LBGP session with that router.
This document describes the protocol extension to distribute MPLS
labels by the OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocol.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at 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."
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 12, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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. Motivation, Rationale and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Issue: Bi-directionality semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Issue: IP path semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Issue: Lack of 'path' notion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. OSPF MPLS LSA Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Common LSA Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. OSPFv2 LSA ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. OSPFv2 LSA Format Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. OSPFv3 LSA ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. OSPFv3 LSA Format Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. TLV Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. LSA payload details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Prefix ERO TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. IPv6 Prefix ERO TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Flags TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Advertising Label Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Sample Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1. Transport IP addresses and router-IDs . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.2. Link IP addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. One-hop LSP to an adjacent Router . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. One-hop LSP to an adjacent Router using a specific link . 11
5.4. One-hop LSP to an adjacent external Router . . . . . . . . 11
5.5. Advertisement of an RSVP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.6. Advertisement of an LDP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.7. Interarea advertisement of diverse paths . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Inter Area Protocol Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Data plane operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Control plane operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
MPLS label allocations are predominantly distributed by using the LDP
[RFC5036], RSVP [RFC5151] or labeled BGP [RFC3107] protocol. All of
those protocols have in common that they are session oriented, which
means that in order to obtain label binding for a given destination
FEC from a given router one needs first to establish a direct control
plane (LDP/RSVP/LBGP) session with that router.
There are a couple of use cases [I-D.gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-
advertisement] where the consumer of a MPLS label binding may not be
adjacent to the router that performs the binding. Bringing up an
explicit session using the existing label distribution protocols
between the non-adjacent router that bind the label and the router
that acts as a consumer of this binding is the existing remedy for
this dilemma.
This document describes a OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 protocol extension which
allows routers to advertise MPLS label bindings within and beyond an
IGP domain, and controlling inter-area distribution.
2. Motivation, Rationale and Applicability
Distributing MPLS labels in an IGP (IS-IS) has been described in
Segment Routing [I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing]. The
authors propose to re-use existing traffic-engineering extensions for
carrying the label information. While retrofitting existing protocol
machinery for new purposes is generally a good thing, Segment Routing
[I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing] falls short of addressing
some use-cases defined in [I-D.gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-
advertisement].
The dominant issue around re-using traffic-engineering extensions is
that both have existing protocol semantics, which might not be
applicable to advertising MPLS label switched paths in a generic
fashion. These are specifically:
o Bi-directionality semantics
o IP path semantics
o Lack of 'path' notion
2.1. Issue: Bi-directionality semantics
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
'Bi-directionality semantics', affects the complexity around
advertisement of unidirectional LSPs. Label advertisement of per-
link labels or 'Adj-SIDs' [I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing]
is done by attaching label information to adjacency advertisment
TLVs. Usually implementations need to have an adjacency in 'Up'
state prior to advertising this adjacency as TE-Link in its Link
State advertisment. In order to advertise a per-link LSP an
implementation first needs to have an adjacency, which only
transitions to 'Up' state after passing the 3-way check. This
implies bi-directionality. If an implementation wants to advertise
per-link MPLS LSPs to e.g. outside the IGP domain then it would need
to fake-up an adjacency. Changing existing IGP Adjacency code to
support such cases defeats the purpose of re-using existing
functionality as there is not much common functionality to be shared.
2.2. Issue: IP path semantics
LSPs pointing to a Node are advertised as 'Node-SIDs' [I-D.previdi-
filsfils-isis-segment-routing] using IP Prefix containers. That
means that in order to advertise a MPLS LSP, one is inheriting the
semantics of advertising an IP path. Consider router A has got
existing LSPs to its entire one-hop neighborhood and is re-
advertising those LSPs using IP reachability semantics. Now we have
two exact matching IP advertisements. One from the owning router
(router B) which advertises its stable transport loopback address and
another one from router A re-advertising a LSP path to router B.
Existing routing software may get confused now as the 'stable
transport' address shows up from multiple places in the network and
more worse the IP forwarding path for control-plane protocols may get
mingled with the MPLS data plane.
2.3. Issue: Lack of 'path' notion
Both exisiting traffic-engineering extension containers have limited
semantics describing MPLS label-switched paths in the sense of a
'path'. Both encoding formats allow to express a pointer to some
specific router, but not to describe a MPLS label switched path
containing all of its path segments. [I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-
segment-routing] allows to define 'Forwarding Adjacencies' as per
[RFC4206]. The way to describe a path of a given forwarding
adjacency is to enlist a list of "Segment IDs". That implies that
nodes which do not yet participate in 'Segment routing' or are
outside of a 'Segment routing' domain can not be expressed using
those path semantics.
A protocol for advertising MPLS label switched paths, should be
generic enough to express paths sourced by existing MPLS LSPs, such
that ingress routers can flexibly combine them according to
application needs.
2.4. Motivation
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
IGP advertisement of MPLS label switched paths requires a new set of
protocol semantics (undirectional paradigm, path paradigm), which
hardly can be expressed using the existing OSPF and OSPF-TE protocol
semantics. This document describes protocol extensions which allows
generic advertisement of MPLS label switched paths in OSPF.
3. OSPF MPLS LSA Format
3.1. Common LSA Type
One new LSA is defined, the MPLS Label LSA. This LSA advertises MPLS
labels along with their path information. The LSA contains more
specific information encoded in TLVs. Those TLV extensions are
shared between the OSPFv2 and OPSFv3 protocols.
3.2. OSPFv2 LSA ID
The LSA ID of an Opaque LSA is defined as having eight bits of type
data and 24 bits of type-specific data. The MPLS Label LSA uses type
149. The remaining 24 bits are 4 zero bits followed by the MPLS Label
value as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 149 |0|0|0|0| MPLS Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 'MPLS Label' field holds the 20 Bit MPLS label. Therefore a
maximum of 2^20 MPLS Label LSAs may be sourced by a single system.
3.3. OSPFv2 LSA Format Overview
This extension makes use of the Opaque LSAs [RFC5250].
Three types of Opaque LSAs exist, each of which has a different
flooding scope. This proposal uses only Type 10 LSAs, which have an
area flooding scope.
The MPLS Label LSA for OSPFv2 starts with the standard OSPFv2 LSA
header:
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 10 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 149 |0|0|0|0| MPLS Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- TLVs -+
| ... |
3.4. OSPFv3 LSA ID
The OSPFv3 LSA ID of an MPLS Label LSA is defined as having twelve
bits of zero followed by the 20-Bit label MPLS Label value as
follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| MPLS Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 'MPLS Label' field holds the 20 Bit MPLS label. Therefore a
maximum of 2^20 MPLS Label LSAs may be sourced by a single system.
3.5. OSPFv3 LSA Format Overview
The MPLS Label LSA for OSPFv3 starts with the standard OSPFv3 LSA
header:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age |1|0|1| 149 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0| MPLS Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- TLVs -+
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
| ... |
The OSPFv3 'U' Bit will always be set such that routers which do not
understand the new MPLS Label LSA will store and forward it further.
In analogy to the OSPFv2 opaque LSA 10 the flooding scope will be set
to 'Area scoping'.
3.6. TLV Header
The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value
(TLV) triplets for extensibility. The format of each 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... |
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets
(thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of zero). The
TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in the
length field (so a three octet value would have a length of three,
but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested TLVs are
also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types are ignored.
This memo defines Types 1, 2 and 3. See the IANA Considerations
section for allocation of new Types.
4. LSA payload details
The MPLS Label LSA may be originated by any Traffic Engineering
[RFC3630] capable router in an OSPF domain. A router may advertise
MPLS labels along with so called 'ERO' path segments describing the
label switched path. This gets encoded in subsequent TLVs. Since
ERO style path notation allows to express pointers to link and node
IP addresses. Now any label switched path, sourced by any protocol,
can be described.
An LSA contains one or more TLVs, describing properties of the
advertised MPLS label.
The following TLV extensions may be shared in both OSPV2 and OSPFv3.
Passing an IP address of the other address family (IPv4 in OPSFv3 or
IPv6 in OSPFv2) is possible as the information carried are related
describing the hops along a path. The receiver of this information
is a protocol agnostic path computation module.
4.1. Prefix ERO TLVs
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
All 'Prefix ERO' information represents an ordered set which
describes the segments of a label-switched path. The last Prefix ERO
TLV describes the segment closest to the egress point of the LSP.
Contrary the first Prefix ERO TLV describes the first segment of a
label switched path. If a router extends or stitches a label
switched path it MUST prepend the new segments path information to
the Prefix ERO list.
4.1.1. IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV
The IPv4 ERO TLV (Type 1) describes a path segment using IPv4 Prefix
style of encoding. Its appearance and semantics have been borrowed
from Section 4.3.3.2 [RFC3209].
the 'IPv4 Address' is treated as a prefix based on the prefix length
value below. Bits beyond the prefix are ignored on receipt and
SHOULD be set to zero on transmission.
The 'Prefix Length' field contains the length of the prefix in bits.
The 'L' bit in the TLV is a one-bit attribute. If the L bit is set,
then the value of the attribute is 'loose.' Otherwise, the value of
the attribute is 'strict.'
The 'Reserved' bits are for future use. They should be zero on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length |L| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.1.2. IPv6 Prefix ERO TLV
The IPv6 ERO TLV (Type 2) describes a path segment using IPv6 Prefix
style of encoding. Its appearance and semantics have been borrowed
from Section 4.3.3.2 [RFC3209].
the 'IPv6 Address' is treated as a prefix based on the prefix length
value below. Bits beyond the prefix are ignored on receipt and
SHOULD be set to zero on transmission.
The 'Prefix Length' field contains the length of the prefix in bits.
The 'L' bit in the TLV is a one-bit attribute. If the L bit is set,
then the value of the attribute is 'loose.' Otherwise, the value of
the attribute is 'strict.'
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
The 'Reserved' bits are for future use. They should be zero on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address (16 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length |L| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.2. Flags TLV
The Flags TLV (Type 3) describes Flags for further MPLS LSA
treatment.
Up/Down 'U' Bit: A router may flood MPLS label information across
area boundaries. In order to prevent flooding loops, a router will
Set the Up/Down (U-Bit) when propagating MPLS labels from Area 0 to a
non-zero Area.
The 'Reserved' bits are for future use. They should be zero on
transmission and ignored on receipt.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5. Advertising Label Examples
5.1. Sample Topology
The following topology (Figure 9) and IP addresses shall be used
throughout the Label advertisement examples.
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
AS1 : AS 2
:
: :
Level 1 : Level 2 :
: :
+-----+ +-----+-IP3--IP4--+-----+ :
| R1 +-IP1--IP2--+ R2 | | R3 | :
+--+--+ +--+--+-IP5--IP6--+--+--+-IP15-IP16-
| | | : \
IP3 IP7 IP13 : +--+--+
| | | : | R7 |
IP4 IP8 IP14 : +--+--+
| | | : /
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+-IP17-IP18-
| R4 +-IP19-IP20-+ R5 |-IP11-IP12-| R6 | :
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ :
: :
: :
: :
5.1.1. Transport IP addresses and router-IDs
o R1: 192.168.1.1
o R2: 192.168.1.2
o R3: 192.168.1.3
o R4: 192.168.1.4
o R5: 192.168.1.5
o R6: 192.168.1.6
o R7: 192.168.1.7
5.1.2. Link IP addresses
o R1 to R2 link: 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2
o R1 to R4 link: 10.0.0.3, 10.0.0.4
o R2 to R3 link #1: 10.0.0.3, 10.0.0.4
o R2 to R3 link #2: 10.0.0.5, 10.0.0.6
o R2 to R5 link: 10.0.0.7, 10.0.0.8
o R3 to R6 link: 10.0.0.13, 10.0.0.14
o R3 to R7 link: 10.0.0.15, 10.0.0.16
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
o R4 to R5 link: 10.0.0.19, 10.0.0.20
o R5 to R6 link: 10.0.0.11, 10.0.0.12
o R6 to R7 link: 10.0.0.17, 10.0.0.18
5.2. One-hop LSP to an adjacent Router
If R1 would advertise a label <N> bound to a one-hop LSP from R1 to
R2 it would encode as follows:
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV: 192.168.1.2/32, Strict
5.3. One-hop LSP to an adjacent Router using a specific link
If R2 would advertise a label <N>bound to a one-hop LSP from R2 to
R3, using the link #2 it would encode as follows
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV: 10.0.0.6/32, Strict
5.4. One-hop LSP to an adjacent external Router
If R3 would advertise a label <N> bound to a one-hop LSP from R3 to
R7 (which is outside of the IGP domain), it would encode as follows:
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV: 192.168.1.7/32, Strict
As you can see the representation of an MPLS label crossing an
external link is identical as an internal link Section 5.2.
5.5. Advertisement of an RSVP LSP
Consider a RSVP LSP name "R2-to-R6" traversing (R2 to R3 using link
#1, R6):
If R2 would advertise a label <N> bound to the RSVP LSP named
'R2-to-R6', it would encode as follows
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV: 10.0.0.4/32, Strict
IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV: 192.168.1.6/32, Strict
5.6. Advertisement of an LDP LSP
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
Consider R2 that creates a LDP label binding for FEC 172.16.0.0./12
using label <N>.
If R2 would re-advertise this binding in IS-IS it would encode as
follows
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV: 172.16.0.0/12, Loose
5.7. Interarea advertisement of diverse paths
Consider two R2->R6 paths: {R2, R3, R6} and {R2, R5, R6}
Consider two R5->R3 paths: {R5, R2, R3} and {R5, R6, R3}
R2 encodes its two paths to R6 as follows:
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N1>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV: 192.168.1.3, Loose
IPv4 Prefix ERO TLV: 192.168.1.6, Loose
Flags TLV: Down
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N2>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.5, Loose
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.6, Loose
Flags TLV: Down
R5 encodes its two paths to R3 as follows:
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N1>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.2, Loose
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.3, Loose
Flags TLV: Down
LSA 149, LSA-ID <N2>:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.6, Loose
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.3, Loose
Flags TLV: Down
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
A receiving non-backbone router does see now all 4 paths and may
decide to load-balance across all or a subset of them.
6. Inter Area Protocol Procedures
6.1. Applicability
Propagation of a MPLS LSP across an area boundary is a local policy
decision.
6.2. Data plane operations
If local policy dictates that a given ABR router needs to re-
advertise a MPLS LSPs from one area to another then it MUST allocate
a new label and program its label forwarding table to connect the new
label to the path in the respective other area. Depending on how to
reach the re-advertised LSP, this is typically done using a MPLS
'SWAP' or 'SWAP/PUSH' data plane operation.
6.3. Control plane operations
If local policy dictates that a given ABR router needs to re-
advertise a MPLS LSPs from one area to another then it must prepend
its "Traffic-Engineering-ID" as a loose hop in the Prefix ERO TLV
list. Furthermore it MUST append teh Flags TLV and set the 'Down'
Bit.
7. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Yakov Rekhter for his useful comments.
8. IANA Considerations
This documents request allocation for one common OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
LSA Type and TLVs contained within.
+------------+-----------------+----------+----------+------------+
| LSA | TLV | LSA Type | TLV Type | #Occurence |
+------------+-----------------+----------+----------+------------+
| MPLS Label | | 149 | | >=0 |
| | IPv4 Prefix ERO | | 1 | >=0 |
| | IPv6 Prefix ERO | | 2 | >=0 |
| | Flags | | 3 | 0,1 |
+------------+-----------------+----------+----------+------------+
The MPLS Label LSA requires a new sub-registry, with a starting TLV
value of 1, and managed by Expert Review.
9. Security Considerations
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
This document does not introduce any change in terms of OSPF
security. It simply proposes to flood MPLS label information via the
IGP. All existing procedures to ensure message integrity do apply
here.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I. and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ayyangar, A. and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-Domain
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
5151, February 2008.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A. and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, July 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement]
Gredler, H., Amante, S., Scholl, T. and L. Jalil,
"Advertising MPLS labels in IGPs", Internet-Draft draft-
gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement-03, April 2013.
[I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Horneffer, M.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W. and J. Tantsura, "Segment Routing
with IS-IS Routing Protocol", Internet-Draft draft-
previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing-02, March 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in OSPF April 2013
Hannes Gredler, editor
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: hannes@juniper.net
Shane Amante
Level 3 Communications, Inc.
1025 Eldorado Blvd
Broomfield, CO 80021
US
Email: shane@level3.net
Tom Scholl
Amazon
Seattle, WN
US
Email: tscholl@amazon.com
Luay Jalil
Verizon
1201 E Arapaho Rd.
Richardson, TX 75081
US
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 12, 2013 [Page 15]