Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs)
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-03

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC
Document Type RFC Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Authors Kamran Raza  , Sami Boutros  , Luca Martini  , Nicolai Leymann 
Last updated 2015-10-14 (latest revision 2014-04-02)
Replaces draft-raza-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Loa Andersson
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2014-04-11)
IESG IESG state RFC 7358 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Adrian Farrel
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
MPLS Working Group                                       Kamran Raza 
Internet Draft                                          Sami Boutros 
Updates: 3212, 4447, 5036, 5918, 6388, 7140             Luca Martini 
Intended status: Standards Track                 Cisco Systems, Inc.          
Expires: October 01, 2014                                           
                                                      Nicolai Leymann 
                                                     Deutsche Telekom 
                                                        
                                                        
                                                       April 02, 2014 

                                      
                Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs 
                                      
            draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-03.txt 
                                      
Abstract 

  The label advertising behavior of an LDP speaker for a given FEC is 
  governed by the FEC type and not necessarily by the LDP session's 
  negotiated label advertisement mode. This document updates RFC 5036 
  to make that fact clear, as well as updates RFC 3212, RFC 4447, RFC 
  5918, RFC 6388, and RFC 7140 by specifying the label advertisement 
  mode for all currently defined LDP FEC types. 
    
 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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that 
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts. 

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 01, 2014. 

 
 
 
Raza, et. al                  Expires Oct 2014                 [Page 1] 


Internet-Draft   Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs   Apr 2014 
      
Copyright Notice 

   Copyright (c) 2014 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                                                     2 
  2. Label Advertisement Discipline                                   3 
     2.1. Update to RFC-5036                                          3 
     2.2. Specification for LDP FECs                                  4 
  3. Security Considerations                                          4 
  4. IANA Considerations                                              5 
  5. References                                                       7 
     5.1. Normative References                                        7 
     5.2. Informative References                                      7 
  6. Acknowledgments                                                  8 
    

1. Introduction 

  Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] allows label 
  advertisement mode negotiation at the time of session establishment. 
  LDP specification also dictates that only single label advertisement 
  mode is negotiated, agreed and used for a given LDP session between 
  two LSRs. 
   
  The negotiated label advertisement mode defined in RFC 5036 and 
  carried in the LDP Initialization message is only indicative. It 
  indicates how the LDP speakers on a session will advertise labels for 
  some FECs, but it is not a rule that restricts the speakers to behave 
  in a specific way.  Furthermore, for some FEC types the advertising 
  behavior of the LDP speaker is governed by the FEC type and not by 

 
 
Raza, et. al                  Expires Oct 2014                 [Page 2] 


Internet-Draft   Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs   Apr 2014 
      
  the negotiated behavior. 
   
  This document updates [RFC5036] to make that fact clear, as well as 
  updates [RFC3212], [RFC4447], [RFC5918], [RFC6388], and [RFC7140] to 
  indicate for each FEC type that has already been defined whether the 
  label binding advertisements for the FEC are constrained by the 
  negotiated label advertisement mode or not. Furthermore, this 
  document specifies the label advertisement mode to be used for all 
  currently defined FECs. 
 

2. Label Advertisement Discipline 

   To remove any ambiguity and conflict regarding label advertisement 
   discipline amongst different FEC types sharing a common LDP session, 
   this document specifies a label advertisement disciplines for FEC 
   types.  

   This document introduces following types for specifying a label 
   advertisement discipline for a FEC type: 

     - DU (Downstream Unsolicited) 
     - DoD (Downstream On Demand) 
     - As negotiated (DU or DoD) 
     - Upstream ([RFC6389]) 
     - Not Applicable 
     - Unknown 

2.1. Update to RFC-5036 

   The section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036] is updated to add following two 
   statements under the description of "A, Label Advertisement 
   Discipline": 

     - Each document defining an LDP FEC must state the applicability 
        of the negotiated label advertisement discipline for label 
        binding advertisements for that FEC. If the negotiated label 
        advertisement discipline does not apply to the FEC, the 
        document must also explicitly state the discipline to be used 
        for the FEC. 
    
     - This document defines the label advertisement discipline for 
        the following FEC types: 
 
 
 
 
Raza, et. al                  Expires Oct 2014                 [Page 3] 


Internet-Draft   Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs   Apr 2014 
 
 
 
        +----------+----------+--------------------------------+ 
        | FEC Type | FEC Name | Label advertisement discipline | 
        +----------+----------+--------------------------------+ 
        | 0x01     | Wildcard | Not applicable                 | 
        | 0x02     | Prefix   | As negotiated (DU or DoD)      | 
        +----------+----------+--------------------------------+ 
 

2.2. Specification for LDP FECs 

   Following is the specification of label advertisement disciplines to 
   be used for currently defined LDP FEC types.  

    FEC  FEC                Label advertisement  Notes 
    Type Name               discipline    
    ---- ----------------   -------------------  ---------------------- 
    0x01 Wildcard           Not applicable                  
    0x02 Prefix             As negotiated  
                           (DU or DoD)  
    0x04 CR-LSP             DoD                             
    0x05 Typed Wildcard     Not applicable         
    0x06 P2MP               DU    
    0x07 MP2MP-up           DU  
    0x08 MP2MP-down         DU 
    0x09 HSMP-upstream      DU  
    0x10 HSMP-downstream    DU, Upstream         [RFC7140] Section 4  
    0x80 PWid               DU  
    0x81 Gen. PWid          DU 
    0x82 P2MP PW Upstream   Upstream             [ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw] 
    0x84 P2MP PW Downstream DU                   [ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw] 
    0x83 Protection         DU                   [ID.pwe3-endpoint- 
                                                  fast-protection] 
    
  This document updates the RFCs in which above FECs are defined. 
      
3. Security Considerations 

   This document specification only clarifies the applicability of LDP 
   session's label advertisement mode, and hence does not add any LDP 
   security mechanics and considerations to those already defined in 
   the LDP specification [RFC5036]. 

 
 
Raza, et. al                  Expires Oct 2014                 [Page 4] 


Internet-Draft   Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs   Apr 2014 
 
4. IANA Considerations 

  This document mandates the specification of a label advertisement 
  discipline for each defined FEC type, and hence extends IANA's 
  "Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space" registry under 
  IANA's "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" as follows: 
   
       - Add a new column titled "Label Advertisement Discipline" with 
          following possible values: 
            o DU  
            o DoD  
            o As negotiated (DU or DoD) 
            o Upstream  
            o Not applicable 
            o Unknown 
           
       - For the existing FEC types, populate this column with the 
          values listed under section 2.2.  
           
       - Keep all other columns of the registry in place and populated 
          as currently. 
           
     For the currently assigned FEC types, the updated registry looks 
     like: 
      
     +=====+====+===============+==============+=========+============+ 
     |Value|Hex | Name          |Label         |Reference|Notes/      | 
     |     |    |               |Advertisement |         |Registration| 
     |     |    |               |Discipline    |         |Date        | 
     +=====+====+===============+==============+=========+============+ 
     | 0   |0x00|Reserved       |              |         |            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 1   |0x01|Wildcard       |Not applicable|[RFC5036]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 2   |0x02|Prefix         |As negotiated |[RFC5036]|            | 
     |     |    |               |(DU or DoD)   |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 4   |0x04|CR-LSP         |DoD           |[RFC3212]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
      
 
 
Raza, et. al                  Expires Oct 2014                 [Page 5] 


Internet-Draft   Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs   Apr 2014 
 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 5   |0x05|Typed Wildcard |Not applicable|[RFC5918]|            | 
     |     |    |FEC Element    |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 6   |0x06|P2MP           |DU            |[RFC6388]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 7   |0x07|MP2MP-up       |DU            |[RFC6388]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 8   |0x08|MP2MP-down     |DU            |[RFC6388]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 9   |0x09|HSMP-upstream  |DU            |[RFC7140]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 10  |0x0A|HSMP-downstream|DU, Upstream  |[RFC7140]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 128 |0x80|PWid           |DU            |[RFC4447]|            | 
     |     |    |FEC Element    |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 129 |0x81|Generalized    |DU            |[RFC4447]|            | 
     |     |    |PWid           |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     |     |    |FEC Element    |              |         |            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 130 |0x82|P2MP PW        |Upstream      |[draft-  |            | 
     |     |    |Upstream       |              |ietf-pwe3|            | 
     |     |    |FEC Element    |              |-p2mp-pw]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 131 |0x83|Protection     |DU            |[draft-ietf|          |  
     |     |    |FEC Element    |              |-pwe3-end  |          | 
     |     |    |               |              |point-fast |          | 
     |     |    |               |              |protection]|          |      
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]  |          | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
     | 132 |0x84|P2MP PW        |DU            |[draft-  |            | 
     |     |    |Downstream     |              |ietf-pwe3|            | 
     |     |    |FEC Element    |              |-p2mp-pw]|            | 
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|            | 
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ 
 
 
Raza, et. al                  Expires Oct 2014                 [Page 6] 


Internet-Draft   Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs   Apr 2014 
 
 
                
5. References 

5.1. Normative References 

   [RFC5036] L. Andersson, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "LDP 
             Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007. 

   [RFC3212] B. Jamoussi, et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using 
             LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002 

   [RFC4447] L. Martini, Editor, E. Rosen, El-Aawar, T. Smith, G. 
             Heron,  "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label 
             Distribution Protocol", RFC 4447, April 2006. 

   [RFC5918] R. Asati, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution 
             Protocol Typed Wildcard FEC", RFC 5918, August 2010. 

   [RFC6388] I. Minei, I. Wijnands, K. Kompella, and B. Thomas, "LDP 
             Extensions for P2MP and MP2MP LSPs", RFC 6388, November 
             2011. 

   [RFC6389] R. Aggarwal, and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label 
             Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011. 

   [RFC7140] L. Jin, F. Jounay, I. Wijnands , and N. Leymann, "LDP 
             Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched 
             Path", RFC 7140, March 2014. 

   [ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw] S. Sivabalan et al., "Signaling Root-Initiated 
             Point-to-Multipoint PseudoWire using LDP", draft-ietf-
             pwe3-p2mp-pw-04, Work in progress, March 2012. 

   [ID.pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection] Y. Shen, R. Aggarwal, W. 
             Henderickx, and Y. Jiang, "PW Endpoint Fast Failure 
             Protection", draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00, 
             Work in progress, December 2013. 

5.2. Informative References 

   None. 

6. Acknowledgments 

   We acknowledge Eric Rosen and Rajiv Asati for their initial review 
   and input on the document.  
 
 
Raza, et. al                  Expires Oct 2014                 [Page 7] 


Internet-Draft   Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs   Apr 2014 
      
   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. 

Authors' Addresses 

  Kamran Raza 
  Cisco Systems, Inc. 
  2000 Innovation Drive, 
  Ottawa, ON K2K-3E8, Canada. 
  E-mail: skraza@cisco.com 
 
  Sami Boutros 
  Cisco Systems, Inc. 
  3750 Cisco Way, 
  San Jose, CA 95134, USA. 
  E-mail: sboutros@cisco.com 
 
  Luca Martini 
  Cisco Systems, Inc. 
  9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400, 
  Englewood, CO 80112, USA. 
  E-mail: lmartini@cisco.com 
 
  Nicolai Leymann 
  Deutsche Telekom AG, 
  Winterfeldtstrasse 21, 
  Berlin 10781, Germany. 
  E-mail: N.Leymann@telekom.de 
 

 
 
Raza, et. al                  Expires Oct 2014                 [Page 8]