LDP Downstream-on-Demand in Seamless MPLS
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-04

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2013-02-03
Replaces draft-beckhaus-ldp-dod
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                        T. Beckhaus
Internet-Draft                                       Deutsche Telekom AG
Intended status: Informational                               B. Decraene
Expires: August 7, 2013                                   France Telecom
                                                         K. Tiruveedhula
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                      M. Konstantynowicz
                                                              L. Martini
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        February 3, 2013

               LDP Downstream-on-Demand in Seamless MPLS
                       draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-04

Abstract

   Seamless MPLS design enables a single IP/MPLS network to scale over
   core, metro and access parts of a large packet network infrastructure
   using standardized IP/MPLS protocols.  One of the key goals of
   Seamless MPLS is to meet requirements specific to access, including
   high number of devices, their position in network topology and their
   compute and memory constraints that limit the amount of state access
   devices can hold.This can be achieved with LDP Downstream-on-Demand
   (LDP DoD) label advertisement.  This document describes LDP DoD use
   cases and lists required LDP DoD procedures in the context of
   Seamless MPLS design.

   In addition, a new optional TLV type in the LDP label request message
   is defined for fast-up convergence.

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 RFC2119 [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

Beckhaus, et al.         Expires August 7, 2013                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   LDP DoD                   February 2013

   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 August 7, 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.

Beckhaus, et al.         Expires August 7, 2013                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   LDP DoD                   February 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Reference Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Access Topologies with Static Routing  . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Access Topologies with Access IGP  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  LDP DoD Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.1.  Initial Network Setup  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.1.  AN with Static Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.1.2.  AN with Access IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.2.  Service Provisioning and Activation  . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  Service Changes and Decommissioning  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.4.  Service Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.5.  Network Transport Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.5.1.  General Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.5.2.  AN Node Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.5.3.  AN/AGN Link Failure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Show full document text