LDP Downstream-on-Demand in Seamless MPLS
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-05
| The information below is for an old version of the document |
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2013-03-09
(latest revision 2013-02-25)
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-beckhaus-ldp-dod
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
Submitted to IESG for Publication
Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
None
|
|
Shepherd write-up |
|
Show
(last changed 2013-02-28)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
Adrian Farrel
|
|
IESG note |
|
Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the document shepherd
|
|
Send notices to |
|
mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod@tools.ietf.org
|
Network Working Group T. Beckhaus
Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom AG
Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene
Expires: August 29, 2013 France Telecom
K. Tiruveedhula
Juniper Networks
M. Konstantynowicz
L. Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
February 25, 2013
LDP Downstream-on-Demand in Seamless MPLS
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-dod-05
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 29, 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 29, 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 29, 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