Skip to main content

LDP IGP Synchronization
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-07-29
04 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (removed Errata tag (all errata rejected))
2019-06-04
04 Alvaro Retana Downref to RFC 5443 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-17
2017-05-16
04 (System) Changed document authors from "Luyuan Fang" to "Markus Jork, Alia Atlas, Luyuan Fang"
2015-10-14
04 (System) Notify list changed from rcallcon@juniper.net, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, isis-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync@ietf.org to rcallcon@juniper.net, isis-chairs@ietf.org
2012-08-22
04 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ross Callon
2009-03-05
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2009-03-05
04 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5443' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-03-03
04 (System) RFC published
2008-12-23
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2008-12-22
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2008-12-22
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2008-12-22
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2008-12-22
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2008-12-22
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2008-12-18
04 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2008-12-18
04 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2008-12-18
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ross Callon has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ross Callon
2008-12-18
04 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2008-12-18
04 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2008-12-18
04 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2008-12-18
04 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2008-12-18
04 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2008-12-18
04 Pasi Eronen [Ballot comment]
2008-12-17
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-04.txt
2008-12-17
04 Ross Callon
[Ballot discuss]
The authors have indicated that they intend to update the document right after the telechat to respond to Gen-Art and Sec-Dir reviews. I …
[Ballot discuss]
The authors have indicated that they intend to update the document right after the telechat to respond to Gen-Art and Sec-Dir reviews. I am just holding a "friendly" discuss that I will clear as soon as this update is out.
2008-12-17
04 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2008-12-17
04 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2008-12-15
04 Pasi Eronen
[Ballot comment]
Donald Eastlake's SecDir review suggested including a pointer to
"current best security practice" (an informative reference to
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework would probably be OK),
and …
[Ballot comment]
Donald Eastlake's SecDir review suggested including a pointer to
"current best security practice" (an informative reference to
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework would probably be OK),
and some editorial nits that should be fixed before publication.
2008-12-15
04 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-14
04 Russ Housley [Ballot comment]
Please look at the editorial comments in the Gen-ART Review from
  Francis Dupont.
2008-12-14
04 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2008-12-10
04 David Ward State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by David Ward
2008-11-25
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Donald Eastlake.
2008-11-18
04 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-11-18
04 David Ward Telechat date was changed to 2008-12-18 from 2008-12-04 by David Ward
2008-11-11
04 Amanda Baber IANA Last Call comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document
to have NO IANA Actions.
2008-11-11
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2008-11-11
04 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Donald Eastlake
2008-11-04
04 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2008-11-04
04 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2008-11-04
04 David Ward State Changes to Last Call Requested from Last Call Requested by David Ward
2008-11-04
04 David Ward Last Call was requested by David Ward
2008-11-04
04 David Ward Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-04 by David Ward
2008-11-04
04 David Ward State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by David Ward
2008-11-04
04 David Ward Last Call was requested by David Ward
2008-11-04
04 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for David Ward
2008-11-04
04 David Ward Ballot has been issued by David Ward
2008-11-04
04 David Ward Created "Approve" ballot
2008-11-03
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-03.txt
2008-11-03
04 David Ward
The draft says
--------------
"  In the case of ISIS, the max matrix value is 0xFFFFFE
                  …
The draft says
--------------
"  In the case of ISIS, the max matrix value is 0xFFFFFE
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  per [RFC 3784]. Note that the link is not just simply removed from
  the topology because LDP depends on the IP reachability to
                ^^^^^^^
  establish its adjacency and session.
"

RFC3784 says
------------
"
if a link is advertised with the maximum link metric (2^24 - 1), this link MUST NOT be considered during the normal SPF computation.  This will allow advertisement of a link for purposes other than building  the normal Shortest Path Tree.  An example is a link that is available for traffic engineering, but not for hop-by-hop routing.
"

in short, MAX_LINK_METRIC = 2^ 24 -1


Suggestion
----------
"  In the case of ISIS, the max matrix value is 2^24-2 (0xFFFFFE).
  Indeed, if a link is configured with 2^24-1 (the maximum link metric
  per [RFC3784]) then this link is not advertised in the topology.
  It is important to keep the link in the topology to allow for IP
  traffic to use the link as a last resort in case of massive failure.
"

The suggested text clears a likely confusion due to the current draft using the term "max metric value" while RFC3784 defines "max link metric"... and the two are not the same. The max metric for LDP/ISIS synch is 2^24-2 while the real max metric per RFC3784 is 2^24-1.

The suggested text quotes the real reason why the link must be in the topology. The quoted reason is wrong as the LDP session would anyway be established thanks to the connected route.


Also, the language isn't quite correct:  "metric" - not "matrix."
2008-11-03
04 David Ward State Change Notice email list have been change to rcallcon@juniper.net, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, isis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync@tools.ietf.org from mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync@tools.ietf.org
2008-11-03
04 David Ward t
2008-11-03
04 David Ward Responsible AD has been changed to David Ward from Ross Callon
2008-10-21
04 Ross Callon State Changes to AD Evaluation from Last Call Requested by Ross Callon
2008-10-21
04 Ross Callon Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None
2008-10-21
04 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2008-10-21
04 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-10-21
04 (System) Last call text was added
2008-10-21
04 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-10-21
04 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2008-07-21
04 Cindy Morgan
LDP IGP Synchronization
<draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-02.txt>


Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
  …
LDP IGP Synchronization
<draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-02.txt>


Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard

------------------------------------------------------------------------

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?

Yes.

Both mpls wg co-chairs reviewed this version of the ID. Based on the WG
comments, we believe the ID is ready for publication. See nits section!

Loa ANdersson is the proto-shepherd.


  1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?

Yes, the document has been through wg last call with good and constructive
comments, it has also been reviewed by subject-matter experts that are
WG members.

        Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No


  1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

No.

  1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

No. The internet-draft was produced by working group memebers with
expereince from LDP implentations, operations and testing.


  1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

This document represents the WG consensus as a whole: the WG as a whole
understands and agrees with it.

  1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

No.

  1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).

The ID-nits tool gives one warning:

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
    2119
boilerplate text.


  Checking references for intended status: Informational
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this is Informational I think there is a straightforward solution to
this - remove the reference, this could be done by an RFC-Ed note or if we
need to revise the ID.

  1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?

Yes.

        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
        (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with
        normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all
        such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.)

No.

  1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary

        *    Working Group Summary

        *    Protocol Quality

This is targetted for Informatinal; but re-reading it now I've started to
wonder if it shouldn't be a BCP.

  1.j) Please provide such a write-up.  Recent examples can be found in
        the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents.

--- Technical Summary

  Edge to edge LSPs must be available for deployment of certain
  types of services. For example in  L2 or L3 VPN scenarios, a
  given PE router relies on the availability of a complete MPLS
  forwarding path to the other PE routers.

  This means that along the path from one PE router to another,
  all the links need to have operational LDP sessions and
  the necessary label binding must have been exchanged. If only
  one link along the path does not have an LDP session, a
  blackhole exists and services that depends on MPLS forwarding
  will fail.

  This problem exists because LDP relies on IP forwarding decisions
  but there is no coupling between the IGP and LDP operational states.
  If IGP is operational on a link but LDP is not, there is a potential
  network problem. 

  The solution described by this document is to discourage that a
  link from being used for IP forwarding as long as LDP is not fully
    operational.


--- Working Group Summary

  The Working Group has consensus to publish this document as an
  Informational RFC.

--- Protocol Quality
 
  The document has been reviewed by experts form the MPLS working
  group as well as being last called in the working group, the comments
  received from the experts and the working group has been addressed and
  the document is updated.

--- Implementations

  We don't know of any implementations of the specification; but on the other
  hand this is intended for informational and we haven't asked.
  "Implementations" would be nothing more than operational practice.
2008-07-21
04 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2008-06-30
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-02.txt
2008-03-24
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-01.txt
2007-09-07
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-00.txt