Skip to main content

LDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-08

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7307.
Authors Quintin Zhao , Luyuan Fang , Chao Zhou , Lianyuan Li , Syed Kamran Raza
Last updated 2013-05-28 (Latest revision 2013-05-13)
Replaces draft-zhao-mpls-ldp-multi-topology
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Loa Andersson
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2013-05-22
IESG IESG state Became RFC 7307 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Adrian Farrel
IESG note
Send notices to mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology@tools.ietf.org
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-08
Internet Engineering Task Force                                  Q. Zhao
Internet-Draft                                         Huawei Technology
Intended status: Standards Track                                 L. Fang
Updates: 4379                                                    C. Zhou
Expires: November 13, 2013                                 Cisco Systems
                                                                   L. Li
                                                            China Mobile
                                                                 K. Raza
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            May 13, 2013

               LDP Extensions for Multi Topology Routing
               draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-multi-topology-08.txt

Abstract

   Multi-Topology (MT) routing is supported in IP networks with the use
   of MT aware IGP protocols.  In order to provide MT routing within
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Distribution Protocol
   (LDP) networks new extensions are required.  This document updates
   RFC4379.

   This document describes the LDP protocol extensions required to
   support MT routing in an MPLS environment.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

   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.

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Signaling Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Topology-Scoped Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) . . . .  5
     3.2.  New Address Families: MT IP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  LDP FEC Elements with MT IP AF . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  IGP MT-ID Mapping and Translation  . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.5.  LDP MT Capability Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.6.  Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.7.  LDP Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.8.  Reserved MT ID Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  MT Applicability on FEC-based features . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Typed Wildcard FEC Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  End-of-LIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.3.  LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.3.1.  New FEC Sub-Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.3.2.  MT LDP IPv4 FEC Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.3.  MT LDP IPv6 FEC Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.3.4.  Operation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  MT Error Notification for Invalid Topology ID  . . . . . . 13
   6.  Backwards Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  MPLS Forwarding in MT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   8.  Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   11. Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Appendix A.  Appendix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     A.1.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     A.2.  Application Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       A.2.1.  Simplified Data-plane  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       A.2.2.  Using MT for P2P Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       A.2.3.  Using MT for mLDP Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       A.2.4.  Service Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       A.2.5.  An Alternative Inter-AS VPN Solution . . . . . . . . . 20
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

1.  Terminology

   This document uses MPLS terminology defined in [RFC5036].  Additional
   terms are defined below:

   o  MT-ID: A 16 bit value used to represent the Multi-Topology ID.

   o  Default MT Topology: A topology that is built using the MT-ID
      default value of 0.

   o  MT Topology: A topology that is built using the corresponding
      MT-ID.

   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].

2.  Introduction

   Multi-Topology (MT) routing is supported in IP networks with the use
   of MT aware IGP protocols.  It would be advantageous for
   communications Service Providers (CSP) to support Multiple Topologies
   (MT) within MPLS environments (MPLS-MT).  The benefits of MPLS-MT
   enabled networks include:

   o  A CSP may want to assign varying QoS profiles to traffic, based on
      a specific MT.

   o  Separate routing and MPLS domains may be used to isolated
      multicast and IPv6 islands within the backbone network.

   o  Specific IP address space could be routed across an MT based on
      security or operational isolation requirements.

   o  Low latency links could be assigned to an MT for delay sensitive
      traffic.

   o  Management traffic could be separated from customer traffic using
      multiple MTs, where the management traffic MT does not use links
      that carries customer traffic.

   This document describes the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) 
   procedures and protocol extensions required to support MT routing in 
   an MPLS environment.

   This document also updates RFC4379 by defining two new FEC types for
   LSP ping.

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

3.  Signaling Extensions

3.1.  Topology-Scoped Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)

   LDP assigns and binds a label to a Forwarding Equivalence Class
   (FEC), where a FEC is a list of one of more FEC elements.  To setup
   LSPs for unicast IP routing paths, LDP assigns local labels for IP
   prefixes, and advertises these labels to its peers so that an LSP is
   setup along the routing path.  To setup MT LSPs for IP prefixes under
   a given topology scope, the LDP "prefix-related" FEC element must be
   extended to include topology information.  This infers that MT-ID
   becomes an attribute of Prefix-related FEC element, and all FEC-Label
   binding operations are performed under the context of given topology
   (MT-ID).

   The following Subsection 3.2(New Address Families (AF): MT IP) 
   defines the extension required to bind "prefix-related" FEC to a 
   topology.

3.2.  New Address Families: MT IP

   The LDP base specification [RFC5036] (Section 4.1) defines the
   "Prefix" FEC Element 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Prefix (2)   |     Address Family            |     PreLen    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Prefix                                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 1: Prefix FEC  Element Format [RFC5036]

   Where "Prefix" encoding is as defined for given "Address Family" 
   (AF), and whose length (in bits) is specified by the "PreLen" field.

   To extend IP address families for MT, two new Address Families named
   "MT IP" and "MT IPv6" are used to specify IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes
   within a topology scope.

   The format of data associated with these new Address Families are 
   described below:

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     IP Address                                |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Reserved             |        MT-ID                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 2: MT IP Address Family Format

   Where "IP Address" is an IPv4 and IPv6 address/prefix for "MT IP" and
   "MT IPv6" AF respectively, and the field "MT-ID" corresponds to 16-
   bit Topology ID for given address.

   Where 16-bit "MT-ID" field defines the Topology ID, and the
   definition and usage of the rest fields in the FEC Elements are same
   as defined for IP/IPv6 AF.  The value of MT-ID 0 corresponds to
   default topology and MUST be ignored on receipt so as to not cause
   any conflict/confusion with existing non-MT procedures.

   The proposed FEC Elements with "MT IP" Address Family can be used in
   any LDP message and procedures that currently specify and allow the
   use of FEC Elements with IP/IPv6 Address Family.

   [RFC5036] does not specify the handling of "Unknown" Address 
   Families.  Therefore, [RFC5036] will need to be updated to include 
   the handling procedure for unknown address families.

3.3.  LDP FEC Elements with MT IP AF

   The following section specifies the format extensions of the existing
   LDP FEC Elements.  The "Address Family" of these FEC elements will be
   set to "MT IP" or "MT IPv6".

   The MT Prefix FEC element encoding is 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Prefix (2)   | Address Family (MT IP/MT IPv6)|     PreLen    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Prefix                                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Reserved             |        MT-ID                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

                  Figure 3: MT Prefix FEC Element Format

   Similarly, the MT mLDP FEC elements encoding is as follows, where the
   mLDP FEC Type can be P2MP(6), MP2MP-up(7), and MP2MP-down(8):

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | mLDP FEC Type | Address Family (MT IP/MT IPv6)| Address Length|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                       Root Node Address                       ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |          Reserved             |        MT-ID                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Opaque Length              |    Opaque Value ...           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
       ~                                                               ~
       |                                                               |
       |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 4: MT mLDP FEC Element Format

   The MT Typed Wildcard FEC element encoding is 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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |Typed Wcard (5)|    FEC Type   |   Len = 6     |  AF = MT IP ..|
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |... or MT IPv6 |         MT ID                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 5: MT Typed Wildcard FEC Element

3.4.  IGP MT-ID Mapping and Translation

   The non-reserved non-special IGP MT-ID values can be used and carried 
   in LDP without the need for translation.  However, there is a need 
   for translating reserved or special IGP MT-ID values to corresponding 
   LDP MT-IDs.  The corresponding special and reserved LDP MT-ID 
   values are requested In Section 9. (IANA Considerations).

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

3.5.  LDP MT Capability Advertisement

   We specify a new LDP capability, named "Multi-Topology (MT)", which
   is defined in accordance with LDP Capability definition guidelines
   [RFC5561].  The LDP "MT" capability can be advertised by an LDP
   speaker to its peers either during the LDP session initialization or
   after the LDP session is setup to announce LSR capability to support
   MT for the given IP address family.

   The MT capability is specified using "Multi-Topology Capability"
   TLV.  The "Multi-Topology Capability" TLV format is in accordance
   with LDP capability guidelines as defined in [RFC5561].  To be able
   to specify IP address family, the capability specific data (i.e.
   "Capability Data" field of Capability TLV) is populated using "Typed
   Wildcard FEC Element" as defined in [RFC5918].

   The format of "Multi-Topology Capability" TLV is 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
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |U|F| Multi-Topology Cap.(IANA) |            Length             |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |S| Reserved    |                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               |
    ~                Typed Wildcard FEC element(s)                  ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 6: Multi-Topology Capability TLV Format

   Where:

   o  U- and F-bits: MUST be 1 and 0, respectively, as per Section 3.
      (Signaling Extensions) of LDP Capabilities [RFC5561].

   o  Multi-Topology Capability: Capability TLV type (IANA assigned)

   o  S-bit: MUST be 1 if used in LDP "Initialization" message.  MAY be
      set to 0 or 1 in dynamic "Capability" message to advertise or
      withdraw the capability respectively.

   o  Typed Wildcard FEC element(s): One or more elements specified as
      the "Capability data".

   o  Length: The length (in octets) of TLV.

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

   o  The encoding of Typed Wildcard FEC element, as defined in
      [RFC5918], is defined in the section 3.3 (Typed Wildcard FEC
      Element) of this document.

3.6.  Procedures

   To announce its MT capability for an IP address family, LDP FEC type,
   and Multi Topology, an LDP speaker MAY send an "MT Capability"
   including the exact Typed Wildcard FEC element with corresponding
   "AddressFamily" field (i.e., set to "MT IP" for IPv4 and set to "MT
   IPv6" for IPv6 address family), corresponding "FEC Type" field (i.e.,
   set to "P2P", "P2MP", "MP2MP"), and corresponding "MT-ID".  To
   announce its MT capability for both IPv4 and IPv6 address family, or
   for multiple FEC types, or for multiple Multi Topologies, an LDP
   speaker MAY send "MT Capability" with one or more MT Typed FEC
   elements in it.

   o  The capability for supporting multi-topology in LDP can be
      advertised during LDP session initialization stage by including
      the LDP MT capability TLV in LDP Initialization message.  After an
      LDP session is established, the MT capability can also be
      advertised or withdrawn using Capability message (only if "Dynamic
      Announcement" capability [RFC5561] has already been successfully
      negotiated).

   o  If an LSR has not advertised MT capability, its peer must not send
      messages that include MT identifier to this LSR.

   o  If an LSR receives a Label Mapping message with an MT parameter
      from downstream LSR-D and its upstream LSR-U has not advertised MT
      capability, an LSP for the MT will not be established.

   o  This document proposes to add a new notification event to signal
      the upstream that the downstream is not capable.

   o  If an LSR is changed from non-MT capable to MT capable, it sets
      the S bit in MT capability TLV and advertises via the Capability
      message.  The existing LSP is treated as LSP for default MT (ID
      0).

   o  If an LSR is changed from LDP-MT capable to non-MT capable, it may
      initiate withdraw of all label mapping for existing LSPs of all
      non-default MTs.  Then it clears the S bit in MT capability TLV
      and advertises via the Capability message.

   o  If an LSR is changed from IGP-MT capable to non-MT capable, it may
      wait until the routes update to withdraw FEC and release the label
      mapping for existing LSPs of specific MT.

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013           [Page 9]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

3.7.  LDP Sessions

   Since using different label spaces for different topologies would 
   imply significant changes to the data plane, a single global label 
   space is supported in this solution. There will be one session 
   supported for each pair of peer, even there are multiple topologies 
   supported between these two peers.

3.8.  Reserved MT ID Values

   Certain MT topologies are assigned to serve predetermined purposes:

   Default-MT: Default topology.  This corresponds to OSPF default IPv4
   and IPv6, as well as ISIS default IPv4.  A value of 0 is proposed.

   ISIS IPv6 MT: ISIS default MT-ID for IPv6.

   Wildcard-MT: This corresponds to All-Topologies.  A value of 65535
   (0xffff) is proposed.

   In Section 9.  (IANA Considerations) this document proposes a new
   IANA registry "LDP Multi-Topology ID Name Space" under IANA "LDP
   Parameter" namespace to keep an LDP MT-ID reserved value.

   If an LSR receives a FEC element with an "MT-ID" value that is
   "Reserved" for future use (and not IANA allocated yet), the LSR must
   abort the processing of the FEC element, and SHOULD send a
   notification message with status code "Invalid MT-ID" to the sender.

4.  MT Applicability on FEC-based features

4.1.  Typed Wildcard FEC Element

   [RFC5918] extends base LDP and defines Typed Wildcard FEC Element
   framework.  Typed Wildcard FEC element can be used in any LDP message
   to specify a wildcard operation/action for given type of FEC.

   The MT extensions proposed in document do not require any extension
   to procedures for Typed Wildcard FEC element, and these procedures
   apply as-is to MT wildcarding.  The MT extensions, though, allow use
   of "MT IP" or "MT IPv6" in the Address Family field of the Typed
   Wildcard FEC element in order to use wildcard operations in the
   context of a given topology.  The use of MT-scoped address family
   also allows us to specify MT-ID in these operations.

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 10]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

   The proposed format in Section 3.3 (Typed Wildcard FEC Element)
   allows an LSR to perform wildcard FEC operations under the scope of a
   topology.  If an LSR wishes to perform wildcard operation that
   applies to all topologies, it can use a "Wildcard Topology" MT-ID.
   For example, upon local configuration of topology "x", an LSR may
   send a wildcard label withdraw request with MT-ID "x" to withdraw all
   its labels from the peer that advertized under the scope of topology
   "x".  Additionally, upon a global configuration change, an LSR may
   send a wildcard label withdraw with the MT-ID set to "Wildcard
   Topology" to withdraw all its labels under all topologies from the
   peer.

4.2.  End-of-LIB

   [RFC5919] specifies extensions and procedures for an LDP speaker to
   signal its convergence for a given FEC type towards a peer.  The
   procedures defined in [RFC5919] applies as-is to an MT FEC element.
   This MAY allow an LDP speaker to signal its IP convergence using
   Typed Wildcard FEC element, and its MT IP convergence per topology
   using a MT Typed Wildcard FEC element.

4.3.  LSP Ping

   [RFC4379] defines procedures to detect data-plane failures in MPLS
   LSPs via LSP ping.  The specification defines a "Target FEC Stack"
   TLV that describes the FEC stack being tested.  This TLV is sent in
   an MPLS echo request message towards LSPs egress LSR, and is
   forwarded along the same data path as other packets belonging to the
   FEC.

   "Target FEC Stack" TLV contains one or more sub-TLVs pertaining to
   different FEC types.  Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] defines Sub-Types and
   format for the FEC.  To support LSP ping for MT LDP LSPs, this
   document proposes following extensions to [RFC4379].

4.3.1.  New FEC Sub-Types

   We define two new FEC types for LSP ping:

   o  MT LDP IPv4 FEC

   o  MT LDP IPv6 FEC

   We also define following new sub-types for sub-TLVs to specify these
   FECs in the "Target FEC Stack" TLV of [RFC4379]:

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 11]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

         Sub-Type       Length            Value Field
         --------       ------            -----------------
             TBA5            5            MT LDP IPv4 prefix
             TBA6           17            MT LDP IPv6 prefix

                   Figure 7: new sub-types for sub-TLVs

   The rules and procedures of using these sub-TLVs in an MPLS echo
   request message are same as defined for LDP IPv4/IPv6 FEC sub-TLV
   types in [RFC4379].

4.3.2.  MT LDP IPv4 FEC Sub-TLV

   The format of "MT LDP IPv4 FEC" sub-TLV to be used in a "Target FEC
   Stack" [RFC4379] 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 = TBA5(MT LDP IPv4 FEC) |          Length = 8           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                          IPv4 prefix                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Prefix Length |      MBZ      |       MT-ID                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 8: MT LDP IPv4 FEC sub-TLV

   The format of this sub-TLV is similar to LDP IPv4 FEC sub-TLV as
   defined in [RFC4379].  In addition to "IPv4 prefix" and "Prefix
   Length" fields, this new sub-TLV also specifies MT-ID (Multi-Topology
   ID).  The Length for this sub-TLV is 5.

4.3.3.  MT LDP IPv6 FEC Sub-TLV

   The format of "MT LDP IPv6 FEC" sub-TLV to be used in a "Target FEC
   Stack" [RFC4379] is:

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 12]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |  Type = TBA6(MT LDP IPv6 FEC) |          Length = 20          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                                                               |
       |                          IPv6 prefix                          |
       |                                                               |
       |                                                               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Prefix Length |     MBZ       |       MT-ID                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 9: MT LDP IPv6 FEC sub-TLV

   The format of this sub-TLV is similar to LDP IPv6 FEC sub-TLV as
   defined in [RFC4379].  In addition to "IPv6 prefix" and "Prefix
   Length" fields, this new sub-TLV also specifies MT-ID (Multi-Topology
   ID).  The Length for this sub-TLV is 17.

4.3.4.  Operation Considerations

   When detect data plane failures using LSP Ping for a specific topoly,
   the router will intiate an LSP Ping request with the targer FEC stack
   TLV containing LDP MT IP Prefix Sub-TLV in the Echo Request packet.
   The Echo Request packet is sent with the label binded to the IP
   Prefix in the topolgy.  Once the echo request packet reaches the
   target router, it will process the packet and perform checs for the
   LDP MT IP Prefix sub-TLV present in the Target FEC Stack as described
   in [RFC4379] and respond according to [RFC4379] processing rules.
   For the case that the LSP ping with return path not specified , the
   reply packet may go through the default topology instead of the
   topology where the Echo Request goes through.

5.  Error Handling

   The extensions defined in this document utilise the existing LDP
   error handling defined in [RFC5036].  If an LSR receives an error
   notification from a peer for an MPLS-MT session, it terminates the
   LDP session by closing the TCP transport connection for the session
   and discarding all MT-ID label mappings learned via the session.

5.1.  MT Error Notification for Invalid Topology ID

   If an LSR has advertized an MT Capability TLV using the
   Initialization message or Capability message, which includes Typed
   Wildcard FEC elements with specific MT-IDs, and it receives an MT

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 13]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

   message with a MT-ID which is not included in the supported list, it
   should response this "Invalid Topology ID" status code.

6.  Backwards Compatibility

   The MPLS-MT solution is backwards compatible with existing LDP
   enhancements defined in [RFC5036], including message authenticity,
   integrity of message, and topology loop detection.

7.  MPLS Forwarding in MT

   Although forwarding is out of the scope of this draft, we include
   some forwarding consideration for informational purpose here.

   The specified signaling mechanisms allow all the topologies to share
   the platform-specific label space; this is the feature that allows
   the existing data plane techniques to be used; and the specified
   signaling mechanisms do not provide any way for the data plane to
   associate a given packet with a context-specific label space.

8.  Security Consideration

   No specific security issues with the proposed solutions are known.
   The proposed extensions in this document do not introduce any new
   security considerations beyond that already apply to the base LDP
   specification [RFC5036] and [RFC5920].

9.  IANA Considerations

   The document introduces following new protocol elements that require
   IANA consideration and assignments:

   o  New LDP Capability TLV: "Multi-Topology Capability" TLV (requested
      code point: TBA1 from LDP registry "TLV Type Name Space").

   o  New Status Code: "Multi-Topology Capability not supported"
      (requested code point: TBA2 from LDP registry "Status Code Name
      Space").

   o  New Status Code: "Invalid Topology ID" (requested code point: TBA3
      from LDP registry "Status Code Name Space").

   o  New Status Code: "Unknown Address Family" (requested code point:
      TBA4 from LDP registry "Status Code Name Space").

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 14]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

            Registry:
            Range/Value     E     Description
            --------------  ---   ------------------------------
            0x00000051      1     Invalid Topology ID

       Figure 10: New Status Codes for LDP Multi Topology Extensions

   o  New address families under IANA registry "Address Family Numbers":

      - MT IP: Multi-Topology IP version 4 (requested codepoint: 26)
      - MT IPv6: Multi-Topology IP version 6 (requested codepoint: 27)

                      Figure 11: Address Family Numbers

   o  New registry "LDP Multi-Topology (MT) ID Name Space" under "LDP
      Parameter" namespace.  The registry is defined as:

           Range/Value             Name
           -----------             ------------------------
           0                       Default Topology (ISIS and OSPF)
           1-4095                  Unassigned
           4096                    ISIS IPv6 routing topology 
                                   (i.e. ISIS MT ID #2)
           4097-65534              Reserved (for future allocation)
           65535                   Wildcard Topology (ISIS or OSPF)

             Figure 12: LDP Multi-Topology (MT) ID Name Space

   o  New Sub-TLV Types for LSP ping: Following new sub-type values
      under TLV type 1 (Target FEC Stack) from "Multi-Protocol Label
      Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
      registry, and "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry.

         Sub-Type      Value Field
         --------      -----------
             TBA5      MT LDP IPv4 prefix
             TBA6      MT LDP IPv6 prefix

                 Figure 13: New Sub-TLV Types for LSP ping

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 15]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

10.  Contributors
      
      Ning So
      Tata Communications
      2613 Fairbourne Cir.
      Plano, TX  75082
      USA

      Email: ning.so@tatacommunications.com
  
      Raveendra Torvi
      Juniper Networks
      10, Technoogy Park Drive
      Westford, MA  01886-3140
      US

      Email: rtorvi@juniper.net

      Huaimo Chen
      Huawei Technology
      125 Nagog Technology Park
      Acton, MA  01719
      US

      Email: huaimochen@huawei.com

      Emily Chen
      2717 Seville Blvd, Apt 1205,
      Clearwater, FL 33764
      US

      Email: emily.chen220@gmail.com

      Chen Li
      China Mobile
      53A, Xibianmennei Ave.
      Xunwu District, Beijing  01719
      China

      Email: lichenyj@chinamobile.com

      Lu Huang
      China Mobile
      53A, Xibianmennei Ave.
      Xunwu District, Beijing  01719
      China

      Email: huanglu@chinamobile.com

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 16]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

      Daniel King
      Old Dog Consulting

      Email: E-mail: daniel@olddog.co.uk

      Zhenbin Li
      Huawei Technology
      2330 Central Expressway
      Santa Clara, CA  95050
      US

      Email: zhenbin.li@huawei.com
                                 

11.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Dan Tappan, Nabil Bitar, Huang Xin,
   Eric Rosen, IJsbrand Wijnands, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Yiqun Chai and
   pranjal Dutta, George Swallow and Curtis Villamizar for their 
   valuable comments on this draft.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              February 2006.

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

   [RFC5561]  Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL.
              Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009

   [RFC5918]  Asati, R., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
              Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class
              (FEC)", RFC 5918, August 2010.

   [RFC5919]  Asati, R., Mohapatra, P., Chen, E., and B. Thomas,
              "Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion", RFC 5919,
              August 2010.

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 17]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013

12.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Quintin Zhao
   Huawei Technology
   125 Nagog Technology Park
   Acton, MA  01719
   US

   Email: quintin.zhao@huawei.com

   Luyuan Fang
   Cisco Systems
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   US

   Email: lufang@cisco.com

   Chao Zhou
   Cisco Systems
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   US

   Email: czhou@cisco.com

   Lianyuan Li
   China Mobile
   53A, Xibianmennei Ave.
   Xunwu District, Beijing  01719
   China

   Email: lilianyuan@chinamobile.com

   Kamran Raza
   Cisco Systems
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, ON K2K-3E8, MA
   Canada

   Email: E-mail: skraza@cisco.com

Zhao, et al.              Expires November 13, 2013          [Page 18]
Internet-Draft        LDP Multi Topology Extensions         May,  2013