Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2019-12-05 (latest revision 2019-09-03)
Replaces draft-chandra-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Nicolai Leymann
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2019-01-18)
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Has 2 DISCUSSes. Needs 2 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Deborah Brungard
Send notices to Nicolai Leymann <n.leymann@telekom.de>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
MPLS Working Group                                       C. Ramachandran
Internet-Draft                                                   T. Saad
Updates: 4090 (if approved)                       Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                I. Minei
Expires: March 6, 2020                                      Google, Inc.
                                                              D. Pacella
                                                           Verizon, Inc.
                                                       September 3, 2019

          Refresh-interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
                     draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-07

Abstract

   RSVP-TE Fast ReRoute extensions specified in RFC 4090 defines two
   local repair techniques to reroute Label Switched Path (LSP) traffic
   over pre-established backup tunnel.  Facility backup method allows
   one or more LSPs traversing a connected link or node to be protected
   using a bypass tunnel.  The many-to-one nature of local repair
   technique is attractive from scalability point of view.  This
   document enumerates facility backup procedures in RFC 4090 that rely
   on refresh timeout and hence make facility backup method refresh-
   interval dependent.  The RSVP-TE extensions defined in this document
   will enhance the facility backup protection mechanism by making the
   corresponding procedures refresh-interval independent and hence
   compatible with Refresh-interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) specified
   in RFC 8370.  Hence, this document updates RFC 4090 in order to
   support RI-RSVP capability specified in RFC 8370.

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 RFC-2119 [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 https://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

Ramachandran, et al.      Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             RI-RSVP FRR Bypass             September 2019

   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 March 6, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Solution Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Requirement on RFC 4090 Capable Node to advertise RI-RSVP
           Capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Signaling Handshake between PLR and MP  . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.1.  PLR Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.2.2.  Remote Signaling Adjacency  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.2.3.  MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.2.4.  "Remote" State on MP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.3.  Impact of Failures on LSP State . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.3.1.  Non-MP Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.3.2.  LP-MP Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.3.  NP-MP Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.4.  Behavior of a Router that is both LP-MP and NP-MP . .  14
     4.4.  Conditional PathTear  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.1.  Sending Conditional PathTear  . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.2.  Processing Conditional PathTear . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.3.  CONDITIONS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Show full document text