Refresh Interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2018-08-09
Replaces draft-chandra-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Document shepherd Nicolai Leymann
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Nicolai Leymann <n.leymann@telekom.de>
MPLS Working Group                                       C. Ramachandran
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Updates: 4090 (if approved)                                     I. Minei
Intended status: Standards Track                             Google, Inc
Expires: February 10, 2019                                    D. Pacella
                                                                 Verizon
                                                                 T. Saad
                                                      Cisco Systems Inc.
                                                          August 9, 2018

          Refresh Interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
                     draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-04

Abstract

   RSVP-TE relies on periodic refresh of RSVP messages to synchronize
   and maintain the LSP related states along the reserved path.  In the
   absence of refresh messages, the LSP related states are automatically
   deleted.  Reliance on periodic refreshes and refresh timeouts are
   problematic from the scalability point of view.  The number of RSVP-
   TE LSPs that a router needs to maintain has been growing in service
   provider networks and the implementations should be capable of
   handling increase in LSP scale.

   RFC 2961 specifies mechanisms to eliminate the reliance on periodic
   refresh and refresh timeout of RSVP messages, and enables a router to
   increase the message refresh interval to values much longer than the
   default 30 seconds defined in RFC 2205.  However, the protocol
   extensions defined in RFC 4090 for supporting fast reroute (FRR)
   using bypass tunnels implicitly rely on short refresh timeouts to
   cleanup stale states.

   In order to eliminate the reliance on refresh timeouts, the routers
   should unambiguously determine when a particular LSP state should be
   deleted.  Coupling LSP state with the corresponding RSVP-TE signaling
   adjacencies as recommended in RFC 8370 will apply in scenarios other
   than RFC 4090 FRR using bypass tunnels.  In scenarios involving RFC
   4090 FRR using bypass tunnels, additional explicit tear down messages
   are necessary.  Refresh-interval Independent RSVP FRR (RI-RSVP-FRR)
   extensions specified in this document consists of procedures to
   enable LSP state cleanup that are essential in scenarios not covered
   by procedures defined in RSVP-TE Scaling Recommendations.  Hence,
   this document updates the procedures defined in RFC 4090 to support
   Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) capability specified in
   RFC 8370.

Ramachandran, et al.    Expires February 10, 2019               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             RI-RSVP FRR Bypass                August 2018

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
   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 February 10, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   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
Show full document text