Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Egress Local Protection
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-10
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 8400.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Huaimo Chen , Autumn Liu , Tarek Saad , Fengman Xu , Lu Huang | ||
| Last updated | 2018-02-23 (Latest revision 2018-02-22) | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-egress-protection | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-14)
Ready with Nits
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-09)
Has Issues
GENART Last Call review
(of
-09)
On the Right Track
|
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Vishnu Pavan Beeram | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2017-11-03 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | In Last Call (ends 2018-02-27) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | Vishnu Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA - Not OK |
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-10
Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track A. Liu
Expires: August 26, 2018 Ciena
T. Saad
Cisco Systems
F. Xu
Verizon
L. Huang
China Mobile
February 22, 2018
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Egress Local Protection
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection-10.txt
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the egress
node(s) of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP)
Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP).
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 August 26, 2018.
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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
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. Egress Local Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Extensions to SERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Primary Egress Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. P2P LSP ID Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Egress Protection Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Primary Egress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Backup Egress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Transit Node and PLR Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4.1. Signaling for One-to-One Protection . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.2. Signaling for Facility Protection . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4.3. Signaling for S2L Sub LSP Protection . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4.4. PLR Procedures during Local Repair . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Considering Application Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. A Typical Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. PLR Procedure for Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Egress Procedures for Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
1. Introduction
RFC 4090 describes two methods for locally protecting the transit
nodes of a P2P LSP: one-to-one and facility protection. RFC 4875
specifies how these methods can be used to protect the transit nodes
of a P2MP LSP. These documents do not discuss the procedures for
locally protecting the egress node(s) of an LSP.
This document fills that void and specifies extensions to RSVP-TE for
local protection of the egress node(s) of an LSP.
1.1. Egress Local Protection
Figure 1 shows an example of using backup LSPs to locally protect
egresses of a primary P2MP LSP from ingress R1 to two egresses, L1
and L2. La and Lb are the designated backup egresses for primary
egresses L1 and L2 respectively. The backup LSP for protecting L1 is
from its upstream node R3 to backup egress La and the backup LSP for
protecting L2 is from R5 to Lb.
******* ******* S Source
[R2]-----[R3]-----[L1] CEx Customer Edge
*/ &\ \ Rx Non-Egress
*/ &\ \ Lx Egress
*/ &\ [CE1] *** Primary LSP
*/ &\ / &&& Backup LSP
*/ &\ /
*/ [La]
*/
*/
*/
*/ ******** ******** *******
[S]---[R1]------[R4]------[R5]-----[L2]
&\ \
&\ \
&\ [CE2]
&\ /
&\ /
[Lb]
Figure 1: Backup LSP for Locally Protecting Egress
During normal operations, the traffic carried by the P2MP LSP is sent
through R3 to L1, which delivers the traffic to its destination CE1.
When R3 detects the failure of L1, R3 switches the traffic to the
backup LSP to backup egress La, which delivers the traffic to CE1.
The time for switching the traffic is within tens of milliseconds.
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
The exact mechanism by which the failure of the primary egress is
detected by the upstream node is out of the scope of this document.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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.
3. Terminology
This document uses terminologies defined in RFC 2205, RFC 3209, RFC
4090, RFC 4873 and RFC 4875.
4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. Extensions to SERO
The Secondary Explicit Route object (SERO) is defined in RFC 4873.
The format of the SERO is re-used.
The SERO used for protecting a primary egress node of a primary LSP
may be added into the Path messages for the LSP and sent from the
ingress node of the LSP to the upstream node of the egress node. It
contains three subobjects.
The first subobject indicates the branch node that is to originate
the backup LSP (to a backup egress node). The branch node is the
direct upstream node of the primary egress node of the primary LSP if
it can provide fast local protection for the primary egress node.
The branch node can be a (upstream) node on the primary LSP, but not
the direct upstream node if the direct upstream node does not provide
any fast local protection against the failure of the primary egress
node. In this case, the backup LSP from the branch node to the
backup egress node protects against failures on the segment of the
primary LSP from the branch node to the primary egress node,
including the primary egress node.
The final (third) subobject in the SERO contains the egress node of
the backup LSP, i.e., the address of the backup egress node.
The second subobject is an egress protection subobject, which is a
PROTECTION object with a new C-TYPE (3). The format of the egress
protection subobject is defined as follows:
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | C-Type (3) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |E-Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional subobjects |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E-Flags are defined for egress local protection.
x01 (Egress local protection bit): It is set (1) to indicate an
egress local protection.
x02 (S2L sub LSP backup desired bit): It is set (1) to indicate S2L
Sub LSP (ref to RFC 4875) is desired for protecting an egress of a
P2MP LSP.
The Reserved parts MUST set to zero.
Four optional subobjects are defined. They are IPv4 and IPv6 primary
egress, IPv4 and IPv6 P2P LSP ID subobjects. They have the following
format:
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 | Length |Reserved (zero)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Contents/Body of subobject |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where Type is the type of a subobject, Length is the total size of
the subobject in bytes, including Type, Length and Contents fields.
The Reserved field MUST be set to zero.
After the upstream node of the primary egress node as the branch node
receives the SERO and determines a backup egress node for the primary
egress, it computes a path from itself to the backup egress node and
sets up a backup LSP along the path for protecting the primary egress
node according to the information in the FAST_REROUTE object in the
Path message. For example, if facility protection is desired,
facility protection is provided for the primary egress node.
The upstream node constructs a new SERO based on the SERO received
and adds the new SERO into the Path message for the backup LSP. The
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
new SERO also contains three subobjects as the SERO for the primary
LSP. The second subobject in the new SERO includes a primary egress,
which indicates the address of the primary egress node. The third
one contains the backup egress.
The upstream node updates the SERO in the Path message for the
primary LSP. The egress protection subobject in the SERO contains a
subobject called a P2P LSP ID subobject, which contains the
information for identifying the backup LSP. The final subobject in
the SERO indicates the address of the backup egress node.
4.1.1. Primary Egress Subobject
There are two primary egress subobjects. One is IPv4 primary egress
subobject and the other is IPv6 primary egress subobject.
The Type of an IPv4 primary egress subobject is 1, and the body of
the subobject is given below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o IPv4 address: IPv4 address of the primary egress node
The Type of an IPv6 primary egress subobject is 2, and the body of
the subobject is shown below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address (16 bytes) |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o IPv6 address: The IPv6 address of the primary egress node
4.1.2. P2P LSP ID Subobject
A P2P LSP ID subobject contains the information for identifying a
backup point-to-point (P2P) LSP tunnel.
4.1.2.1. IPv4 P2P LSP ID Subobject
The Type of an IPv4 P2P LSP ID subobject is 3, and the body of the
subobject is shown below:
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| P2P LSP Tunnel Egress IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (MUST be zero) | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o P2P LSP Tunnel Egress IPv4 Address:
IPv4 address of the egress of the tunnel
o Tunnel ID:
A 16-bit identifier being constant over the life of the tunnel
o Extended Tunnel ID:
A 4-byte identifier being constant over the life of the tunnel
4.1.2.2. IPv6 P2P LSP ID Subobject
The Type of an IPv6 P2P LSP ID subobject is 4, and the body of the
subobject is illustrated below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ P2P LSP Tunnel Egress IPv6 Address (16 bytes) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (MUST be zero) | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Extended Tunnel ID (16 bytes) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o P2P LSP Tunnel Egress IPv6 Address:
IPv6 address of the egress of the tunnel
o Tunnel ID:
A 16-bit identifier being constant over the life of the tunnel
o Extended Tunnel ID:
A 16-byte identifier being constant over the life of the tunnel
5. Egress Protection Behaviors
5.1. Ingress Behavior
To protect a primary egress of an LSP, the ingress MUST set the
"label recording desired" flag and the "node protection desired" flag
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.
If one-to-one backup or facility backup is desired to protect a
primary egress of an LSP, the ingress MUST include a FAST_REROUTE
object and set the "One-to-One Backup Desired" or "Facility Backup
Desired" flag respectively.
If S2L Sub LSP backup is desired to protect a primary egress of a
P2MP LSP, the ingress MUST set the "S2L Sub LSP Backup Desired" flag
in an SERO object.
A backup egress MUST be configured on the ingress of an LSP to
protect a primary egress of the LSP if and only if the backup egress
is not configured on the primary egress.
The ingress MUST send a Path message for the LSP with the objects
above and the SEROs for protecting egresses of the LSP. For each
primary egress of the LSP to be protected, the ingress MUST add an
SERO object into the Path message if the backup egress or some
options are given. If the backup egress is given, then the final
subobject in the SERO containts it; otherwise the address in the
final subobject is zero.
5.2. Primary Egress Behavior
To protect a primary egress of an LSP, a backup egress MUST be
configured on the primary egress of the LSP to protect the primary
egress if and only if the backup egress is not configured on the
ingress of the LSP.
If the backup egress is configured on the primary egress of the LSP,
the primary egress MUST send its upstream node a Resv message for the
LSP with an SERO for protecting the primary egress. It sets the
flags in the SERO in the same way as an ingress.
If the LSP carries the service traffic with a service label, the
primary egress sends its corresponding backup egress the information
about the service label as a UA label and the related forwarding.
5.3. Backup Egress Behavior
When a backup egress node receives a Path message for an LSP, it
determines whether the LSP is used for egress local protection
through checking the SERO with egress protection subobject in the
message. If there is an egress protection subobject in the Path
message for the LSP and the Egress local protection flag in the
object is set to one, the LSP is the backup LSP for egress local
protection. The primary egress to be protected is in the primary
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
egress subobject in the SERO.
When the backup egress receives the information about a UA label and
its related forwarding from the primary egress, it uses the backup
LSP label as a context label and creates a forwarding entry using the
information about the UA label and the related forwarding. This
forwarding entry is in a forwarding table for the primary egress
node.
When the primary egress node fails, its upstream node switches the
traffic from the primary LSP to the backup LSP to the backup egress
node, which delivers the traffic to its receiver such as CE using the
backup LSP label as a context label to get the forwarding table for
the primary egress node and the service label as UA label to find the
forwarding entry in the table to forward the traffic to the receiver.
5.4. Transit Node and PLR Behavior
If a transit node of an LSP receives the Path message with the SEROs
and it is not an upstream node of any primary egress of the LSP as a
branch node, it MUST forward them unchanged.
If the transit node is the upstream node of a primary egress to be
protected as a branch node, it determines the backup egress, obtains
a path for the backup LSP and sets up the backup LSP along the path.
If the upstream node receives the Resv message with an SERO object,
it MUST sends its upstream node the Resv message without the object.
The PLR (upstream node of the primary egress as the branch node) MUST
extract the backup egress from the respective SERO object in either a
Path or a Resv message. If no matching SERO object is found, the PLR
tries to find the backup egress, which is not the primary egress but
has the same IP address as the destination IP address of the LSP.
Note that if a backup egress is not configured explicitly for
protecting a primary egress, the primary egress and the backup egress
SHOULD have a same local address configured, and the cost to the
local address on the backup egress SHOULD be much bigger than the
cost to the local address on the primary egress. Thus primary egress
and backup egress is considered as a virtual node. Note that the
backup egress is different from this local address (e.g., from the
primary egress' view). In other words, it is identified by an
address different from this local address.
After obtaining the backup egress, the PLR computes a backup path
from itself to the backup egress and sets up a backup LSP along the
path. It excludes the segment including the primary egress to be
protected when computing the path. The PLR sends the primary egress
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
a Path message with an SERO for the primary LSP, which indicates the
backup egress by the final subobject in the SERO. The PLR puts an
SERO into the Path messages for the backup LSP, which indicates the
primary egress.
The PLR MUST provide one-to-one backup protection for the primary
egress if the "One-to-One Backup Desired" flag is set in the message;
otherwise, it MUST provide facility backup protection if the
"Facility Backup Desired flag" is set.
The PLR MUST set the protection flags in the RRO Sub-object for the
primary egress in the Resv message according to the status of the
primary egress and the backup LSP protecting the primary egress. For
example, it sets the "local protection available" and the "node
protection" flag indicating that the primary egress is protected when
the backup LSP is up and ready for protecting the primary egress.
5.4.1. Signaling for One-to-One Protection
The behavior of the upstream node of a primary egress of an LSP as a
PLR is the same as that of a PLR for one-to-one backup described in
RFC 4090 except for that the upstream node as a PLR creates a backup
LSP from itself to a backup egress in a session different from the
primary LSP.
If the LSP is a P2MP LSP and a primary egress of the LSP is also a
transit node (i.e., bud node), the upstream node of the primary
egress as a PLR creates a backup LSP from itself to each of the next
hops of the primary egress.
When the PLR detects the failure of the primary egress, it switches
the packets from the primary LSP to the backup LSP to the backup
egress. For the failure of the bud node of a P2MP LSP, the PLR also
switches the packets to the backup LSPs to the bud node's next hops,
where the packets are merged into the primary LSP.
5.4.2. Signaling for Facility Protection
Except for backup LSP and downstream label, the behavior of the
upstream node of the primary egress of a primary LSP as a PLR follows
the PLR behavior for facility backup described in RFC 4090.
For a number of primary P2P LSPs going through the same PLR to the
same primary egress, the primary egress of these LSPs MAY be
protected by one backup LSP from the PLR to the backup egress
designated for protecting the primary egress.
The PLR selects or creates a backup LSP from itself to the backup
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
egress. If there is a backup LSP that satisfies the constraints
given in the Path message, then this one is selected; otherwise, a
new backup LSP to the backup egress is created.
After getting the backup LSP, the PLR associates the backup LSP with
a primary LSP for protecting its primary egress. The PLR records
that the backup LSP is used to protect the primary LSP against its
primary egress failure and MUST include an SERO object in the Path
message for the primary LSP. The object MUST contain the backup LSP
ID. It indicates that the primary egress MUST send the backup egress
the service label as UA label and the information about forwarding
the traffic to its destination using the label if there is a service
carried by the LSP and the primary LSP label as UA label if the label
is not implicit null. How UA label is sent is out of scope for this
document.
When the PLR detects the failure of the primary egress, it redirects
the packets from the primary LSP into the backup LSP to backup egress
and keeps the primary LSP label from the primary egress in the label
stack if the label is not implicit null. The backup egress delivers
the packets to the same destinations as the primary egress using the
backup LSP label as context label and the labels under as UA labels.
5.4.3. Signaling for S2L Sub LSP Protection
The S2L Sub LSP Protection uses a S2L Sub LSP (ref to RFC 4875) as a
backup LSP to protect a primary egress of a P2MP LSP. The PLR MUST
determine to protect a primary egress of a P2MP LSP via S2L sub LSP
protection when it receives a Path message with flag "S2L Sub LSP
Backup Desired" set.
The PLR MUST set up the backup S2L sub LSP to the backup egress,
create and maintain its state in the same way as of setting up a
source to leaf (S2L) sub LSP defined in RFC 4875 from the signaling's
point of view. It computes a path for the backup LSP from itself to
the backup egress, constructs and sends a Path message along the
path, receives and processes a Resv message responding to the Path
message.
After receiving the Resv message for the backup LSP, the PLR creates
a forwarding entry with an inactive state or flag called inactive
forwarding entry. This inactive forwarding entry is not used to
forward any data traffic during normal operations.
When the PLR detects the failure of the primary egress, it changes
the forwarding entry for the backup LSP to active. Thus, the PLR
forwards the traffic to the backup egress through the backup LSP,
which sends the traffic to its destination.
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
5.4.4. PLR Procedures during Local Repair
When the upstream node of a primary egress of an LSP as a PLR detects
the failure of the primary egress, it follows the procedures defined
in section 6.5 of RFC 4090. It SHOULD notify the ingress about the
failure of the primary egress in the same way as a PLR notifies the
ingress about the failure of a transit node.
Moreover, the PLR MUST let the upstream part of the primary LSP stay
after the primary egress fails through sending Resv message to its
upstream node along the primary LSP. The downstream part of the
primary LSP from the PLR to the primary egress SHOULD be removed.
When a bypass LSP from the PLR to a backup egress protects the
primary egress, the PLR MUST NOT send any Path message for the
primary LSP through the bypass LSP to the backup egress.
In the local revertive mode, the PLR will re-signal each of the
primary LSPs that were routed over the restored resource once it
detects that the resource is restored. Every primary LSP
successfully re-signaled along the restored resource will be switched
back.
6. Considering Application Traffic
This section focuses on the application traffic carried by P2P LSPs.
When a primary egress of a P2MP LSP fails, the application traffic
carried by the P2MP LSP is delivered to the same destination by the
backup egress since the inner label if any for the traffic is a
upstream assigned label for every egress of the P2MP LSP.
6.1. A Typical Application
L3VPN is a typical application. An existing solution (refer to
Figure 2) for protecting L3VPN traffic against egress failure
includes: 1) A multi-hop BFD session between ingress R1 and egress L1
of primary LSP; 2) A backup LSP from ingress R1 to backup egress La;
3) La sends R1 VPN backup label and related information via BGP; 4)
R1 has a VRF with two sets of routes: one uses primary LSP and L1 as
next hop; the other uses backup LSP and La as next hop.
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
***** *****
CE1,CE2 in [R2]-----[R3]-----[L1] **** Primary LSP
one VPN */ : \ &&&& Backup LSP
*/ .................: \ .... BFD Session
[CE1]--[R1] ..: [CE2]
&\ /
&\ /
[R4]-----[R5]-----[La](BGP sends R1 VPN backup label)
&&&&& &&&&&
Figure 2: Protect Egress for L3VPN Traffic
In normal operations, R1 sends the traffic from CE1 through primary
LSP with VPN label received from L1 as inner label to L1, which
delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN label.
When R1 detects the failure of L1, R1 sends the traffic from CE1 via
backup LSP with VPN backup label received from La as inner label to
La, which delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN backup label.
A new solution (refer to Figure 3) with egress local protection for
protecting L3VPN traffic includes: 1) A BFD session between R3 and
egress L1 of primary LSP; 2) A backup LSP from R3 to backup egress
La; 3) L1 sends La VPN label as UA label and related information; 4)
L1 and La is virtualized as one. This can be achieved by configuring
a same local address on L1 and La, using the address as a destination
of the LSP and BGP next hop for VPN traffic.
***** *****
CE1,CE2 in [R2]-----[R3]-----[L1] **** Primary LSP
one VPN */ &\:.....: \ &&&& Backup LSP
*/ &\ \ .... BFD Session
[CE1]--[R1] &\ [CE2]
&\ /
&\ /
[La](VPN label from L1 as UA label)
Figure 3: Locally Protect Egress for L3VPN Traffic
When R3 detects L1's failure, R3 sends the traffic from primary LSP
via backup LSP to La, which delivers the traffic to CE2 using VPN
label as UA label under the backup LSP label as a context label.
6.2. PLR Procedure for Applications
When the PLR gets a backup LSP from itself to a backup egress for
protecting a primary egress of a primary LSP, it includes an SERO
object in the Path message for the primary LSP. The object contains
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
the ID information of the backup LSP and indicates that the primary
egress sends the backup egress the application traffic label (e.g.,
VPN label) as UA label when needed.
6.3. Egress Procedures for Applications
When a primary egress of an LSP sends the ingress of the LSP a label
for an application such as a VPN, it sends the backup egress for
protecting the primary egress the label as a UA label. Exactly how
the label is sent is out of scope for this document.
When the backup egress receives a UA label from the primary egress,
it adds a forwarding entry with the label into the LFIB for the
primary egress. When the backup egress receives a packet from the
backup LSP, it uses the top label as a context label to find the LFIB
for the primary egress and the inner label to deliver the packet to
the same destination as the primary egress according to the LFIB.
7. Security Considerations
In principle this document does not introduce new security issues.
The security considerations pertaining to RFC 4090, RFC 4875 and
other RSVP protocols remain relevant.
Note that protecting a primary egress of a P2P LSP carrying service
traffic through a backup egress requires that the backup egress make
sure that the "primary egress" sending the backup egress the
information on a service label as UA label through another protocol
such as BGP is the same primary egress to be protected.
8. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry called "Class Names, Class Numbers, and
Class Types" under "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Parameters". IANA is to assign a new C-Type under
PROTECTION object class, Class Number 37:
o Egress Protection: C-Type 3
IANA is to create and maintain a new registry under PROTECTION object
class, Class Number 37, C-Type 3. Initial values for the registry
are given below. The future assignments are to be made through IETF
Review.
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
Value Name Definition
1 IPv4_PRIMARY_EGRESS Section 4.1.1
2 IPv6_PRIMARY_EGRESS Section 4.1.1
3 IPv4_P2P_LSP_ID Section 4.1.2
4 IPv6_P2P_LSP_ID Section 4.1.2
9. Co-authors and Contributors
1. Co-authors
Ning So
Tata
E-mail: ningso01@gmail.com
Mehmet Toy
Verizon
E-mail: mehmet.toy@verizon.com
Lei Liu
Fujitsu
E-mail: lliu@us.fujitsu.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
2. Contributors
Boris Zhang
Telus Communications
Email: Boris.Zhang@telus.com
Nan Meng
Huawei Technologies
Email: mengnan@huawei.com
Prejeeth Kaladharan
Huawei Technologies
Email: prejeeth@gmail.com
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
Vic Liu
China Mobile
Email: liu.cmri@gmail.com
10. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Richard Li, Nobo Akiya, Lou Berger,
Jeffrey Zhang, Lizhong Jin, Ravi Torvi, Eric Gray, Olufemi Komolafe,
Michael Yue, Daniel King, Rob Rennison, Neil Harrison, Kannan
Sampath, Yimin Shen, Ronhazli Adam and Quintin Zhao for their
valuable comments and suggestions on this draft.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5331>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[FRAMEWK] Shen, Y., Jeyananth, M., Decraene, B., and H. Gredler,
"MPLS Egress Protection Framework",
draft-shen-mpls-egress-protection-framework ,
October 2016.
Authors' Addresses
Huaimo Chen
Huawei Technologies
Boston, MA
USA
Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com
Autumn Liu
Ciena
USA
Email: hliu@ciena.com
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems
Email: tsaad@cisco.com
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RSVP LSP Egress Protection February 2018
Fengman Xu
Verizon
2400 N. Glenville Dr
Richardson, TX 75082
USA
Email: fengman.xu@verizon.com
Lu Huang
China Mobile
No.32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng District
Beijing, 100053
China
Email: huanglu@chinamobile.com
Chen, et al. Expires August 26, 2018 [Page 18]