Signaling RSVP-TE tunnels on a shared MPLS forwarding plane
draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-07-03
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
MPLS Working Group                                          H. Sitaraman
Internet-Draft                                                 V. Beeram
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: January 4, 2018                                       T. Parikh
                                                                 Verizon
                                                                 T. Saad
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            July 3, 2017

      Signaling RSVP-TE tunnels on a shared MPLS forwarding plane
             draft-sitaraman-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-01.txt

Abstract

   As the scale of MPLS RSVP-TE LSPs has grown, various implementation
   recommendations have been proposed to manage control plane state.
   However, the forwarding plane footprint of labels at a transit LSR
   has remained proportional to the total LSP state in the control
   plane.  This draft defines a mechanism to prevent the label space
   limit on an LSR from being a constraint to control plane scaling on
   that node.  It introduces the notion of pre-installed per TE link
   'pop labels' that are shared by MPLS RSVP-TE LSPs that traverse these
   links and thus significantly reducing the forwarding plane state
   required.  This couples the feature benefits of the RSVP-TE control
   plane with the simplicity of the Segment Routing MPLS forwarding
   plane.  This document also introduces the ability to mix different
   types of label operations along the path of the LSP, thereby allowing
   the ingress or an external controller to influence how to optimally
   place a LSP.

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 January 4, 2018.

Sitaraman, et al.        Expires January 4, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       RSVP-TE pop and forward tunnel            July 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   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
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Allocation of pop labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  RSVP-TE pop and forward tunnel setup  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Delegating label stack imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Stacking at the Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.1.1.  Stack to reach delegation hop . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.1.2.  Stack to reach egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Explicit Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.3.  Automatic Delegation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.3.1.  Effective Transport Label-Stack Depth (ETLD)  . . . .   9
   7.  Mixing pop and swap labels in a RSVP-TE tunnel  . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Construction of label stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Facility backup protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Link Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Node Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Quantifying pop labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.1.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.2.  Attribute Flags TLV: Pop Label . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
Show full document text