Reoptimization of Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Loosely Routed LSPs
draft-tsaad-mpls-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Tarek Saad , Rakesh Gandhi , Zafar Ali , Robert H. Venator , Yuji Kamite | ||
Last updated | 2014-04-16 (Latest revision 2014-03-10) | ||
Replaced by | draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-loose-path-reopt, draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-loose-path-reopt | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews | |||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | Call For Adoption By WG Issued | |
Document shepherd | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-tsaad-mpls-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-01
MPLS Working Group Tarek Saad, Ed. Internet-Draft Rakesh Gandhi, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track Zafar Ali Expires: September 11, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. Robert H. Venator Defense Information Systems Agency Yuji Kamite NTT Communications Corporation March 10, 2014 Reoptimization of Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Loosely Routed LSPs draft-tsaad-mpls-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-01 Abstract This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extensions for reoptimizing loosely routed Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in an Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. 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." Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs March 10, 2014 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Signaling Procedure For Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP Reoptimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. RSVP Signaling Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error sub-code . . . . 6 5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error sub-code . . . . 7 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs March 10, 2014 1. Introduction This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) signaling extensions for reoptimizing loosely routed Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC4875]. A P2MP-TE LSP is comprised of one or more source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSPs. A loosely routed P2MP-TE S2L sub-LSP is defined as one whose path does not contain the full explicit route identifying each node along the path to the egress node at the time of its signaling by the ingress node. Such an S2L sub-LSP is signaled with no Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC3209], or with an ERO that contains at least one loose hop, or with an ERO that contains an abstract node that is not a simple abstract node (that is, an abstract node that identifies more than one node). This is often the case with inter- domain P2MP-TE LSPs where Path Computation Element (PCE) is not used [RFC5440]. As per [RFC4875], an ingress node may reoptimize the entire P2MP-TE LSP by resignaling all its S2L sub-LSP(s) or may reoptimize individual S2L sub-LSP(s) i.e. individual destination(s). [RFC4736] defines RSVP signaling extensions for reoptimizing loosely routed P2P TE LSP(s). Specifically, an ingress node sends a "Path Re-evaluation Request" to a border node by setting a flag (0x20) in SESSION_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message. A border node sends a PathErr code 25 (notify error defined in [RFC3209]) with sub-code 6 to indicate "Preferable Path Exists" to the ingress node which may be solicited or unsolicited. The ingress node upon receiving this PathErr either solicited or unsolicited initiates reoptimization of the LSP. [RFC4736] does not define signaling extensions specific for reoptimizing entire P2MP-TE LSP tree. Mechanisms defined in [RFC4736] can be used for signaling the reoptimization of individual S2L sub- LSP(s). However, to use [RFC4736] mechanisms for reoptimizing an entire P2MP-TE LSP tree, an ingress node needs to send the query on all (typically 100s of) S2L sub-LSPs and a border node needs to notify PathErrs for all S2L sub-LSPs. Such requirement can lead to the following issues. - A border node has to accumulate the received queries on all S2L sub-LSPs (using a wait timer) and interpret them as a reoptimization request for the P2MP-TE LSP tree. A border node may prematurely notify "Preferable Path Exists" for a sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs. - When the ingress node gradually receives unsolicited PathErr Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs March 10, 2014 notifications for individual S2L sub-LSPs, it may prematurely start reoptimizing a sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs. However, as mentioned in [RFC4875] Section 14.2, such reoptimization procedure may result in data duplication that can be avoided if the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree is reoptimized, especially if the ingress node eventually receives PathErr notifications for all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP tree. - The ingress node may have to heuristically determine when to perform entire P2MP-TE LSP tree reoptimization versus per S2L sub-LSP reoptimization, for example, to delay reoptimization long enough time to accumulate all PathErr(s) to be received. Such requirements may produce undesired results due to timing related issues which can be easily avoided by the RSVP signaling messages defined in this document. This document defines RSVP signaling extensions to query and notify a preferable path for reoptimizing loosely routed P2MP-TE LSP tree. 2. Terminology ABR: Area Border Router. ERO: Explicit Route Object. TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path. TE LSP ingress: head/source of the TE LSP. TE LSP egress: tail/destination of the TE LSP. S2L: Source-to-leaf. Interior Gateway Protocol Area (IGP Area): OSPF Area or IS-IS level. Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least two different IGP areas. Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least two different Autonomous Systems (ASes) or sub-ASes (BGP confederations). 2.1. 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 [RFC2119]. The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in [RFC4875] and [RFC4736]. Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs March 10, 2014 3. Signaling Procedure For Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP Reoptimization As per [RFC4875], an ingress node may prefer to reoptimize the entire P2MP-TE LSP by resignaling all its S2L sub-LSP(s) (Section 14.1, "Make-before- Break") or reoptimize individual S2L sub-LSP(s) i.e. individual destination(s) (Section 14.2 "Sub-Group-Based Re- Optimization"). An ingress node uses procedures defined in [RFC4736] to individually reoptimize the S2L sub-LSP(s) i.e. destination(s) of a P2MP-TE LSP. To reoptimize an entire P2MP-TE LSP tree, in order to query border nodes to check if a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree exists, an ingress node sends a Path message with "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" defined in this document. An ingress node may select one or more S2L sub-LSP of the P2MP-TE LSP tree transiting through the border node to send the query to that border node. A border node receiving the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" checks for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree by re-evaluating loosely expanded paths for all S2L sub-LSP(s) of the P2MP-TE LSP. If a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, the border node immediately sends an RSVP PathErr to the ingress node with Error code 25 (Notify defined in [RFC3209] and Error sub-code defined in this document "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists". At this point, the border node does not propagate this bit in subsequent RSVP Path messages sent downstream for the re-evaluated P2MP-TE LSP. The sending of an RSVP PathErr Notify message "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" to the ingress node will notify the ingress node of the existence of a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree. If no preferable path for P2MP-TE LSP tree can be found, the recommended mode is for the border node to relay the request downstream by setting the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" bit in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES TLV of RSVP Path message. A border node may send "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" with PathErr code 25 to the ingress node to notify an existence of a preferred path for the P2MP-TE LSP tree with an unsolicited PathErr message. The border node may select one or more S2L sub-LSP(s) of the P2MP-TE LSP tree to send this PathErr message to the ingress node. Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs March 10, 2014 4. RSVP Signaling Extensions 4.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag In order to query border nodes to check if a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree exists, a new flag is defined in Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object [RFC5420] as follows: Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA): P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request flag The "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag is meaningful in a Path message of a P2MP-TE S2L sub-LSP and is inserted by the ingress node. 4.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error sub-code In order to indicate to an ingress node that a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is available, following new sub-code for PathErr code 25 (Notify Error) [RFC3209] is defined: Sub-code (to be assigned by IANA): Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists sub-code When a preferable path for P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, the border node sends a solicited or unsolicited "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" PathErr notification to the ingress node of the P2MP-TE LSP. 5. Compatibility The LSP_ATTRIBUTES TLV has been defined in [RFC5420] with class numbers in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this extension will ignore the new flag defined in this document but forward it without modification. 6. Security Considerations This document does not introduce any additional security issues above those identified in [RFC3209] and [RFC4875]. Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 6] Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs March 10, 2014 7. IANA Considerations IANA maintains a name space for RSVP-TE TE parameters "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters". From the registries in this name space "Attribute Flags" allocation of new flag is requested (Section 4.1). IANA also maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters". From the sub- registry "Sub-Codes - 25 Notify Error" in registry "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" allocation of a new error code is requested (Section 4.2). 7.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag The following new flag is defined for the Attributes Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object [RFC5420]. The numeric values are to be assigned by IANA. o P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag: - Bit Number: To be assigned by IANA. - Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes - Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No 7.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error sub-code As defined in [RFC3209], the Error Code 25 in the ERROR SPEC object corresponds to a Notify Error PathErr. This document adds a new sub- code as follows for this PathErr: o Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists sub-code: - Sub-code for Notify PathErr code 25. To be assigned by IANA. 8. Acknowledgments TBA. Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 7] Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs March 10, 2014 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. 9.2. Informative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y. and Zhang, R, "Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, November 2006. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 8] Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs March 10, 2014 Author's Addresses Tarek Saad (editor) Cisco Systems Email: tsaad@cisco.com Rakesh Gandhi (editor) Cisco Systems Email: rgandhi@cisco.com Zafar Ali Cisco Systems Email: zali@cisco.com Robert H. Venator Defense Information Systems Agency Email: robert.h.venator.civ@mail.mil Yuji Kamite NTT Communications Corporation Email: y.kamite@ntt.com Saad, et al. Expires September 11, 2014 [Page 9]