Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-03-11
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)
INTERNET-DRAFT                                              Mingui Zhang
Intended status: Proposed Standard                             Peng Zhou
                                                         Donald Eastlake
                                                              Russ White
Expires: September 10, 2019                               March 11, 2019

                  Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection


   This document describes a method to be used by VPN (Virtual Private
   Network) Service Providers to provide multi-homed CEs with fast
   protection of egress PEs. Egress PEs in a redundant group always
   share the same label in distribution of VPN routes of a VRF. A
   virtual Next Hop (vNH) in the IGP/MPLS backbone is created as the
   common end of LSP tunnels which would otherwise terminate at each
   egress PE. Primary and backup LSP tunnels ended at the vNH are set up
   by MPLS on the basis of existing Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Fast
   ReRoute (FRR) mechanisms. If the primary egress PE fails, the backup
   egress PE can recognize the "shared" VPN route label carried by the
   data packets.  Therefore, the failure affected data packets can be
   smoothly rerouted to the backup PE for delivery without changing
   their VPN route label.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
   to the authors or the TRILL working group mailing list:

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft
   Shadow Directories can be accessed at

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

Table of Contents

      1. Introduction............................................3
      1.1 Overview...............................................3
      1.3 Terminology............................................4

      2. The Virtual Next Hop....................................5
      3. Link Costs Set Up for IGP FRR...........................6
      4. The LSP Tunnels.........................................8

      5. The VPN Route Label.....................................9
      5.1. Sharing the VPN Route Label...........................9
      5.1.1 Option A: Reserved Label Ranges per RG...............9
      5.1.2 Option B: The Label Swapping Table..................10
      5.2 Binding to LSP Tunnels................................10

      6. Examples To Walk Through...............................11
      6.1 Label Distribution Procedure..........................11
      6.2 Protection Procedure..................................11

      7. Operations.............................................12
      7.1 Label Space Management for Option A...................12
      7.2 Backup LSP Tunnel Exceptions..........................12

      8. Security Considerations................................13
      9. IANA Considerations....................................13


      Normative References......................................13
      Informative References....................................14

      Appendix A: Generating OSPF LSAs..........................15
      Appendix B: Generating IS-IS LSPs.........................17

      Authors' Addresses........................................20

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

1. Introduction

   For the sake of reliability, ISPs often connect one CE (Customer
   Edge) device to multiple PE (Provider Edge) devices. When the primary
   egress PE fails, a backup egress PE continues to offer VPN
   connectivity to the CE. If local repair is performed by the upstream
   neighbor of the primary egress PE on the data path, it's possible to
   achieve a 50 msec switchover.

   VPN (Virtual Private Network) routes learnt from CEs are distributed
   by egress PEs to ingress PEs that need to know these VPN routes.
   Egress PEs in a redundant group (RG) MUST advertise the same VPN
   route label for routes of the same VPN. When the primary egress PE
   fails, data packets are redirected to a backup egress PE by the PLR
   (Point of Local Repair) router, the backup PE can recognize the VPN
   route label in these data packets and deliver them correctly. The
   method developed in this document is called "Label Sharing for Fast
   PE Protection".

1.1 Overview

         +---+ |  +---+    +--+    +---+ M          |
         |CE1+----+PE1+----+P1+----+PE3+-------+    |
         +---+ |  +-+-+    +-++    +---+   1100|    |
               |    |        |       |       +-+-+  | +---+
               |    |        |       |       +vNH+----+CE2|
               |    |        |       |       +-+-+  | +---+
         +---+ |  +-+-+    +-++    +---+   1100|    |
         |CE3+----+PE2+----+P2+----+PE4+-------+    |
         +---+ |  +---+    +--+    +---+ S          |
               |                                    |
               |     IGP/MPLS Backbone Network      |

     Figure 1.1: Egress PE routers share the same VPN route label 1100

   An example topology is shown in Figure 1.1. Let PE1 and PE2 be
   ingress routers, and let PE3 and PE4 be egress routers. CE2 is
   connected to both PE3 and PE4 so they form an Redundant Group (RG).
   Usually, egress PEs may be configured to be in the same RG or
   discover each other from the CE routes learning process which can be
   a dynamic routing algorithm or a static routing configuration
   [RFC4364]. Suppose PE3 is the primary while PE4 is the backup. For
   topologies with more than two egress PEs in an RG, one PE acts as the
   primary while others act as backups.

   A vNH (virtual Next Hop) node is created in the backbone. The primary

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

   PE allocates a loopback IP address to vNH (say Instead of
   the egress PEs, vNH acts as the common end node of LSP tunnels which
   otherwise would end at egress PEs. The metrics ('M' and 'S') for the
   links between egress PEs and vNH are set up in a way that the primary
   and backup LSP tunnels to vNH respectively use PE3 and PE4 as the
   penultimate hop.

   Egress PEs in an RG MUST advertise the same VPN route label for each
   VPN connected to this RG. When a route is learn from CE2 (say
   10.9.8/24), PE3 and PE4 will distribute this route to other PEs
   sharing the same label (say 1100). In this way, when the primary PE
   fails, the VPN route label carried with the rerouted data packets
   need not be changed. It can be recognized by the backup PE as well.

   This document supposes a BGP/MPLS IP VPN [RFC4364] is deployed in the
   backbone and a Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) is used to
   distribute MPLS labels. The approach developed in this document
   confines changes to routers in an RG. Provider and PE routers outside
   of this RG are totally oblivious to these changes.

   1.2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
   when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

1.3 Terminology

   CE: Customer Edge device, e.g., a host or network.

   FEC: Forwarding Equivalency Class

   FRR: Fast ReRoute [RFC7812]

   LFA: Loop-Free Alternate [RFC6571]

   LSP: Label Switched Path

   PE: Provider Edge

   PLR: Point of Local Repair

   RG: Redundant Group. A Redundant Group of Provider Edge nodes (PEs)
      to which a set of CEs are multi-homed.

   VRF: Virtual Routing and Forwarding table [RFC4364]

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

2. The Virtual Next Hop

   A virtual router (the virtual Next Hop, vNH) is created in the IGP to
   represent the Redundant Group (RG) in the Service Provider's
   backbone. For other routers in the backbone, the vNH acts as the
   common egress PE connecting a set of CEs. Multiple vNHs may be
   created for one RG.  Then multiple paths can be computed from ingress
   PEs to the vNHs.  Ingress PEs can choose from these paths to achieve
   load balance for the CEs.

   Service Providers may configure one PE to be the primary when an RG
   is created. The primary PE may also be automatically elected out of
   the RG in the same way the Designated Routed is selected in OSPF (see
   section 7.3 of [RFC2328]) or the Designated Intermediate System is
   selected in [IS-IS]. Other PEs in the RG will act as backup ones.
   This primary PE determines the loopback IP address for the vNH. This
   loopback IP address can be configured manually or assigned
   automatically. The SystemID of the vNH under IS-IS is composed based
   on this loopback IP address. The primary PE generates the router link
   state information (LSA/LSP) on behalf of the vNH. Links to each PE
   and each CE in the group are included in the router link state
   information PDUs of the PE and CE.

   The overload mode MUST be set in the vNH's link state so that the
   rest of the routers in the network will not route transit traffic
   through the vNH. In OSPF, the overload mode can be set up through
   setting the link weights from the vNH to egress PEs to the maximum
   link weight which is 0xFFFF. In IS-IS, this overload mode is realized
   as setting the overload bit in the LSP of the vNH. (See Appendix A
   and B for the detail set up of LSAs/LSPs.)

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

3. Link Costs Set Up for IGP FRR

             |<------ Sxy3-------->|

             |                      | \ M
             |                      |  \
            Pxy                  C34|   vNH
             |                      |  /
             |                      | / S

             |<------ Sxy4-------->|

                   Figure 3: Illustration of equations.

   If the IGP costs for the links between egress PEs and the vNH can be
   set up in a way that one egress PE appears on the primary path while
   the other PE appears on the backup path, the PLR can make use of the
   multiple egress PEs to achieve fast failure protection. Link weights
   can be set up according to the following rule in order to leverage
   the well supported LFA [RFC6571] as the IGP (Interior Gateway
   Protocol) FRR (Fast ReRoute [RFC7812]) mechanism.

   1. This document supposes bidirectional link weights are being used.
      As illustrated in Figure 3, assume the weight for the link between
      PE3 and vNH is "M" and the weight for the link between PE4 and vNH
      is "S". The weight for the link between PE3 and PE4 is C34.

   2. Px is a neighbor of PE3. This Px will act as the PLR. Suppose Pxy
      is Px's neighbor with the shortest path to PE4, after PE3 is
      removed from the topology. The cost of this path is Sxy4.

   3. Add PE3 back to the topology. The cost of the path from Pxy to PE3
      is Sxy3.

   4. "M" and "S" can be set up as long as the following two equations

                        eq1: Sxy4+S < Sxy3+M

                        eq2: C34+S > M

      The eq1 guarantees that Pxy is safe to be used as the next hop by
      the PLR for bypass, i.e., no loop occurs. The eq2 is designed to
      insure that the primary path does not go through the primary
      egress PE and backup egress PE in series.

   Although this document designs the method based on Loop Free
   Alternative (LFA [RFC6571]), which is widely deployed, other IGP FRR

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

   [RFC7812] mechanisms can also be utilized to achieve the same
   protection. For example, maximally redundant trees [RFC7812] can be
   applicable regardless of how the link weights are set up.

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

4. The LSP Tunnels

   Egress PEs use the IP address of the vNH to identify the FEC. Its
   LSPs are set up using LDP on basis of IGP routes with vNH as the last

    - The primary LSP tunnel follows the IGP route from ingress PEs to
      the vNH;

    - The backup LSP tunnel is set up according to existing IGP FRR
      [RFC7812] calculation, such as maximally redundant trees [RFC7812]
      or LFA [RFC6571].

   Data packets are tunneled through the backbone using a "tunnel label"
   at the top of the label stack. Egress PEs will not really transmit a
   packet to the tunnel end node vNH. Rather, they need to locally
   deliver the packet. It can be interpreted that at the egress PE, the
   packet's next hop is the egress PE itself (see Section 3.10 of
   [RFC3031]). The tunnel label will be popped at the egress PE. The
   tunnel label at the top of the stack indicates popping since this is
   a label assigned to the FEC identified by the PE's loopback IP
   address. Next, there will be a pop of the VPN route label followed by
   an address lookup in the VRF. Section 5 will explain how to set the
   VPN route label to use these LSP tunnels to achieve the egress PE

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

5. The VPN Route Label

5.1. Sharing the VPN Route Label

   In [RFC4364], egress PEs separately allocate and distribute the label
   for the route to an address prefix they learn from CEs. In this
   document, it's REQUIRED that backup PE(s) in an RG always advertises
   the label already advertised by the primary PE for the address prefix
   in question. The primary PE RG SHOULD distribute the same label for
   any address prefix in an attached VPN. This is per VRF label sharing.
   Others granularities, such as per address family per VRF label
   sharing, are also feasible.

   Egress PEs continue to locally allocate VPN route labels so that the
   proposal need not modify existing forwarding processes of L3VPN
   egress PEs. At the backup egress PE, the allocated label and the
   distributed label would be inconsistent. The following two options
   address this issue.

5.1.1 Option A: Reserved Label Ranges per RG

   PEs in an RG are physically connected to the same set of CEs. It's
   viable for them to allocate the same VPN route label per VPN. For
   each VPN served by an RG, the backup egress PE always allocates the
   same label as the primary PE. It acts as a "compromised" network
   entity which always listens to the label advertised by the primary
   then allocates and also distributed the same label. By doing this,
   they are intimating the VPN route label allocation of the virtual
   node, vNH.

   For this option, PEs in an RG are REQUIRED to reserve the same label
   range(s) for allocation at the management plane. PEs with hardware-
   set disjoint label ranges are not qualified for this option. This
   option SHOULD only be used in well managed and highly monitored
   networks.  It's not intended to be applicable when the RG spans more
   than one administrative domain. It ought not to be deployed on or
   over the public Internet.

   Note that if one PE participates in multiple RGs, a label range
   reserved for one RG can't be used by another RG on this PE. It
   increases the consumption of labels on this PE. So this option should
   be deployed with care in that case.

   The architecture of the label sharing method allows a "higher-layer"
   entity to allocate labels for all PEs across all RGs. This document
   leaves this choice for future study.

M. Zhang, et al                                                 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

5.1.2 Option B: The Label Swapping Table

                              |1100| 30 |
                              |1101| 31 |
                              |1102| 32 |
                                 .    .
                                 .    .
                                 .    .

                  Figure 5.1.2: The label swapping table

   In the inter-AS L3VPN Option B defined in Section 10 of [RFC4364],
   when an ASBR distributes a VPN route to an ASBR in another AS, it
   needs to perform a label swap for this route. Similarly, the backup
   PE in this proposal uses a label swapping table to record the mapping
   between advertised labels and locally assigned labels for VPN routes.
   Obviously, the backup PE needs to maintain one such table per RG.
   Whenever a data packet to a route in a VPN attached to the RG arrives
   at the backup PE, the locally assigned label (e.g., 30) obtained from
   the swapping will be used in the VPN route label lookup followed by
   an address lookup.

5.2 Binding to LSP Tunnels

   When the VPN route with a shared label is distributed to other PEs by
   the primary PE and backup PEs, the BGP next hop is set to the IP
   address of the vNH. As specified in Section 4, LSP tunnels are set up
   for the FEC also identified by the IP address of the vNH. By doing
   this, the VPN route is bound to these LSP tunnels. When data packets
   to this VPN route are tunneled through the backbone, these LSP
   tunnels will offer protection.

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

6. Examples To Walk Through

   Two examples are included in this section using the topology in
   Figure 1.1.  The first one describes how to distribute a VPN route
   label to peers.  It's westbound in the control plane. The second one
   interprets how an egress PE acts in the case of the primary PE
   failure. It's eastbound in the data plane.

6.1 Label Distribution Procedure

   Assume PE3 is elected as the primary while PE4 is the backup. The
   loopback IP address of vNH is

   1) PE3 learns the VPN route to address prefix 10.9.8/24 from CE2. It
      allocates the VPN route label 1100 and distributes it in BGP with as the BGP Next Hop. (prefix = 10.9.8/24|label =
      1100|BGP Next Hop =

   2) PE4 also learns the VPN route to address prefix 10.9.8/24 and
      allocate the VPN route label 30. It then waits for the primary PE3
      to advertise the VPN route label for this prefix.

   3) PE4 monitors the VPN route label 1100 from PE3 for the prefix
      10.9.8/24. The mapping from 1100 to 30 is inserted to the swapping

   4) PE4 distributes the VPN route using the monitored label 1100.
      (prefix = 10.9.8/24|label = 1100|BGP Next Hop =

6.2 Protection Procedure

   Suppose the label for the primary LSP tunnel to vNH is 2100 while the
   backup LSP tunnel to vNH is 3100. P1 is the PLR.

   1) In normal case, P1 sends data packets with tunnel label 2100 to
      PE3. When PE3 fails, P1 redirects data packets to the backup LSP
      tunnel (say P2-PE4-vNH) using tunnel label 3100.

   2) PE4 will receive a packet with two levels of labels. It pops the
      outer label 3100 and use this label to identify a swapping table.

   3) PE4 pops the VPN route label and looks up the swapping table. The
      VPN route label 1100 is mapped to 30.

   4) The VPN route label 30 is looked up in the VPN route label table
      followed by an address lookup in the VRF.

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

7. Operations

7.1 Label Space Management for Option A

   A label range should be reserved before an RG is made operational.
   Operators need to set a large label sharing space to reserve for
   label ranges. When an RG is created, the operator needs reserve a
   unused label range for it. The label range should be reserved in a
   manner of "enough is enough". If a label range of an RG is becomes
   exhausted, the operator can reserve a new range from the unused label
   sharing space. The newly reserved range is then appended to the one
   being exhausted.

   If a backup PE is partitioned from the primary PE, it continues to
   work with those allocated labels for the RG. However, it MUST NOT
   allocate any more labels in the reserved ranges. A label in a
   reserved range can only be allocated by a backup PE when it monitors
   that the primary PE has distributed this label.

   When a primary PE resumes from a failure, its reserved label ranges
   are again available to it. It SHOULD conserve the labels it allocated
   for each range.

7.2 Backup LSP Tunnel Exceptions

   The label sharing method requires that the backup LSP tunnel is set
   up as specified in Section 4, following the IGP route. However,
   Service Providers are allowed to have exceptions. For instance, an
   operator may use BGP Local_Pref to give a higher degree of preference
   to the route advertised by the primary PE. For another instance, the
   operator may have the primary PE advertise a more specific prefix.
   In Figure 1.1, for example, the backup tunnel actually goes through
   PE4->PE3->CE2 for both instances. When the VPN route is bound to this
   tunnel, it does not protect the primary egress PE. An alarm should be
   generated to notify the operator that such configuration will
   jeopardize the VPN route's resilience to egress PE node failure.

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

8. Security Considerations


9. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: please remove
   this section before publication.


   Authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from Bruno
   Decraene, Eric Rosen, Eric Gray, Jakob Heitz, James Uttaro, Jeff
   Tantsura, Loa Andersson, Nagendra Kumar, Robert Raszuk, Stewart
   Bryant, Shunwan Zhuang, Wim Henderickx, and Zhenbin Li.

Normative References

   [IS-IS]   ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing
             information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
             the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
             Service (ISO 8473)," ISO/IEC 10589:2002.

   [RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
             for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets:MIB-II",
             STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.

   [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-

   [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, DOI
             10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
             Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI
             10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, <https://www.rfc-

   [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
             Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

   [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
             Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008,

   [RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Ed., Francois, P., Ed., Shand, M., Decraene,
             B., Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
             Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
             Networks", RFC 6571, June 2012.

   [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119
             Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May
             2017, <>.

Informative References

   [RFC7812] Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and G. Enyedi, "An Architecture for
             IP/LDP Fast Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-
             FRR)", RFC 7812, DOI 10.17487/RFC7812, June 2016,

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

Appendix A: Generating OSPF LSAs

   The following Type 1 Router-LSA is flooded by the egress PE with the
   highest priority. As specified in [RFC2328], this LSA can only be
   flooded throughout a single area.

       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
      |            LS age             |     Options   |    LS type    |
      |                        Link State ID                          |
      |                     Advertising Router                        |
      |                     LS sequence number                        |
      |         LS checksum           |             length            |
      |    0    |V|E|B|        0      |            # links            |
      |                          Link ID                              |
      |                         Link Data                             |
      |     Type      |     # TOS     |            metric             |
      |                              ...                              |
      |      TOS      |        0      |          TOS  metric          |
      |                          Link ID                              |
      |                         Link Data                             |
      |                              ...                              |

      LS age
         The time in seconds since the LSA was originated. (Set to 0x708
         (a half an hour) by default.)

         As defined in [RFC2328], options = (E-bit).

      LS type

      Link State ID
         Same as the Advertising Router

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

      Advertising Router
         The Router ID of the vNH.

      LS sequence number
         As defined in [RFC2328].

      LS checksum
         As defined and computed in [RFC2328].

         The length in bytes of the LSA. This includes the 20 byte LSA
         header. (As defined and computed in [RFC2328].)

         As defined in [RFC2328], set its value to 000.

         The number of router links described in this LSA. It equals to
         the number of Egress PEs in the RG.

      The following fields are used to describe each router link
      connected to an egress PE. Each router link is typed as Type 1
      Point-to-point connection to another router.

      Link ID
         The Router ID of one of the egress PEs in the RG.

      Link Data
         It specifies the interface's MIB-II [RFC1213] ifIndex value. It
         ranges between 1 and the value of ifNumber. The ifNumber equals
         to the number of the PEs in the RG. The PE with the highest
         priority sorts the PEs according to their unsigned integer
         Router ID in the ascend order and assigns the ifIndex for each.

         Value 1 is used, indicating the router link is a point-to-point
         connection to another router.

      # TOS
         This field is set to 0 for this version.

         It is set to 0xFFFF.

   The fields used here to describe the virtual router links are also
   included in the Router-LSA of each egress PEs. The Link ID is
   replaced with the Router ID of the vNH. The Link Data specifies the
   interface's MIB-II [RFC1213] ifIndex value. The "Metric" field is set
   as defined in Section 3.

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

Appendix B: Generating IS-IS LSPs

   The primary egress PE generates the following level 1 LSP to describe
   the vNH node.

                                          No. of octets
            | Intradomain Routeing    |     1
            | Protocol Discriminator  |
            | Length Indicator        |     1
            | Version/Protocol ID     |     1
            | Extension               |
            | ID Length               |     1
            |R|R|R| PDU Type          |     1
            | Version                 |     1
            | Reserved                |     1
            | Maximum Area Address    |     1
            | PDU Length              |     2
            | Remaining Lifetime      |     2
            | LSP ID                  |     ID Length + 2
            | Sequence Number         |     4
            | Checksum                |     2
            |P|ATT|LSPDBOL|IS Type    |     1
            : Variable Length Fields  :     Variable

   Intradomain Routeing Protocol Discriminator - 0x83 (as specified in

   Length Indicator - Length of the Fixed Header in octets

   Version/Protocol ID Extension - 1

   ID Length - As defined in [IS-IS]

   PDU Type (bits 1 through 5) - 18

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

   Version - 1

   Reserved - transmitted as zero, ignored on receipt

   Maximum Area Address - same as the primary egress PE

   PDU Length - Entire Length of this PDU, in octets, including the

   Remaining Lifetime - Number of seconds before this LSP is considered
   expired. (Set to 0x384 (fifteen minutes) by default.)

   LSP ID - the system ID of the source of the LSP. It is structured as

         | Source ID               |     6
         | Pseudonode ID           |     1
         | LSP Number              |     1

   Source ID - SystemID of the vNH

   Pseudonode ID - Transmitted as zero

   LSP Number -  Fragment number

   Sequence Number - sequence number of this LSP (as defined in [IS-IS])

   Checksum - As defined and computed in [IS-IS]

   P - Bit 8 - 0

   ATT - Bit 7-4 - 0

   LSDBOL - Bit 3 - 1

   IS Type - Bit 1 and 2 - bit 1 set, indicating the vNH is a Level 1
   Intermediate System

   In the Variable Length Field, each link outgoing from the vNH to an
   egress PE is depicted by a Type #22 Extended Intermediate System
   Neighbors TLV [RFC5305]. The egress PE is identified by the 6 octets
   SystemID plus one octet of all-zero pseudonode number. The 3 octets
   metric is set as that in Section 3. No sub-TLVs are used by this
   version, therefore the value of the one octet length of sub-TLVs is
   0. The Type #22 TLV requires 11 octets.

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

   The Type #22 TLV is also included in the LSP of each egress PE to
   depict the incoming link of the vNH but in this case the 6 octets
   SystemID is replaced with the SystemID of the vNH.

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

Authors' Addresses

      Mingui Zhang
      Huawei Technologies
      No.156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District,
      Beijing 100095 P.R. China


      Peng Zhou
      Huawei Technologies
      No.156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District,
      Beijing 100095 P.R. China


      Donald Eastlake, 3rd
      Huawei Technologies
      1424 Pro Shop Court
      Davenport, FL 33896 USA

      phone: 1-508-333-2270

      Russ White
      12061 Bluemont Way
      Reston, VA 20190 USA


M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT                      Label Sharing for Fast PE Protection

Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions

   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
   ( 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.

M. Zhang, et al                                                [Page 21]