MPLS Working Group Z. Ali, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track N. Neate
Expires: September 8, 2009 Data Connection Ltd
March 9, 2009
Signaling RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs in an Inter-domain Environment
draft-ali-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain
material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or
made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining
an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright
in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the
IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be
created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it
for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
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-
Drafts.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 08, 2009.
Abstract
Point-to-MultiPoint (P2MP) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE
LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques described in
[RFC4875]. However, [RFC4875] does not address issues that arise
when a P2MP-TE LSP is signaled in multi-domain networks.
Specifically, it does not provide a mechanism to avoid re-merges in
inter-domain P2MP TE LSPs. This document provides a framework and
protocol extensions for establishing and controlling P2MP MPLS and
GMPLS TE LSPs in multi-domain networks.
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
This document borrows inter-domain TE terminology from [RFC4726],
e.g., for the purposes of this document, a domain is considered to be
any collection of network elements within a common sphere of address
management or path computational responsibility. Examples of such
domains include Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas and Autonomous
Systems (ASes).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. SIBLING_S2L object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Grafting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Crankback and Path Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
1. Introduction
[RFC4875] describes how to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) for use in MultiProtocol
Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.
As with all other RSVP controlled LSPs, P2MP LSP state is managed
using RSVP messages. While the use of RSVP messages is mostly
similar to their P2P counterpart, P2MP LSP state differs from P2P LSP
in a number of ways. In particular, the P2MP LSP must also handle
the "re-merge" problem described in [RFC4875] section 18.
The term "re-merge" refers to the situation when two S2L sub-LSPs
branch at some point in the P2MP tree, and then intersect again at a
another node further down the tree. This may occur due to
discrepencies in the routing algorithms used by different nodes,
errors in path calculation or manual configuration, or network
topology changes during the establishment of the P2MP LSP. Such re-
merges are inefficient due to the unnecessary duplication of data.
Consequently one of the requirements for signaling P2MP LSPs is
choose a P2MP path that is re-merge free. In some deployments, it
may also be required to signal P2MP LSPs that are both re-merge and
crossover free [RFC4875].
This requirement becomes more acute to address when P2MP LSP spans
multiple domains. For the purposes of this document, a domain is
considered to be any collection of network elements within a common
sphere of address management or path computational responsibility.
Examples of such domains include Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP)
areas and Autonomous Systems (ASes). This is because in an inter-
domain environment, the ingress node may not have topological
visibility into other domains to be able to compute and signal a re-
merge free P2MP LSP. In that case, the border node for a new domain
will be given one or more loose next hops for the P2MP LSP. When
processing a path message, it may not have knowledge of all of the
destinations of the P2MP LSP, either because S2L sub-LSPs are split
between multiple Path messages, or because not all S2L sub-LSPs pass
through this border node. In that case, existing protocol mechanisms
do not provide sufficient information for it to be able to expand the
loose hop(s) in such a way that the overall P2MP path is guaranteed
to be optimal and re-merge free.
This document proposes a simple extension to provide border nodes
with sufficient information about the P2MP LSP to be able to expand
EROs for individual S2L sub-LSPs such that overall P2MP LSP is re-
merge free. Specifically, this document defines a mechanism for
including a list of addresses in a Path message sent to a border
node, each of which is the next ERO hop address for an S2L sub-LSP
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
that is not itself included in the Path message. The border node can
then compute a P2MP route for the complete P2MP LSP even when
signaling just a subset of the S2L sub-LSPs, thus guaranteeing that
the final P2MP path is optimal and re-merge free within that domain.
The need for finding an end-to-end path that is re-merge free also
increases chances of crankbacks during setting up P2MP LSPs as
compared to their P2P counterparts. Nonetheless, crankback
mechanisms for P2MP LSPs are not addressed by [RFC4875]. This
document also describes how crankback signaling extensions for MPLS
and GMPLS RSVP-TE defined in [RFC4920] apply to setting up P2MP TE
LSPs.
The solution also does not guarantee optimization of the overall P2MP
tree across all domains. PCE can be used, instead, to address
optimization of the overall P2MP tree [REFERENCE NOT FOUND].
1.1. 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 RFC-2119.
2. Framework
TBA
3. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
This section describes the signaling extensions required to address
the above-mentioned functionality.
3.1. SIBLING_S2L object
The SIBLING_S2L object is signaled in RSVP-TE Path messages and
describes related addresses for Sibling S2L sub-LSPs that should be
considered when doing loose ERO hop expansion.
3.1.1. Format
The IPv4 SIBLING_S2L object (Class = TBA, C-Type = TBA) has the
format:
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address of the border node |
| IPv4 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP 1 |
| IPv4 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP 2 |
| IPv4 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP 1 |
// //
| IPv4 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP last |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
0x01 IPv4 address
Length
The Length contains the total length of the object in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is variable
depending on the addresses in the list.
IPv4 address of the border node
IPv4 address of the target border node, where ERO extension for
this and related S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP LSP is desired. This
address MUST match one of the IPv4 addresses contained in the ERO
with L flag.
IPv4 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP x
IPv4 address of a node on another sibling S2L sub-LSP x, which is
signaled in a separate Path message but which also require ERO
extension at the border node contained in IPv4 address of the
border node field. Together this list contains all addresses on a
given P2MP LSP to which the border node needs to expand the EROs.
The IPv6 SIBLING_S2L object (Class = TBA, C-Type = TBA) has the
format:
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address of the border node |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP 1 |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP 2 |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP 1 |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
| IPv6 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP last |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
0x02 IPv6 address
Length
The Length contains the total length of the object in bytes,
including the Type and Length fields. The Length is variable
depending on the addresses in the list.
IPv6 address of the border node
IPv6 address of the target border node, where ERO extension for
this and related S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP LSP is desired. This
address MUST match one of the IPv6 addresses contained in the ERO
with L flag.
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
IPv6 address from related sibling S2L sub-LSP x
IPv6 address of a node on another sibling S2L sub-LSP x, which is
signaled in a separate Path message but which also require ERO
extension at the border node contained in IPv6 address of the
border node field. Together this list contains all addresses on a
given P2MP LSP to which the border node needs to expand the EROs.
3.1.2. Processing
3.1.2.1. Multiple S2L Sub-LSPs in Each Path Message
When multiple S2L sub-LSPs are carried in each Path message it is
RECOMMENDED that P2MP LSP is partitioned in such a way that the Path
message to a border node, where ERO expansion is desired, contains
all S2Ls of the P2MP LSP that transit through that domain. This
provides the border node with information about all the loose ERO
hops it needs to expand.
It may be that signaling all those S2L sub-LSPs in the same Path
message is not possible because doing so would exceed the size limit
for the message, or because not all S2L sub-LSPs enter the domain
through the same border node. Procedures to handle those cases will
be addressed in a later version of this document.
3.1.2.2. Single S2L Sub-LSP in Each Path Message
When each Path message contains only one S2L sub-LSP, the following
procedures MAY be followed to achieve ERO expansion in a re-merge
free and a more cost effective manner. As specified in [RFC3209],
loose hops are listed in the ERO object of the RSVP Path message with
the L flag of the IPv4 or the IPv6 prefix sub-object set. When the
ERO in the Path message of a P2MP LSP contains a loose hop, the Path
message MAY (optionally) contain a SIBLING_S2L object for each loose
hop specified in the ERO.
3.2. Grafting
Grafting for an S2L sub-LSP is achieved by the ingress node signaling
it with the same P2MP ID and LSP ID, via existing or new border nodes
with loose hop expansion. If an existing border node is used along
the path, the border node locally finds how ERO expansions for other
siblings of the P2MP LSP transiting through this border node is done
and expands the route of new S2L such that it's re-merge free.
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
3.3. Crankback and Path Error
Crankback procedures for rerouting around failures for P2P RSVP-TE
LSPs are defined in [RFC4920]. These techniques can also be applied
to P2MP LSPs, as decribed in this section.
It is RECOMMENDED that boundary re-routing or segment-based re-
routing is requested for P2MP LSPs traversing multiple domains. This
is because border nodes that are expanding loose hops are typically
best placed to correct any re-merge errors that occur within their
domain, not the ingress node.
If a node on the path of the P2MP LSP is unable to find a route that
can supply the required resources or is not re-merge free, it SHOULD
generate a Path Error message for the subset of the S2L sub-LSPs
which it is not able to route. For this purpose the node SHOULD try
to find a minimum subset of S2L sub-LSPs for which the Path Error
needs to be generated. This rule applies equally to the case where
multiple S2L Sub-LSPs are signaled using one Path message, as to the
case where a single S2L Sub-LSP is signaled in each Path message.
GMPLS Notify messages do not include S2L_SUB_LSP objects and cannot
be used to send errors for a subset of the S2L sub-LSPs in a Path
message. For that reason, the node SHOULD use a Path Error message
rather than a Notify message to communicate the error. In the case
of a re-merge error, the node SHOULD use the Error Code "Routing
Problem" and the Error Value "ERO resulted in re-merge" as specified
in [RFC4875].
A border node receiving a Path Error should attempt to re-route
according to the crankback procedures defined in [RFC4920]. In the
case of a re-merge error for which some of the re-merging S2L sub-
LSPs do not pass through the border node, it should propagate the
Path Error usptream. The first node through which all S2L sub-LSPs
concerned transit which receives the Path Error and is allowed to
perform crankback procedures should re-route the S2L sub-LSPs
concerned to all use the same border node.
4. Security Considerations
Security considerations and requirements from [RFC4875] and [RFC4875]
apply equally to this document. Furthermore, there are some
additional security considerations that may be induced by the use of
"Related Addresses for Sibling S2L sub-LSP" object defined in this
document. These security considerations will be added in a later
version of the draft.
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
5. IANA Considerations
Code points for "Related Addresses for Sibling S2L sub-LSP" object
defined in this document will be required. Much of the details here
are TBA.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[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.
[RFC4920] Farrel, A., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N., and
G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, July 2007.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
[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.
Authors' Addresses
Zafar Ali (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Nic Neate
Data Connection Ltd
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
United Kingdom
Email: nhn@dataconnection.com
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE P2MP Inter-domain LSPs March 2009
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Legal
This documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT
INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
into languages other than English.
Ali & Neate Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 10]