Internet Engineering Task Force                          Dimitry Haskin
Internet Draft                                             Ram Krishnan
Expires: December 1999                                 Nexabit Networks

                                                            Robert Boyd
                                                            Alan Hannan
                                                  Frontier GlobalCenter

                                                              June 1999

        A Method for Setting an Alternative Label Switched Paths
                         to Handle Fast Reroute

                 draft-haskin-mpls-fast-reroute-00.txt

Status

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

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.

Abstract

This document describes a method for setting an alternative label
switched path to handle fast data packet reroute upon a failure in a
primary label switched path in Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
network.

Haskin, et al.          Expires December 1999                [Page 1]


Internet Draft  draft-haskin-mpls-fast-reroute-00.txt       June 1999

1. Introduction

The ability to quickly reroute traffic around a failure or congestion
in a label switched path (LSP) can be important in mission critical
MPLS networks. When an established label switched path becomes unusable
(e.g. due to a physical link or switch failure) data may need to be re-
routed over an alternative path. Such an alternative path can be
established after a primary path failure is detected or, alternatively,
it can be established beforehand in order to reduce the path switchover
time.

Pre-established alternative paths are essential where packet loss due
to an LSP failure is undesirable. Since it may take a significant time
for a device on a label switched path to detect a distant link failure,
it may continue sending packets along the primary path.  As soon as
such packets reach a switch that is aware of the failure, packets must
be immediately rerouted by the switch to an alternative path away from
the failure if loss of data is to be avoided.  Since it is impossible
to predict where failure may occur along an LSP tunnel, it might
involve complex computations and extensive signaling to establish
alternative paths to protect the entire tunnel. In the extreme, to
fully protect an LSP tunnel, alternative paths might be established at
each intermediate switch along the primary LSP.

This document defines a method for setting alternative label switched
paths in such a matter that minimizes alternative path computation
complexity and signaling requirements. It also can provide in-band
means for quick detection of link and switch failures or congestion
along a primary path without resorting to an out of band signaling
mechanism.

In order for the presented method to work, it is important that network
topology and policy allow the establishment of a backup LSP between the
endpoint switches of the protected LSP tunnel such that, with the
exception of the tunnel endpoint switches, the backup LSP does not
share any links or switches with the path that it intends to protect.

2. Alternative Path Arrangement

The main idea behind the presented method is to reverse traffic at the
point of the protected LSP back to the source switch of the protected
LSP such that the traffic flow can be then redirected via a parallel
LSP between source and destination switches of the protected LSP
tunnel.

Haskin, et al.          Expires December 1999                [Page 2]


Internet Draft  draft-haskin-mpls-fast-reroute-00.txt       June 1999

Referring to Figure 1, there is an MPLS network consisting of 7
interconnected switches.

Figure 1:

         +--------+   24   +--------+   46   +--------+
     +-->| Switch |------->| Switch |------->| Switch |---+
     :   |   2    |--------|   4    |--------|   6    |   :
     :   |        |        |        |        |        |   :
  12 :   +--------+        +--------+        +--------+   :
     :       /               /                 /      \   :
     :      /               /                 /        \  V
   +--------+   31   +--------+   53   +--------+   75  +--------+
   | Switch |<-------| Switch |<-------| Switch |<......| Switch |
   |   1    |--------|   3    |--------|   5    |-------|   7    |
 =>|        |=======>|        |=======>|        |======>|        |=>
   +--------+   13   +--------+   35   +--------+   57  +--------+

The following terminology is used for purpose of describing the method:

A portion of a label switched path that is to be protected by an
alternative path is referred as 'protected path segment'.  Only
failures within the protected path segment, which may at its extreme
include the entire primary path, are subject to fast reroute to the
alternative path. A primary LSP between switches 1 and 7 is shown by a
double-dashed links labeled 13, 35, and 57. Arrows indicate direction
of the data traffic.

The switch at the ingress endpoint of the protected path segment is
referred as 'the source switch'. Switch 1 in Figure 1 is the source
switch in our example of a protected path.

The switch at the egress endpoint of the protected path segment is
referred as 'the destination switch'. Switch 7 in Figure 1 is the
destination switch in our example of a protected path.

The switches between the source switch and the destination switch along
the protected path are referred as protected switches.

The switch immediately preceding the destination switch along the
protected path segment is referred as the last hop switch. Switch 5 in
Figure 1 is the last hop switch for the protected path.

The essence of the presented method is that an alternative
unidirectional label switched path is established in the following way:

The initial segment of the alternative LSP runs between the last hop
switch and the source switch in the reverse direction of the protected
path traversing through every protected switch between the last hop
switch and the source switch. The dashed line between switches 5 and 1

Haskin, et al.          Expires December 1999                [Page 3]


Internet Draft  draft-haskin-mpls-fast-reroute-00.txt       June 1999

illustrates such a segment of the alternative path.  Alternatively, the
initial LSP segment can be set from the destination switch to the
source switch in the reverse direction of the protected path traversing
through every protected switch between the destination switch and the
source switch. The dashed line between switches 7 and 1 illustrates the
initial path segment that is set in this way.

The second and final segment of the alternative path is set between the
source switch and the destination switch along a transmission path that
does not utilize any protected switches. It is not an intention of this
document to specify procedures for calculating such a path. The dashed
line between Switches 1 and 7 through Switches 2, 4, and 6 illustrates
the final segment of the alternative path.

The initial and final segments of the alternative path are linked to
form an entire alternative path from the last hop switch to the
destination switch. In Figure 1 the entire alternative path consists of
the LSP links labeled 53, 31, 12, 24, 46, and 46 if the alternative
path originates at the last hop switch. Alternatively, the entire
alternative path consists of the LSP links labeled 75, 53, 31, 12, 24,
46, and 46 if the alternative path originates at the destination switch
of the primary path.

As soon as a link failure or congestion along the protected path is
detected an operational switch at ingress of failed link reroutes
incoming traffic around of the failure or congestion by linking
upstream portion of the primary path to the downstream portion of the
alternative path. Thus if the link between Switches 3 and 5 fails, the
primary and alternative paths are linked at Switch 3 forming the
following label switched path for the traffic flow:
13->31->12->24->46->67.

The presented method of setting the alternative label switched path has
the following benefits:

   - Path computation complexity is greatly reduced. Only a single
     additional path between the source and destination switches of the
     protected path segment needs to be calculated.  Moreover, both
     primary and alternative path computations can be localized at a
     single switch avoiding problems that can arise when computations
     are distributed among multiple switches.

   - The amount of LSP setup signaling is minimized. With small
     extensions to RSVP or LDP (described in separated documents), a
     single switch at ingress of the protected path can initiate label
     allocations for both primary and alternative paths.

   - Presence of traffic on the alternative path segment that runs in
     the reverse direction of the primary path can be used as an
     indication of a failure or congestion of a downstream link along
     the primary path.  As soon as a switch along the primary path sees
     the reverse traffic flow, it may stop sending traffic downstream

Haskin, et al.          Expires December 1999                [Page 4]


Internet Draft  draft-haskin-mpls-fast-reroute-00.txt       June 1999

     of the primary path by initiating an immediate rerouting of data
     traffic to the alternative path.  As the result of this "crank
     back" process the source switch may start sending data traffic
     directly along the final alternative path segment. It is fair to
     note that the crank-back technique increases the likelihood of
     data packet reordering during the path rerouting process.
     Therefore benefits of the reducing the alternative path latency
     should be weighed against possible problems associated with short
     term packet reordering. On a positive side, if multiple microflows
     are aggregated in a single protected LSP tunnel, only a very
     limited number of microflows may be affected by such packet
     reordering. Additionally, the impact of reordering on any single
     microflow may tend to be minimal.

It also can be noted that if the alternative label switched path is
originated at the destination switch of the primary path, it forms a
'loop-back' LSP that originates and terminates at this switch.
Therefore in this case it is possible to verify integrity of the entire
alternative path by simply sending a probe packet from the destination
switch along the alternative path and asserting that the packet arrives
back to the destination switch.  When this technique is used to assert
the path integrity, the care has to be taken that the limited
diagnostic traffic is not interpreted as an indication of a primary
path failure that triggers data rerouting at the intermediate switches.

3. Elementary link level protection scheme

If only link-level protection is desired, an alternative path between
link endpoints can be set up to protect each link. Such a scheme can be
viewed as a degenerate case of this proposal in which the link
endpoints constitute the source and destination endpoints in the
described approach.

4. Bandwidth Reservation Considerations

Generally there is no need to specifically allocate bandwidth resources
to the alternate LSP. The Traffic-triggered priority of the primary LSP
can be used as resource preemption priority for the alternate LSP in
case the primary LSP fails and traffic is switched to the alternate LSP
as described in this document. The traffic-triggered priority is the
priority assigned to traffic belonging to an LSP, only when there is
traffic present on that LSP. When there is no traffic, other LSPs
sharing the interface should get full access to bandwidth and other
system resources. Consequently, if the traffic-triggered priority of
the primary LSP is greater than the holding priorities of the other
LSPs using an interface in the alternate path, the alternate LSP can
preempt bandwidth and other system resources as soon as traffic gets
rerouted via the alternate LSP. This enables high-priority LSPs, which
are being rerouted, to preempt resources from lower priority LSPs
without explicit bandwidth reservation for the alternate path. Of

Haskin, et al.          Expires December 1999                [Page 5]


Internet Draft  draft-haskin-mpls-fast-reroute-00.txt       June 1999

course, if bandwidth efficiency is not an issue, bandwidth resources
can be explicitly reserved for the alternate LSP also.

An extension to existing signaling protocols such as RSVP and LDP may
be needed to indicate that traffic-triggered resource preemption is
requested for a particular LSP as opposed to the setup priority
preemption.

5. Intellectual Property Considerations

Nexabit Networks may seek patent or other intellectual property
protection for some or all of the technologies disclosed in this
document. In the event that Nexabit Networks obtains such patent
rights, Nexabit Networks intends to license them on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms in accordance with the intellectual property
rights procedures of the IETF standards process.

6. Acknowledgments

This document has benefited from discussions with Jim Boyle.

7. References

[1] Rosen, E. et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture",
Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-arch-05.txt, April 1999.

[2] Awduche, D. et al., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering over
MPLS", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-traffic-eng-00.txt, October
1998.

Haskin, et al.          Expires December 1999                [Page 6]


Internet Draft  draft-haskin-mpls-fast-reroute-00.txt       June 1999

7. Authors' Addresses

Dimitry Haskin
Nexabit Networks, Inc.
200 Nickerson Road
Marlborough, MA 01752
E-mail: dhaskin@nexabit.com

Ram Krishnan
Nexabit Networks, Inc.
200 Nickerson Road
Marlborough, MA 01752
E-mail:  ram@nexabit.com

Robert Boyd
Frontier GlobalCenter
1154 East Arques Avenue,
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
E-mail: rboyd@globalcenter.net

Alan Hannan
Frontier GlobalCenter
1154 East Arques Avenue,
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Email: alan@globalcenter.net

Haskin, et al.          Expires December 1999                [Page 7]


Internet Engineering Task Force                            Ram Krishnan
Internet Draft                                           Dimitry Haskin
Expires: December 1999                                 Nexabit Networks

                                                              June 1999

        Extensions to RSVP to Handle Establishment of Alternate
                 Label-Switched Paths for Fast Re-route

               draft-krishnan-mpls-reroute-rsvpext-00.txt

Status

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.

Abstract

   This document describes the extensions that enables RSVP to
   support creation of an alternative label switched path to handle
   fast data packet reroute upon failure in a primary label switched
   path in an Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) network as
   described in [3]. As such, this draft is a companion draft to [3].
   The proposed extensions present no backward compatibility issues.

Haskin, Krishnan        Expires December 1999                [Page 1]


Draft      draft-krishnan-mpls-fast-reroute-rsvpext-00.txt  June 1999

1. Introduction

   A mechanism to establish an alternate label-switched path (LSP) that
   is used for quickly re-routing traffic in the event of a network
   element failure or congestion along the primary LSP is described in
   [3]. Only one alternate LSP needs to be created in this approach as
   opposed to an approach that requires multiple alternate LSPs to be
   created at each intermediate switch along the LSP. Such an approach
   reduces computational complexity and the associated signalling
   overhead. It is required that the alternate backup LSP does not
   share any network elements (links or label-switched routers (LSR))
   with the exception of the source and destination LSRs of the primary
   LSP.

   This document defines objects necessary for signalling the creation
   and establishment of the alternate LSP when the primary and
   alternative LSPs are initiated from a single router using RSVP [4].

2. Description of the Approach

   The main idea behind the approach in [3]is to redirect traffic at
   the point of failure in the primary LSP back to the source end-point
   of the primary LSP in the reverse direction after which the traffic
   flow is sent along via the alternate disjoint LSP between source and
   destination switches of the protected primary LSP.

   Referring to Figure 1, there is an MPLS network consisting of 7
   interconnected switches.

   Figure 1:

            +--------+   24   +--------+   46   +--------+
        +-->| Switch |------->| Switch |------->| Switch |---+
        :   |   2    |--------|   4    |--------|   6    |   :
        :   |        |        |        |        |        |   :
     12 :   +--------+        +--------+        +--------+   :
        :       /               /                 /      \   :
        :      /               /                 /        \  V
      +--------+   31   +--------+   53   +--------+   75  +--------+
      | Switch |<-------| Switch |<-------| Switch |<......| Switch |
      |   1    |--------|   3    |--------|   5    |-------|   7    |
    =>|        |=======>|        |=======>|        |======>|        |=>
      +--------+   13   +--------+   35   +--------+   57  +--------+

   A primary LSP between switches 1 and 7 is shown by a double-dashed
   links labeled 13, 35, and 57. Arrows indicate direction of the data
   traffic.

 Krishnan, Haskin       Expires December 1999                [Page 2]


Draft      draft-krishnan-mpls-fast-reroute-rsvpext-00.txt  June 1999

   The initial segment of the alternative LSP runs between the
   destination LSR and the source LSR in the reverse direction of the
   primary path traversing through every switch between the last hop
   switch and the source LSR. The dashed line between switches 5 and 1
   illustrates such a segment of the alternative path.

   The second and final segment of the alternative path is set between
   the source switch and the destination switch along a transmission
   path disjoint from the primary LSP. The dashed line between Switches
   1 and 7 through Switches 2, 4, and 6 illustrates the final segment
   of the alternative LSP.

   The initial and final segments of the alternative path are linked to
   form an entire alternative path from the last hop switch to the
   destination switch. In Figure 1 the entire alternative path consists
   of the LSP links labeled 53, 31, 12, 24, 46, and 46 if the
   alternative path originates at the last hop switch.

   As soon as a link failure or congestion along the protected path is
   detected an operational switch at ingress of failed link reroutes
   incoming traffic around of the failure or congestion by linking
   upstream portion of the primary path to the downstream portion of
   the alternative path. Thus if the link between Switches 3 and 5
   fails, the primary and alternative paths are linked at Switch 3
   forming the following label switched path for the traffic flow:
   13->31->12->24->46->67.

3. Extensions to RSVP for Alternate LSP Establishment

   Clearly, a label-switched path needs to be set up similar to the
   establishment of the primary LSP. The presence of LABEL-REQ object
   in the PATH message and LABEL object in the RESV message enables the
   downstream-on-demand label allocation policy by which the labels are
   exchanged among the neighbors. As shown in Figure 1, the alternate
   LSP is composed of two components: the disjoint segment between the
   source end-point and the destination end-point of the primary LSP
   (12->24->46-67 in the example) and the segment in the reverse
   direction between the destination end-point and the source end-point
   traversing the same network elements as the primary LSP (75->53-
   >31).

3.1 Establishing the Disjoint Segment of the Alternate LSP.

     No new RSVP objects are necessary for establishing the disjoint
    segment of the alternate LSP. Procedures similar to the creation of
    the primary LSP can be used to establish this disjoint segment. As
    mentioned earlier, care should be exercised to make sure that this
    segment of the alternate path is completely disjoint from the
    primary LSP. For instance, the disjoint segment can be explicitly
    specified using the Explicit Route Object (ERO) in the PATH message
    [4].

 Krishnan, Haskin       Expires December 1999                [Page 3]


Draft      draft-krishnan-mpls-fast-reroute-rsvpext-00.txt  June 1999

3.2 Establishing the Reverse Segment of the Alternate LSP.

   New RSVP objects are required in the PATH and RESV messages to
   establish the reverse segment of the alternate LSP.

   A new Flag option is defined in the Flags field of the SESSION-
   ATTRIBUTE object that specifies Fast-reroute based on reverse-path
   setup.

   Flags

     0x08 = Fast reroute based on reverse-path alternate LSP. When this
   flag is set, all transit LSRs set up an alternate LSP based on the
   mechanism specified in this document.

   Two new optional objects are required: a REVERSE-LABEL-REQ object in
   the RESV message and REVERSE-LABEL object in the PATH message are
   used for setting up the reverse segment of the alternate LSP. The
   term REVERSE refers to the establishment of an alternate LSP in the
   reverse direction of the primary LSP. The function and format of
   these objects are similar to the LABEL-REQ and the LABEL object used
   to set-up the primary LSP.

   When the destination end-point of the primary LSP receives a PATH
   message consisting of the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object, it includes the
   optional REVERSE-LABEL-REQ object in the corresponding RESV message
   if Fast-reroute is enabled in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object. Each LSR
   in the path of the primary LSP allocates a label for the reverse
   segment of the alternate LSP and stores the label in the PSB for
   inclusion in the corresponding PATH message. An LSR that receives a
   RESV message with the REVERSE-LABEL-REQ object should allocate and
   include the REVERSE-LABEL object in the corresponding PATH message,
   unless it is unable to allocate a label in the specified label range
   in the REVERSE-LABEL-REQ object. In that case, the LSR should send a
   PATHERR message with the appropriate error codes.

   REVERSE-LABEL object

   REVERSE-LABEL Class = [TBD] C-Type = 1

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Length(bytes)           |  Class-Num    |     C-Type    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      //                       (Object contents)                     //
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          (top label)                          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 Krishnan, Haskin       Expires December 1999                [Page 4]


Draft      draft-krishnan-mpls-fast-reroute-rsvpext-00.txt  June 1999

   The contents of the REVERSE-LABEL object are a stack of labels, and
   the top of the stack is in the right four octets of the contents.

   REVERSE-LABEL-REQ object

   REVERSE-LABEL-REQ Class = [TBD] C-Type = 1

   The format of the REVERSE-LABEL-REQ object is similar to that of the
   LABEL-REQ object with the exception of the Class number. Three
   possible C-Types are supported: Label request without a label range,
   Label request with an ATM label range and a Label request with a
   Frame Relay label range.

   The source end-point of the LSP allocates a label in the PATH
   message for the reverse segment of the alternate LSP, in response to
   a label request from its downstream neighbor.  This label is used as
   the incoming label in its cross-connect table while the outgoing
   label used by the source end-point is allocated by its immediate
   downstream neighbor in the disjoint segment of the alternate LSP.
   The proposed extensions are backward compatible with those LSRs that
   do not recognize the optional REVERSE-LABEL_REQ and REVERSE-LABEL
   objects.

4. References

   [1] Rosen, E. et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture",
   Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-arch-05.txt, April 1999.

   [2] Awduche, D. et al., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering over
   MPLS", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-traffic-eng-00.txt, October
   1998.

   [3] Haskin, D. et al., öA Method for Setting an Alternate Label-
   Switched Paths to Handle Fast Re-routeö, work in progress, draft-
   haskin-fast-reroute-00.txt, May 1999.

   [4] Awduche, D. et al., öExtensions to RSVP for LSP tunnelsö, work
   in progress, draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-01.txt, March 1999.

 Krishnan, Haskin       Expires December 1999                [Page 5]


Draft      draft-krishnan-mpls-fast-reroute-rsvpext-00.txt  June 1999

5. Authors' Addresses

   Ram Krishnan
   Nexabit Networks, Inc.
   200 Nickerson Road
   Marlborough, MA 01752
   E-mail: ram@nexabit.com

   Dimitry Haskin
   Nexabit Networks, Inc.
   200 Nickerson Road
   Marlborough, MA 01752
   E-mail: dhaskin@nexabit.com

 Krishnan, Haskin       Expires December 1999                [Page 6]