Network Working Group
Internet Draft K. Kumaki, Ed.
Intended Status: Informational KDDI R&D Labs
Created: April 3, 2008 R. Zhang
Expires: October 3, 2008 BT
Y. Kamite
NTT Communications
Requirements for supporting Customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS
IP-VPN
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
Some service providers want to build a service which guarantees QoS
or bandwidth from a local CE to a remote CE through the network.
Today, customers expect to run triple play services through BGP/MPLS
IP-VPNs. As a result, their requirements for end-to-end QoS of
applications are increasing. Depending on the application (e.g.,
voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed data pipe, etc.), an end-to-end
native RSVP path and/or an end-to-end MPLS TE LSP are required, and
they need to meet some constraints.
This document describes service provider requirements for supporting
customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS VPN.
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 1]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
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].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................3
2. Terminology...................................................3
3. Problem Statement.............................................4
4. Reference Model...............................................6
4.1 End-to-End C-RSVP Path Model...............................6
4.2 End-to-End C-TE LSP Model..................................7
5. Application Scenarios..........................................8
5.1 Scenario I: Fast Recovery over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.............8
5.2 Scenario II: Strict C-TE LSP QoS Guarantees................9
5.3 Scenario III: Load Balance of CE-to-CE Traffic............10
5.4 Scenario IV: RSVP Aggregation over MPLS TE Tunnels........11
5.5 Scenario V: RSVP over Non-TE LSP..........................12
6. Detailed Requirements for C-TE LSPs Model.....................12
6.1 Selective P-TE LSPs.....................................12
6.2 Graceful Restart Support for C-TE LSPs..................13
6.3 Rerouting Support for C-TE LSPs.........................13
6.4 FRR Support for C-TE LSPs...............................13
6.5 Admission Control Support on P-TE LSP Head-Ends.........13
6.6 Policy Control Support for C-TE LSPs....................14
6.7 PCE Features Support for C-TE LSPs......................14
6.8 Diversely Routed C-TE LSPs Support......................14
6.9 Optimal Path Support for C-TE LSPs......................15
6.10 Reoptimization Support for C-TE LSPs....................15
6.11 DS-TE Support for C-TE LSPs.............................15
7. Detailed Requirements for C-RSVP Paths Model..................15
7.1 Admission Control between PE-CE for C-RSVP Paths..........15
7.2 Aggregation of C-RSVP Paths by P-TE LSPs..................16
7.3 Non-TE LSPs support for C-RSVP Paths......................16
7.4 Transparency of C-RSVP Paths..............................16
8. Common Detailed Requirements for Two Models...................16
8.1 CE-PE Routing...........................................16
8.2 Complexity and Risks....................................16
8.3 Backward Compatibility..................................16
8.4 Scalability Considerations..............................17
8.5 Performance Considerations..............................17
8.6 Management Considerations...............................17
9. Security Considerations......................................18
10. IANA Considerations..........................................18
11. References...................................................18
11.1 Normative References....................................18
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 2]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
11.2 Informative References...................................19
12. Acknowledgments..............................................20
13. Author's Addresses...........................................20
1. Introduction
Some service providers want to build a service which guarantees QoS
or bandwidth from a local CE to a remote CE through the network. A CE
could be broadened to include network client equipment owned and
operated by the service provider. However, the CE is not part of the
MPLS provider network.
Today, customers expect to run triple play services through BGP/MPLS
IP-VPNs [RFC4364]. As a result, their requirements for end-to-end QoS
of applications are increasing. Depending on the application (e.g.,
voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed data pipe, etc.), an end-to-end
native RSVP path and/or an end-to-end MPLS TE LSP are required, and
they need to meet some constraints. For example, an RSVP path may be
used to provide for bandwidth and QoS guarantees. An end-to-end MPLS
TE LSP may be used to guarantee bandwidth, and provide for MPLS fast
reroute (FRR) [RFC4090] around node and link failure. It should be
noted that an RSVP session between two CEs may also be mapped and
tunneled into a TE LSP across an MPLS provider network in a most
likely scenario.
If service providers offer the above services in BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs,
they can have the following two advantages.
The first advantage is for customers to receive these network
services while being able to use both private addresses and global
addresses as they desire.
The second advantage is for service providers to offer these network
services while protecting confidentiality from customers. Customers
join a Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instance and cannot
forward packets through the service provider's global forwarding
instance, nor can they join the service provider's intra-domain
routing.
This document defines a reference model, application scenarios and
detailed requirements for supporting customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
Also, specification for this solution itself is out of scope in this
document.
2. Terminology
LSP: Label Switched Path
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 3]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
MPLS TE LSP: Multi Protocol Label Switching TE LSP
C-RSVP path: Customer RSVP path: a native RSVP path with bandwidth
reservation of X for customers
C-TE LSP: Customer Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path:
an end-to-end MPLS TE LSP for customers
P-TE LSP: Provider Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path: a
transport TE LSP between two PEs
VPN: Virtual Private Network
CE: Customer Edge Equipment
PE: Provider Edge Equipment that has direct connections to CEs from
the Layer3 point of view.
P: Provider Equipment that has backbone trunk connections only.
VRF: Virtual Private Network (VPN) Routing and Forwarding Instance
PCC: Path Computation Client: any client application requesting a
path computation to be performed by a Path Computation Element.
PCE: Path Computation Element: an entity (component, application or
network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints.
Head-end LSR: ingress LSR
Tail-end LSR: egress LSR
LSR: Label Switched Router
3. Problem Statement
Some service providers think that they can offer advanced services
using RSVP or RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. In addition, in many
cases, BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs can be used within the service provider
network to carry network services. For example, a C-RSVP path with
bandwidth reservation of X can be used to transport voice. In order
to achieve sub-50msec recovery during link/node/SRLG failure and to
provide strict QoS guarantees, a C-TE LSP with bandwidth X between
data centers or customer sites can be used to carry voice and video
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 4]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
traffic. Thus, service providers or customers can choose a C-RSVP
path or a C-TE LSP to meet their requirements. Please note that there
When service providers offer a C-RSVP path between hosts or CEs over
BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs, the CE/host requests an end-to-end C-RSVP path with
bandwidth reservation of X to the remote CE/host. However, if a C-
RSVP signaling is to send within VPN, the service provider network
will face scalability issues. Therefore, in order to solve
scalability issues, multiple C-RSVP reservations can be aggregated at
PE, where a P-TE LSP head-end can perform admission control using the
aggregated C-RSVP reservations. The method that is described in
RFC4804 can be considered as a useful approach. In this case, a
reservation request from within the context of a VRF can get
aggregated onto a P-TE LSP. The P-TE LSP can be pre-established,
resized based on the request, or triggered by the request. Service
providers, however, can not provide a C-RSVP path over vrf instance
as defined in RFC4364. The current BGP/MPLS IP-VPN architecture also
does not support an RSVP instance running in the context of a vrf to
process RSVP messages and integrated services (int-serv)
[RFC1633][RFC2210]. One of solutions is described in [RSVP-L3VPN].
If service providers offer a C-TE LSP from CE to CE over BGP/MPLS IP-
VPN, they require that a MPLS TE LSP from a local CE to a remote CE
be established. However, if a C-TE LSP signaling is to send within
VPN, the service provider network will face scalability issues.
Therefore, in order to solve scalability issues, multiple C-TE LSPs
can be aggregated at PE, where a P-TE LSP head-end can perform
admission control using hierarchical methods. Furthermore, if service
providers provide the C-TE LSP over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN, they can not
provide it over vrf instance as defined in RFC4364. The current
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN architecture does not support an RSVP-TE instance
running in the context of a vrf to process RSVP messages and trigger
the establishment of the C-TE LSP over the service provider core
network. If every C-TE LSP is to trigger the establishment or
resizing of a P-TE LSP, the service provider network will also face
scalability issues that arise from maintaining a large number of P-TE
LSPs and/or dynamic signaling of these P-TE LSPs.
Thus, in the models of C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs both, the solution
must address these scalability concerns.
Two different models are described above. The differences between C-
RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs are as follows:
- C-RSVP path model: data packets among CEs are forwarded by "native
IP packets" (i.e. not labeled packets).
- C-TE LSP model: data packets among CEs are forwarded by "labeled IP
packets".
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 5]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
The following items are mainly required to support C-RSVP paths and
C-TE LSPs over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. Detailed requirements are described
in sections 6, 7 and 8.
- C-RSVP path QoS guarantees.
- Fast recovery over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN to protect traffic for C-TE LSP
against CE-PE link failure and PE node failure.
- Strict C-TE LSP bandwidth and QoS guarantees.
- Resource optimization for C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs.
- Scalability for C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs.
4. Reference Model
In this section, a C-RSVP path, a C-TE LSP and a P-TE LSP are
explained.
4.1 End-to-End C-RSVP Path Model
A C-RSVP path and a P-TE LSP are shown in figure 1 in the context of
a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. A P-TE LSP may be a non-TE LSP (i.e., LDP) in some
cases. In some cases, however, it may be difficult to guarantee end-
to-end QoS. (e.g. If a P-TE LSP has enough bandwidth in service
provider backbone, a C-RSVP path can reserve a bandwidth.)
CE0/CE1 requests an e2e C-RSVP path to CE3/CE2 with bandwidth
reservation of X. At PE1, this reservation request received in the
context of a VRF will get aggregated onto a pre-established P-TE LSP,
or trigger the establishment of a new P-TE LSP. It should be noted
that C-RSVP sessions across different BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs can be
aggregated onto the same P-TE LSP between the same PE pair, achieving
further scalability.
The RSVP control messages (e.g. an RSVP PATH message and an RSVP RESV
message) exchanged among CEs are forwarded by IP packets through
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. After CE0 and/or CE1 receive a reservation message
from CE2 and/or CE3, CE0/CE1 establishes a C-RSVP path through the
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
A P-TE LSP is established between PE1 and PE2. This LSP is used by
the vrf instance to forward customer packets within BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
Generally speaking, C-RSVP paths are used by customers and P-TE LSPs
are used by service providers.
C-RSVP path
<---------------------------------------------->
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 6]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
P-TE LSP
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|CE0| |CE1|-----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2| |CE3|.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
............. .............
^ ^
| |
vrf instance vrf instance
<--customer--> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <--customer->
network network
or or
another another
service provider service provider
network network
Figure 1 e2e C-RSVP path model
4.2 End-to-End C-TE LSP Model
A C-TE LSP and a P-TE LSP are shown in figure 2 in the context of a
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. A P-TE LSP may be a non-TE LSP (i.e., LDP) in some
cases. As described in previous sub-section, it may be difficult to
guarantee end-to-end QoS in some cases.
CE0/CE1 requests an e2e TE LSP path to CE3/CE2 with bandwidth
reservation of X. At PE1, this reservation request received in the
context of a VRF will get aggregated onto a pre-established P-TE LSP,
or trigger the establishment of a new P-TE LSP. It should be noted
that C-TE LSPs across different BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs can be aggregated
onto the same P-TE LSP between the same PE pair, achieving further
scalability.
The RSVP-TE control messages (e.g. a RSVP PATH message and a RSVP
RESV message) exchanged among CEs are forwarded by labeled packet
through BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. After CE0 and/or CE1 receive a reservation
message from CE2 and/or CE3, CE0/CE1 establishes a C-TE LSP through
the BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
A P-TE LSP is established between PE1 and PE2. This LSP is used by
the vrf instance to forward customer packets within BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
Generally speaking, C-TE LSPs are used by customers and P-TE LSPs are
used by service providers.
C-TE LSP
<----------------------------------------------------------->
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 7]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
or
C-TE LSP
<---------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|CE0| |CE1|-----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2| |CE3|.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
............. .............
^ ^
| |
vrf instance vrf instance
<--customer--> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <--customer->
network network
or or
another another
service provider service provider
network network
Figure 2 e2e C-TE LSP model
5. Application Scenarios
The following sections present a few application scenarios for C-RSVP
paths and C-TE LSPs in BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments.
5.1 Scenario I: Fast Recovery over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN
In this scenario, as shown in figure 3, a customer uses a VoIP
application between its sites (i.e., between CE1 and CE2). H0 and H1
are voice equipment.
In this case, the customer establishes C-TE LSP1 as a primary path
and C-TE LSP2 as a backup path. If the link between PE1 and CE1 or
the node PE1 fails, C-TE LSP1 needs C-TE LSP2 as a path protection.
C-TE LSP1
<---------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP1
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|H0 | |CE1|-----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2| |H1 |.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 8]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
.........|... --- --- --- --- ...|.........
+-------|PE3|----|P3 |-----|P4 |----|PE4|-------+
--- --- --- ---
<--------------------------->
P-TE LSP2
<---------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP2
<--customer--> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <--customer->
network network
Figure 3 Scenario I
5.2 Scenario II: Strict C-TE LSP QoS Guarantees
In this scenario, as shown in figure 4, a service provider B
transports voice and video traffic between its sites (i.e., between
CE1 and CE2).
In this case, service provider B establishes C-TE LSP1 with
preemption priority 0 and bandwidth 100Mbps for voice traffic, and C-
TE LSP2 with preemption priority 1 and bandwidth 200Mbps for unicast
video traffic. On the other hand, service provider A also pre-
establishes P-TE LSP1 with preemption priority 0 and bandwidth 1Gbps
for voice traffic, and P-TE LSP2 with preemption priority 1 and
bandwidth 2Gbps for video traffic. These P-TE LSP1 and P-TE LSP2
should support DS-TE. [RFC4124]
PE1 and PE3 should choose an appropriate P-TE LSP based on preemption
priority. In this case, C-TE LSP1 must be associated with P-TE LSP1
at PE1 and C-TE LSP2 must be associated with P-TE LSP2 at PE3.
Furthermore, PE1 and PE3 head-ends should control the bandwidth of C-
TE LSPs. In this case, PE1 and PE3 can choose C-TE LSPs by the amount
of max available bandwidth for each P-TE LSP, respectively.
C-TE LSP1
<---------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP1
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|CE0| |CE1|-----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2| |CE3|.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.........|... --- --- --- --- ...|.........
+-------|PE3|----|P3 |-----|P4 |----|PE4|-------+
--- --- --- ---
<--------------------------->
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 9]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
P-TE LSP2
<---------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP2
<---SP B----> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <---SP B--->
network SP A network network
Figure 4 Scenario II
5.3 Scenario III: Load Balance of CE-to-CE Traffic
In this scenario, as shown in figure 5, service provider C uses voice
and video traffic between its sites (i.e., between CE0 and CE5/CE7,
between CE2 and CE5/CE7, between CE5 and CE0/CE2, and between CE7 and
CE0/CE2). H0 and H1 are voice and video equipment.
In this case, service provider C establishes C-TE LSP1, C-TE LSP3, C-
TE LSP5 and C-TE LSP7 with preemption priority 0 and bandwidth
100Mbps for voice traffic, and establishes C-TE LSP2, C-TE LSP4, C-TE
LSP6 and C-TE LSP8 with preemption priority 1 and bandwidth 200Mbps
for video traffic. On the other hand, service provider A also pre-
establishes P-TE LSP1 and P-TE LSP3 with preemption priority 0 and
bandwidth 1Gbps for voice traffic, and P-TE LSP2 and P-TE LSP4 with
preemption priority 1 and bandwidth 2Gbps for video traffic. These P-
TE LSP1, P-TE LSP2, P-TE LSP3 and P-TE LSP4 should support DS-TE.
[RFC4124]
All PEs should choose an appropriate P-TE LSP based on preemption
priority. To minimize the traffic disruption due to a single network
failure, diversely routed C-TE LSPs are established. In this case,
FRR [RFC4090] is not necessarily required.
Also, unconstrained TE LSPs (i.e., C-TE LSPs/P-TE LSPs with 0
bandwidth) [ZERO-BANDWIDTH] are applicable to this scenario.
Furthermore, load balancing for a communication between H0 and H1 can
be done by setting up full mesh C-TE LSPs between CE0/CE2 and CE5/CE7.
C-TE LSP1(P=0),2(P=1) (CE0->CE1->...->CE4->CE5)
(CE0<-CE1<-...<-CE4<-CE5)
<-------------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP3(P=0),4(P=1) (CE2->CE1->...->CE4->CE7)
(CE2<-CE1<-...<-CE4<-CE7)
<-------------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP1 (p=0)
<----------------------->
P-TE LSP2 (p=1)
<----------------------->
.................. ..................
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 10]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
. |CE0|-|CE1|---|PE1|---|P1 |---|P2 |---|PE2|---|CE4|-|CE5| .
. --- /--- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- ---\ --- .
.|H0 | + . + . + |H1 |.
. --- \--- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- ---/ --- .
. |CE2|-|CE3|---|PE3|---|P3 |---|P4 |---|PE4|---|CE6|-|CE7| .
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.................. ..................
<----------------------->
P-TE LSP3 (p=0)
<----------------------->
P-TE LSP4 (p=1)
<-------------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP5(P=0),6(P=1) (CE0->CE3->...->CE6->CE5)
(CE0<-CE3<-...<-CE6<-CE5)
<-------------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP7(P=0),8(P=1) (CE2->CE3->...->CE6->CE7)
(CE2<-CE3<-...<-CE6<-CE7)
<-----SP C-----> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <-----SP C----->
network SP A network network
Figure 5 Scenario III
5.4 Scenario IV: RSVP Aggregation over MPLS TE Tunnels
In this scenario, as shown in figure 6, the customer has two hosts
connecting off CE1 and CE2 respectively. CE1 and CE2 are connected
to PE1 and PE2, respectively, within a VRF instance belonging to the
same VPN. The requesting host (H1) may request to H2 an RSVP path
with bandwidth reservation of X. This reservation request from
within the context of VRF will get aggregated onto a pre-established
P-TE/DS-TE LSP based upon procedures similar to [RFC4804]. As in the
case of [RFC4804], there may be multiple P-TE LSPs belonging to
different DS-TE class-types. Local policies can be implemented to
map the incoming RSVP path request from H1 to the P-TE LSP with the
appropriate class-type. Please note that the e2e RSVP path request
may also be initiated by the CE devices themselves.
C-RSVP path
<---------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|H1 | |CE1|-----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2| |H2 |.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
............. .............
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 11]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
^ ^
| |
vrf instance vrf instance
<--customer--> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <--customer->
network network
Figure 6 Scenario IV
5.5 Scenario V: RSVP over Non-TE LSP
In this scenario, as shown in figure 7, the customer has two hosts
connecting off CE1 and CE2 respectively. CE1 and CE2 are connected to
PE1 and PE2, respectively, within a VRF instance belonging to the
same VPN. The requesting host (H1) may request to H2 an RSVP path
with bandwidth reservation of X. In this case, a non-TE LSP (i.e. LDP
etc) is provided between PEs and supports MPLS diffserv [RFC3270].
Local policies can be implemented to map customer's reserved flow to
the LSP with the appropriate EXP at PE1. Please note that there is
always enough bandwidth available in service provider backbone.
C-RSVP path
<---------------------------------------------->
Non-TE LSP
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|H1 | |CE1|-----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2| |H2 |.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
............. .............
^ ^
| |
vrf instance vrf instance
<--customer--> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <--customer->
network network
Figure 7 Scenario V
6. Detailed Requirements for C-TE LSPs Model
This section describes detailed requirements for C-TE LSPs in
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments.
6.1 Selective P-TE LSPs
The solution MUST provide the ability to decide which P-TE LSP a PE
uses for a C-RSVP path and a C-TE LSP. When a PE receives a native
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 12]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
RSVP and/or a path messages from a CE, it may be able to decide which
P-TE LSP it uses. In this case, various kinds of P-TE LSPs exist in
service provider network. For example, the PE MUST choose an
appropriate P-TE LSP based on local policies such as:
1. preemption priority
2. affinity
3. class-type
4. on the data plane: (DSCP or EXP bits)
6.2 Graceful Restart Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution SHOULD provide graceful restart capability for a C-TE
LSP over vrf instance. Graceful restart mechanisms related to this
architecture are described in [RFC3473] [RFC3623] [RFC4781].
6.3 Rerouting Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST provide rerouting of a C-TE LSP in case of
link/node/SRLG failures or preemption. Such rerouting may be
controlled by a CE or by a PE depending on the failure. Rerouting
capability MUST be provided against a CE-PE link failure or a PE
failure if another is available between the head-end and the tail-end
of the C-TE LSP.
6.4 FRR Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support FRR [RFC4090] features for a C-TE LSP over
vrf instance.
In BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments, a C-TE LSP from a CE traverses
multiple PEs and Ps, albeit tunneled over a P-TE LSP. In order to
avoid PE-CE link/PE node/SRLG failures, a CE (a customer's head-end
router) needs to support a fast local protection or a fast path
protection.
The following protection MUST be supported:
1. CE link protection
2. PE node protection
3. CE node protection (supposed that there are one or more C-TE nodes
at customer sites)
6.5 Admission Control Support on P-TE LSP Head-Ends
The solution MUST support admission control on a P-TE LSP tunnel
head-end. C-TE LSPs may potentially reserve over the bandwidth of a
P-TE LSP. The P-TE LSP tunnel head-end SHOULD control the number of
C-TE LSPs and/or the bandwidth of C-TE LSPs.
For example, the transport TE LSP head-end MUST have a configurable
limit on the maximum number of C-TE LSPs that it can admit from a CE.
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 13]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
As for the amount of bandwidth that can be reserved by C-TE LSPs:
there could be two situations:
1. Let the P-TE LSP do its natural bandwidth admission
2. Set a cap on the amount of bandwidth and have the configuration
option to:
a. Reserve the minimum of the cap bandwidth or the C-TE LSP bandwidth
on the P-TE LSP if the required bandwidth is available
b. Reject the C-TE LSP if the required bandwidth by the C-TE LSP is
not available
6.6 Policy Control Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support policy control for a C-TE LSP at a PE.
The PE MUST be able to perform the following:
1. Limit the rate of RSVP messages per CE link
2. Accept or reject requests for a given affifinity
3. Accept or reject requests with a specified setup and/or pre-
emption priorities.
4. Accept or reject requests for fast reroutes
5. Neglect the requested setup and/or pre-emption priorities and
select a P-TE LSP based on a local policy that applies to the CE-PE
link or VRF.
6. Neglect the requested affinity and select a P-TE LSP based on a
local policy that applies to the CE-PE link or VRF.
7. Perform mapping in data plane between customer exp bits and
transport P-TE LSP exp bits.
6.7 PCE Features Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MAY support PCE architecture for a C-TE LSP
establishment in the context of a vrf instance. When a C-TE LSP is
provided, CEs, PEs and Ps may support PCE [RFC4655] [PCEP] features.
In this case, CE routers or PE routers may be PCCs and PE routers
and/or P routers may be PCEs.
6.8 Diversely Routed C-TE LSPs Support
The solution MUST provide for setting up diversely routed C-TE LSPs
over vrf instance. These diverse C-TE LSPs MAY be traversing over two
different P-TE LSPs that are fully disjoint within a service provider
network. When a single CE has multiple uplinks which connect to
different PEs, it is desirable that multiple C-TE LSPs over vrf
instance are established between a pair of LSRs. When two CEs have
multiple uplinks which connect to different PEs, it is desirable that
multiple C-TE LSPs over vrf instance are established between two
different pairs of LSRs. In these cases, for example, the following
points will be beneficial to customers.
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 14]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
1. load balance of CE-to-CE traffic across diverse C-TE LSPs so as to
minimize the traffic disruption in case of a single network element
failure
2. path protection (e.g. 1:1, 1:N)
6.9 Optimal Path Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support an optimal path for a C-TE LSP over vrf
instance.
Depending on an application (e.g. voice and video), an optimal path
is needed for a C-TE LSP over vrf instance. An optimal path may be a
shortest path based on TE metric or IGP metric.
6.10 Reoptimization Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support reoptimization of a C-TE LSP over vrf
instance. These LSPs MUST be reoptimized using make-before-break.
In this case, it is desirable for a customer's head-end LSR to be
configured with regard to timer-based or event-driven reoptimization.
Furthermore, customers SHOULD be able to reoptimize a C-TE LSP
manually.
To provide delay- or jitter-sensitive traffic (i.e. voice traffic), a
C-TE LSP is expected to be kept optimal.
6.11 DS-TE Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support DS-TE [RFC4124] for a C-TE LSP over vrf
instance.
Applications, which have different traffic characteristics, are used
in BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments. Service providers try to achieve
fine-grained optimization of transmission resources, efficiency and
further enhanced network performance. It may be desirable to perform
TE at a per-class level.
By mapping the traffic from a given diff-serv class of service on a
separate C-TE LSP, it allows this traffic to utilize resources
available to the given class on both shortest paths and non-shortest
paths, and follow paths that meet TE constraints which are specific
to the given class.
7. Detailed Requirements for C-RSVP Paths Model
This section describes detailed requirements for C-RSVP paths in
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments.
7.1 Admission Control between PE-CE for C-RSVP Paths
The solution MUST support admission control at ingress/egress PE. PEs
MUST control RSVP messages per a vrf.
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 15]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
7.2 Aggregation of C-RSVP Paths by P-TE LSPs
The solution SHOULD support C-RSVP paths aggregated by P-TE LSPs.
P-TE LSPs SHOULD be pre-established by manually or dynamically, MAY
be established triggered by C-RSVP message. Also, P-TE LSP SHOULD
support DS-TE.
7.3 Non-TE LSPs support for C-RSVP Paths
The solution MUST support non-TE LSPs (i.e. LDP-based LSP, etc). They
are provided between PEs and supports MPLS diffserv [RFC3270]. Local
policies can be implemented to map customer's reserved flow to the
LSP with the appropriate EXP at PE.
Please note that there is always enough bandwidth available in
service provider backbone.
7.4 Transparency of C-RSVP Paths
The solution SHOULD NOT change RSVP messages from local CE to remote
CE (Path, Resv, Path Error, Resv Error, etc). Customers SHOULD deal
RSVP messages transparently between CE sites.
8. Common Detailed Requirements for Two Models
This section describes common detailed requirements for C-TE LSPs and
C-RSVP paths in BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments.
8.1 CE-PE Routing
The solution MUST support the following routing configuration on the
CE-PE links with either RSVP or RSVP-TE on the CE-PE link:
1. static routing
2. BGP routing
3. OSPF
4. OSPF-TE (RSVP-TE case only)
8.2 Complexity and Risks
The solution SHOULD NOT introduce unnecessary complexity to the
current operating network to such a degree that it would affect the
stability and diminish the benefits of deploying such a solution over
SP networks.
8.3 Backward Compatibility
The deployment of C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs SHOULD NOT impact
existing RSVP and MPLS TE mechanisms respectively, but allow for a
smooth migration or co-existence.
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 16]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
8.4 Scalability Considerations
The solution MUST have a minimum impact on network scalability from a
C-RSVP path and a C-TE LSP over vrf instance.
Scalability of C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs MUST address the following
consideration.
1. RSVP (e.g. number of RSVP messages, retained state etc).
2. RSVP-TE (e.g. number of RSVP control messages, retained state,
message size etc).
3. BGP (e.g. number of routes, flaps, overloads events etc).
8.5 Performance Considerations
The solution SHOULD be evaluated with regard to the following
criteria.
1. Degree of path optimality of the C-TE LSP.
2. TE LSP setup time.
3. Failure and restoration time.
4. Impact and scalability of the control plane due to added
overheads and so on.
5. Impact and scalability of the data/forwarding plane due to added
overheads and so on.
8.6 Management Considerations
Manageability of C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs MUST addresses the
following considerations.
1. Need for a MIB module for control plane and monitoring.
2. Need for diagnostic tools.
MIB module for C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs MUST collect per a vrf
instance.
If a CE is managed by service providers, MIB information for C-RSVP
paths and C-TE LSPs from the CE MUST be collected per a customer.
Today, diagnostic tools can detect failures of control plane and data
plane for general MPLS TE LSPs [RFC4379].
The diagnostic tools MUST detect failures of control and data plane
for C-TE LSPs over a vrf instance.
MPLS OAM for C-TE LSPs MUST be supported within the context of VRF
except for the above.
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 17]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
In BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments, from a CE point of view, IP TTL
decreases at a local PE and a remote PE. But from a PE point of view,
both IP TTL and MPLS TTL decreases between PEs.
9. Security Considerations
Security issues for C-TE LSPs relate to both control plane and data
plane.
In terms of control plane, in the models of C-RSVP paths and C-TE
LSPs both, a PE receives IPv4 or IPv6 RSVP control packets from a CE.
If the CE is an untrusted router for service providers, the PE MUST
be able to limit IPv4 or IPv6 RSVP control packets. If the CE is a
trusted router for service providers, the PE MAY be able to limit
IPv4 or IPv6 control packets.
In terms of data plane, in the model of C-TE LSPs, a PE receives
labeled IPv4 or IPv6 data packets from a CE. If the CE is an
untrusted router for service providers, the PE MUST be able to limit
labeled IPv4 or IPv6 data packets. If the CE is a trusted router for
service providers, the PE MAY be able to limit labeled IPv4 or IPv6
data packets. Specifically, the PE must drop MPLS-labeled packets if
the MPLS label was not assigned over the PE-CE link on which the
packet was received. The PE must also be able to police traffic to
the traffic profile associated with the LSP on which traffic is
received on the PE-CE link.
Moreover, flooding RSVP/RSVP-TE control packets from malicious
customers enables other customers to impact themselves on their
communication. Therefore, a PE MUST isolate the impact of such
customer's packets from other customers.
In BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments, from a CE point of view, IP TTL
should decrease at a local PE and a remote PE to hide service
provider network topology.
10. IANA Considerations
This requirement document makes no requests for IANA action.
11. References
11.1 Normative References
[RFC1633] Braden, R., et al., "Integrated Services in the Internet
Architecture: an Overview", RFC 1633, June 1994.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 18]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January
2003.
[RFC3623] Moy, J., et al., "Graceful OSPF Restart", RFC3623,
November 2003.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G. and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
2005.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June
2005.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E., and Rekhter, Y., "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting MPLS Data Plane
Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4781] Rekhter, Y., and Aggarwal, R., "Graceful Restart
Mechanism for BGP with MPLS", RFC 4781, January 2007.
11.2 Informative References
[RSVP-L3VPN] Davie, B., et al., "Support for RSVP in Layer 3 VPNs",
Work in Progress, February 2008.
[PCEP] Vasseur, J.-P., et al., "Path Computation Element(PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1", Work in
Progress, March 2008.
[RFC4804] Le Faucheur, F., et al., "Aggregation of RSVP
Reservations over MPLS TE/DS-TE Tunnels", RFC4804,
February 2007.
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 19]
draft-ietf-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-00 April 2008
[ZERO-BANDWIDTH] Vasseur, J.-P., et al., "A Link-Type sub-TLV to
convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths signaled with zero reserved bandwidth
across a link", Work in Progress, February 2008.
12. Acknowledgments
The author would like to express the thanks to Nabil Bitar for his
helpful and useful comments and feedback.
13. Author's Addresses
Kenji Kumaki (Editor)
KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Raymond Zhang
BT Infonet
2160 E. Grand Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90025
Email: raymond.zhang@bt.infonet.com
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower
3-20-2 Nishi Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-1421, Japan
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 20]
draft-kumaki-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-06 August 2008
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
K.Kumaki, et al. [Page 21]
