Network Working Group Eric C. Rosen
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expiration Date: January 1999
Arun Viswanathan
Lucent Technologies
Ross Callon
IronBridge Networks, Inc.
July 1998
Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. 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."
To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Northern
Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific
Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
This internet draft specifies the architecture for multiprotocol
label switching (MPLS). The architecture is based on other label
switching approaches [2-11] as well as on the MPLS Framework document
[1].
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to MPLS ............................... 4
1.1 Overview ........................................... 4
1.2 Terminology ........................................ 6
1.3 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................... 9
1.4 Acknowledgments .................................... 10
2 Outline of Approach ................................ 10
2.1 Labels ............................................. 11
2.2 Upstream and Downstream LSRs ....................... 12
2.3 Labeled Packet ..................................... 12
2.4 Label Assignment and Distribution .................. 12
2.5 Attributes of a Label Binding ...................... 12
2.6 Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) .................. 13
2.7 Downstream vs. Downstream-on-Demand ................ 13
2.8 Label Retention Mode ............................... 13
2.9 The Label Stack .................................... 14
2.10 The Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE) ........ 14
2.11 Incoming Label Map (ILM) ........................... 15
2.12 FEC-to-NHLFE Map (FTN) ............................. 15
2.13 Label Swapping ..................................... 16
2.14 Scope and Uniqueness of Labels ..................... 16
2.15 Label Switched Path (LSP), LSP Ingress, LSP Egress . 17
2.16 Penultimate Hop Popping ............................ 19
2.17 LSP Next Hop ....................................... 20
2.18 Invalid Incoming Labels ............................ 21
2.19 LSP Control: Ordered versus Independent ............ 21
2.20 Aggregation ........................................ 22
2.21 Route Selection .................................... 24
2.22 Time-to-Live (TTL) ................................. 25
2.23 Loop Control ....................................... 26
2.23.1 Loop Prevention .................................... 27
2.23.2 Interworking of Loop Control Options ............... 29
2.24 Label Encodings .................................... 30
2.24.1 MPLS-specific Hardware and/or Software ............. 31
2.24.2 ATM Switches as LSRs ............................... 31
2.24.3 Interoperability among Encoding Techniques ......... 33
2.25 Label Merging ...................................... 33
2.25.1 Non-merging LSRs ................................... 34
2.25.2 Labels for Merging and Non-Merging LSRs ............ 35
2.25.3 Merge over ATM ..................................... 36
2.25.3.1 Methods of Eliminating Cell Interleave ............. 36
2.25.3.2 Interoperation: VC Merge, VP Merge, and Non-Merge .. 36
2.26 Tunnels and Hierarchy .............................. 37
2.26.1 Hop-by-Hop Routed Tunnel ........................... 38
2.26.2 Explicitly Routed Tunnel ........................... 38
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.26.3 LSP Tunnels ........................................ 38
2.26.4 Hierarchy: LSP Tunnels within LSPs ................. 39
2.26.5 LDP Peering and Hierarchy .......................... 39
2.27 LDP Transport ...................................... 40
2.28 Multicast .......................................... 41
3 Some Applications of MPLS .......................... 41
3.1 MPLS and Hop by Hop Routed Traffic ................. 41
3.1.1 Labels for Address Prefixes ........................ 41
3.1.2 Distributing Labels for Address Prefixes ........... 41
3.1.2.1 LDP Peers for a Particular Address Prefix .......... 41
3.1.2.2 Distributing Labels ................................ 42
3.1.3 Using the Hop by Hop path as the LSP ............... 43
3.1.4 LSP Egress and LSP Proxy Egress .................... 43
3.1.5 The Implicit NULL Label ............................ 44
3.1.6 Option: Egress-Targeted Label Assignment ........... 45
3.2 MPLS and Explicitly Routed LSPs .................... 46
3.2.1 Explicitly Routed LSP Tunnels: Traffic Engineering . 46
3.3 Label Stacks and Implicit Peering .................. 47
3.4 MPLS and Multi-Path Routing ........................ 48
3.5 LSP Trees as Multipoint-to-Point Entities .......... 48
3.6 LSP Tunneling between BGP Border Routers ........... 49
3.7 Other Uses of Hop-by-Hop Routed LSP Tunnels ........ 50
3.8 MPLS and Multicast ................................. 51
4 LDP Procedures for Hop-by-Hop Routed Traffic ....... 51
4.1 The Procedures for Advertising and Using labels .... 51
4.1.1 Downstream LSR: Distribution Procedure ............. 52
4.1.1.1 PushUnconditional .................................. 52
4.1.1.2 PushConditional .................................... 53
4.1.1.3 PulledUnconditional ................................ 53
4.1.1.4 PulledConditional .................................. 54
4.1.2 Upstream LSR: Request Procedure .................... 55
4.1.2.1 RequestNever ....................................... 55
4.1.2.2 RequestWhenNeeded .................................. 55
4.1.2.3 RequestOnRequest ................................... 55
4.1.3 Upstream LSR: NotAvailable Procedure ............... 56
4.1.3.1 RequestRetry ....................................... 56
4.1.3.2 RequestNoRetry ..................................... 56
4.1.4 Upstream LSR: Release Procedure .................... 56
4.1.4.1 ReleaseOnChange .................................... 56
4.1.4.2 NoReleaseOnChange .................................. 57
4.1.5 Upstream LSR: labelUse Procedure ................... 57
4.1.5.1 UseImmediate ....................................... 57
4.1.5.2 UseIfLoopFree ...................................... 57
4.1.5.3 UseIfLoopNotDetected ............................... 58
4.1.6 Downstream LSR: Withdraw Procedure ................. 58
4.2 MPLS Schemes: Supported Combinations of Procedures . 59
4.2.1 TTL-capable LSP Segments ........................... 59
4.2.2 Using ATM Switches as LSRs ......................... 60
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
4.2.2.1 Without Label Merging .............................. 60
4.2.2.2 With Label Merging ................................. 61
4.2.3 Interoperability Considerations .................... 62
5 Security Considerations ............................ 63
6 Authors' Addresses ................................. 63
7 References ......................................... 64
1. Introduction to MPLS
1.1. Overview
In connectionless network layer protocols, as a packet travels from
one router hop to the next, an independent forwarding decision is
made at each hop. Each router runs a network layer routing
algorithm. As a packet travels through the network, each router
analyzes the packet header. The choice of next hop for a packet is
based on the header analysis and the result of running the routing
algorithm.
Packet headers contain considerably more information than is needed
simply to choose the next hop. Choosing the next hop can therefore be
thought of as the composition of two functions. The first function
partitions the entire set of possible packets into a set of
"Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs)". The second maps each FEC to
a next hop. Insofar as the forwarding decision is concerned,
different packets which get mapped into the same FEC are
indistinguishable. All packets which belong to a particular FEC and
which travel from a particular node will follow the same path.
In conventional IP forwarding, a particular router will typically
consider two packets to be in the same FEC if there is some address
prefix X in that router's routing tables such that X is the "longest
match" for each packet's destination address. As the packet traverses
the network, each hop in turn reexamines the packet and assigns it to
a FEC.
In MPLS, the assignment of a particular packet to a particular FEC is
done just once, as the packet enters the network. The FEC to which
the packet is assigned is encoded with a short fixed length value
known as a "label". When a packet is forwarded to its next hop, the
label is sent along with it; that is, the packets are "labeled".
At subsequent hops, there is no further analysis of the packet's
network layer header. Rather, the label is used as an index into a
table which specifies the next hop, and a new label. The old label
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
is replaced with the new label, and the packet is forwarded to its
next hop. If assignment to a FEC is based on a "longest match", this
eliminates the need to perform a longest match computation for each
packet at each hop; the computation can be performed just once.
Some routers analyze a packet's network layer header not merely to
choose the packet's next hop, but also to determine a packet's
"precedence" or "class of service", in order to apply different
discard thresholds or scheduling disciplines to different packets.
MPLS allows the precedence or class of service to be inferred from
the label, so that no further header analysis is needed; in some
cases MPLS provides a way to explicitly encode a class of service in
the "label header".
The fact that a packet is assigned to a FEC just once, rather than at
every hop, allows the use of sophisticated forwarding paradigms. A
packet that enters the network at a particular router can be labeled
differently than the same packet entering the network at a different
router, and as a result forwarding decisions that depend on the
ingress point ("policy routing") can be easily made. In fact, the
policy used to assign a packet to a FEC need not have only the
network layer header as input; it may use arbitrary information about
the packet, and/or arbitrary policy information as input. Since this
decouples forwarding from routing, it allows one to use MPLS to
support a large variety of routing policies that are difficult or
impossible to support with just conventional network layer
forwarding.
Similarly, MPLS facilitates the use of explicit routing, without
requiring that each IP packet carry the explicit route. Explicit
routes may be useful to support policy routing and traffic
engineering.
MPLS makes use of a routing approach whereby the normal mode of
operation is that L3 routing (e.g., existing IP routing protocols
and/or new IP routing protocols) is used by all nodes to determine
the routed path.
MPLS stands for "Multiprotocol" Label Switching, multiprotocol
because its techniques are applicable to ANY network layer protocol.
In this document, however, we focus on the use of IP as the network
layer protocol.
A router which supports MPLS is known as a "Label Switching Router",
or LSR.
A general discussion of issues related to MPLS is presented in "A
Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching" [1].
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
1.2. Terminology
This section gives a general conceptual overview of the terms used in
this document. Some of these terms are more precisely defined in
later sections of the document.
DLCI a label used in Frame Relay networks to
identify frame relay circuits
flow a single instance of an application to
application flow of data (as in the RSVP
and IFMP use of the term "flow")
forwarding equivalence class a group of IP packets which are
forwarded in the same manner (e.g.,
over the same path, with the same
forwarding treatment)
frame merge label merging, when it is applied to
operation over frame based media, so that
the potential problem of cell interleave
is not an issue.
label a short fixed length physically
contiguous identifier which is used to
identify a FEC, usually of local
significance.
label merging the replacement of multiple incoming
labels for a particular FEC with a single
outgoing label
label swap the basic forwarding operation consisting
of looking up an incoming label to
determine the outgoing label,
encapsulation, port, and other data
handling information.
label swapping a forwarding paradigm allowing
streamlined forwarding of data by using
labels to identify classes of data
packets which are treated
indistinguishably when forwarding.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
label switched hop the hop between two MPLS nodes, on which
forwarding is done using labels.
label switched path the path created by the concatenation of
one or more label switched hops, allowing
a packet to be forwarded by swapping
labels from an MPLS node to another MPLS
node.
layer 2 the protocol layer under layer 3 (which
therefore offers the services used by
layer 3). Forwarding, when done by the
swapping of short fixed length labels,
occurs at layer 2 regardless of whether
the label being examined is an ATM
VPI/VCI, a frame relay DLCI, or an MPLS
label.
layer 3 the protocol layer at which IP and its
associated routing protocols operate link
layer synonymous with layer 2
loop detection a method of dealing with loops in which
loops are allowed to be set up, and data
may be transmitted over the loop, but the
loop is later detected and closed
loop prevention a method of dealing with loops in which
data is never transmitted over a loop
label stack an ordered set of labels
loop survival a method of dealing with loops in which
data may be transmitted over a loop, but
means are employed to limit the amount of
network resources which may be consumed
by the looping data
label switched path The path through one or more LSRs at one
level of the hierarchy followed by a
packets in a particular FEC.
label switching router an MPLS node which is capable of
forwarding native L3 packets
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
merge point a node at which label merging is done
MPLS core standards the standards which describe the core
MPLS technology
MPLS domain a contiguous set of nodes which operate
MPLS routing and forwarding and which are
also in one Routing or Administrative
Domain
MPLS edge node an MPLS node that connects an MPLS domain
with a node which is outside of the
domain, either because it does not run
MPLS, and/or because it is in a different
domain. Note that if an LSR has a
neighboring host which is not running
MPLS, that that LSR is an MPLS edge node.
MPLS egress node an MPLS edge node in its role in handling
traffic as it leaves an MPLS domain
MPLS ingress node an MPLS edge node in its role in handling
traffic as it enters an MPLS domain
MPLS label a label which is carried in a packet
header, and which represents the packet's
FEC
MPLS node a node which is running MPLS. An MPLS
node will be aware of MPLS control
protocols, will operate one or more L3
routing protocols, and will be capable of
forwarding packets based on labels. An
MPLS node may optionally be also capable
of forwarding native L3 packets.
MultiProtocol Label Switching an IETF working group and the effort
associated with the working group
network layer synonymous with layer 3
stack synonymous with label stack
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
switched path synonymous with label switched path
virtual circuit a circuit used by a connection-oriented
layer 2 technology such as ATM or Frame
Relay, requiring the maintenance of state
information in layer 2 switches.
VC merge label merging where the MPLS label is
carried in the ATM VCI field (or combined
VPI/VCI field), so as to allow multiple
VCs to merge into one single VC
VP merge label merging where the MPLS label is
carried din the ATM VPI field, so as to
allow multiple VPs to be merged into one
single VP. In this case two cells would
have the same VCI value only if they
originated from the same node. This
allows cells from different sources to be
distinguished via the VCI.
VPI/VCI a label used in ATM networks to identify
circuits
1.3. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ATM Asynchronous Transfer Mode
BGP Border Gateway Protocol
DLCI Data Link Circuit Identifier
FEC Forwarding Equivalence Class
FTN FEC to NHLFE Map
IGP Interior Gateway Protocol
ILM Incoming Label Map
IP Internet Protocol
LDP Label Distribution Protocol
L2 Layer 2
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
L3 Layer 3
LSP Label Switched Path
LSR Label Switching Router
MPLS MultiProtocol Label Switching
MPT Multipoint to Point Tree
NHLFE Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry
SVC Switched Virtual Circuit
SVP Switched Virtual Path
TTL Time-To-Live
VC Virtual Circuit
VCI Virtual Circuit Identifier
VP Virtual Path
VPI Virtual Path Identifier
1.4. Acknowledgments
The ideas and text in this document have been collected from a number
of sources and comments received. We would like to thank Rick Boivie,
Paul Doolan, Nancy Feldman, Yakov Rekhter, Vijay Srinivasan, and
George Swallow for their inputs and ideas.
2. Outline of Approach
In this section, we introduce some of the basic concepts of MPLS and
describe the general approach to be used.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.1. Labels
A label is a short, fixed length, locally significant identifier
which is used to identify a FEC. The label which is put on a
particular packet represents the Forwarding Equivalence Class to
which that packet is assigned.
Most commonly, packets are assigned to FECS based on their
destination network layer addresses. However, the label is never an
encoding of the destination network layer address.
If Ru and Rd are LSRs, they may agree that when Ru transmits a packet
to Rd, Ru will label with packet with label value L if and only if
the packet is a member of a particular FEC F. That is, they can
agree to a "binding" between label L and FEC F for packets moving
from Ru to Rd. As a result of such an agreement, L becomes Ru's
"outgoing label" representing FEC F, and L becomes Rd's "incoming
label" representing FEC F.
Note that L does not necessarily represent FEC F for any packets
other than those which are being sent from Ru to Rd. L is an
arbitrary value whose binding to F is local to Ru and Rd.
When we speak above of packets "being sent" from Ru to to Rd, we do
not imply either that the packet originated at Ru or that its
destination is Rd. Rather, we mean to include packets which are
"transit packets" at one or both of the LSRs.
Sometimes it may be difficult or even impossible for Rd to tell, of
an arriving packet carrying label L, that the label L was placed in
the packet by Ru, rather than by some other LSR. (This will
typically be the case when Ru and Rd are not direct neighbors.) In
such cases, Rd must make sure that the binding from label to FEC is
one-to-one. That is, in such cases, Rd must not agree with Ru1 to
bind L to FEC F1, while also agreeing with some other LSR Ru2 to bind
L to a different FEC F2. It is the responsibility of each LSR to
ensure that it can uniquely interpret its incoming labels.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.2. Upstream and Downstream LSRs
Suppose Ru and Rd have agreed to bind label L to FEC F, for packets
sent from Ru to Rd. Then with respect to this binding, Ru is the
"upstream LSR", and Rd is the "downstream LSR".
To say that one node is upstream and one is downstream with respect
to a given binding means only that a particular label represents a
particular FEC in packets travelling from the upstream node to the
downstream node. This is NOT meant to imply that packets in that FEC
would actually be routed from the upstream node to the downstream
node.
2.3. Labeled Packet
A "labeled packet" is a packet into which a label has been encoded.
In some cases, the label resides in an encapsulation header which
exists specifically for this purpose. In other cases, the label may
reside in an existing data link or network layer header, as long as
there is a field which is available for that purpose. The particular
encoding technique to be used must be agreed to by both the entity
which encodes the label and the entity which decodes the label.
2.4. Label Assignment and Distribution
In the MPLS architecture, the decision to bind a particular label L
to a particular FEC F is made by the LSR which is DOWNSTREAM with
respect to that binding. The downstream LSR then informs the
upstream LSR of the binding. Thus labels are "downstream-assigned",
and label bindings are distributed in the "downstream to upstream"
direction.
2.5. Attributes of a Label Binding
A particular binding of label L to FEC F, distributed by Rd to Ru,
may have associated "attributes". If Ru, acting as a downstream LSR,
also distributes a binding of a label to FEC F, then under certain
conditions, it may be required to also distribute the corresponding
attribute that it received from Rd.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.6. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
A Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) is a set of procedures by which
one LSR informs another of the label/FEC bindings it has made. Two
LSRs which use an LDP to exchange label/FEC binding information are
known as "LDP Peers" with respect to the binding information they
exchange. If two LSRs are LDP Peers, we will speak of there being an
"LDP Adjacency" between them.
(N.B.: two LSRs may be LDP Peers with respect to some set of
bindings, but not with respect to some other set of bindings.)
The LDP also encompasses any negotiations in which two LDP Peers need
to engage in order to learn of each other's MPLS capabilities.
2.7. Downstream vs. Downstream-on-Demand
The MPLS architecture allows an LSR to explicitly request, from its
next hop for a particular FEC, a label binding for that FEC. This is
known as "downstream-on-demand" label distribution.
The MPLS architecture also allows an LSR to distribute bindings to
LSRs that have not explicitly requested them. This is known as
"downstream" label distribution.
Both of these label distribution techniques may be used in the same
network at the same time. However, on any given LDP adjacency, the
upstream LSR and the downstream LSR must agree on which technique is
to be used.
2.8. Label Retention Mode
An LSR Ru may receive (or have received) a label binding for a
particular FEC from an LSR Rd, even though Rd is not Ru's next hop
(or is no longer Ru's next hop) for that FEC.
Ru then has the choice of whether to keep track of such bindings, or
whether to discard such bindings. If Ru keeps track of such
bindings, then it may immediately begin using the binding again if Rd
eventually becomes its next hop for the FEC in question. If Ru
discards such bindings, then if Rd later becomes the next hop, the
binding will have to be reacquired.
If an LSR supports "Liberal Label Retention Mode", it maintains the
bindings between a label and a FEC which are received from LSRs which
are not its next hop for that FEC. If an LSR supports "Conservative
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
Label Retention Mode", it discards such bindings.
Liberal label retention mode allows for quicker adaptation to routing
changes, especially if loop prevention (see section 2.23) is not
being used. Conservative label retention mode though requires an LSR
to maintain many fewer labels.
2.9. The Label Stack
So far, we have spoken as if a labeled packet carries only a single
label. As we shall see, it is useful to have a more general model in
which a labeled packet carries a number of labels, organized as a
last-in, first-out stack. We refer to this as a "label stack".
IN MPLS, EVERY FORWARDING DECISION IS BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE LABEL
AT THE TOP OF THE STACK.
Although, as we shall see, MPLS supports a hierarchy, the processing
of a labeled packet is completely independent of the level of
hierarchy. The processing is always based on the top label, without
regard for the possibility that some number of other labels may have
been "above it" in the past, or that some number of other labels may
be below it at present.
An unlabeled packet can be thought of as a packet whose label stack
is empty (i.e., whose label stack has depth 0).
If a packet's label stack is of depth m, we refer to the label at the
bottom of the stack as the level 1 label, to the label above it (if
such exists) as the level 2 label, and to the label at the top of the
stack as the level m label.
The utility of the label stack will become clear when we introduce
the notion of LSP Tunnel and the MPLS Hierarchy (section 2.26).
2.10. The Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE)
The "Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry" (NHLFE) is used when forwarding
a labeled packet. It contains the following information:
1. the packet's next hop
2. the data link encapsulation to use when transmitting the packet
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
3. the way to encode the label stack when transmitting the packet
4. the operation to perform on the packet's label stack; this is
one of the following operations:
a) replace the label at the top of the label stack with a
specified new label
b) pop the label stack
c) replace the label at the top of the label stack with a
specified new label, and then push one or more specified
new labels onto the label stack.
Note that at a given LSR, the packet's "next hop" might be that LSR
itself. In this case, the LSR would need to pop the top level label,
and then "forward" the resulting packet to itself. It would then
make another forwarding decision, based on what remains after the
label stacked is popped. This may still be a labeled packet, or it
may be the native IP packet.
This implies that in some cases the LSR may need to operate on the IP
header in order to forward the packet.
If the packet's "next hop" is the current LSR, then the label stack
operation MUST be to "pop the stack".
2.11. Incoming Label Map (ILM)
The "Incoming Label Map" (ILM) is a mapping from incoming labels to
NHLFEs. It is used when forwarding packets that arrive as labeled
packets.
2.12. FEC-to-NHLFE Map (FTN)
The "FEC-to-NHLFE" (FTN) is a mapping from FECs to NHLFEs. It is used
when forwarding packets that arrive unlabeled, but which are to be
labeled before being forwarded.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.13. Label Swapping
Label swapping is the use of the following procedures to forward a
packet.
In order to forward a labeled packet, a LSR examines the label at the
top of the label stack. It uses the ILM to map this label to an
NHLFE. Using the information in the NHLFE, it determines where to
forward the packet, and performs an operation on the packet's label
stack. It then encodes the new label stack into the packet, and
forwards the result.
In order to forward an unlabeled packet, a LSR analyzes the network
layer header, to determine the packet's FEC. It then uses the FTN to
map this to an NHLFE. Using the information in the NHLFE, it
determines where to forward the packet, and performs an operation on
the packet's label stack. (Popping the label stack would, of course,
be illegal in this case.) It then encodes the new label stack into
the packet, and forwards the result.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN LABEL SWAPPING IS IN USE, THE NEXT
HOP IS ALWAYS TAKEN FROM THE NHLFE; THIS MAY IN SOME CASES BE
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE NEXT HOP WOULD BE IF MPLS WERE NOT IN USE.
2.14. Scope and Uniqueness of Labels
A given LSR Rd may bind label L1 to FEC F, and distribute that
binding to LDP peer Ru1. Rd may also bind label L2 to FEC F, and
distribute that binding to LDP peer Ru2. Whether or not L1 == L2 is
not determined by the architecture; this is a local matter.
A given LSR Rd may bind label L to FEC F1, and distribute that
binding to LDP peer Ru1. Rd may also bind label L to FEC F2, and
distribute that binding to LDP peer Ru2. IF (AND ONLY IF) RD CAN
TELL, WHEN IT RECEIVES A PACKET WHOSE TOP LABEL IS L, WHETHER THE
LABEL WAS PUT THERE BY RU1 OR BY RU2, THEN THE ARCHITECTURE DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT F1 == F2.
In general, Rd can only tell whether it was Ru1 or Ru2 that put the
particular label value L at the top of the label stack if the
following conditions hold:
- Ru1 and Ru2 are the only LDP peers to which Rd distributed a
binding of label value L, and
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
- Ru1 and Ru2 are each directly connected to Rd via a point-to-
point interface.
When these conditions hold, an LSR may use labels that have "per
interface" scope, i.e., which are only unique per interface. When
these conditions do not hold, the labels must be unique over the LSR
which has assigned them.
If a particular LSR Rd is attached to a particular LSR Ru over two
point-to-point interfaces, then Rd may distribute to Rd a binding of
label L to FEC F1, as well as a binding of label L to FEC F2, F1 !=
F2, if and only if each binding is valid only for packets which Ru
sends to Rd over a particular one of the interfaces. In all other
cases, Rd MUST NOT distribute to Ru bindings of the same label value
to two different FECs.
This prohibition holds even if the bindings are regarded as being at
different "levels of hierarchy". In MPLS, there is no notion of
having a different label space for different levels of the hierarchy;
when interpreting a label, the level of the label is irrelevant.
2.15. Label Switched Path (LSP), LSP Ingress, LSP Egress
A "Label Switched Path (LSP) of level m" for a particular packet P is
a sequence of routers,
<R1, ..., Rn>
with the following properties:
1. R1, the "LSP Ingress", is an LSR which pushes a label onto P's
label stack, resulting in a label stack of depth m;
2. For all i, 1<i<n, P has a label stack of depth m when received
by LSR Ri;
3. At no time during P's transit from R1 to R[n-1] does its label
stack ever have a depth of less than m;
4. For all i, 1<i<n: Ri transmits P to R[i+1] by means of MPLS,
i.e., by using the label at the top of the label stack (the
level m label) as an index into an ILM;
5. For all i, 1<i<n: if a system S receives and forwards P after P
is transmitted by Ri but before P is received by R[i+1] (e.g.,
Ri and R[i+1] might be connected via a switched data link
subnetwork, and S might be one of the data link switches), then
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
S's forwarding decision is not based on the level m label, or
on the network layer header. This may be because:
a) the decision is not based on the label stack or the
network layer header at all;
b) the decision is based on a label stack on which
additional labels have been pushed (i.e., on a level m+k
label, where k>0).
In other words, we can speak of the level m LSP for Packet P as the
sequence of routers:
1. which begins with an LSR (an "LSP Ingress") that pushes on a
level m label,
2. all of whose intermediate LSRs make their forwarding decision
by label Switching on a level m label,
3. which ends (at an "LSP Egress") when a forwarding decision is
made by label Switching on a level m-k label, where k>0, or
when a forwarding decision is made by "ordinary", non-MPLS
forwarding procedures.
A consequence (or perhaps a presupposition) of this is that whenever
an LSR pushes a label onto an already labeled packet, it needs to
make sure that the new label corresponds to a FEC whose LSP Egress is
the LSR that assigned the label which is now second in the stack.
We will call a sequence of LSRs the "LSP for a particular FEC F" if
it is an LSP of level m for a particular packet P when P's level m
label is a label corresponding to FEC F.
Consider the set of nodes which may be LSP ingress nodes for FEC F.
Then there is an LSP for FEC F which begins with each of those nodes.
If a number of those LSPs have the same LSP egress, then one can
consider the set of such LSPs to be a tree, whose root is the LSP
egress. (Since data travels along this tree towards the root, this
may be called a multipoint-to-point tree.) We can thus speak of the
"LSP tree" for a particular FEC F.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.16. Penultimate Hop Popping
Note that according to the definitions of section 2.15, if <R1, ...,
Rn> is a level m LSP for packet P, P may be transmitted from R[n-1]
to Rn with a label stack of depth m-1. That is, the label stack may
be popped at the penultimate LSR of the LSP, rather than at the LSP
Egress.
From an architectural perspective, this is perfectly appropriate.
The purpose of the level m label is to get the packet to Rn. Once
R[n-1] has decided to send the packet to Rn, the label no longer has
any function, and need no longer be carried.
There is also a practical advantage to doing penultimate hop popping.
If one does not do this, then when the LSP egress receives a packet,
it first looks up the top label, and determines as a result of that
lookup that it is indeed the LSP egress. Then it must pop the stack,
and examine what remains of the packet. If there is another label on
the stack, the egress will look this up and forward the packet based
on this lookup. (In this case, the egress for the packet's level m
LSP is also an intermediate node for its level m-1 LSP.) If there is
no other label on the stack, then the packet is forwarded according
to its network layer destination address. Note that this would
require the egress to do TWO lookups, either two label lookups or a
label lookup followed by an address lookup.
If, on the other hand, penultimate hop popping is used, then when the
penultimate hop looks up the label, it determines:
- that it is the penultimate hop, and
- who the next hop is.
The penultimate node then pops the stack, and forwards the packet
based on the information gained by looking up the label that was
previously at the top of the stack. When the LSP egress receives the
packet, the label which is now at the top of the stack will be the
label which it needs to look up in order to make its own forwarding
decision. Or, if the packet was only carrying a single label, the
LSP egress will simply see the network layer packet, which is just
what it needs to see in order to make its forwarding decision.
This technique allows the egress to do a single lookup, and also
requires only a single lookup by the penultimate node.
The creation of the forwarding "fastpath" in a label switching
product may be greatly aided if it is known that only a single lookup
is ever required:
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
- the code may be simplified if it can assume that only a single
lookup is ever needed
- the code can be based on a "time budget" that assumes that only a
single lookup is ever needed.
In fact, when penultimate hop popping is done, the LSP Egress need
not even be an LSR.
However, some hardware switching engines may not be able to pop the
label stack, so this cannot be universally required. There may also
be some situations in which penultimate hop popping is not desirable.
Therefore the penultimate node pops the label stack only if this is
specifically requested by the egress node, OR if the next node in the
LSP does not support MPLS. (If the next node in the LSP does support
MPLS, but does not make such a request, the penultimate node has no
way of knowing that it in fact is the penultimate node.)
An LSR which is capable of popping the label stack at all MUST do
penultimate hop popping when so requested by its downstream LDP peer.
Initial LDP negotiations MUST allow each LSR to determine whether its
neighboring LSRS are capable of popping the label stack. A LSR MUST
NOT request an LDP peer to pop the label stack unless it is capable
of doing so.
It may be asked whether the egress node can always interpret the top
label of a received packet properly if penultimate hop popping is
used. As long as the uniqueness and scoping rules of section 2.14
are obeyed, it is always possible to interpret the top label of a
received packet unambiguously.
2.17. LSP Next Hop
The LSP Next Hop for a particular labeled packet in a particular LSR
is the LSR which is the next hop, as selected by the NHLFE entry used
for forwarding that packet.
The LSP Next Hop for a particular FEC is the next hop as selected by
the NHLFE entry indexed by a label which corresponds to that FEC.
Note that the LSP Next Hop may differ from the next hop which would
be chosen by the network layer routing algorithm. We will use the
term "L3 next hop" when we refer to the latter.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.18. Invalid Incoming Labels
What should an LSR do if it receives a labeled packet with a
particular incoming label, but has no binding for that label? It is
tempting to think that the labels can just be removed, and the packet
forwarded as an unlabeled IP packet. However, in some cases, doing
so could cause a loop. If the upstream LSR thinks the label is bound
to an explicit route, and the downstream LSR doesn't think the label
is bound to anything, and if the hop by hop routing of the unlabeled
IP packet brings the packet back to the upstream LSR, then a loop is
formed.
It is also possible that the label was intended to represent a route
which the cannot be inferred the IP header.
Therefore, when a labeled packet is received with an invalid incoming
label, it MUST be discarded, UNLESS it is determined by some means
(not within the scope of the current document) that forwarding it
unlabeled cannot cause any harm.
2.19. LSP Control: Ordered versus Independent
Some FECs correspond to address prefixes which are distributed via a
dynamic routing algorithm. The setup of the LSPs for these FECs can
be done in one of two ways: Independent LSP Control or Ordered LSP
Control.
In Independent LSP Control, each LSR, upon noting that it recognizes
a particular FEC, makes an independent decision to bind a label to
that FEC and to distribute that binding to its LDP peers. This
corresponds to the way that conventional IP datagram routing works;
each node makes an independent decision as to how to treat each
packet, and relies on the routing algorithm to converge rapidly so as
to ensure that each datagram is correctly delivered.
In Ordered LSP Control, an LSR only binds a label to a particular FEC
if it is the egress LSR for that FEC, or if it has already received a
label binding for that FEC from its next hop for that FEC.
If one wants to ensure that traffic in a particular FEC follows a
path with some specified set of properties (e.g., that the traffic
does not traverse any node twice, that a specified amount of
resources are available to the traffic, that the traffic follows an
explicitly specified path, etc.) ordered control must be used. With
independent control, some LSRs may begin label switching a traffic in
the FEC before the LSP is completely set up, and thus some traffic in
the FEC may follow a path which does not have the specified set of
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
properties. Ordered control also needs to be used if the recognition
of the FEC is a consequence of the setting up of the corresponding
LSP.
Ordered LSP setup may be initiated either by the ingress or the
egress.
Ordered control and independent control are fully interoperable.
However, unless all LSRs in an LSP are using ordered control, the
overall effect on network behavior is largely that of independent
control, since one cannot be sure that an LSP is not used until it is
fully set up.
This architecture allows the choice between independent control and
ordered control to be a local matter. Since the two methods
interwork, a given LSR need support only one or the other. Generally
speaking, the choice of independent versus ordered control does not
appear to have any effect on the LDP mechanisms which need to be
defined.
2.20. Aggregation
One way of partitioning traffic into FECs is to create a separate FEC
for each address prefix which appears in the routing table. However,
within a particular MPLS domain, this may result in a set of FECs
such that all traffic in all those FECs follows the same route. For
example, a set of distinct address prefixes might all have the same
egress node, and label swapping might be used only to get the the
traffic to the egress node. In this case, within the MPLS domain,
the union of those FECs is itself a FEC. This creates a choice:
should a distinct label be bound to each component FEC, or should a
single label be bound to the union, and that label applied to all
traffic in the union?
The procedure of binding a single label to a union of FECs which is
itself a FEC (within some domain), and of applying that label to all
traffic in the union, is known as "aggregation". The MPLS
architecture allows aggregation. Aggregation may reduce the number
of labels which are needed to handle a particular set of packets, and
may also reduce the amount of LDP control traffic needed.
Given a set of FECs which are "aggregatable" into a single FEC, it is
possible to (a) aggregate them into a single FEC, (b) aggregate them
into a set of FECs, or (c) not aggregate them at all. Thus we can
speak of the "granularity" of aggregation, with (a) being the
"coarsest granularity", and (c) being the "finest granularity".
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
When order control is used, each LSR should adopt, for a given set of
FECs, the granularity used by its next hop for those FECs.
When independent control is used, it is possible that there will be
two adjacent LSRs, Ru and Rd, which aggregate some set of FECs
differently.
If Ru has finer granularity than Rd, this does not cause a problem.
Ru distributes more labels for that set of FECs than Rd does. This
means that when Ru needs to forward labeled packets in those FECs to
Rd, it may need to map n labels into m labels, where n > m. As an
option, Ru may withdraw the set of n labels that it has distributed,
and then distribute a set of m labels, corresponding to Rd's level of
granularity. This is not necessary to ensure correct operation, but
it does result in a reduction of the number of labels distributed by
Ru, and Ru is not gaining any particular advantage by distributing
the larger number of labels. The decision whether to do this or not
is a local matter.
If Ru has coarser granularity than Rd (i.e., Rd has distributed n
labels for the set of FECs, while Ru has distributed m, where n > m),
it has two choices:
- It may adopt Rd's finer level of granularity. This would require
it to withdraw the m labels it has distributed, and distribute n
labels. This is the preferred option.
- It may simply map its m labels into a subset of Rd's n labels, if
it can determine that this will produce the same routing. For
example, suppose that Ru applies a single label to all traffic
that needs to pass through a certain egress LSR, whereas Rd binds
a number of different labels to such traffic, depending on the
individual destination addresses of the packets. If Ru knows the
address of the egress router, and if Rd has bound a label to the
FEC which is identified by that address, then Ru can simply apply
that label.
In any event, every LSR needs to know (by configuration) what
granularity to use for labels that it assigns. Where ordered control
is used, this requires each node to know the granularity only for
FECs which leave the MPLS network at that node. For independent
control, best results may be obtained by ensuring that all LSRs are
consistently configured to know the granularity for each FEC.
However, in many cases this may be done by using a single level of
granularity which applies to all FECs (such as "one label per IP
prefix in the forwarding table", or "one label per egress node").
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.21. Route Selection
Route selection refers to the method used for selecting the LSP for a
particular FEC. The proposed MPLS protocol architecture supports two
options for Route Selection: (1) hop by hop routing, and (2) explicit
routing.
Hop by hop routing allows each node to independently choose the next
hop for each FEC. This is the usual mode today in existing IP
networks. A "hop by hop routed LSP" is an LSP whose route is selected
using hop by hop routing.
In an explicitly routed LSP, each LSR does not independently choose
the next hop; rather, a single LSR, generally the LSP ingress or the
LSP egress, specifies several (or all) of the LSRs in the LSP. If a
single LSR specifies the entire LSP, the LSP is "strictly" explicitly
routed. If a single LSR specifies only some of the LSP, the LSP is
"loosely" explicitly routed.
The sequence of LSRs followed by an explicitly routed LSP may be
chosen by configuration, or may be selected dynamically by a single
node (for example, the egress node may make use of the topological
information learned from a link state database in order to compute
the entire path for the tree ending at that egress node).
Explicit routing may be useful for a number of purposes such as
policy routing or traffic engineering. With MPLS the explicit route
needs to be specified at the time that labels are assigned, but the
explicit route does not have to be specified with each IP packet.
This makes MPLS explicit routing much more efficient than the
alternative of IP source routing.
When an LSP is explicitly routed (either loosely or strictly), it is
essential that packets travelling along the LSP reach its end before
they revert to hop by hop routing. Otherwise inconsistent routing
and loops might form.
It is not necessary for a node to be able to create an explicit
route. However, in order to ensure interoperability it is necessary
to ensure that either (i) Every node knows how to use hop by hop
routing; or (ii) Every node knows how to create and follow an
explicit route. We propose that due to the common use of hop by hop
routing in networks today, it is reasonable to make hop by hop
routing the default that all nodes need to be able to use.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.22. Time-to-Live (TTL)
In conventional IP forwarding, each packet carries a "Time To Live"
(TTL) value in its header. Whenever a packet passes through a
router, its TTL gets decremented by 1; if the TTL reaches 0 before
the packet has reached its destination, the packet gets discarded.
This provides some level of protection against forwarding loops that
may exist due to misconfigurations, or due to failure or slow
convergence of the routing algorithm. TTL is sometimes used for other
functions as well, such as multicast scoping, and supporting the
"traceroute" command. This implies that there are two TTL-related
issues that MPLS needs to deal with: (i) TTL as a way to suppress
loops; (ii) TTL as a way to accomplish other functions, such as
limiting the scope of a packet.
When a packet travels along an LSP, it SHOULD emerge with the same
TTL value that it would have had if it had traversed the same
sequence of routers without having been label switched. If the
packet travels along a hierarchy of LSPs, the total number of LSR-
hops traversed SHOULD be reflected in its TTL value when it emerges
from the hierarchy of LSPs.
The way that TTL is handled may vary depending upon whether the MPLS
label values are carried in an MPLS-specific "shim" header, or if the
MPLS labels are carried in an L2 header, such as an ATM header or a
frame relay header.
If the label values are encoded in a "shim" that sits between the
data link and network layer headers, then this shim MUST have a TTL
field that SHOULD be initially loaded from the network layer header
TTL field, SHOULD be decremented at each LSR-hop, and SHOULD be
copied into the network layer header TTL field when the packet
emerges from its LSP.
If the label values are encoded in a data link layer header (e.g.,
the VPI/VCI field in ATM's AAL5 header), and the labeled packets are
forwarded by an L2 switch (e.g., an ATM switch), and the data link
layer (like ATM) does not itself have a TTL field, then it will not
be possible to decrement a packet's TTL at each LSR-hop. An LSP
segment which consists of a sequence of LSRs that cannot decrement a
packet's TTL will be called a "non-TTL LSP segment".
When a packet emerges from a non-TTL LSP segment, it SHOULD however
be given a TTL that reflects the number of LSR-hops it traversed. In
the unicast case, this can be achieved by propagating a meaningful
LSP length to ingress nodes, enabling the ingress to decrement the
TTL value before forwarding packets into a non-TTL LSP segment.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
Sometimes it can be determined, upon ingress to a non-TTL LSP
segment, that a particular packet's TTL will expire before the packet
reaches the egress of that non-TTL LSP segment. In this case, the LSR
at the ingress to the non-TTL LSP segment must not label switch the
packet. This means that special procedures must be developed to
support traceroute functionality, for example, traceroute packets may
be forwarded using conventional hop by hop forwarding.
2.23. Loop Control
On a non-TTL LSP segment, by definition, TTL cannot be used to
protect against forwarding loops. The importance of loop control may
depend on the particular hardware being used to provide the LSR
functions along the non-TTL LSP segment.
Suppose, for instance, that ATM switching hardware is being used to
provide MPLS switching functions, with the label being carried in the
VPI/VCI field. Since ATM switching hardware cannot decrement TTL,
there is no protection against loops. If the ATM hardware is capable
of providing fair access to the buffer pool for incoming cells
carrying different VPI/VCI values, this looping may not have any
deleterious effect on other traffic. If the ATM hardware cannot
provide fair buffer access of this sort, however, then even transient
loops may cause severe degradation of the LSR's total performance.
Even if fair buffer access can be provided, it is still worthwhile to
have some means of detecting loops that last "longer than possible".
In addition, even where TTL and/or per-VC fair queuing provides a
means for surviving loops, it still may be desirable where practical
to avoid setting up LSPs which loop.
The MPLS architecture will therefore provide a technique for ensuring
that looping LSP segments can be detected, and a technique for
ensuring that looping LSP segments are never created.
All LSRs will be required to support a common technique for loop
detection. Support for the loop prevention technique is optional,
though it is recommended in ATM-LSRs that have no other way to
protect themselves against the effects of looping data packets. Use
of the loop prevention technique, when supported, is optional.
The loop prevention technique presupposes the use of Ordered LSP
Control. The loop detection technique, on the other hand, works with
either Independent or Ordered LSP Control.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.23.1. Loop Prevention
NOTE: The loop prevention technique described here is being
reconsidered, and may be changed.
LSR's maintain for each of their LSP's an LSR id list. This list is a
list of all the LSR's downstream from this LSR on a given LSP. The
LSR id list is used to prevent the formation of switched path loops.
The LSR ID list is propagated upstream from a node to its neighbor
nodes. The LSR ID list is used to prevent loops as follows:
When a node, R, detects a change in the next hop for a given FEC, it
asks its new next hop for a label and the associated LSR ID list for
that FEC.
The new next hop responds with a label for the FEC and an associated
LSR id list.
R looks in the LSR id list. If R determines that it, R, is in the
list then we have a route loop. In this case, we do nothing and the
old LSP will continue to be used until the route protocols break the
loop. The means by which the old LSP is replaced by a new LSP after
the route protocols breathe loop is described below.
If R is not in the LSR id list, R will start a "diffusion"
computation [12]. The purpose of the diffusion computation is to
prune the tree upstream of R so that we remove all LSR's from the
tree that would be on a looping path if R were to switch over to the
new LSP. After those LSR's are removed from the tree, it is safe for
R to replace the old LSP with the new LSP (and the old LSP can be
released).
The diffusion computation works as follows:
R adds its LSR id to the list and sends a query message to each of
its "upstream" neighbors (i.e. to each of its neighbors that is not
the new "downstream" next hop).
A node S that receives such a query will process the query as
follows:
- If node R is not node S's next hop for the given FEC, node S will
respond to node R will an "OK" message meaning that as far as
node S is concerned it is safe for node R to switch over to the
new LSP.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
- If node R is node S's next hop for the FEC, node S will check to
see if it, node S, is in the LSR id list that it received from
node R. If it is, we have a route loop and S will respond with a
"LOOP" message. R will unsplice the connection to S pruning S
from the tree. The mechanism by which S will get a new LSP for
the FEC after the route protocols break the loop is described
below.
- If node S is not in the LSR id list, S will add its LSR id to the
LSR id list and send a new query message further upstream. The
diffusion computation will continue to propagate upstream along
each of the paths in the tree upstream of S until either a loop
is detected, in which case the node is pruned as described above
or we get to a point where a node gets a response ("OK" or
"LOOP") from each of its neighbors perhaps because none of those
neighbors considers the node in question to be its downstream
next hop. Once a node has received a response from each of its
upstream neighbors, it returns an "OK" message to its downstream
neighbor. When the original node, node R, gets a response from
each of its neighbors, it is safe to replace the old LSP with the
new one because all the paths that would loop have been pruned
from the tree.
There are a couple of details to discuss:
- First, we need to do something about nodes that for one reason or
another do not produce a timely response in response to a query
message. If a node Y does not respond to a query from node X
because of a failure of some kind, X will not be able to respond
to its downstream neighbors (if any) or switch over to a new LSP
if X is, like R above, the node that has detected the route
change. This problem is handled by timing out the query message.
If a node doesn't receive a response within a "reasonable" period
of time, it "unsplices" its VC to the upstream neighbor that is
not responding and proceeds as it would if it had received the
"LOOP" message.
- We also need to be concerned about multiple concurrent routing
updates. What happens, for example, when a node M receives a
request for an LSP from an upstream neighbor, N, when M is in the
middle of a diffusion computation i.e., it has sent a query
upstream but hasn't received all the responses. Since a
downstream node, node R is about to change from one LSP to
another, M needs to pass to N an LSR id list corresponding to the
union of the old and new LSP's if it is to avoid loops both
before and after the transition. This is easily accomplished
since M already has the LSR id list for the old LSP and it gets
the LSR id list for the new LSP in the query message. After R
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 28]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
makes the switch from the old LSP to the new one, R sends a new
establish message upstream with the LSR id list of (just) the new
LSP. At this point, the nodes upstream of R know that R has
switched over to the new LSP and that they can return the id list
for (just) the new LSP in response to any new requests for LSP's.
They can also grow the tree to include additional nodes that
would not have been valid for the combined LSR id list.
- We also need to discuss how a node that doesn't have an LSP for a
given stream at the end of a diffusion computation (because it
would have been on a looping LSP) gets one after the routing
protocols break the loop. If node L has been pruned from the
tree and its local route protocol processing entity breaks the
loop by changing L's next hop, L will request a new LSP from its
new downstream neighbor which it will use once it executes the
diffusion computation as described above. If the loop is broken
by a route change at another point in the loop, i.e. at a point
"downstream" of L, L will get a new LSP as the new LSP tree grows
upstream from the point of the route change as discussed in the
previous paragraph.
- Note that when a node is pruned from the tree, the switched path
upstream of that node remains "connected". This is important
since it allows the switched path to get "reconnected" to a
downstream switched path after a route change with a minimal
amount of unsplicing and resplicing once the appropriate
diffusion computation(s) have taken place.
The LSR Id list can also be used to provide a "loop detection"
capability. To use it in this manner, an LSR which sees that it is
already in the LSR Id list for a particular FEC will immediately
unsplice itself from the switched path for that FEC, and will NOT
pass the LSR Id list further upstream. The LSR can rejoin a switched
path for the FEC when it changes its next hop for that FEC, or when
it receives a new LSR Id list from its current next hop, in which it
is not contained. The diffusion computation would be omitted.
2.23.2. Interworking of Loop Control Options
The MPLS protocol architecture allows some nodes to be using loop
prevention, while some other nodes are not (i.e., the choice of
whether or not to use loop prevention may be a local decision). When
this mix is used, it is not possible for a loop to form which
includes only nodes which do loop prevention. However, it is possible
for loops to form which contain a combination of some nodes which do
loop prevention, and some nodes which do not.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 29]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
There are at least four identified cases in which it makes sense to
combine nodes which do loop prevention with nodes which do not: (i)
For transition, in intermediate states while transitioning from all
non-loop-prevention to all loop prevention, or vice versa; (ii) For
interoperability, where one vendor implements loop prevention but
another vendor does not; (iii) Where there is a mixed ATM and
datagram media network, and where loop prevention is desired over the
ATM portions of the network but not over the datagram portions; (iv)
where some of the ATM switches can do fair access to the buffer pool
on a per-VC basis, and some cannot, and loop prevention is desired
over the ATM portions of the network which cannot.
Note that interworking is straightforward. If an LSR is not doing
loop prevention, and it receives from a downstream LSR a label
binding which contains loop prevention information, it (a) accepts
the label binding, (b) does NOT pass the loop prevention information
upstream, and (c) informs the downstream neighbor that the path is
loop-free.
Similarly, if an LSR R which is doing loop prevention receives from a
downstream LSR a label binding which does not contain any loop
prevention information, then R passes the label binding upstream with
loop prevention information included as if R were the egress for the
specified FEC.
Optionally, a node is permitted to implement the ability of either
doing or not doing loop prevention as options, and is permitted to
choose which to use for any one particular LSP based on the
information obtained from downstream nodes. When the label binding
arrives from downstream, then the node may choose whether to use loop
prevention so as to continue to use the same approach as was used in
the information passed to it. Note that regardless of whether loop
prevention is used the egress nodes (for any particular LSP) always
initiates exchange of label binding information without waiting for
other nodes to act.
2.24. Label Encodings
In order to transmit a label stack along with the packet whose label
stack it is, it is necessary to define a concrete encoding of the
label stack. The architecture supports several different encoding
techniques; the choice of encoding technique depends on the
particular kind of device being used to forward labeled packets.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 30]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.24.1. MPLS-specific Hardware and/or Software
If one is using MPLS-specific hardware and/or software to forward
labeled packets, the most obvious way to encode the label stack is to
define a new protocol to be used as a "shim" between the data link
layer and network layer headers. This shim would really be just an
encapsulation of the network layer packet; it would be "protocol-
independent" such that it could be used to encapsulate any network
layer. Hence we will refer to it as the "generic MPLS
encapsulation".
The generic MPLS encapsulation would in turn be encapsulated in a
data link layer protocol.
The generic MPLS encapsulation should contain the following fields:
1. the label stack,
2. a Time-to-Live (TTL) field
3. a Class of Service (CoS) field
The TTL field permits MPLS to provide a TTL function similar to what
is provided by IP.
The CoS field permits LSRs to apply various scheduling packet
disciplines to labeled packets, without requiring separate labels for
separate disciplines.
2.24.2. ATM Switches as LSRs
It will be noted that MPLS forwarding procedures are similar to those
of legacy "label swapping" switches such as ATM switches. ATM
switches use the input port and the incoming VPI/VCI value as the
index into a "cross-connect" table, from which they obtain an output
port and an outgoing VPI/VCI value. Therefore if one or more labels
can be encoded directly into the fields which are accessed by these
legacy switches, then the legacy switches can, with suitable software
upgrades, be used as LSRs. We will refer to such devices as "ATM-
LSRs".
There are three obvious ways to encode labels in the ATM cell header
(presuming the use of AAL5):
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 31]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
1. SVC Encoding
Use the VPI/VCI field to encode the label which is at the top
of the label stack. This technique can be used in any network.
With this encoding technique, each LSP is realized as an ATM
SVC, and the LDP becomes the ATM "signaling" protocol. With
this encoding technique, the ATM-LSRs cannot perform "push" or
"pop" operations on the label stack.
2. SVP Encoding
Use the VPI field to encode the label which is at the top of
the label stack, and the VCI field to encode the second label
on the stack, if one is present. This technique some advantages
over the previous one, in that it permits the use of ATM "VP-
switching". That is, the LSPs are realized as ATM SVPs, with
LDP serving as the ATM signaling protocol.
However, this technique cannot always be used. If the network
includes an ATM Virtual Path through a non-MPLS ATM network,
then the VPI field is not necessarily available for use by
MPLS.
When this encoding technique is used, the ATM-LSR at the egress
of the VP effectively does a "pop" operation.
3. SVP Multipoint Encoding
Use the VPI field to encode the label which is at the top of
the label stack, use part of the VCI field to encode the second
label on the stack, if one is present, and use the remainder of
the VCI field to identify the LSP ingress. If this technique
is used, conventional ATM VP-switching capabilities can be used
to provide multipoint-to-point VPs. Cells from different
packets will then carry different VCI values. As we shall see
in section 2.25, this enables us to do label merging, without
running into any cell interleaving problems, on ATM switches
which can provide multipoint-to-point VPs, but which do not
have the VC merge capability.
This technique depends on the existence of a capability for
assigning small unique values to each ATM switch.
If there are more labels on the stack than can be encoded in the ATM
header, the ATM encodings must be combined with the generic
encapsulation.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 32]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.24.3. Interoperability among Encoding Techniques
If <R1, R2, R3> is a segment of a LSP, it is possible that R1 will
use one encoding of the label stack when transmitting packet P to R2,
but R2 will use a different encoding when transmitting a packet P to
R3. In general, the MPLS architecture supports LSPs with different
label stack encodings used on different hops. Therefore, when we
discuss the procedures for processing a labeled packet, we speak in
abstract terms of operating on the packet's label stack. When a
labeled packet is received, the LSR must decode it to determine the
current value of the label stack, then must operate on the label
stack to determine the new value of the stack, and then encode the
new value appropriately before transmitting the labeled packet to its
next hop.
Unfortunately, ATM switches have no capability for translating from
one encoding technique to another. The MPLS architecture therefore
requires that whenever it is possible for two ATM switches to be
successive LSRs along a level m LSP for some packet, that those two
ATM switches use the same encoding technique.
Naturally there will be MPLS networks which contain a combination of
ATM switches operating as LSRs, and other LSRs which operate using an
MPLS shim header. In such networks there may be some LSRs which have
ATM interfaces as well as "MPLS Shim" interfaces. This is one example
of an LSR with different label stack encodings on different hops.
Such an LSR may swap off an ATM encoded label stack on an incoming
interface and replace it with an MPLS shim header encoded label stack
on the outgoing interface.
2.25. Label Merging
Suppose that an LSR has bound multiple incoming labels to a
particular FEC. When forwarding packets in that FEC, one would like
to have a single outgoing label which is applied to all such packets.
The fact that two different packets in the FEC arrived with different
incoming labels is irrelevant; one would like to forward them with
the same outgoing label. The capability to do so is known as "label
merging".
Let us say that an LSR is capable of label merging if it can receive
two packets from different incoming interfaces, and/or with different
labels, and send both packets out the same outgoing interface with
the same label. Once the packets are transmitted, the information
that they arrived from different interfaces and/or with different
incoming labels is lost.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 33]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
Let us say that an LSR is not capable of label merging if, for any
two packets which arrive from different interfaces, or with different
labels, the packets must either be transmitted out different
interfaces, or must have different labels.
Label merging would be a requirement of the MPLS architecture, if not
for the fact that ATM-LSRs using the SVC or SVP Encodings cannot
perform label merging. This is discussed in more detail in the next
section.
If a particular LSR cannot perform label merging, then if two packets
in the same FEC arrive with different incoming labels, they must be
forwarded with different outgoing labels. With label merging, the
number of outgoing labels per FEC need only be 1; without label
merging, the number of outgoing labels per FEC could be as large as
the number of nodes in the network.
With label merging, the number of incoming labels per FEC that a
particular LSR needs is never be larger than the number of LDP
adjacencies. Without label merging, the number of incoming labels
per FEC that a particular LSR needs is as large as the number of
upstream nodes which forward traffic in the FEC to the LSR in
question. In fact, it is difficult for an LSR to even determine how
many such incoming labels it must support for a particular FEC.
The MPLS architecture accommodates both merging and non-merging LSRs,
but allows for the fact that there may be LSRs which do not support
label merging. This leads to the issue of ensuring correct
interoperation between merging LSRs and non-merging LSRs. The issue
is somewhat different in the case of datagram media versus the case
of ATM. The different media types will therefore be discussed
separately.
2.25.1. Non-merging LSRs
The MPLS forwarding procedures is very similar to the forwarding
procedures used by such technologies as ATM and Frame Relay. That is,
a unit of data arrives, a label (VPI/VCI or DLCI) is looked up in a
"cross-connect table", on the basis of that lookup an output port is
chosen, and the label value is rewritten. In fact, it is possible to
use such technologies for MPLS forwarding; LDP can be used as the
"signalling protocol" for setting up the cross-connect tables.
Unfortunately, these technologies do not necessarily support the
label merging capability. In ATM, if one attempts to perform label
merging, the result may be the interleaving of cells from various
packets. If cells from different packets get interleaved, it is
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 34]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
impossible to reassemble the packets. Some Frame Relay switches use
cell switching on their backplanes. These switches may also be
incapable of supporting label merging, for the same reason -- cells
of different packets may get interleaved, and there is then no way to
reassemble the packets.
We propose to support two solutions to this problem. First, MPLS will
contain procedures which allow the use of non-merging LSRs. Second,
MPLS will support procedures which allow certain ATM switches to
function as merging LSRs.
Since MPLS supports both merging and non-merging LSRs, MPLS also
contains procedures to ensure correct interoperation between them.
2.25.2. Labels for Merging and Non-Merging LSRs
An upstream LSR which supports label merging needs to be sent only
one label per FEC. An upstream neighbor which does not support label
merging needs to be sent multiple labels per FEC. However, there is
no way of knowing a priori how many labels it needs. This will depend
on how many LSRs are upstream of it with respect to the FEC in
question.
In the MPLS architecture, if a particular upstream neighbor does not
support label merging, it is not sent any labels for a particular FEC
unless it explicitly asks for a label for that FEC. The upstream
neighbor may make multiple such requests, and is given a new label
each time. When a downstream neighbor receives such a request from
upstream, and the downstream neighbor does not itself support label
merging, then it must in turn ask its downstream neighbor for another
label for the FEC in question.
It is possible that there may be some nodes which support label
merging, but can only merge a limited number of incoming labels into
a single outgoing label. Suppose for example that due to some
hardware limitation a node is capable of merging four incoming labels
into a single outgoing label. Suppose however, that this particular
node has six incoming labels arriving at it for a particular FEC. In
this case, this node may merge these into two outgoing labels.
Whether label merging is applicable to explicitly routed LSPs is for
further study.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 35]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.25.3. Merge over ATM
2.25.3.1. Methods of Eliminating Cell Interleave
There are several methods that can be used to eliminate the cell
interleaving problem in ATM, thereby allowing ATM switches to support
stream merge: :
1. VP merge, using the SVP Multipoint Encoding
When VP merge is used, multiple virtual paths are merged into a
virtual path, but packets from different sources are
distinguished by using different VCs within the VP.
2. VC merge
When VC merge is used, switches are required to buffer cells
from one packet until the entire packet is received (this may
be determined by looking for the AAL5 end of frame indicator).
VP merge has the advantage that it is compatible with a higher
percentage of existing ATM switch implementations. This makes it more
likely that VP merge can be used in existing networks. Unlike VC
merge, VP merge does not incur any delays at the merge points and
also does not impose any buffer requirements. However, it has the
disadvantage that it requires coordination of the VCI space within
each VP. There are a number of ways that this can be accomplished.
Selection of one or more methods is for further study.
This tradeoff between compatibility with existing equipment versus
protocol complexity and scalability implies that it is desirable for
the MPLS protocol to support both VP merge and VC merge. In order to
do so each ATM switch participating in MPLS needs to know whether its
immediate ATM neighbors perform VP merge, VC merge, or no merge.
2.25.3.2. Interoperation: VC Merge, VP Merge, and Non-Merge
The interoperation of the various forms of merging over ATM is most
easily described by first describing the interoperation of VC merge
with non-merge.
In the case where VC merge and non-merge nodes are interconnected the
forwarding of cells is based in all cases on a VC (i.e., the
concatenation of the VPI and VCI). For each node, if an upstream
neighbor is doing VC merge then that upstream neighbor requires only
a single VPI/VCI for a particular stream (this is analogous to the
requirement for a single label in the case of operation over frame
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 36]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
media). If the upstream neighbor is not doing merge, then the
neighbor will require a single VPI/VCI per stream for itself, plus
enough VPI/VCIs to pass to its upstream neighbors. The number
required will be determined by allowing the upstream nodes to request
additional VPI/VCIs from their downstream neighbors (this is again
analogous to the method used with frame merge).
A similar method is possible to support nodes which perform VP merge.
In this case the VP merge node, rather than requesting a single
VPI/VCI or a number of VPI/VCIs from its downstream neighbor, instead
may request a single VP (identified by a VPI) but several VCIs within
the VP. Furthermore, suppose that a non-merge node is downstream
from two different VP merge nodes. This node may need to request one
VPI/VCI (for traffic originating from itself) plus two VPs (one for
each upstream node), each associated with a specified set of VCIs (as
requested from the upstream node).
In order to support all of VP merge, VC merge, and non-merge, it is
therefore necessary to allow upstream nodes to request a combination
of zero or more VC identifiers (consisting of a VPI/VCI), plus zero
or more VPs (identified by VPIs) each containing a specified number
of VCs (identified by a set of VCIs which are significant within a
VP). VP merge nodes would therefore request one VP, with a contained
VCI for traffic that it originates (if appropriate) plus a VCI for
each VC requested from above (regardless of whether or not the VC is
part of a containing VP). VC merge node would request only a single
VPI/VCI (since they can merge all upstream traffic into a single VC).
Non-merge nodes would pass on any requests that they get from above,
plus request a VPI/VCI for traffic that they originate (if
appropriate).
2.26. Tunnels and Hierarchy
Sometimes a router Ru takes explicit action to cause a particular
packet to be delivered to another router Rd, even though Ru and Rd
are not consecutive routers on the Hop-by-hop path for that packet,
and Rd is not the packet's ultimate destination. For example, this
may be done by encapsulating the packet inside a network layer packet
whose destination address is the address of Rd itself. This creates a
"tunnel" from Ru to Rd. We refer to any packet so handled as a
"Tunneled Packet".
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 37]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.26.1. Hop-by-Hop Routed Tunnel
If a Tunneled Packet follows the Hop-by-hop path from Ru to Rd, we
say that it is in an "Hop-by-Hop Routed Tunnel" whose "transmit
endpoint" is Ru and whose "receive endpoint" is Rd.
2.26.2. Explicitly Routed Tunnel
If a Tunneled Packet travels from Ru to Rd over a path other than the
Hop-by-hop path, we say that it is in an "Explicitly Routed Tunnel"
whose "transmit endpoint" is Ru and whose "receive endpoint" is Rd.
For example, we might send a packet through an Explicitly Routed
Tunnel by encapsulating it in a packet which is source routed.
2.26.3. LSP Tunnels
It is possible to implement a tunnel as a LSP, and use label
switching rather than network layer encapsulation to cause the packet
to travel through the tunnel. The tunnel would be a LSP <R1, ...,
Rn>, where R1 is the transmit endpoint of the tunnel, and Rn is the
receive endpoint of the tunnel. This is called a "LSP Tunnel".
The set of packets which are to be sent though the LSP tunnel
constitutes a FEC, and each LSR in the tunnel must assign a label to
that FEC (i.e., must assign a label to the tunnel). The criteria for
assigning a particular packet to an LSP tunnel is a local matter at
the tunnel's transmit endpoint. To put a packet into an LSP tunnel,
the transmit endpoint pushes a label for the tunnel onto the label
stack and sends the labeled packet to the next hop in the tunnel.
If it is not necessary for the tunnel's receive endpoint to be able
to determine which packets it receives through the tunnel, as
discussed earlier, the label stack may be popped at the penultimate
LSR in the tunnel.
A "Hop-by-Hop Routed LSP Tunnel" is a Tunnel that is implemented as
an hop-by-hop routed LSP between the transmit endpoint and the
receive endpoint.
An "Explicitly Routed LSP Tunnel" is a LSP Tunnel that is also an
Explicitly Routed LSP.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 38]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2.26.4. Hierarchy: LSP Tunnels within LSPs
Consider a LSP <R1, R2, R3, R4>. Let us suppose that R1 receives
unlabeled packet P, and pushes on its label stack the label to cause
it to follow this path, and that this is in fact the Hop-by-hop path.
However, let us further suppose that R2 and R3 are not directly
connected, but are "neighbors" by virtue of being the endpoints of an
LSP tunnel. So the actual sequence of LSRs traversed by P is <R1, R2,
R21, R22, R23, R3, R4>.
When P travels from R1 to R2, it will have a label stack of depth 1.
R2, switching on the label, determines that P must enter the tunnel.
R2 first replaces the Incoming label with a label that is meaningful
to R3. Then it pushes on a new label. This level 2 label has a value
which is meaningful to R21. Switching is done on the level 2 label by
R21, R22, R23. R23, which is the penultimate hop in the R2-R3 tunnel,
pops the label stack before forwarding the packet to R3. When R3 sees
packet P, P has only a level 1 label, having now exited the tunnel.
Since R3 is the penultimate hop in P's level 1 LSP, it pops the label
stack, and R4 receives P unlabeled.
The label stack mechanism allows LSP tunneling to nest to any depth.
2.26.5. LDP Peering and Hierarchy
Suppose that packet P travels along a Level 1 LSP <R1, R2, R3, R4>,
and when going from R2 to R3 travels along a Level 2 LSP <R2, R21,
R22, R3>. From the perspective of the Level 2 LSP, R2's LDP peer is
R21. From the perspective of the Level 1 LSP, R2's LDP peers are R1
and R3. One can have LDP peers at each layer of hierarchy. We will
see in sections 3.6 and 3.7 some ways to make use of this hierarchy.
Note that in this example, R2 and R21 must be IGP neighbors, but R2
and R3 need not be.
When two LSRs are IGP neighbors, we will refer to them as "Local LDP
Peers". When two LSRs may be LDP peers, but are not IGP neighbors,
we will refer to them as "Remote LDP Peers". In the above example,
R2 and R21 are local LDP peers, but R2 and R3 are remote LDP peers.
The MPLS architecture supports two ways to distribute labels at
different layers of the hierarchy: Explicit Peering and Implicit
Peering.
One performs label Distribution with one's Local LDP Peers by opening
LDP connections to them. One can perform label Distribution with
one's Remote LDP Peers in one of two ways:
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 39]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
1. Explicit Peering
In explicit peering, one sets up LDP connections between Remote
LDP Peers, exactly as one would do for Local LDP Peers. This
technique is most useful when the number of Remote LDP Peers is
small, or the number of higher level label bindings is large,
or the Remote LDP Peers are in distinct routing areas or
domains. Of course, one needs to know which labels to
distribute to which peers; this is addressed in section 3.1.2.
Examples of the use of explicit peering is found in sections
3.2.1 and 3.6.
2. Implicit Peering
In Implicit Peering, one does not have LDP connections to one's
remote LDP peers, but only to one's local LDP peers. To
distribute higher level labels to ones remote LDP peers, one
encodes the higher level labels as an attribute of the lower
level labels, and distributes the lower level label, along with
this attribute, to the local LDP peers. The local LDP peers
then propagate the information to their peers. This process
continues till the information reaches remote LDP peers. Note
that the intermediary nodes may also be remote LDP peers.
This technique is most useful when the number of Remote LDP
Peers is large. Implicit peering does not require a n-square
peering mesh to distribute labels to the remote LDP peers
because the information is piggybacked through the local LDP
peering. However, implicit peering requires the intermediate
nodes to store information that they might not be directly
interested in.
An example of the use of implicit peering is found in section
3.3.
2.27. LDP Transport
LDP is used between nodes in an MPLS network to establish and
maintain the label bindings. In order for LDP to operate correctly,
LDP information needs to be transmitted reliably, and the LDP
messages pertaining to a particular FEC need to be transmitted in
sequence. Flow control is also required, as is the capability to
carry multiple LDP messages in a single datagram.
These goals will be met by using TCP as the underlying transport for
LDP.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 40]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
(The use of multicast techniques to distribute label bindings is for
further study.)
2.28. Multicast
This section is for further study
3. Some Applications of MPLS
3.1. MPLS and Hop by Hop Routed Traffic
One use of MPLS is to simplify the process of forwarding packets
using hop by hop routing.
3.1.1. Labels for Address Prefixes
In general, router R determines the next hop for packet P by finding
the address prefix X in its routing table which is the longest match
for P's destination address. That is, the packets in a given FEC are
just those packets which match a given address prefix in R's routing
table. In this case, a FEC can be identified with an address prefix.
If packet P must traverse a sequence of routers, and at each router
in the sequence P matches the same address prefix, MPLS simplifies
the forwarding process by enabling all routers but the first to avoid
executing the best match algorithm; they need only look up the label.
3.1.2. Distributing Labels for Address Prefixes
3.1.2.1. LDP Peers for a Particular Address Prefix
LSRs R1 and R2 are considered to be LDP Peers for address prefix X if
and only if one of the following conditions holds:
1. R1's route to X is a route which it learned about via a
particular instance of a particular IGP, and R2 is a neighbor
of R1 in that instance of that IGP
2. R1's route to X is a route which it learned about by some
instance of routing algorithm A1, and that route is
redistributed into an instance of routing algorithm A2, and R2
is a neighbor of R1 in that instance of A2
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 41]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
3. R1 is the receive endpoint of an LSP Tunnel that is within
another LSP, and R2 is a transmit endpoint of that tunnel, and
R1 and R2 are participants in a common instance of an IGP, and
are in the same IGP area (if the IGP in question has areas),
and R1's route to X was learned via that IGP instance, or is
redistributed by R1 into that IGP instance
4. R1's route to X is a route which it learned about via BGP, and
R2 is a BGP peer of R1
In general, these rules ensure that if the route to a particular
address prefix is distributed via an IGP, the LDP peers for that
address prefix are the IGP neighbors. If the route to a particular
address prefix is distributed via BGP, the LDP peers for that address
prefix are the BGP peers. In other cases of LSP tunneling, the
tunnel endpoints are LDP peers.
3.1.2.2. Distributing Labels
In order to use MPLS for the forwarding of normally routed traffic,
each LSR MUST:
1. bind one or more labels to each address prefix that appears in
its routing table;
2. for each such address prefix X, use an LDP to distribute the
binding of a label to X to each of its LDP Peers for X.
There is also one circumstance in which an LSR must distribute a
label binding for an address prefix, even if it is not the LSR which
bound that label to that address prefix:
3. If R1 uses BGP to distribute a route to X, naming some other
LSR R2 as the BGP Next Hop to X, and if R1 knows that R2 has
assigned label L to X, then R1 must distribute the binding
between T and X to any BGP peer to which it distributes that
route.
These rules ensure that labels corresponding to address prefixes
which correspond to BGP routes are distributed to IGP neighbors if
and only if the BGP routes are distributed into the IGP. Otherwise,
the labels bound to BGP routes are distributed only to the other BGP
speakers.
These rules are intended only to indicate which label bindings must
be distributed by a given LSR to which other LSRs.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 42]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
3.1.3. Using the Hop by Hop path as the LSP
If the hop-by-hop path that packet P needs to follow is <R1, ...,
Rn>, then <R1, ..., Rn> can be an LSP as long as:
1. there is a single address prefix X, such that, for all i,
1<=i<n, X is the longest match in Ri's routing table for P's
destination address;
2. for all i, 1<i<n, Ri has assigned a label to X and distributed
that label to R[i-1].
Note that a packet's LSP can extend only until it encounters a router
whose forwarding tables have a longer best match address prefix for
the packet's destination address. At that point, the LSP must end and
the best match algorithm must be performed again.
Suppose, for example, that packet P, with destination address
10.2.153.178 needs to go from R1 to R2 to R3. Suppose also that R2
advertises address prefix 10.2/16 to R1, but R3 advertises
10.2.153/22, 10.2.154/22, and 10.2/16 to R2. That is, R2 is
advertising an "aggregated route" to R1. In this situation, packet P
can be label Switched until it reaches R2, but since R2 has performed
route aggregation, it must execute the best match algorithm to find
P's FEC.
3.1.4. LSP Egress and LSP Proxy Egress
An LSR R is considered to be an "LSP Egress" LSR for address prefix X
if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
1. R1 has an address Y, such that X is the address prefix in R1's
routing table which is the longest match for Y, or
2. R contains in its routing tables one or more address prefixes Y
such that X is a proper initial substring of Y, but R's "LSP
previous hops" for X do not contain any such address prefixes
Y; that is, R2 is a "deaggregation point" for address prefix X.
An LSR R1 is considered to be an "LSP Proxy Egress" LSR for address
prefix X if and only if:
1. R1's next hop for X is R2 R1 and R2 are not LDP Peers with
respect to X (perhaps because R2 does not support MPLS), or
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 43]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
2. R1 has been configured to act as an LSP Proxy Egress for X
The definition of LSP allows for the LSP Egress to be a node which
does not support MPLS; in this case the penultimate node in the LSP
is the Proxy Egress.
3.1.5. The Implicit NULL Label
The Implicit NULL label is a label with special semantics which an
LSR can bind to an address prefix. If LSR Ru, by consulting its ILM,
sees that labeled packet P must be forwarded next to Rd, but that Rd
has distributed a binding of Implicit NULL to the corresponding
address prefix, then instead of replacing the value of the label on
top of the label stack, Ru pops the label stack, and then forwards
the resulting packet to Rd.
LSR Rd distributes a binding between Implicit NULL and an address
prefix X to LSR Ru if and only if:
1. the rules of Section 3.1.2 indicate that Rd distributes to Ru a
label binding for X, and
2. when the LDP connection between Ru and Rd was opened, Ru
indicated that it could support the Implicit NULL label (i.e.,
that it can pop the label stack), and
3. Rd is an LSP Egress (not proxy egress) for X.
This causes the penultimate LSR on a LSP to pop the label stack. This
is quite appropriate; if the LSP Egress is an MPLS Egress for X, then
if the penultimate LSR does not pop the label stack, the LSP Egress
will need to look up the label, pop the label stack, and then look up
the next label (or look up the L3 address, if no more labels are
present). By having the penultimate LSR pop the label stack, the LSP
Egress is saved the work of having to look up two labels in order to
make its forwarding decision.
However, if the penultimate LSR is an ATM switch, it may not have the
capability to pop the label stack. Hence a binding of Implicit NULL
may be distributed only to LSRs which can support that function.
If the penultimate LSR in an LSP for address prefix X is an LSP Proxy
Egress, it acts just as if the LSP Egress had distributed a binding
of Implicit NULL for X.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 44]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
3.1.6. Option: Egress-Targeted Label Assignment
There are situations in which an LSP Ingress, Ri, knows that packets
of several different FECs must all follow the same LSP, terminating
at, say, LSP Egress Re. In this case, proper routing can be achieved
by using a single label can be used for all such FECs; it is not
necessary to have a distinct label for each FEC. If (and only if)
the following conditions hold:
1. the address of LSR Re is itself in the routing table as a "host
route", and
2. there is some way for Ri to determine that Re is the LSP egress
for all packets in a particular set of FECs
Then Ri may bind a single label to all FECS in the set. This is
known as "Egress-Targeted Label Assignment."
How can LSR Ri determine that an LSR Re is the LSP Egress for all
packets in a particular FEC? There are a couple of possible ways:
- If the network is running a link state routing algorithm, and all
nodes in the area support MPLS, then the routing algorithm
provides Ri with enough information to determine the routers
through which packets in that FEC must leave the routing domain
or area.
- It is possible to use LDP to pass information about which address
prefixes are "attached" to which egress LSRs. This method has
the advantage of not depending on the presence of link state
routing.
If egress-targeted label assignment is used, the number of labels
that need to be supported throughout the network may be greatly
reduced. This may be significant if one is using legacy switching
hardware to do MPLS, and the switching hardware can support only a
limited number of labels.
One possible approach would be to configure the network to use
egress-targeted label assignment by default, but to configure
particular LSRs to NOT use egress-targeted label assignment for one
or more of the address prefixes for which it is an LSP egress. We
impose the following rule:
- If a particular LSR is NOT an LSP Egress for some set of address
prefixes, then it should assign labels to the address prefixes in
the same way as is done by its LSP next hop for those address
prefixes. That is, suppose Rd is Ru's LSP next hop for address
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 45]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
prefixes X1 and X2. If Rd assigns the same label to X1 and X2,
Ru should as well. If Rd assigns different labels to X1 and X2,
then Ru should as well.
For example, suppose one wants to make egress-targeted label
assignment the default, but to assign distinct labels to those
address prefixes for which there are multiple possible LSP egresses
(i.e., for those address prefixes which are multi-homed.) One can
configure all LSRs to use egress-targeted label assignment, and then
configure a handful of LSRs to assign distinct labels to those
address prefixes which are multi-homed. For a particular multi-homed
address prefix X, one would only need to configure this in LSRs which
are either LSP Egresses or LSP Proxy Egresses for X.
It is important to note that if Ru and Rd are adjacent LSRs in an LSP
for X1 and X2, forwarding will still be done correctly if Ru assigns
distinct labels to X1 and X2 while Rd assigns just one label to the
both of them. This just means that R1 will map different incoming
labels to the same outgoing label, an ordinary occurrence.
Similarly, if Rd assigns distinct labels to X1 and X2, but Ru assigns
to them both the label corresponding to the address of their LSP
Egress or Proxy Egress, forwarding will still be done correctly. Ru
will just map the incoming label to the label which Rd has assigned
to the address of that LSP Egress.
3.2. MPLS and Explicitly Routed LSPs
There are a number of reasons why it may be desirable to use explicit
routing instead of hop by hop routing. For example, this allows
routes to be based on administrative policies, and allows the routes
that LSPs take to be carefully designed to allow traffic engineering
(i.e., to allow intentional management of the loading of the
bandwidth through the nodes and links in the network).
3.2.1. Explicitly Routed LSP Tunnels: Traffic Engineering
In some situations, the network administrators may desire to forward
certain classes of traffic along certain pre-specified paths, where
these paths differ from the Hop-by-hop path that the traffic would
ordinarily follow. This is known as Traffic Engineering.
MPLS allows this to be easily done by means of Explicitly Routed LSP
Tunnels. All that is needed is:
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 46]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
1. A means of selecting the packets that are to be sent into the
Explicitly Routed LSP Tunnel;
2. A means of setting up the Explicitly Routed LSP Tunnel;
3. A means of ensuring that packets sent into the Tunnel will not
loop from the receive endpoint back to the transmit endpoint.
If the transmit endpoint of the tunnel wishes to put a labeled packet
into the tunnel, it must first replace the label value at the top of
the stack with a label value that was distributed to it by the
tunnel's receive endpoint. Then it must push on the label which
corresponds to the tunnel itself, as distributed to it by the next
hop along the tunnel. To allow this, the tunnel endpoints should be
explicit LDP peers. The label bindings they need to exchange are of
no interest to the LSRs along the tunnel.
3.3. Label Stacks and Implicit Peering
Suppose a particular LSR Re is an LSP proxy egress for 10 address
prefixes, and it reaches each address prefix through a distinct
interface.
One could assign a single label to all 10 address prefixes. Then Re
is an LSP egress for all 10 address prefixes. This ensures that
packets for all 10 address prefixes get delivered to Re. However, Re
would then have to look up the network layer address of each such
packet in order to choose the proper interface to send the packet on.
Alternatively, one could assign a distinct label to each interface.
Then Re is an LSP proxy egress for the 10 address prefixes. This
eliminates the need for Re to look up the network layer addresses in
order to forward the packets. However, it can result in the use of a
large number of labels.
An alternative would be to bind all 10 address prefixes to the same
level 1 label (which is also bound to the address of the LSR itself),
and then to bind each address prefix to a distinct level 2 label. The
level 2 label would be treated as an attribute of the level 1 label
binding, which we call the "Stack Attribute". We impose the
following rules:
- When LSR Ru initially labels an untagged packet, if the longest
match for the packet's destination address is X, and R's LSP next
hop for X is Rd, and Rd has distributed to R1 a binding of label
L1 X, along with a stack attribute of L2, then
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 47]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
1. Ru must push L2 and then L1 onto the packet's label stack,
and then forward the packet to Rd;
2. When Ru distributes label bindings for X to its LDP peers,
it must include L2 as the stack attribute.
3. Whenever the stack attribute changes (possibly as a result
of a change in Ru's LSP next hop for X), Ru must distribute
the new stack attribute.
Note that although the label value bound to X may be different at
each hop along the LSP, the stack attribute value is passed
unchanged, and is set by the LSP proxy egress.
Thus the LSP proxy egress for X becomes an "implicit peer" with each
other LSR in the routing area or domain. In this case, explicit
peering would be too unwieldy, because the number of peers would
become too large.
3.4. MPLS and Multi-Path Routing
If an LSR supports multiple routes for a particular stream, then it
may assign multiple labels to the stream, one for each route. Thus
the reception of a second label binding from a particular neighbor
for a particular address prefix should be taken as meaning that
either label can be used to represent that address prefix.
If multiple label bindings for a particular address prefix are
specified, they may have distinct attributes.
3.5. LSP Trees as Multipoint-to-Point Entities
Consider the case of packets P1 and P2, each of which has a
destination address whose longest match, throughout a particular
routing domain, is address prefix X. Suppose that the Hop-by-hop
path for P1 is <R1, R2, R3>, and the Hop-by-hop path for P2 is <R4,
R2, R3>. Let's suppose that R3 binds label L3 to X, and distributes
this binding to R2. R2 binds label L2 to X, and distributes this
binding to both R1 and R4. When R2 receives packet P1, its incoming
label will be L2. R2 will overwrite L2 with L3, and send P1 to R3.
When R2 receives packet P2, its incoming label will also be L2. R2
again overwrites L2 with L3, and send P2 on to R3.
Note then that when P1 and P2 are traveling from R2 to R3, they carry
the same label, and as far as MPLS is concerned, they cannot be
distinguished. Thus instead of talking about two distinct LSPs, <R1,
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 48]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
R2, R3> and <R4, R2, R3>, we might talk of a single "Multipoint-to-
Point LSP Tree", which we might denote as <{R1, R4}, R2, R3>.
This creates a difficulty when we attempt to use conventional ATM
switches as LSRs. Since conventional ATM switches do not support
multipoint-to-point connections, there must be procedures to ensure
that each LSP is realized as a point-to-point VC. However, if ATM
switches which do support multipoint-to-point VCs are in use, then
the LSPs can be most efficiently realized as multipoint-to-point VCs.
Alternatively, if the SVP Multipoint Encoding (section 2.24.2) can be
used, the LSPs can be realized as multipoint-to-point SVPs.
3.6. LSP Tunneling between BGP Border Routers
Consider the case of an Autonomous System, A, which carries transit
traffic between other Autonomous Systems. Autonomous System A will
have a number of BGP Border Routers, and a mesh of BGP connections
among them, over which BGP routes are distributed. In many such
cases, it is desirable to avoid distributing the BGP routes to
routers which are not BGP Border Routers. If this can be avoided,
the "route distribution load" on those routers is significantly
reduced. However, there must be some means of ensuring that the
transit traffic will be delivered from Border Router to Border Router
by the interior routers.
This can easily be done by means of LSP Tunnels. Suppose that BGP
routes are distributed only to BGP Border Routers, and not to the
interior routers that lie along the Hop-by-hop path from Border
Router to Border Router. LSP Tunnels can then be used as follows:
1. Each BGP Border Router distributes, to every other BGP Border
Router in the same Autonomous System, a label for each address
prefix that it distributes to that router via BGP.
2. The IGP for the Autonomous System maintains a host route for
each BGP Border Router. Each interior router distributes its
labels for these host routes to each of its IGP neighbors.
3. Suppose that:
a) BGP Border Router B1 receives an unlabeled packet P,
b) address prefix X in B1's routing table is the longest
match for the destination address of P,
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 49]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
c) the route to X is a BGP route,
d) the BGP Next Hop for X is B2,
e) B2 has bound label L1 to X, and has distributed this
binding to B1,
f) the IGP next hop for the address of B2 is I1,
g) the address of B2 is in B1's and I1's IGP routing tables
as a host route, and
h) I1 has bound label L2 to the address of B2, and
distributed this binding to B1.
Then before sending packet P to I1, B1 must create a label
stack for P, then push on label L1, and then push on label L2.
4. Suppose that BGP Border Router B1 receives a labeled Packet P,
where the label on the top of the label stack corresponds to an
address prefix, X, to which the route is a BGP route, and that
conditions 3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e all hold. Then before sending
packet P to I1, B1 must replace the label at the top of the
label stack with L1, and then push on label L2.
With these procedures, a given packet P follows a level 1 LSP all of
whose members are BGP Border Routers, and between each pair of BGP
Border Routers in the level 1 LSP, it follows a level 2 LSP.
These procedures effectively create a Hop-by-Hop Routed LSP Tunnel
between the BGP Border Routers.
Since the BGP border routers are exchanging label bindings for
address prefixes that are not even known to the IGP routing, the BGP
routers should become explicit LDP peers with each other.
3.7. Other Uses of Hop-by-Hop Routed LSP Tunnels
The use of Hop-by-Hop Routed LSP Tunnels is not restricted to tunnels
between BGP Next Hops. Any situation in which one might otherwise
have used an encapsulation tunnel is one in which it is appropriate
to use a Hop-by-Hop Routed LSP Tunnel. Instead of encapsulating the
packet with a new header whose destination address is the address of
the tunnel's receive endpoint, the label corresponding to the address
prefix which is the longest match for the address of the tunnel's
receive endpoint is pushed on the packet's label stack. The packet
which is sent into the tunnel may or may not already be labeled.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 50]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
If the transmit endpoint of the tunnel wishes to put a labeled packet
into the tunnel, it must first replace the label value at the top of
the stack with a label value that was distributed to it by the
tunnel's receive endpoint. Then it must push on the label which
corresponds to the tunnel itself, as distributed to it by the next
hop along the tunnel. To allow this, the tunnel endpoints should be
explicit LDP peers. The label bindings they need to exchange are of
no interest to the LSRs along the tunnel.
3.8. MPLS and Multicast
Multicast routing proceeds by constructing multicast trees. The tree
along which a particular multicast packet must get forwarded depends
in general on the packet's source address and its destination
address. Whenever a particular LSR is a node in a particular
multicast tree, it binds a label to that tree. It then distributes
that binding to its parent on the multicast tree. (If the node in
question is on a LAN, and has siblings on that LAN, it must also
distribute the binding to its siblings. This allows the parent to
use a single label value when multicasting to all children on the
LAN.)
When a multicast labeled packet arrives, the NHLFE corresponding to
the label indicates the set of output interfaces for that packet, as
well as the outgoing label. If the same label encoding technique is
used on all the outgoing interfaces, the very same packet can be sent
to all the children.
4. LDP Procedures for Hop-by-Hop Routed Traffic
4.1. The Procedures for Advertising and Using labels
In this section, we consider only label bindings that are used for
traffic to be label switched along its hop-by-hop routed path. In
these cases, the label in question will correspond to an address
prefix in the routing table.
There are a number of different procedures that may be used to
distribute label bindings. One such procedure is executed by the
downstream LSR, and the others by the upstream LSR.
The downstream LSR must perform:
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 51]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
- The Distribution Procedure, and
- the Withdrawal Procedure.
The upstream LSR must perform:
- The Request Procedure, and
- the NotAvailable Procedure, and
- the Release Procedure, and
- the labelUse Procedure.
The MPLS architecture supports several variants of each procedure.
However, the MPLS architecture does not support all possible
combinations of all possible variants. The set of supported
combinations will be described in section 4.2, where the
interoperability between different combinations will also be
discussed.
4.1.1. Downstream LSR: Distribution Procedure
The Distribution Procedure is used by a downstream LSR to determine
when it should distribute a label binding for a particular address
prefix to its LDP peers. The architecture supports four different
distribution procedures.
Irrespective of the particular procedure that is used, if a label
binding for a particular address prefix has been distributed by a
downstream LSR Rd to an upstream LSR Ru, and if at any time the
attributes (as defined above) of that binding change, then Rd must
inform Ru of the new attributes.
If an LSR is maintaining multiple routes to a particular address
prefix, it is a local matter as to whether that LSR binds multiple
labels to the address prefix (one per route), and hence distributes
multiple bindings.
4.1.1.1. PushUnconditional
Let Rd be an LSR. Suppose that:
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 52]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
1. X is an address prefix in Rd's routing table
2. Ru is an LDP Peer of Rd with respect to X
Whenever these conditions hold, Rd must bind a label to X and
distribute that binding to Ru. It is the responsibility of Rd to
keep track of the bindings which it has distributed to Ru, and to
make sure that Ru always has these bindings.
This procedure would be used by LSRs which are performing downstream
label assignment in the Independent LSP Control Mode.
4.1.1.2. PushConditional
Let Rd be an LSR. Suppose that:
1. X is an address prefix in Rd's routing table
2. Ru is an LDP Peer of Rd with respect to X
3. Rd is either an LSP Egress or an LSP Proxy Egress for X, or
Rd's L3 next hop for X is Rn, where Rn is distinct from Ru, and
Rn has bound a label to X and distributed that binding to Rd.
Then as soon as these conditions all hold, Rd should bind a label to
X and distribute that binding to Ru.
Whereas PushUnconditional causes the distribution of label bindings
for all address prefixes in the routing table, PushConditional causes
the distribution of label bindings only for those address prefixes
for which one has received label bindings from one's LSP next hop, or
for which one does not have an MPLS-capable L3 next hop.
This procedure would be used by LSRs which are performing downstream
label assignment in the Ordered LSP Control Mode.
4.1.1.3. PulledUnconditional
Let Rd be an LSR. Suppose that:
1. X is an address prefix in Rd's routing table
2. Ru is a label distribution peer of Rd with respect to X
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 53]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
3. Ru has explicitly requested that Rd bind a label to X and
distribute the binding to Ru
Then Rd should bind a label to X and distribute that binding to Ru.
Note that if X is not in Rd's routing table, or if Rd is not an LDP
peer of Ru with respect to X, then Rd must inform Ru that it cannot
provide a binding at this time.
If Rd has already distributed a binding for address prefix X to Ru,
and it receives a new request from Ru for a binding for address
prefix X, it will bind a second label, and distribute the new binding
to Ru. The first label binding remains in effect.
This procedure would be used by LSRs performing downstream-on-demand
label distribution using the Independent LSP Control Mode.
4.1.1.4. PulledConditional
Let Rd be an LSR. Suppose that:
1. X is an address prefix in Rd's routing table
2. Ru is a label distribution peer of Rd with respect to X
3. Ru has explicitly requested that Rd bind a label to X and
distribute the binding to Ru
4. Rd is either an LSP Egress or an LSP Proxy Egress for X, or
Rd's L3 next hop for X is Rn, where Rn is distinct from Ru, and
Rn has bound a label to X and distributed that binding to Rd
Then as soon as these conditions all hold, Rd should bind a label to
X and distribute that binding to Ru. Note that if X is not in Rd's
routing table, or if Rd is not a label distribution peer of Ru with
respect to X, then Rd must inform Ru that it cannot provide a binding
at this time.
However, if the only condition that fails to hold is that Rn has not
yet provided a label to Rd, then Rd must defer any response to Ru
until such time as it has receiving a binding from Rn.
If Rd has distributed a label binding for address prefix X to Ru, and
at some later time, any attribute of the label binding changes, then
Rd must redistribute the label binding to Ru, with the new attribute.
It must do this even though Ru does not issue a new Request.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 54]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
This procedure would be used by LSRs that are performing downstream-
on-demand label allocation in the Ordered LSP Control Mode.
In section 4.2, we will discuss how to choose the particular
procedure to be used at any given time, and how to ensure
interoperability among LSRs that choose different procedures.
4.1.2. Upstream LSR: Request Procedure
The Request Procedure is used by the upstream LSR for an address
prefix to determine when to explicitly request that the downstream
LSR bind a label to that prefix and distribute the binding. There
are three possible procedures that can be used.
4.1.2.1. RequestNever
Never make a request. This is useful if the downstream LSR uses the
PushConditional procedure or the PushUnconditional procedure, but is
not useful if the downstream LSR uses the PulledUnconditional
procedure or the the PulledConditional procedures.
This procedure would be used by an LSR when downstream label
distribution and Liberal Label Retention Mode are being used.
4.1.2.2. RequestWhenNeeded
Make a request whenever the L3 next hop to the address prefix
changes, and one doesn't already have a label binding from that next
hop for the given address prefix.
This procedure would be used by an LSR whenever Conservative Label
Retention Mode is being used.
4.1.2.3. RequestOnRequest
Issue a request whenever a request is received, in addition to
issuing a request when needed (as described in section 4.1.2.2). If
Rd receives such a request from Ru, for an address prefix for which
Rd has already distributed Ru a label, Rd shall assign a new
(distinct) label, bind it to X, and distribute that binding.
(Whether Rd can distribute this binding to Ru immediately or not
depends on the Distribution Procedure being used.)
This procedure would be used by an LSR which doing downstream-on-
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 55]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
demand label distribution, but is not doing label merging, e.g., an
ATM-LSR which is not capable of VC merge.
4.1.3. Upstream LSR: NotAvailable Procedure
If Ru and Rd are respectively upstream and downstream label
distribution peers for address prefix X, and Rd is Ru's L3 next hop
for X, and Ru requests a binding for X from Rd, but Rd replies that
it cannot provide a binding at this time, then the NotAvailable
procedure determines how Ru responds. There are two possible
procedures governing Ru's behavior:
4.1.3.1. RequestRetry
Ru should issue the request again at a later time. That is, the
requester is responsible for trying again later to obtain the needed
binding. This procedure would be used when downstream-on-demand
label distribution is used.
4.1.3.2. RequestNoRetry
Ru should never reissue the request, instead assuming that Rd will
provide the binding automatically when it is available. This is
useful if Rd uses the PushUnconditional procedure or the
PushConditional procedure, i.e., if downstream label distribution is
used.
4.1.4. Upstream LSR: Release Procedure
Suppose that Rd is an LSR which has bound a label to address prefix
X, and has distributed that binding to LSR Ru. If Rd does not happen
to be Ru's L3 next hop for address prefix X, or has ceased to be Ru's
L3 next hop for address prefix X, then Rd will not be using the
label. The Release Procedure determines how Ru acts in this case.
There are two possible procedures governing Ru's behavior:
4.1.4.1. ReleaseOnChange
Ru should release the binding, and inform Rd that it has done so.
This procedure would be used to implement Conservative Label
Retention Mode.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 56]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
4.1.4.2. NoReleaseOnChange
Ru should maintain the binding, so that it can use it again
immediately if Rd later becomes Ru's L3 next hop for X. This
procedure would be used to implement Liberal Label Retention Mode.
4.1.5. Upstream LSR: labelUse Procedure
Suppose Ru is an LSR which has received label binding L for address
prefix X from LSR Rd, and Ru is upstream of Rd with respect to X, and
in fact Rd is Ru's L3 next hop for X.
Ru will make use of the binding if Rd is Ru's L3 next hop for X. If,
at the time the binding is received by Ru, Rd is NOT Ru's L3 next hop
for X, Ru does not make any use of the binding at that time. Ru may
however start using the binding at some later time, if Rd becomes
Ru's L3 next hop for X.
The labelUse Procedure determines just how Ru makes use of Rd's
binding.
There are three procedures which Ru may use:
4.1.5.1. UseImmediate
Ru may put the binding into use immediately. At any time when Ru has
a binding for X from Rd, and Rd is Ru's L3 next hop for X, Rd will
also be Ru's LSP next hop for X. This procedure is used when neither
loop prevention nor loop detection are in use.
4.1.5.2. UseIfLoopFree
Ru will use the binding only if it determines that by doing so, it
will not cause a forwarding loop.
If Ru has a binding for X from Rd, and Rd is (or becomes) Ru's L3
next hop for X, but Rd is NOT Ru's current LSP next hop for X, Ru
does NOT immediately make Rd its LSP next hop. Rather, it initiates
a loop prevention algorithm. If, upon the completion of this
algorithm, Rd is still the L3 next hop for X, Ru will make Rd the LSP
next hop for X, and use L as the outgoing label.
This procedure is used when loop prevention is in use.
The loop prevention algorithm to be used is still under
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 57]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
consideration.
4.1.5.3. UseIfLoopNotDetected
This procedure is the same as UseImmediate, unless Ru has detected a
loop in the LSP. If a loop has been detected, Ru will discard
packets that would otherwise have been labeled with L and sent to Rd.
This procedure is used when loop detection, but not loop prevention,
is in use.
This will continue until the next hop for X changes, or until the
loop is no longer detected.
4.1.6. Downstream LSR: Withdraw Procedure
In this case, there is only a single procedure.
When LSR Rd decides to break the binding between label L and address
prefix X, then this unbinding must be distributed to all LSRs to
which the binding was distributed.
It is desirable, though not required, that the unbinding of L from X
be distributed by Rd to a LSR Ru before Rd distributes to Ru any new
binding of L to any other address prefix Y, where X != Y. If Ru
learns of the new binding of L to Y before it learns of the unbinding
of L from X, and if packets matching both X and Y are forwarded by Ru
to Rd, then for a period of time, Ru will label both packets matching
X and packets matching Y with label L.
The distribution and withdrawal of label bindings is done via a label
distribution protocol, or LDP. LDP is a two-party protocol. If LSR R1
has received label bindings from LSR R2 via an instance of an LDP,
and that instance of that protocol is closed by either end (whether
as a result of failure or as a matter of normal operation), then all
bindings learned over that instance of the protocol must be
considered to have been withdrawn.
As long as the relevant LDP connection remains open, label bindings
that are withdrawn must always be withdrawn explicitly. If a second
label is bound to an address prefix, the result is not to implicitly
withdraw the first label, but to bind both labels; this is needed to
support multi-path routing. If a second address prefix is bound to a
label, the result is not to implicitly withdraw the binding of that
label to the first address prefix, but to use that label for both
address prefixes.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 58]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
4.2. MPLS Schemes: Supported Combinations of Procedures
Consider two LSRs, Ru and Rd, which are label distribution peers with
respect to some set of address prefixes, where Ru is the upstream
peer and Rd is the downstream peer.
The MPLS scheme which governs the interaction of Ru and Rd can be
described as a quintuple of procedures: <Distribution Procedure,
Request Procedure, NotAvailable Procedure, Release Procedure,
labelUse Procedure>. (Since there is only one Withdraw Procedure, it
need not be mentioned.) A "*" appearing in one of the positions is a
wild-card, meaning that any procedure in that category may be
present; an "N/A" appearing in a particular position indicates that
no procedure in that category is needed.
Only the MPLS schemes which are specified below are supported by the
MPLS Architecture. Other schemes may be added in the future, if a
need for them is shown.
4.2.1. TTL-capable LSP Segments
If Ru and Rd are MPLS peers, and both are capable of decrementing a
TTL field in the MPLS header, then the MPLS scheme in use between Ru
and Rd must be one of the following:
1. <PushUnconditional, RequestNever, N/A, NoReleaseOnChange,
UseImmediate>
This is downstream label distribution with independent control,
liberal label retention mode, and no loop detection.
2. <PushUnconditional, RequestNever, N/A, NoReleaseOnChange,
UseIfLoopNotDetected>
This is downstream label distribution with independent control,
liberal label retention, and loop detection.
3. <PushConditional, RequestWhenNeeded, RequestNoRetry,
ReleaseOnChange, *>
This is downstream label distribution with ordered control and
conservative label retention mode. Loop prevention and loop
detection are optional.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 59]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
4. <PushConditional, RequestNever, N/A, NoReleaseOnChange, *>
This is downstream label distribution with ordered control and
liberal label retention mode. Loop prevention and loop
detection are optional.
4.2.2. Using ATM Switches as LSRs
The procedures for using ATM switches as LSRs depends on whether the
ATM switches can realize LSP trees as multipoint-to-point VCs or VPs.
Most ATM switches existing today do NOT have a multipoint-to-point
VC-switching capability. Their cross-connect tables could easily be
programmed to move cells from multiple incoming VCs to a single
outgoing VC, but the result would be that cells from different
packets get interleaved.
Some ATM switches do support a multipoint-to-point VC-switching
capability. These switches will queue up all the incoming cells from
an incoming VC until a packet boundary is reached. Then they will
transmit the entire sequence of cells on the outgoing VC, without
allowing cells from any other packet to be interleaved.
Many ATM switches do support a multipoint-to-point VP-switching
capability, which can be used if the Multipoint SVP label encoding is
used.
4.2.2.1. Without Label Merging
Suppose that R1, R2, R3, and R4 are ATM switches which do not support
label merging, but are being used as LSRs. Suppose further that the
L3 hop-by-hop path for address prefix X is <R1, R2, R3, R4>, and that
packets destined for X can enter the network at any of these LSRs.
Since there is no multipoint-to-point capability, the LSPs must be
realized as point-to-point VCs, which means that there needs to be
three such VCs for address prefix X: <R1, R2, R3, R4>, <R2, R3, R4>,
and <R3, R4>.
Therefore, if R1 and R2 are MPLS peers, and either is an LSR which is
implemented using conventional ATM switching hardware (i.e., no cell
interleave suppression), the MPLS scheme in use between R1 and R2
must be one of the following:
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 60]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
1. <PulledUnconditional, RequestOnRequest, RequestRetry,
ReleaseOnChange, UseImmediate>
This is downstream-on-demand label distribution with
independent control and conservative label retention mode,
without loop prevention or detection.
2. <PulledUnconditional, RequestOnRequest, RequestRetry,
ReleaseOnChange, UseIfLoopNotDetected>
This is downstream-on-demand label distribution with
independent control and conservative label retention mode, with
loop detection.
3. <PulledConditional, RequestOnRequest, RequestNoRetry,
ReleaseOnChange, *>
This is downstream-on-demand label distribution with ordered
control (initiated by the ingress), conservative label
retention mode, and optional loop detection or loop prevention.
The use of the RequestOnRequest procedure will cause R4 to
distribute three labels for X to R3; R3 will distribute 2
labels for X to R2, and R2 will distribute one label for X to
R1.
4.2.2.2. With Label Merging
If R1 and R2 are MPLS peers, at least one of which is an ATM-LSR
which supports label merging, then the MPLS scheme in use between R1
and R2 must be one of the following:
1. <PulledConditional, RequestOnRequest, RequestNoRetry,
ReleaseOnChange, *>
This is downstream-on-demand label distribution with
<PushConditional, RequestWhenNeeded, RequestNoRetry, *, *>
<PushUnconditional, RequestNever, N/A, NoReleaseOnChange,
UseImmediate>
The first of these is an ordered control scheme. The second is
is the "downstream" variant of independent control. The third
is the "conservative downstream-on-demand" variant of
independent control.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 61]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
4.2.3. Interoperability Considerations
It is easy to see that certain quintuples do NOT yield viable MPLS
schemes. For example:
- <PulledUnconditional, RequestNever, *, *, *>
<PulledConditional, RequestNever, *, *, *>
In these MPLS schemes, the downstream LSR Rd distributes label
bindings to upstream LSR Ru only upon request from Ru, but Ru
never makes any such requests. Obviously, these schemes are not
viable, since they will not result in the proper distribution of
label bindings.
- <*, RequestNever, *, *, ReleaseOnChange>
In these MPLS schemes, Rd releases bindings when it isn't using
them, but it never asks for them again, even if it later has a
need for them. These schemes thus do not ensure that label
bindings get properly distributed.
In this section, we specify rules to prevent a pair of LDP peers from
adopting procedures which lead to infeasible MPLS Schemes. These
rules require the exchange of information between LDP peers during
the initialization of the LDP connection between them.
1. Each must state whether it is an ATM-LSR, and if so, whether it
has cell interleave suppression (i.e., VC merging).
2. If Rd is an ATM switch without cell interleave suppression, it
must state whether it intends to use the PulledUnconditional
procedure or the Pulledconditional procedure. If the former,
Ru MUST use the RequestRetry procedure; if the latter, Ru MUST
use the RequestNoRetry procedure.
3. If Ru is an ATM switch without cell interleave suppression, it
must state whether it intends to use the RequestRetry or the
RequestNoRetry procedure. If Rd is an ATM switch without cell
interleave suppression, Rd is not bound by this, and in fact Ru
MUST adopt Rd's preferences. However, if Rd is NOT an ATM
switch without cell interleave suppression, then if Ru chooses
RequestRetry, Rd must use PulledUnconditional, and if Ru
chooses RequestNoRetry, Rd MUST use PulledConditional.
4. If Rd is an ATM switch with cell interleave suppression, it
must specify whether it prefers to use PushConditional,
PushUnconditional, or PulledConditional. If Ru is not an ATM
switch without cell interleave suppression, it must then use
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 62]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
RequestWhenNeeded and RequestNoRetry, or else RequestNever and
NoReleaseOnChange, respectively.
5. If Ru is an ATM switch with cell interleave suppression, it
must specify whether it prefers to use RequestWhenNeeded and
RequestNoRetry, or else RequestNever and NoReleaseOnChange. If
Rd is NOT an ATM switch with cell interleave suppression, it
must then use either PushConditional or PushUnconditional,
respectively.
5. Security Considerations
Security considerations are not discussed in this version of this
draft.
6. Authors' Addresses
Eric C. Rosen
Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA, 01824
E-mail: erosen@cisco.com
Arun Viswanathan
Lucent Technologies
101 Crawford Corner Rd., #4D-537
Holmdel, NJ 07733
732-332-5163
E-mail: arunv@dnrc.bell-labs.com
Ross Callon
IronBridge Networks
55 Hayden Avenue,
Lexington, MA 02173
+1-781-402-8017
E-mail: rcallon@ironbridgenetworks.com
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 63]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02.txt July 1998
7. References
[1] "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching", R.Callon,
P.Doolan, N.Feldman, A.Fredette, G.Swallow, and A.Viswanathan, work
in progress, Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-framework-02.txt>,
November 1997.
[2] "ARIS: Aggregate Route-Based IP Switching", A. Viswanathan, N.
Feldman, R. Boivie, R. Woundy, work in progress, Internet Draft
<draft-viswanathan-aris-overview-00.txt>, March 1997.
[3] "ARIS Specification", N. Feldman, A. Viswanathan, work in
progress, Internet Draft <draft-feldman-aris-spec-00.txt>, March
1997.
[4] "Tag Switching Architecture - Overview", Rekhter, Davie, Katz,
Rosen, Swallow, Farinacci, work in progress, Internet Draft <draft-
rekhter-tagswitch-arch-00.txt>, January, 1997.
[5] "Tag distribution Protocol", Doolan, Davie, Katz, Rekhter, Rosen,
work in progress, Internet Draft <draft-doolan-tdp-spec-01.txt>, May,
1997.
[6] "Use of Tag Switching with ATM", Davie, Doolan, Lawrence,
McGloghrie, Rekhter, Rosen, Swallow, work in progress, Internet Draft
<draft-davie-tag-switching-atm-01.txt>, January, 1997.
[7] "Label Switching: Label Stack Encodings", Rosen, Rekhter, Tappan,
Farinacci, Fedorkow, Li, Conta, work in progress, Internet Draft
<draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-01.txt>, February, 1998.
[8] "Partitioning Tag Space among Multicast Routers on a Common
Subnet", Farinacci, work in progress, internet draft <draft-
farinacci-multicast-tag-part-00.txt>, December, 1996.
[9] "Multicast Tag Binding and Distribution using PIM", Farinacci,
Rekhter, work in progress, internet draft <draft-farinacci-
multicast-tagsw-00.txt>, December, 1996.
[10] "Toshiba's Router Architecture Extensions for ATM: Overview",
Katsube, Nagami, Esaki, RFC 2098, February, 1997.
[11] "Loop-Free Routing Using Diffusing Computations", J.J. Garcia-
Luna-Aceves, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, Vol. 1, No. 1,
February 1993.
Rosen, Viswanathan & Callon [Page 64]
