MPLS Working Group Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: Feb 2010 Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems
Emily Chen
Huawei Technologies
Bob Thomas
August 28, 2009
Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-04.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
This Internet-Draft will expire on Feb 28, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
There are situations following Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
session establishment where it would be useful for an LDP speaker to
know when its peer has advertised all of its labels. The LDP
specification provides no mechanism for an LDP speaker to notify a
peer when it has completed its initial label advertisements to that
peer. This document specifies means for an LDP speaker to signal
completion of its initial label advertisements following session
establishment.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Specification Language.........................................3
3. Unrecognized Notification Capability...........................4
4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement....................4
4.1. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications.................5
5. Usage Guidelines...............................................6
5.1. LDP-IGP Sync..............................................7
5.2. LDP Graceful Restart......................................7
5.3. Wildcard Label Request....................................8
6. Security Considerations........................................8
7. IANA Considerations............................................8
8. Acknowledgments................................................9
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
9. References....................................................10
9.1. Normative References.....................................10
9.2. Informative References...................................10
Author's Addresses...............................................11
1. Introduction
There are situations following LDP session establishment where it
would be useful for an LDP speaker to know when its peer has
advertised all of the labels from its Label Information Base (LIB).
For example, when an LDP speaker is using LDP-IGP synchronization
procedures [RFC5443], it would be useful for the speaker to know when
its peer has completed advertisement of its IP label bindings.
Similarly, after an LDP session is re-established when LDP Graceful
Restart [RFC3478] is in effect, it would be helpful for each peer to
signal the other after it has advertised all its label bindings.
The LDP specification [RFC5036] provides no mechanism for an LDP
speaker to notify a peer when it has completed its initial label
advertisements to that peer.
This document specifies use of a Notification message with the "End-
of-LIB" Status Code for an LDP speaker to signal completion of its
label advertisements following session establishment.
RFC5036 implicitly assumes that new Status Codes will be defined over
the course of time. However, it does not explicitly define the
behavior of an LDP speaker which does not understand the Status Code
in a Notification message. To avoid backward compatibility issues
this document specifies use of the LDP capability mechanism [RFC5561]
at session establishment time for informing a peer that an LDP
speaker is capable of handling a Notification message that carries an
unrecognized Status Code.
2. Specification Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
3. Unrecognized Notification Capability
An LDP speaker MAY include a Capability Parameter [RFC5561] in the
Initialization message to inform a peer that it ignores Notification
Messages that carry a Status Type-Length-Value (TLV) with a non-fatal
Status Code unknown to it.
The Capability Parameter for the Unrecognized Notification capability
is a TLV with the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Unrecog Notif (IANA) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 Unrecognized Notification Capability format
Where:
U and F bits: MUST be 1 and 0 respectively as per section 3 of LDP
Capabilities [RFC5561].
Unrecog Notif: TLV code point to be assigned by IANA.
S-bit: MUST be 1 (indicates that capability is being advertised).
Upon receiving a Notification with an unrecognized Status Code an LDP
speaker MAY generate a console or system log message for trouble
shooting purposes.
4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement
An LDP speaker that conforms to this specification SHOULD signal
completion of its label advertisements to a peer by means of a
Notification message, if its peer has advertised the Unrecognized
Notification capability during session establishment. The LDP speaker
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
SHOULD send the Notification message (per Forwarding Equivalence
Class (FEC) Type) to a peer even if the LDP speaker had zero Label
bindings to advertise to that peer.
Such a Notification message MUST carry:
- A status TLV (with TLV E- and F-bits set to zero) that carries
an "End-of-LIB" Status Code (value to be assigned by IANA).
- A FEC TLV with the Typed Wildcard FEC Element [TypedWC] that
identifies the FEC type for which initial label advertisements
have been completed. In terms of Section 3.5.1 of RFC5036,
this TLV is an "Optional Parameter" of the Notification
message.
An LDP speaker MUST NOT send a Notification which carries a Status
TLV with the End-of-LIB Status Code to a peer unless the peer had
advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability during session
establishment.
This applies to any LDP peers discovered via either basic discovery
or extended discovery mechanism (per section 2.4 of [RFC5036]).
4.1. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications
There is no guarantee that an LDP speaker will receive (or send) End-
of-LIB Notification from (or to) a peer even if the LDP speaker has
signaled the 'Unrecognized Notification' capability (section 3).
Although it is expected that an LDP speaker supporting Unrecognized
Notification Capability would support sending and receiving End-of-
LIB Notication, it is not mandatory by definition.
Please note that this is not a concern since the LDP speaker would
simply ignore the received Notification with End-of-LIB status code
(or any status code) that is not recognized or supported, by
definition.
To deal with the possibility of missing End-of-LIB Notifications
after the LDP session establishment, an LDP speaker MAY time out
receipt of an expected End-of-LIB Notification. An LDP speaker SHOULD
start a per-peer internal timer, called 'EOL Notification' timer (the
default value of 60 seconds is RECOMMENDED, though the value of this
timer SHOULD be configurable) immediately following the LDP session
establishment.
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
This timer is reset by the subsequent label advertisement, and
stopped by the End-of-LIB Notification message. Lacking any label
advertisement from the peer, the timer would expire, resulting in the
LDP speaker to behave as if it had received the End-of-LIB
notification from the peer.
If the End-of-LIB Notification message is received after the timer
expires, then the message SHOULD be ignored.
5. Usage Guidelines
The FECs known to an LDP speaker and the labels the speaker has bound
to those FECs may change over the course of time. This makes
determining when an LDP speaker has advertised "all" of its label
bindings for a given FEC type an issue. Ultimately, this
determination is a judgment call the LDP speaker makes. The
following guidelines may be useful.
An LDP speaker is assumed to "know" a set of FECs. Depending on a
variety of criteria, such as:
- The label distribution control mode in use (Independent or
Ordered);
- The set of FEC's to which the speaker has bound local labels;
- Configuration settings which may constrain which label bindings
the speaker may advertise to peers;
the speaker can determine the set of bindings for a given FEC type
that it is permitted to advertise to a given peer.
LDP-IGP Sync, LDP Graceful Restart, and the response to a Wildcard
Label Request [TypedWC] are situations that would benefit from End-
of-LIB Notification. In these situations, after an LDP speaker
completes its label binding advertisements to a peer, sending an End-
of-LIB Notification to the peer makes their outcome deterministic.
The following subsections further explain each of these situations
one by one.
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
5.1. LDP-IGP Sync
The LDP-IGP Synchronization [RFC5443] specifies a mechanism by which
directly connected LDP speakers may delay the use of the link between
them, for transit IP traffic forwarding until the labels required to
support IP over MPLS traffic forwarding have been distributed and
installed.
Without an End-of-LIB Notification, the speaker must rely on some
heuristic to determine when it has received all of its peer's label
bindings. The heuristic chosen could cause LDP to signal the IGP too
soon in which case the likelihood that traffic will be dropped
increases, or too late in which case traffic is kept on sub-optimal
paths longer than necessary.
Following session establishment, with a directly connected peer that
has advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability, an LDP
speaker using LDP-IGP Sync may send the peer an End-of-LIB
Notification after it completes advertisement of its IP label
bindings to the peer. Similarly, the LDP speaker may use the End-of-
LIB Notification received from a directly connected peer to determine
when the peer has completed advertisement of its label bindings for
IP prefixes. After receiving the notification, the LDP speaker
should consider LDP to be fully operational for the link and signal
the IGP to start advertising the link with normal cost.
5.2. LDP Graceful Restart
LDP Graceful Restart [RFC3478] helps to reduce the loss of MPLS
traffic caused by the restart of a router's LDP component. It
defines procedures that allow routers capable of preserving MPLS
forwarding state across the restart to continue forwarding MPLS
traffic using forwarding state installed prior to the restart for a
configured time period.
The current behavior without End-of-LIB Notification is as follows:
the restarting router and its peers consider the preserved forwarding
state to be usable but stale until it is refreshed by receipt of new
label advertisements following re-establishment of new LDP sessions
or until the time period expires. When the time period expires, any
remaining stale forwarding state is removed by the router.
Receiving End-of-LIB Notification from a peer in an LDP Graceful
Restart scenario enables an LDP speaker to stop using stale
forwarding information learned from that peer and to recover the
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
resources it requires without having to wait until the time period
expiry. The time period expiry can still be used if the End-of-LIB-
Notification message is not received.
5.3. Wildcard Label Request
When an LDP speaker receives a Label Request message for a Typed
Wildcard FEC (e.g. a particular FEC element type) from a peer it
determines the set of bindings, it is permitted to advertise the peer
for the FEC type specified by the request. Assuming the peer had
advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability at session
initialization time, the speaker should send the peer an End-of-LIB
Notification for the FEC type when it completes advertisement of the
permitted bindings.
As in the previous applications, receipt of the Notification
eliminates uncertainty as to when the peer has completed its
advertisements of label bindings for the requested Wildcard FEC
Element Type.
6. Security Considerations
No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP
specification [RFC5036] and further described in [MPLSsec] apply to
signaling the End-of-LIB condition as described in this document.
7. IANA Considerations
This draft introduces a new LDP Status Code and a new LDP Capability
both of which require IANA assignment -
The 'End-of-LIB' status code requires a code point from the Status
Code Name Space. [RFC5036] partitions the Status Code Name Space
into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come First Served
region, and Private Use region. The authors recommend that a code
point from the IETF Consensus range be assigned to the 'End-of-
LIB' status code.
The 'Unrecognized Notification' Capability requires a code point
from the TLV Type name space. [RFC5036] partitions the TLV TYPE
name space into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
First Served region, and Private Use region. The authors
recommend that a code point from the IETF Consensus range be
assigned to the 'Unrecognized Notification' Capability.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to recognize Kamran Raza, who helped to
formulate this draft.
The authors would like to thank Ina Minei, Alia Atlas, Yakov Rekhter,
Loa Andersson and Luyuan Fang for their valuable feedback and
contribution.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
Thomas, B., "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, January 2001.
[RFC5561] Thomas, B., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., Le Roux, J.L., "LDP
Capabilities", RFC5561, May 2007.
[TypedWC] Thomas, B., Minei, I., "LDP Typed Wildcard FEC", draft-
ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-03, Work in Progress, March
2008.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., Fang, L., "LDP IGP Synchronization",
RFC5443, Dec 2007.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., Aggarwal, R., "Graceful
Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol",
February 2003.
[MPLSsec] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-06, Work
in Progress, July 13 2009.
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib August 2009
Author's Addresses
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems,
7025-6 Kit Creek Rd, RTP, NC, 27709-4987
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems,
3750 Cisco Way, San Jose, CA, 95134
Email: pmohapat@cisco.com
Bob Thomas
Email: bobthomas@alum.mit.edu
Emily Chen
Huawei Technologies
No.5 Street, Shangdi Information, Haidian, Beijing, China
Email: chenying220@huawei.com
Asati, et al. Expires Feb 28, 2010 [Page 11]
