Network Working Group Kamran Raza
Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Intended Status: Standards Track
Expiration Date: July 8, 2012 Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
January 9, 2012
LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for the PW FEC Elements
draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified,
and derivative works of it may not be created, except to publish it
as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 8, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Raza, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements January 2012
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
The "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element"
defines an extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) that
can be used when it is desired to request or withdraw or release all
label bindings for a given FEC Element type. However, a typed
wildcard FEC element must be individually defined for each FEC
element type. This specification defines the typed wildcard FEC
elements for the PWid (0x80), Generalized PWid (0x81), and P2MP PW
(0x82) FEC element types.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................... 3
2. Typed Wildcard for PW FEC Elements ............................... 3
3. Applicability Statement .......................................... 4
4. Operation ........................................................ 5
4.1. PW Consistency Check .......................................... 5
4.2. PW Graceful Shutdown .......................................... 5
4.3. Wildcard PW Status ............................................ 6
5. Security Considerations .......................................... 6
6. IANA Considerations .............................................. 6
7. Acknowledgments .................................................. 6
8. References ....................................................... 6
8.1. Normative References .......................................... 6
8.2. Informative References ........................................ 7
Authors' Addresses .................................................. 7
Raza, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements January 2012
1. Introduction
An extension [RFC5918] to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
[RFC5036] defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is
desired to request all label bindings for a given type of FEC
Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for a given
type of FEC element. However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be
individually defined for each type of FEC element.
[RFC4447] defines the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC
Element", and [P2MP-PW] defines the "P2MP PW FEC Element". These
specifications, however, do not specify the Typed Wildcard format
for these elements. This document specifies the format of the Typed
Wildcard FEC Element for the "PWid FEC Element", "Generalized PWid
FEC Element", and "P2MP FEC Element". The procedures for Typed
Wildcard processing for PWid, Generalized PWid, and P2MP FEC
Elements are same as described in [RFC5918] for any typed wildcard
FEC Element type.
2. Typed Wildcard for PW FEC Elements
The format of the Typed Wildcard FEC Element for PWid, Generalized
PWid, and P2MP PW FEC Elements is specified as:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Typed Wcard=0x5| Type=PW FEC | Len = 2 |R| PW type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Format of Typed Wildcard FEC Element for PW FEC Element
Types
Where:
Typed Wcard (one octet): Typed Wildcard FEC element type (0x05)
as specified in [RFC5918]
[FEC Element] Type (one octet): PW FEC Element type:
PWid: (type 0x80 [RFC4447])
Generalized PWid: (type 0x81 [RFC4447])
P2MP PW: (type 0x82, [P2MP-PW]
Raza, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements January 2012
Len [FEC Type Info] (one octet): Two. (i.e. there is additional
FEC info to scope the Typed Wildcard)
R bit (Reserved bit): Must be set to ZERO on transmit and ignored
on receipt.
PW type (15-bits): PW type as specified in [RFC4447]. This field
is used to scope the PWid wildcard FEC operation to limit to
all PWs of a given type. This MUST be set to "Wildcard" type
(0x7FFF), as defined by[IANA-PWE3], when referring PWs of
all types (see Section 4 for its usage).
[RFC4447] defines "PW Grouping ID TLV" that can be used for wildcard
withdrawal or status messages related to Generalized PWid and P2MP PW
FECs. When Typed Wildcard FEC for Generalized PWid or P2MP PW FEC
element is in use, "PW Grouping ID TLV" MUST NOT be present in the
same message. If found present, the receiving LSR MUST ignore this
TLV silently, and process the rest of the message.
3. Applicability Statement
The Typed wildcard FEC Elements defined in this document for the
PWid, Generalized PWid, and P2MP PW FEC Elements provide a finer
degree of granularity when compared to the Wildcard FEC mechanics
defined in [RFC5036].
The PWid FEC Element as defined in [RFC4447] contains a Group ID
field. This field is defined as an arbitrary 32-bit value that
represents a group of PWs, and is used to create groups in the PW
space, including potentially a single group of all PWs for a given
FEC Element type. This grouping enables an LSR to send wildcard
label withdrawals and/or status notification messages corresponding
to a PW group upon physical port failures. Similarly, [RFC4447]
defines the "PW Grouping ID TLV" used in the same fashion for the
Generalized PWid and P2MP PW FEC Elements.
The PW Typed Wildcard FEC elements defined in this document help us
achieve the similar functionality as "Group ID" field or "PW Grouping
ID TLV" for label withdrawal and status notification messages;
Additionally, the Typed Wildcard procedures [RFC5918] also provide
more generalized and comprehensive solution by allowing:
1. Typed-Wildcard Label Request messages
Raza, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements January 2012
2. Label TLV in label messages to further constraint the wildcard to
all FECs of the specified FEC type [and its specific filter] that
are also bound to the specified label.
4. Operation
The use of Typed Wildcard FEC elements for PW can be useful under
several scenarios. This section describes some use cases to
illustrate their usage. The following use cases consider two LSR
nodes, A and B, with LDP session between them to exchange L2VPN PW
bindings.
4.1. PW Consistency Check
A user may request a control plane consistency check at LSR A for
the Generalized PWid FEC bindings that it had learnt from LSR B over
LDP session. To perform this consistency check, LSR A marks all its
learnt Generalized PWid FEC bindings from LSR B as stale, and then
sends a Label Request message towards LSR B for Typed Wildcard FEC
element for Generalized PWid FEC element type with PW type set to
"Wildcard" (0x7FFF). Upon receipt of such request, LSR B replays its
database related to Generalized PWid FEC element using one or more
Label Mapping messages. As a PW binding is received at LSR A, the
associated binding state is marked as refreshed (no stale). When
replay completes for Generalized PWid FEC type, LSR B marks end of
its replay by sending End-of-LIB notification [RFC5919]
corresponding to Generalized PWid FEC element type. Upon receipt of
this notification at LSR A, any remaining stale PW binding of
Generalized PWid FEC type learnt from the peer LSR B, is cleaned up
and removed from the database. This completes consistency check with
LSR B at LSR A for Generalized Pwid FEC type.
4.2. PW Graceful Shutdown
It may be desirable to perform shutdown/removal of existing PW
bindings advertised towards a peer in a graceful manner -- i.e. all
advertised PW bindings to be removed from a peer without session
flap. For example, to request a graceful delete of the PWid FEC and
Generalized PWid FEC bindings at LSR A learnt from LSR B, LSR A
would send a Label Withdraw message towards LSR B with Typed
Wildcard FEC elements pertaining to PWid FEC element (with PW type
set to 0x7FFF) and Generalized PWid FEC element (with PW type set to
0x7FFF). Upon receipt of such message, LSR B will delete all PWid
and Generalized PWid bindings learnt from LSR A. Afterwards, LSR B
would send Label Release messages corresponding to received Label
Withdraw messages with Typed FEC element.
Raza, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements January 2012
4.3. Wildcard PW Status
The Typed Wildcard FEC Elements for PW FECs can be very useful when
used to convey PW status amongst LSRs. The PE devices can send "PW
Status TLV" in an LDP Notification message to indicate PW status
(i.e., a Pseudowire Status Code denoting for example a particular
fault) to their remote peers [RFC4447]. In case of a global failure
affecting all PWs, an LSR typically sends one PW Status LDP
Notification message per PW. This per PW Status message has
scalability implications in a large scale network with large number
of PWs.
Using Typed Wildcard FEC Element for given type of PW FEC Element,
the LSR will need to send only one PW Status Notification message
with Typed Wildcard PW FEC specified to notify about the common
status applicable to all PWs as scoped by the PW Typed Wildcard FEC.
5. Security Considerations
No new security considerations beyond that apply to the base LDP
specification [RFC5036], [RFC4447] and [RFC5920] apply to the use of
the PW Typed Wildcard FEC Element types described in this document.
6. IANA Considerations
None.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Eric Rosen, Siva Sivabalan, and Zafar
Ali for their valuable comments.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0 template.dot.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Menei, I., and Thomas, B., Editors, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.
[RFC5918] Asati, R., Minei, I., and Thomas, B., "LDP Typed Wildcard
Forwarding Equivalence Class", RFC 5918, August 2010.
Raza, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements January 2012
[RFC5919] Asati, R., Mohapatra, P., Chen, E., and Thomas, B.,
"Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion", RFC 5919,
August 2009.
[RFC4447] L. Martini, Editor, E. Rosen, El-Aawar, T. Smith, G. Heron,
"Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label
Distribution Protocol", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[P2MP-PW] Boutros, S., Martini, L., Sivabalan, S., Del Vecchio, G.,
Kamite, Jin, L., "Signaling Root-Initiated P2MP PWs using
LDP", draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-03.txt, Work in Progress,
October 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5920] L. Fang, L. et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[IANA-PWE3] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Pseudo Wires Name
Spaces (PWE3)", http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-
parameters, May 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.,
2000 Innovation Drive,
Ottawa, ON K2K-3E8, Canada.
E-mail: skraza@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.,
3750 Cisco Way,
San Jose, CA 95134, USA.
E-mail: sboutros@cisco.com
Raza, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LDP PW Typed Wildcard FEC Elements January 2012
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.,
7200 Kit Creek Road,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987, USA.
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Raza, et. al Expires July 2012 [Page 8]
