TEWG Working Group JL Le Roux,(Ed.)
Internet Draft France Telecom
JP Vasseur, (Ed.)
Cisco System Inc.
Jim Boyle, (Ed.)
PDNETs
Category: Informational
Expires: September 2004 March 2004
Requirements for Inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document lists a detailed set of functional requirements for the
support of inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering (inter-area MPLS TE)
which could serve as a guideline to develop the required set of
protocol extensions.
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.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................3
2. Contributing Authors........................................4
3. Terminology.................................................5
4. Current intra-area uses of MPLS Traffic Engineering.........5
4.1. Intra-area MPLS Traffic Engineering Applications............5
4.1.1. Intra-area resources optimization...........................5
4.1.2. Intra-area QoS guarantees...................................6
4.1.3. Fast recovery within an area................................6
4.2. Intra-area MPLS-TE and routing..............................7
5. Problem Statement, Requirements and Objectives of inter
area MPLS-TE..............................................8
5.1. Inter-Area Traffic Engineering Problem Statement............8
5.2. Requirements for inter-area MPLS-TE.........................9
5.3. Key Objectives for an inter-area MPLS-TE solution...........9
5.3.1. Preserve the IGP hierarchy concept..........................9
5.3.2. Preserve Scalability.......................................10
6. Application Scenario.......................................11
7. Detailed requirements for inter-area MPLS-TE...............12
7.1. Inter-area MPLS TE operations and interoperability.........12
7.2. Protocol signalling and path computation...................12
7.3. Path optimality............................................13
7.4. Support of diversely routed inter-area TE LSPs.............13
7.5. Inter-area Path selection policy...........................14
7.6. Reoptimization of inter-area TE LSP........................14
7.7. Failure handling and rerouting of an inter-area LSP........15
7.8. Fast recovery of inter-area TE LSP.........................15
7.9. DS-TE support..............................................15
7.10. Hierarchical LSP support...................................15
7.11. Soft pre-emption...........................................16
7.12. Auto-discovery of TE meshes................................16
7.13. Inter-area MPLS TE fault management requirements...........16
7.14. Inter-area MPLS-TE and routing.............................16
8. Evaluation criteria........................................17
8.1. Performances...............................................17
8.2. Complexity and risks.......................................17
8.3. Backward Compatibility.....................................17
9. Security Considerations....................................17
10. Acknowledgements...........................................17
11. Normative References.......................................18
12. Informative References.....................................19
13. Editors' Address:..........................................19
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
1. Introduction
The set of MPLS Traffic Engineering tools, defined in [RSVP-TE],
[OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE], that supports the requirements defined in
[TE-REQ], is used today by many network operators to achieve major
Traffic Engineering objectives defined in [TE-OVW] and summarized
below:
-Aggregated Traffic measurement
-Optimization of network resources utilization
-Support for services requiring end-to-end QoS guarantees
-Fast recovery against link/node/SRLG failures
However, the current set of MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms have
to date been limited to use within a single IGP area.
This document discusses the requirements for an inter-area MPLS
Traffic Engineering mechanism that may be used to achieve the same
set of objectives across multiple IGP areas.
Basically, it would be useful to extend MPLS TE capabilities across
IGP areas to support inter-area resources optimization, to provide
strict QoS guarantees between two edge routers located within
distinct areas, and to protect inter-area traffic against ABR
failures.
This document firstly addresses current uses of MPLS Traffic
Engineering within a single IGP area. This helps, then, in discussing
a set of functional requirements a solution must or should satisfy in
order to support inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering. Since the scope
of requirements will vary between operators, some requirements will
be mandatory (MUST) whereas others will be optional (SHOULD).
Finally, a set of evaluation criteria for any solution meeting these
requirements is given.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
2. Contributing Authors
This document was the collective work of several. The text and
content of this document was contributed by the editors and the
co-authors listed below (The contact information for the editors
appears in section 13, and is not repeated below):
Ting-Wo Chung Yuichi Ikejiri
Bell Canada NTT Communications Corporation
181 Bay Street, Suite 350, 1-1-6, Uchisaiwai-cho,
Toronto, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8019
Ontario, Canada, M5J 2T3 JAPAN
Email: ting_wo.chung@bell.ca Email: y.ikejiri@ntt.com
Raymond Zhang Parantap Lahiri
Infonet Services Corporation MCI
2160 E. Grand Ave. 22001 loudoun Cty Pky
El Segundo, CA 90025 Ashburn, VA 20147
USA USA
Email: raymond_zhang@infonet.com E-mail: parantap.lahiri@mci.com
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-8460,
JAPAN
E-mail : ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
3. Terminology
LSR: Label Switching Router
TE-LSP: MPLS Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
Inter-area TE-LSP : TE-LSP whose head-end LSR and tail-end LSR do
not reside within the same IGP area or both head-end
LSR and tail-end LSR are in the same IGP area but the TE LSP
transiting path may be across different IGP areas.
IGP area: OSPF area or IS-IS level.
ABR: Area Border Router, router used to connect two IGP areas (ABR in
OSPF or L1/L2 router in IS-IS).
CSPF: Constraint-based Shortest Path First.
4. Current intra-area uses of MPLS Traffic Engineering
This section addresses capabilities and uses of MPLS-TE within a
single IGP area. It first addresses various capabilities offered by
these mechanisms and then lists various approaches to integrate MPLS-
TE into routing. This section is intended to help defining the
requirements for MPLS-TE extensions across multiple IGP areas.
4.1. Intra-area MPLS Traffic Engineering Applications
4.1.1. Intra-area resources optimization
MPLS-TE can be used within an area to redirect paths of aggregated
flows away from over-utilized resources within a network topology. In
a small scale, this may be done by explicitly configuring a path to
be used between two routers. In a grander scale, a mesh of LSPs can
be established between central points in a network. LSPs paths can be
defined statically in configuration or arrived at by an algorithm
that determines the shortest path given constraints such as bandwidth
or other administrative constraints.
In this way, MPLS-TE allows for greater control of how traffic
demands utilize a network topology. As mentioned in Section 1, uses
to date have been limited to within a single IGP area.
Note also that TE-LSPs allow to measure traffic matrix in a simple
and scalable manner. Basically, aggregated traffic rate between two
LSRs is easily measured by accounting of traffic sent onto a TE LSP
provisioned between the two LSRs in question.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
4.1.2. Intra-area QoS guarantees
The DiffServ IETF working group has defined a set of mechanisms
described in [DIFF-ARCH], [DIFF-AF] and [DIFF-EF] or [MPLS-DIFF] that
can be activated at the edge or over a DiffServ domain to contribute
to the enforcement of a (set of) QoS policy(ies), which can be
expressed in terms of maximum one-way transit delay, inter-packet
delay variation, loss rate, etc. Many Operators have some or full
deployment of DiffServ implementations in their networks today,
either across the entire network or at least at the edge of the
network.
In situations where strict QoS bounds are required, admission control
inside the backbone of a network is in some cases required in
addition to current DiffServ mechanisms. When the propagation delay
can be bounded, the performance targets, such as maximum one-way
transit delay may be guaranteed by providing bandwidth guarantees
along the DiffServ-enabled path.
MPLS-TE can be simply used with DiffServ: in that case, it only
ensures aggregate QoS guarantees for the whole traffic. It can also
be more intimately combined with DiffServ to perform per-class of
service admission control and resource reservation. This requires
extensions to MPLS-TE called DiffServ Aware TE and defined in [DS-TE-
PROTO]. DS-TE allows ensuring strict end-to-end QoS guarantees. For
instance, an EF DS-TE LSP may be provisioned between voice gateways
within the same area to ensure strict QoS to VoIP traffic.
MPLS-TE allows computing intra-area shortest paths satisfying various
constraints including bandwidth. For the sake of illustration, if the
IGP metrics reflects the propagation delay, it allows finding a
minimum propagation delay path satisfying various constraints like
bandwidth.
4.1.3. Fast recovery within an area
As traffic sensitive applications are deployed, one of the key
requirements is to provide fast recovery mechanisms, allowing to
guarantee traffic recovery on the order of tens of msecs, in case of
network element failure. Note that this cannot be achieved by relying
only on IGP rerouting.
Various recovery mechanisms can be used to protect traffic carried
onto TE LSPs. They are defined in [MPLS-RECOV]. Protection mechanisms
are based on the provisioning of backup LSPs that are used to recover
traffic in case of failure of protected LSPs. Among those protection
mechanisms, local protection, also called Fast Reroute is intended to
achieve sub-50ms recovery in case of link/node/SRLG failure along the
LSP path [FAST-REROUTE]. Fast Reroute is currently used by many
operators to protect sensitive traffic inside an IGP area.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
[FAST-REROUTE] defines two modes for backup LSPs. The first one,
called one-to-one backup, consists in setting up a detour LSP per
protected LSP and per element to protect. The second one called
facility-backup consists in setting up one or several bypass LSPs to
protect a given facility (link or node). In case of failure, all
protected LSPs are nested into the bypass LSPs (benefiting from the
MPLS label stacking property).
4.2. Intra-area MPLS-TE and routing
There are several possibilities to direct traffic into intra-area TE
LSPs:
1) Static routing to the LSP destination address or any other
addresses.
2) Traffic to the destination of the TE LSP or somewhere
beyond this destination from an IGP SPF perspective.
3) The LSP can be advertised as a link into the IGP to become
part of IGP database for all nodes, and thus taken into
account during SPF for all nodes. Note that, even if similar
in concept, this is different from the notion of Forwarding-
Adjacency, as defined in [LSP-HIER].
4) Traffic sent to a set of routes announced by a (MP-)BGP
peer that is reachable through the TE-LSP by means of a
single static route to the corresponding BGP next-hop address
(2) or by means of IGP SPF (3). This is often called BGP
recursive routing.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
5. Problem Statement, Requirements and Objectives of inter-area MPLS-TE
5.1. Inter-Area Traffic Engineering Problem Statement
As described in section 1, MPLS-TE is deployed today by many
operators to optimize network bandwidth usage, to provide strict QoS
guarantees and to ensure sub-50ms recovery in case of link/node/SRLG
failure.
However, MPLS-TE mechanisms are currently limited to a single IGP
area. This is basically due to the fact that hierarchy limits
topology visibility of head-end LSRs to their IGP area, and
consequently head-end LSRs can no longer run a CSPF algorithm to
compute the shortest constrained path to the tail-end.
Several operators have multi-area networks and many operators that
are still using a single IGP area may have to migrate to a multi-area
environment, as their network grows and single area scalability
limits are approached.
Hence, those operators may require inter-area traffic engineering to:
- Perform inter-area resource optimization.
- Provide inter-area QoS guarantees for traffic between edge
nodes located in different areas.
- Provide fast recovery across areas, to protect inter-area
traffic in case of link or node failure, including ABR node
failures.
For instance an operator running a multi-area IGP may have Voice
gateways located in different areas. Such VoIP transport requires
inter-area QoS guarantees and inter-area fast protection.
One possible approach for inter-area traffic engineering could
consist in deploying MPLS-TE on a per-area basis, but such an
approach has several limitations:
- Traffic aggregation at the ABR levels implies some constraints
that do no lead to efficient traffic engineering. Actually
such per-area TE approach might lead to sub-optimal resource
utilization, by optimizing resources independently in each
area. And what many operators want is to optimize their
resources as a whole, in other words as if there was only one
area (flat network).
- This does not allow computing an inter-area constrained
shortest path and thus does not ensure end-to-end QoS
guarantees across areas.
- Inter-area traffic cannot be protected with local protection
mechanisms such as [FAST-REROUTE] in case of ABR failure.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
5.2. Requirements for inter-area MPLS-TE
For the reasons mentioned above, it is highly desired to extend the
current set of MPLS-TE mechanisms across multiple IGP areas in order
to support the intra area applications described in section 1 across
areas.
Basically, the solution MUST allow setting up inter-area TE LSPs, ie
LSPs whose path crosses at least two IGP areas.
Inter-area MPLS-TE extensions are highly desired to provide:
- Inter-area resources optimization.
- Strict inter-area QoS guarantees.
- Fast recovery across areas, particularly in order to protect
inter-area traffic against ABR failures.
It may be desired to compute inter-area shortest path that satisfy
some bandwidth constraints or any other constraints, as currently
possible within a single IGP area. For the sake of illustration, if
the IGP metrics reflects the propagation delay, it may be needed to
be able to find the optimal (shortest) path satisfying some
constraints (i.e bandwidth) across multiple IGP areas: such a path
would be the inter-area path offering the minimal propagation delay.
Thus the solution SHOULD provide the ability to compute inter-area
shortest paths satisfying a set of constraints (i.e. bandwidth).
5.3. Key Objectives for an inter-area MPLS-TE solution
Any solution for inter-area MPLS-TE should be designed having as key
objectives to preserve IGP hierarchy concept, and to preserve routing
and signaling scalability.
5.3.1. Preserve the IGP hierarchy concept
The absence of a full link state topology database makes the
computation of an end-to-end path by the head-end LSR not possible
without further signaling and routing extensions. There are several
reasons that network operators choose to break up their network into
different areas. These often include scalability and containment of
routing information. The latter can help isolate most of a network
from receiving and processing updates that are of no consequence to
its routing decisions. Containment of routing information should not
be compromised to allow inter-area traffic engineering. Information
propagation for path-selection should continue to be localized. These
requirements are summarized as follows:
The solution MUST entirely preserve the concept of IGP hierarchy. In
other words, flooding of TE link information across areas MUST be
precluded.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
5.3.2. Preserve Scalability
Being able to achieve the requirements listed in this document MUST
be performed while preserving the IGP scalability, which is of the
utmost importance. The hierarchy preservation objective addressed in
the above section is actually an element to preserve IGP scalability.
The solution MUST also not increase IGP load which could compromise
IGP scalability. In particular, a solution satisfying those
requirements MUST not require for the IGP to carry some unreasonable
amount of extra information and MUST not unreasonably increase the
IGP flooding frequency.
Likewise, the solution MUST also preserve scalability of RSVP-TE
([RSVP-TE]).
Additionally, the base specification of MPLS TE is architecturally
structured and relatively devoid of excessive state propagation in
terms of routing or signaling. Its strength in extensibility can
also be seen as an Achilles heel, as there is really no limit to
what is possible with extensions. It is paramount to maintain
architectural vision and discretion when adapting it for use for
inter-area MPLS-TE. Additional information carried within
an area, or propagated outside of an area (via routing or
signaling) should neither be excessive, patchwork, nor
non-relevant.
Particularly, as mentioned in 5.2 it may be desired, for some inter-
area TE LSP carrying highly sensitive traffic, to compute a shortest
inter-area path satisfying a set of constraints like bandwidth. This
may require an additional routing mechanism, as base CSPF at head-end
can not longer be used due to the lack of topology and resources
information. Such routing mechanism MUST not compromise the
scalability of the overall system.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
6. Application Scenario
---area1--------area0------area2--
------R1-ABR1-R2-------ABR3-------
| \ | / | |
| R0 \ | / | R4 |
| R5 \ |/ | |
---------ABR2----------ABR4-------
- ABR1, ABR2: Area0-Area1 ABRs
- ABR3, ABR4: Area0-Area2 ABRs
- R0, R1, R5: LSRs in area 1
- R2: an LSR in area 0
- R4: an LSR in area 2
Although the terminology and examples provided in this document make
use of the OSPF terminology, this document equally applies to IS-IS.
Typically, an inter-area TE LSP will be set up between R0 and R4
where both LSRs belong to different IGP areas. Note that the solution
MUST support the capability to protect such an inter-area TE LSP from
the failure on any link/SRLG/Node within any area and the failure of
any traversed ABR. For instance, if the TE-LSP R0->R4 goes through
R1->ABR1->R2, then it can be protected against ABR1 failure, thanks
to a backup LSP (detour or bypass) that may follow the alternate path
R1->ABR2->R2.
For instance R0 and R4 may be two voice gateways located in distinct
areas. An inter-area DS-TE LSP with class-type EF, is setup from R1
to R4 to route VoIP traffic classified as EF. Per-class inter-area
constraint based routing allows to route the DS-TE LSP over a path
that will ensure strict QoS guarantees for VoIP traffic.
In another application R0 and R4 may be two pseudo wire gateways
residing in different areas. An inter-area LSP may be setup to carry
pseudo wire connections.
In some cases, it might also be possible to have an inter-area TE LSP
from R0 to R5 transiting via the backbone area (or any other levels
with IS-IS). Basically, there may be cases where there is no longer
enough resources on any intra area path R0-to-R5, while there is a
feasible inter-area path through the backbone area.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
7. Detailed requirements for inter-area MPLS-TE
7.1. Inter-area MPLS TE operations and interoperability
The inter-area MPLS TE solution MUST be consistent with requirements
discussed in [TE-REQ] and the derived solution MUST be such that it
will interoperate seamlessly with current intra-area MPLS TE
mechanisms and inherit its capability sets from [RSVP-TE].
The proposed solution MUST allow provisioning at the head-end with
end-to-end RSVP signalling (eventually with loose paths) traversing
across the interconnected ABRs, without further provisioning required
along the transit path.
7.2. Protocol signalling and path computation
The proposed solution MUST allow the head-end LSR to explicitly
specify a set of LSRs, including ABRs, by means of strict or loose
hops for the inter-area TE LSP.
In addition, the proposed solution SHOULD also provide the ability to
specify and signal certain resources to be explicitly excluded in the
inter-area TE LSP path establishment.
If multiple signalling methods are proposed in the solution (e.g.
contiguous LSP, stitched or nested LSP), the head-end LSR MUST have
the ability to signal the required or desired signalling method on a
per-LSP basis.
Several options may be used for path computations among those
- Per-area path computation based on ERO expansion with two
options for ABR selection:
-Static loose hop ABR configuration at the head-end LSR.
-Dynamic loose hop ABR determination.
- Inter-area end-to-end path computation, that may be based for
instance on a recursive constraint based searching thanks to
collaboration between ABRs.
Note that any path computation method may be used provided that it
respect key objectives pointed out in 5.3
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
7.3. Path optimality
As already mentioned in 5.2, the solution SHOULD provide the
capability for the head-end LSR to dynamically compute an optimal
path satisfying a set of specified constraints defined in [TE-REQ]
across multiple IGP areas. Note that this requirement document does
not mandate that all inter-area TE LSPs require the computation of an
optimal (shortest) inter-area path: some inter-area TE LSP paths may
be computed via some mechanisms not guaranteeing an optimal end to
end path whereas some other inter-area TE LSP paths carrying
sensitive traffic could be computed making use of some mechanisms
allowing to dynamically compute an optimal end-to-end path. Note that
regular constraints like bandwidth, affinities, IGP/TE metric
optimization, path diversity, etc MUST also be taken into account in
the computation of an optimal end-to-end path.
In the context of this requirement document, an optimal path is
defined as the shortest path across multiple areas taking into
account either the IGP or TE metric. In other words, such a path is
the path that would have been computed making use of some CSPF
algorithm in the absence of multiple IGP areas.
Note that mechanism allowing to compute an optimal path are likely to
consume more CPU resources than mechanisms computing only sub-optimal
paths. So a solution should support both mechanisms, and SHOULD allow
the operator to select by configuration, and on a per-LSP basis, the
required level of optimality.
7.4. Support of diversely routed inter-area TE LSPs
There are several cases where the ability to compute diversely routed
TE LSP paths may be desirable. For instance, in case of LSP
protection, primary and backup LSPs should be diversely routed.
Another example is the requirement to set up multiple TE LSPs between
a pair of LSRs residing in different IGP areas in case a single TE
LSP satisfying the set of requirements could not be found.
Hence, the solution SHOULD be able to provide the ability to compute
diversely routed inter-area TE LSP paths. In particular, if such
paths obeying the set of constraints exist, the solution SHOULD be
able to compute them. For the sake of illustration, there are some
algorithms that may not always allow to find diversely routed TE LSPs
because they make use of a two steps approach that cannot guarantee
to compute two diversely routed TE LSP paths even if such a solution
exist. This is in contrast with other methods that simultaneously
compute the set of diversely routed paths and that can always find
such paths if they exist. Moreover, the solution SHOULD not require
extra-load in signalling and routing in order to reach that
objective.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
7.5. Inter-area Path selection policy
For inter-area TE LSPs whose head-end and tail-end LSRs reside in the
same IGP area, there may be intra-area and inter-area feasible paths.
In case the shortest path is an inter-area path, an operator may
either want to avoid, as far as possible, crossing area and thus
prefer selecting a sub-optimal intra-area path, or conversely may
prefer to use a shortest path, even if it crosses areas. Thus, the
solution MUST allow to enable or disable IGP area crossing, for TE
LSPs whose head-end and tail-end reside in the same IGP area.
7.6. Reoptimization of inter-area TE LSP
The solution MUST provide the ability to reoptimize in a non
disruptive manner (make before break) an inter-area TE LSP, should a
more optimal path appear in any traversed IGP area. The operator
should be able to parameter such a reoptimization on a timer or
event-driven basis. It should also be possible to trigger such a
reoptimization manually.
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to locally reoptimize and
inter-area TE-LSP within an area, i.e. retaining the same set of
transit ABRs. The reoptimization process in that case, MAY be
controlled by the inter-area head-end LSR or by an ABR. The ABR
should check for local optimality of the inter-area TE LSPs
established through it, based on a timer or triggered by an event.
Option of providing manual trigger to check for optimality should
also be provided.
The solution SHOULD also provide the ability to perform an end-to-end
reoptimization, resulting potentially in a change on the set of
transit ABRs. Such reoptimization can be controlled only by the HE
LSR.
In case of head-end control of reoptimization, the solution SHOULD
provide the ability for the inter-area head-end LSR to be informed of
the existence of a more optimal path in a downstream area and keep a
strict control on the reoptimization process. Hence, the inter-area
head-end LSR, once informed of a more optimal path in some downstream
IGP areas, could decide (or not) to gracefully perform a make-before-
break reoptimization, according to the inter-area TE LSP
characteristics.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
7.7. Failure handling and rerouting of an inter-area LSP.
In case of inter-area TE LSP failure in the backbone or tail-end
area, it may be interesting to allow the ABR upstream to the failure
to try to recover the LSP using a procedure such as defined in
[CRANKBACK]. This may reduce the recovery delay, but with the risk of
multiple crankbacks, and sub-optimality.
The solution SHOULD provide the ability to allow/disallow crankback
via signalling on a per-LSP basis.
7.8. Fast recovery of inter-area TE LSP
The solution MUST provide the ability to benefit from fast recovery
making use of the local protection techniques specified in [FAST-
REROUTE] in both the case of an intra-area network element failure
(link/SRLG/Node) and an ABR node failure. Note that different
protection techniques SHOULD be usable in different parts of the
network to protect an inter-area TE LSP. This is of the utmost
importance in particular in the case of an ABR node failure that
typically carries a great deal of inter-area traffic. Moreover, the
solution SHOULD allow computing and setting up a backup tunnel
following an optimal path that offers bandwidth guarantees during
failure along with other potential constraints (like bounded
propagation delay increase along the backup path).
7.9. DS-TE support
The proposed inter-area MPLS TE solution SHOULD also satisfy core
requirements documented in [DSTE-REQ] and interoperate seamlessly
with current intra-area MPLS DS-TE mechanism [DSTE-PROTO].
7.10. Hierarchical LSP support
In case of large inter-area MPLS deployment potentially involving a
large number of LSRs, it can be desirable/necessary to introduce
some level of hierarchy in order to reduce the number of
states on LSRs (it is worth mentioning that such a solution implies
other challenges). Hence, the proposed solution SHOULD allow inter-
area TE LSP aggregation (also referred to as LSP nesting) such that
individual TE LSPs can be carried onto one or more aggregating
LSP(s). One such mechanism, for example is described in [LSP-HIER].
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
7.11. Soft pre-emption
As defined in [MPLS-PREEMPT], in soft pre-emption, a higher priority
LSP commandeers the resources previously assigned to a lower priority
LSP. The lower priority LSP is not torn down and can continue to
forward traffic on a best-effort basis.
A notification is normally sent to upstream and downstream LSRs to
warn them that the expected levels of service have been disrupted at
one LSR along the LSP. This allows end-to-end or local repair to be
performed to re-instate the desired level of service.
The solution SHOULD support the ability to make use of the soft
pre-emption mechanisms for inter-area TE-LSPs.
7.12. Auto-discovery of TE meshes
Because the number of LSRs participating in some TE mesh might be
quite large, it might be desirable to provide some discovery
mechanisms allowing an LSR to automatically discover the LSRs members
of the TE mesh(es) that it belongs to. The discovery mechanism SHOULD
be applicable across multiple IGP areas, and SHOULD not impact the
IGP scalability, provided that IGP extensions are used for such a
discovery mechanism.
7.13. Inter-area MPLS TE fault management requirements
The proposed solution SHOULD be able to interoperate with fault
detection mechanisms of intra-area MPLS TE.
The solution SHOULD support[LSP-PING] and [MPLS-TTL].
The solution SHOULD also support for fault detection on backup LSPs,
in case [FAST-REROUTE] is deployed.
7.14. Inter-area MPLS-TE and routing
In the case of intra-area MPLS TE, there are currently several
possibilities to route traffic into an intra-area TE LSP. They are
listed in section 4.2.
In case of inter-area MPLS-TE, the solution MUST support static
routing into the LSP, and also BGP recursive routing with a static
route to the BGP next-hop address.
ABRs propagate IP reacheability information (summary LSA in OSPF and
IP reacheability TLV in ISIS), that MAY be used by the head-end LSR
to route traffic to a destination beyond the TE LSP tail-head LSR
(e.g. to an ASBR).
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
The advertisement of an inter-area TE LSP as a link into the IGP, to
attract traffic to an LSP source MUST be precluded when TE LSP head-
end and tail-end LSRs do not reside in the same IGP area. It MAY be
used when they reside in the same area.
8. Evaluation criteria
8.1. Performances
The solution SHOULD clearly be evaluated with respects to the
following criteria:
(1) Optimality of the computed inter-area TE LSP path.
(2) Optimality of the computed backup tunnel path protecting against
the failure of an ABR, capability to share bandwidth among backup
tunnels protecting independent facilities.
(3) Inter-area TE LSP set up time.
(4) RSVP-TE and IGP scalability (state impact, number of messages,
message size)
Other criteria may be added in further revisions of this document.
8.2. Complexity and risks
The proposed solution(s) SHOULD not introduce unnecessary complexity
to the current operating network to such a degree that it would
affect the stability and diminish the benefits of deploying such
solution over SP networks.
8.3. Backward Compatibility
The deployment of inter-area MPLS TE SHOULD not have impact on
existing MPLS TE mechanisms to allow for a smooth migration or co-
existence. In particular the solution SHOULD allow the setup of an
inter-area TE-LSP among transit LSRs that do not support inter-area
extensions, provided that these LSRs do not participate in the inter-
area TE procedure. For illustration purpose the solution MAY require
inter-area extensions on end-point LSRs an ABRs only.
9. Security Considerations
Inter-area MPLS-TE does not raise any new security issue, beyond
those of intra-area MPLS-TE.
10. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dimitri Papadimitriou for its useful comments
and suggestions.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
11. Normative References
[TE-REQ] Awduche et. al., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering
over MPLS", RFC2702, September 1999.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003.
[ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt (work in progress)
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
3209, December 2001.
[FAST-REROUTE] Ping Pan, et al, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE
for LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt,
December 2003.
[LSPPING] Kompella, K., Pan, P., Sheth, N., Cooper, D.,Swallow, G.,
Wadhwa, S., Bonica, R., " Detecting Data Plane Liveliness in MPLS",
Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-02.txt>, October 2002.
(Work in Progress)
[MPLS-TTL] Agarwal, R., et al, "Time to Live (TTL) Processing in MPLS
Networks", RFC 3443 Updates RFC 3032) ", January 2003.
[LSP-HIER] Kompella K., Rekhter Y., "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized
MPLS TE", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt, March 2002.
[MPLS-RECOV] V. Sharma, F. Hellstrand, "Framework for Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery", RFC 3469, February 2003
[CRANKBACK] Farrel, A., Ed., "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS
Signalingª, draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-01.txt, January 2004.
[DSTE-REQ] Le faucheur, F., et al, ( Requirements for Support of
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineeringª, RFC3564.
[DSTE-PROTO] Le faucheur, F., Ed., (Protocol extensions for support
of Differentiated-Service-aware MPLS Traffic Engineeringª, draft-
ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-06.txt, January 2004.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
12. Informative References
[MPLS-ARCH] Rosen, et. al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001
[DIFF-ARCH] Blake, et. al., "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998
[DIFF-AF] Heinanen, et. al., "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC
2597, June 1999.
[DIFF-EF] Davie, et. al., "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002
[MPLS-DIFF] Le Faucheur, et. al., "MPLS Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, May 2002
[TE-OVW] Awduche, et. al., "Overview and Principles of Internet
Traffic Engineering", RFC 3272,May 2002
[TE-APP] Boyle, et. al., "Applicability Statement of Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3346, August 2002.
[MPLS-PREEMPT] Farrel, A., "Interim Report on MPLS Pre-emption",
draft-farrel-mpls-preemption-interim-00.txt, May 2004.
13. Editors' Address:
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Jim Boyle
Email: jboyle@pdnets.com
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-req-00 Feb 2004
Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Le Roux et al. Informational - Expires September 2004 [Page 20]
