Network Working Group Kireeti Kompella
Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: December 2000 Yakov Rekhter
Cisco Systems
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, LLC
Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-01.txt
1. 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.
2. Abstract
In some cases a pair of Label Switching Routers (LSRs) may be
connected by several (parallel) links. From the MPLS Traffic
Engineering point of view for reasons of scalability it may be
desirable to advertise all these links as a single link into OSPF
and/or IS-IS. This document describes how to accomplish this.
Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt June 2000
3. Link Bundling
When a pair of LSRs are connected by multiple links, then for the
purpose of MPLS Traffic Engineering it is possible to advertise
several (or all) of these interfaces as a single link into OSPF
and/or IS-IS. We refer to this process as "link bundling", or just
"bundling". We refer to the link that is advertised into OSPF/IS-IS
as a "bundled link". We refer to the links associated with that
bundled link as "component links".
3.1. Restrictions on Bundling
All component links in a bundle must have the same Link Type (if
any), the same Traffic Engineering metric, the same set of resource
classes, and the same Link Multiplex Capability (see [RTG]).
If the component links are all multi-access links, the set of IS-IS
or OSPF routers connected to each component link must be the same,
and the Designated Router for each component link must be the same.
If these conditions cannot be enforced, multi-access links must not
be bundled.
Component links may either be unnumbered, or all components links
must be numbered identically. In the former case, the bundled link
may be either unnumbered or numbered with IP addresses assigned to
some "virtual" interfaces on an LSR (it is assumed that an LSR may
have multiple virtual interfaces). In the latter case, the bundled
link is numbered the same as the component links.
3.2. Other Considerations
If several component links are bundled, IS-IS/OSPF flooding can be
restricted to just one of the component links. Similarly, IS-IS/OSPF
hellos can be restricted to just one component link; however, it may
be useful to send hellos on all links that do not have a link layer
keep-alive mechanism to ensure that a failure of the link is
detected.
If the component links are bearer channels of a MPL(ambda)S link (see
[RTG]), LSP setup signaling needs to identify the component link to
use. This protocol is outside the scope of this document; however,
see [LMP].
If a bundled link consists of "working" and "protect" component
links, then for the purposes of bandwidth computation, only the
working links should be taken into account.
Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt June 2000
4. Traffic Engineering Parameters for Bundled Links
In this section, we define the Traffic Engineering parameters to be
advertised for a bundled link, based on the configuration of the
component links and of the bundled link. The definition of these
parameters for component links was undertaken in [ISIS] and [OSPF];
we use the terminology from [OSPF].
4.1. Link Type
The Link Type of a bundled link is the (unique) Link Type of the
component links. (Note: this parameter is not present in IS-IS.)
4.2. Link ID
For point-to-point links, the Link ID of a bundled link is the
(unique) Router ID of the neighbor. For multi-access links, this is
the interface address of the (unique) Designated Router. (Note: this
parameter is not present in IS-IS.)
4.3. Local and Remote Interface IP Address
(Note: in IS-IS, these are known as IPv4 Interface Address and IPv4
Neighbor Address, respectively.)
If the component links of a bundled link are numbered, the Local and
Remote Interface IP addresses of the bundled link are the same as for
the component links.
If the component links are unnumbered, the bundled link may also be
unnumbered, in which case the Local Address is the Router ID of the
advertising LSR, and the Remote Address is the Router ID of the
neighboring LSR. Or, the bundled link may be associated with the
addresses of a virtual interface, in which case the Local and Remote
Addresses are those of the virtual interface.
4.4. Traffic Engineering Metric
The Traffic Engineering Metric for a bundled link is that of the
component links.
Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt June 2000
4.5. Maximum Link Bandwidth
This TLV is not used. The maximum LSP Bandwidth (as described below)
replaces the maximum link bandwidth for bundled links. For backward
compatibility, one MAY advertise the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at
priority 7 of the bundle.
4.6. Maximum Reservable Bandwidth
We assume that for a given bundled link either each of its component
links is configured with the maximum reservable bandwidth, or the
bundled link is configured with the maximum reservable bandwidth. In
the former case, the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth of the bundled link
is set to the sum of the maximum reservable bandwidths of all
component links associated with the bundled link.
4.7. Unreserved Bandwidth
The unreserved bandwidth of a bundled link at priority p is the sum
of the unreserved bandwidths at priority p of all the component links
associated with the bundled link.
4.8. Resource Classes (Administrative Groups)
The Resource Classes for a bundled link are the same as those of the
component links.
4.9. Maximum LSP Bandwidth
The Maximum LSP Bandwidth takes the place of the Maximum Link
Bandwidth. However, while Maximum Link Bandwidth is a single fixed
value (usually simply the link capacity), Maximum LSP Bandwidth is
carried per priority, and may vary as LSPs are set up and torn down.
The Maximum LSP Bandwidth of a bundled link at priority p is defined
to be the maximum of the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority p of each
component link.
If a component link is a simple (unbundled) link, define its Maximum
LSP Bandwidth at priority p to be the smaller of its unreserved
bandwidth at priority p and its maximum link bandwidth.
Since bundling may be applied recursively, a component link may
itself be a bundled link. In this case, its Maximum LSP Bandwidth as
Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt June 2000
a component link is the same as its Maximum LSP Bandwidth as a
bundled link.
In IS-IS, the Maximum LSP Bandwidth TLV is a sub-TLV of the Extended
IS Reachability TLV with type 21. In OSPF, this TLV is a sub-TLV of
the Link TLV within the Traffic Engineering LSA, with type 11. The
length of the Maximum LSP Bandwidth TLV is 32 octets. The value is a
list of eight 4 octet fields in IEEE floating point format of the
Maximum LSP Bandwidth of the bundle, from priority 0 to priority 7.
5. Procedures
5.1. Bandwidth Accounting
The RSVP Traffic Control module on an LSR with bundled links must
apply admission control on a per-component link basis. An LSP with a
bandwidth requirement b and setup priority p fits in a bundled link
if at least one component link has maximum LSP bandwidth >= b at
priority p. If there are several such links, the choice of which
link is used for the LSP is up to the implementation.
In order to know the maximum LSP bandwidth (per priority) of each
component link, the RSVP module must track the unreserved bandwidth
(per priority) for each component link. This is done as follows. If
an LSP with bandwidth b and holding priority p is set up through a
component link, that component link's unreserved bandwidth at
priority p and lower is reduced by b. If an LSP with bandwidth b and
holding priority p that is currently set up through a component link
is torn down, the unreserved bandwidth at priority p and lower for
that component link is increased by b.
A change in the unreserved bandwidth of a component link results in a
change in the unreserved bandwidth of the bundled link. It also
potentially results in a change in the maximum LSP bandwidth of the
bundle; thus, the maximum LSP bandwidth should be recomputed.
If one of the component links goes down, the associated bundled link
remains up and continues to be advertised, provided that at least one
component link associated with the bundled link is up. The
unreserved bandwidth of the component link that is down is set to
zero, and the unreserved bandwidth and maximum LSP bandwidth of the
bundle must be recomputed. If all the component links associated
with a given bundled link are down, the bundled link MUST not be
advertised into OSPF/IS-IS.
Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt June 2000
5.2. Signaling
Signaling must identify both the component link to use and the label
to use. The sender of the Path message identifies the component link
to be used for the LSP. The sender of the Resv message chooses the
label (as before). If the bundled link is composed of packet-switch
capable links and there is no designated control channel, then the
component link to be used is the link over which the Path message is
sent.
If, however, there is a protocol such as LMP that uniquely identifies
each component link and allocates a designated control channel, then
the sender of the Path message MUST send the Path message over the
control channel. In this case, the LABEL REQUEST object is modified
to identify the component link to use. This method of choosing the
link is required if the component links are not packet-switch
capable.
5.2.1. LABEL_REQUEST with Link ID
The Path message from [RSVP-TE] has a LABEL_REQUEST object with Class
Num 19 (to be determined by IANA) and C_Types 1, 2 and 3. Here, we
define a new format for the LABEL_REQUEST object with the same Class
Num, and C_Type 4 as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | L3PID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The receiver of a LABEL_REQUEST with C_Type 4 treats it as if a
LABEL_REQUEST of C_Type 1 was received over the link identified by
the Link Identifier.
We introduce a new error value for the error code "Routing problem",
namely "Unknown Link ID" with error value 11.
If the receiver doesn't recognize the LABEL_REQUEST object, or is
incapable of providing a label binding, it SHOULD send a PathErr
message with an "Unknown Object Class" or an "Unknown Object C-Type"
error. A node that recognizes the LABEL_REQUEST object, but that is
unable to support it (possibly because of a failure to allocate
labels) SHOULD send a PathErr with the error code "Routing problem"
and the error value "MPLS label allocation failure." If LMP or some
Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt June 2000
other link identification protocol is not running, or there is no
component link with the Link Identifier in the LABEL_REQUEST object,
the receiver SHOULD send a PathErr with the error code "Routing
problem" and the error value "Unknown Link ID". If the receiver
cannot support the protocol L3PID, it SHOULD send a PathErr with the
error code "Routing problem" and the error value "Unsupported L3PID."
6. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS, OSPF or RSVP.
7. References
[ISIS] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-isis-traffic-01.txt (work in progress)
[LMP] Lang, J., Mitra, K., et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)",
draft-lang-mpls-lmp-00.txt (work in progress)
[OSPF] Katz, D., Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF",
draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-01.txt (work in progress)
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., et al, "Extensions to
RSVP for LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-05.txt (work
in progress)
[RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., et al, "Extensions to IS-IS/OSPF and
RSVP in support of MPL(ambda)S", draft-kompella-mpls-optical.txt
(work in progress) (new version forthcoming)
8. Author Information
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
Email: yakov@cisco.com
Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-kompella-mpls-bundle-02.txt June 2000
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, LLC
Voice: +1 301 468 9228
Email: lberger@labn.net
Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L. [Page 8]