Network Working Group                                        K. Kompella
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Updates: 3209, 3473 (if approved)                           May 02, 2013
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 03, 2013

         Multi-path Label Switched Paths Signaled Using RSVP-TE


   This document describes extensions to Resource ReSerVation Protocol -
   Traffic Engineering for the set up of multi-path Traffic Engineered
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi Protocol Label Switching and
   Generalized MPLS networks, i.e., LSPs that conform to traffic
   engineering constraints, but follow multiple independent paths from
   the source to the destination that allow load balancing.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 03, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.  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

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Multi-path Label Switched Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  ECMP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.4.  The Capabilities of TE-based Load Balancing . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Operation of MLSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Signaling MLSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.1.  MLSP_TUNNEL Sender Template . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.2.  MLSP_TUNNEL Filter Specification  . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Label Allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  Bandwidth Accounting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  MLSP Data Plane Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   In selecting a protocol for setting up and signaling "tunnel" Labeled
   Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks, one first chooses whether one
   wants Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load balancing or Traffic
   Engineering (TE).  For the former, one uses the Label Distribution
   Protocol (LDP) ([RFC5036]); for the latter, the Resource ReSerVation
   Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ([RFC3209]).  [Two other
   criteria, the need for fast protection and the desire for less
   configuration, are no longer the deciding factors they used to be,
   thanks to "IP fast reroute" ([RFC5286]) and "RSVP-TE automesh"

   This document describes how one can set up a tunnel LSP that has both
   ECMP and TE characteristics using RSVP-TE.  The techniques described
   in this document can be used to create a single overall "ECMP TE LSP"
   to a single destination that consists of several "sub-LSPs", each
   taking a different path through the network to the same destination.
   The techniques can also be used to create a single ECMP TE LSP to

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

   multiple equivalent destinations (such as equidistant BGP nexthops
   announcing a common set of reachable addresses), such that each
   destination is served by one or more sub-LSPs.  The techniques
   described here borrow the notion of sub-LSPs from [RFC4875].

   Several options are available for ECMP TE LSPs.  One is that the
   ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) computes (or otherwise obtains)
   all sub-LSP paths; alternatively, LSRs along the various paths can
   compute paths further downstream (using techniques such as "loose hop
   expansion", as in [RFC5152]).  Another is that an RSVP Path message
   can contain information about exactly one path through the network
   (or sub-LSP); alternately, a Path message can contain information
   about more than one such path.  A third option is that the various
   paths that make up the multi-path LSP have equal cost (or distance)
   from ingress to egress (i.e., ECMP), as opposed to paths that may
   have differing costs.  Another option (mentioned above) is to
   terminate a multi-path LSP on a single egress or on several
   equivalent egresses.  For now, the first of each of these
   alternatives is assumed; future work can explore other choices.

1.1.  Terminology

   The terms "tunnel", "tunnel LSP" and "LSP" all refer to a container
   LSP from an ingress LSR to egress LSR(s).  An LSP is the unit of
   configuration, signaling and management.

   An ECMP (or generally, a multi-path) TE LSP is called a Multi-path
   Label Switched Path (MLSP), and consists of one or more sub-LSPs.

   A sub-LSP consists of a single path from the ingress to one egress.
   A "regular" point-to-point TE LSP is equivalent to an MLSP with a
   single sub-LSP.

   The "downstream links" of an LSR X with respect to an MLSP Z is the
   set of all links adjacent to X traversed after X by at least one sub-
   LSP of MLSP Z.

1.2.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

2.  Theory of Operation

2.1.  Multi-path Label Switched Paths

   An MLSP is configured at the ingress with various constraints
   typically associated with TE LSPs, such as destination LSR(s),
   bandwidth (on a per-class basis, if desired), link colors, Shared
   Risk Link Groups, etc.  [Auto-mesh techniques ([RFC4972]) can be used
   to reduce configuration; this is not described further here.]  In
   addition, parameters specifically related to MLSPs, such as how many
   (or the maximum number of) sub-LSPs to create, whether traffic should
   be split equally across sub-LSPs or not, etc.  may also be specified.

   The ingress LSR can use the configuration parameters to decide how
   many sub-LSPs to compute for this MLSP and what paths they should
   take.  Each sub-LSP MUST meet all the constraints of the MLSP (except
   the bandwidth).  The bandwidths (per-class, if applicable) of all the
   sub-LSPs MUST add up to the bandwidth of the MLSP.  If a Path
   Computation Element (PCE; [RFC4655]) that is multi-path LSP-aware is
   used, the PCE is subject to these same requirements; how MLSP
   requirements are signaled to a PCE is beyond the scope of this

   Having computed (or otherwise obtained) the paths of all the sub-
   LSPs, the ingress A then signals the MLSP by signaling all the
   individual sub-LSPs across the MPLS/GMPLS network.  If multiple sub-
   LSPs of the same MLSP pass through LSR Y, and Y has downstream links
   YP, YQ and YR for the various sub-LSPs, then Y has to load balance
   incoming traffic for the MLSP across the three downstream links in
   proportion to the sum of the bandwidths of the sub-LSPs going to each
   downstream (see Figure 1).

   One must distinguish carefully between the (signaled) bandwidth of a
   sub-LSP, a static value capturing the expected or maximum traffic on
   the sub-LSP, and the instantaneous traffic received on a sub-LSP, a
   constantly varying quantity.  Suppose there are three sub-LSPs
   traversing Y, with bandwidths 10Gbps, 20Gbps and 30Gbps, going to P,
   Q and R respectively.  Suppose further Y receives some traffic over
   each of these sub-LSPs.  Y must balance this received traffic over
   the three downstream links YP, YQ and YR in the ratio 1:2:3.

2.2.  ECMP

       ------------- M -----
      /                      \
     /           --- P --     \
    /           /         \    \
   A --- X --- Y --- Q --- T --- B

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

          \     \              / |
           \     --- R -------   |
            \                    |
             ------- S ----------

   An example network illustrating ECMP.  Assume that paths AMB, AXYPTB,
   AXYQTB, AXYRB and AXSB all have the same path length (cost).

                    Figure 1: Example Network Topology

   In an IP or LDP network, incoming traffic arriving at A headed for B
   will be split equally between M and X at A.  Similarly, traffic for B
   arriving at Y will be split equally among P, Q and R.  If the traffic
   arriving at A for B is 120Gbps, then the AMB path will carry 60Gbps,
   the paths AXYPTB, AXYQTB and AXYRB will each carry 10Gbps, and the
   AXSB path will carry 30Gbps.  We'll call this "IP-style" load

   Note: all load balancing is subject to the overriding requirement of
   mapping the same "flow" to the same downstream.  (What constitutes a
   "flow" is beyond the scope of this document.)  This requirement takes
   precedence over all attempts to balance traffic among downstreams.
   Thus, the statements above (e.g., "the AMB path will carry 60Gbps")
   are to be interpreted as ideal targets, not hard requirements, of
   load balancing.

   One can simulate the IP or LDP ECMP behavior with TE-based ECMP by
   creating an MLSP with five sub-LSPs S1 through S5 taking paths AMB,
   AXYPTB, AXYQTB, AXYRB and AXSB, with bandwidths 60Gbps, 10Gbps,
   10Gbps, 10Gbps and 30Gbps, respectively.

   With such an arrangement, the MB link carries 60Gbps while the RB
   link carries just 10Gbps.  If one wishes instead to carry equal
   amounts of traffic on the links incoming to B, then one could arrange
   the sub-LSPs S1 to S5 to have bandwidths 30Gbps, 15Gbps, 15Gbps,
   30Gbps and 30Gbps, respectively.  In this case, the bandwidth on each
   of the four links going to B is 30Gbps, illustrating some of the
   capabilities of TE-based ECMP.

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

   Staying with this example, A has one sub-LSP of bandwidth 30Gbps to M
   and four sub-LSPs of total bandwidth 90Gbps to X.  Thus, A should
   load balance traffic in the ratio 1:3 between the AM and the AX
   links.  Similarly, X has three sub-LSPs of total bandwidth 60Gbps to
   Y and one sub-LSP of bandwidth 30Gbps to S, so X should load balance
   traffic 2:1 between Y and S.  Y has a sub-LSP of bandwidth 15Gbps to
   each of P and Q and one sub-LSP of bandwidth 30Gbps to R, so Y should
   load balance traffic 1:1:2 among P, Q and R, respectively.  Thus, in
   general, TE-based ECMP does not assume equal distribution of traffic
   among downstream LSRs, unlike IP- or LDP-style ECMP.

                   |       |
     --L--   --P-- | --V-- |
    /     \ /     \|/     \|
   A       S---Q---T---W---B
    \     / \     /|\     /|
     --M--   --R-- | --X-- |
                   |       |

   Another example network illustrating 30 ECMP paths between A and B.

                    Figure 2: Another Network Topology

   In Figure 2, there are potentially 2x3x5=30 ECMP paths between A and
   B.  With IP or LDP, exploiting all these paths is straightforward,
   and doesn't need a lot of state.  With an MLSP as seen so far, this
   would require 30 sub-LSPs to achieve equivalent load balancing.  This
   suggests that a different approach is needed to efficiently achieve
   IP-style load balancing with TE LSPs.  To this end, we introduce the
   notion of "equi-bandwidth" (EB) sub-LSPs and EB MLSPs.  A sub-LSP is
   equi-bandwidth if its "E" bit is set (see Section 3.1).  An MLSP is
   equi-bandwidth if all of its sub-LSPs are equi-bandwidth.

   If a set of EB sub-LSPs of the same MLSP traverse an LSR S, say to
   downstream links SP, SQ and SR, then S MUST attempt to load balance
   traffic received on these EB sub-LSPs equally among the links SP, SQ
   and SR, independent of how many sub-LSPs go over each of these links.
   Furthermore, S MUST redistribute traffic received from each of its
   upstream LSRs, and SHOULD redistribute all traffic received from
   upstream as a whole.  One can do the former by signaling the same
   label to each of its upstream LSRs; one can do the latter by
   signaling the same label to all upstream LSRs (see Section 3.2).  For
   example, in Figure 2, if L sends 12Gbps of traffic to S and M sends
   18Gbps to S, S can redistribute L's traffic by sending 4Gbps to each
   of P, Q and R; and can similarly send 6Gbps of M's traffic to each of
   P, Q and R.  Alternatively, S can load balance the aggregate 30Gbps

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

   of traffic received from L and M to each of P, Q and R, thus sending
   10Gbps to each.  EB sub-LSPs have an added benefit of not requiring
   unequal load balancing across links, which may pose problems for some

   Given the notion of EB sub-LSPs and EB MLSPs, A can signal an EB MLSP
   Z comprised of five EB sub-LSPs E1 through E5 with the following
   paths: ALSPTUB, AMSQTVB, ALSRTWB, AMSPTXB and ALSQTYB (respectively).
   Then, A has two downstream links for the five sub-LSPs, AL and AM,
   between which A will load balance equally.  Similarly, S has three
   downstream links, SP, SQ and SR; and T has five downstreams, TU, TV,
   TW, TX and TY.  Thus the load balancing behavior of the MLSP will
   replicate IP load balancing.  The state required for an EB MLSP to
   achieve IP-style load balancing is somewhat greater than for LDP
   LSPs, but significantly less than that for multiple "regular" TE
   LSPs, or for a non-EB MLSP.

2.3.  Discussion

   Some of the power of TE-based ECMP was illustrated in the above
   examples.  Another is ability to request that all sub-LSPs avoid
   links colored red.  If in the example network in Figure 1, the QT
   link is colored red but all other links are not, then there are four
   ECMP paths that satisfy these constraints, and the traffic
   distribution among them will naturally be different than it would
   without the link color constraint.

   One can also ask whether an MLSP with sub-LSPs is any better than N
   "regular" LSPs from the same ingress to the same egress.  Here are
   some benefits of an MLSP:

   1.  With an MLSP, there is a single entity to provision, manage and
       monitor, versus N separate entities in the case of LSPs.  A
       consequence of this is that with an MLSP, changes in topology can
       be dealt with easily and autonomously by the ingress LSR, by
       adding, changing or removing sub-LSPs to rebalance traffic, while
       maintaining the same TE constraints.  With individual LSPs, such
       changes would require changes in configuration, and thus are
       harder to automate.

   2.  An ingress LSR, knowing that an MLSP is for load balancing, can
       decide on an optimum number of sub-LSPs, and place them
       appropriately across the network to optimize load balancing.  On
       the other hand, an ingress LSR asked to create N independent LSPs
       will do so without regard to whether N is a good number of equal
       cost paths, and, more importantly, may place several of the N
       LSPs on the same path, defeating the purpose of load balancing.

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

   3.  The EB sub-LSP mechanism will, in many cases, result in far fewer
       sub-LSPs than independent LSPs and thus less control plane state.

   4.  Finally, an MLSP will usually have less data plane state than N
       independent LSPs: whenever multiple sub-LSPs traverse a link, a
       single label will be used for all of them, whereas if multiple
       LSPs traverse a link, each will need a separate label.

2.4.  The Capabilities of TE-based Load Balancing

   Definition: Let G=(V, E) be a directed graph (or network), and let A
   and B in V be two nodes in G.  Let T be the traffic arriving at A
   destined for B.  T is said to be "IP-style" load balanced if for
   every node X on a shortest path from A to B, the portion of T
   arriving at X is split equally among all nodes Yi that are adjacent
   to X and are on a shortest path from X to B.

   Theorem: An MLSP can accurately mimic IP-style load balancing between
   any two nodes in any network.

   Proof: left to the reader.

   Corollary: MLSPs provide a strictly more powerful load balancing
   mechanism than IP-style load balancing.

3.  Operation of MLSPs

3.1.  Signaling MLSPs

   An MLSP is identified by an LSP_TUNNEL SESSION object defined in
   [RFC3209].  All sub-LSPs of an MLSP have the same field values in
   their LSP_TUNNEL SESSION object.

   A sub-LSP of an MLSP is identified by the LSP_TUNNEL SESSION object
   plus a new Sender Template object called the MLSP_TUNNEL Sender
   Template.  The MLSP_TUNNEL Sender Template comes in two flavors, IPv4
   and IPv6, shown below.  The 15-bit Sub-LSP ID uniquely identifies a
   sub-LSP of an MLSP, and stays the same during the lifetime of the
   sub-LSP.  The LSP ID may change as in [RFC3209] to let a sub-LSP
   share resources with another incarnation of the sub-LSP, for example
   to reroute and/or change bandwidths of the sub-LSP.  The "E" bit
   defines whether a sub-LSP is an equi-bandwidth sub-LSP (E=1) or not
   (E=0).  The equi-bandwidth character of a sub-LSP (i.e., the value of
   the E bit) MUST remain the same from ingress to egress as well as
   during the lifetime of a sub-LSP.

3.1.1.  MLSP_TUNNEL Sender Template

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013


    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
   |                   IPv4 tunnel sender address                  |
   |E|         Sub-LSP ID          |            LSP ID             |

                Figure 3: MLSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template


    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
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                   IPv6 tunnel sender address                  |
   +                                                               +
   |                            (16 bytes)                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   |E|         Sub-LSP ID          |            LSP ID             |

                Figure 4: MLSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template

3.1.2.  MLSP_TUNNEL Filter Specification

   The MLSP_TUNNEL Filter Specification also comes in two flavors, IPv4
   and IPv6.  The formats are identical to the IPv4 and IPv6 formats
   (respectively) of the MLSP_TUNNEL Sender Template.  The Class numbers
   for both are FILTER SPECIFICATION, and the C-Types are (respectively)

3.2.  Label Allocation

   A LSR S that receives Path messages for several sub-LSPs of the same
   MLSP from the same upstream LSR SHOULD allocate the same label for
   all the sub-LSPs.  This simplifies load balancing for the aggregate
   traffic on those sub-LSPs.  If the sub-LSPs are EB sub-LSPs, then S
   SHOULD allocate the same label for all EB sub-LSPs of the same MLSP
   that pass through S, regardless of which upstream LSR they come from.
   This allows S to load balance the aggregate traffic received on the
   MLSP, as all the MLSP traffic arrives at S with the same label.

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

   However, an LSR that can achieve the load balancing requirements
   independent of label allocation strategies is free to do so.

3.3.  Bandwidth Accounting

   Since MLSPs are traffic engineered, there needs to be strict
   bandwidth accounting, or admission control, on every link that an
   MLSP traverses.  For non-EB sub-LSPs, this is straightforward, and
   analogous to regular TE LSPs.  However, for EB sub-LSPs, two new
   procedures are needed, one for signaling bandwidth, and the other for
   admission control.  First, for a given MLSP Z, an LSR X MUST ensure
   (via signaling) that the total incoming bandwidth of EB sub-LSPs of
   MLSP Z is divided equally among all the downstream links of X which
   at least one of the EB sub-LSPs traverses.  Second, LSR X MUST ensure
   that, for each upstream link of X, there is sufficient bandwidth to
   accommodate all EB sub-LSPs of MLSP Z that traverse that link.

   Let's take the example of Figure 2, with MLSP Z having five EB sub-
   LSPs E1 to E5, and say that MLSP Z is configured with a bandwidth of
   30Gbps.  Here are some of the steps involved.

   1.  LSR A, being the ingress, has no upstream links.  A has two
       downstream links, AL and AM.  Three EB sub-LSPs of MLSP Z
       traverse AL, and two traverse AM.  A MUST signal a total of
       15Gbps for the sub-LSPs to L, and a total of 15Gbps for the sub-
       LSPs to M.  The required bandwidth may be divided up among the
       sub-LSPs to L (similarly, to M) in any manner so long as the
       total is 15Gbps.  For example, A can signal sub-LSP E1 with
       15Gbps, and sub-LSPs E3 and E5 with 0 bandwidth.

   2.  LSR L has one upstream link AL with three EB sub-LSPs with a
       total bandwidth of 15Gbps.  L MUST ensure that 15Gbps is
       available for the AL link.  If this bandwidth is not available, L
       MUST send a PathErr on ALL of the EB sub-LSPs on the AL link.
       Let's assume that the AL link has sufficient bandwidth.

   3.  Next, it is up to L to decide how to divide the incoming 15Gbps
       among the three downstream EB sub-LSPs to S.  Say L signals sub-
       LSP E1 with 15Gbps, and the others with 0 bandwidth.

   4.  LSR S has two upstream links: LS with three EB sub-LSPs with a
       total bandwidth of 15Gbps, and MS with two EB sub-LSPs with a
       total bandwidth of 15Gbps.  S MUST ensure that 15Gbps is
       available for each of the LS and MS links.  S has thus a total
       incoming bandwidth of 30Gbps on MLSP Z.  S has to divide this
       equally among its downstream links SP, SQ and SR, yielding 10Gbps
       each.  S MUST ensure that the total bandwidth requested on the SP
       link for sub-LSPs E1 and E4 is 10Gbps.  S may choose to signal

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

       these sub-LSPs with 5Gbps each.  Similarly for the SQ and SR

   There are two important points to note here.  One is that the
   bandwidth reservation (TSpec) for a given EB sub-LSP can (and usually
   will) change hop-by-hop.  The second is that as new EB sub-LSPs are
   signaled for an MLSP, the bandwidth reservations for existing EB sub-
   LSPs belonging to the same MLSP may have to be updated.  To minimize
   these updates, it is RECOMMENDED that the first EB sub-LSP on a link
   be signaled with the total required bandwidth (as far as is known),
   and later sub-LSPs on the same link be signaled with 0 bandwidth.

3.4.  MLSP Data Plane Actions

   Traffic intended to be sent over an MLSP is determined at the ingress
   LSR by means outside the scope of this document, and at transit LSRs
   by the label(s) assigned by the transit LSR to its upstream LSRs.  In
   the case of non-EB sub-LSPs, this traffic is load balanced across
   downstream links in the ratio of the bandwidths of the sub-LSPs that
   comprise the MLSP.  In the case of EB sub-LSPs, the traffic belonging
   to an MLSP from an upstream LSR (or better still, the aggregate
   traffic for the MLSP from all upstream LSRs) is load balanced equally
   among all downstream links.

   As noted above, the overriding concern is that flows are mapped to
   the same downstream link (except when the MLSP or some constituent
   sub-LSPs are changing); this is typically done by hashing fields that
   define a flow, and mapping hash results to different downstream LSRs.
   Hash-based load balancing typically assumes that the numbers of flows
   is sufficiently large and the bandwidth per flow is reasonably well-
   balanced so that the results of hashing yields reasonable traffic

   Entropy labels ([RFC6790] and [RFC6391]) can be used to improve load
   balancing at intermediate nodes.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security concerns in the setup and
   signaling of LSPs using RSVP-TE, or in the use of the RSVP protocol.
   [RFC2205] specifies the message integrity mechanisms for RSVP
   signaling.  These mechanisms apply to RSVP-TE signaling of MLSPs
   described in this document, and are highly recommended pending newer
   mechanisms for RSVP.

5.  Acknowledgments

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

   The author would like to thank the Routing Protocol group at Juniper
   Networks for their questions, comments and encouragement for this
   proposal.  While many participated, special thanks go to Yakov
   Rekhter, John Drake and Rahul Aggarwal.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign two new C-Types for the Class "Sender
   Template", one for the "MLSP_TUNNEL_IPv4" Sender Template and one for
   the "MLSP_TUNNEL_IPv6" Sender Template.

   IANA is also requested to assign two new C-Types for the Class
   "Filter Specification", one for the "MLSP_TUNNEL_IPv4" Filter
   Specification and one for the "MLSP_TUNNEL_IPv6" Filter

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
              Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              August 2006.

   [RFC4972]  Vasseur, JP., Leroux, JL., Yasukawa, S., Previdi, S.,
              Psenak, P., and P. Mabbey, "Routing Extensions for
              Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router
              (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh Membership", RFC 4972,
              July 2007.

Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Multi-path RSVP-TE LSPs                 May 2013

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
              Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.

   [RFC5152]  Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A Per-Domain
              Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain
              Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC
              5152, February 2008.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
              Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.

   [RFC6391]  Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
              J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires
              over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, November

   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, November 2012.

Author's Address

   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089


Kompella               Expires November 03, 2013               [Page 13]