Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint Extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol
RFC 6348
| Document | Type | RFC - Historic (September 2011; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jean-Louis Le Roux , Thomas Morin | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-leroux-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6348 (Historic) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Adrian Farrel | ||
| IESG note | Loa Andersson (loa@pi.nu) is the Document Shepherd. | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Le Roux, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6348 T. Morin, Ed.
Category: Historic France Telecom - Orange
ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2011
Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint Extensions
to the Label Distribution Protocol
Abstract
This document lists a set of functional requirements that served as
input to the design of Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) extensions
for setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSP),
in order to deliver point-to-multipoint applications over a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) infrastructure.
This work was overtaken by the protocol solution developed by the
MPLS working group, but that solution did not closely follow the
requirements documented here. This document is published as a
historic record of the ideas and requirements that shaped the
protocol work.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for the historical record.
This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6348.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 1]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 2]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Context and Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Document Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Requirements Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Application Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Detailed Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. P2MP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. P2MP LSP FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. P2MP LDP Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Setting Up, Tearing Down, and Modifying P2MP LSPs . . . . 10
4.5. Label Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. Data Duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.7. Detecting and Avoiding Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.8. P2MP LSP Rerouting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.9. Support for Multi-Access Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.10. Support for Encapsulation in P2P and P2MP TE Tunnels . . . 12
4.11. Label Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.12. IPv4/IPv6 Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.13. Multi-Area/AS LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.14. OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.15. Graceful Restart and Fault Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.16. Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.17. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.18. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Shared Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Requirements for MP2MP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Complexity and Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 3]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
1. Introduction
This document lists a set of functional requirements that served as
input to the design of Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) extensions
for setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSP)
[MLDP], in order to deliver point-to-multipoint applications over a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) infrastructure.
This work was overtaken by the protocol solution developed by the
MPLS working group and documented in [MLDP]. That solution did not
closely follow the requirements documented here, and it was
recognized that this document had served its purpose in driving
discussions of how the solution should be designed. At this point,
no further action is planned to update this document in line with the
protocol solution, and this document is published simply as a
historic record of the ideas and requirements that shaped the
protocol work.
The document is structured as follows:
o Section 2 is an overview of the requirements.
o Section 3 illustrates an application scenario.
o Section 4 addresses detailed requirements for P2MP LSPs.
o Section 5 discusses requirements for shared trees and multipoint-
to-multipoint (MP2MP) LSPs.
o Section 6 presents criteria against which a solution can be
evaluated.
1.1. Requirements Language
This document is a historic requirements document. To clarify
statement of requirements, key words are used as follows. The key
words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
1.2. Definitions
1.2.1. Acronyms
P2P: Point-to-Point
MP2P: Multipoint-to-Point
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 4]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
P2MP: Point-to-Multipoint
MP2MP: Multipoint-to-Multipoint
LSP: Label Switched Path
LSR: Label Switching Router
PE: Provider Edge
P: Provider
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol
AS: Autonomous System
1.2.2. Terminology
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
[RFC3031], [RFC5036], and [RFC4026].
Ingress LSR:
Router acting as a sender of an LSP
Egress LSR:
Router acting as a receiver of an LSP
P2P LSP:
An LSP that has one unique Ingress LSR and one unique Egress LSR
MP2P LSP:
An LSP that has one or more Ingress LSRs and one unique Egress LSR
P2MP LSP:
An LSP that has one unique Ingress LSR and one or more Egress LSRs
MP2MP LSP:
An LSP that has one or more Leaf LSRs acting indifferently as
Ingress or Egress LSR
Leaf LSR:
An Egress LSR of a P2MP LSP or an Ingress/Egress LSR of an MP2MP
LSP
Transit LSR:
An LSR of a P2MP or MP2MP LSP that has one or more downstream LSRs
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 5]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
Branch LSR:
An LSR of a P2MP or MP2MP LSP that has more than one downstream
LSR
Bud LSR:
An LSR of a P2MP or MP2MP LSP that is an Egress but also has one
or more directly connected downstream LSR(s)
P2MP tree:
The ordered set of LSRs and links that comprise the path of a P2MP
LSP from its Ingress LSR to all of its Egress LSRs.
1.3. Context and Motivations
LDP [RFC5036] has been deployed for setting up point-to-point (P2P)
and multipoint-to-point (MP2P) LSPs, in order to offer point-to-point
services in MPLS backbones.
There are emerging requirements for supporting delivery of point-to-
multipoint applications in MPLS backbones, such as those defined in
[RFC4834] and [RFC5501].
For various reasons, including consistency with P2P applications, and
taking full advantages of MPLS network infrastructure, it would be
highly desirable to use MPLS LSPs for the delivery of multicast
traffic. This could be implemented by setting up a group of P2P or
MP2P LSPs, but such an approach may be inefficient since it would
result in data replication at the Ingress LSR and duplicate data
traffic within the network.
Hence, new mechanisms are required that would allow traffic from an
Ingress LSR to be efficiently delivered to a number of Egress LSRs in
an MPLS backbone on a point-to-multipoint LSP (P2MP LSP), avoiding
duplicate copies of a packet on a given link and relying on MPLS
traffic replication at some Branch LSRs.
Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
extensions for setting up point-to-multipoint Traffic Engineered LSPs
(P2MP TE LSPs) have been defined in [RFC4875]. They meet
requirements expressed in [RFC4461]. This approach is useful in
network environments where P2MP Traffic Engineering capabilities are
needed (optimization, QoS, fast recovery).
However, for operators who want to support point-to-multipoint
traffic delivery on an MPLS backbone, without Traffic Engineering
needs, and who have already deployed LDP for P2P traffic, an
interesting and useful approach would be to rely on LDP extensions in
order to set up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. This would bring
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 6]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
consistency with P2P MPLS applications and would ease the delivery of
point-to-multipoint services in an MPLS backbone.
1.4. Document Scope
This document focuses on the LDP approach for setting up P2MP LSPs.
It lists a detailed set of requirements for P2MP extensions to LDP,
so as to deliver P2MP traffic over an LDP-enabled MPLS
infrastructure. The original intent was that these requirements
should be used as guidelines when specifying LDP extensions.
Note that generic requirements for P2MP extensions to MPLS are out of
the scope of this document. Rather, this document describes
solution-specific requirements related to LDP extensions in order to
set up P2MP LSPs.
Note also that other mechanisms could be used for setting up P2MP
LSPs (for instance, PIM extensions), but these are out of the scope
of this document. The objective is not to compare these mechanisms
but rather to focus on the requirements for an LDP extension
approach.
2. Requirements Overview
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support setting up P2MP LSPs, i.e., LSPs
with one Ingress LSR and one or more Egress LSRs, with traffic
replication at some Branch LSRs.
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST allow the addition or removal of leaves
associated with a P2MP LSP.
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST coexist with current LDP mechanisms and
inherit its capability sets from [RFC5036]. It is of paramount
importance that the P2MP LDP mechanism MUST NOT impede the operation
of existing P2P/MP2P LDP LSPs. Also, the P2MP LDP mechanism MUST
coexist with P2P and P2MP RSVP-TE mechanisms [RFC3209] [RFC4875]. It
is of paramount importance that the P2MP LDP mechanism MUST NOT
impede the operation of existing P2P and P2MP RSVP-TE LSPs.
The P2MP LDP mechanism MAY also allow setting up multipoint-to-
multipoint (MP2MP) LSPs connecting a group of Leaf LSRs acting
indifferently as Ingress LSR or Egress LSR. This may allow a
reduction in the amount of LDP state that needs to be maintained by
an LSR.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 7]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
3. Application Scenario
Figure 1 below illustrates an LDP-enabled MPLS provider network, used
to carry both unicast and multicast traffic of VPN customers
following, for instance, the architecture defined in [MVPN] for BGP/
MPLS VPNs or the one defined in [VPLS-MCAST].
In this example, a set of MP2P LDP LSPs is set up between Provider
Edge (PE) routers to carry unicast VPN traffic within the MPLS
backbone (not represented in Figure 1).
In this example, a set of P2MP LDP LSPs is set up between PE routers
acting as Ingress LSRs and PE routers acting as Egress LSRs, so as to
support multicast VPN traffic delivery within the MPLS backbone.
For instance, a P2MP LDP LSP is set up between Ingress LSR PE1 and
Egress LSRs PE2, PE3, and PE4. It is used to transport multicast
traffic from PE1 to PE2, PE3, and PE4. P1 is a Branch LSR; it
replicates MPLS traffic sent by PE1 to P2, P3, and PE2. P2 and P3
are non-Branch Transit LSRs; they forward MPLS traffic sent by P1 to
PE3 and PE4, respectively.
PE1
*| *** P2MP LDP LSP
*|*****
P1-----PE2
*/ \*
*/ \*
*****/ \******
PE3----P2 P3----PE4
| |
| |
| |
PE5 PE6
Figure 1: P2MP LSP from PE1 to PE2, PE3, PE4
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 8]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
If later there are new receivers attached to PE5 and PE6, then PE5
and PE6 join the P2MP LDP LSP. P2 and P3 become Branch LSRs and
replicate traffic received from P1 to PE3 and PE5 and to PE4 and PE6,
respectively (see Figure 2 below).
PE1
*| *** P2MP LDP LSP
*|*****
P1-----PE2
*/ \*
*/ \*
*****/ \******
PE3----P2 P3----PE4
*| |*
*| |*
*| |*
PE5 PE6
Figure 2: Attachment of PE5 and PE6
The above example is provided for the sake of illustration. Note
that P2MP LSPs Ingress and Egress LSRs may not necessarily be PE
routers. Also, Branch LSRs may not necessarily be P routers.
4. Detailed Requirements
4.1. P2MP LSPs
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support setting up P2MP LSPs. Data plane
aspects related to P2MP LSPs are those already defined in [RFC4461].
That is, a P2MP LSP has one Ingress LSR and one or more Egress LSRs.
Traffic sent by the Ingress LSR is received by all Egress LSRs. The
specific aspect related to P2MP LSPs is the action required at a
Branch LSR, where data replication occurs. Incoming labeled data is
appropriately replicated to several outgoing interfaces, which may
use different labels.
An LSR SHOULD NOT send more than one copy of a packet on any given
link of a P2MP LSP. Exceptions to this are mentioned in Sections 4.9
and 4.18.
A P2MP LSP MUST be identified by a constant and unique identifier
within the whole LDP domain, whatever the number of leaves, which may
vary dynamically. This identifier will be used so as to add/remove
leaves to/from the P2MP tree.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 9]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
4.2. P2MP LSP FEC
As with P2P MPLS technology [RFC5036], traffic MUST be classified
into a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) in this P2MP extension.
All packets that belong to a particular P2MP FEC and that travel from
a particular node MUST use the same P2MP LSP.
If existing FECs cannot be used for this purpose, a new LDP FEC that
is suitable for P2MP forwarding MUST be specified.
4.3. P2MP LDP Routing
As with P2P and MP2P LDP LSPs, the P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support
hop-by-hop LSP routing. P2MP LDP-based routing SHOULD rely upon the
information maintained in LSR Routing Information Bases (RIBs).
It is RECOMMENDED that the P2MP LSP routing rely upon the unicast
route to the Ingress LSR to build a reverse path tree.
4.4. Setting Up, Tearing Down, and Modifying P2MP LSPs
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support the establishment, maintenance,
and teardown of P2MP LSPs in a scalable manner. This MUST include
both the existence of a large number of P2MP LSPs within a single
network and a large number of Leaf LSRs for a single P2MP LSP (see
also Section 4.17 for scalability considerations and figures).
In order to scale well with a large number of leaves, it is
RECOMMENDED to follow a leaf-initiated P2MP LSP setup approach. For
that purpose, leaves will have to be aware of the P2MP LSP
identifier. The ways a Leaf LSR discovers P2MP LSP identifiers rely
on the applications that will use P2MP LSPs and are out of the scope
of this document.
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST allow the dynamic addition and removal of
leaves to and from a P2MP LSP, without any restriction (provided
there is network connectivity). It is RECOMMENDED that these
operations be leaf-initiated. These operations MUST NOT impact the
data transfer (packet loss, duplication, delay) towards other leaves.
It is RECOMMENDED that these operations do not cause any additional
processing except on the path from the added/removed Leaf LSR to the
Branch LSR.
4.5. Label Advertisement
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support downstream unsolicited label
advertisement mode. This is well suited to a leaf-initiated approach
and is consistent with P2P/MP2P LDP operations.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 10]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
Other advertisement modes MAY also be supported.
4.6. Data Duplication
Data duplication refers to the receipt of multiple copies of a packet
by any leaf. Although this may be a marginal situation, it may also
be detrimental for certain applications. Hence, data duplication
SHOULD be avoided as much as possible and limited to (hopefully rare)
transitory conditions.
Note, in particular, that data duplication might occur if P2MP LSP
rerouting is being performed (see also Section 4.8).
4.7. Detecting and Avoiding Loops
The P2MP LDP extension MUST have a mechanism to detect routing loops.
This MAY rely on extensions to the LDP loop detection mechanism
defined in [RFC5036]. A loop detection mechanism MAY require
recording the set of LSRs traversed on the P2MP tree. The P2MP loop
avoidance mechanism MUST NOT impact the scalability of the P2MP LDP
solution.
The P2MP LDP mechanism SHOULD have a mechanism to avoid routing loops
in the data plane even during transient events.
Furthermore, the P2MP LDP mechanism MUST avoid routing loops in the
data plane, which may trigger unexpected non-localized exponential
growth of traffic.
4.8. P2MP LSP Rerouting
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support the rerouting of a P2MP LSP in
the following cases:
o Network failure (link or node);
o A better path exists (e.g., new link or metric change); and
o Planned maintenance.
Given that P2MP LDP routing should rely on the RIB, the achievement
of the following requirements relies on the underlying routing
protocols (IGP, etc.).
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 11]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
4.8.1. Rerouting upon Network Failure
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST allow for rerouting of a P2MP LSP in case
of link or node failure(s) by relying upon update of the routes in
the RIB. The rerouting time SHOULD be minimized as much as possible
so as to reduce traffic disruption.
A mechanism MUST be defined to prevent constant P2MP LSP teardown and
rebuild, which may be caused by the instability of a specific link/
node in the network. This can rely on IGP dampening but may be
completed by specific dampening at the LDP level.
4.8.2. Rerouting on a Better Path
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST allow for rerouting of a P2MP LSP in case
a better path is created in the network, for instance, as a result of
a metric change, a link repair, or the addition of links or nodes.
This will rely on update of the routes in the RIB.
4.8.3. Rerouting upon Planned Maintenance
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support planned maintenance operations.
It MUST be possible to reroute a P2MP LSP before a link/node is
deactivated for maintenance purposes. Traffic disruption and data
duplication SHOULD be minimized as much as possible during such
planned maintenance. P2MP LSP rerouting upon planned maintenance MAY
rely on a make-before-break procedure.
4.9. Support for Multi-Access Networks
The P2MP LDP mechanism SHOULD provide a way for a Branch LSR to send
a single copy of the data onto an interface to a multi-access network
(e.g., an Ethernet LAN) and reach multiple adjacent downstream nodes.
This requires that the same label be negotiated with all downstream
LSRs for the LSP.
When there are several candidate upstream LSRs on an interface to a
multi-access LAN, the P2MP LDP mechanism SHOULD provide a way for all
downstream LSRs of a given P2MP LSP to select the same upstream LSR,
so as to avoid traffic replication. In addition, the P2MP LDP
mechanism SHOULD allow for an efficient balancing of a set of P2MP
LSPs among a set of candidate upstream LSRs on a LAN interface.
4.10. Support for Encapsulation in P2P and P2MP TE Tunnels
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support nesting P2MP LSPs into P2P and
P2MP TE tunnels.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 12]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST provide a way for a Branch LSR of a P2MP
LSP, which is also a Head End LSR of a P2MP TE tunnel, to send a
single copy of the data onto the tunnel and reach all downstream LSRs
on the P2MP LSP, which are also Egress LSRs of the tunnel. As with
LAN interfaces, this requires that the same label be negotiated with
all downstream LSRs of the P2MP LDP LSP.
4.11. Label Spaces
Labels for P2MP LSPs and P2P/MP2P LSPs MAY be assigned from shared or
dedicated label spaces.
Note that dedicated label spaces will require the establishment of
separate P2P and P2MP LDP sessions.
4.12. IPv4/IPv6 Support
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support the establishment of LDP sessions
over both IPv4 and IPv6 control planes.
4.13. Multi-Area/AS LSPs
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST support the establishment of multi-area
P2MP LSPs, i.e., LSPs whose leaves do not all reside in the same IGP
area as the Ingress LSR. This SHOULD be possible without requiring
the advertisement of Ingress LSRs' addresses across IGP areas.
The P2MP LDP mechanism MUST also support the establishment of
inter-AS P2MP LSPs, i.e., LSPs whose leaves do not all reside in the
same AS as the Ingress LSR. This SHOULD be possible without
requiring the advertisement of Ingress LSRs' addresses across ASes.
4.14. OAM
LDP management tools ([RFC3815], etc.) will have to be enhanced to
support P2MP LDP extensions. This may yield a new MIB module, which
may possibly be inherited from the LDP MIB.
Built-in diagnostic tools MUST be defined to check the connectivity,
trace the path, and ensure fast detection of data plane failures on
P2MP LDP LSPs.
Further and precise requirements and mechanisms for P2MP MPLS
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) purposes are out of
the scope of this document and are addressed in [RFC4687].
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 13]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
4.15. Graceful Restart and Fault Recovery
LDP Graceful Restart mechanisms [RFC3478] and Fault Recovery
mechanisms [RFC3479] SHOULD be enhanced to support P2MP LDP LSPs.
4.16. Robustness
A solution MUST be designed to re-establish connectivity for P2MP and
MP2MP LSPs in the event of failures, provided there exists network
connectivity between ingress and egress nodes (i.e., designed without
introducing single points of failure).
4.17. Scalability
Scalability is a key requirement for the P2MP LDP mechanism. It MUST
be designed to scale well with an increase in the number of any of
the following:
o Number of Leaf LSRs per P2MP LSP;
o Number of downstream LSRs per Branch LSR; and
o Number of P2MP LSPs per LSR.
In order to scale well with an increase in the number of leaves, it
is RECOMMENDED that the size of a P2MP LSP state on an LSR, for one
particular LSP, depend only on the number of adjacent LSRs on the
LSP.
4.17.1. Orders of Magnitude Expected in Operational Networks
Typical orders of magnitude that we expect should be supported are:
o Tens of thousands of P2MP trees spread out across core network
routers; and
o Hundreds, or a few thousands, of leaves per tree.
See also Section 4.2 of [RFC4834].
4.18. Backward Compatibility
In order to allow for a smooth migration, the P2MP LDP mechanism
SHOULD offer as much backward compatibility as possible. In
particular, the solution SHOULD allow the setup of a P2MP LSP along
non-Branch Transit LSRs that do not support P2MP LDP extensions.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 14]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
Also, the P2MP LDP solution MUST coexist with current LDP mechanisms
and inherit its capability sets from [RFC5036]. The P2MP LDP
solution MUST NOT impede the operation of P2P/MP2P LSPs. A P2MP LDP
solution MUST be designed in such a way that it allows P2P/MP2P and
P2MP LSPs to be signaled on the same interface.
5. Shared Trees
For traffic delivery between a group of N LSRs that act as egress
and/or egress nodes on different P2MP flows, it may be useful to set
up a shared tree connecting all these LSRs instead of having N P2MP
LSPs. This would reduce the amount of control and forwarding state
that has to be maintained on a given LSR.
There are two main options for supporting such shared trees:
o Relying on the applications' protocols that use LDP LSPs. A
shared tree could consist of the combination of an MP2P LDP LSP
from Leaf LSRs to a given root node with a P2MP LSP from this root
to Leaf LSRs. For instance, with Multicast L3 VPN applications,
it would be possible to build a shared tree by combining (see
[MVPN]):
* An MP2P unicast LDP LSP, from each PE router of the group to a
particular root PE router acting as tree root and
* A P2MP LDP LSP from this root PE router to each PE router of
the group.
o Relying on a specific LDP mechanism allowing the setup of
multipoint-to-multipoint MPLS LSPs (MP2MP LSPs).
The former approach (combination of MP2P and P2MP LSPs at the
application level) is out of the scope of this document while the
latter (MP2MP LSPs) is within the scope of this document.
Requirements for the setup of MP2MP LSPs are listed below.
5.1. Requirements for MP2MP LSPs
A multipoint-to-multipoint (MP2MP) LSP is an LSP connecting a group
of Leaf LSRs acting as Egress and/or Ingress LSRs. Traffic sent by
any Leaf LSR is received by all other Leaf LSRs of the group.
Procedures for setting up MP2MP LSPs with LDP SHOULD be specified.
An implementation that supports P2MP LDP LSPs MAY also support MP2MP
LDP LSPs.
The MP2MP LDP procedures MUST NOT impede the operations of P2MP LSP.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 15]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
Requirements for P2MP LSPs, set forth in Section 4, apply equally to
MP2MP LSPs. Particular attention should be given to the requirements
below:
o The solution MUST support recovery upon link and transit node
failure and be designed to re-establish connectivity for MP2MP
LSPs in the event of failures, provided network connectivity
exists between ingress and egress nodes (i.e., designed without
introducing single points of failure).
o The size of MP2MP state on an LSR, for one particular MP2MP LSP,
SHOULD only depend on the number of adjacent LSRs on the LSP.
o Furthermore, the MP2MP LDP mechanism MUST avoid routing loops that
may trigger exponential growth of traffic. Note that this
requirement is more challenging with MP2MP LSPs as an LSR may need
to receive traffic for a given LSP on multiple interfaces.
There are additional requirements specific to MP2MP LSPs:
o It is RECOMMENDED that an MP2MP MPLS LSP is built based on the
unicast route to a specific LSR called root LSR.
o It is RECOMMENDED to define several root LSRs (e.g., a primary and
a backup) to ensure redundancy upon root LSR failure.
o The receiver SHOULD NOT receive back a packet it has sent on the
MP2MP LSP.
o The solution SHOULD avoid that all traffic between any pair of
leaves is traversing a root LSR (similarly to PIM-Bidir trees) and
SHOULD provide the operator with means to minimize the delay
between two leaves.
o It MUST be possible to check connectivity of an MP2MP LSP in both
directions.
6. Evaluation Criteria
6.1. Performance
The solution will be evaluated with respect to the following
criteria:
(1) Efficiency of network resource usage;
(2) Time to add or remove a Leaf LSR;
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 16]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
(3) Time to repair a P2MP LSP in case of link or node failure; and
(4) Scalability (state size, number of messages, message size).
Particularly, the P2MP LDP mechanism SHOULD be designed with the key
objective of minimizing the additional amount of state and additional
processing required in the network.
Also, the P2MP LDP mechanism SHOULD be designed so that convergence
times in case of link or node failure are minimized, in order to
limit traffic disruption.
6.2. Complexity and Risks
The proposed solution SHOULD NOT introduce complexity to the current
LDP operations to such a degree that it would affect the stability
and diminish the benefits of deploying such solution.
7. Security Considerations
It is expected that addressing the requirements defined in this
document should not introduce any new security issues beyond those
inherent to LDP and that a P2MP LDP solution will rely on the
security mechanisms defined in [RFC5036] (e.g., TCP MD5 Signature).
An evaluation of the security features for MPLS networks may be found
in [RFC5920], and where issues or further work is identified by that
document, new security features or procedures for the MPLS protocols
will need to be developed.
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Christian Jacquenet, Hitoshi Fukuda, Ina
Minei, Dean Cheng, and Benjamin Niven-Jenkins for their highly useful
comments and suggestions. We would like to thank Adrian Farrel for
reviewing this document before publication.
We would also like to thank the authors of [RFC4461], which inspired
some of the text in this document.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 17]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
January 2001.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Graceful
Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol",
RFC 3478, February 2003.
[RFC3479] Farrel, A., "Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3479, February 2003.
[RFC3815] Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and J. Luciani,
"Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP)", RFC 3815, June 2004.
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-
Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
9.2. Informative References
[MLDP] Minei, I., Wijnands, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
"Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", Work in Progress, August 2011.
[MVPN] Aggarwal, R., Bandi, S., Cai, Y., Morin, T., Rekhter,
Y., Rosen, E., Wijnands, I., and S. Yasukawa,
"Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", Work in Progress,
January 2010.
[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.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 18]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned
Virtual Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
March 2005.
[RFC4687] Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., King, D., and T. Nadeau,
"Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks", RFC 4687,
September 2006.
[RFC4834] Morin, T., Ed., "Requirements for Multicast in Layer 3
Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks
(PPVPNs)", RFC 4834, April 2007.
[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.
[RFC5501] Kamite, Y., Wada, Y., Serbest, Y., Morin, T., and L.
Fang, "Requirements for Multicast Support in Virtual
Private LAN Services", RFC 5501, March 2009.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[VPLS-MCAST] Aggarwal, R., Kamite, Y., Fang, L., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multicast in VPLS", Work in Progress, July 2011.
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 19]
RFC 6348 Reqs for P2MP Extensions to LDP September 2011
Contributing Authors
Vincent Parfait
France Telecom - Orange, Orange Business Services
EMail: vincent.parfait@orange-ftgroup.com
Luyuan Fang
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: lufang@cisco.com
Lei Wang
Telenor
EMail: lei.wang@telenor.com
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com
Shane Amante
Level 3 Communications, LLC
EMail: shane@level3.net
Authors' Addresses
Jean-Louis Le Roux (editor)
France Telecom - Orange
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Thomas Morin (editor)
France Telecom - Orange
EMail: thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com
Le Roux & Morin Historic [Page 20]