One document matched: draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-02.txt
Jean Philippe Vasseur (Editor)
Zafar Ali
Siva Sivabalan Formatted:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
IETF Internet Draft
Expires: July, 2005
January, 2005
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt
Definition of an RRO node-id subobject
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent
or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of
which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
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.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 1
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt January 2005
Abstract
In the context of MPLS TE Fast Reroute, the Merge Point (MP) address is
required at the Point of Local Repair (PLR) in order to select a backup
tunnel intersecting a fast reroutable Traffic Engineering LSP on a
downstream LSR. However, existing protocol mechanisms are not
sufficient to find an MP address in multi-areas or multi-domain routing
networks. Hence, the current MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism cannot be used
to protect inter-area or inter-AS TE LSPs from a failure of an ABR
(Area Border Router) or ASBR (Autonomous System Border Router)
respectively. Such functionality has been listed as a clear requirement
in [INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] and [INTER-AS-TE-REQS]. This document specifies
the use of existing RRO IPv4 and IPv6 subobjects (with a new flag
defined) to define the node-id subobject in order to solve this issue.
Note that the MPLS Fast reroute mechanism mentioned in this document
refers to the "Facility backup" MPLS TE Fast Reroute method.
Table of content
1. Terminology .................................................. 2
2. Introduction ................................................. 3
3. Signaling node-ids in RROs ................................... 5
4. Finding Merge Point .......................................... 6
5. Security Considerations ...................................... 6
6. Intellectual Property Considerations ......................... 6
7. Acknowledgments .............................................. 7
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 [i].
1. Terminology
LSR - Label Switch Router
LSP - An MPLS Label Switched Path
PCS - Path Computation Server (may be any kind of LSR (ABR, ...)
or a centralized path computation server
PCC - Path Computation Client (any head-end LSR) requesting a path
computation of the Path Computation Server.
Local Repair - Techniques used to repair LSP tunnels quickly
when a node or link along the LSPs path fails.
Protected LSP - An LSP is said to be protected at a given hop if
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 2
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt January 2005
it has one or multiple associated backup tunnels
originating at that hop.
Bypass Tunnel - An LSP that is used to protect a set of LSPs
passing over a common facility.
Backup Tunnel - The LSP that is used to backup up one of the many
LSPs in many-to-one backup.
PLR - Point of Local Repair. The head-end of a backup tunnel or
a detour LSP.
MP - Merge Point. The LSR where detour or backup tunnels meet
the protected LSP. In case of one-to-one backup, this is where
multiple detours converge. A MP may also be a PLR.
Reroutable LSP - Any LSP for with the "Local protection desired"
bit is set in the Flag field of the
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object of its Path messages.
Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: TE LSP whose Head-end LSR and Tail-end LSR do
not reside within the same Autonomous System (AS) or both Head-end
LSR and Tail-end LSR are in the same AS but the TE tunnel
transiting path may be across different ASes
Interconnect or ASBR Routers: Routers used to connect to another AS of
a different or the same Service Provider via one or more Inter-AS
links.
2. Introduction
MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) ([FAST-REROUTE]) is a fast recovery local
protection technique used to protect Traffic Engineering LSPs from
link/SRLG/node failure. One or more backup tunnels are pre-established
to protect against the failure of a link/node/SRLG. In case of failure,
every protected TE LSP traversing the failed resource is rerouted onto
the appropriate backup tunnels in 10s of msecs.
There are a couple of requirements on the backup tunnel path. At least,
a backup tunnel should not pass through the element it protects.
Additionally, a primary tunnel and its associated backup tunnel should
intersect at least at two points (nodes): Point of Local Repair (PLR)
and Merge Point (MP). The former should be the head-end LSR of the
backup tunnel, and the latter should be the tail-end LSR of the backup
tunnel. The PLR is where FRR is triggered when link/node/SRLG failure
happens.
There are different methods for computing paths for backup tunnels at a
given PLR. Specifically, a user can statically configure one or more
backup tunnels at the PLR, with explicit path or the PLR can be
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 3
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt January 2005
configured to automatically compute a backup path or to send a path
computation request to a PCS (which can be an LSR or an off-line tool).
Consider the following scenario (figure 1)
Assumptions:
- A multi-area network made of three areas: 0, 1 and 2.
- A fast reroutable TE LSP T1 (TE LSP signaled with the "local
Protection desired" bit set in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object or the FRR
object) from R0 to R3
- A backup tunnel B1 from R1 to R2, not traversing ABR1, and following
the R1-ABR3-R2 path. R1 reroutes any protected TE LSP traversing ABR1
onto the backup tunnel B1 in case of ABR1's failure.
<--- area 1 --><---area 0---><---area 2--->
R0-----R1-ABR1--R2------ABR2--------R3 Formatted:
\ /
\ ABR3 /
Figure 1: Use of Fast Reroute to protect against an ABR failure with
MPLS Traffic Engineering Fast Reroute
When T1 is first signaled, the PLR R1 needs to dynamically select an
appropriate backup tunnel intersecting T1 on a downstream LSR. However,
existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to unambiguously find
the MP address in a network with inter-area or inter-AS traffic
engineering (although the example above was given in the context of
multi-area networks, a similar reasoning applies to TE LSP spanning
multiple ASes). This document addresses these limitations.
R1 needs to ensure the following:
1. Backup tunnel intersects with the primary tunnel at the MP (and
thus has a valid MP address), e.g., in Figure 1, R1 needs to
determine that T1 and B1 share the same MP node R2,
2. Backup tunnel satisfies the primary LSP's request with respect to
the bandwidth protection request (i.e., bandwidth guaranteed for
the primary tunnel during failure), and the type of protection
(preferably, protecting against a node failure versus a link
failure), as specified in [FAST-REROUTE].
A PLR can make sure that condition (1) is met by examining the Record
Route Object (RRO) of the primary tunnel to see if any of the addresses
specified in the RRO is attached to the tail-end of the backup tunnel.
As per [RSVP-TE], the addresses specified in the RRO IPv4 or IPv6
subobjects sent in Resv messages can be node-ids and/or interface
addresses. Hence, in Figure 1, router R2 may specify interface
addresses in the RROs for T1 and B1. Note that these interface
addresses are different in this example.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 4
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt January 2005
The problem of finding the MP using the interface addresses or node-ids
can be easily solved in a single area (OSPF_)/level (IS-IS).
Specifically, in the case of single area/level, the PLR has the
knowledge of all the interfaces attached to the tail-end of the backup
tunnel. This information is available in PLR's IGP topology database.
Thus, the PLR can determine whether a backup tunnel intersecting a
protected TE LSP on a downstream node exists and can also find the MP
address regardless of how the addresses contained in the RRO IPv4 or
IPv6 subobjects are specified (i.e., whether using the interface
addresses or the node IDs). However, such routing information is not
available in multi-area and inter-AS traffic engineering environments.
Hence, unambiguously making sure that condition (1) above is met with
inter-area TE and inter-AS traffic-engineering TE LSPs is not possible
with existing mechanisms.
In this document, we define extensions to and describe the use of RSVP
[RSVP, RSVP-TE] to solve the above-mentioned problem.
3. Signaling node-ids in RROs
As mentioned above, the limitation that we need to address is the
generality of the contents of the RRO IPv4 and IPv6 subobjects, as
defined in [RSVP-TE].[RSVP-TE] defines the IPv4 and IPv6 RRO subobjects
along with two flags (namely the ôLocal Protection Availableö and
ôLocal protection in useö bits). Moreover, other bits have been
specified in [FAST-REROUTE] and [SOFT-PREEMPTION].
In this document, we define the following new flag:
Node-id: 0x20
When set, this indicates that the address specified in the
RRO's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject is a node-id address, which refers
to the "Router Address" as defined in [OSPF-TE], or "Traffic
Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-TE]. A node MUST use
the same address consistently. In other words, once an address
is used in RRO's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject, it should always be
used for the lifetime of the LSP.
An IPv4 or IPv6 RRO subobject with the node-id flag set is also called
a node-id subobject. The problem of finding a MP address in a network
with inter-area or inter-AS traffic engineering is solved by inserting
a node-id subobject (an RRO "IPv4" and "IPv6" sub-object with the 0x20
flag set).
An implementation may either decide to:
1) Add the node-id subobject in an RSVP Resv message and, when
required, also add another IPv4/IPv6 subobject to record interface
address.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 5
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt January 2005
Example: a fast reroutable TE LSP would have in the RRO object carried
in Resv message two subobjects: a node-id subobject and a label
subobject. If recording the interface address is required, then an
additional IPv4/IPv6 subobject is added.
2) Add an IPv4/IPv6 subobject recording the interface address and, when
required, add a node-id subobject in the RRO object.
Example: an inter-area/inter-AS fast reroutable TE LSP would have in
the RRO object carried in Resv message three subobjects: an IPv4/IPv6
subobject recording interface address, a label subobject and a node-id
subobject.
Note also, that the node-id subobject may have other application than
Fast Reroute backup tunnel selection. Moreover, it is RECOMMENDED that
an LSR recording a node-id address in an IPv4/IPv6 RRO sub-object also
set the Node-id flag.
4. Finding Merge Point
Two cases should be considered:
- case 1: the backup tunnel destination is the MP's node-id. Then a PLR
can find the MP and suitable backup tunnel by simply comparing the
backup tunnel's destination address with the node-id included in the
RRO of the primary tunnel.
- case 2: the backup tunnel terminates at an address different than the
MP's node-id. Then a node-id subobject MUST also be included in the RRO
object of the backup tunnel. A PLR can find the MP and suitable backup
tunnel by simply comparing the node-ids present in the RRO objects of
both the primary and backup tunnels.
When both IPv4 node-id and IPv6 node-id sub-objects are present, a PLR
may use any or both of them in finding the MP address.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to [RSVP] and [RSVP-TE] remain relevant.
6. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any
effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of
rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 6
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt January 2005
be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general
license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by
implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the
IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
which may cover technology that may be required to practice this
standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this document.
For more information consult the online list of claimed rights.
7. Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge input and helpful comments from Carol
Iturralde, Anca Zamfir, Reshad Rahman, Rob Goguen, Philip Matthews and
Adrian Farrel.
Normative References
[RFC2119]Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3667]Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667,
February 2004.
[RFC3668]Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RSVP] Braden, et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Version
1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
3209, December 2001.
Informative references
[FAST-REROUTE] Ping Pan, et al, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for
LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt. Work in
progress.
[OSPF-TE] Katz et al., ôTraffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2ö, RFC3630.
[ISIS-TE] Smit et al., ôIntermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-
IS) - Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)IS-IS extensions for
Traffic Engineeringö, RFC3784.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 7
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt January 2005
[INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] Le Roux, Vasseur, Boyle et al., ôRequirements for
Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineeringö, draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-
req-03.txt. Work in progress.
[INTER-AS-TE-REQS] Zhang, Vasseur et al, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering requirements", draft-tewg-interas-te-req-09.txt. Work in
progress.
[INTER-DOMAIN-SIG] Ayyangar and Vasseur, "Inter domain GMPLS Traffic
Engineering - RSVP-TE extensionsö, draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-
rsvp-te-01.txt. Work in progress.
[LOOSE-PATH-REOPT] Vasseur et al. "Reoptimization of MPLS
Traffic Engineering loosely routed LSP", <draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-
reopt-00.txt>. Work in progress.
[SOFT-PREEMPTION] Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi. ôMPLS
Traffic Engineering Soft preemptionö, draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-
03.txt. Work in progress.
Authors' Addresses:
Jean Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
100 South Main St. #200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
USA
zali@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada
msiva@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 8
draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-03.txt January 2005
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan 9
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 21:45:41 |