One document matched: draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-01.txt
Differences from draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-00.txt
Network Working Group Kamran Raza
Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Intended Status: Standards Track
Expiration Date: January 7, 2011 Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems
July 8, 2010
LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements
draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
Raza, et al Expires January 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements July 2010
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the BSD License.
Abstract
An extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) defines the
general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class
(FEC) Element". This can be used when it is desired to request all
label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or
withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element.
However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be individually defined
for each type of FEC element. This specification defines the typed
wildcard FEC elements for the Pseudowire Identifier (PW Id) and
Generalized Pseudowire Identifier (Gen. PW Id) FEC types.
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 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Typed Wildcard for PWid FEC Element 3
3. Typed Wildcard for Generalized PWid FEC Element 3
4. Operation 3
4.1. PW Consistency Check 4
4.2. PW Graceful Shutdown 5
5. Security Considerations 5
6. IANA Considerations 5
7. Acknowledgments 5
8. References 5
8.1. Normative References 5
8.2. Informative References 6
Author's Address 6
Raza, et al. Expires January 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements July 2010
1. Introduction
An extension [TYPED-WC] to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
[RFC5036] defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard
Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element". This can be used
when it is desired to request all label bindings for a given type
of FEC Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for
a given type of FEC element. However, a typed wildcard FEC
element must be individually defined for each type of FEC element.
[RFC4447] defines the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid
FEC Element" but it does not specify Typed Wildcard format for
these elements. This document specifies the format of the Typed
Wildcard FEC for the "PWid FEC Element" and the "Generalized
PWid FEC Element" defined in [RFC4447]. The procedures for Typed
Wildcard processing for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements are
same as described in [TYPED-WC] for any typed wildcard FEC Element
type.
2. Typed Wildcard for PWid FEC Element
The format of the PWid FEC Typed Wildcard FEC is:
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Typed Wcard | Type = PWid | Len = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Format of PWid Typed Wildcard FEC Element
Where:
Typed Wcard (one octet): as specified in [TYPED-WC]
FEC Element Type (one octet): PWid FEC Element (type 0x80
[RFC4447])
Len FEC Type Info (one octet): Zero. (There is no additional FEC
info)
3. Typed Wildcard for Generalized PWid FEC Element
The format of the Generalized PWid FEC Typed Wildcard FEC is:
Raza, et al. Expires January 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements July 2010
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Typed Wcard | Type=Gen.PWid | Len = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Format of Generalized PWid Typed Wildcard FEC Element
Where:
Typed Wcard (one octet): as specified in [TYPED-WC]
FEC Element Type (one octet): Generalized PWid FEC Element (type
0x81 [RFC4447])
Len FEC Type Info (one octet): Zero. (There is no additional FEC
info)
When Generalized PWid FEC Typed Wildcard is used, "PW Grouping ID
TLV" [RFC4447] MUST NOT be present in the same message.
4. Operation
The use of Typed Wildcard FEC elements for PW can be useful under
several scenarios. This section describes two use cases to
illustrate their usage. The following use cases consider two LSR
nodes, A and B, with LDP session between them to exchange L2VPN PW
bindings.
4.1. PW Consistency Check
A user may request a control plane consistency check at LSR A for
the PWid FEC and Generalized PWid FEC bindings that it had learnt
from LSR B over LDP session. To perform this consistency check, LSR
A marks all its learnt PW bindings from LSR B as stale, and then
sends a Label Request message towards LSR B with Typed Wildcard FEC
element for PWid FEC element and Generalized PWid FEC element. Upon
receipt of such request, LSR B replays its database related to PWid
FEC elements and Generalized PWid FEC element in Label Mapping
message. As a PW binding is received at LSR A, the associated
binding state is marked as refreshed (no stale). When replay
completes for a given type of FEC, LSR B sends End-of-LIB
Notification [END-OF-LIB] to mark the end of update for the given
FEC type. Upon receipt of this Notification at LSR A, any remaining
stale PW binding of given FEC type learnt from the peer LSR B, is
Raza, et al. Expires January 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements July 2010
cleaned up and removed from the database. This completes consistency
check with LSR B at LSR A for given FEC type.
4.2. PW Graceful Shutdown
It may be desirable to perform shutdown/removal of existing PW
bindings advertised towards a peer in a graceful manner -
- i.e. all
advertised PW bindings to be removed from a peer without session
flap. For example, to request a graceful delete of the PWid FEC and
Generalized PWid FEC bindings at LSR A learnt from LSR B, LSR A
would send a Label Withdraw message towards LSR B with Typed
Wildcard FEC elements pertaining to PWid FEC element and Generalized
PWid FEC element. Upon receipt of such message, LSR B will delete
all PWid and Generalized PWid bindings learnt from LSR A.
Afterwards, LSR B would send Label Release message corresponding to
recieved Label Withdraw with Typed FEC element.
5. Security Considerations
No new security considerations beyond that apply to the base LDP
specification [RFC5036], [RFC4447] and [MPLS_SEC] apply to the use
of the PW Typed Wildcard FEC Element types described in this
document.
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines no new element for IANA Consideration.
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Eric Rosen, M. Siva, and Zafar Ali
for their valuable comments.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0 template.dot.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Menei, I., and Thomas, B., Editors, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.
Raza, et al. Expires January 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements July 2010
[TYPED-WC] Thomas, B., Asati, R., and Minei, I., "LDP Typed Wildcard
FEC", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-07.txt, Work in
Progress, March 2010.
[END-OF-LIB] Asati, R., Mohapatra, P., Chen, E., and Thomas, B.,
"Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion",
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-04.txt, Work in Progress,
June 2010.
[RFC4447] L. Martini, Editor, E. Rosen, El-Aawar, T. Smith, G. Heron,
"Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label
Distribution Protocol", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[MPLS_SEC] Fang, L. et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-
framework-05.txt, Work in Progress, March 2009.
Author's Address
Syed Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.,
2000 Innovation Drive,
Kanata, ON K2K-3E8, Canada.
E-mail: skraza@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way,
San Jose, CA 95134, USA.
E-mail: sboutros@cisco.com
Raza, et al. Expires January 2011 [Page 6]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 06:25:59 |