draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-03.txt
	MPLS Working Group Kamran Raza		MPLS Working Group Kamran Raza
	Internet Draft Sami Boutros		Internet Draft Sami Boutros
	Updates: 5036, 4447, 5918, 6388, 3212 Luca Martini		Updates: 3212, 4447, 5036, 5918, 6388, 7140 Luca Martini
	Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Expires: July 19, 2014		Expires: October 01, 2014
	Nicolai Leymann		Nicolai Leymann
	Deutsche Telekom		Deutsche Telekom
	January 20, 2014		April 02, 2014
	Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs		Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP FECs
	draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-02.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-03.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	The label advertising behavior of an LDP speaker for a given FEC is		The label advertising behavior of an LDP speaker for a given FEC is
	governed by the FEC type and not necessarily by the LDP session's		governed by the FEC type and not necessarily by the LDP session's
	negotiated label advertisement mode. This document updates RFC 5036		negotiated label advertisement mode. This document updates RFC 5036
	to make that fact clear, as well as updates RFC 3212, RFC 4447,		to make that fact clear, as well as updates RFC 3212, RFC 4447, RFC
	RFC 5918, and RFC 6388 by specifying the label advertisement mode		5918, RFC 6388, and RFC 7140 by specifying the label advertisement
	for all currently defined FECs.		mode for all currently defined LDP FEC types.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-		other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
	Drafts.		Drafts.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 46		skipping to change at page 1, line 46
	months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents		months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
	at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as		at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
	reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 01, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 27		skipping to change at page 2, line 27
	Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without		Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
	warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.		warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction 2		1. Introduction 2
	2. Label Advertisement Discipline 3		2. Label Advertisement Discipline 3
	2.1. Update to RFC-5036 3		2.1. Update to RFC-5036 3
	2.2. Specification for LDP FECs 4		2.2. Specification for LDP FECs 4
	3. Security Considerations 4		3. Security Considerations 4
	4. IANA Considerations 4		4. IANA Considerations 5
	5. References 5		5. References 7
	5.1. Normative References 5		5.1. Normative References 7
	5.2. Informative References 5		5.2. Informative References 7
	6. Acknowledgments 5		6. Acknowledgments 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] allows label		Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] allows label
	advertisement mode negotiation at the time of session establishment.		advertisement mode negotiation at the time of session establishment.
	LDP specification also dictates that only single label advertisement		LDP specification also dictates that only single label advertisement
	mode is negotiated, agreed and used for a given LDP session between		mode is negotiated, agreed and used for a given LDP session between
	two LSRs.		two LSRs.
	The negotiated label advertisement mode defined in RFC 5036 and		The negotiated label advertisement mode defined in RFC 5036 and
	carried in the LDP Initialization message is only indicative. It		carried in the LDP Initialization message is only indicative. It
	indicates how the LDP speakers on a session will advertise labels for		indicates how the LDP speakers on a session will advertise labels for
	some FECs, but it is not a rule that restricts the speakers to behave		some FECs, but it is not a rule that restricts the speakers to behave
	in a specific way. Furthermore, for some FEC types the advertising		in a specific way. Furthermore, for some FEC types the advertising
	behavior of the LDP speaker is governed by the FEC type and not by		behavior of the LDP speaker is governed by the FEC type and not by
	the negotiated behavior.		the negotiated behavior.
	This document updates [RFC5036] to make that fact clear, and updates		This document updates [RFC5036] to make that fact clear, as well as
	[RFC3212], [RFC4447], [RFC5036], [RFC5918], and [RFC6388] to indicate		updates [RFC3212], [RFC4447], [RFC5918], [RFC6388], and [RFC7140] to
	for each FEC type that has already been defined whether the label		indicate for each FEC type that has already been defined whether the
	binding advertisements for the FEC are constrained by the negotiated		label binding advertisements for the FEC are constrained by the
	label advertisement mode or not. Furthermore, this document specifies		negotiated label advertisement mode or not. Furthermore, this
	the label advertisement mode to be used for all currently defined		document specifies the label advertisement mode to be used for all
	LDP FECs.		currently defined FECs.
	2. Label Advertisement Discipline		2. Label Advertisement Discipline
	To remove any ambiguity and conflict regarding label advertisement		To remove any ambiguity and conflict regarding label advertisement
	discipline amongst different FEC types sharing a common LDP session,		discipline amongst different FEC types sharing a common LDP session,
	this document specifies a label advertisement disciplines for FEC		this document specifies a label advertisement disciplines for FEC
	types.		types.
	This document introduces following types for specifying a label		This document introduces following types for specifying a label
	advertisement discipline for a FEC type:		advertisement discipline for a FEC type:
	- DU (Downstream Unsolicited)		- DU (Downstream Unsolicited)
	- DoD (Downstream On Demand)		- DoD (Downstream On Demand)
	- As negotiated (DU or DoD)		- As negotiated (DU or DoD)
	- Upstream ([RFC6389])		- Upstream ([RFC6389])
	- Not Applicable		- Not Applicable
			- Unknown
	2.1. Update to RFC-5036		2.1. Update to RFC-5036
	The section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036] is updated to add following two		The section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036] is updated to add following two
	statements under the description of "A, Label Advertisement		statements under the description of "A, Label Advertisement
	Discipline":		Discipline":
	- Each document defining an LDP FEC must state the applicability		- Each document defining an LDP FEC must state the applicability
	of the negotiated label advertisement discipline for label		of the negotiated label advertisement discipline for label
	binding advertisements for that FEC. If the negotiated label		binding advertisements for that FEC. If the negotiated label
	skipping to change at page 4, line 17		skipping to change at page 4, line 17
	+----------+----------+--------------------------------+		+----------+----------+--------------------------------+
	| 0x01 | Wildcard | Not applicable |		| 0x01 | Wildcard | Not applicable |
	| 0x02 | Prefix | As negotiated (DU or DoD) |		| 0x02 | Prefix | As negotiated (DU or DoD) |
	+----------+----------+--------------------------------+		+----------+----------+--------------------------------+
	2.2. Specification for LDP FECs		2.2. Specification for LDP FECs
	Following is the specification of label advertisement disciplines to		Following is the specification of label advertisement disciplines to
	be used for currently defined LDP FEC types.		be used for currently defined LDP FEC types.
	+------+----------------+--------------------------------+------+		FEC FEC Label advertisement Notes
	| FEC | FEC Name | Label advertisement discipline |RFC |		Type Name discipline
	| Type | | | |		---- ---------------- ------------------- ----------------------
	+------+----------------+--------------------------------+------+		0x01 Wildcard Not applicable
	| 0x01 | Wildcard | Not applicable | 5036 |		0x02 Prefix As negotiated
	| 0x02 | Prefix | As negotiated (DU or DoD) | 5036 |		(DU or DoD)
	| 0x04 | CR-LSP | DoD | 3212 |		0x04 CR-LSP DoD
	| 0x05 | Typed Wildcard | Not applicable | 5918 |		0x05 Typed Wildcard Not applicable
	| 0x06 | P2MP | DU | 6388 |		0x06 P2MP DU
	| 0x07 | MP2MP-up | DU | 6388 |		0x07 MP2MP-up DU
	| 0x08 | MP2MP-down | DU | 6388 |		0x08 MP2MP-down DU
	| 0x80 | PWid | DU | 4447 |		0x09 HSMP-upstream DU
	| 0x81 | Gen. PWid | DU | 4447 |		0x10 HSMP-downstream DU, Upstream [RFC7140] Section 4
	+------+----------------+--------------------------------+------+		0x80 PWid DU
			0x81 Gen. PWid DU
			0x82 P2MP PW Upstream Upstream [ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw]
			0x84 P2MP PW Downstream DU [ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw]
			0x83 Protection DU [ID.pwe3-endpoint-
			fast-protection]
	The above table also lists the RFC (in which given FEC type is		This document updates the RFCs in which above FECs are defined.
	defined), and hence this document updates all the above listed RFCs.
	3. Security Considerations		3. Security Considerations
	This document specification only clarifies the applicability of LDP		This document specification only clarifies the applicability of LDP
	session's label advertisement mode, and hence does not add any LDP		session's label advertisement mode, and hence does not add any LDP
	security mechanics and considerations to those already defined in		security mechanics and considerations to those already defined in
	the LDP specification [RFC5036].		the LDP specification [RFC5036].
	4. IANA Considerations		4. IANA Considerations
	This document mandates the specification of a label advertisement		This document mandates the specification of a label advertisement
	discipline for each defined FEC type, and hence extends IANA's		discipline for each defined FEC type, and hence extends IANA's
	"Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space" registry under		"Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space" registry under
	IANA's "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" as follows:		IANA's "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" as follows:
	- Add a new column titled "Label advertisement discipline" with		- Add a new column titled "Label Advertisement Discipline" with
	following possible values:		following possible values:
	o DU		o DU
	o DoD		o DoD
	o As negotiated (DU or DoD)		o As negotiated (DU or DoD)
	o Upstream		o Upstream
	o Not applicable		o Not applicable
			o Unknown
	- For the existing FEC types, populate this column with the		- For the existing FEC types, populate this column with the
	values listed under section 2.2.		values listed under section 2.2.
			- Keep all other columns of the registry in place and populated
			as currently.
			For the currently assigned FEC types, the updated registry looks
			like:
			+=====+====+===============+==============+=========+============+
			|Value|Hex | Name |Label |Reference|Notes/ |
			| | | |Advertisement | |Registration|
			| | | |Discipline | |Date |
			+=====+====+===============+==============+=========+============+
			| 0 |0x00|Reserved | | | |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 1 |0x01|Wildcard |Not applicable|[RFC5036]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 2 |0x02|Prefix |As negotiated |[RFC5036]| |
			| | | |(DU or DoD) |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 4 |0x04|CR-LSP |DoD |[RFC3212]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 5 |0x05|Typed Wildcard |Not applicable|[RFC5918]| |
			| | |FEC Element | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 6 |0x06|P2MP |DU |[RFC6388]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 7 |0x07|MP2MP-up |DU |[RFC6388]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 8 |0x08|MP2MP-down |DU |[RFC6388]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 9 |0x09|HSMP-upstream |DU |[RFC7140]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 10 |0x0A|HSMP-downstream|DU, Upstream |[RFC7140]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 128 |0x80|PWid |DU |[RFC4447]| |
			| | |FEC Element | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 129 |0x81|Generalized |DU |[RFC4447]| |
			| | |PWid | |[thisRFC]| |
			| | |FEC Element | | | |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 130 |0x82|P2MP PW |Upstream |[draft- | |
			| | |Upstream | |ietf-pwe3| |
			| | |FEC Element | |-p2mp-pw]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 131 |0x83|Protection |DU |[draft-ietf| |
			| | |FEC Element | |-pwe3-end | |
			| | | | |point-fast | |
			| | | | |protection]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC] | |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
			| 132 |0x84|P2MP PW |DU |[draft- | |
			| | |Downstream | |ietf-pwe3| |
			| | |FEC Element | |-p2mp-pw]| |
			| | | | |[thisRFC]| |
			+-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
	5. References		5. References
	5.1. Normative References		5.1. Normative References
	[RFC5036] L. Andersson, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "LDP		[RFC5036] L. Andersson, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "LDP
	Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.		Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.
	[RFC3212] B. Jamoussi, et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using		[RFC3212] B. Jamoussi, et al., "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using
	LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002		LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002
	skipping to change at page 5, line 40		skipping to change at page 7, line 29
	[RFC5918] R. Asati, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution		[RFC5918] R. Asati, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
	Protocol Typed Wildcard FEC", RFC 5918, August 2010.		Protocol Typed Wildcard FEC", RFC 5918, August 2010.
	[RFC6388] I. Minei, I. Wijnands, K. Kompella, and B. Thomas, "LDP		[RFC6388] I. Minei, I. Wijnands, K. Kompella, and B. Thomas, "LDP
	Extensions for P2MP and MP2MP LSPs", RFC 6388, November		Extensions for P2MP and MP2MP LSPs", RFC 6388, November
	2011.		2011.
	[RFC6389] R. Aggarwal, and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label		[RFC6389] R. Aggarwal, and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
	Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011.		Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011.
			[RFC7140] L. Jin, F. Jounay, I. Wijnands , and N. Leymann, "LDP
			Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched
			Path", RFC 7140, March 2014.
			[ID.pwe3-p2mp-pw] S. Sivabalan et al., "Signaling Root-Initiated
			Point-to-Multipoint PseudoWire using LDP", draft-ietf-
			pwe3-p2mp-pw-04, Work in progress, March 2012.
			[ID.pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection] Y. Shen, R. Aggarwal, W.
			Henderickx, and Y. Jiang, "PW Endpoint Fast Failure
			Protection", draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00,
			Work in progress, December 2013.
	5.2. Informative References		5.2. Informative References
	None.		None.
	6. Acknowledgments		6. Acknowledgments
	We acknowledge Eric Rosen and Rajiv Asati for their initial review		We acknowledge Eric Rosen and Rajiv Asati for their initial review
	and input on the document.		and input on the document.
	This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.		This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
End of changes. 14 change blocks.
	47 lines changed or deleted		131 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/