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/