draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-03.txt 
Network Working Group Chandra Ramachandran Network Working Group Chandra Ramachandran
Internet Draft Juniper Networks Internet Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track Ina Minei Intended status: Standards Track Ina Minei
Google, Inc Google, Inc
Dante Pacella Dante Pacella
Verizon Verizon
Tarek Saad Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems Inc. Cisco Systems Inc.
Expires: February 11, 2018 August 11, 2017 Expires: August 9, 2018 February 10, 2018
Refresh Interval Independent FRR Facility Protection Refresh Interval Independent FRR Facility Protection
draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-02 draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-03
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 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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 August 12, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
skipping to change at page 2, line 42 skipping to change at page 2, line 42
should unambiguously determine when a particular LSP state should be should unambiguously determine when a particular LSP state should be
deleted. Coupling LSP state with the corresponding RSVP-TE signaling deleted. Coupling LSP state with the corresponding RSVP-TE signaling
adjacencies as recommended in RSVP-TE Scaling Recommendations adjacencies as recommended in RSVP-TE Scaling Recommendations
(draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec) will apply in scenarios other (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec) will apply in scenarios other
than RFC 4090 FRR using bypass tunnels. In scenarios involving RFC than RFC 4090 FRR using bypass tunnels. In scenarios involving RFC
4090 FRR using bypass tunnels, additional explicit tear down 4090 FRR using bypass tunnels, additional explicit tear down
messages are necessary. Refresh-interval Independent RSVP FRR (RI- messages are necessary. Refresh-interval Independent RSVP FRR (RI-
RSVP-FRR) extensions specified in this document consists of RSVP-FRR) extensions specified in this document consists of
procedures to enable LSP state cleanup that are essential in procedures to enable LSP state cleanup that are essential in
scenarios not covered by procedures defined in RSVP-TE Scaling scenarios not covered by procedures defined in RSVP-TE Scaling
Recommendations. Recommendations. Hence, this document updates the semantics of
Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) capability specified in
RSVP-TE Scaling Recommendations (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-
rec).
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................4 1. Introduction...................................................4
1.1. Motivation................................................4 1.1. Motivation................................................4
2. Terminology....................................................5 2. Terminology....................................................5
3. Problem Description............................................5 3. Problem Description............................................6
4. Solution Aspects...............................................8 4. Solution Aspects...............................................8
4.1. Signaling Handshake between PLR and MP....................8 4.1. Signaling Handshake between PLR and MP....................8
4.1.1. PLR Behavior.........................................8 4.1.1. PLR Behavior.........................................8
4.1.2. Remote Signaling Adjacency..........................10 4.1.2. Remote Signaling Adjacency..........................10
4.1.3. MP Behavior.........................................10 4.1.3. MP Behavior.........................................10
4.1.4. "Remote" state on MP................................11 4.1.4. "Remote" state on MP................................11
4.2. Impact of Failures on LSP State..........................12 4.2. Impact of Failures on LSP State..........................12
4.2.1. Non-MP Behavior.....................................12 4.2.1. Non-MP Behavior.....................................12
4.2.2. LP-MP Behavior......................................12 4.2.2. LP-MP Behavior......................................12
4.2.3. NP-MP Behavior......................................12 4.2.3. NP-MP Behavior......................................13
4.2.4. Behavior of a Router that is both LP-MP and NP-MP...14 4.2.4. Behavior of a Router that is both LP-MP and NP-MP...14
4.3. Conditional Path Tear....................................14 4.3. Conditional Path Tear....................................14
4.3.1. Sending Conditional Path Tear.......................15 4.3.1. Sending Conditional Path Tear.......................15
4.3.2. Processing Conditional Path Tear....................15 4.3.2. Processing Conditional Path Tear....................15
4.3.3. CONDITIONS object...................................15 4.3.3. CONDITIONS object...................................15
4.4. Remote State Teardown....................................16 4.4. Remote State Teardown....................................16
4.4.1. PLR Behavior on Local Repair Failure................17 4.4.1. PLR Behavior on Local Repair Failure................17
4.4.2. PLR Behavior on Resv RRO Change.....................17 4.4.2. PLR Behavior on Resv RRO Change.....................17
4.4.3. LSP Preemption during Local Repair..................18 4.4.3. LSP Preemption during Local Repair..................18
4.4.3.1. Preemption on LP-MP after Phop Link failure....18 4.4.3.1. Preemption on LP-MP after Phop Link failure....18
4.4.3.2. Preemption on NP-MP after Phop Link failure....18 4.4.3.2. Preemption on NP-MP after Phop Link failure....18
4.5. Backward Compatibility Procedures........................19 4.5. Backward Compatibility Procedures........................19
4.5.1. Detecting Support for Refresh interval Independent FRR 4.5.1. Detecting Support for Refresh interval Independent FRR
...........................................................19 ...........................................................19
4.5.2. Procedures for backward compatibility...............20 4.5.2. Procedures for backward compatibility...............20
4.5.2.1. Lack of support on Downstream Node.............20 4.5.2.1. Lack of support on Downstream Node.............20
4.5.2.2. Lack of support on Upstream Node...............20 4.5.2.2. Lack of support on Upstream Node...............21
4.5.2.3. Incremental Deployment.........................21 4.5.2.3. Incremental Deployment.........................21
5. Security Considerations.......................................22 5. Security Considerations.......................................22
6. IANA Considerations...........................................22 6. IANA Considerations...........................................22
6.1. New Object - CONDITIONS..................................22 6.1. New Object - CONDITIONS..................................22
7. Normative References..........................................22 7. Normative References..........................................23
8. Informative References........................................23 8. Informative References........................................23
9. Acknowledgments...............................................23 9. Acknowledgments...............................................24
10. Contributors.................................................24 10. Contributors.................................................24
11. Authors' Addresses...........................................24 11. Authors' Addresses...........................................24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RSVP-TE Fast Reroute [RFC4090] defines two local repair techniques RSVP-TE Fast Reroute [RFC4090] defines two local repair techniques
to reroute label switched path (LSP) traffic over pre-established to reroute label switched path (LSP) traffic over pre-established
backup tunnel. Facility backup method allows one or more LSPs backup tunnel. Facility backup method allows one or more LSPs
traversing a connected link or node to be protected using a bypass traversing a connected link or node to be protected using a bypass
tunnel. The many-to-one nature of local repair technique is tunnel. The many-to-one nature of local repair technique is
skipping to change at page 4, line 47 skipping to change at page 4, line 47
scalability and RSVP-TE [RFC3209] inherited these problems from scalability and RSVP-TE [RFC3209] inherited these problems from
standard RSVP. Procedures specified in [RFC2961] address the above standard RSVP. Procedures specified in [RFC2961] address the above
mentioned problems by eliminating dependency on refreshes for state mentioned problems by eliminating dependency on refreshes for state
synchronization and for recovering from lost RSVP messages, and by synchronization and for recovering from lost RSVP messages, and by
eliminating dependency on refresh timeout for stale state cleanup. eliminating dependency on refresh timeout for stale state cleanup.
Implementing these procedures allows implementations to improve Implementing these procedures allows implementations to improve
RSVP-TE control plane scalability. For more details on eliminating RSVP-TE control plane scalability. For more details on eliminating
dependency on refresh timeout for stale state cleanup, refer to dependency on refresh timeout for stale state cleanup, refer to
"Refresh Interval Independent RSVP" section in [TE-SCALE-REC]. "Refresh Interval Independent RSVP" section in [TE-SCALE-REC].
However, the procedures specified in [RFC2961] do not fully address However, the procedures specified in [TE-SCALE-REC] do not fully
stale state cleanup for facility backup protection [RFC4090], as address stale state cleanup for facility backup protection
facility backup protection still depends on refresh timeouts for
stale state cleanup. Thus [RFC2961] is insufficient to address the
problem of stale state cleanup when facility backup protection is
used.
The procedures specified in this document, in combination with [RFC4090], as facility backup protection still depends on refresh
[RFC2961], eliminate facility backup protection dependency on timeouts for stale state cleanup.
refresh timeouts for stale state cleanup. These procedures, in
combination with [RFC2961], fully address the above mentioned The procedures specified in this document, in combination with [TE-
problem of RSVP-TE stale state cleanup, including the cleanup for SCALE-REC], eliminate facility backup protection dependency on
facility backup protection. refresh timeouts for stale state cleanup including the cleanup for
facility backup protection. The document hence updates the semantics
of Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) capability specified
in [TE-SCALE-REC].
The procedures specified in this document assume reliable delivery The procedures specified in this document assume reliable delivery
of RSVP messages, as specified in [RFC2961]. Therefore this document of RSVP messages, as specified in [RFC2961]. Therefore this document
makes support for [RFC2961] a pre-requisite. makes support for [RFC2961] a pre-requisite.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
[RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC4090] and [RFC4558]. [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC4090] and [RFC4558].
Phop node: Previous-hop router along the label switched path Phop node: Previous-hop router along the label switched path
PPhop node: Previous-Previous-hop router along the LSP PPhop node: Previous-Previous-hop router along the LSP
LP-MP node: Merge Point router at the tail of Link-protecting bypass LP-MP node: Merge Point router at the tail of Link-protecting bypass
tunnel tunnel
NP-MP node: Merger Point router at the tail of Node-protecting NP-MP node: Merge Point router at the tail of Node-protecting bypass
bypass tunnel tunnel
TED: Traffic Engineering Database TED: Traffic Engineering Database
LSP state: The combination of "path state" maintained as Path State LSP state: The combination of "path state" maintained as Path State
Block (PSB) and "reservation state" maintained as Reservation State Block (PSB) and "reservation state" maintained as Reservation State
Block (RSB) forms an individual LSP state on an RSVP-TE speaker Block (RSB) forms an individual LSP state on an RSVP-TE speaker
Conditional PathTear: PathTear message containing a suggestion to a Conditional PathTear: PathTear message containing a suggestion to a
receiving downstream router to retain Path state if the receiving receiving downstream router to retain Path state if the receiving
router is NP-MP router is NP-MP
skipping to change at page 10, line 38 skipping to change at page 10, line 38
When the NNhop or the Nhop node receives the triggered PATH with a When the NNhop or the Nhop node receives the triggered PATH with a
"matching" Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object, the node "matching" Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object, the node
should consider itself as the MP for the PLR IP address should consider itself as the MP for the PLR IP address
"corresponding" to the Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association "corresponding" to the Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association
object. The matching and ordering rules for Bypass Summary FRR object. The matching and ordering rules for Bypass Summary FRR
Extended Association specified in [SUMMARY-FRR] MUST be followed by Extended Association specified in [SUMMARY-FRR] MUST be followed by
implementations supporting this document. implementations supporting this document.
In addition to the above procedures, the node SHOULD check the In addition to the above procedures, the node SHOULD check the
presence of remote signaling adjacency with PLR. If a matching presence of remote signaling adjacency with Refresh-interval
Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is found in the PATH Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) capable PLR. RI-RSVP capability is
and if the RSVP-TE signaling adjacency is also present, then the specified in [TE-SCALE-REC] and this document updates the semantics
node concludes that the PLR will undertake refresh-interval of RI-RSVP capability for RFC 4090 facility bypass FRR. If a
matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is found in
the PATH and if the RSVP-TE signaling adjacency is also present,
then the node concludes that the PLR will undertake refresh-interval
independent FRR procedures specified in this document. If the PLR independent FRR procedures specified in this document. If the PLR
has included NodeID sub-object in PATH RRO, then that NodeID is the has included NodeID sub-object in PATH RRO, then that NodeID is the
remote neighbor address. Otherwise, the PLR's interface address in remote neighbor address. Otherwise, the PLR's interface address in
PATH RRO will be the remote neighbor address. PATH RRO will be the remote neighbor address. To enable the MP to
correctly match the bypass source address in B-SFRR Extended
Association object with the corresponding RSVP-TE Node-ID based
signaling adjacency with the PLR, the bypass source address in B-
SFRR Extended Association object MUST either be equal to or be tied
to the same node on TED, as the PLR's address used for sending
NodeID based Hello messages for maintaining RSVP-TE signaling
adjacency with the MP. It is recommended that the PLR and the MP
include NodeID sub-object in PATH and RESV RRO respectively, and the
PLR select its NodeID address as the source and the NodeID address
of the MP as the destination addresses for the bypass LSP.
- If a matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is - If a matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is
included by the PPhop node and if a corresponding Node-ID included by the PPhop node and if a corresponding Node-ID
signaling adjacency exists with the PPhop node, then the router signaling adjacency exists with the PPhop node, then the router
SHOULD conclude it is NP-MP. SHOULD conclude it is NP-MP.
- If a matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is - If a matching Bypass Summary FRR Extended Association object is
included by Phop node and if a corresponding Node-ID signaling included by Phop node and if a corresponding Node-ID signaling
adjacency exists with the Phop node, then the router SHOULD adjacency exists with the Phop node, then the router SHOULD
conclude it is LP-MP. conclude it is LP-MP.
skipping to change at page 17, line 7 skipping to change at page 17, line 15
the LSP is being locally repaired, the PLR SHOULD send "remote" the LSP is being locally repaired, the PLR SHOULD send "remote"
PathTear message instructing the MP to delete PSB and RSB states PathTear message instructing the MP to delete PSB and RSB states
corresponding to the LSP. The TTL in "remote" PathTear message corresponding to the LSP. The TTL in "remote" PathTear message
SHOULD be set to 255. SHOULD be set to 255.
Consider node C in example topology (Figure 1) has gone down and B Consider node C in example topology (Figure 1) has gone down and B
locally repairs the LSP. locally repairs the LSP.
1. Ingress A receives a management event to tear down the LSP. 1. Ingress A receives a management event to tear down the LSP.
2. A sends normal PathTear to B. 2. A sends normal PathTear to B.
3. Assume B has not initiated backup signaling for the LSR. To enable 3. Assume B has not initiated backup signaling for the LSR.To enable
LSP state cleanup, B SHOULD send "remote" PathTear with LSP state cleanup, B SHOULD send "remote" PathTear with
destination IP address set to that of D used in Node-ID signaling destination IP address set to that of D used in Node-ID signaling
adjacency with D, and RSVP_HOP object containing local address adjacency with D, and RSVP_HOP object containing local address
used in Node-ID signaling adjacency. used in Node-ID signaling adjacency.
4. B then deletes PSB and RSB states corresponding to the LSP. 4. B then deletes PSB and RSB states corresponding to the LSP.
5. On D there would be a remote signaling adjacency with B and so D 5. On D there would be a remote signaling adjacency with B and so D
SHOULD accept the remote PathTear and delete PSB and RSB states SHOULD accept the remote PathTear and delete PSB and RSB states
corresponding to the LSP. corresponding to the LSP.
4.4.1. PLR Behavior on Local Repair Failure 4.4.1. PLR Behavior on Local Repair Failure
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
30 lines changed or deleted 45 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/