MPLS Working Group                                       Kamran Raza
Internet Draft                                          Sami Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           K. Raza
Request for Comments: 7358                                    S. Boutros
Updates: 3212, 4447, 5036, 5918, 6388, 7140             Luca                   L. Martini
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track                            Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: October 01, 2014
                                                      Nicolai
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               N. Leymann
                                                        Deutsche Telekom

                                                       April 02,
                                                            October 2014

                     Label Advertisement Discipline
             for LDP FECs

            draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-03.txt Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs)

Abstract

   The label advertising behavior of an LDP speaker for a given FEC
   Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) is governed by the FEC type and
   not necessarily by the LDP session's negotiated label advertisement
   mode.  This document updates RFC 5036 to make that fact clear, as well as clear.  It
   also updates RFC RFCs 3212, RFC 4447, RFC 5918, RFC 6388, and RFC 7140 by specifying the
   label advertisement mode for all currently defined LDP FEC types.

Status of this This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product 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
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of six
   months the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted has been approved for publication by other documents
   at any time.  It the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work available in progress."

   The list Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list status of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be accessed obtained at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 01, 2014.
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7358.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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 Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction                                                     2 ....................................................2
   2. Label Advertisement Discipline                                   3 ..................................3
      2.1. Update to RFC-5036                                          3 RFC 5036 .........................................3
      2.2. Specification for LDP FECs                                  4 .................................4
   3. Security Considerations                                          4 .........................................4
   4. IANA Considerations                                              5 .............................................4
   5. References                                                       7 ......................................................6
      5.1. Normative References                                        7 .......................................6
      5.2. Informative References                                      7
  6. .....................................7
   Acknowledgments                                                  8 ....................................................7
   Authors' Addresses .................................................7

1.  Introduction

   The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] allows label
   advertisement mode negotiation at the time of session establishment.
   The LDP specification also dictates that only a single label
   advertisement mode is be negotiated, agreed upon, and used for a given
   LDP session between two LSRs. Label Switching Routers (LSRs).

   The negotiated label advertisement mode defined in RFC 5036 and
   carried in the LDP Initialization message is only indicative.  It
   indicates how the LDP speakers on a session will advertise labels for
   some FECs, Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs), but it is not a rule that
   restricts the speakers to behave 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 the negotiated behavior.

   This document updates [RFC5036] to make that fact clear, as well as clear.  It also
   updates [RFC3212], [RFC4447], [RFC5918], [RFC6388], and [RFC7140] to
  indicate
   indicate, for each FEC type that has already been defined defined, whether
   the label binding advertisements for the FEC are constrained by the
   negotiated label advertisement mode or not.  Furthermore, this
   document specifies the label advertisement mode to be used for all
   currently defined FECs.

2.  Label Advertisement Discipline

   To remove any ambiguity and conflict regarding a label advertisement
   discipline amongst among different FEC types sharing a common LDP session,
   this document specifies a label advertisement disciplines discipline for FEC
   types.

   This document introduces the following types for specifying a label
   advertisement discipline for a FEC type:

      -  DU (Downstream Unsolicited)
      -  DoD (Downstream On on Demand)
      -  As negotiated (DU or DoD)
      -  Upstream ([RFC6389])
      -  Not Applicable applicable
      -  Unknown

2.1.  Update to RFC-5036

   The section RFC 5036

   Section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036] is updated to add the following two
   statements under the description of "A, Label Advertisement
   Discipline":

   -  Each document defining an LDP FEC must state the applicability of
      the negotiated label advertisement discipline for label binding
      advertisements for that FEC.  If the negotiated label
      advertisement discipline does not apply to the FEC, the document
      must also explicitly state the discipline to be used for the FEC.

   -  This document defines the label advertisement discipline for the
      following FEC types:

         +----------+----------+--------------------------------+
         | FEC Type | FEC Name | Label advertisement discipline Advertisement Discipline |
         +----------+----------+--------------------------------+
         | 0x01     | Wildcard | Not applicable                 |
         | 0x02     | Prefix   | As negotiated (DU or DoD)      |
         +----------+----------+--------------------------------+

2.2.  Specification for LDP FECs

   Following is the specification of

   The label advertisement disciplines to
   be used discipline for currently defined LDP FEC types.

    FEC  FEC                Label advertisement  Notes
    Type Name               discipline
    ---- ----------------   -------------------  ----------------------
    0x01 Wildcard           Not applicable
    0x02 Prefix             As negotiated
                           (DU or DoD)
    0x04 CR-LSP             DoD
    0x05 Typed Wildcard     Not applicable
    0x06 P2MP               DU
    0x07 MP2MP-up           DU
    0x08 MP2MP-down         DU
    0x09 HSMP-upstream      DU
    0x10 HSMP-downstream    DU, Upstream         [RFC7140]
   types is listed in 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] 4.

   This document updates the respective RFCs in which above these FECs are
   introduced and defined.

3.  Security Considerations

   This document specification only clarifies the applicability of an LDP session's
   label advertisement mode, mode and hence does not add any LDP security
   mechanics and considerations to those already defined in the LDP
   specification [RFC5036].

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document mandates the specification of a label advertisement
   discipline for each defined FEC type, type and hence extends IANA's "Forwarding
   Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space" registry under IANA's "Label
   Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" registry has been extended as
   follows:

   - Add  Added a new column titled "Label Advertisement Discipline" with
      the following possible values:

         o  DU
         o  DoD
         o  As negotiated (DU or DoD)
         o  Upstream
         o  Not applicable
         o  Unknown

   - For the existing FEC types, populate  Made this column with document an additional reference for the
          values listed under section 2.2.

       - Keep registry itself
      and for all affected registrations.

   -  Kept other columns of the registry in place and populated as currently. they
      were.

   For the currently assigned FEC types, the updated registry looks
   like:

     +=====+====+===============+==============+=========+============+

   +=====+====+===============+==============+===========+============+
   |Value|Hex | Name          |Label         |Reference|Notes/         | Reference |Notes/      |
   |     |    |               |Advertisement |           |Registration|
   |     |    |               |Discipline    |           |Date        |
     +=====+====+===============+==============+=========+============+
   +=====+====+===============+==============+===========+============+
   | 0   |0x00|Reserved       |              |           |            |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 1   |0x01|Wildcard       |Not applicable|[RFC5036]| applicable| [RFC5036] |            |
   |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|              |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ [RFC7358] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 2   |0x02|Prefix         |As negotiated |[RFC5036]| | [RFC5036] |            |
   |     |    |               |(DU or DoD)   |[thisRFC]|   |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ [RFC7358] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 4   |0x04|CR-LSP         |DoD           |[RFC3212]|           | [RFC3212] |            |
   |     |    |               |              | [RFC7358] |              |[thisRFC]|            |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 5   |0x05|Typed Wildcard |Not applicable|[RFC5918]| applicable| [RFC5918] |            |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |[thisRFC]|              |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ [RFC7358] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 6   |0x06|P2MP           |DU            |[RFC6388]|            | [RFC6388] |            |
   |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|              |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ [RFC7358] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 7   |0x07|MP2MP-up       |DU            |[RFC6388]|            | [RFC6388] |            |
   |     |    |               |              |              |[thisRFC]| [RFC7358] |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 8   |0x08|MP2MP-down     |DU            |[RFC6388]|            | [RFC6388] |            |
   |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]|              |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ [RFC7358] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 9   |0x09|HSMP-upstream  |DU            |[RFC7140]|            | [RFC7140] | 2014-01-09 |
   |     |              |[thisRFC]|    |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+               |              | [RFC7358] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 10  |0x0A|HSMP-downstream|DU, Upstream  |[RFC7140]|  | [RFC7140] | 2014-01-09 |
   |     |    |              |[thisRFC]|               |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+              | [RFC7358] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 128 |0x80|PWid           |DU            |[RFC4447]|            | [RFC4447] |            |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |[thisRFC]|              |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+ [RFC7358] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 129 |0x81|Generalized    |DU            |[RFC4447]|            | [RFC4447] |            |
   |     |    |PWid           |              |[thisRFC]|              | [RFC7358] |            |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |            |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 130 |0x82|P2MP PW        |Upstream      |[draft-      | [P2MP-PW] | 2009-06-03 |
   |    |Upstream     |              |ietf-pwe3|    |Upstream       |              | [RFC7358] |    |FEC Element            |              |-p2mp-pw]|
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |              |[thisRFC]|            |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 131 |0x83|Protection     |DU            |[draft-ietf|            |[FAST-PROT]| 2010-02-26 |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |-pwe3-end  |          |
     |     |    |               |              |point-fast              | [RFC7358] |            |     |    |               |              |protection]|          |
     |     |    |               |              |[thisRFC]  |          |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 132 |0x84|P2MP PW        |DU            |[draft-            | [P2MP-PW] | 2014-04-04 |
   |    |Downstream     |              |ietf-pwe3|    |Downstream     |              | [RFC7358] |    |FEC Element            |              |-p2mp-pw]|
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |              |[thisRFC]|            |
     +-----+----+---------------+--------------+---------+------------+
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+

5.  References

5.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5036] L. Andersson, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "LDP
             Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.

   [RFC3212] B.   Jamoussi, et al., B., Ed., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R.,
               Wu, L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette,
               A., Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A.
               Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212,
               January 2002 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3212>.

   [RFC4447] L.   Martini, Editor, E. L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, T. N., Smith, T., and
               G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using Using the
               Label Distribution Protocol", Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. 2006,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447>.

   [RFC5036]   Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
               "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.

   [RFC5918] R.   Asati, I. R., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
               Protocol Typed Wildcard FEC", (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class
               (FEC)", RFC 5918, August 2010. 2010,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5918>.

   [RFC6388] I. Minei, I.   Wijnands, K. IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
               Thomas, "LDP "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for P2MP
               Point-to-Multipoint and MP2MP LSPs", Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label
               Switched Paths", RFC 6388, November
             2011. 2011,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.

   [RFC6389] R.   Aggarwal, R. and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
               Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011. 2011,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6389>.

   [RFC7140] L.   Jin, F. L., Jounay, I. Wijnands , F., Wijnands, IJ., 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. 2014,
               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7140>.

5.2.  Informative References

   [FAST-PROT] Shen, R. Y., Aggarwal, W. R., Henderickx, W., and Y. Jiang,
               "PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection", draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-00, Work in progress, December 2013.

5.2. Informative References

   None.

6. Progress,
               draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01, July 2014.

   [P2MP-PW]   Sivabalan, S., Ed., Boutros, S., Ed., Martini, L.,
               Konstantynowicz, M., Del Vecchio, G., Nadeau, T., Jounay,
               F., Niger, P., Kamite, Y., Jin, L., Vigoureux, M.,
               Ciavaglia, L., Delord, S., and K. Raza, "Signaling
               Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP",
               Work in Progress, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04, March 2012.

Acknowledgments

   We acknowledge Eric Rosen and Rajiv Asati for their initial review
   and input on the document.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

Authors' Addresses

   Kamran Raza
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive, Drive
   Ottawa, ON K2K-3E8, Canada.
  E-mail: K2K-3E8
   Canada

   EMail: skraza@cisco.com

   Sami Boutros
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3750 Cisco Way, Way
   San Jose, CA 95134, USA.
  E-mail:  95134
   United States

   EMail: sboutros@cisco.com
   Luca Martini
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400, 400
   Englewood, CO 80112, USA.
  E-mail:  80112
   United States

   EMail: lmartini@cisco.com

   Nicolai Leymann
   Deutsche Telekom AG, AG
   Winterfeldtstrasse 21, 21
   Berlin 10781, Germany.
  E-mail: 10781
   Germany

   EMail: N.Leymann@telekom.de