Internet DRAFT - draft-aa-mpls-ldp-link-shut
draft-aa-mpls-ldp-link-shut
Network M. Anush
Internet-Draft T. Anupkumar
Updates: 5036 (if approved) Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track September 3, 2019
Expires: March 6, 2020
LDP behaviour on link-shut scenarios
draft-aa-mpls-ldp-link-shut-00
Abstract
This document is intended as clarification of LDP behaviour in link-
down scenarios. Base LDP RFC5036 lacks sufficient clarity on what an
LDP enabled node should be doing when a link down event is received,
and the only LDP adjacency for an LDP peer is over this link.
Different vendors have handled this scenario differently, with some
immediately resetting tcp session with neighbor and some waiting for
igp recovergence instead of reacting directly to link events. With
this document we intend to clarify the expected behaviour explicitly
so that any interop issues can be avoided.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Anush & Anupkumar Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-aa-ldp-link-shut-00 September 2019
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Problem Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerationss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction
[RFC5036] details LDP specification and procedures to be followed by
LDP implementations. However, for some scenarios like link down, the
rfc isn't particularly clear as to what an implementation is supposed
to do. This could lead to interop issues when routers from different
vendors are part of the network. More details are given in the
problem description section below. A possible solution is also
suggested in the subsequent sections.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
o LDP: Label distribution protocol.
o GR: Graceful-restart.
3. Problem Description
Consider the following topology:
Anush & Anupkumar Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-aa-ldp-link-shut-00 September 2019
E
|
|
A --- B
| |
| |
C --- D
Figure 1: Example topology for LDP
All the nodes here are LDP enabled and also support GR. We have an
lsp from C-E via C-A-E path(this is igp bestpath). IGP has also
computed LFA backup for this primary-lsp via C-D-B-A-E path and we
have LDP lfa backup as well (taking this path).
Now, lets bring down A-C link. Node A has detected link-shut event
and since this link is the only adjacency to LDP-neighbor C, it
resets the LDP session and sends shutdown to neighbour C.
At C, the link-down event is detected bit late and subsequently the
IGP update is also delayed. Meanwhile, C has received shutdown from
peer A, and it results in C flushing all labels received from A.
Since the primary-label for C-E lsp is no longer available (from A),
the lsp itself is deleted by LDP, as LDP can't be congruent with IGP.
This LDP-lsp flap can in turn impact l3vpn/l2vpn traffic which are
dependent on this LSP.
We can definitely reduce traffic-loss by running BFD and switching
traffic to lfa backup in forwarding, but the intention above is to
highlight that IGP updates and subsequently LDP updates would be
asynchronous at nodes A and C, which may be more prominent if there
are routers with different capabilities (and maybe from different
vendors) in the network. So even if traffic has moved to lfa-backup
lsp in forwarding, the primary-lsp itself could be deleted by the
shutdown message (which is a fatal error).
4. Solutions
When a node has LDP adjacency to its neighbor (With GR [RFC3478]
enabled on both the node and its neighbor) over a 'single' directly
connected link and that link goes down, the node MAY reset the tcp
session with neighbor. However, it MUST NOT send shutdown message,
which flushes advertised labels at neighbor immediately.
The neighbor itself could have different backup mechanisms (ldp-lfa,
rsvp-bypass etc) to ensure minimal traffic loss in forwarding for
lsps having this node as active(primary)-path. Transmitting shutdown
Anush & Anupkumar Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-aa-ldp-link-shut-00 September 2019
message immediately could result in neighbor prematurely deleting
LSPs instead of letting IGP recoverge.
Another approach could be to avoid reacting immediately to link down
events. Instead, let hello timeout bringdown the session and update
LSP-paths as soon as IGP reconverges.
Both approaches can help to avoid traffic loss by accounting for
asynchronous ordering of events in LDP-peering routers.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in RFC5036 apply to this
document.
6. IANA Considerationss
7. Acknowledgments
.
8. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Graceful
Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol",
RFC 3478, DOI 10.17487/RFC3478, February 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3478>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Authors' Addresses
Anush & Anupkumar Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-aa-ldp-link-shut-00 September 2019
Anush Mohan
Ericsson
Bangalore
India
Email: anush.mohan@ericsson.com
Anupkumar T
Ericsson
Bangalore
India
Email: anupkumar.t@ericsson.com
Anush & Anupkumar Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 5]
