Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er
draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er
Network Working Group P. Dutta
Internet-Draft M. Bocci
Intended status: Standards Track Alcatel-Lucent
Expires: March 25, 2012 L. Martini
Cisco Systems
September 22, 2011
Explicit Path Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowires
draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-00
Abstract
Dynamic Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) setup through an explicit
path may be required to provide a simple solution for 1:1 protection
with diverse primary and backup MS-PWs for a service, or to enable
controlled signaling (strict or loose) for special MS-PWs. This
document describes the extensions and procedures necessary for
setting up of dynamic MS-PWs through explicit path routing.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in[RFC2119].
This document uses the terminology defined in
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw], [RFC4447]and [RFC5036]
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 http://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 25, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
Copyright (c) 2011 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Explicit Path in MS-PW Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Explicit Route TLV (ER-TLV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Explicit Route Hop TLV (ER-Hop TLV) . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. ER-Hop Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1. ER-Hop 1: IPv4 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.2. ER-Hop 2: IPv6 Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.3. ER-Hop 3: L2 PW Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Explicit Route TLV Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Next-Hop Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Adding ER Hops to the Explicit Route TLV . . . . . . . . . 10
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknoledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
1. Introduction
Procedures for dynamically establishing MS-PWs through automatically
selected paths are defined in [I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw]. For 1:1
protection of MS-PWs with primary and backup paths it is required to
set-up MS-PWs through a diverse set of S-PEs (Switching Provider-Edge
Devices) to remove any single points of failure at PW level.
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw] allows this through BGP based
mechanisms. This draft proposes an additional mechanism that allows
the ST-PE (Source Terminating PEs) to explicitly choose the path that
a PW will take through the intervening S-PEs. Explicit path routing
of dynamic MS-PWs may also be required for controlled set-up of
dynamic MS-PWs and efficient network resource management. This
documents defined extensions and procedures to
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw] required for setting up of dynamic MS-
PWs through explicit paths. Procedures for dynamically establishing
MS-PWs through automatically selected paths are defined in
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw]. For 1:1 protection of MS-PWs with
primary and backup paths it is required to set-up MS-PWs through a
diverse set of S-PEs to remove any single points of failure at PW
level. [I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw] allows this through BGP based
mechanisms.
This draft proposes an additional mechanism that allows the ST-PE to
explicitly choose the path that a PW will take through the
intervening S-PEs. Explicit path routing of dynamic MS-PWs may also
be required for controlled set-up of dynamic MS-PWs and efficient
network resource management. This documents defined extensions and
procedures to [I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw] required for setting up
of dynamic MS-PWs through explicit paths.
2. Explicit Path in MS-PW Signaling
This section describes the LDP (Label Distribution Protocol)
extensions required for signaling explicit paths in dynamic MS-PW
set-up messages.
2.1. Explicit Route TLV (ER-TLV)
The ER-TLV is an object that specifies the path to be taken by the
MS-PW being established. It is composed of one or more Explicit
Route Hop TLVs (ER-Hop TLVs) defined in Section 2.2. Note that
Explicit Route TLV definition is very generic and may be also used
outside of MS-PW applications. Such applications are out of scope of
this document.
The ER-TLV format is defined as follows:
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Type = 0x0800 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ER-Hop TLV 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ER-Hop TLV 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ............ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ER-Hop TLV n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
A fourteen-bit field carrying the value of the ER-TLV
Type = 0x0800.
Length
Specifies the length of the value field in bytes.
ER-Hop TLVs
One or more ER-Hop TLVs defined in Section 3.2.
Explicit Route TLV
2.2. Explicit Route Hop TLV (ER-Hop TLV)
The contents of an ER-TLV are a series of variable length ER-Hop
TLVs. Each hop contains the identification of an "Abstract Node"
that represents the hop to be traversed.
Each ER-Hop TLV has the form:
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Content // |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
ER-Hop Type
A fourteen-bit field carrying the type of the ER-Hop contents.
Currently defined values are:
Value Type
------ ------------------------
0x0801 IPv4 prefix
0x0802 IPv6 prefix
0x0805 L2 PW address of PW Switching Point
Length
Specifies the length of the value field in bytes.
L bit
The L bit in the ER-Hop is a one-bit attribute. If the L bit
is set, then the value of the attribute is "loose." Otherwise,
the value of the attribute is "strict." For brevity, we say
that if the value of the ER-Hop attribute is loose then it is
a "loose ER-Hop." Otherwise, it's a "strict ER-Hop." Further,
we say that the abstract node of a strict or loose ER-Hop is a
strict or a loose node, respectively. Loose and strict nodes
are always interpreted relative to their prior abstract nodes.
The path between a strict node and its prior node MUST include
only network nodes from the strict node and its prior abstract
node.
The path between a loose node and its prior node MAY include
other network nodes, which are not part of the strict node or
its prior abstract node.
Contents
A variable length field containing a node or abstract node
which is one of the consecutive nodes that make up the
explicitly routed PW.
ER-Hop TLV
Details of ER Hop semantics are defined in section 2.3.
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
2.3. ER-Hop Semantics
2.3.1. ER-Hop 1: IPv4 Prefix
The abstract node represented by this ER-Hop is the set of nodes,
which have an IP address, which lies within this prefix. Note that a
prefix length of 32 indicates a single IPv4 node.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| Type = 0x0801 | Length = 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Reserved | PreLen |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
A fourteen-bit field carrying the value of the ER-Hop 1, IPv4
Address, Type = 0x0801
Length
Specifies the length of the value field in bytes = 8.
L Bit
Set to indicate Loose hop.
Cleared to indicate a strict hop.
Reserved
Zero on transmission. Ignored on receipt.
PreLen
Prefix Length 1-32
IP Address
A four-byte field indicating the IP Address.
ER-Hop with IPv4 Prefix
2.3.2. ER-Hop 2: IPv6 Prefix
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| 0x0802 | Length = 20 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Reserved | PreLen |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPV6 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPV6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPV6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPV6 address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
A fourteen-bit field carrying the value of the ER-Hop 2, IPv6
Address, Type = 0x0802
Length
Specifies the length of the value field in bytes = 20.
L Bit
Set to indicate Loose hop.
Cleared to indicate a strict hop.
Reserved
Zero on transmission. Ignored on receipt.
PreLen
Prefix Length 1-128
IPv6 address
A 128-bit unicast host addresses.
2.3.3. ER-Hop 3: L2 PW Address
The L2 PW Address follows attachment circuit addressing which is
derived from [RFC5003] AII type 2, as shown here:
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0|0| 0x0802 | Length = 18 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Reserved | PreLen |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type=02 | Length | Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global ID (contd.) | Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix (contd.) | AC ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AC ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
A fourteen-bit field carrying the value of the ER-Hop 3, L2 PW
Address, Type = 0x0805
Length
Specifies the length of the value field in bytes = 18.
L Bit
Set to indicate Loose hop.
Cleared to indicate a strict hop.
Reserved
Zero on transmission. Ignored on receipt.
PreLen
Prefix Length 1-96
L2 PW Address
An AII Address as defined in [RFC5003].
3. Explicit Route TLV Processing
3.1. Next-Hop Selection
A PW Label Mapping Message containing an explicit route TLV must
determine the next hop for this path. Selection of this next hop may
involve a selection from a set of possible alternatives. The
mechanism for making a selection from this set is implementation
dependent and is outside of the scope of this specification.
Selection of particular paths is also outside of the scope of this
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
specification, but it is assumed that each node will make a best
effort attempt to determine a loop-free path. Note that such best
efforts may be overridden by local policy.
To determine the next hop for the path, a node performs the following
steps:
1. If a node receiving the Label Mapping Message including an ER-
Hop Type that is not supported MUST not progress the Label
Mapping message to downstream LSR and MUST send back an "Unknown
TLV" Notification.
2. The node receiving the Label Mapping Message must first evaluate
the first ER-Hop. If the L bit is not set in the first ER-Hop
and if the node is not part of the abstract node described by the
first ER-Hop, it has received the message in error, and should
return a "Bad Initial ER-Hop Error" status. If the L bit is set
and the local node is not part of the abstract node described by
the first ER-Hop, the node selects a next hop that is along the
path to the abstract node described by the first ER-Hop. If
there is no first ER-Hop, the message is also in error and the
system should return a "Bad Explicit Routing TLV Error" status
using a Notification Message sent upstream.
3. If there is no second ER-Hop, this indicates the end of the
explicit route. The explicit route TLV should be removed from
the Label Mapping Message. This node may or may not be the end
of the PW. Processing continues with section 3.2, where a new
explicit route TLV may be added to the Label Mapping Message.
4. If the node is also a part of the abstract node described by the
second ER-Hop, then the node deletes the first ER-Hop and
continues processing with step 2, above. Note that this makes
the second ER-Hop into the first ER-Hop of the next iteration.
5. The node determines if it is topologically adjacent to the
abstract node described by the second ER-Hop. If so, the node
selects a particular next hop which is a member of the abstract
node. The node then deletes the first ER-Hop and continues
processing with section 3.2.
6. Next, the node selects a next hop within the abstract node of the
first ER-Hop that is along the path to the abstract node of the
second ER-Hop. If no such path exists then there are two cases:
A. If the second ER-Hop is a strict ER-Hop, then there is an
error and the node should return a "Bad Strict Node Error"
status.
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
B. Otherwise, if the second ER-Hop is a loose ER-Hop, then the
node selects any next hop that is along the path to the next
abstract node. If no path exists within the MPLS domain,
then there is an error, and the node should return a "Bad
Loose Node Error" status.
7. Finally, the node replaces the first ER-Hop with any ER-Hop that
denotes an abstract node containing the next hop. This is
necessary so that when the explicit route is received by the next
hop, it will be accepted.
8. Progress the Label Mapping Message to the next hop.
3.2. Adding ER Hops to the Explicit Route TLV
After selecting a next hop, the node may alter the explicit route in
the following ways.
If, as part of executing the algorithm in Section 3.1, the explicit
route TLV is removed, the node may add a new explicit route TLV.
Otherwise, if the node is a member of the abstract node for the first
ER-Hop, then a series of ER-Hops may be inserted before the First ER-
Hop or may replace the first ER-Hop. Each ER-Hop in this series must
denote an abstract node that is a subset of the current abstract
node.
Alternately, if the first ER-Hop is a loose ER-Hop, an arbitrary
series of ER-Hops may be inserted prior to the first ER-Hop.
4. IANA Considerations
RFC5036 [RFC5036] defines the LDP TLV name space which is maintained
by IANA as "LDP TLV Registry". TLV types for the Explicit Route TLV,
IPv4 Prefix ER-Hop TLV, and the IPv6 Prefix ER-Hop TLV are already
defined in the LDP TLV Registry.
This draft proposes one new TLV type:t.
TLV Type (Suggested)
-------------------------------------- ----------
L2 PW Address of Switching Point 0x0805
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
5. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security considerations over
[RFC5036], [RFC4447] and [I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw].
6. Acknoledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the input of Lizhong Jin.
7. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw]
Martini, L., Bocci, M., and F. Balus, "Dynamic Placement
of Multi Segment Pseudowires",
draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-14 (work in progress),
July 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto,
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Pranjal Dutta
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: pranjal.dutta@alcatel-lucent.com
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MS-PW Explicit Routing September 2011
Matthew Bocci
Alcatel-Lucent
Email: matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems
Email: lmartini@cisco.com
Dutta, et al. Expires March 25, 2012 [Page 12]
