1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
|
<pre>Network Working Group B. Decraene
Request for Comments: 5283 JL. Le Roux
Category: Standards Track France Telecom
I. Minei
Juniper Networks, Inc.
July 2008
<span class="h1">LDP Extension for Inter-Area Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</span>
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
To facilitate the establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that
would span multiple IGP areas in a given Autonomous System (AS), this
document describes a new optional Longest-Match Label Mapping
Procedure for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP).
This procedure allows the use of a label if the Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) Element matches an entry in the Routing
Information Base (RIB). Matching is defined by an IP longest-match
search and does not mandate an exact match.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Terminology .....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Problem Statement ...............................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Longest-Match Label Mapping Message Procedure ...................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Application Examples ............................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Inter-Area LSPs ............................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Use of Static Routes .......................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Caveats for Deployment ..........................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Deployment Considerations ..................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Routing Convergence Time Considerations ....................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Informative References .....................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgments ...............................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
Link state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs) such as OSPF [<a href="#ref-OSPFv2" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPFv2</a>]
and IS-IS [<a href="#ref-IS-IS" title=""Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments"">IS-IS</a>] allow the partition of an autonomous system into
areas or levels so as to increase routing scalability within a
routing domain.
However, [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>] recommends that the IP address of the FEC Element
should *exactly* match an entry in the IP Routing Information Base
(RIB). According to [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>], section 3.5.7.1 ("Label Mapping Messages
Procedures"):
An LSR [Label Switching Router] receiving a Label Mapping message
from a downstream LSR for a Prefix SHOULD NOT use the label for
forwarding unless its routing table contains an entry that exactly
matches the FEC Element.
Therefore, MPLS LSPs between Label Edge Routers (LERs) in different
areas/levels are not set up unless the specific (e.g., /32 for IPv4)
loopback addresses of all the LERs are redistributed across all
areas.
The problem statement is discussed in <a href="#section-4">section 4</a>. Then, in <a href="#section-5">section 5</a>
we extend the Label Mapping Procedure defined in [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>] so as to
support the setup of contiguous inter-area LSPs while maintaining IP
prefix aggregation on the ABRs. This consists of allowing for
longest-match-based Label Mapping.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Conventions Used in This Document</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Terminology</span>
IGP Area: OSPF Area or IS-IS level
ABR: OSPF Area Border Router or IS-IS L1/L2 router
LSP: Label Switched Path
Intra-area LSP: LSP that does not traverse any IGP area boundary.
Inter-area LSP: LSP that traverses at least one IGP area boundary.
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Problem Statement</span>
Provider-based MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching) networks are
expanding with the success of Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks
[<a href="#ref-L3-VPN" title=""BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)"">L3-VPN</a>] and the new deployments of Layer 2 VPNs ([<a href="#ref-VPLS-BGP" title=""Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling"">VPLS-BGP</a>],
[<a href="#ref-VPLS-LDP" title=""Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling"">VPLS-LDP</a>]). Service providers' MPLS backbones are significantly
growing both in terms of density with the addition of Provider Edge
(PE) routers to connect new customers and in terms of footprint as
traditional Layer 2 aggregation networks may be replaced by IP/MPLS
networks. As a consequence many providers need to introduce IGP
areas. Inter-area LSPs (that is, LSPs that traverse at least two IGP
areas) are required to ensure MPLS connectivity between PEs located
in distinct IGP areas.
To set up the required MPLS LSPs between PEs in different IGP areas,
service providers currently have three solutions: 1) LDP with IGP
route leaking, 2) BGP [<a href="#ref-MPLS-BGP" title=""Carrying Label Information in BGP-4"">MPLS-BGP</a>] over LDP with MPLS hierarchy, and 3)
inter-area RSVP-TE (Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
[<a href="#ref-RSVP-TE" title=""Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RSVP-TE</a>]).
IGP route leaking consists of redistributing all specific PE loopback
addresses across area boundaries. As a result, LDP finds in the RIB
an exact match for its FEC and sets up the LSP. As a consequence,
the potential benefits that a multi-area domain may yield are
significantly diminished since a lot of addresses have to be
redistributed by ABRs, and the number of IP entries in the IGP Link
State Database (LSDB), RIB, and Forwarding Information Base (FIB)
maintained by every LSR of the domain (whatever the area/level it
belongs to) cannot be minimized.
Service providers may also set up these inter-area LSPs by using MPLS
hierarchy with BGP [<a href="#ref-MPLS-BGP" title=""Carrying Label Information in BGP-4"">MPLS-BGP</a>] as a label distribution protocol
between areas. The BGP next hop would typically be the ABRs, and the
BGP-created LSPs would be nested within intra-area LSPs set up by LDP
between PEs and ABRs and between ABRs.
This solution is not adequate for service providers which don't want
to run BGP on their provider routers as it requires BGP on all ABRs.
In addition, MPLS hierarchy does not allow locally protecting the LSP
against ABR failures (IP/LDP Fast Reroute), and hence ensuring sub-
50ms recovery upon ABR failure. The resulting convergence time may
not be acceptable for stringent Service Level Agreements (SLAs)
required for voice or mission-critical applications. Finally, this
solution requires a significant migration effort for service
providers that started with LDP and IGP route leaking to quickly set
up the first inter-area LSPs.
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
Service providers may also set up these inter-area LSPs by using
inter-area RSVP-TE [<a href="#ref-RSVP-TE" title=""Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RSVP-TE</a>]. This is a relevant solution when RSVP-
TE is already used for setting up intra-area LSPs, and inter-area
traffic engineering features are required. In return, this is not a
desired solution when LDP is already used for setting up intra-area
LSPs, and inter-area traffic engineering features are not required.
To avoid the above drawbacks, there is a need for an LDP-based
solution that allows setting up contiguous inter-area LSPs while
avoiding leaking of specific PE loopback addresses across area
boundaries, thereby keeping all the benefits of IGP hierarchy.
In that context, this document defines a new LDP Label Mapping
Procedure so as to support the setup of contiguous inter-area LSPs
while maintaining IP prefix aggregation on the ABRs. This procedure
is similar to the one defined in [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>] but performs an IP longest
match when searching the FEC element in the RIB.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Longest-Match Label Mapping Message Procedure</span>
This document defines a new Label Mapping Procedure for [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>]. It is
applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 prefix FEC elements (address families 1
and 2 as per the "Address Family Numbers" registry on the IANA site).
It SHOULD be possible to activate/deactivate this procedure by
configuration, and it SHOULD be deactivated by default. It MAY be
possible to activate it on a per-prefix basis.
With this new Longest-Match Label Mapping Procedure, an LSR receiving
a Label Mapping message from a neighbor LSR for a Prefix Address FEC
Element FEC1 SHOULD use the label for MPLS forwarding if its routing
table contains an entry that matches the FEC Element FEC1 and the
advertising LSR is a next hop to reach FEC1. If so, it SHOULD
advertise the received FEC Element FEC1 and a label to its LDP peers.
By "matching FEC Element", one should understand an IP longest match.
That is, either the LDP FEC element exactly matches an entry in the
IP RIB or the FEC element is a subset of an IP RIB entry. There is
no match for other cases (i.e., if the FEC element is a superset of a
RIB entry, it is not considered a match).
Note that LDP re-advertises to its peers the specific FEC element
FEC1, and not the aggregated prefix found in the IP RIB during the
longest-match search.
Note that with this Longest-Match Label Mapping Procedure, each LSP
established by LDP still strictly follows the shortest path(s)
defined by the IGP.
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
FECs selected by this Longest-Match Label Mapping Procedure are
distributed in an ordered way. In case of LER failure, the removal
of reachability to the FEC occurs using LDP ordered label
distribution mode procedures. As defined in [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>] in section A.1.5,
the FEC will be removed in an ordered way through the propagation of
Label Withdraw messages. The use of this (un)reachability
information by application layers using this MPLS LSP (e.g.,
[<a href="#ref-MP-BGP" title=""Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4"">MP-BGP</a>]) is outside the scope of this document.
As per [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>], LDP already has some interactions with the RIB. In
particular, it needs to be aware of the following events:
- prefix up when a new IP prefix appears in the RIB,
- prefix down when an existing IP prefix disappears,
- next-hop change when an existing IP prefix has a new next hop
following a routing change.
With this Longest-Match Label Mapping Message Procedure, multiple
FECs may be concerned by a single RIB prefix change. The LSR MUST
check all the FECs that are a subset of this RIB prefix. So, some
LDP reactions following a RIB event are changed:
- When a new prefix appears in the RIB, the LSR MUST check if this
prefix is a better match for some existing FECs. For example,
the FEC elements 192.0.2.1/32 and 192.0.2.2/32 used the IP RIB
entry 192.0.2.0/24, and a new more specific IP RIB entry
192.0.2.0/26 appears. This may result in changing the LSR used
as next hop and hence the Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry
(NHLFE) for this FEC.
- When a prefix disappears in the RIB, the LSR MUST check all FEC
elements that are using this RIB prefix as best match. For each
FEC, if another RIB prefix is found as best match, LDP MUST use
it. This may result in changing the LSR used as next hop and
hence the NHLFE for this FEC. Otherwise, the LSR MUST remove
the FEC binding and send a Label Withdraw message.
- When the next hop of a RIB prefix changes, the LSR MUST change
the NHLFE of all the FEC elements using this prefix.
Future work may define new management objects to the MPLS LDP MIB
modules [<a href="#ref-LDP-MIB" title=""Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">LDP-MIB</a>] to activate/deactivate this Longest-Match Label
Mapping Message Procedure, possibly on a per-prefix basis.
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Application Examples</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Inter-Area LSPs</span>
Consider the following example of an autonomous system with one
backbone area and two edge areas:
Area "B"
Level 2 / Backbone area
+--------------------------+
Area "A" | | Area "C"
| |
Level 1 | | Level 1 / area
| P1 |
+----------+ +-------------+
| | P2 | PE1 | 192.0.2.1/32
| | | |
|PE4 ABR2 ABR1 PE2 | 192.0.2.2/32
| | P3 | |
| | | PE3 | 192.0.2.3/32
+----------+ +-------------+
| |
+--------------------------+
Figure 1: An IGP domain with two areas
attached to the Backbone Area.
Note that this applies equally to IS-IS and OSPF. An ABR refers here
either to an OSPF ABR or to an IS-IS L1/L2 node.
All routers are MPLS enabled, and MPLS connectivity (i.e., an LSP) is
required between all PE routers.
In the "egress" area "C", the records available are:
IGP RIB LDP FEC elements:
192.0.2.1/32 192.0.2.1/32
192.0.2.2/32 192.0.2.2/32
192.0.2.3/32 192.0.2.3/32
The area border router ABR1 advertises in the backbone area:
- the aggregated IP prefix 192.0.2.0/26 in the IGP
- all the specific IP FEC elements (/32) in LDP
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
In the "backbone" area "B", the records available are:
IGP RIB LDP FEC elements:
192.0.2.0/26 192.0.2.1/32
192.0.2.2/32
192.0.2.3/32
The area border router ABR2 advertises in the area "A":
- an aggregated IP prefix 192.0.2.0/24 in the IGP
- all the individual IP FEC elements (/32) in LDP
In the "ingress" area "A", the records available are:
IGP RIB LDP FEC elements:
192.0.2.0/24 192.0.2.1/32
192.0.2.2/32
192.0.2.3/32
In this situation, one LSP is established between the ingress PE4 and
every egress PE of area C while maintaining IP prefix aggregation on
the ABRs.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Use of Static Routes</span>
Consider the following example where a LER is dual-connected to two
LSRs:
+--------LSR1----
| |
LER |
| |
+--------LSR2----
Figure 2: LER dual-connected to two LSRs.
In some situations, especially on the edge of the network, it is
valid to use static IP routes between the LER and the two LSRs. If
necessary, the Bidirectional Forwarding Detection protocol [<a href="#ref-BFD" title=""Bidirectional Forwarding Detection"">BFD</a>] can
be used to quickly detect loss of connectivity.
The LDP specification defined in [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>] would require on the ingress
LER the configuration and the maintenance of one IP route per egress
LER and per outgoing interface.
The Longest-Match Label Mapping Procedure described in this document
only requires one IP route per outgoing interface.
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Caveats for Deployment</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Deployment Considerations</span>
LSRs compliant with this document are backward compatible with LSRs
that comply with [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>].
For the successful establishment of end-to-end MPLS LSPs whose FECs
are aggregated in the RIB, this specification must be implemented on
all LSRs in all areas where IP aggregation is used. If an LSR on the
path does not support this procedure, then the LSP initiated on the
egress LSR stops at this non-compliant LSR. There are no other
adverse effects.
This extension can be deployed incrementally:
- It can be deployed on a per-area or per-routing-domain basis and
does not necessarily require an AS-wide deployment. For
example, if all specific IP prefixes are leaked in the IGP
backbone area and only stub areas use IP aggregation, LSRs in
the backbone area don't need to be compliant with this document.
- Within each routing area, LSRs can be upgraded independently, at
any time, in any order, and without service disruption. During
deployment, if those LSPs are already used, one should only make
sure that ABRs keep advertising the specific IP prefixes in the
IGP until all LSRs of this area are successfully upgraded.
Then, the ABRs can advertise the aggregated prefix only and stop
advertising the specific ones.
A service provider currently leaking specific LER loopback addresses
in the IGP and considering performing IP aggregation on ABR should be
aware that this may result in suboptimal routing as discussed in
[<a href="./rfc2966" title=""Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS"">RFC2966</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Routing Convergence Time Considerations</span>
IP and MPLS traffic restoration time is based on two factors: the
Shortest Path First (SPF) calculation in the control plane and
Forwarding Information Base (FIB) / Label FIB (LFIB) update time in
the forwarding plane. The SPF calculation scales O(N*Log(N)) where N
is the number of Nodes. The FIB/LFIB update scales O(P) where P is
the number of modified prefixes. Currently, with most routers
implementations, the FIB/LFIB update is the dominant component
[<a href="#ref-IGP-CONV" title=""Achieving sub-second IGP convergence in large IP networks"">IGP-CONV</a>], and therefore the bottleneck that should be addressed in
priority. The solution documented in this document reduces the link
state database size in the control plane and the number of FIB
entries in the forwarding plane. As such, it solves the scaling of
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
pure IP routers sharing the IGP with MPLS routers. However, it does
not decrease the number of LFIB entries so is not sufficient to solve
the scaling of MPLS routers. For this, an additional mechanism is
required (e.g., introducing some MPLS hierarchy in LDP). This is out
of scope for this document.
Compared to [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>], for all failures except LER failure (i.e., links,
provider routers, and ABRs), the failure notification and the
convergence is unchanged. For LER failure, given that the IGP
aggregates IP routes on ABRs and no longer advertises specific
prefixes, the control plane and more specifically the routing
convergence behavior of protocols (e.g., [<a href="#ref-MP-BGP" title=""Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4"">MP-BGP</a>]) or applications
(e.g., [<a href="#ref-L3-VPN" title=""BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)"">L3-VPN</a>]) may be changed in case of failure of the egress LER
node. For protocols and applications which need to track egress LER
availability, several solutions can be used, for example:
- Rely on the LDP ordered label distribution control mode -- as
defined in [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>] -- to know the availability of the LSP toward the
egress LER. The egress to ingress propagation time of that
unreachability information is expected to be comparable to the IGP
(but this may be implementation dependent).
- Advertise LER reachability in the IGP for the purpose of the
control plane in a way that does not create IP FIB entries in the
forwarding plane.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The Longest-Match Label Mapping procedure described in this
document does not introduce any change as far as the Security
Considerations section of [<a href="#ref-LDP" title=""LDP Specification"">LDP</a>] is concerned.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-LDP">LDP</a>] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", <a href="./rfc5036">RFC 5036</a>, October 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-L3-VPN">L3-VPN</a>] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", <a href="./rfc4364">RFC 4364</a>, February 2006.
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
[<a id="ref-MP-BGP">MP-BGP</a>] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", <a href="./rfc4760">RFC 4760</a>, January
2007.
[<a id="ref-MPLS-BGP">MPLS-BGP</a>] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information
in BGP-4", <a href="./rfc3107">RFC 3107</a>, May 2001.
[<a id="ref-IS-IS">IS-IS</a>] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", <a href="./rfc1195">RFC 1195</a>, December 1990.
[<a id="ref-VPLS-BGP">VPLS-BGP</a>] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual
Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery
and Signaling", <a href="./rfc4761">RFC 4761</a>, January 2007.
[<a id="ref-VPLS-LDP">VPLS-LDP</a>] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual
Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP) Signaling", <a href="./rfc4762">RFC 4762</a>, January 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC2966">RFC2966</a>] Li, T., Przygienda, T., and H. Smit, "Domain-wide
Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", <a href="./rfc2966">RFC 2966</a>,
October 2000.
[<a id="ref-RSVP-TE">RSVP-TE</a>] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur,
"Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering --
Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", <a href="./rfc5151">RFC 5151</a>, February 2008.
[<a id="ref-LDP-MIB">LDP-MIB</a>] Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and J. Luciani,
"Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP)", <a href="./rfc3815">RFC 3815</a>, June 2004.
[<a id="ref-BFD">BFD</a>] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
Detection", Work in Progress, March 2008.
[<a id="ref-IGP-CONV">IGP-CONV</a>] Francois, P., Filsfils, C., and Evans, J., "Achieving
sub-second IGP convergence in large IP networks". ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review, July 2005.
[<a id="ref-OSPFv2">OSPFv2</a>] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, <a href="./rfc2328">RFC 2328</a>, April
1998.
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter, Stefano Previdi, Vach
Kompella, Bob Thomas, Clarence Filsfils, Kireeti Kompella, Luca
Martini, Sina Mirtorabi, Dave McDysan, Benoit Fondeviole, Gilles
Bourdon, and Christian Jacquenet for the useful discussions on this
subject, their reviews, and comments.
Authors' Addresses
Bruno Decraene
France Telecom
38 rue du General Leclerc
92794 Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
France
EMail: bruno.decraene@orange-ftgroup.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
France
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
Ina Minei
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
EMail: ina@juniper.net
<span class="grey">Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5283">RFC 5283</a> LDP Extension for Inter-Area LSPs July 2008</span>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a>, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp79">BCP 79</a>.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Decraene, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
</pre>
|
