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
|
<pre>Network Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5330 Cisco Systems, Inc
Category: Standards Track M. Meyer
BT
K. Kumaki
KDDI R&D Labs
A. Bonda
Telecom Italia
October 2008
<span class="h1">A Link-Type sub-TLV to Convey the Number of</span>
<span class="h1">Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Signalled with</span>
<span class="h1">Zero Reserved Bandwidth across a Link</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
Several Link-type sub-Type-Length-Values (sub-TLVs) have been defined
for Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) in the context of Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE), in order to advertise some
link characteristics such as the available bandwidth, traffic
engineering metric, administrative group, and so on. By making
statistical assumptions about the aggregated traffic carried onto a
set of TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) signalled with zero bandwidth
(referred to as "unconstrained TE LSP" in this document), algorithms
can be designed to load balance (existing or newly configured)
unconstrained TE LSP across a set of equal cost paths. This requires
knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across a
link. This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic Engineering
sub-TLV used to advertise the number of unconstrained TE LSPs
signalled across a link.
<span class="grey">Vasseur, 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="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a> Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP October 2008</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology .....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Requirements Language ......................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Protocol Extensions .............................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. IS-IS ......................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. OSPF .......................................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Elements of Procedure ...........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations .............................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Acknowledgements ................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. Informative References .....................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
It is not uncommon to deploy MPLS Traffic Engineering for the sake of
fast recovery, relying on a local protection recovery mechanism such
as MPLS TE Fast Reroute (see [<a href="./rfc4090" title=""Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels"">RFC4090</a>]). In this case, a deployment
model consists of deploying a full mesh of TE LSPs signalled with
zero bandwidth (also referred to as unconstrained TE LSP in this
document) between a set of LSRs (Label Switching Routers) and
protecting these TE LSPs against link, SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group),
and/or node failures with pre-established backup tunnels. The
traffic routed onto such unconstrained TE LSPs simply follows the IGP
shortest path, but is protected with MPLS TE Fast Reroute. This is
because the TE LSP computed by the path computation algorithm (e.g.,
CSPF) will be no different than the IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol)
shortest path should the TE metric be equal to the IGP metric.
When a reoptimization process is triggered for an existing TE LSP,
the decision on whether to reroute that TE LSP onto a different path
is governed by the discovery of a lower cost path satisfying the
constraints (other metrics, such as the percentage of reserved
bandwidth or the number of hops, can also be used). Unfortunately,
metrics such as the path cost or the number of hops may be
ineffective in various circumstances. For example, in the case of a
symmetrical network with ECMPs (Equal Cost Multi-Paths), if the
network operator uses unconstrained TE LSP, this may lead to a poorly
load balanced traffic; indeed, several paths between a source and a
destination of a TE LSP may exist that have the same cost, and the
reservable amount of bandwidth along each path cannot be used as a
tie-breaker.
<span class="grey">Vasseur, 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="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a> Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP October 2008</span>
By making statistical assumptions about the aggregated traffic
carried by a set of unconstrained TE LSPs, algorithms can be designed
to load balance (existing or newly configured) unconstrained TE LSPs
across a set of equal cost paths. This requires knowledge of the
number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across each link.
Note that the specification of load balancing algorithms is
outside the scope of this document and is referred to for the sake
of illustration of the motivation for gathering such information.
Furthermore, the knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs
signalled across each link can be used for other purposes -- for
example, to evaluate the number of affected unconstrained TE LSPs in
case of a link failure.
A set of Link-type sub-TLVs have been defined for OSPF and IS-IS (see
[<a href="./rfc3630" title=""Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"">RFC3630</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>]) in the context of MPLS Traffic Engineering
in order to advertise various link characteristics such as the
available bandwidth, traffic engineering metric, administrative
group, and so on. As currently defined in [<a href="./rfc3630" title=""Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"">RFC3630</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>],
the information related to the number of unconstrained TE LSPs is not
available. This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic
Engineering sub-TLV used to indicate the number of unconstrained TE
LSPs signalled across a link.
Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and provisioned through a
management system MAY be omitted from the count that is reported.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
Terminology used in this document:
CSPF: Constrained Shortest Path First
IGP : Interior Gateway Protocol
LSA: Link State Advertisement
LSP: Link State Packet
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
LSR: Label Switching Router
SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
<span class="grey">Vasseur, 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="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a> Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP October 2008</span>
Unconstrained TE LSP: A TE LSP signalled with a bandwidth equal to 0
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Requirements Language</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">RFC 2119</a> [<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>. Protocol Extensions</span>
Two Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLVs are defined that specify the
number of TE LSPs signalled with zero bandwidth across a link.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. IS-IS</span>
The IS-IS Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
appear more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV (type
22) specified in [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>] or the Multi-Topology (MT) Intermediate
Systems TLV (type 222) specified in [<a href="./rfc5120" title=""M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)"">RFC5120</a>]. If a second instance
of the Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV is present, the receiving
system MUST only process the first instance of the sub-TLV.
The IS-IS Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV format is defined below:
Type (1 octet): 23
Length (1 octet): 2
Value (2 octets): number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across
the link.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. OSPF</span>
The OSPF Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
appear more than once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
carried within either the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in
[<a href="./rfc3630" title=""Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"">RFC3630</a>] or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined
in [<a href="./rfc5329" title=""Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3"">RFC5329</a>]. If a second instance of the Unconstrained TE LSP Count
sub-TLV is present, the receiving system MUST only process the first
instance of the sub-TLV.
<span class="grey">Vasseur, 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="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a> Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP October 2008</span>
The OSPF Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV format is defined below:
Type (2 octets): 23
Length (2 octets): 4
Value (4 octets): number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across
the link.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Elements of Procedure</span>
The absence of the Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV SHOULD be
interpreted as an absence of information about the link.
Similar to other MPLS Traffic Engineering link characteristics,
LSA/LSP origination trigger mechanisms are outside the scope of this
document. Care must be given to not trigger the systematic flooding
of a new IS-IS LSP or OSPF LSA with a too high granularity in case of
change in the number of unconstrained TE LSPs.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA has defined a sub-registry for the sub-TLVs carried in the IS-IS
TLV 22 and has assigned a new TLV codepoint for the Unconstrained TE
LSP Count sub-TLV carried within the TLV 22.
Value TLV Name Reference
23 Unconstrained TE LSP Count (sub-)TLV <a href="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a>
IANA has defined a sub-registry for the sub-TLVs carried in an OSPF
TE Link TLV (type 2) and has assigned a new sub-TLV codepoint for the
Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV carried within the TE Link TLV.
Value TLV Name Reference
23 Unconstrained TE LSP Count (sub-)TLV <a href="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The function described in this document does not create any new
security issues for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols. Security
considerations are covered in [<a href="./rfc2328" title=""OSPF Version 2"">RFC2328</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5340" title=""OSPF for IPv6"">RFC5340</a>] for the base
OSPF protocol and in [<a href="./rfc1195" title=""Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments"">RFC1195</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5304" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication"">RFC5304</a>] for IS-IS.
A security framework for MPLS and Generalized MPLS can be found in
[G/MPLS].
<span class="grey">Vasseur, 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="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a> Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP October 2008</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Acknowledgements</span>
The authors would like to thank Jean-Louis Le Roux, Adrian Farrel,
Daniel King, Acee Lindem, Lou Berger, Attila Takacs, Pasi Eronen,
Russ Housley, Tim Polk, and Loa Anderson for their useful inputs.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1195">RFC1195</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-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.
[<a id="ref-RFC2328">RFC2328</a>] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, <a href="./rfc2328">RFC 2328</a>, April 1998.
[<a id="ref-RFC3630">RFC3630</a>] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", <a href="./rfc3630">RFC 3630</a>, September
2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC5304">RFC5304</a>] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication",
<a href="./rfc5304">RFC 5304</a>, October 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5305">RFC5305</a>] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", <a href="./rfc5305">RFC 5305</a>, October 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5329">RFC5329</a>] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", <a href="./rfc5329">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc5329">5329</a>, September 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC5340">RFC5340</a>] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", <a href="./rfc5340">RFC 5340</a>, July 2008.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2" href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[G/MPLS] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", Work In Progress, July 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC4090">RFC4090</a>] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", <a href="./rfc4090">RFC 4090</a>,
May 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC5120">RFC5120</a>] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", <a href="./rfc5120">RFC 5120</a>, February 2008.
<span class="grey">Vasseur, 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="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a> Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP October 2008</span>
Authors' Addresses
JP Vasseur (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Matthew R. Meyer
BT
Boston, MA
USA
EMail: matthew.meyer@bt.com
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino
Saitama 356-8502, JAPAN
EMail: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Alberto Tempia Bonda
Telecom Italia
via G. Reiss Romoli 274
Torino, 10148
ITALIA
EMail: alberto.tempiabonda@telecomitalia.it
<span class="grey">Vasseur, 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="./rfc5330">RFC 5330</a> Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP October 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.
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
</pre>
|
