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
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Jin, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6723 ZTE
Updates: <a href="./rfc4447">4447</a>, <a href="./rfc6073">6073</a> R. Key, Ed.
Category: Standards Track Huawei
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Delord
Alcatel-Lucent
T. Nadeau
Juniper
S. Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
September 2012
<span class="h1">Update of the Pseudowire Control-Word Negotiation Mechanism</span>
Abstract
The control-word negotiation mechanism specified in <a href="./rfc4447">RFC 4447</a> has a
problem when a PE (Provider Edge) changes the preference for the use
of the control word from NOT PREFERRED to PREFERRED. This document
updates <a href="./rfc4447">RFC 4447</a> and <a href="./rfc6073">RFC 6073</a> by adding the Label Request message to
resolve this control-word negotiation issue for single-segment and
multi-segment pseudowires.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6723">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6723</a>.
<span class="grey">Jin, 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="./rfc6723">RFC 6723</a> Update of PW C-Bit Negotiation September 2012</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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
<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-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Control-Word Renegotiation by Label Request Message . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Control-Word Renegotiation for Multi-Segment PW . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Control-Word Renegotiation Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Updated Diagram of C-Bit Handling Procedures . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The control-word negotiation mechanism specified in <a href="./rfc4447#section-6.2">[RFC4447],
Section 6.2</a>, encounters a problem when a PE changes the preference
for the use of the control word from NOT PREFERRED to PREFERRED.
[<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>] specifies that if both endpoints prefer the use of the
control word, then the pseudowire control word should be used.
However, in the case where a PE changes its preference from NOT
PREFERRED to PREFERRED and both ends of the PW (pseudowire) PE have
the use of control word set as PREFERRED, an incorrect negotiated
result of the control word as "not used" occurs. This document
updates the control-word negotiation mechanism in [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>] by adding
a Label Request message to resolve this negotiation issue for single-
segment PW. Multi-segment PW in [<a href="./rfc6073" title=""Segmented Pseudowire"">RFC6073</a>] inherits the control-word
negotiation mechanism in [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>], and this document updates
[<a href="./rfc6073" title=""Segmented Pseudowire"">RFC6073</a>] by adding the processing of Label Request message on the
<span class="grey">Jin, 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="./rfc6723">RFC 6723</a> Update of PW C-Bit Negotiation September 2012</span>
S-PE (Switching Provider Edge). When the PE changes the preference
for the use of control word from PREFERRED to NOT PREFERRED, it
should follow [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>], and there is no problem.
<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>. Problem Statement</span>
<a href="./rfc4447#section-6">[RFC4447], Section 6</a>, describes the control-word negotiation
mechanism. Each PW endpoint has a configurable parameter that
specifies whether the use of the control word is PREFERRED or NOT
PREFERRED. During control-word negotiation, if one PE advertises a C
bit set to 0 in the Label Mapping message with its locally configured
use of control word as PREFERRED, and a corresponding peer PE changes
its use of control word from NOT PREFERRED to PREFERRED, this causes
an incorrect negotiated control-word result of "not used".
The following case will describe the negotiation problem in detail:
+-------+ +-------+
| | PW | |
| PE1 |====================| PE2 |
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+
Figure 1
1. Initially, the use of control word on PE1 is configured as
PREFERRED, and on PE2 as NOT PREFERRED.
2. The negotiation result for the control word of this PW is not
used, and ultimately PE1 sends the Label Mapping message with C
bit set to 0 according to <a href="./rfc4447#section-6.2">[RFC4447], Section 6.2</a>.
3. PE2 then changes its use of control-word configuration from NOT
PREFERRED to PREFERRED, by deleting PW configuration with NOT
PREFERRED use of control word, and configuring the PW again with
PREFERRED use of control word.
4. PE2 will then send the Label Withdraw message to PE1, and
correspondingly will receive the Label Release message from PE1.
<span class="grey">Jin, 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="./rfc6723">RFC 6723</a> Update of PW C-Bit Negotiation September 2012</span>
5. According to the control-word negotiation mechanism, the
previously received Label Mapping message on PE2 from PE1 carries
the C bit set to 0; therefore, PE2 will still send the Label
Mapping message with the C bit set to 0.
The negotiation result for the control word is still not used, even
though the use of control-word configuration on both PE1 and PE2 are
PREFERRED.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Control-Word Renegotiation by Label Request Message</span>
The control-word negotiation mechanism in <a href="./rfc4447#section-6">[RFC4447], Section 6</a>, is
updated to add the Label Request message described in this section.
The renegotiation process begins when the local PE has received the
remote Label Mapping message with the C bit set to 0, and at the
point its use of control word is changed from NOT PREFERRED to
PREFERRED. The following additional procedure will be carried out:
i. The local PE MUST send a Label Release message to remote PE.
If local PE has previously sent a Label Mapping message, it
MUST send a Label Withdraw message to remote PE and wait until
it has received a Label Release message from the remote PE.
Note: the above-mentioned sending of the Label Release message
and Label Withdraw message does not require a specific
sequence.
ii. The local PE MUST send a Label Request message to the peer PE,
and then MUST wait until it receives a Label Mapping message
containing the peer's current configured preference for use of
control word.
iii. After receiving the remote peer PE Label Mapping message with
the C bit, the local PE MUST follow the procedures defined in
<a href="./rfc4447#section-6">[RFC4447], Section 6</a>, when sending its Label Mapping message.
The remote PE will follow [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>], and once the remote PE has
successfully processed the Label Withdraw message and Label Release
message, it will reset its use of control word with the locally
configured preference. Then, the remote PE will send a Label Mapping
message with locally configured preference for use of control word as
a response to Label Request message as specified in [<a href="./rfc5036" title=""LDP Specification"">RFC5036</a>].
Note: for the local PE, before processing new request to change the
configuration, the above message-exchanging process should be
finished. The FEC (Forwarding Equivalence Class) element in the
Label Request message should be the PE's local PW FEC element. As a
response to the Label Request message, the peer PE should send a
<span class="grey">Jin, 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="./rfc6723">RFC 6723</a> Update of PW C-Bit Negotiation September 2012</span>
Label Mapping message with its own local PW FEC element. The Label
Request message format and procedure is described in [<a href="./rfc5036" title=""LDP Specification"">RFC5036</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Control-Word Renegotiation for Multi-Segment PW</span>
The multi-segment PW case for a T-PE (Terminating Provider Edge)
operates similarly as the PE in single-segment PW described in the
above section. An initial passive role is defined in [<a href="./rfc6073" title=""Segmented Pseudowire"">RFC6073</a>] for
the S-PE when processing of the Label Mapping message. [<a href="./rfc6073" title=""Segmented Pseudowire"">RFC6073</a>] is
updated by applying this passive role to the processing of Label
Request message. When an S-PE receives a Label Request message from
one of its adjacent PEs (which may be an S-PE or another T-PE), it
MUST send a matching Label Request message to other adjacent PE
(again, it may be an S-PE or a T-PE). This is necessary since an
S-PE does not have complete information of the interface parameter
field in the FEC advertisement. When the S-PE receives a Label
Release message from remote PE, it MUST send a corresponding Label
Release message to the other remote PE when it holds a label for the
PW from the remote PE.
Note: because the local T-PE will send a Label Withdraw message
before sending a Label Request message to the remote peer, the S-PE
MUST process the Label Withdraw message before the Label Request
message. When the S-PE receives the Label Withdraw message, it
should process this message to send a Label Release message as a
response and a Label Withdraw message to an upstream S-PE/T-PE. The
S-PE will then process the next LDP message, e.g. the Label Request
message.
When the local PE changes the use of control word from PREFERRED to
NOT PREFERRED, the local PE would then renegotiate the control word
so that it is not used by deleting the PW configuration with
PREFERRED use of control word, and configuring the PW again with NOT
PREFERRED use of control word. All of these procedures have been
defined in <a href="./rfc4447#section-5.4.1">[RFC4447], Section 5.4.1</a>.
The diagram in <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a> of this document updates the control-word
negotiation diagram in <a href="./rfc4447#appendix-A">[RFC4447] Appendix A</a>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Control-Word Renegotiation Use Case</span>
The procedure of PE1 and PE2 for the use case in Figure 1 will become
as follows:
1. PE2 changes locally configured preference for use of control word
to PREFERRED.
<span class="grey">Jin, 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="./rfc6723">RFC 6723</a> Update of PW C-Bit Negotiation September 2012</span>
2. PE2 will then send the Release messages to PE1. PE2 will also
send the Label Withdraw message, and wait until it has received
the Label Release message from PE1.
3. PE1 will send the Label Release message in response to the Label
Withdraw message from PE2. After processing the Label Release
from PE2, PE1 will then reset the use of control word to the
locally configured preference as PREFERRED.
4. Upon receipt of the Label Release message from PE1, PE2 will send
the Label Request message to PE1, and proceed to wait until a
Label Mapping message is received.
5. PE1 will send a Label Mapping message with the C bit set to 1
again to PE2 in response to the Label Request message.
6. PE2 receives the Label Mapping message from PE1 and gets the
remote label binding information. PE2 will wait for the PE1
Label Mapping message before sending its Label Mapping message
with the C bit set.
7. PE2 will send the Label Mapping to PE1 with C bit set to 1, and
follow procedures defined in <a href="./rfc4447#section-6">[RFC4447], Section 6</a>.
While it is assumed that PE1 is configured to prefer the use of the
control word, in step 5, if PE1 doesn't prefer or support the control
word, PE1 would then send the Label Mapping message with the C bit
set to 0. As a result, PE2 in step 7 would send a Label Mapping
message with the C bit set 0 as per <a href="./rfc4447#section-6">[RFC4447], Section 6</a>.
By sending a Label Request message, PE2 will get the locally
configured preference for use of control word of peer PE1 in the
received Label Mapping message. By using the new C bit from the
Label Mapping message received from peer PE1 and the locally
configured preference for use of control word, PE2 should determine
the use of PW control word according to <a href="./rfc4447#section-6">[RFC4447], Section 6</a>.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Backward Compatibility</span>
Since control-word negotiation mechanism is updated by adding the
Label Request message, and still follows the basic procedure
described in <a href="./rfc4447#section-6">[RFC4447], Section 6</a>, this document is fully compatible
with existing implementations. For single-segment pseudowire, the
remote PE (PE1 in Figure 1) which already implements [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>], and
the Label Request message as defined in [<a href="./rfc5036" title=""LDP Specification"">RFC5036</a>] could be compatible
with the PE (PE2 in Figure 1) following the mechanism of this
<span class="grey">Jin, 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="./rfc6723">RFC 6723</a> Update of PW C-Bit Negotiation September 2012</span>
document. For the multi-segment pseudowire, the T-PE is the same as
PE in single-segment pseudowire; the S-PE should be upgraded with the
mechanism defined in this document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span>
The security considerations specified in [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>] and [<a href="./rfc6073" title=""Segmented Pseudowire"">RFC6073</a>] also
apply to this document, and this document does not introduce any
additional security constraints.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Acknowledgements</span>
The authors would like to thank Stewart Bryant, Andrew Malis, Nick
Del Regno, Luca Martini, Venkatesan Mahalingam, Alexander Vainshtein,
Adrian Farrel, and Spike Curtis for their discussion and comments.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Contributors</span>
Vishwas Manral
Hewlett-Packard Co.
19111 Pruneridge Ave., Bldg. 44
Cupertino, CA 95014-0691
US
EMail: vishwas.manral@hp.com
Reshad Rahman
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 3E8
CANADA
EMail: rrahman@cisco.com
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Normative References</span>
[<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-RFC4447">RFC4447</a>] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", <a href="./rfc4447">RFC 4447</a>, April 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC5036">RFC5036</a>] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", <a href="./rfc5036">RFC 5036</a>, October 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC6073">RFC6073</a>] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", <a href="./rfc6073">RFC 6073</a>, January 2011.
<span class="grey">Jin, 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="./rfc6723">RFC 6723</a> Update of PW C-Bit Negotiation September 2012</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Updated Diagram of C-Bit Handling Procedures</span>
-----------------------------------
| |
| ------------------
| Y | Received Label | N
| -------| Mapping msg? |--------------
| | ------------------ |
| -------------- |
| | | |
| ------- ------- |
| | C=0 | | C=1 | |
| ------- ------- |
| | | |
| | ---------------- |
| | | Control Word | N |
| | | Capable? |----------- |
| | ---------------- | |
| | Y | | |
| | | | |
| | ---------------- | |
| | | Control Word | N | |
| | | Preferred? |---- | |
| | ---------------- | | |
| | Y | | | |
| --------------------- | | | |
| |Control Word change| | | | ----------------
| |from NOT PREFERRED | | | | | Control Word |
| | to PREFERRED? | | | | | Preferred? |
| --------------------- | | | ----------------
| Y | | N | | | N | Y |
| | Delete, and | | | | |
| | configure Send Send Send Send Send
| | new PW again C=1 C=0 C=0 C=0 C=1
| | | | | |
| ---------------------------- ----------------------------------
| |Send Label Release msg, | | If receive the same as sent, |
| |send Label Withdraw msg if| | PW setup is complete. If not: |
| |has sent Label Mapping msg| ----------------------------------
| ---------------------------- | | | |
| | ------------------- -----------
| ------------------- | Receive | | Receive |
| | Receive Label | | C=1 | | C=0 |
| | Release message | ------------------- -----------
| ------------------- | |
<span class="grey">Jin, 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="./rfc6723">RFC 6723</a> Update of PW C-Bit Negotiation September 2012</span>
| | Wait for the Send
| ------------------- next message Wrong C-bit
| | Send Label | |
| | Request message | Send Label
| ------------------- Mapping message
| |
-------------
Authors' Addresses
Lizhong Jin (editor)
ZTE Corporation
889, Bibo Road
Shanghai, 201203, China
EMail: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn
Raymond Key (editor)
Huawei
EMail: raymond.key@ieee.org
Simon Delord
Alcatel-Lucent
EMail: simon.delord@gmail.com
Thomas Nadeau
Juniper
EMail: tnadeau@juniper.net
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way
San Jose, California 95134, USA
EMail: sboutros@cisco.com
Jin, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
</pre>
|
