path: root/doc/rfc/rfc3480.txt

Network Working Group                                        K. Kompella
Request for Comments: 3480                                    Y. Rekhter
Category: Standards Track                               Juniper Networks
                                                             A. Kullberg
                                                        NetPlane Systems
                                                           February 2003


                 Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP
            (Constraint-Routing Label Distribution Protocol)

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.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic
   Engineering (MPLS TE) does not provide support for unnumbered links.
   This document defines procedures and extensions to Constraint-Routing
   Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP), one of the MPLS TE signalling
   protocols that are needed in order to support unnumbered links.

Specification of Requirements

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

1. Overview

   Supporting MPLS TE over unnumbered links (i.e., links that do not
   have IP addresses) involves two components: (a) the ability to carry
   (TE) information about unnumbered links in IGP TE extensions (ISIS or
   OSPF), and (b) the ability to specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE
   signalling.  The former is covered in [GMPLS-ISIS, GMPLS-OSPF].  The
   focus of this document is on the latter.





Kompella, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 3480         Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP     February 2003


   Current signalling used by MPLS TE does not provide support for
   unnumbered links because the current signalling does not provide a
   way to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route Objects.
   This document proposes simple procedures and extensions that allow
   CR-LDP signalling [CR-LDP] to be used with unnumbered links.

2. Link Identifiers

   An unnumbered link has to be a point-to-point link.  An LSR at each
   end of an unnumbered link assigns an identifier to that link.  This
   identifier is a non-zero 32-bit number that is unique within the
   scope of the LSR that assigns it.  If one is using OSPF or ISIS as
   the IGP in support of traffic engineering, then the IS-IS and/or OSPF
   and CR-LDP modules on an LSR must agree on the identifiers.

   There is no a priori relationship between the identifiers assigned to
   a link by the LSRs at each end of that link.

   LSRs at the two end points of an unnumbered link exchange with each
   other the identifiers they assign to the link.  Exchanging the
   identifiers may be accomplished by configuration, by means of a
   protocol such as LMP ([LMP]), by means of CR-LDP (especially in the
   case where a link is a Forwarding Adjacency, see below), or by means
   of IS-IS or OSPF extensions ([ISIS-GMPLS], [OSPF-GMPLS]).

   Consider an (unnumbered) link between LSRs A and B.  LSR A chooses an
   identifier for that link.  So does LSR B.  From A's perspective, we
   refer to the identifier that A assigned to the link as the "link
   local identifier" (or just "local identifier"), and to the identifier
   that B assigned to the link as the "link remote identifier" (or just
   "remote identifier").  Likewise, from B's perspective, the identifier
   that B assigned to the link is the local identifier, and the
   identifier that A assigned to the link is the remote identifier.

   In the context of this document, the term "Router ID" means a stable
   IP address of an LSR that is always reachable if there is any
   connectivity to the LSR.  This is typically implemented as a
   "loopback address"; the key attribute is that the address does not
   become unusable if an interface on the LSR is down.  In some cases,
   this value will need to be configured.  If one is using OSPF or ISIS
   as the IGP in support of traffic engineering, then it is RECOMMENDED
   for the Router ID to be set to the "Router Address" as defined in
   [OSPF-TE], or "Traffic Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-
   TE].

   This section is equally applicable to the case of unnumbered
   component links (see [LINK-BUNDLE]).




Kompella, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 3480         Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP     February 2003


3. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies

   If an LSR that originates an LSP advertises this LSP as an unnumbered
   Forwarding Adjacency in IS-IS or OSPF (see [LSP-HIER]), or the LSR
   uses the Forwarding Adjacency formed by this LSP as an unnumbered
   component link of a bundled link (see [LINK-BUNDLE]), the LSR MUST
   allocate an identifier to that Forwarding Adjacency (just like for
   any other unnumbered link).  Moreover, the REQUEST message used for
   establishing the LSP that forms the Forwarding Adjacency MUST contain
   an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV (described below), with the LSR's
   Router ID set to the head end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set
   to the identifier that the LSR allocated to the Forwarding Adjacency.

   If the REQUEST message contains the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, then
   the tail-end LSR MUST allocate an identifier to that Forwarding
   Adjacency (just like for any other unnumbered link).  Furthermore,
   the MAPPING message for the LSP MUST contain an
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV, with the LSR's Router ID set to the
   tail-end's Router ID, and the Interface ID set to the identifier
   allocated by the tail-end LSR.

   For the purpose of processing the Explicit Route TLV and the
   Interface ID TLV, an unnumbered Forwarding Adjacency is treated as an
   unnumbered (TE) link or an unnumbered component link as follows.  The
   LSR that originates the Adjacency sets the link local identifier for
   that link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding
   Adjacency, and the link remote identifier to the value carried in the
   Interface ID field of the Reverse Interface ID TLV (for the
   definition of Reverse Interface ID TLV see below).  The LSR that is a
   tail-end of that Forwarding Adjacency sets the link local identifier
   for that link to the value that the LSR allocates to that Forwarding
   Adjacency, and the link remote identifier to the value carried in the
   Interface ID field of the Forward Interface ID TLV (for the
   definition of Forward Interface ID see below).

















Kompella, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 3480         Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP     February 2003


3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV

   The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE ID TLV has Type 0x0836 and length 8.  The
   format is given below.

   Figure 1: LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLV

    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             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        LSR's Router ID                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Interface ID (32 bits)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This TLV can optionally appear in either a REQUEST message or a
   MAPPING message.  In the former case, we call it the "Forward
   Interface ID" for that LSP; in the latter case, we call it the
   "Reverse Interface ID" for the LSP.

4. Signalling Unnumbered Links in Explicit Route TLV

   A new Type of ER-Hop TLV of the Explicit Route TLV is used to specify
   unnumbered links.  This Type is called Unnumbered Interface ID, and
   has the following format:

   The Type is 0x0837, and the Length is 12.  The L bit is set to
   indicate a loose hop, and cleared to indicate a strict hop.

   The Interface ID is the identifier assigned to the link by the LSR
   specified by the router ID.

   Figure 2: Unnumbered Interface ID

    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 = 12        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |L|                         Reserved                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Router ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Interface ID (32 bits)                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Kompella, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 3480         Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP     February 2003


4.1. Processing the IF_ID TLV

   When an LSR receives a REQUEST message containing the IF_ID
   (Interface ID) TLV (see [GMPLS-CRLDP]) with the IF_INDEX TLV, the LSR
   processes this TLV as follows.  The LSR must have information about
   the identifiers assigned by its neighbors to the unnumbered links
   between the neighbors and the LSR.  The LSR uses this information to
   find a link with tuple <Router ID, local identifier> matching the
   tuple <IP Address, Interface ID> carried in the IF_INDEX TLV.  If the
   matching tuple is found, the match identifies the link for which the
   LSR has to perform label allocation.

   Otherwise, the LSR SHOULD return an error.

4.2. Processing the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop TLV

   The Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop is defined to be a part of a
   particular abstract node if that node has the Router ID that is equal
   to the Router ID field in the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop, and if
   the node has an (unnumbered) link or an (unnumbered) Forwarding
   Adjacency whose local identifier (from that node's point of view) is
   equal to the value carried in the Interface ID field of the
   Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop.

   With this in mind, the Explicit Route TLV processing in the presence
   of the Unnumbered Interface ID ER-Hop follows the rules specified in
   section 4.8.1 of [CR-LDP].

   As part of the Explicit Route TLV processing, or to be more precise,
   as part of the next hop selection, if the outgoing link is
   unnumbered, the REQUEST message that the node sends to the next hop
   MUST include the IF_ID TLV, with the IP address field of that TLV set
   to the Router ID of the node, and the Interface ID field of that TLV
   set to the identifier assigned to the link by the node.

5. IANA Considerations

   RFC 3036 [LDP] defines the LDP TLV name space.  RFC 3212 [CD-LDP]
   further subdivides the range of that TLV space for TLVs associated
   with the CR-LDP in the range 0x0800 - 0x08FF, and defines the rules
   for the assignment of TLVs within that range using the terminology of
   BCP 26, RFC 2434, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations
   Section in RFCs".  Those rules apply to the assignment of TLV Types
   for the Unnumbered Interface ID and LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID TLVs
   defined in this document.






Kompella, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 3480         Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP     February 2003


6. Security Considerations

   This document extends CR-LDP and raises no new security issues.  CR-
   LDP inherits the same security mechanism described in Section 4.0 of
   [LDP] to protect against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments
   into LDP session connection streams.

7. Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal for his comments on the text.  Thanks also
   to Bora Akyol, Vach Kompella, and George Swallow.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [CR-LDP]      Jamoussi, B., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R., Wu,
                 L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.,
                 Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T. and A.
                 Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC
                 3212, January 2002.

   [GMPLS-SIG]   Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
                 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
                 January 2003.

   [GMPLS-CRLDP] Ashwood, P., Ed. and L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-
                 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-
                 based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP)
                 Extensions", RFC 3472 January 2003.

   [LDP]         Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A.
                 and B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January
                 2001

   [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2. Informative References

   [LINK-BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link
                 Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Work in
                 Progress.

   [LSP-HIER]    Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS
                 TE", Work in Progress.





Kompella, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 3480         Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP     February 2003


   [LMP]         Lang, J., Mitra, K., et al., "Link Management Protocol
                 (LMP)", Work in Progress.

   [GMPLS-ISIS]  Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "IS-IS
                 Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", Work in
                 Progress.

   [GMPLS-OSPF]  Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "OSPF
                 Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", Work in
                 Progress.

   [OSPF-TE]     Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
                 Extensions to OSPF Version 2", Work in Progress.

   [ISIS-TE]     Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
                 Engineering", Work in Progress.

9. Authors' Addresses

   Kireeti Kompella
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   EMail: kireeti@juniper.net

   Yakov Rekhter
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089

   EMail: yakov@juniper.net

   Alan Kullberg
   NetPlane Systems, Inc.
   Westwood Executive Center
   200 Lowder Brook Drive
   Westwood, MA  02090

   EMail: akullber@netplane.com











Kompella, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 3480         Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP     February 2003


10.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Kompella, et al.            Standards Track                     [Page 8]
^L