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
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Raza
Request for Comments: 7358 S. Boutros
Updates: 3212, 4447, 5036, 5918, 6388, 7140 L. Martini
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 N. Leymann
Deutsche Telekom
October 2014
Label Advertisement Discipline
for LDP Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs)
Abstract
The label advertising behavior of an LDP speaker for a given
Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) is governed by the FEC type and
not necessarily by the LDP session's negotiated label advertisement
mode. This document updates RFC 5036 to make that fact clear. It
also updates RFCs 3212, 4447, 5918, 6388, and 7140 by specifying the
label advertisement mode for all currently defined LDP FEC types.
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 Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7358.
Raza, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7358 Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs October 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Label Advertisement Discipline ..................................3
2.1. Update to RFC 5036 .........................................3
2.2. Specification for LDP FECs .................................4
3. Security Considerations .........................................4
4. IANA Considerations .............................................4
5. References ......................................................6
5.1. Normative References .......................................6
5.2. Informative References .....................................7
Acknowledgments ....................................................8
Authors' Addresses .................................................8
1. Introduction
The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] allows label
advertisement mode negotiation at the time of session establishment.
The LDP specification also dictates that only a single label
advertisement mode be negotiated, agreed upon, and used for a given
LDP session between two Label Switching Routers (LSRs).
The negotiated label advertisement mode defined in RFC 5036 and
carried in the LDP Initialization message is only indicative. It
indicates how the LDP speakers on a session will advertise labels for
some Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs), but it is not a rule that
restricts the speakers to behave in a specific way. Furthermore, for
some FEC types the advertising behavior of the LDP speaker is
governed by the FEC type and not by the negotiated behavior.
This document updates [RFC5036] to make that fact clear. It also
updates [RFC3212], [RFC4447], [RFC5918], [RFC6388], and [RFC7140] to
indicate, for each FEC type that has already been defined, whether
Raza, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7358 Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs October 2014
the label binding advertisements for the FEC are constrained by the
negotiated label advertisement mode or not. Furthermore, this
document specifies the label advertisement mode to be used for all
currently defined FECs.
2. Label Advertisement Discipline
To remove any ambiguity and conflict regarding a label advertisement
discipline among different FEC types sharing a common LDP session,
this document specifies a label advertisement discipline for FEC
types.
This document introduces the following types for specifying a label
advertisement discipline for a FEC type:
- DU (Downstream Unsolicited)
- DoD (Downstream on Demand)
- As negotiated (DU or DoD)
- Upstream ([RFC6389])
- Not applicable
- Unknown
2.1. Update to RFC 5036
Section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036] is updated to add the following two
statements under the description of "A, Label Advertisement
Discipline":
- Each document defining an LDP FEC must state the applicability of
the negotiated label advertisement discipline for label binding
advertisements for that FEC. If the negotiated label
advertisement discipline does not apply to the FEC, the document
must also explicitly state the discipline to be used for the FEC.
- This document defines the label advertisement discipline for the
following FEC types:
+----------+----------+--------------------------------+
| FEC Type | FEC Name | Label Advertisement Discipline |
+----------+----------+--------------------------------+
| 0x01 | Wildcard | Not applicable |
| 0x02 | Prefix | As negotiated (DU or DoD) |
+----------+----------+--------------------------------+
Raza, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7358 Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs October 2014
2.2. Specification for LDP FECs
The label advertisement discipline for currently defined LDP FEC
types is listed in Section 4.
This document updates the respective RFCs in which these FECs are
introduced and defined.
3. Security Considerations
This document only clarifies the applicability of an LDP session's
label advertisement mode and hence does not add any LDP security
mechanics and considerations to those already defined in the LDP
specification [RFC5036].
4. IANA Considerations
This document mandates the specification of a label advertisement
discipline for each defined FEC type and hence IANA's "Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space" registry under IANA's "Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" registry has been extended as
follows:
- Added a new column titled "Label Advertisement Discipline" with
the following possible values:
o DU
o DoD
o As negotiated (DU or DoD)
o Upstream
o Not applicable
o Unknown
- Made this document an additional reference for the registry itself
and for all affected registrations.
- Kept other columns of the registry in place and populated as they
were.
Raza, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7358 Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs October 2014
For the currently assigned FEC types, the updated registry looks
like:
+=====+====+===============+==============+===========+============+
|Value|Hex | Name |Label | Reference |Notes/ |
| | | |Advertisement | |Registration|
| | | |Discipline | |Date |
+=====+====+===============+==============+===========+============+
| 0 |0x00|Reserved | | | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 1 |0x01|Wildcard |Not applicable| [RFC5036] | |
| | | | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 2 |0x02|Prefix |As negotiated | [RFC5036] | |
| | | |(DU or DoD) | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 4 |0x04|CR-LSP |DoD | [RFC3212] | |
| | | | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 5 |0x05|Typed Wildcard |Not applicable| [RFC5918] | |
| | |FEC Element | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 6 |0x06|P2MP |DU | [RFC6388] | |
| | | | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 7 |0x07|MP2MP-up |DU | [RFC6388] | |
| | | | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 8 |0x08|MP2MP-down |DU | [RFC6388] | |
| | | | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 9 |0x09|HSMP-upstream |DU | [RFC7140] | 2014-01-09 |
| | | | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 10 |0x0A|HSMP-downstream|DU, Upstream | [RFC7140] | 2014-01-09 |
| | | | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 128 |0x80|PWid |DU | [RFC4447] | |
| | |FEC Element | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 129 |0x81|Generalized |DU | [RFC4447] | |
| | |PWid | | [RFC7358] | |
| | |FEC Element | | | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 130 |0x82|P2MP PW |Upstream | [P2MP-PW] | 2009-06-03 |
| | |Upstream | | [RFC7358] | |
| | |FEC Element | | | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
Raza, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7358 Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs October 2014
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 131 |0x83|Protection |DU |[FAST-PROT]| 2010-02-26 |
| | |FEC Element | | [RFC7358] | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
| 132 |0x84|P2MP PW |DU | [P2MP-PW] | 2014-04-04 |
| | |Downstream | | [RFC7358] | |
| | |FEC Element | | | |
+-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., Ed., 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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3212>.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5918] Asati, R., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class
(FEC)", RFC 5918, August 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5918>.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for
Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label
Switched Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.
[RFC6389] Aggarwal, R. and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6389>.
[RFC7140] Jin, L., Jounay, F., Wijnands, IJ., and N. Leymann, "LDP
Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched
Path", RFC 7140, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7140>.
Raza, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7358 Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs October 2014
5.2. Informative References
[FAST-PROT] Shen, Y., Aggarwal, R., Henderickx, W., and Y. Jiang,
"PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01, July 2014.
[P2MP-PW] Sivabalan, S., Ed., Boutros, S., Ed., Martini, L.,
Konstantynowicz, M., Del Vecchio, G., Nadeau, T., Jounay,
F., Niger, P., Kamite, Y., Jin, L., Vigoureux, M.,
Ciavaglia, L., Delord, S., and K. Raza, "Signaling
Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP",
Work in Progress, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04, March 2012.
Raza, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7358 Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs October 2014
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Eric Rosen and Rajiv Asati for their initial review
and input on the document.
Authors' Addresses
Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Ottawa, ON K2K-3E8
Canada
EMail: skraza@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
United States
EMail: sboutros@cisco.com
Luca Martini
Cisco Systems, Inc.
9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
Englewood, CO 80112
United States
EMail: lmartini@cisco.com
Nicolai Leymann
Deutsche Telekom AG
Winterfeldtstrasse 21
Berlin 10781
Germany
EMail: N.Leymann@telekom.de
Raza, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
^L
|
