7358
PROPOSED STANDARD

Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs)

Authors: K. Raza, S. Boutros, L. Martini, N. Leymann
Date: October 2014
Area: rtg
Working Group: mpls
Stream: IETF
Updates: RFC 3212
View on RFC Editor (HTML) Download PDF DOI

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.

RFC 7358
Download TXTDownload PDF
RFC 7358: Label Advertisement Discipline for LDP Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) [RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

PROPOSED STANDARD
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           K. Raza
Request for Comments: 7358                                    S. Boutros
Updates: <a href="./rfc3212">3212</a>, <a href="./rfc4447">4447</a>, <a href="./rfc5036">5036</a>, <a href="./rfc5918">5918</a>, <a href="./rfc6388">6388</a>, <a href="./rfc7140">7140</a>                   L. Martini
Category: Standards Track                            Cisco Systems, Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               N. Leymann
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                            October 2014


                     <span class="h1">Label Advertisement Discipline</span>
             <span class="h1">for LDP Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs)</span>

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 <a href="./rfc5036">RFC 5036</a> 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 <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="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7358">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7358</a>.

















<span class="grey">Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 1]</span>
<span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7358">RFC 7358</a>          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014</span>


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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>. Label Advertisement Discipline ..................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
      <a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Update to <a href="./rfc5036">RFC 5036</a> .........................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
      <a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Specification for LDP FECs .................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>. IANA Considerations .............................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
      <a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
      <a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Informative References .....................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
   Acknowledgments ....................................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
   Authors' Addresses .................................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction</span>

   The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [<a href="./rfc5036" title=""LDP Specification"">RFC5036</a>] 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 <a href="./rfc5036">RFC 5036</a> 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 [<a href="./rfc5036" title=""LDP Specification"">RFC5036</a>] to make that fact clear.  It also
   updates [<a href="./rfc3212" title=""Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP"">RFC3212</a>], [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>], [<a href="./rfc5918" title=""Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class (FEC)"">RFC5918</a>], [<a href="./rfc6388" title=""Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths"">RFC6388</a>], and [<a href="./rfc7140" title=""LDP Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path"">RFC7140</a>] to
   indicate, for each FEC type that has already been defined, whether



<span class="grey">Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 2]</span>
<span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7358">RFC 7358</a>          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014</span>


   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.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  Label Advertisement Discipline</span>

   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 ([<a href="./rfc6389" title=""MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for LDP"">RFC6389</a>])
      -  Not applicable
      -  Unknown

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>.  Update to <a href="./rfc5036">RFC 5036</a></span>

   <a href="./rfc5036#section-3.5.3">Section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036]</a> 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)      |
         +----------+----------+--------------------------------+








<span class="grey">Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 3]</span>
<span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7358">RFC 7358</a>          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>.  Specification for LDP FECs</span>

   The label advertisement discipline for currently defined LDP FEC
   types is listed in <a href="#section-4">Section 4</a>.

   This document updates the respective RFCs in which these FECs are
   introduced and defined.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Security Considerations</span>

   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 [<a href="./rfc5036" title=""LDP Specification"">RFC5036</a>].

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  IANA Considerations</span>

   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.













<span class="grey">Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 4]</span>
<span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7358">RFC 7358</a>          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014</span>


   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| [<a href="./rfc5036" title=""LDP Specification"">RFC5036</a>] |            |
   |     |    |               |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 2   |0x02|Prefix         |As negotiated | [<a href="./rfc5036" title=""LDP Specification"">RFC5036</a>] |            |
   |     |    |               |(DU or DoD)   | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 4   |0x04|CR-LSP         |DoD           | [<a href="./rfc3212" title=""Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP"">RFC3212</a>] |            |
   |     |    |               |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 5   |0x05|Typed Wildcard |Not applicable| [<a href="./rfc5918" title=""Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class (FEC)"">RFC5918</a>] |            |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 6   |0x06|P2MP           |DU            | [<a href="./rfc6388" title=""Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths"">RFC6388</a>] |            |
   |     |    |               |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 7   |0x07|MP2MP-up       |DU            | [<a href="./rfc6388" title=""Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths"">RFC6388</a>] |            |
   |     |    |               |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 8   |0x08|MP2MP-down     |DU            | [<a href="./rfc6388" title=""Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths"">RFC6388</a>] |            |
   |     |    |               |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 9   |0x09|HSMP-upstream  |DU            | [<a href="./rfc7140" title=""LDP Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path"">RFC7140</a>] | 2014-01-09 |
   |     |    |               |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 10  |0x0A|HSMP-downstream|DU, Upstream  | [<a href="./rfc7140" title=""LDP Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path"">RFC7140</a>] | 2014-01-09 |
   |     |    |               |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 128 |0x80|PWid           |DU            | [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>] |            |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 129 |0x81|Generalized    |DU            | [<a href="./rfc4447" title=""Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)"">RFC4447</a>] |            |
   |     |    |PWid           |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 130 |0x82|P2MP PW        |Upstream      | [<a href="#ref-P2MP-PW" title=""Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP"">P2MP-PW</a>] | 2009-06-03 |
   |     |    |Upstream       |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+



<span class="grey">Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 5]</span>
<span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7358">RFC 7358</a>          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014</span>


   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 131 |0x83|Protection     |DU            |[<a href="#ref-FAST-PROT" title=""PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection"">FAST-PROT</a>]| 2010-02-26 |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
   | 132 |0x84|P2MP PW        |DU            | [<a href="#ref-P2MP-PW" title=""Signaling Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP"">P2MP-PW</a>] | 2014-04-04 |
   |     |    |Downstream     |              | [<a href="./rfc7358">RFC7358</a>] |            |
   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |            |
   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>.  References</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>.  Normative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC3212">RFC3212</a>]   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", <a href="./rfc3212">RFC 3212</a>,
               January 2002, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3212">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3212</a>>.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4447">RFC4447</a>]   Martini, L., Ed., 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 href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447</a>>.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5036">RFC5036</a>]   Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
               "LDP Specification", <a href="./rfc5036">RFC 5036</a>, October 2007,
               <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036</a>>.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5918">RFC5918</a>]   Asati, R., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
               Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class
               (FEC)", <a href="./rfc5918">RFC 5918</a>, August 2010,
               <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5918">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5918</a>>.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6388">RFC6388</a>]   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", <a href="./rfc6388">RFC 6388</a>, November 2011,
               <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388</a>>.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6389">RFC6389</a>]   Aggarwal, R. and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
               Assignment for LDP", <a href="./rfc6389">RFC 6389</a>, November 2011,
               <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6389">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6389</a>>.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7140">RFC7140</a>]   Jin, L., Jounay, F., Wijnands, IJ., and N. Leymann, "LDP
               Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched
               Path", <a href="./rfc7140">RFC 7140</a>, March 2014,
               <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7140">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7140</a>>.




<span class="grey">Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 6]</span>
<span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7358">RFC 7358</a>          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>.  Informative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-FAST-PROT">FAST-PROT</a>] Shen, Y., Aggarwal, R., Henderickx, W., and Y. Jiang,
               "PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection", Work in Progress,
               <a href="./draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01">draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01</a>, July 2014.

   [<a id="ref-P2MP-PW">P2MP-PW</a>]   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, <a href="./draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04">draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04</a>, March 2012.







































<span class="grey">Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 7]</span>
<span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7358">RFC 7358</a>          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014</span>


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: [email protected]


   Sami Boutros
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   3750 Cisco Way
   San Jose, CA  95134
   United States

   EMail: [email protected]


   Luca Martini
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
   Englewood, CO  80112
   United States

   EMail: [email protected]


   Nicolai Leymann
   Deutsche Telekom AG
   Winterfeldtstrasse 21
   Berlin 10781
   Germany

   EMail: [email protected]










Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 8]

Additional Resources