< draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-02.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-03.txt >
	Network Working Group L. Jin		Network Working Group L. Jin
	Internet-Draft		Internet-Draft
	Intended status: Standards Track F. Jounay		Intended status: Standards Track F. Jounay
	Expires: April 14, 2014 France Telecom		Expires: April 19, 2014 France Telecom
	I. Wijnands		I. Wijnands
	Cisco Systems		Cisco Systems
	N. Leymann		N. Leymann
	Deutsche Telekom		Deutsche Telekom
	October 11, 2013		October 16, 2013
	LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path		LDP Extensions for Hub & Spoke Multipoint Label Switched Path
	draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-02.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-hsmp-03.txt
	Abstract		Abstract
	This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (or HSMP LSP for		This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (or HSMP LSP for
	short), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through P2MP LSP		short), which allows traffic both from root to leaf through P2MP LSP
	and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse path. That means		and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse path. That means
	traffic entering the HSMP LSP from application/customer at the root		traffic entering the HSMP LSP from application/customer at the root
	node travels downstream to each leaf node, exactly as if it is		node travels downstream to each leaf node, exactly as if it is
	travelling downstream along a P2MP LSP to each leaf node. Upstream		travelling downstream along a P2MP LSP to each leaf node. Upstream
	traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any leaf node travels upstream along		traffic entering the HSMP LSP at any leaf node travels upstream along
	skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 4 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 19, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 3, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 26 ¶
	4.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.3. Using the HSMP FEC Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.3.1. HSMP LSP Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.3.1. HSMP LSP Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.3.2. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.3.2. HSMP LSP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.3.3. HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.3.3. HSMP LSP Upstream LSR Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5. HSMP LSP on a LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. HSMP LSP on a LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6. Redundancy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. Redundancy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. Co-routed Path Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7. Co-routed Path Exceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. Failure Detection of HSMP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
			10.1. New LDP FEC Element types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
			10.2. HSMP LSP capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
			10.3. New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . 13
	11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		11. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		12.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The point-to-multipoint LSP defined in [RFC6388] allows traffic to		The point-to-multipoint LSP defined in [RFC6388] allows traffic to
	transmit from root to several leaf nodes, and multipoint-to-		transmit from root to several leaf nodes, and multipoint-to-
	multipoint LSP allows traffic from every node to transmit to every		multipoint LSP allows traffic from every node to transmit to every
	other node. This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (or		other node. This draft introduces a hub & spoke multipoint LSP (or
	HSMP LSP for short), which allows traffic both from root to leaf		HSMP LSP for short), which allows traffic both from root to leaf
	through P2MP LSP and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse		through P2MP LSP and also leaf to root along the co-routed reverse
	path. That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP at the root node		path. That means traffic entering the HSMP LSP at the root node
	skipping to change at page 12, line 26 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 26 ¶
	The same security considerations apply as for the MP2MP LSP described		The same security considerations apply as for the MP2MP LSP described
	in [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].		in [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].
	Although this document introduces new FEC Elements and corresponding		Although this document introduces new FEC Elements and corresponding
	procedures, the protocol does not bring any new security issues		procedures, the protocol does not bring any new security issues
	compared to [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].		compared to [RFC6388] and [RFC6425].
	10. IANA Considerations		10. IANA Considerations
			10.1. New LDP FEC Element types
	This document requires allocation of two new LDP FEC Element types		This document requires allocation of two new LDP FEC Element types
	from the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry" the		from the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters registry" the
	"Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space":		"Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space":
	1. the HSMP-upstream FEC type - requested value TBD		1. the HSMP-upstream FEC type - requested value TBD
	2. the HSMP-downstream FEC type - requested value TBD		2. the HSMP-downstream FEC type - requested value TBD
			The values should be allocated using the lowest free values from the
			"IETF Consensus"-range (0-127).
			10.2. HSMP LSP capability TLV
	This document requires allocation of one new code points for the HSMP		This document requires allocation of one new code points for the HSMP
	LSP capability TLV from "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters		LSP capability TLV from "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters
	registry" the "TLV Type Name Space":		registry" the "TLV Type Name Space":
	HSMP LSP Capability Parameter - requested value TBD		HSMP LSP Capability Parameter - requested value TBD
			The value should be allocated from the range 0x0901-0x3DFF (IETF
			Consensus) using the first free value within this range.
			10.3. New sub-TLVs for the Target Stack TLV
	This document requires allocation of two new sub-TLV types for		This document requires allocation of two new sub-TLV types for
	inclusion within the LSP ping [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV		inclusion within the LSP ping [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV (TLV
	type 1).		type 1).
	1. the HSMP-upstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD		1. the HSMP-upstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD
	2. the HSMP-downstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD		2. the HSMP-downstream LDP FEC Stack - requested value TBD
			The value should be allocated from the IETF Standards Action range
			(0-16383) that is used for mandatory and optional sub-TLVs that
			requires a response if not understood. The value should be allocated
			using the lowest free value within this range.
	11. Acknowledgement		11. Acknowledgement
	The author would like to thank Eric Rosen, Sebastien Jobert, Fei Su,		The author would like to thank Eric Rosen, Sebastien Jobert, Fei Su,
	Edward, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin, Loa Andersson for their valuable		Edward, Mach Chen, Thomas Morin, Loa Andersson for their valuable
	comments.		comments.
	12. References		12. References
	12.1. Normative references		12.1. Normative references
	skipping to change at page 14, line 30 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 47 ¶
	IEEE1588v2 , March 2008.		IEEE1588v2 , March 2008.
	[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.		[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
	Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version		Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
	3", RFC 3376, October 2002.		3", RFC 3376, October 2002.
	[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol		[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
	Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,		Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
	February 2006.		February 2006.
	[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
	(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
	RFC 4762, January 2007.
	[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP		[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
	Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.		Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
	[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
	Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
	[RFC6826] Wijnands, IJ., Eckert, T., Leymann, N., and M. Napierala,		[RFC6826] Wijnands, IJ., Eckert, T., Leymann, N., and M. Napierala,
	"Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-Multipoint		"Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-Multipoint
	and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths",		and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths",
	RFC 6826, January 2013.		RFC 6826, January 2013.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Lizhong Jin		Lizhong Jin
	Shanghai, China		Shanghai, China
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	13 lines changed or deleted		26 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/