< draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-00.txt   draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-01.txt >
Network Working Group Kamran Raza Network Working Group Kamran Raza
Internet Draft Cisco Systems Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Intended Status: Standards Track Intended Status: Standards Track
Expiration Date: October 27, 2010 Expiration Date: January 7, 2011 Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems
April 28, 2010 July 8, 2010
LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements LDP Typed Wildcard PW FEC Elements
draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-00.txt draft-raza-l2vpn-pw-typed-wc-fec-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference at any 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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 27, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 Provisions Relating to IETF
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents date of publication of this document. Please review these 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 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the BSD License. warranty as described in the BSD License.
Abstract Abstract
An extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) defines the An extension to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) defines the
general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding Equivalence Class
(FEC) Element"". This can be used when it is desired to request all (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is desired to request all
label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or label bindings for a given type of FEC Element, or to release or
withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element. withdraw all label bindings for a given type of FEC element.
However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be individually defined However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be individually defined
for each type of FEC element. This specification defines the typed for each type of FEC element. This specification defines the typed
wildcard FEC elements for the Pseudowire Identifier (PW Id) and wildcard FEC elements for the Pseudowire Identifier (PW Id) and
Generalized Pseudowire Identifier (Gen. PW Id) FEC types. Generalized Pseudowire Identifier (Gen. PW Id) FEC types.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 2 1. Introduction 3
2. Typed Wildcard for PWid FEC Element ........................... 3 2. Typed Wildcard for PWid FEC Element 3
3. Typed Wildcard for Generalized PWid FEC Element ............... 3 3. Typed Wildcard for Generalized PWid FEC Element 3
4. Security Considerations ....................................... 3 4. Operation 3
5. IANA Considerations ........................................... 4 4.1. PW Consistency Check 4
6. Acknowledgments ............................................... 4 4.2. PW Graceful Shutdown 5
7. References .................................................... 4 5. Security Considerations 5
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 4 6. IANA Considerations 5
7.2 Informative References .................................... 4 7. Acknowledgments 5
Author's Address.................................................. 4 8. References 5
8.1. Normative References 5
8.2. Informative References 6
Author's Address 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
An extension [TYPED-WC] to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) An extension [TYPED-WC] to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
[RFC5036] defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard Forwarding [RFC5036] defines the general notion of a "Typed Wildcard
Equivalence Class (FEC) Element". This can be used when it is Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element". This can be used
desired to request all label bindings for a given type of FEC when it is desired to request all label bindings for a given type
Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for a given of FEC Element, or to release or withdraw all label bindings for
type of FEC element. However, a typed wildcard FEC element must be a given type of FEC element. However, a typed wildcard FEC
individually defined for each type of FEC element. element must be individually defined for each type of FEC element.
[RFC4447] defines the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid FEC [RFC4447] defines the "PWid FEC Element" and "Generalized PWid
Element" but it does not specify Typed Wildcard format for these FEC Element" but it does not specify Typed Wildcard format for
elements. This document specifies the format of the Typed Wildcard these elements. This document specifies the format of the Typed
FEC for the "PWid FEC Element" and the "Generalized PWid FEC Wildcard FEC for the "PWid FEC Element" and the "Generalized
Element" defined in [RFC4447]. The procedures for Typed Wildcard PWid FEC Element" defined in [RFC4447]. The procedures for Typed
processing for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements are same as Wildcard processing for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements are
described in [TYPED-WC] for any typed wildcard FEC Element type. same as described in [TYPED-WC] for any typed wildcard FEC Element
type.
2. Typed Wildcard for PWid FEC Element 2. Typed Wildcard for PWid FEC Element
The format of the PWid FEC Typed Wildcard FEC is: The format of the PWid FEC Typed Wildcard FEC is:
0 1 2 0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Typed Wcard | Type = PWid | Len = 0 | | Typed Wcard | Type = PWid | Len = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Format of PWid Typed Wildcard FEC Element Figure 1: Format of PWid Typed Wildcard FEC Element
where: Where:
Typed Wcard (one octet): as specified in [TYPED-WC] Typed Wcard (one octet): as specified in [TYPED-WC]
FEC Element Type (one octet): PWid FEC Element (type 0x80 FEC Element Type (one octet): PWid FEC Element (type 0x80
[RFC4447]) [RFC4447])
Len FEC Type Info (one octet): Zero. (There is no additional FEC Len FEC Type Info (one octet): Zero. (There is no additional FEC
info) info)
3. Typed Wildcard for Generalized PWid FEC Element 3. Typed Wildcard for Generalized PWid FEC Element
The format of the Generalized PWid FEC Typed Wildcard FEC is: The format of the Generalized PWid FEC Typed Wildcard FEC is:
0 1 2 0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Typed Wcard | Type=Gen.PWid | Len = 0 | | Typed Wcard | Type=Gen.PWid | Len = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Format of Generalized PWid Typed Wildcard FEC Element Figure 2: Format of Generalized PWid Typed Wildcard FEC Element
where: Where:
Typed Wcard (one octet): as specified in [TYPED-WC] Typed Wcard (one octet): as specified in [TYPED-WC]
FEC Element Type (one octet): Generalized PWid FEC Element (type FEC Element Type (one octet): Generalized PWid FEC Element (type
0x81 [RFC4447]) 0x81 [RFC4447])
Len FEC Type Info (one octet): Zero. (There is no additional FEC Len FEC Type Info (one octet): Zero. (There is no additional FEC
info) info)
When Generalized PWid FEC Typed Wildcard is used, "PW Grouping ID When Generalized PWid FEC Typed Wildcard is used, "PW Grouping ID
TLV" [RFC4447] MUST NOT be present in the same message. TLV" [RFC4447] MUST NOT be present in the same message.
4. Security Considerations 4. Operation
No new security considerations beyond that apply to the base LDP The use of Typed Wildcard FEC elements for PW can be useful under
specification [RFC5036], [RFC4447] and [MPLS_SEC] apply to the use of several scenarios. This section describes two use cases to
the PW Typed Wildcard FEC Element types described in this document. illustrate their usage. The following use cases consider two LSR
nodes, A and B, with LDP session between them to exchange L2VPN PW
bindings.
5. IANA Considerations 4.1. PW Consistency Check
This document defines no new element for IANA Consideration. A user may request a control plane consistency check at LSR A for
the PWid FEC and Generalized PWid FEC bindings that it had learnt
from LSR B over LDP session. To perform this consistency check, LSR
A marks all its learnt PW bindings from LSR B as stale, and then
sends a Label Request message towards LSR B with Typed Wildcard FEC
element for PWid FEC element and Generalized PWid FEC element. Upon
receipt of such request, LSR B replays its database related to PWid
FEC elements and Generalized PWid FEC element in Label Mapping
message. As a PW binding is received at LSR A, the associated
binding state is marked as refreshed (no stale). When replay
completes for a given type of FEC, LSR B sends End-of-LIB
Notification [END-OF-LIB] to mark the end of update for the given
FEC type. Upon receipt of this Notification at LSR A, any remaining
stale PW binding of given FEC type learnt from the peer LSR B, is
cleaned up and removed from the database. This completes consistency
check with LSR B at LSR A for given FEC type.
6. Acknowledgments 4.2. PW Graceful Shutdown
The author would like to thank Eric Rosen, M. Siva, and Zafar Ali for It may be desirable to perform shutdown/removal of existing PW
review of this document. bindings advertised towards a peer in a graceful manner -
- i.e. all
advertised PW bindings to be removed from a peer without session
flap. For example, to request a graceful delete of the PWid FEC and
Generalized PWid FEC bindings at LSR A learnt from LSR B, LSR A
would send a Label Withdraw message towards LSR B with Typed
Wildcard FEC elements pertaining to PWid FEC element and Generalized
PWid FEC element. Upon receipt of such message, LSR B will delete
all PWid and Generalized PWid bindings learnt from LSR A.
Afterwards, LSR B would send Label Release message corresponding to
recieved Label Withdraw with Typed FEC element.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0 template.dot. 5. Security Considerations
7. References No new security considerations beyond that apply to the base LDP
specification [RFC5036], [RFC4447] and [MPLS_SEC] apply to the use
of the PW Typed Wildcard FEC Element types described in this
document.
7.1. Normative References 6. IANA Considerations
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Menei, I., and Thomas, B., Editors, "LDP This document defines no new element for IANA Consideration.
Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.
[TYPED-WC] Thomas, B., Asati, R., and Minei, I., "LDP Typed Wildcard 7. Acknowledgments
FEC", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-07.txt, Work in
Progress, March 2010.
[RFC4447] L. Martini, Editor, E. Rosen, El-Aawar, T. Smith, G. Heron, The authors would like to thank Eric Rosen, M. Siva, and Zafar Ali
"Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label for their valuable comments.
Distribution Protocol", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0 template.dot.
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References 8. References
[MPLS_SEC] Fang, L. et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 8.1. Normative References
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-
05.txt, Work in Progress, March 2009.
Author's Address: [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Menei, I., and Thomas, B., Editors, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, September 2007.
Syed Kamran Raza [TYPED-WC] Thomas, B., Asati, R., and Minei, I., "LDP Typed Wildcard
Cisco Systems, Inc., FEC", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-07.txt, Work in
2000 Innovation Drive, Progress, March 2010.
Kanata, ON K2K-3E8, Canada.
E-mail: skraza@cisco.com [END-OF-LIB] Asati, R., Mohapatra, P., Chen, E., and Thomas, B.,
"Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion",
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-04.txt, Work in Progress,
June 2010.
[RFC4447] L. Martini, Editor, E. Rosen, El-Aawar, T. Smith, G. Heron,
"Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance using the Label
Distribution Protocol", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[MPLS_SEC] Fang, L. et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-
framework-05.txt, Work in Progress, March 2009.
Author's Address
Syed Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.,
2000 Innovation Drive,
Kanata, ON K2K-3E8, Canada.
E-mail: skraza@cisco.com
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way,
San Jose, CA 95134, USA.
E-mail: sboutros@cisco.com
 End of changes. 37 change blocks. 
72 lines changed or deleted 100 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/