tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search     info

RFC 7812

Proposed STD
Pages: 44
Top     in Index     Prev     Next
in Group Index     Prev in Group     Next in Group     Group: RTGWG

An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR)

Part 1 of 2, p. 1 to 22
None       Next RFC Part

 


Top       ToC       Page 1 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          A. Atlas
Request for Comments: 7812                                     C. Bowers
Category: Standards Track                               Juniper Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                G. Enyedi
                                                                Ericsson
                                                               June 2016


                An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast Reroute
               Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR)

Abstract

   This document defines the architecture for IP and LDP Fast Reroute
   using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR).  MRT-FRR is a technology
   that gives link-protection and node-protection with 100% coverage in
   any network topology that is still connected after the failure.

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 7841.

   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/rfc7812.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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.

Top       Page 2 
Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Importance of 100% Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Partial Deployment and Backwards Compatibility  . . . . .   5
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  MRT and Fast Reroute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Unicast Forwarding with MRT Fast Reroute  . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Introduction to MRT Forwarding Options  . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.1.1.  MRT LDP Labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
         6.1.1.1.  Topology-Scoped FEC Encoded Using a Single Label
                   (Option 1A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
         6.1.1.2.  Topology and FEC Encoded Using a Two-Label Stack
                   (Option 1B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
         6.1.1.3.  Compatibility of MRT LDP Label Options 1A and 1B   12
         6.1.1.4.  Required Support for MRT LDP Label Options  . . .  12
       6.1.2.  MRT IP Tunnels (Options 2A and 2B)  . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  Forwarding LDP Unicast Traffic over MRT Paths . . . . . .  13
       6.2.1.  Forwarding LDP Traffic Using MRT LDP Label Option 1A   13
       6.2.2.  Forwarding LDP Traffic Using MRT LDP Label Option 1B   14
       6.2.3.  Other Considerations for Forwarding LDP Traffic Using
               MRT LDP Labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.2.4.  Required Support for LDP Traffic  . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.3.  Forwarding IP Unicast Traffic over MRT Paths  . . . . . .  14
       6.3.1.  Tunneling IP Traffic Using MRT LDP Labels . . . . . .  15
         6.3.1.1.  Tunneling IP Traffic Using MRT LDP Label Option
                   1A  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
         6.3.1.2.  Tunneling IP Traffic Using MRT LDP Label Option
                   1B  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.3.2.  Tunneling IP Traffic Using MRT IP Tunnels . . . . . .  16
       6.3.3.  Required Support for IP Traffic . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  MRT Island Formation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     7.1.  IGP Area or Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.2.  Support for a Specific MRT Profile  . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     7.3.  Excluding Additional Routers and Interfaces from the MRT
           Island  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.3.1.  Existing IGP Exclusion Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . .  18
       7.3.2.  MRT-Specific Exclusion Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.4.  Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     7.5.  Algorithm for MRT Island Identification . . . . . . . . .  19
   8.  MRT Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.1.  MRT Profile Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.2.  Router-Specific MRT Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.3.  Default MRT Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  LDP Signaling Extensions and Considerations . . . . . . . . .  22

Top      ToC       Page 3 
   10. Inter-area Forwarding Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     10.1.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with MRT LDP Label Option 1A . .  23
       10.1.1.  Motivation for Creating the Rainbow-FEC  . . . . . .  24
     10.2.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with IP Tunneling (Option 2) . .  24
     10.3.  ABR Forwarding Behavior with MRT LDP Label Option 1B . .  25
   11. Prefixes Multiply Attached to the MRT Island  . . . . . . . .  26
     11.1.  Protecting Multihomed Prefixes Using Tunnel Endpoint
            Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     11.2.  Protecting Multihomed Prefixes Using Named Proxy-Nodes .  29
     11.3.  MRT Alternates for Destinations outside the MRT Island .  31
   12. Network Convergence and Preparing for the Next Failure  . . .  32
     12.1.  Micro-loop Prevention and MRTs . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     12.2.  MRT Recalculation for the Default MRT Profile  . . . . .  33
   13. Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     13.1.  Verifying Forwarding on MRT Paths  . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     13.2.  Traffic Capacity on Backup Paths . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     13.3.  MRT IP Tunnel Loopback Address Management  . . . . . . .  36
     13.4.  MRT-FRR in a Network with Degraded Connectivity  . . . .  36
     13.5.  Partial Deployment of MRT-FRR in a Network . . . . . . .  37
   14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   16. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     16.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
     16.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   Appendix A.  Inter-level Forwarding Behavior for IS-IS  . . . . .  41
   Appendix B.  General Issues with Area Abstraction . . . . . . . .  42
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44

1.  Introduction

   This document describes a solution for IP/LDP fast reroute [RFC5714].
   MRT-FRR creates two alternate forwarding trees that are distinct from
   the primary next-hop forwarding used during stable operation.  These
   two trees are maximally diverse from each other, providing link and
   node protection for 100% of paths and failures as long as the failure
   does not cut the network into multiple pieces.  This document defines
   the architecture for IP/LDP fast reroute with MRT.

   [RFC7811] describes how to compute maximally redundant trees using a
   specific algorithm: the MRT Lowpoint algorithm.  The MRT Lowpoint
   algorithm is used by a router that supports the Default MRT Profile,
   as specified in this document.

   IP/LDP Fast Reroute using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR) uses
   two maximally diverse forwarding topologies to provide alternates.  A
   primary next hop should be on only one of the diverse forwarding

Top      ToC       Page 4 
   topologies; thus, the other can be used to provide an alternate.
   Once traffic has been moved to one of the MRTs by one Point of Local
   Repair (PLR), that traffic is not subject to further repair actions
   by another PLR, even in the event of multiple simultaneous failures.
   Therefore, traffic repaired by MRT-FRR will not loop between
   different PLRs responding to different simultaneous failures.

   While MRT provides 100% protection for a single link or node failure,
   it may not protect traffic in the event of multiple simultaneous
   failures, nor does it take into account Shared Risk Link Groups
   (SRLGs).  Also, while the MRT Lowpoint algorithm is computationally
   efficient, it is also new.  In order for MRT-FRR to function
   properly, all of the other nodes in the network that support MRT must
   correctly compute next hops based on the same algorithm and install
   the corresponding forwarding state.  This is in contrast to other FRR
   methods where the calculation of backup paths generally involves
   repeated application of the simpler and widely deployed Shortest Path
   First (SPF) algorithm, and backup paths themselves reuse the
   forwarding state used for shortest path forwarding of normal traffic.
   Section 13 provides operational guidance related to verification of
   MRT forwarding paths.

   In addition to supporting IP and LDP unicast fast reroute, the
   diverse forwarding topologies and guarantee of 100% coverage permit
   fast-reroute technology to be applied to multicast traffic as
   described in [MRT-ARCH].  However, the current document does not
   address the multicast applications of MRTs.

1.1.  Importance of 100% Coverage

   Fast reroute is based upon the single failure assumption: that the
   time between single failures is long enough for a network to
   reconverge and start forwarding on the new shortest paths.  That does
   not imply that the network will only experience one failure or
   change.

   It is straightforward to analyze a particular network topology for
   coverage.  However, a real network does not always have the same
   topology.  For instance, maintenance events will take links or nodes
   out of use.  Simply costing out a link can have a significant effect
   on what Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs) are available.  Similarly, after
   a single failure has happened, the topology is changed and its
   associated coverage has changed as well.  Finally, many networks have
   new routers or links added and removed; each of those changes can
   have an effect on the coverage for topology-sensitive methods such as
   LFA and Remote LFA.  If fast reroute is important for the network
   services provided, then a method that guarantees 100% coverage is
   important to accommodate natural network topology changes.

Top      ToC       Page 5 
   When a network needs to use Ordered FIB [RFC6976] or Nearside
   Tunneling [RFC5715] as a micro-loop prevention mechanism [RFC5715],
   then the whole IGP area needs to have alternates available.  This
   allows the micro-loop prevention mechanism, which requires slower
   network convergence, to take the necessary time without adversely
   impacting traffic.  Without complete coverage, traffic to the
   unprotected destinations will be dropped for significantly longer
   than with current convergence -- where routers individually converge
   as fast as possible.  See Section 12.1 for more discussion of micro-
   loop prevention and MRTs.

1.2.  Partial Deployment and Backwards Compatibility

   MRT-FRR supports partial deployment.  Routers advertise their ability
   to support MRT.  Inside the MRT-capable connected group of routers
   (referred to as an MRT Island), the MRTs are computed.  Alternates to
   destinations outside the MRT Island are computed and depend upon the
   existence of a loop-free neighbor of the MRT Island for that
   destination.  MRT Islands are discussed in detail in Section 7, and
   partial deployment is discussed in more detail in Section 13.5.

2.  Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

3.  Terminology

   network graph:   A graph that reflects the network topology where all
      links connect exactly two nodes and broadcast links have been
      transformed into the standard pseudonode representation.

   cut-link:   A link whose removal partitions the network.  A cut-link
      by definition must be connected between two cut-vertices.  If
      there are multiple parallel links, then they are referred to as
      cut-links in this document if removing the set of parallel links
      would partition the network graph.

   cut-vertex:   A vertex whose removal partitions the network graph.

   2-connected:   A graph that has no cut-vertices.  This is a graph
      that requires two nodes to be removed before the network is
      partitioned.

   2-connected cluster:   A maximal set of nodes that are 2-connected.

   block:   Either a 2-connected cluster, a cut-edge, or a cut-vertex.

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   Redundant Trees (RT):   A pair of trees where the path from any node
      X to the root R along the first tree is node-disjoint with the
      path from the same node X to the root along the second tree.
      Redundant trees can always be computed in 2-connected graphs.

   Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT):   A pair of trees where the path
      from any node X to the root R along the first tree and the path
      from the same node X to the root along the second tree share the
      minimum number of nodes and the minimum number of links.  Each
      such shared node is a cut-vertex.  Any shared links are cut-links.
      In graphs that are not 2-connected, it is not possible to compute
      RTs.  However, it is possible to compute MRTs.  MRTs are maximally
      redundant in the sense that they are as redundant as possible
      given the constraints of the network graph.

   Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG):   A graph where all links are directed
      and there are no cycles in it.

   Almost Directed Acyclic Graph (ADAG):   A graph with one node
      designated as the root.  The graph has the property that if all
      links incoming to the root were removed, then the resulting graph
      would be a DAG.

   Generalized ADAG (GADAG):   A graph that is the combination of the
      ADAGs of all blocks.

   MRT-Red:   MRT-Red is used to describe one of the two MRTs; it is
      used to describe the associated forwarding topology and MPLS
      Multi-Topology IDentifier (MT-ID).  Specifically, MRT-Red is the
      decreasing MRT where links in the GADAG are taken in the direction
      from a higher topologically ordered node to a lower one.

   MRT-Blue:   MRT-Blue is used to describe one of the two MRTs; it is
      used to described the associated forwarding topology and MPLS
      MT-ID.  Specifically, MRT-Blue is the increasing MRT where links
      in the GADAG are taken in the direction from a lower topologically
      ordered node to a higher one.

   Rainbow MRT:   It is useful to have an MPLS MT-ID that refers to the
      multiple MRT forwarding topologies and to the default forwarding
      topology.  This is referred to as the Rainbow MRT MPLS MT-ID and
      is used by LDP to reduce signaling and permit the same label to
      always be advertised to all peers for the same (MT-ID, Prefix).

   MRT Island:   The set of routers that support a particular MRT
      profile and the links connecting them that support MRT.

Top      ToC       Page 7 
   Island Border Router (IBR):   A router in the MRT Island that is
      connected to a router not in the MRT Island, both of which are in
      a common area or level.

   Island Neighbor (IN):   A router that is not in the MRT Island but is
      adjacent to an IBR and in the same area/level as the IBR.

   named proxy-node:   A proxy-node can represent a destination prefix
      that can be attached to the MRT Island via at least two routers.
      It is named if there is a way that traffic can be encapsulated to
      reach specifically that proxy node; this could be because there is
      an LDP FEC (Forwarding Equivalence Class) for the associated
      prefix or because MRT-Red and MRT-Blue IP addresses are advertised
      in an undefined fashion for that proxy-node.

4.  Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT)

   A pair of Maximally Redundant Trees is a pair of directed spanning
   trees that provides maximally disjoint paths towards their common
   root.  Only links or nodes whose failure would partition the network
   (i.e., cut-links and cut-vertices) are shared between the trees.  The
   MRT Lowpoint algorithm is given in [RFC7811].  This algorithm can be
   computed in O(e + n log n); it is less than three SPFs.  This
   document describes how the MRTs can be used and not how to compute
   them.

   MRT provides destination-based trees for each destination.  Each
   router stores its normal primary next hop(s) as well as MRT-Blue next
   hop(s) and MRT-Red next hop(s) toward each destination.  The
   alternate will be selected between the MRT-Blue and MRT-Red.

   The most important thing to understand about MRTs is that for each
   pair of destination-routed MRTs, there is a path from every node X to
   the destination D on the Blue MRT that is as disjoint as possible
   from the path on the Red MRT.

   For example, in Figure 1, there is a network graph that is
   2-connected in (a) and associated MRTs in (b) and (c).  One can
   consider the paths from B to R; on the Blue MRT, the paths are
   B->F->D->E->R or B->C->D->E->R.  On the Red MRT, the path is B->A->R.
   These are clearly link and node-disjoint.  These MRTs are redundant
   trees because the paths are disjoint.

Top      ToC       Page 8 
   [E]---[D]---|           [E]<--[D]<--|                [E]-->[D]---|
    |     |    |            |     ^    |                       |    |
    |     |    |            V     |    |                       V    V
   [R]   [F]  [C]          [R]   [F]  [C]               [R]   [F]  [C]
    |     |    |                  ^    ^                 ^     |    |
    |     |    |                  |    |                 |     V    |
   [A]---[B]---|           [A]-->[B]---|                [A]<--[B]<--|

         (a)                     (b)                         (c)
   a 2-connected graph     Blue MRT towards R          Red MRT towards R

                      Figure 1: A 2-Connected Network

   By contrast, in Figure 2, the network in (a) is not 2-connected.  If
   C, G, or the link C<->G failed, then the network would be
   partitioned.  It is clearly impossible to have two link-disjoint or
   node-disjoint paths from G, J, or H to R.  The MRTs given in (b) and
   (c) offer paths that are as disjoint as possible.  For instance, the
   paths from B to R are the same as in Figure 1 and the path from G to
   R on the Blue MRT is G->C->D->E->R and on the Red MRT is
   G->C->B->A->R.

                        [E]---[D]---|     |---[J]
                         |     |    |     |    |
                         |     |    |     |    |
                        [R]   [F]  [C]---[G]   |
                         |     |    |     |    |
                         |     |    |     |    |
                        [A]---[B]---|     |---[H]

                       (a) a graph that is not 2-connected

         [E]<--[D]<--|         [J]        [E]-->[D]---|     |---[J]
          |     ^    |          |                |    |     |    ^
          V     |    |          |                V    V     V    |
         [R]   [F]  [C]<--[G]   |         [R]   [F]  [C]<--[G]   |
                ^    ^     ^    |          ^     |    |          |
                |    |     |    V          |     V    |          |
         [A]-->[B]---|     |---[H]        [A]<--[B]<--|         [H]

          (b) Blue MRT towards R          (c) Red MRT towards R

                Figure 2: A Network That Is Not 2-Connected

Top      ToC       Page 9 
5.  MRT and Fast Reroute

   In normal IGP routing, each router has its Shortest Path Tree (SPT)
   to all destinations.  From the perspective of a particular
   destination, D, this looks like a reverse SPT (rSPT).  To use MRT, in
   addition, each destination D has two MRTs associated with it; by
   convention these will be called the MRT-Blue and MRT-Red.  MRT-FRR is
   realized by using multi-topology forwarding.  There is a MRT-Blue
   forwarding topology and a MRT-Red forwarding topology.

   Any IP/LDP fast-reroute technique beyond LFA requires an additional
   dataplane procedure, such as an additional forwarding mechanism.  The
   well-known options are multi-topology forwarding (used by MRT-FRR),
   tunneling (e.g., [RFC6981] or [RFC7490]), and per-interface
   forwarding (e.g., Loop-Free Failure Insensitive Routing in
   [EnyediThesis]).

   When there is a link or node failure affecting, but not partitioning,
   the network, each node will still have at least one path via one of
   the MRTs to reach the destination D.  For example, in Figure 2, B
   would normally forward traffic to R across the path B->A->R.  If the
   B<->A link fails, then B could use the MRT-Blue path B->F->D->E->R.

   As is always the case with fast-reroute technologies, forwarding does
   not change until a local failure is detected.  Packets are forwarded
   along the shortest path.  The appropriate alternate to use is pre-
   computed.  [RFC7811] describes exactly how to determine whether the
   MRT-Blue next hops or the MRT-Red next hops should be the MRT
   alternate next hops for a particular primary next hop to a particular
   destination.

   MRT alternates are always available to use.  It is a local decision
   whether to use an MRT alternate, an LFA, or some other type of
   alternate.

   As described in [RFC5286], when a worse failure than is anticipated
   happens, using LFAs that are not downstream neighbors can cause
   looping among alternates.  Section 1.1 of [RFC5286] gives an example
   of link-protecting alternates causing a loop on node failure.  Even
   if a worse failure than anticipated happens, the use of MRT
   alternates will not cause looping.

6.  Unicast Forwarding with MRT Fast Reroute

   There are three possible types of routers involved in forwarding a
   packet along an MRT path.  At the MRT ingress router, the packet
   leaves the shortest path to the destination and follows an MRT path
   to the destination.  In an FRR application, the MRT ingress router is

Top      ToC       Page 10 
   the PLR.  An MRT transit router takes a packet that arrives already
   associated with the particular MRT, and forwards it on that same MRT.
   In some situations (to be discussed later), the packet will need to
   leave the MRT path and return to the shortest path.  This takes place
   at the MRT egress router.  The MRT ingress and egress functionality
   may depend on the underlying type of packet being forwarded (LDP or
   IP).  The MRT transit functionality is independent of the type of
   packet being forwarded.  We first consider several MRT transit
   forwarding mechanisms.  Then, we look at how these forwarding
   mechanisms can be applied to carrying LDP and IP traffic.

6.1.  Introduction to MRT Forwarding Options

   The following options for MRT forwarding mechanisms are considered.

   1.  MRT LDP Labels

       A.  Topology-scoped FEC encoded using a single label

       B.  Topology and FEC encoded using a two-label stack

   2.  MRT IP Tunnels

       A.  MRT IPv4 Tunnels

       B.  MRT IPv6 Tunnels

6.1.1.  MRT LDP Labels

   We consider two options for the MRT forwarding mechanisms using MRT
   LDP labels.

6.1.1.1.  Topology-Scoped FEC Encoded Using a Single Label (Option 1A)

   [RFC7307] provides a mechanism to distribute FEC-label bindings
   scoped to a given MPLS topology (represented by MPLS MT-ID).  To use
   multi-topology LDP to create MRT forwarding topologies, we associate
   two MPLS MT-IDs with the MRT-Red and MRT-Blue forwarding topologies,
   in addition to the default shortest path forwarding topology with
   MT-ID=0.

   With this forwarding mechanism, a single label is distributed for
   each topology-scoped FEC.  For a given FEC in the default topology
   (call it default-FEC-A), two additional topology-scoped FECs would be
   created, corresponding to the Red and Blue MRT forwarding topologies
   (call them red-FEC-A and blue-FEC-A).  A router supporting this MRT
   transit forwarding mechanism advertises a different FEC-label binding
   for each of the three topology-scoped FECs.  When a packet is

Top      ToC       Page 11 
   received with a label corresponding to red-FEC-A (for example), an
   MRT transit router will determine the next hop for the MRT-Red
   forwarding topology for that FEC, swap the incoming label with the
   outgoing label corresponding to red-FEC-A learned from the MRT-Red
   next-hop router, and forward the packet.

   This forwarding mechanism has the useful property that the FEC
   associated with the packet is maintained in the labels at each hop
   along the MRT.  We will take advantage of this property when
   specifying how to carry LDP traffic on MRT paths using multi-topology
   LDP labels.

   This approach is very simple for hardware to support.  However, it
   reduces the label space for other uses, and it increases the memory
   needed to store the labels and the communication required by LDP to
   distribute FEC-label bindings.  In general, this approach will also
   increase the time needed to install the FRR entries in the Forwarding
   Information Base (FIB) and, hence, the time needed before the next
   failure can be protected.

   This forwarding option uses the LDP signaling extensions described in
   [RFC7307].  The MRT-specific LDP extensions required to support this
   option will be described elsewhere.

6.1.1.2.  Topology and FEC Encoded Using a Two-Label Stack (Option 1B)

   With this forwarding mechanism, a two-label stack is used to encode
   the topology and the FEC of the packet.  The top label (topology-id
   label) identifies the MRT forwarding topology, while the second label
   (FEC label) identifies the FEC.  The top label would be a new FEC
   type with two values corresponding to MRT Red and Blue topologies.

   When an MRT transit router receives a packet with a topology-id
   label, the router pops the top label and uses that it to guide the
   next-hop selection in combination with the next label in the stack
   (the FEC label).  The router then swaps the FEC label, using the FEC-
   label bindings learned through normal LDP mechanisms.  The router
   then pushes the topology-id label for the next hop.

   As with Option 1A, this forwarding mechanism also has the useful
   property that the FEC associated with the packet is maintained in the
   labels at each hop along the MRT.

   This forwarding mechanism has minimal usage of additional labels,
   memory and LDP communication.  It does increase the size of packets
   and the complexity of the required label operations and lookups.

Top      ToC       Page 12 
   This forwarding option is consistent with context-specific label
   spaces, as described in [RFC5331].  However, the precise LDP behavior
   required to support this option for MRT has not been specified.

6.1.1.3.  Compatibility of MRT LDP Label Options 1A and 1B

   MRT transit forwarding based on MRT LDP Label options 1A and 1B can
   coexist in the same network, with a packet being forwarded along a
   single MRT path using the single label of Option 1A for some hops and
   the two-label stack of Option 1B for other hops.  However, to
   simplify the process of MRT Island formation, we require that all
   routers in the MRT Island support at least one common forwarding
   mechanism.  As an example, the Default MRT Profile requires support
   for the MRT LDP Label Option 1A forwarding mechanism.  This ensures
   that the routers in an MRT island supporting the Default MRT Profile
   will be able to establish MRT forwarding paths based on MRT LDP Label
   Option 1A.  However, an implementation supporting Option 1A may also
   support Option 1B.  If the scaling or performance characteristics for
   the two options differ in this implementation, then it may be
   desirable for a pair of adjacent routers to use Option 1B labels
   instead of the Option 1A labels.  If those routers successfully
   negotiate the use of Option 1B labels, they are free to use them.
   This can occur without any of the other routers in the MRT Island
   being made aware of it.

   Note that this document only defines the Default MRT Profile, which
   requires support for the MRT LDP Label Option 1A forwarding
   mechanism.

6.1.1.4.  Required Support for MRT LDP Label Options

   If a router supports a profile that includes the MRT LDP Label Option
   1A for the MRT transit forwarding mechanism, then it MUST support
   Option 1A, which encodes topology-scoped FECs using a single label.
   The router MAY also support Option 1B.

   If a router supports a profile that includes the MRT LDP Label Option
   1B for the MRT transit forwarding mechanism, then it MUST support
   Option 1B, which encodes the topology and FEC using a two-label
   stack.  The router MAY also support Option 1A.

6.1.2.  MRT IP Tunnels (Options 2A and 2B)

   IP tunneling can also be used as an MRT transit forwarding mechanism.
   Each router supporting this MRT transit forwarding mechanism
   announces two additional loopback addresses and their associated MRT
   color.  Those addresses are used as destination addresses for MRT-
   blue and MRT-red IP tunnels, respectively.  The special loopback

Top      ToC       Page 13 
   addresses allow the transit nodes to identify the traffic as being
   forwarded along either the MRT-blue or MRT-red topology to reach the
   tunnel destination.  For example, an MRT ingress router can cause a
   packet to be tunneled along the MRT-red path to router X by
   encapsulating the packet using the MRT-red loopback address
   advertised by router X.  Upon receiving the packet, router X would
   remove the encapsulation header and forward the packet based on the
   original destination address.

   Either IPv4 (Option 2A) or IPv6 (Option 2B) can be used as the
   tunneling mechanism.

   Note that the two forwarding mechanisms using LDP Label options do
   not require additional loopbacks per router, as is required by the IP
   tunneling mechanism.  This is because LDP labels are used on a hop-
   by-hop basis to identify MRT-blue and MRT-red forwarding topologies.

6.2.  Forwarding LDP Unicast Traffic over MRT Paths

   In the previous section, we examined several options for providing
   MRT transit forwarding functionality, which is independent of the
   type of traffic being carried.  We now look at the MRT ingress
   functionality, which will depend on the type of traffic being carried
   (IP or LDP).  We start by considering LDP traffic.

   We also simplify the initial discussion by assuming that the network
   consists of a single IGP area, and that all routers in the network
   participate in MRT.  Other deployment scenarios that require MRT
   egress functionality are considered later in this document.

   In principle, it is possible to carry LDP traffic in MRT IP tunnels.
   However, for LDP traffic, it is desirable to avoid tunneling.
   Tunneling LDP traffic to a remote node requires knowledge of remote
   FEC-label bindings so that the LDP traffic can continue to be
   forwarded properly when it leaves the tunnel.  This requires targeted
   LDP sessions, which can add management complexity.  As described
   below, the two MRT forwarding mechanisms that use LDP labels do not
   require targeted LDP sessions.

6.2.1.  Forwarding LDP Traffic Using MRT LDP Label Option 1A

   The MRT LDP Label Option 1A forwarding mechanism uses topology-scoped
   FECs encoded using a single label as described in Section 6.1.1.1.
   When a PLR receives an LDP packet that needs to be forwarded on the
   MRT-Red (for example), it does a label swap operation, replacing the
   usual LDP label for the FEC with the MRT-Red label for that FEC
   received from the next-hop router in the MRT-Red computed by the PLR.
   When the next-hop router in the MRT-Red receives the packet with the

Top      ToC       Page 14 
   MRT-Red label for the FEC, the MRT transit forwarding functionality
   continues as described in Section 6.1.1.1.  In this way, the original
   FEC associated with the packet is maintained at each hop along the
   MRT.

6.2.2.  Forwarding LDP Traffic Using MRT LDP Label Option 1B

   The MRT LDP Label Option 1B forwarding mechanism encodes the topology
   and the FEC using a two-label stack as described in Section 6.1.1.2.
   When a PLR receives an LDP packet that needs to be forwarded on the
   MRT-Red, it first does a normal LDP label swap operation, replacing
   the incoming normal LDP label associated with a given FEC with the
   outgoing normal LDP label for that FEC learned from the next hop on
   the MRT-Red.  In addition, the PLR pushes the topology-id label
   associated with the MRT-Red, and forward the packet to the
   appropriate next hop on the MRT-Red.  When the next-hop router in the
   MRT-Red receives the packet with the MRT-Red label for the FEC, the
   MRT transit forwarding functionality continues as described in
   Section 6.1.1.2.  As with Option 1A, the original FEC associated with
   the packet is maintained at each hop along the MRT.

6.2.3.  Other Considerations for Forwarding LDP Traffic Using MRT LDP
        Labels

   Note that forwarding LDP traffic using MRT LDP Labels can be done
   without the use of targeted LDP sessions when an MRT path to the
   destination FEC is used.  The alternates selected in [RFC7811] use
   the MRT path to the destination FEC, so targeted LDP sessions are not
   needed.  If instead one found it desirable to have the PLR use an MRT
   to reach the primary next-next-hop for the FEC, and then continue
   forwarding the LDP packet along the shortest path from the primary
   next-next-hop, this would require tunneling to the primary next-next-
   hop and a targeted LDP session for the PLR to learn the FEC-label
   binding for primary next-next-hop to correctly forward the packet.

6.2.4.  Required Support for LDP Traffic

   For greatest hardware compatibility, routers implementing MRT fast
   reroute of LDP traffic MUST support Option 1A of encoding the MT-ID
   in the labels (See Section 9).

6.3.  Forwarding IP Unicast Traffic over MRT Paths

   For IPv4 traffic, there is no currently practical alternative except
   tunneling to gain the bits needed to indicate the MRT-Blue or MRT-Red
   forwarding topology.  For IPv6 traffic, in principle, one could
   define bits in the IPv6 options header to indicate the MRT-Blue or
   MRT-Red forwarding topology.  However, in this document, we have

Top      ToC       Page 15 
   chosen not to define a solution that would work for IPv6 traffic but
   not for IPv4 traffic.

   The choice of tunnel egress is flexible since any router closer to
   the destination than the next hop can work.  This architecture
   assumes that the original destination in the area is selected (see
   Section 11 for handling of multihomed prefixes); another possible
   choice is the next-next-hop towards the destination.  As discussed in
   the previous section, for LDP traffic, using the MRT to the original
   destination simplifies MRT-FRR by avoiding the need for targeted LDP
   sessions to the next-next-hop.  For IP, that consideration doesn't
   apply.

   Some situations require tunneling IP traffic along an MRT to a tunnel
   endpoint that is not the destination of the IP traffic.  These
   situations will be discussed in detail later.  We note here that an
   IP packet with a destination in a different IGP area/level from the
   PLR should be tunneled on the MRT to the Area Border Router (ABR) or
   Level Border Router (LBR) on the shortest path to the destination.
   For a destination outside of the PLR's MRT Island, the packet should
   be tunneled on the MRT to a non-proxy-node immediately before the
   named proxy-node on that particular color MRT.

6.3.1.  Tunneling IP Traffic Using MRT LDP Labels

   An IP packet can be tunneled along an MRT path by pushing the
   appropriate MRT LDP label(s).  Tunneling using LDP labels, as opposed
   to IP headers, has the advantage that more installed routers can do
   line-rate encapsulation and decapsulation using LDP than using IP.
   Also, no additional IP addresses would need to be allocated or
   signaled.

6.3.1.1.  Tunneling IP Traffic Using MRT LDP Label Option 1A

   The MRT LDP Label Option 1A forwarding mechanism uses topology-scoped
   FECs encoded using a single label as described in Section 6.1.1.1.
   When a PLR receives an IP packet that needs to be forwarded on the
   MRT-Red to a particular tunnel endpoint, it does a label push
   operation.  The label pushed is the MRT-Red label for a FEC
   originated by the tunnel endpoint, learned from the next hop on the
   MRT-Red.

6.3.1.2.  Tunneling IP Traffic Using MRT LDP Label Option 1B

   The MRT LDP Label Option 1B forwarding mechanism encodes the topology
   and the FEC using a two-label stack as described in Section 6.1.1.2.
   When a PLR receives an IP packet that needs to be forwarded on the
   MRT-Red to a particular tunnel endpoint, the PLR pushes two labels on

Top      ToC       Page 16 
   the IP packet.  The first (inner) label is the normal LDP label
   learned from the next hop on the MRT-Red, associated with a FEC
   originated by the tunnel endpoint.  The second (outer) label is the
   topology-id label associated with the MRT-Red.

   For completeness, we note here a potential variation that uses a
   single label as opposed to two labels.  In order to tunnel an IP
   packet over an MRT to the destination of the IP packet as opposed to
   an arbitrary tunnel endpoint, one could just push a topology-id label
   directly onto the packet.  An MRT transit router would need to pop
   the topology-id label, do an IP route lookup in the context of that
   topology-id label, and push the topology-id label.

6.3.2.  Tunneling IP Traffic Using MRT IP Tunnels

   In order to tunnel over the MRT to a particular tunnel endpoint, the
   PLR encapsulates the original IP packet with an additional IP header
   using the MRT-Blue or MRT-Red loopback address of the tunnel
   endpoint.

6.3.3.  Required Support for IP Traffic

   For greatest hardware compatibility and ease in removing the MRT-
   topology marking at area/level boundaries, routers that support MPLS
   and implement IP MRT fast reroute MUST support tunneling of IP
   traffic using MRT LDP Label Option 1A (topology-scoped FEC encoded
   using a single label).

7.  MRT Island Formation

   The purpose of communicating support for MRT is to indicate that the
   MRT-Blue and MRT-Red forwarding topologies are created for transit
   traffic.  The MRT architecture allows for different, potentially
   incompatible options.  In order to create consistent MRT forwarding
   topologies, the routers participating in a particular MRT Island need
   to use the same set of options.  These options are grouped into MRT
   profiles.  In addition, the routers in an MRT Island all need to use
   the same set of nodes and links within the Island when computing the
   MRT forwarding topologies.  This section describes the information
   used by a router to determine the nodes and links to include in a
   particular MRT Island.  Some information already exists in the IGPs
   and can be used by MRT in Island formation, subject to the
   interpretation defined here.

   Other information needs to be communicated between routers for which
   there do not currently exist protocol extensions.  This new
   information needs to be shared among all routers in an IGP area, so

Top      ToC       Page 17 
   defining extensions to existing IGPs to carry this information makes
   sense.  These new protocol extensions will be defined elsewhere.

   Deployment scenarios using multi-topology OSPF or IS-IS, or running
   both IS-IS and OSPF on the same routers is out of scope for this
   specification.  As with LFA, MRT-FRR does not support OSPF Virtual
   Links.

   At a high level, an MRT Island is defined as the set of routers
   supporting the same MRT profile, in the same IGP area/level and with
   bidirectional links interconnecting those routers.  More detailed
   descriptions of these criteria are given below.

7.1.  IGP Area or Level

   All links in an MRT Island are bidirectional and belong to the same
   IGP area or level.  For IS-IS, a link belonging to both Level-1 and
   Level-2 would qualify to be in multiple MRT Islands.  A given ABR or
   LBR can belong to multiple MRT Islands, corresponding to the areas or
   levels in which it participates.  Inter-area forwarding behavior is
   discussed in Section 10.

7.2.  Support for a Specific MRT Profile

   All routers in an MRT Island support the same MRT profile.  A router
   advertises support for a given MRT profile using an 8-bit MRT Profile
   ID value.  The "MRT Profile Identifier Registry" is defined in this
   document.  The protocol extensions for advertising the MRT Profile ID
   value will be defined in a future specification.  A given router can
   support multiple MRT profiles and participate in multiple MRT
   Islands.  The options that make up an MRT Profile, as well as the
   Default MRT Profile, are defined in Section 8.

   The process of MRT Island formation takes place independently for
   each MRT profile advertised by a given router.  For example, consider
   a network with 40 connected routers in the same area advertising
   support for MRT Profile A and MRT Profile B.  Two distinct MRT
   Islands will be formed corresponding to Profile A and Profile B, with
   each island containing all 40 routers.  A complete set of maximally
   redundant trees will be computed for each island following the rules
   defined for each profile.  If we add a third MRT Profile to this
   example, with Profile C being advertised by a connected subset of 30
   routers, there will be a third MRT Island formed corresponding to
   those 30 routers, and a third set of maximally redundant trees will
   be computed.  In this example, 40 routers would compute and install
   two sets of MRT transit forwarding entries corresponding to Profiles
   A and B, while 30 routers would compute and install three sets of MRT
   transit forwarding entries corresponding to Profiles A, B, and C.

Top      ToC       Page 18 
7.3.  Excluding Additional Routers and Interfaces from the MRT Island

   MRT takes into account existing IGP mechanisms for discouraging
   traffic from using particular links and routers, and it introduces an
   MRT-specific exclusion mechanism for links.

7.3.1.  Existing IGP Exclusion Mechanisms

   Mechanisms for discouraging traffic from using particular links
   already exist in IS-IS and OSPF.  In IS-IS, an interface configured
   with a metric of 2^24-2 (0xFFFFFE) will only be used as a last
   resort.  (An interface configured with a metric of 2^24-1 (0xFFFFFF)
   will not be advertised into the topology.)  In OSPF, an interface
   configured with a metric of 2^16-1 (0xFFFF) will only be used as a
   last resort.  These metrics can be configured manually to enforce
   administrative policy or they can be set in an automated manner as
   with LDP IGP synchronization [RFC5443].

   Mechanisms also already exist in IS-IS and OSPF to discourage or
   prevent transit traffic from using a particular router.  In IS-IS,
   the overload bit is prevents transit traffic from using a router.

   For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, [RFC6987] specifies setting all outgoing
   interface metrics to 0xFFFF to discourage transit traffic from using
   a router.  ([RFC6987] defines the metric value 0xFFFF as
   MaxLinkMetric, a fixed architectural value for OSPF.)  For OSPFv3,
   [RFC5340] specifies that a router be excluded from the intra-area SPT
   computation if the V6-bit or R-bit of the Link State Advertisement
   (LSA) options is not set in the Router LSA.

   The following rules for MRT Island formation ensure that MRT FRR
   protection traffic does not use a link or router that is discouraged
   or prevented from carrying traffic by existing IGP mechanisms.

   1.  A bidirectional link MUST be excluded from an MRT Island if
       either the forward or reverse cost on the link is 0xFFFFFE (for
       IS-IS) or 0xFFFF for OSPF.

   2.  A router MUST be excluded from an MRT Island if it is advertised
       with the overload bit set (for IS-IS), or it is advertised with
       metric values of 0xFFFF on all of its outgoing interfaces (for
       OSPFv2 and OSPFv3).

   3.  A router MUST be excluded from an MRT Island if it is advertised
       with either the V6-bit or R-bit of the LSA options not set in the
       Router LSA.

Top      ToC       Page 19 
7.3.2.  MRT-Specific Exclusion Mechanism

   This architecture also defines a means of excluding an otherwise
   usable link from MRT Islands.  The protocol extensions for
   advertising that a link is MRT-Ineligible will be defined elsewhere.
   A link with either interface advertised as MRT-Ineligible MUST be
   excluded from an MRT Island.  Note that an interface advertised as
   MRT-Ineligible by a router is ineligible with respect to all profiles
   advertised by that router.

7.4.  Connectivity

   All of the routers in an MRT Island MUST be connected by
   bidirectional links with other routers in the MRT Island.
   Disconnected MRT Islands will operate independently of one another.

7.5.  Algorithm for MRT Island Identification

   An algorithm that allows a computing router to identify the routers
   and links in the local MRT Island satisfying the above rules is given
   in Section 5.2 of [RFC7811].

8.  MRT Profile

   An MRT Profile is a set of values and options related to MRT
   behavior.  The complete set of options is designated by the
   corresponding 8-bit Profile ID value.

   This document specifies the values and options that correspond to the
   Default MRT Profile (Profile ID = 0).  Future documents may define
   other MRT Profiles by specifying the MRT Profile Options below.

8.1.  MRT Profile Options

   Below is a description of the values and options that define an MRT
   Profile.

   MRT Algorithm:  This identifies the particular algorithm for
      computing maximally redundant trees used by the router for this
      profile.

   MRT-Red MT-ID:  This specifies the MPLS MT-ID to be associated with
      the MRT-Red forwarding topology.  It is allocated from the MPLS
      Multi-Topology Identifiers Registry.

   MRT-Blue MT-ID:  This specifies the MPLS MT-ID to be associated with
      the MRT-Blue forwarding topology.  It is allocated from the MPLS
      Multi-Topology Identifiers Registry.

Top      ToC       Page 20 
   GADAG Root Selection Policy:  This specifies the manner in which the
      GADAG root is selected.  All routers in the MRT Island need to use
      the same GADAG root in the calculations used construct the MRTs.
      A valid GADAG Root Selection Policy MUST be such that each router
      in the MRT Island chooses the same GADAG root based on information
      available to all routers in the MRT Island.  GADAG Root Selection
      Priority values, advertised as router-specific MRT parameters, MAY
      be used in a GADAG Root Selection Policy.

   MRT Forwarding Mechanism:  This specifies which forwarding mechanism
      the router uses to carry transit traffic along MRT paths.  A
      router that supports a specific MRT forwarding mechanism must
      program appropriate next hops into the forwarding plane.  The
      current options are MRT LDP Label Option 1A, MRT LDP Label Option
      1B, IPv4 Tunneling, IPv6 Tunneling, and None.  If IPv4 is
      supported, then both MRT-Red and MRT-Blue IPv4 loopback addresses
      SHOULD be specified.  If IPv6 is supported, both MRT-Red and MRT-
      Blue IPv6 loopback addresses SHOULD be specified.

   Recalculation:  Recalculation specifies the process and timing by
      which new MRTs are computed after the topology has been modified.

   Area/Level Border Behavior:  This specifies how traffic traveling on
      the MRT-Blue or MRT-Red in one area should be treated when it
      passes into another area.

   Other Profile-Specific Behavior:  Depending upon the use-case for the
      profile, there may be additional profile-specific behavior.

   When a new MRT Profile is defined, new and unique values should be
   allocated from the "MPLS Multi-Topology Identifiers Registry",
   corresponding to the MRT-Red and MRT-Blue MT-ID values for the new
   MRT Profile.

   If a router advertises support for multiple MRT profiles, then it
   MUST create the transit forwarding topologies for each of those,
   unless the profile specifies the None option for the MRT Forwarding
   Mechanism.

   The ability of MRT-FRR to support transit forwarding entries for
   multiple profiles can be used to facilitate a smooth transition from
   an existing deployed MRT Profile to a new MRT Profile.  The new
   profile can be activated in parallel with the existing profile,
   installing the transit forwarding entries for the new profile without
   affecting the transit forwarding entries for the existing profile.
   Once the new transit forwarding state has been verified, the router
   can be configured to use the alternates computed by the new profile
   in the event of a failure.

Top      ToC       Page 21 
8.2.  Router-Specific MRT Parameters

   For some profiles, additional router-specific MRT parameters may need
   to be advertised.  While the set of options indicated by the MRT
   Profile ID must be identical for all routers in an MRT Island, these
   router-specific MRT parameters may differ between routers in the same
   MRT Island.  Several such parameters are described below.

   GADAG Root Selection Priority:   A GADAG Root Selection Policy MAY
      rely on the GADAG Root Selection Priority values advertised by
      each router in the MRT Island.  A GADAG Root Selection Policy may
      use the GADAG Root Selection Priority to allow network operators
      to configure a parameter to ensure that the GADAG root is selected
      from a particular subset of routers.  An example of this use of
      the GADAG Root Selection Priority value by the GADAG Root
      Selection Policy is given in the Default MRT Profile below.

   MRT-Red Loopback Address:   This provides the router's loopback
      address to reach the router via the MRT-Red forwarding topology.
      It can be specified for either IPv4 or IPv6.  Note that this
      parameter is not needed to support the Default MRT Profile.

   MRT-Blue Loopback Address:   This provides the router's loopback
      address to reach the router via the MRT-Blue forwarding topology.
      It can be specified for either IPv4 and IPv6.  Note that this
      parameter is not needed to support the Default MRT Profile.

   Protocol extensions for advertising a router's GADAG Root Selection
   Priority value will be defined in other documents.  Protocol
   extensions for the advertising a router's MRT-Red and MRT-Blue
   loopback addresses will be defined elsewhere.

8.3.  Default MRT Profile

   The following set of options defines the Default MRT Profile.  The
   Default MRT Profile is indicated by the MRT Profile ID value of 0.

   MRT Algorithm:   MRT Lowpoint algorithm defined in [RFC7811].

   MRT-Red MPLS MT-ID:   This temporary registration has been allocated
      from the "MPLS Multi-Topology Identifiers" registry.  The
      registration request appears in [LDP-MRT].

   MRT-Blue MPLS MT-ID:   This temporary registration has been allocated
      from the "MPLS Multi-Topology Identifiers" registry.  The
      registration request appears in [LDP-MRT].

Top      ToC       Page 22 
   GADAG Root Selection Policy:   Among the routers in the MRT Island
      with the lowest numerical value advertised for GADAG Root
      Selection Priority, an implementation MUST pick the router with
      the highest Router ID to be the GADAG root.  Note that a lower
      numerical value for GADAG Root Selection Priority indicates a
      higher preference for selection.

   Forwarding Mechanisms:   MRT LDP Label Option 1A

   Recalculation:   Recalculation of MRTs SHOULD occur as described in
      Section 12.2.  This allows the MRT forwarding topologies to
      support IP/LDP fast-reroute traffic.

   Area/Level Border Behavior:   As described in Section 10, ABRs/LBRs
      SHOULD ensure that traffic leaving the area also exits the MRT-Red
      or MRT-Blue forwarding topology.

9.  LDP Signaling Extensions and Considerations

   The protocol extensions for LDP will be defined in another document.
   A router must indicate that it has the ability to support MRT; having
   this explicit allows the use of MRT-specific processing, such as
   special handling of FECs sent with the Rainbow MRT MT-ID.

   A FEC sent with the Rainbow MRT MT-ID indicates that the FEC applies
   to all the MRT-Blue and MRT-Red MT-IDs in supported MRT profiles.
   The FEC-label bindings for the default shortest-path-based MT-ID 0
   MUST still be sent (even though it could be inferred from the Rainbow
   FEC-label bindings) to ensure continuous operation of normal LDP
   forwarding.  The Rainbow MRT MT-ID is defined to provide an easy way
   to handle the special signaling that is needed at ABRs or LBRs.  It
   avoids the problem of needing to signal different MPLS labels to
   different LDP neighbors for the same FEC.  Because the Rainbow MRT
   MT-ID is used only by ABRs/LBRs or an LDP egress router, it is not
   MRT profile specific.

   The value of the Rainbow MRT MPLS MT-ID has been temporarily
   allocated from the "MPLS Multi-Topology Identifiers" registry.  The
   registration request appears in [LDP-MRT].


Next RFC Part