Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
93929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 6826

Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths

Pages: 12
Proposed Standard
Updated by:  7438

Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                 IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6826                                     T. Eckert
Category: Standards Track                            Cisco Systems, Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               N. Leymann
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                            M. Napierala
                                                               AT&T Labs
                                                            January 2013


                  Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for
 Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths

Abstract

Consider an IP multicast tree, constructed by Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM), that needs to pass through an MPLS domain in which Multipoint LDP (mLDP) point-to-multipoint and/or multipoint-to- multipoint Labels Switched Paths (LSPs) can be created. The part of the IP multicast tree that traverses the MPLS domain can be instantiated as a multipoint LSP. When a PIM Join message is received at the border of the MPLS domain, information from that message is encoded into mLDP messages. When the mLDP messages reach the border of the next IP domain, the encoded information is used to generate PIM messages that can be sent through the IP domain. The result is an IP multicast tree consisting of a set of IP multicast sub-trees that are spliced together with a multipoint LSP. This document describes procedures regarding how IP multicast trees are spliced together with multipoint LSPs. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6826.
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 2
Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. In-Band Signaling for MP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Transiting Unidirectional IP Multicast Shared Trees . . . 6 2.2. Transiting IP Multicast Source Trees . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Transiting IP Multicast Bidirectional Trees . . . . . . . 7 3. LSP Opaque Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Transit IPv4 Source TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Transit IPv6 Source TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Transit IPv4 Bidir TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4. Transit IPv6 Bidir TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 3

1. Introduction

The mLDP (Multipoint LDP) [RFC6388] specification describes mechanisms for creating point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and multipoint-to- multipoint (MP2MP) LSPs (Label Switched Paths). These LSPs are typically used for transporting end-user multicast packets. However, the mLDP specification does not provide any rules for associating particular end-user multicast packets with any particular LSP. Other documents, like [RFC6513], describe applications in which out-of-band signaling protocols, such as PIM and BGP, are used to establish the mapping between an LSP and the multicast packets that need to be forwarded over the LSP. This document describes an application in which the information needed to establish the mapping between an LSP and the set of multicast packets to be forwarded over it is carried in the "opaque value" field of an mLDP FEC (Forwarding Equivalence Class) element. When an IP multicast tree (either a source-specific tree or a bidirectional tree) enters the MPLS network, the (S,G) or (*,G) information from the IP multicast control-plane state is carried in the opaque value field of the mLDP FEC message. As the tree leaves the MPLS network, this information is extracted from the FEC Element and used to build the IP multicast control plane. PIM messages can be sent outside the MPLS domain. Note that although the PIM control messages are sent periodically, the mLDP messages are not. Each IP multicast tree is mapped one-to-one to a P2MP or MP2MP LSP in the MPLS network. A network operator should expect to see as many LSPs in the MPLS network as there are IP multicast trees. A network operator should be aware how IP multicast state is created in the network to ensure that it does not exceed the scalability numbers of the protocol, either PIM or mLDP.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.2. Terminology

ASM: PIM Any Source Multicast Egress LSR: One of potentially many destinations of an LSP; also referred to as leaf node in the case of P2MP and MP2MP LSPs.
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 4
   In-band signaling:  Using the opaque value of an mLDP FEC Element to
      carry the (S,G) or (*,G) identifying a particular IP multicast
      tree.

   Ingress LSR:  Source of the P2MP LSP; also referred to as a root
      node.

   IP multicast tree:  An IP multicast distribution tree identified by
      an IP multicast Group address and, optionally, by a Source IP
      address, also referred to as (S,G) and (*,G).

   LSR: Label Switching Router

   LSP: Labels Switched Path

   mLDP:  Multipoint LDP

   MP2MP LSP:  An LSP that connects a set of leaf nodes that may each
      independently act as ingress or egress.

   MP LSP:  A multipoint LSP, either a P2MP or an MP2MP LSP.

   P2MP LSP:  An LSP that has one Ingress Label Switching Router (LSR)
      and one or more Egress LSRs.

   RP:  PIM Rendezvous Point

   SSM:  PIM Source-Specific Multicast

   Transit LSP:  A P2MP or MP2MP LSP whose FEC Element contains the
      (S,G) or (*,G) identifying a particular IP multicast distribution
      tree.

   Transit LSR:  An LSR that has one or more directly connected
      downstream LSRs.

2. In-Band Signaling for MP LSPs

Consider the following topology: |--- IPM ---|--- MPLS --|--- IPM ---| S/RP -- (A) - (U) - (C) - (D) -- (B) -- R Figure 1
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 5
   Nodes A and B are IP-multicast-capable routers and connect to a
   Source/RP and a Receiver, respectively.  Nodes U, C, and D are MPLS
   Label Switched Routers (LSRs).

   LSR D is attached to a network that is capable of MPLS multicast and
   IP multicast (see figure 1), and D is required to create a IP
   multicast tree due to a certain IP multicast event, like a PIM Join,
   MSDP Source Announcement (SA) [RFC3618], BGP Source Active auto-
   discovery route [SM-MLDP], or Rendezvous Point (RP) discovery.
   Suppose that D can determine that the IP multicast tree needs to
   travel through the MPLS network until it reaches LSR U.  For
   instance, when D looks up the route to the Source or RP [RFC4601] of
   the IP multicast tree, it may discover that the route is a BGP route
   with U as the BGP next hop.  Then D may choose to set up a P2MP or an
   MP2MP LSP, with U as root, and to make that LSP become part of the IP
   multicast distribution tree.  Note that other methods are possible to
   determine that an IP multicast tree is to be transported across an
   MPLS network using P2MP or MP2MP LSPs.  However, these methods are
   outside the scope of this document.

   In order to establish a multicast tree via a P2MP or MP2MP LSP using
   "in-band signaling", LSR D encodes a P2MP or MP2MP FEC Element, with
   the IP address of LSR U as the "Root Node Address" and with the
   source and the group encoded into the "opaque value" ([RFC6388],
   Sections 2.2 and 3.2).  Several different opaque value types are
   defined in this document.  LSR D MUST NOT use a particular opaque
   value type unless it knows (through provisioning or through some
   other means outside the scope of this document) that LSR U supports
   the root node procedures for that opaque value type.

   The particular type of FEC Element and opaque value used depends on
   the IP address family being used, and on whether the multicast tree
   being established is a source-specific or a bidirectional multicast
   tree.

   When an LSR receives a label mapping or withdraw whose FEC Element
   contains one of the opaque value types defined in this document, and
   that LSR is not the one identified by the "Root Node Address" field
   of that FEC Element, the LSR follows the procedures provided in RFC
   6388.

   When an LSR receives a label mapping or withdraw whose FEC Element
   contains one of the opaque value types defined in this document, and
   that LSR is the one identified by the Root Node Address field of that
   FEC Element, then the following procedure is executed.  The multicast
   source and group are extracted and passed to the multicast code.  If
   a label mapping is being processed, the multicast code will add the
   downstream LDP neighbor to the olist of the corresponding (S,G) or
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 6
   (*,G) state, creating such state if it does not already exist.  If a
   label withdraw is being processed, the multicast code will remove the
   downstream LDP neighbor from the olist of the corresponding (S,G) or
   (*,G) state.  From this point on, normal PIM processing will occur.

   Note that if the LSR identified by the Root Node Address field does
   not recognize the opaque value type, the MP LSP will be established,
   but the root node will not send any multicast data packets on it.

   Source or RP addresses that are reachable in a VPN context are
   outside the scope of this document.

   Multicast groups that operate in PIM Dense-Mode are outside the scope
   of this document.

2.1. Transiting Unidirectional IP Multicast Shared Trees

Nothing prevents PIM shared trees, used by PIM-SM in the ASM service model, from being transported across an MPLS core. However, it is not possible to prune individual sources from the shared tree without the use of an additional out-of-band signaling protocol, like PIM or BGP [SM-MLDP]. For this reason, transiting shared trees across a transit LSP is outside the scope of this document.

2.2. Transiting IP Multicast Source Trees

IP multicast source trees can be created via PIM operating in either SSM mode [RFC4607] or ASM mode [RFC4601]. When PIM-SM is used in ASM mode, the usual means of discovering active sources is to join a sparse-mode shared tree. However, this document does not provide any method of establishing a sparse-mode shared tree across an MPLS network. To apply the technique of this document to PIM-SM in ASM mode, there must be some other means of discovering the active sources. One possible means is the use of MSDP [RFC3618]. Another possible means is to use BGP Source Active auto-discovery routes, as documented in [SM-MLDP]. However, the method of discovering the active sources is outside the scope of this document; as a result, this document does not specify everything that is needed to support the ASM service model using in-band signaling. The source and group addresses are encoded into the a transit TLV as specified in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 7

2.3. Transiting IP Multicast Bidirectional Trees

If a bidirectional IP multicast tree [RFC5015] has to be transported over an MPLS network using in-band signaling, as described in this document, it MUST be transported using an MP2MP LSPs. A bidirectional tree does not have a specific source address; the group address, subnet mask, and RP are relevant for multicast forwarding. This document does not provide procedures to discover RP-to-group mappings dynamically across an MPLS network and assumes the RP is statically defined. Support of dynamic RP mappings in combination with in-band signaling is outside the scope of this document. The RP for the group is used to select the ingress LSR and the root of the LSP. The group address is encoded according to the rules of Sections 3.3 or 3.4, depending on the IP version. The subnet mask associated with the bidirectional group is encoded in the Transit TLV. There are two types of bidirectional states in IP multicast, the group specific state and the RP state. The first type is typically created when a PIM Join has been received and has a subnet mask of 32 for IPv4 and 128 for IPv6. The RP state is typically created via the static RP mapping and has a variable subnet mask. The RP state is used to build a tree to the RP and is used for sender-only branches. Each state (group specific and RP state) will result in a separate MP2MP LSP. The merging of the two MP2MP LSPs will be done by PIM on the root LSR. No special procedures are necessary for PIM to merge the two LSPs. Each LSP is effectively treated as a PIM-enabled interface. Please see [RFC5015] for more details. For transporting the packets of a sender-only branch, we create a MP2MP LSP. Other sender-only branches will receive these packets and will not forward them because there are no receivers. These packets will be dropped. If that effect is undesirable, some other means of transport has to be established to forward packets to the root of the tree, for example, a multipoint-to-point LSP for example. A technique to unicast packets to the root of a P2MP or MP2MP LSP is documented in Section 3.2.2.1 of [MVPN-MSPMSI].
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 8

3. LSP Opaque Encodings

This section documents the different transit opaque encodings.

3.1. Transit IPv4 Source TLV

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 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Source | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Group | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 3 Length: 8 (octet size of Source and Group fields) Source: IPv4 multicast source address, 4 octets Group: IPv4 multicast group address, 4 octets

3.2. Transit IPv6 Source TLV

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 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Source ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ | Group ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 4 Length: 32 (octet size of Source and Group fields) Source: IPv6 multicast source address, 16 octets Group: IPv6 multicast group address, 16 octets.
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 9

3.3. Transit IPv4 Bidir TLV

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 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Mask Len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RP | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 5 Length: 9 (octet size of Mask Len, RP, and Group fields) Mask Len: The number of contiguous one bits that are left-justified and used as a mask, 1 octet. Maximum value allowed is 32. RP: Rendezvous Point (RP) IPv4 address used for the encoded Group, 4 octets. Group: IPv4 multicast group address, 4 octets.

3.4. Transit IPv6 Bidir TLV

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 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Mask Len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RP ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Group ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 6 Length: 33 (octet size of Mask Len, RP and Group fields) Mask Len: The number of contiguous one bits that are left-justified and used as a mask, 1 octet. Maximum value allowed is 128.
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 10
   RP:  Rendezvous Point (RP) IPv6 address used for encoded group, 16
      octets.

   Group:  IPv6 multicast group address, 16 octets.

4. Security Considerations

The same security considerations apply as for the base LDP specification, as described in [RFC5036].

5. IANA Considerations

IANA has allocated the following values from the "LDP MP Opaque Value Element basic type" registry: are: Transit IPv4 Source TLV type - 3 Transit IPv6 Source TLV type - 4 Transit IPv4 Bidir TLV type - 5 Transit IPv6 Bidir TLV type - 6

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed., "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point- to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", RFC 4607, August 2006.
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 11
   [RFC5015]  Handley, M., Kouvelas, I., Speakman, T., and L. Vicisano,
              "Bidirectional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-
              PIM)", RFC 5015, October 2007.

   [RFC3618]  Fenner, B., Ed., and D. Meyer, Ed., "Multicast Source
              Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in
              MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012.

   [SM-MLDP]  Rekhter, Y., Aggarwal, R., and N. Leymann, "Carrying PIM-
              SM in ASM mode Trees over P2MP mLDP LSPs", Work in
              Progress, August 2011.

   [MVPN-MSPMSI]
              Cai, Y., Rosen, E., Ed., Napierala, M., and A. Boers,
              "MVPN: Optimized use of PIM via MS-PMSIs", February 2012.

7. Acknowledgments

Thanks to Eric Rosen for his valuable comments on this document. Also thanks to Yakov Rekhter, Adrian Farrel, Uwe Joorde, Loa Andersson and Arkadiy Gulko for providing comments on this document.
Top   ToC   RFC6826 - Page 12

Authors' Addresses

IJsbrand Wijnands (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. De kleetlaan 6a Diegem 1831 Belgium EMail: ice@cisco.com Toerless Eckert Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 Tasman Drive San Jose CA, 95134 USA EMail: eckert@cisco.com Nicolai Leymann Deutsche Telekom Winterfeldtstrasse 21 Berlin 10781 Germany EMail: n.leymann@telekom.de Maria Napierala AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue Middletown NJ 07748 USA EMail: mnapierala@att.com