rfc3214.txt

来自「RFC 的详细文档！」· 文本 代码 · 共 620 行 · 第 1/2 页

Network Working Group                                             J. Ash
Request for Comments: 3214                                          AT&T
Category: Standards Track                                         Y. Lee
                                                        Ceterus Networks
                                                        P. Ashwood-Smith
                                                             B. Jamoussi
                                                                D. Fedyk
                                                             D. Skalecki
                                                         Nortel Networks
                                                                   L. Li
                                                            SS8 Networks
                                                            January 2002


                     LSP Modification Using CR-LDP

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document presents an approach to modify the bandwidth and
   possibly other parameters of an established CR-LSP (Constraint-based
   Routed Label Switched Paths) using CR-LDP (Constraint-based Routed
   Label Distribution Protocol) without service interruption.  After a
   CR-LSP is set up, its bandwidth reservation may need to be changed by
   the network operator, due to the new requirements for the traffic
   carried on that CR-LSP.  The LSP modification feature can be
   supported by CR-LDP by use of the _modify_value for the _action
   indicator flag_ in the LSPID TLV.  This feature has application in
   dynamic network resources management where traffic of different
   priorities and service classes is involved.










Ash, et al.                 Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3214             LSP Modification Using CR-LDP          January 2002


Table of Contents

   1.  Conventions Used in This Document ............................  2
   2.  Introduction .................................................  2
   3.  LSP Modification Using CR-LDP ................................  3
     3.1 Basic Procedure for Resource Modification ..................  3
     3.2 Rerouting LSPs .............................................  5
     3.3 Priority Handling ..........................................  6
     3.4 Modification Failure Case Handling .........................  6
   4.  Application of LSP Bandwidth Modification in Dynamic Resource
       Management ...................................................  7
   5.  Acknowledgments ..............................................  8
   6.  Intellectual Property Considerations .........................  8
   7.  Security Considerations ......................................  8
   8.  References ...................................................  8
   9.  Authors' Addresses ...........................................  9
   10. Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 11

1. Conventions Used in This Document

   L:           LSP (Label Switched Path)
   L-id:        LSPID (LSP Identifier)
   T:           Traffic Parameters
   R:           LSR (Label Switching Router)
   FEC:         Forwarding Equivalence Class
   NHLFE:       Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry
   FTN:         FEC To NHLFE
   TLV:         Type Length Value

   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 [4].

2. Introduction

   Consider an LSP L1 that has been established with its set of traffic
   parameters T0. A certain amount of bandwidth is reserved along the
   path of L1.  Consider then that some changes are required on L1. For
   example, the bandwidth of L1 needs to be increased to accommodate the
   increased traffic on L1. Or the SLA associated with L1 needs to be
   modified because a different service class is desired.  The network
   operator, in these cases, would like to modify the characteristics of
   L1, for example, to change its traffic parameter set from T0 to T1,
   without releasing the LSP L1 to interrupt the service.  In some other
   cases, network operators may want to reroute a CR-LSP to a different
   path for either improved performance or better network resource
   utilization.  In all these cases, LSP modification is required. In
   section 3 below, a method to modify an active LSP using CR-LDP is



Ash, et al.                 Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3214             LSP Modification Using CR-LDP          January 2002


   presented.  The concept of LSPID in CR-LDP is used to achieve the LSP
   modification, without releasing the LSP and interrupting the service
   and, without double booking the bandwidth.  In Section 4, an example
   is described to demonstrate an application of the presented method in
   dynamically managing network bandwidth requirements without
   interrupting service.  In CR-LDP, an action indicator flag of
   _modify_ is used in order to explicitly specify the behavior, and
   allow the existing LSPID to support other networking capabilities in
   the future.  Reference [3], RFC XXXX, specifies the action indicator
   flag of _modify_ for CR-LDP.

3. LSP Modification Using CR-LDP

3.1 Basic Procedure for Resource Modification

   LSP modification can only be allowed when the LSP is already set up
   and active. That is, modification is not defined nor allowed during
   the LSP establishment or label release/withdraw phases.  Only
   modification requested by the ingress LSR of the LSP is considered in
   this document for CR-LSP.  The Ingress LSR cannot modify an LSP
   before a previous modification procedure is completed.

   Assume that CR-LSP L1 is set up with LSPID L-id1, which is unique in
   the MPLS network.  The ingress LSR R1 of L1 has in its FTN (FEC To
   NHLFE) table FEC1 -> Label A mapping where A is the outgoing label
   for LSP L1.  To modify the characteristics of L1, R1 sends a Label
   Request Message.  In the message, the TLVs will have the new
   requested values, and the LSPID TLV is included which indicates the
   value of L-id1.  The Traffic Parameters TLV, the ER-TLV, the Resource
   Class (color) TLV and the Preemption TLV can have values different
   from those in the original Label Request Message, which  has been
   used to set up L1 earlier.  Thus, L1 can be changed in its bandwidth
   request (traffic parameter TLV), its traffic service class (traffic
   parameter TLV), the route it traverses (ER TLV) and its setup and
   holding (Preemption TLV) priorities. The ingress LSR R1 now still has
   the entry in its FTN as FEC1 -> Label A.  R1 is waiting to establish
   another entry for FEC1.

   When an LSR Ri along the path of L1 receives the Label Request
   message, its behavior is the same as that of receiving any Label
   request message.  The only extension is that Ri examines the LSPID
   carried in the Label Request Message, L-id1, and identifies if it
   already has L-id1.  If Ri does not have L-id1, Ri behaves the same as
   receiving a new Label Request message.  If Ri already has L-id1, Ri
   takes the newly received Traffic Parameter TLV and computes the new
   bandwidth required and derives the new service class.  Compared with
   the already reserved bandwidth for L-id1, Ri now reserves only the
   difference of the bandwidth requirements. This prevents Ri from doing



Ash, et al.                 Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3214             LSP Modification Using CR-LDP          January 2002


   bandwidth double booking.  If a new service class is requested, Ri
   also prepares to receive the traffic on L1 in just the same way as
   handling it for a Label Request Message, perhaps using a different
   type of queue.  Ri assigns a new label for the Label Request Message.

   When the Label Mapping message is received, two sets of labels exist
   for the same LSPID.  Then the ingress LSR R1 will have two outgoing
   labels, A and B, associated with the same FEC, where B is the new
   outgoing label received for LSP L1. The ingress LSR R1 can now
   activate the new entry in its FTN, FEC1 - > Label B.  This means that
   R1 swaps traffic on L1 to the new label _B_ (_new_ path) for L1.  The
   packets can now be sent with the new label B, with the new set of
   traffic parameters if any, on a new path, that is, if a new path is
   requested in the Label Request Message for the modification.  All the
   other LSRs along the path will start to receive the incoming packets
   with the new label.  For the incoming new label, the LSR has already
   established its mapping to the new outgoing label.  Thus, the packets
   will be sent out with the new outgoing label.  The LSRs do not have
   to  implement new procedures to track the new and old characteristics
   of the LSP.

   The ingress LSR R1 then starts to release the original label A for
   LSP L1.  The Label Release Message is sent by R1 towards the down
   stream LSRs.  The Release message carries the LSPID of L-id1 and the
   Label TLV to indicate which label is to be released.  The Release
   Message is propagated to the egress LSR to release the original
   labels previously used for L1.  Upon receiving the Label Release
   Message, LSR Ri examines the LSPID, L-id1, and finds out that the L-
   id1 has still another set of labels (incoming/outgoing) under it.
   Thus, the old label is released without releasing the resource in
   use.  That is, if the bandwidth has been decreased for L1, the delta
   bandwidth is released.  Otherwise, no bandwidth is released.  This
   modification procedure can not only be applied to modify the traffic
   parameters and/or service class of an active LSP, but also to reroute
   an existing LSP (as described in Section 3.2 below), and/or change
   its setup/holding priority if desired.  After the release procedure,
   the modification of the LSP is completed.

   The method described above follows the normal behavior of Label
   Request / Mapping / Notification / Release / Withdraw procedure of a
   CR-LDP operated LSR with a specific action taken on an LSPID.  If a
   Label Withdraw Message is used to withdraw a label associated with an
   LSPID, the Label TLV should be included to specify which label to
   withdraw.  Since the LSPID can also be used for other feature
   support, an action indication flag of _modify_ assigned to the LSPID
   would explicitly explain the action/semantics that should be
   associated with the messaging procedure.  The details of this flag
   are addressed in the CR-LDP document, Reference [3].



Ash, et al.                 Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3214             LSP Modification Using CR-LDP          January 2002


3.2 Rerouting LSPs

   LSP modification can also be used to reroute an existing LSP. Only
   modification requested by the ingress LSR of the LSP is considered in
   this document for CR-LSP. The Ingress LSR cannot modify an LSP before
   a previous modification procedure is completed.

   As in the previous section, consider a CR-LSP L1 with LSPID L-id1.
   To modify the route of the LSP, the ingress LSR R1 sends a Label
   Request Message. In the message, the LSPID TLV indicates L-id1 and
   the Explicit Route TLV is specified with some different hops from the
   explicit route specified in the original Label Request Message.  The
   action indication flag has the value _modify_.

   At this point, the ingress LSR R1 still has an entry in FTN as
   FEC1 -> Label A. R1 is waiting to establish another entry for FEC1.

   When an LSR Ri along the path of L1 receives the Label Request
   message, its behavior is the same as that of receiving a Label
   Request Message that modifies some other parameters of the LSP. Ri
   assigns a new label for the Label Request Message and forwards the
   message along the explicit route.  It does not allocate any more
   resources except as described in section 3.1.

   At another LSR Rj further along the path, the explicit route diverges
   from the previous route.  Rj acts as Ri, but forwards the Label
   Request message along the new route.  From this point onwards the
   Label Request Message is treated as setting up a new LSP by each LSR
   until the paths converge at later LSR Rk.  The _modify_ value of the
   action indication flag is ignored.

   At Rk and subsequent LSRs, the Label Request Message is handled as at
   Ri.

   On the return path, when the Label Mapping message is received, two
   sets of labels for the LSPID exist where the new route coincide with
   the old.  Only one set of labels will exist at LSRs where the routes
   diverge.

   When the Label Mapping message is received at the ingress LSR R1 it
   has two outgoing labels, A and B, associated with the same FEC, where
   B is the new outgoing label received for LSP L1. R1 can now activate
   the new entry in the FTN, FEC1 - > Label B and de-activate the old
   entry FEC1 - > Label A. This means that R1 swaps traffic on L1 to the
   new label B. The packets are now sent with the new label B, on the
   new path.





Ash, et al.                 Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3214             LSP Modification Using CR-LDP          January 2002


   The ingress LSR R1 then starts to release the original label A for
   LSP L1. The Label Release Message is sent by R1 towards the down
   stream LSRs following the original route. The Release message carries
   the LSPID of L-id1 and the Label TLV to indicate which label is to be
   released. At each LSR the old label is released - no further action
   is required to change the path of the data packets which are already
   following the new route programmed by the Label Mapping message.

   At some LSRs, where the routes diverged, there is only one label for
   the LSPID. For example, between Rj and Rk, the Label Release Message
   will follow the old route. At LSRs between Rj and Rk only the labels
   from the original route will exist for LSPID L-id1.  At these LSRs
   the LSPID TLV does not need to be examined to release the correct
   label, but it must still be updated and passed on to the next LSR as
   the Label Release message is propagated. In this way, at Rk where the
   routes converge, the downstream LSR will know which label to release
   and can continue to forward the Label Release Message along the old
   route.

3.3 Priority Handling

   When sending a Label Request Message for an active LSP L1 to request
   changes, the setup priority used in the label Request Message can be
   different from the one used in the previous Label Request Message,