💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc7190.gmi captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:30:12. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-01-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: MPLS, composite link, link aggregation, ECMP, link bundling, multipath, MPLS-TP
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Villamizar
Request for Comments: 7190 Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting
Category: Informational March 2014
ISSN: 2070-1721
Use of Multipath with MPLS and MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
Abstract
Many MPLS implementations have supported multipath techniques, and
many MPLS deployments have used multipath techniques, particularly in
very high-bandwidth applications, such as provider IP/MPLS core
networks. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) has strongly discouraged
the use of multipath techniques. Some degradation of MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) performance cannot
be avoided when operating over many types of multipath
implementations.
Using MPLS Entropy Labels (RFC 6790), MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) can be carried over multipath links while also providing a
fully MPLS-TP-compliant server layer for MPLS-TP LSPs. This document
describes the means of supporting MPLS as a server layer for MPLS-TP.
The use of MPLS-TP LSPs as a server layer for MPLS LSPs is also
discussed.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see 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/rfc7190.
Villamizar Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. MPLS as a Server Layer for MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. MPLS-TP Forwarding and Server-Layer Requirements . . . . 5
3.2. Methods of Supporting MPLS-TP Client LSPs over MPLS . . . 7
4. MPLS-TP as a Server Layer for MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
Today the requirement to handle large aggregations of traffic can be
met by a number of techniques that we will collectively call
"multipath". Multipath applied to parallel links between the same
set of nodes includes Ethernet Link Aggregation [IEEE-802.1AX], link
bundling [RFC4201], or other aggregation techniques, some of which
could be vendor specific. Multipath applied to diverse paths rather
than parallel links includes Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) as applied
to OSPF, IS-IS, or BGP, and equal-cost Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
Some vendors support load splitting across equal-cost MPLS LSPs where
the load is split proportionally to the reserved bandwidth of the set
of LSPs.
RFC 5654 requirement 33 requires the capability to carry a client
MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) or MPLS layer over a server MPLS-TP
or MPLS layer [RFC5654]. This is possible in all cases with one
exception. When an MPLS LSP exceeds the capacity of any single
Villamizar Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
component link, it MAY be carried by a network using multipath
techniques, but it SHOULD NOT be carried by a single MPLS-TP LSP due
to the inherent MPLS-TP capacity limitation imposed by MPLS-TP
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) fate-sharing
constraints and MPLS-TP Loss Measurement OAM packet-ordering
constraints (see Section 3.1). Instead, multiple MPLS-TP LSPs SHOULD
be used to carry a large MPLS LSP (see Section 4).
The term "composite link" is more general than terms such as "link
aggregation" (which is specific to Ethernet) or "ECMP" (which implies
equal-cost paths within a routing protocol). The use of the term
"composite link" here is consistent with the broad definition in
[ITU-T.G.800]. Multipath is very similar to composite link as
defined by ITU-T but specifically excludes inverse multiplexing.
MPLS LSPs today are able to function as a server layer and carry
client MPLS LSPs. When control-plane signaling is used, forwarding
adjacency (FA) advertisements are used to inform the set of Label
Switching Routers (LSRs) of Packet Switching Capable (PSC) LSPs
within the MPLS topology [RFC4206]. Client MPLS LSP at a higher
layer (lower PSC number) may signal their intention to use PSC LSPs
as hops in the RSVP-TE Explicit Route Object (ERO). LSRs with no
explicit support for RFC 4206 see the PSC LSPs as ordinary links and
therefore use them.
An MPLS LSP that has been set up using RSVP-TE appears to its ingress
LSR as a viable IP next hop to a distant LSR. If LDP is used and
bidirectional RSVP-TE LSP connectivity is available, then LDP
signaling can be set up among the RSVP-TE LSP endpoints, and LDP can
make use of the RSVP-TE LSP as an LDP hop. This is another form of
existing MPLS-in-MPLS use. MPLS LSPs may also make use of hierarchy
that is configured through the management plane rather than signaled
using RSVP-TE.
These existing forms of MPLS-in-MPLS may traverse multipath hops such
as Ethernet Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE-802.1AX] or MPLS Link
Bundling [RFC4201]. MPLS-TP brings with it a new set of requirements
not considered in past deployments of the various forms of MPLS-in-
MPLS where multipath was in use. This document merely discusses use
of existing forwarding and protocol mechanisms that can support the
case where either the client-layer LSPs or the server-layer LSPs are
MPLS-TP and where multipath is used.
Villamizar Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
2. Definitions
Please refer to the terminology related to multipath introduced in
[ADV-MULTIPATH-REQ]. The following additional terms are used in this
document; related terms are grouped together.
Link Bundle
Link bundling is a multipath technique specific to MPLS
[RFC4201]. Link bundling supports two modes of operations.
Either an LSP can be placed on one component link of a link
bundle, or an LSP can be load-split across all members of the
bundle. There is no signaling defined that allows a per-LSP
preference regarding load split, therefore whether to load split
is generally configured per bundle and applied to all LSPs across
the bundle.
All-Ones Component
Within the context of link bundling, [RFC4201] defines a special
case where the same label is to be valid across all component
links. This case is indicated in signaling by a bit value of
"all ones" when identifying a component link. Following the
publication of RFC 4201, for brevity this special case has been
referred to as the "all-ones component".
Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP)
Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) is a specific form of multipath in
which the costs of the links or paths must be equal in a given
routing protocol. The load may be split equally across all
available links (or available paths), or the load may be split
proportionally to the capacity of each link (or path).
Loop-Free Alternate Paths (LFA)
"Loop-free alternate paths" (LFA) are defined in Section 5.2 of
RFC 5714 [RFC5714] as follows: "Such a path exists when a direct
neighbor of the router adjacent to the failure has a path to the
destination that can be guaranteed not to traverse the failure."
Further detail can be found in [RFC5286]. LFA as defined for IP
Fast Reroute (IPFRR) can be used to load balance by relaxing the
equal-cost criteria of ECMP, though IPFRR defined LFA for use in
selecting protection paths. When used with IP, proportional
split is generally not used. LFA use in load balancing is
implemented by some vendors, though it may be rare or non-
existent in deployments.
Villamizar Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
Link Aggregation
The term "link aggregation" generally refers to Ethernet Link
Aggregation as defined by [IEEE-802.1AX]. Ethernet Link
Aggregation defines a Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP)
which coordinates inclusion of Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
members in the LAG.
Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
A group of physical Ethernet interfaces that are treated as a
logical link when using Ethernet Link Aggregation is referred to
as a Link Aggregation Group (LAG).
LAG Member
Ethernet Link Aggregation as defined in [IEEE-802.1AX] refers to
an individual link in a LAG as a LAG member. A LAG member is a
component link. An Ethernet LAG is a composite link. IEEE does
not use the terms "composite link" or "component link".
A small set of requirements are discussed. These requirements make
use of keywords such as MUST and SHOULD as described in [RFC2119].
3. MPLS as a Server Layer for MPLS-TP
An MPLS LSP may be used as a server layer for MPLS-TP LSPs as long as
all MPLS-TP requirements are met. Section 3.1 reviews the basis for
requirements of a server layer that supports MPLS-TP as a client
layer. Key requirements include OAM "fate-sharing" and that packets
within an MPLS-TP LSP (including both payload and OAM packets) not be
reordered. Section 3.2 discusses implied requirements where MPLS is
the server layer for MPLS-TP client LSPs and describes a set of
solutions that use existing MPLS mechanisms.
3.1. MPLS-TP Forwarding and Server-Layer Requirements
[RFC5960] defines the data-plane requirements for MPLS-TP. Two very
relevant paragraphs in Section 3.1.1 ("LSP Packet Encapsulation and
Forwarding") are the following:
RFC 5960, Section 3.1.1, Paragraph 3
Except for transient packet reordering that may occur, for
example, during fault conditions, packets are delivered in order
on L-LSPs, and on E-LSPs within a specific ordered aggregate.
Villamizar Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
RFC 5960, Section 3.1.1, Paragraph 6
Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) load-balancing MUST NOT be performed
on an MPLS-TP LSP. MPLS-TP LSPs as defined in this document MAY
operate over a server layer that supports load-balancing, but
this load-balancing MUST operate in such a manner that it is
transparent to MPLS-TP. This does not preclude the future
definition of new MPLS-TP LSP types that have different
requirements regarding the use of ECMP in the server layer.
[RFC5960], Section 3.1.1, Paragraph 3 requires that packets within a
specific ordered aggregate be delivered in order. This same
requirement is already specified by Differentiated Services
[RFC2475]. [RFC5960], Section 3.1.1, Paragraph 6 explicitly allows a
server layer to use ECMP, provided that it is transparent to the
MPLS-TP client layer.
[RFC6371] adds a requirement for data traffic and OAM traffic "fate-
sharing". The following paragraph in Section 1 ("Introduction")
summarizes this requirement.
RFC 6371, Section 1, Paragraph 7
OAM packets that instrument a particular direction of a transport
path are subject to the same forwarding treatment (i.e., fate-
share) as the user data packets and in some cases, where
Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSPs (E-LSPs) are employed, may be
required to have common per-hop behavior (PHB) Scheduling Class
(PSC) End-to-End (E2E) with the class of traffic monitored. In
case of Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSP (L-LSP), only one class of
traffic needs to be monitored, and therefore the OAM packets have
common PSC with the monitored traffic class.
[RFC6371] does not prohibit multilink techniques in Section 4.6
("Fate-Sharing Considerations for Multilink"), where multilink is
defined as Ethernet Link Aggregation and the use of Link Bundling for
MPLS, but it does declare that such a network would be only partially
MPLS-TP compliant. The characteristic that is to be avoided is
contained in the following sentence in that section.
RFC 6371, Section 4.6, Paragraph 1, last sentence
These techniques frequently share the characteristic that an LSP
may be spread over a set of component links and therefore be
reordered, but no flow within the LSP is reordered (except when
very infrequent and minimally disruptive load rebalancing
occurs).
A declaration that implies that Link Bundling for MPLS yields a
partially MPLS-TP-compliant network is perhaps overstated since only
the Link Bundling all-ones component link has this characteristic.
Villamizar Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
[RFC6374] defines a direct Loss Measurement (LM) where LM OAM packets
cannot be reordered with respect to payload packets. This will
require that payload packets themselves not be reordered. The
following paragraph in Section 2.9.4 ("Equal Cost Multipath") gives
the reason for this restriction.
RFC 6374, Section 2.9.4, Paragraph 2
The effects of ECMP on loss measurement will depend on the LM
mode. In the case of direct LM, the measurement will account for
any packets lost between the sender and the receiver, regardless
of how many paths exist between them. However, the presence of
ECMP increases the likelihood of misordering both of LM messages
relative to data packets and of the LM messages themselves. Such
misorderings tend to create unmeasurable intervals and thus
degrade the accuracy of loss measurement. The effects of ECMP
are similar for inferred LM, with the additional caveat that,
unless the test packets are specially constructed so as to probe
all available paths, the loss characteristics of one or more of
the alternate paths cannot be accounted for.
3.2. Methods of Supporting MPLS-TP Client LSPs over MPLS
Supporting MPLS-TP LSPs over a fully MPLS-TP conformant MPLS LSP
server layer where the MPLS LSPs are making use of multipath requires
special treatment of the MPLS-TP LSPs such that those LSPs meet MPLS-
TP forwarding requirements (see Section 3.1). This implies the
following brief set of requirements.
MP#1 It MUST be possible for a midpoint MPLS-TP Label Switching
Router (LSR) that is serving as ingress to a server-layer MPLS
LSP to identify MPLS-TP LSPs, so that MPLS-TP forwarding
requirements can be applied, or to otherwise accommodate the
MPLS-TP forwarding requirements.
MP#2 The ability to completely exclude MPLS-TP LSPs from the
multipath hash and load split SHOULD be supported. If the
selected component link no longer meets requirements, an LSP is
considered down, which may trigger protection and/or may
require that the ingress LSR select a new path and signal a new
LSP.
MP#3 It SHOULD be possible to ensure that MPLS-TP LSPs will not be
moved to another component link as a result of a load-
rebalancing operation for multipath. If the selected component
link no longer meets requirements, another component link may
be selected; however, a change in path SHOULD NOT occur solely
for load balancing.
Villamizar Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
MP#4 Where a Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) control plane is used, it MUST be possible for an
ingress LSR that is setting up an MPLS-TP or an MPLS LSP to
determine at path selection time whether a link or Forwarding
Adjacency (FA; see [RFC4206]) within the topology can support
the MPLS-TP requirements of the LSP.
The reason for requirement MP#1 may not be obvious. An MPLS-TP LSP
may be aggregated along with other client LSPs by a midpoint LSR into
a very large MPLS server-layer LSP, as would be the case in a core-
node-to-core-node MPLS LSP between major cities. In this case, the
ingress of the MPLS LSP, being a midpoint LSR for a set of client
LSPs, has no signaling mechanism that can be used to determine
whether one of its specific client LSPs is using MPLS or MPLS-TP.
Multipath load splitting can be avoided for MPLS-TP LSPs if at the
MPLS server-layer LSP ingress LSR an Entropy Label Indicator (ELI)
and Entropy Label (EL) are added to the label stack by the midpoint
LSR for the client MPLS-TP LSP, at the ingress of the MPLS LSP
[RFC6790]. For those client LSPs that are MPLS-TP LSPs, a single
per-LSP EL value must be chosen. For those client LSPs that are MPLS
LSPs, per-packet entropy below the top label must, for practical
reasons, be used to determine the entropy label value. The resulting
label stack contains the server MPLS LSP label, ELI, EL and the
client LSP label. Requirement MP#1 simply states that there must be
a means to make this decision.
There is currently no signaling mechanism defined to support
requirement MP#1, though that does not preclude a new extension being
defined later. In the absence of a signaling extension, MPLS-TP can
be identified through some form of configuration, such as
configuration that provides an MPLS-TP-compatible server layer to all
LSPs arriving on a specific interface or originating from a specific
set of ingress LSRs.
Alternatively, the need for requirement MP#1 can be eliminated if
every MPLS-TP LSP created by an MPLS-TP ingress makes use of an
Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) and Entropy Label (EL) below the MPLS-
TP label [RFC6790]. This would require that all MPLS-TP LSRs in a
deployment support Entropy Label, which may render it impractical in
many deployments.
Some hardware that exists today can support requirement MP#2.
Signaling in the absence of MPLS Entropy Labels can make use of link
bundling with the path pinned to a specific component for MPLS-TP
LSPs and link bundling using the all-ones component for MPLS LSPs.
This prevents MPLS-TP LSPs from being carried within MPLS LSPs but
does allow the coexistence of MPLS-TP and very large MPLS LSPs.
Villamizar Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
When Entropy Label Indicators (ELIs) and Entropy Labels (ELs) are not
applied by MPLS-TP ingresses, MPLS-TP LSPs can be carried as client
LSPs within an MPLS server LSP if the ingress of the MPLS server-
layer LSP pushes an Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) and Entropy Label
(EL) below the server-layer LSP label(s) in the label stack, just
above the MPLS-TP LSP label entry [RFC6790]. The value of EL can be
randomly selected at the client MPLS-TP LSP setup time, and the same
EL value can be used for all packets of that MPLS-TP LSP. This
allows MPLS-TP LSPs to be carried as client LSPs within MPLS LSPs and
satisfies MPLS-TP forwarding requirements but requires that MPLS LSRs
be able to identify MPLS-TP LSPs (requirement MP#1).
MPLS-TP traffic can be protected from degraded performance due to an
imperfect load split if the MPLS-TP traffic is given queuing
priority. For example, using (1) strict priority and policing,
shaping at ingress, or per-LSP shaping locally, or (2) per-LSP
weighted queuing locally. This can be accomplished using the Traffic
Class (TC) field and Diffserv treatment of traffic [RFC5462]
[RFC2475]. In the event of congestion due to load imbalance, only
non-prioritized traffic will suffer as long as there is a low
percentage of prioritized traffic.
If MPLS-TP LSPs are carried within MPLS LSPs and ELI and EL are used,
requirement MP#3 is satisfied (1) for uncongested links where load
balancing is not required, or (2) for MPLS-TP LSPs using Traffic
Class (TC) and Diffserv, where the load rebalancing implementation
rebalances only the less preferred traffic. Load rebalance is
generally needed only when congestion occurs; therefore, restricting
MPLS-TP to be carried over MPLS LSPs that are known to traverse only
links that are expected to be uncongested can satisfy requirement
MP#3.
An MPLS-TP LSP can be pinned to a Link Bundle component link if the
behavior of requirement MP#2 is preferred. An MPLS-TP LSP can be
assigned to a Link Bundle but not pinned if the behavior of
requirement MP#3 is preferred. In both of these cases, the MPLS-TP
LSP must be the top-level LSP, except as noted above.
If MPLS-TP LSPs can be moved among component links, then the Link
Bundle all-ones component link can be used or server-layer MPLS LSPs
can be used with no restrictions on the server-layer MPLS use of
multipath, except that Entropy Labels must be supported along the
entire path. An Entropy Label must be used to ensure that all of the
MPLS-TP payload and OAM traffic are carried on the same component,
except during very infrequent transitions due to load balancing.
Since the Entropy Label Indicator and Entropy Label are always placed
above the Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) in the stack, the
Villamizar Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
presence of a GAL will not affect the selection of a component link
as long as the LSR does not hash on the label stack entries below the
Entropy Label.
An MPLS-TP LSP may not traverse multipath links on the path where
MPLS-TP forwarding requirements cannot be met. Such links include
any using pre-[RFC6790] Ethernet Link Aggregation, pre-[RFC6790] Link
Bundling using the all-ones component link, or any other form of
multipath that does not support termination of the entropy search at
the EL as called for in [RFC6790]. An MPLS-TP LSP MUST NOT traverse
a server-layer MPLS LSP that traverses any form of multipath that
does not support termination of the entropy search at the EL. For
this to occur, the MPLS-TP ingress LSR MUST be aware of these links.
This is the reason for requirement MP#4.
Requirement MP#4 can be supported using administrative attributes.
Administrative attributes are defined in [RFC3209]. Some
configuration is required to support this.
In MPLS Link Bundling the requirement for bidirectional co-routing
can be interpreted as meaning that the same set of LSRs must be
traversed or can be interpreted to mean that the same set of
component links must be traversed [RFC4201] [RFC3473]. Following the
procedures of Section 3 of RFC 3473 where Link Bundling is used only
ensures that the same set of LSRs are traversed and that acceptable
labels are created in each direction.
When an MPLS-TP LSP is set up over a MPLS LSP, if the MPLS-TP LSP is
a bidirectional LSP, then providers who want to only set these MPLS-
TP LSPs over bidirectional co-routed MPLS LSPs can make use of
administrative attributes [RFC3209] to ensure that this occurs. If
MPLS-TP LSPs are carried by unidirectional MPLS LSPs, the MPLS-TP OAM
will be unaffected, as only the MPLS LSP endpoints will appear as
MPLS-TP OAM Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs).
Two methods of adding an Entropy Label are described above. The
MPLS-TP ingress must have a means to determine which links can
support MPLS-TP in selecting a path (MP#4). Administrative
attributes can satisfy that requirement. If the MPLS-TP LSR is
capable of adding ELI/EL to the label stack, this method is
preferred. However, equipment furthest from a provider's network
core is the least likely to support RFC 6790 in the near term. For
portions of the topology where an MPLS-TP is carried within a server-
layer MPLS LSP, the ingress of the server-layer MPLS LSP can add ELI/
EL using a fixed EL value per client LSP, except those known not to
require MPLS-TP treatment. There are numerous ways to determine
which client LSPs are MPLS-TP LSPs and which are not. While this
Villamizar Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
determination is out of scope and will vary among deployments,
configuration or the presence of specific attribute affinities in
RSVP-TE signaling are among the likely means to do so.
4. MPLS-TP as a Server Layer for MPLS
Carrying MPLS LSPs that are larger than a component link over an
MPLS-TP server layer requires that the large MPLS client-layer LSP be
accommodated by multiple MPLS-TP server-layer LSPs. MPLS multipath
can be used in the client-layer MPLS.
Creating multiple MPLS-TP server-layer LSPs places a greater Incoming
Label Map (ILM) scaling burden on the LSR. High-bandwidth MPLS cores
with a smaller amount of nodes have the greatest tendency to require
LSPs in excess of component links; therefore, the reduction in the
number of nodes offsets the impact of increasing the number of
server-layer LSPs in parallel. Today, only in cases where deployed
LSR ILMs are small would this be an issue.
The most significant disadvantage of MPLS-TP as a server layer for
MPLS is that the use of MPLS-TP server-layer LSPs reduces the
efficiency of carrying the MPLS client layer. The service that
provides by far the largest offered load in provider networks is the
Internet, for which the LSP capacity reservations are predictions of
expected load. Many of these MPLS LSPs may be smaller than component
link capacity. Using MPLS-TP as a server layer results in bin-
packing problems for these smaller LSPs. For those LSPs that are
larger than component link capacity, the LSP capacities need not be
(and often are not) integer multiples of convenient capacity
increments such as 10 Gbit/s. Using MPLS-TP as an underlying server
layer greatly reduces the ability of the client-layer MPLS LSPs to
share capacity. For example, when one MPLS LSP is underutilizing its
predicted capacity, the fixed allocation of MPLS-TP to component
links may not allow another LSP to exceed its predicted capacity.
Using MPLS-TP as a server layer may result in less efficient use of
resources and may result in a less cost-effective network.
No additional requirements beyond MPLS-TP as it is now currently
defined are required to support MPLS-TP as a server layer for MPLS.
It is therefore viable but has some undesirable characteristics
discussed above.
5. Summary
MPLS equipment deployed in the core currently supports multipath.
For large service providers, core LSR must support some form of
multipath to be deployable. Deployed MPLS access and edge equipment
is often oblivious to the use of multipath in the core. It is
Villamizar Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
expected that at least first-generation MPLS-TP equipment will be
oblivious to the use of multipath in the core. This first-generation
MPLS-TP equipment is deployable in a core using multipath, with no
adverse impact to RSVP-TE signaling, if:
1. the edge equipment can support administrative attributes (RFC
3209),
2. the core equipment can support ELI/EL, and
3. the core equipment can put a per-LSP fixed EL value on any LSP
that indicates a particular attribute affinity or can identify a
client MPLS-TP LSP through some other means.
There are no issues carrying MPLS over MPLS-TP, except when the MPLS
LSP is too big to be carried by a single MPLS-TP LSP. Most MPLS core
equipment and some edge equipment can configure an MPLS Link Bundle
[RFC4201] over multiple component links where the component links are
themselves MPLS LSP. This existing capability can be used to carry
large MPLS LSPs and overcome the limited capacity of any single
server-layer MPLS-TP LSP.
MPLS OAM and MPLS-TP OAM are unaffected in the following cases
proposed in this document:
1. Where MPLS is carried over a single MPLS-TP, all traffic flows on
one link, MPLS OAM is unaffected and need not use multipath
support in LSP Ping [RFC4379].
2. Where MPLS-TP is carried over MPLS, all traffic for that MPLS-TP
LSP is carried over one link thanks to the fixed EL value. In
this case, MPLS-TP OAM is unaffected.
3. Where MPLS LSPs are carried over MPLS LSPs (an existing case) or
over multiple MPLS-TP LSPs, the multipath support in LSP Ping is
used and LSP Ping operation is unaffected [RFC4379] [RFC6425].
6. Acknowledgements
Carlos Pignataro, Dave Allan, and Mach Chen provided valuable
comments and suggestions. Carlos suggested that MPLS-TP requirements
in RFC 5960 be explicitly referenced or quoted. An email
conversation with Dave led to the inclusion of references and quotes
from RFCs 6371 and 6374. Mach made suggestions to improve the
clarity of the document.
Villamizar Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
7. Security Considerations
This document specifies use of existing MPLS and MPLS-TP mechanisms
to support MPLS and MPLS-TP as client and server layers for each
other. This use of existing mechanisms supports coexistence of MPLS/
GMPLS (without MPLS-TP) when used over a packet network, MPLS-TP, and
multipath. The combination of MPLS, MPLS-TP, and multipath does not
introduce any new security threats. The security considerations for
MPLS/GMPLS and for MPLS-TP are documented in [RFC5920] and [RFC6941].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC5960] Frost, D., Bryant, S., and M. Bocci, "MPLS Transport
Profile Data Plane Architecture", RFC 5960, August 2010.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012.
8.2. Informative References
[ADV-MULTIPATH-REQ]
Villamizar, C., McDysan, D., Ning, S., Malis, A., and L.
Yong, "Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, February 2014.
[IEEE-802.1AX]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks - Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008, 2006,
<http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/
802.1AX-2008.pdf>.
Villamizar Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
[ITU-T.G.800]
ITU-T, "Unified functional architecture of transport
networks", ITU-T G.800, 2007, <http://www.itu.int/rec/
T-REC-G/recommendation.asp?parent=T-REC-G.800>.
[RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC
5714, January 2010.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6425] Saxena, S., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa,
S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping", RFC
6425, November 2011.
Villamizar Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7190 MPLS and MPLS-TP Multipath March 2014
[RFC6941] Fang, L., Niven-Jenkins, B., Mansfield, S., and R.
Graveman, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Security
Framework", RFC 6941, April 2013.
Author's Address
Curtis Villamizar
Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting
EMail: curtis@occnc.com
Villamizar Informational [Page 15]