💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc6383.txt captured on 2023-12-28 at 17:16:43.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Shiomoto
Request for Comments: 6383 NTT
Category: Informational A. Farrel
ISSN: 2070-1721 Old Dog Consulting
September 2011
Advice on When It Is Safe to Start Sending Data on
Label Switched Paths Established Using RSVP-TE
Abstract
The Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) has been extended to support
Traffic Engineering (TE) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. The protocol enables signaling
exchanges to establish Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that traverse
nodes and link to provide end-to-end data paths. Each node is
programmed with "cross-connect" information as the signaling messages
are processed. The cross-connection information instructs the node
how to forward data that it receives.
End points of an LSP need to know when it is safe to start sending
data so that it is not misdelivered, and so that safety issues
specific to optical data-plane technology are satisfied. Likewise,
all label switching routers along the path of the LSP need to know
when to program their data planes relative to sending and receiving
control-plane messages.
This document clarifies and summarizes the RSVP-TE protocol exchanges
with relation to the programming of cross-connects along an LSP for
both unidirectional and bidirectional LSPs. This document does not
define any new procedures or protocol extensions, and defers
completely to the documents that provide normative references. The
clarifications set out in this document may also be used to help
interpret LSP establishment performance figures for MPLS-TE and GMPLS
devices.
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.
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 1]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
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/rfc6383.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
1. Introduction
The Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] has been extended
to support Traffic Engineering (TE) in Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks [RFC3209] [RFC3473].
The protocol enables signaling exchanges to establish Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) that traverse nodes and links to provide end-to-end data
paths. Each node is programmed with "cross-connect" information as
the signaling messages are processed. The cross-connection
information instructs the node how to forward data that it receives.
In some technologies this requires configuration of physical devices,
while in others it may involve the exchange of commands between
different components of the node. The nature of a cross-connect is
described further in Section 1.1.1.
End points of an LSP need to know when it is safe to start sending
data. In this context "safe" has two meanings. The first issue is
that the sender needs to know that the data path has been fully
established, setting up the cross-connects and removing any old,
incorrect forwarding instructions, so that data will be delivered to
the intended destination. The other meaning of "safe" is that in
optical technologies, lasers must not be turned on until the correct
cross-connects have been put in place to ensure that service
personnel are not put at risk.
Similarly, all Label Switching Routers (LSRs) along the path of the
LSP need to know when to program their data planes relative to
sending and receiving control-plane messages.
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 2]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
This document clarifies and summarizes the RSVP-TE protocol exchanges
with relation to the programming of cross-connects along an LSP for
both unidirectional and bidirectional LSPs. Bidirectional LSPs, it
should be noted, are supported only in GMPLS. This document does not
define any new procedures or protocol extensions, and defers
completely to the documents that provide normative references.
The clarifications set out in this document may also be used to help
interpret LSP establishment performance figures for MPLS-TE and GMPLS
devices. For example, the dynamic provisioning performance metrics
set out in [RFC5814] need to be understood in the context of LSP
setup times and not in terms of control message exchange times that
are actually only a component of the whole LSP establishment process.
Implementations could significantly benefit from this document
definitively identifying any LSR to forward the Path or Resv message
[RFC3473] before programming its cross-connect, thereby exploiting
pipelining (i.e., doing one action in the background while another is
progressing) to try to minimize the total time to set up the LSP.
However, while this document gives advice and identifies the issues
to be considered, it is not possible to make definitive statements
about how much pipelining is safe, since a node cannot "know" much
without first probing the network (for example, with protocol
extensions) which would defeat the point of pipelining. Due to the
number of variables introduced by path length, and other node
behavior, ingress might be limited to a very pessimistic view for
safety. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that an implementation would
necessarily give a full and frank description of how long it takes to
program and stabilize its cross-connects. Nevertheless, this
document identifies the issues and opportunities for pipelining in
GMPLS systems.
1.1. Terminology
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the basic message
flows of RSVP-TE as used in MPLS-TE and GMPLS. Refer to [RFC2205],
[RFC3209], [RFC3471], and [RFC3473] for more details.
1.1.1. What is a Cross-Connect?
In the context of this document, the concept of a "cross-connection"
should be taken to imply the data forwarding instructions installed
(that is, "programmed") at a network node (or "switch").
In packet MPLS networks, this is often referred to as the Incoming
Label Map (ILM) and Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE) [RFC3031]
which are sometimes considered together as entries in the Label
Forwarding Information Base (LFIB) [RFC4221]. Where there is
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 3]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
admission control and resource reservation associated with the data
forwarding path (such as the allocation of data buffers) [RFC3209],
this can be treated as part of the cross-connect programming process
since the LSP will not be available to forward data in the manner
agreed to during the signaling protocol exchange until the resources
are correctly allocated and reserved.
In non-packet networks (such as time-division multiplexing, or
optical switching networks), the cross-connect concept may be an
electronic cross-connect array or a transparent optical device (such
as a microelectromechanical system (MEMS)). In all cases, however,
the concept applies to the instructions that are programmed into the
forwarding plane (that is, the data plane) so that incoming data for
the LSP on one port can be correctly handled and forwarded out of
another port.
2. Unidirectional MPLS-TE LSPs
[RFC3209] describes the RSVP-TE signaling and processing for MPLS-TE
packet-based networks. LSPs in these networks are unidirectional by
definition (there are no bidirectional capabilities in [RFC3209]).
Section 4.1.1.1 of [RFC3209] describes a node's process prior to
sending a Resv message to its upstream neighbor.
The node then sends the new LABEL object as part of the Resv
message to the previous hop. The node SHOULD be prepared to
forward packets carrying the assigned label prior to sending the
Resv message.
This means that the cross-connect should be in place to support
traffic that may arrive at the node before the node sends the Resv.
This is clearly advisable because the upstream LSRs might otherwise
complete their cross-connections more rapidly and encourage the
ingress to start transmitting data with the risk that the node that
sent the Resv "early" would be unable to forward the data it received
and would be forced to drop it, or might accidentally send it along
the wrong LSP because of stale cross-connect information.
The use of "SHOULD" [RFC2119] in this text indicates that an
implementation could be constructed that sends a Resv before it is
ready to receive and forward data. This might be done simply because
the internal construction of the node means that the control-plane
components cannot easily tell when the cross-connection has been
installed. Alternatively, it might arise because the implementation
is aware that it will be slow and does not wish to hold up the
establishment of the LSP. In this latter case, the implementation is
choosing to pipeline the cross-connect programming with the protocol
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 4]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
exchange taking a gamble that there will be other upstream LSRs that
may also take some time to process, and it will in any case be some
time before the ingress actually starts to send data. It should be
noted that, as well as the risks described in the previous paragraph,
a node that behaves like this must include a mechanism to report a
failure to chase the Resv message (using a PathErr) in the event that
the pipelined cross-connect processing fails.
3. GMPLS LSPs
GMPLS [RFC3945] extends RSVP-TE signaling for use in networks of
different technologies [RFC3471] [RFC3473]. This means that RSVP-TE
signaling may be used in MPLS packet switching networks, as well as
layer two networks (Ethernet, Frame Relay, ATM), time-division
multiplexing networks (Time Division Multiplexer (TDM), i.e.,
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy
(SDH)), Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) networks, and fiber
switched network.
The introduction of these other technologies, specifically the
optical technologies, brings about the second definition of the
"safe" commencement of data transmission as described in Section 1.
That is, there is a physical safety issue that means that the lasers
should not be enabled until the cross-connects are correctly in
place.
GMPLS supports unidirectional and bidirectional LSPs. These are
split into separate sections for discussion. The processing rules
are inherited from [RFC3209] unless they are specifically modified by
[RFC3471] and [RFC3473].
3.1. Unidirectional LSPs
Unidirectional LSP processing would be the same as that described in
Section 2 except for the use of the Suggested_Label object defined in
[RFC3473]. This object allows an upstream LSR to 'suggest' to its
downstream neighbor the label that should be used for forward-
direction data by including the object on a Path message. The
purpose of this object is to help the downstream LSR in its choice of
label, but it also makes it possible for the upstream LSR to
'pipeline' programming its cross-connect with the RSVP-TE signaling
exchanges. That means that the cross-connect might be in place
before the signaling has completed (i.e., before a Resv message
carrying a Label object has been received at the upstream LSR).
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 5]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
We need to know when it is safe to start sending data. There are
three sources of information.
- Section 3.4 of [RFC3471] states:
In particular, an ingress node should not transmit data traffic on
a suggested label until the downstream node passes a label
upstream.
The implication here is that an ingress node may (safely) start to
transmit data when it receives a label in a Resv message.
- Section 2.5 of [RFC3473] states:
Furthermore, an ingress node SHOULD NOT transmit data traffic
using a suggested label until the downstream node passes a
corresponding label upstream.
This is a confirmation of the first source.
- Section 4.1.1.1 of [RFC3209] states:
The node then sends the new LABEL object as part of the Resv
message to the previous hop. The node SHOULD be prepared to
forward packets carrying the assigned label prior to sending the
Resv message.
In this text, the word "prior" is very important. It means that the
cross-connect must be in place for forward traffic before the Resv is
sent. In other words, each of the transit nodes and the egress node
must finish making their cross-connects before they send the Resv
message to their upstream neighbors.
Thus, as in Section 2, we can deduce that the ingress must not start
to transmit traffic until it has both received a Resv and has
programmed its own cross-connect.
3.2. Bidirectional LSPs
A bidirectional LSP is established with one signaling exchange of a
Path message from ingress to egress, and a Resv from egress to
ingress. The LSP itself is comprised of two sets of forwarding
state, one providing a path from the ingress to the egress (the
forwards data path), and one from the egress to the ingress (the
reverse data path).
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 6]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
3.2.1. Forwards Direction Data
The processing for the forwards direction data path is exactly as
described for a unidirectional LSP in Section 3.1.
3.2.2. Reverse Direction Data
For the reverse direction data flow, an Upstream_Label object is
carried in the Path message from each LSR to its downstream neighbor.
The Upstream_Label object tells the downstream LSR which label to use
for data being sent to the upstream LSR (that is, reverse direction
data). The use of the label is confirmed by the downstream LSR when
it sends a Resv message. Note that there is no explicit confirmation
of the label in the Resv message, but if the label was not acceptable
to the downstream LSR, it would return a PathErr message instead.
The upstream LSR must decide when to send the Path message relative
to when it programs its cross-connect. That is:
- Should it program the cross-connect before it sends the Path
message;
- Can it overlap the programming with the exchange of messages; or
- Must it wait until it receives a Resv from its downstream
neighbor?
The defining reference is Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]:
The Upstream_Label object MUST indicate a label that is valid for
forwarding at the time the Path message is sent.
In this text, "valid for forwarding" should be taken to mean that it
is safe for the LSR that sends the Path message to receive data, and
that the LSR will forward data correctly. The text does not mean
that the label is "acceptable for use" (i.e., the label is available
to be cross-connected).
This point is clarified later in Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]:
Terminator nodes process Path messages as usual, with the
exception that the upstream label can immediately be used to
transport data traffic associated with the LSP upstream towards
the initiator.
This is a clear statement that when a Path message has been fully
processed by an egress node, it is completely safe to transmit data
toward the ingress (i.e., reverse direction data).
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 7]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
From this we can deduce several things:
- An LSR must not wait to receive a Resv message before it programs
the cross-connect for the reverse direction data. It must be
ready to receive data from the moment that the egress completes
processing the Path message that it receives (i.e., before it
sends a Resv back upstream).
- An LSR may expect to start receiving reverse direction data as
soon as it sends a Path message for a bidirectional LSP.
- An LSR may make some assumptions about the time lag between
sending a Path message and the message reaching and being
processed by the egress. It may take advantage of this time lag
to pipeline programming the cross-connect.
3.3. ResvConf Message
The ResvConf message is used in standard RSVP [RFC2205] to let the
ingress confirm to the egress that the Resv has been successfully
received, and what bandwidth has been reserved. In RSVP-TE [RFC3209]
and GMPLS [RFC3473], it is not expected that bandwidth will be
modified along the path of the LSP, so the purpose of the ResvConf is
reduced to a confirmation that the LSP has been successfully
established.
The egress may request that a ResvConf be sent by including a
Resv_Confirm object in the Resv message that it sends. When the
ingress receives the Resv message and sees the Resv_Confirm object,
it can respond with a ResvConf message.
It should be clear that this mechanism might provide a doubly secure
way for the egress to ensure that the reverse direction data path is
safely in place before transmitting data. That is, if the egress
waits until it receives a ResvConf message, it can be sure that the
whole LSP is in place.
However, this mechanism is excessive given the definitions presented
in Section 3.2.2, and would delay LSP setup by one end-to-end message
propagation cycle. It should be noted as well that the generation
and of the ResvConf message is not guaranteed. Furthermore, many (if
not most) GMPLS implementations neither request nor send ResvConf
messages. Therefore, egress reliance on the receipt of a ResvConf
as a way of knowing that it is safe to start transmitting reverse
direction data is not recommended.
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 8]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
3.4. Administrative Status
GMPLS offers an additional tool for ensuring safety of the LSP. The
Administrative Status information is defined in Section 8 of
[RFC3471] and is carried in the Admin_Status Object defined in
Section 7 of [RFC3473].
This object allows an ingress to set up an LSP in "Administratively
Down" state. This state means that [RFC3471]:
... the local actions related to the "administratively down" state
should be taken.
In this state, it is assumed that the LSP exists (i.e., the cross-
connects are all in place), but no data is transmitted (i.e., in
optical systems, the lasers are off).
Additionally, the Admin_Status object allows the LSP to be put into
"Testing" state. This state means ([RFC3471]) that:
... the local actions related to the "testing" mode should be
taken.
This state allows the connectivity of the LSP to be tested without
actually exchanging user data. For example, in an optical system, it
would be possible to run a data continuity test (using some external
coordination of errors). In a packet network, a connection
verification exchange (such as the in-band Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification described in Section 5.1.1 of [RFC5085])
could be used. Once connectivity has been verified, the LSP could be
put into active mode and the exchange of user data could commence.
These processes may be considered particularly important in systems
where the control-plane processors are physically distinct from the
data-plane cross-connects (for example, where there is a
communication protocol operating between the control-plane processor
and the data-plane switch) in which case the successful completion of
control-plane signaling cannot necessarily be taken as evidence of
correct data-plane programming.
4. Implications for Performance Metrics
The ability of LSRs to handle and propagate control-plane messages
and to program cross-connects varies considerably from device to
device according to switching technology, control-plane connectivity,
and implementation. These factors influence how quickly an LSP can
be established.
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 9]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
Different applications have different requirements for the speed of
setup of LSPs, and this may be particularly important in recovery
scenarios. It is important for service providers considering the
deployment of MPLS-TE or GMPLS equipment to have a good benchmark for
the performance of the equipment. Similarly, it is important for
equipment vendors to be compared on a level playing field.
In order to provide a basis for comparison, [RFC5814] defines a
series of performance metrics to evaluate dynamic LSP provisioning
performance in MPLS-TE/GMPLS networks. Any use of such metrics must
be careful to understand what is being measured, bearing in mind that
it is not enough to know that the control-plane message has been
processed and forwarded: the cross-connect must be put in place
before the LSP can be used. Thus, care must be taken to ensure that
devices are correctly conforming to the procedures clarified in
Section 2 of this document, and not simply forwarding control-plane
messages with the intent to program the cross-connects in the
background.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not define any network behavior and does not
introduce or seek to solve any security issues.
It may be noted that a clear understanding of when to start sending
data may reduce the risk of data being accidentally delivered to the
wrong place or individuals being hurt.
6. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Weiqiang Sun, Olufemi Komolafe, Daniel King, and Stewart
Bryant for their review and comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[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.
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 10]
RFC 6383 RVSP-TE Data Label Switch Update September 2011
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC4221] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Farrel, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview", RFC 4221,
November 2005.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Pseudowire Virtual
Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel
for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[RFC5814] Sun, W., Ed., and G. Zhang, Ed., "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Dynamic Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized
MPLS Networks", RFC 5814, March 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Kohei Shiomoto
NTT Service Integration Laboratories
3-9-11 Midori
Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan
Phone: +81 422 59 4402
EMail: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Shiomoto & Farrel Informational [Page 11]