Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object

Network Working Group                                 J.-P. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4561                                        Z. Ali
Category: Standards Track                                   S. Sivabalan
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                               June 2006


     Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object

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 (2006).

Abstract

   In the context of MPLS TE Fast Reroute, the Merge Point (MP) address
   is required at the Point of Local Repair (PLR) in order to select a
   backup tunnel intersecting a fast reroutable Traffic Engineering
   Label Switched Path (TE LSP) on a downstream Label Switching Router
   (LSR).  However, existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to
   find an MP address in multi-domain routing networks where a domain is
   defined as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous
   System (AS).  Hence, the current MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism cannot
   be used in order to protect inter-domain TE LSPs from a failure of an
   Area Border Router (ABR) or Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR).
   This document specifies the use of existing Record Route Object (RRO)
   IPv4 and IPv6 sub-objects (with a new flag defined) thus defining the
   node-id sub-object in order to solve this issue.  The MPLS Fast
   Reroute mechanism mentioned in this document refers to the "Facility
   backup" MPLS TE Fast Reroute method.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Terminology .....................................................4
      2.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................5
   3. Signaling Node-Ids in RROs ......................................5
   4. Finding Merge Point .............................................6
   5. Security Considerations .........................................7
   6. Acknowledgements ................................................7
   7. References ......................................................7
      7.1. Normative References .......................................7
      7.2. Informative References .....................................8

1.  Introduction

   MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) [FAST-REROUTE] is a fast recovery local
   protection technique used to protect Traffic Engineering LSPs from
   link/node/Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) failure.  One or more backup
   tunnels are pre-established to protect against the failure of a
   link/node/SRLG.  In case of failure, every protected TE LSP
   traversing the failed resource is rerouted onto the appropriate
   backup tunnel.

   There are several requirements on the backup tunnel path that must be
   satisfied.  First, the backup tunnel must not traverse the element
   that it protects.  In addition, a primary tunnel and its associated
   backup tunnel should intersect at least at two points (nodes): Point
   of Local Repair (PLR) and Merge Point (MP).  The former is the head-
   end LSR of the backup tunnel, and the latter is the tail-end LSR of
   the backup tunnel.  The PLR is where FRR is triggered when
   link/node/SRLG failure happens.

   There are different methods for computing paths for backup tunnels at
   a given PLR.  Specifically, a user can statically configure one or
   more backup tunnels at the PLR with an explicitly configured path, or
   the PLR can be configured to automatically compute a backup path or
   to send a path computation request to a PCE (see [PCE-ARCH]).

   Consider the following scenario (Figure 1).

   Assumptions:

   - A multi-area network made of three areas: 0, 1, and 2.

   - A fast reroutable TE LSP T1 (TE LSP signaled with the "Local
     Protection Desired" bit set in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object or the
     FAST-REROUTE object) from R0 to R3.

   - A backup tunnel B1 from R1 to R2, not traversing ABR1, and
     following the R1-ABR3-R2 path.

   - The PLR R1 reroutes any protected TE LSP traversing ABR1 onto the
     backup tunnel B1 in case of ABR1's failure.

             <--- area 1 --><---area 0---><---area 2--->
                R0-----R1-ABR1--R2------ABR2--------R3
                       \        /
                        \      /
                          ABR3

      Figure 1: Use of Fast Reroute to protect a TE LSP against an ABR
                failure with MPLS Traffic Engineering Fast Reroute

   When T1 is first signaled, the PLR R1 needs to dynamically select an
   appropriate backup tunnel intersecting T1 on a downstream LSR.
   However, existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to
   unambiguously find the MP address in a network with inter-domain TE
   LSP.  This document addresses these limitations.

   R1 needs to select an existing backup tunnel with the following
   properties:

      1. The backup tunnel intersects with the primary tunnel at the MP.
         For the sake of illustration, in Figure 1, R1 needs to
         determine that T1 and B1 intersect at the node R2.

      2. The backup tunnel satisfies the primary LSP's request with
         respect to the bandwidth protection request (i.e., bandwidth
         guaranteed for the primary tunnel during failure), and the type
         of protection (link or node failure), as specified in
         [FAST-REROUTE].

   One technique for the PLR to ensure that condition (1) is met
   consists of examining the Record Route Object (RRO) of the primary
   tunnel to see whether any of the addresses specified in the RRO
   correspond to the MP.  That said, as per [RSVP-TE], the addresses
   specified in the RRO IPv4 or IPv6 sub-objects sent in Resv messages
   can be node-ids and/or interface addresses.  Hence, in Figure 1,
   router R2 may specify interface addresses in the RROs for T1 and B1.
   Note that these interface addresses are different in this example.

   The problem of finding the MP using the interface addresses or node-
   ids can be easily solved in the case of a single IGP area.
   Specifically, in the case of a single IGP area, the PLR has the
   knowledge of all the interfaces attached to the tail-end of the
   backup tunnel.  This information is available in PLR's IGP topology
   database.  Thus, the PLR can unambiguously determine whether a backup
   tunnel intersecting a protected TE LSP on a downstream node exists
   and can also find the MP address regardless of how the addresses
   carried in the RRO IPv4 or IPv6 sub-objects are specified (i.e.,
   whether using the interface addresses or the node-ids).  However,
   such routing information is not available in the case of inter-domain
   environments.  Hence, unambiguously making sure that condition (1)
   above is met in the case of inter-domain TE LSPs is not possible with
   existing mechanisms.

   In this document, we define extensions to and describe the use of
   Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) [RSVP, RSVP-TE] to solve the
   above-mentioned problem.  Note that the requirement for the support
   of the fast recovery technique specified in [FAST-REROUTE] to inter-
   domain TE LSPs has been specified in [INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] and
   [INTER-AS-TE-REQS].

2.  Terminology

   Area Border Routers (ABRs): Border routers used to connect two
   Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas (areas in OSPF or levels in
   IS-IS).

   Autonomous System Border Router (ASBRs): Border routers used to
   connect to another AS of a different or the same Service Provider via
   one or more links inter-connecting between ASes.

   Backup Tunnel: The LSP that is used to back up one of the many LSPs
   in many-to-one backup.

   Inter-AS TE LSP: A TE LSP that crosses an AS boundary.

   Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP that crosses an IGP area.

   LSR: Label Switching Router.

   LSP: Label Switched Path.

   Local Repair: Techniques used to repair TE LSPs quickly when a link,
   an SRLG, or a node along the TE LSP fails.

   PCE: Path Computation Element.  An entity (component, application, or
   network node) that is capable of computing a network path or route
   based on a network graph and applying computational constraints.

   MP: Merge Point.  The LSR where one or more backup tunnels rejoin the
   path of the protected LSP downstream of the potential failure.

   Protected LSP: An LSP is said to be protected at a given hop if it
   has one or multiple associated backup tunnels originating at that
   hop.

   PLR: Point of Local Repair.  The head-end of a backup tunnel.

   Reroutable LSP: Any LSP for which the "Local Protection Desired" bit
   is set in the Flag field of the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object of its Path
   messages.

   TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.

2.1.  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].

3.  Signaling Node-Ids in RROs

   As mentioned above, the limitation that we need to address is the
   generality of the contents of the RRO IPv4 and IPv6 sub-objects, as
   defined in [RSVP-TE].  [RSVP-TE] defines the IPv4 and IPv6 RRO sub-
   objects.  Moreover, two additional flags are defined in
   [FAST-REROUTE]: the "Local Protection Available" and "Local
   Protection in Use" bits.

   In this document, we define the following new flag:

   Node-id: 0x20

      When set, this indicates that the address specified in the RRO's
      IPv4 or IPv6 sub-object is a node-id address, which refers to the
      "Router Address" as defined in [OSPF-TE], or "Traffic Engineering
      Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-TE].  A node MUST use the same
      address consistently.  Once an address is used in the RRO's IPv4
      or IPv6 sub-object, it SHOULD always be used for the lifetime of
      the TE LSP.

   An IPv4 or IPv6 RRO sub-object with the node-id flag set is also
   called a node-id sub-object.  The problem of finding an MP address in
   a network with inter-domain TE LSP is solved by inserting a node-id
   sub-object (an RRO "IPv4" and "IPv6" sub-object with the 0x20 flag
   set) in the RRO object carried in the RSVP Resv message.

   An implementation may decide to either:

   1) Add the node-id sub-object in the RRO carried in an RSVP Resv
      message and, when required, also add another IPv4/IPv6 sub-object
      to record interface address.

      Example: an inter-domain fast reroutable TE LSP would have the
      following two sub-objects in the RRO carried in Resv message: a
      node-id sub-object and a label sub-object.  If recording the
      interface address is required, then an additional IPv4/IPv6 sub-
      object is added.

   or

   2) Add an IPv4/IPv6 sub-object recording the interface address and,
      when required, add a node-id sub-object in the RRO.

      Example: an inter-domain fast reroutable TE LSP would have the
      following three sub-objects in the RRO carried in Resv message: an
      IPv4/IPv6 sub-object recording interface address, a label sub-
      object, and a node-id sub-object.

   Note also that the node-id sub-object may have other applications
   than Fast Reroute backup tunnel selection.  Moreover, it is
   RECOMMENDED that an LSR recording a node-id address in an IPv4/IPv6
   RRO sub-object also set the node-id flag.

4.  Finding Merge Point

   Two cases should be considered:

   - Case 1: If the backup tunnel destination is the MP's node-id, then
     a PLR can find the MP and suitable backup tunnel by simply
     comparing the backup tunnel's destination address with the node-id
     included in the RRO of the primary tunnel.

   - Case 2: If the backup tunnel terminates at an address different
     from the MP's node-id, then a node-id sub-object MUST also be
     included in the RRO of the backup tunnel.  A PLR can find the MP
     and suitable backup tunnel by simply comparing the node-ids present
     in the RROs of both the primary and backup tunnels.

   It must be noted that although the technique described in this
   document for selecting an appropriate backup tunnel using the node-id
   sub-object applies to the case of Inter-area and Inter-AS, in the
   case of Inter-AS, the assumption is made that the MP's node-id (of
   the downstream domain) does not overlap with any LSR's node-id
   present in the PLR's AS.

   When both IPv4 node-id and IPv6 node-id sub-objects are present, a
   PLR may use any or both of them in finding the MP address.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce new security issues.  The security
   considerations pertaining to [RSVP] and [RSVP-TE] remain relevant.

6.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to acknowledge input and helpful comments from Carol
   Iturralde, Anca Zamfir, Reshad Rahman, Rob Goguen, and Philip
   Matthews.  A special thanks to Adrian Farrel for his thorough review
   of this document.

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.

   [RSVP]               Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S.,
                        and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
                        (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification",
                        RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RSVP-TE]            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.

   [FAST-REROUTE]       Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast
                        Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels",
                        RFC 4090, May 2005.

   [OSPF-TE]            Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
                        Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2",
                        RFC 3630, September 2003.

   [ISIS-TE]            Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to
                        Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for
                        Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004.

7.2.  Informative References

   [INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] Le Roux, J.-L., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Boyle,
                        "Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS Traffic
                        Engineering", RFC 4105, June 2005.

   [INTER-AS-TE-REQS]   Zhang, R. and J.-P. Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-
                        Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE)
                        Requirements", RFC 4216, November 2005.

   [PCE-ARCH]           Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
                        Computation Element (PCE) Based Architecture",
                        Work in Progress, April 2006.

Authors' Addresses

   J.-P. Vasseur (Editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough , MA - 01719
   USA

   EMail: jpv@cisco.com


   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   100 South Main St. #200
   Ann Arbor, MI 48104
   USA

   EMail: zali@cisco.com


   Siva Sivabalan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
   Canada

   EMail: msiva@cisco.com

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).