





Network Working Group                                   JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5330                            Cisco Systems, Inc
Category: Standards Track                                      M.  Meyer
                                                                      BT
                                                               K. Kumaki
                                                           KDDI R&D Labs
                                                                A. Bonda
                                                          Telecom Italia
                                                            October 2008


              A Link-Type sub-TLV to Convey the Number of
        Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Signalled with
                 Zero Reserved Bandwidth across a Link

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.

Abstract

   Several Link-type sub-Type-Length-Values (sub-TLVs) have been defined
   for Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System to
   Intermediate System (IS-IS) in the context of Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE), in order to advertise some
   link characteristics such as the available bandwidth, traffic
   engineering metric, administrative group, and so on.  By making
   statistical assumptions about the aggregated traffic carried onto a
   set of TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) signalled with zero bandwidth
   (referred to as "unconstrained TE LSP" in this document), algorithms
   can be designed to load balance (existing or newly configured)
   unconstrained TE LSP across a set of equal cost paths.  This requires
   knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across a
   link.  This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic Engineering
   sub-TLV used to advertise the number of unconstrained TE LSPs
   signalled across a link.











Vasseur, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 5330            Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP        October 2008


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
   2. Terminology .....................................................3
      2.1. Requirements Language ......................................4
   3. Protocol Extensions .............................................4
      3.1. IS-IS ......................................................4
      3.2. OSPF .......................................................4
   4. Elements of Procedure ...........................................5
   5. IANA Considerations .............................................5
   6. Security Considerations .........................................5
   7. Acknowledgements ................................................6
   8. References ......................................................6
      8.1. Normative References .......................................6
      8.2. Informative References .....................................6

1.  Introduction

   It is not uncommon to deploy MPLS Traffic Engineering for the sake of
   fast recovery, relying on a local protection recovery mechanism such
   as MPLS TE Fast Reroute (see [RFC4090]).  In this case, a deployment
   model consists of deploying a full mesh of TE LSPs signalled with
   zero bandwidth (also referred to as unconstrained TE LSP in this
   document) between a set of LSRs (Label Switching Routers) and
   protecting these TE LSPs against link, SRLG (Shared Risk Link Group),
   and/or node failures with pre-established backup tunnels.  The
   traffic routed onto such unconstrained TE LSPs simply follows the IGP
   shortest path, but is protected with MPLS TE Fast Reroute.  This is
   because the TE LSP computed by the path computation algorithm (e.g.,
   CSPF) will be no different than the IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol)
   shortest path should the TE metric be equal to the IGP metric.

   When a reoptimization process is triggered for an existing TE LSP,
   the decision on whether to reroute that TE LSP onto a different path
   is governed by the discovery of a lower cost path satisfying the
   constraints (other metrics, such as the percentage of reserved
   bandwidth or the number of hops, can also be used).  Unfortunately,
   metrics such as the path cost or the number of hops may be
   ineffective in various circumstances.  For example, in the case of a
   symmetrical network with ECMPs (Equal Cost Multi-Paths), if the
   network operator uses unconstrained TE LSP, this may lead to a poorly
   load balanced traffic; indeed, several paths between a source and a
   destination of a TE LSP may exist that have the same cost, and the
   reservable amount of bandwidth along each path cannot be used as a
   tie-breaker.






Vasseur, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 5330            Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP        October 2008


   By making statistical assumptions about the aggregated traffic
   carried by a set of unconstrained TE LSPs, algorithms can be designed
   to load balance (existing or newly configured) unconstrained TE LSPs
   across a set of equal cost paths.  This requires knowledge of the
   number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across each link.

      Note that the specification of load balancing algorithms is
      outside the scope of this document and is referred to for the sake
      of illustration of the motivation for gathering such information.

   Furthermore, the knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs
   signalled across each link can be used for other purposes -- for
   example, to evaluate the number of affected unconstrained TE LSPs in
   case of a link failure.

   A set of Link-type sub-TLVs have been defined for OSPF and IS-IS (see
   [RFC3630] and [RFC5305]) in the context of MPLS Traffic Engineering
   in order to advertise various link characteristics such as the
   available bandwidth, traffic engineering metric, administrative
   group, and so on.  As currently defined in [RFC3630] and [RFC5305],
   the information related to the number of unconstrained TE LSPs is not
   available.  This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic
   Engineering sub-TLV used to indicate the number of unconstrained TE
   LSPs signalled across a link.

   Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and provisioned through a
   management system MAY be omitted from the count that is reported.

2.  Terminology

   Terminology used in this document:

   CSPF: Constrained Shortest Path First

   IGP : Interior Gateway Protocol

   LSA: Link State Advertisement

   LSP: Link State Packet

   MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching

   LSR: Label Switching Router

   SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group

   TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path




Vasseur, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 5330            Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP        October 2008


   Unconstrained TE LSP: A TE LSP signalled with a bandwidth equal to 0

2.1.  Requirements Language

   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.  Protocol Extensions

   Two Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLVs are defined that specify the
   number of TE LSPs signalled with zero bandwidth across a link.

3.1.  IS-IS

   The IS-IS Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
   appear more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV (type
   22) specified in [RFC5305] or the Multi-Topology (MT) Intermediate
   Systems TLV (type 222) specified in [RFC5120].  If a second instance
   of the Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV is present, the receiving
   system MUST only process the first instance of the sub-TLV.

   The IS-IS Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV format is defined below:

   Type (1 octet): 23

   Length (1 octet): 2

   Value (2 octets): number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across
   the link.

3.2.  OSPF

   The OSPF Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
   appear more than once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
   carried within either the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in
   [RFC3630] or the OSPFv3 Intra-Area-TE LSA (function code 10) defined
   in [RFC5329].  If a second instance of the Unconstrained TE LSP Count
   sub-TLV is present, the receiving system MUST only process the first
   instance of the sub-TLV.











Vasseur, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 5330            Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP        October 2008


   The OSPF Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV format is defined below:

   Type (2 octets): 23

   Length (2 octets): 4

   Value (4 octets): number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across
   the link.

4.  Elements of Procedure

   The absence of the Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV SHOULD be
   interpreted as an absence of information about the link.

   Similar to other MPLS Traffic Engineering link characteristics,
   LSA/LSP origination trigger mechanisms are outside the scope of this
   document.  Care must be given to not trigger the systematic flooding
   of a new IS-IS LSP or OSPF LSA with a too high granularity in case of
   change in the number of unconstrained TE LSPs.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has defined a sub-registry for the sub-TLVs carried in the IS-IS
   TLV 22 and has assigned a new TLV codepoint for the Unconstrained TE
   LSP Count sub-TLV carried within the TLV 22.

   Value       TLV Name                               Reference

   23          Unconstrained TE LSP Count (sub-)TLV   RFC 5330

   IANA has defined a sub-registry for the sub-TLVs carried in an OSPF
   TE Link TLV (type 2) and has assigned a new sub-TLV codepoint for the
   Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV carried within the TE Link TLV.

   Value       TLV Name                               Reference

   23          Unconstrained TE LSP Count (sub-)TLV   RFC 5330

6.  Security Considerations

   The function described in this document does not create any new
   security issues for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols.  Security
   considerations are covered in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340] for the base
   OSPF protocol and in [RFC1195] and [RFC5304] for IS-IS.

   A security framework for MPLS and Generalized MPLS can be found in
   [G/MPLS].




Vasseur, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 5330            Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP        October 2008


7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Jean-Louis Le Roux, Adrian Farrel,
   Daniel King, Acee Lindem, Lou Berger, Attila Takacs, Pasi Eronen,
   Russ Housley, Tim Polk, and Loa Anderson for their useful inputs.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
              dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
              2003.

   [RFC5304]  Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
              Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication",
              RFC 5304, October 2008.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

   [RFC5329]  Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
              "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3", RFC
              5329, September 2008.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

8.2.  Informative References

   [G/MPLS]   Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", Work In Progress, July 2008.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
              Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              May 2005.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008.



Vasseur, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 5330            Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP        October 2008


Authors' Addresses

   JP Vasseur (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   USA

   EMail: jpv@cisco.com


   Matthew R. Meyer
   BT
   Boston, MA
   USA

   EMail: matthew.meyer@bt.com


   Kenji Kumaki
   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
   2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino
   Saitama 356-8502, JAPAN

   EMail: ke-kumaki@kddi.com


   Alberto Tempia Bonda
   Telecom Italia
   via G. Reiss Romoli 274
   Torino,  10148
   ITALIA

   EMail: alberto.tempiabonda@telecomitalia.it

















Vasseur, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 5330            Sub-TLV for Unconstrained TE LSP        October 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.












Vasseur, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 8]

