Internet Draft
Network Working Group Loa Andersson
Internet Draft Nortel Networks Inc.
Expiration Date: May 1999
Paul Doolan
Ennovate Networks
Nancy Feldman
IBM Corp
Andre Fredette
Nortel Networks Inc.
Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc.
November 1998
LDP Specification
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).
Abstract
An overview of Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is provided in
[FRAMEWORK] and a proposed architecture in [ARCH]. A fundamental
concept in MPLS is that two Label Switching Routers (LSRs) must agree
on the meaning of the labels used to forward traffic between and
Andersson, et al. [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
through them. This common understanding is achieved by using the
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) referenced in [ARCH]. This
document defines the LDP protocol.
Changes from Previous Draft
- This draft removes the explicit path setup mechanism from the
spec.
- This draft removes loop prevention from the spec. The MPLS
working group will continue to evaluate and compare the two
leading contenders for loop prevention: loop prevention via path
vectors and draft-ohba-mpls-loop-prevention-01 .txt. We expect
that one of these methods will be selected and added to a later
version of LDP.
- This draft retains and refines the path vector mechanism for
optional loop detection. In addition, it introduces an upper
limit on the size of path vectors.
- This draft specifies parameters for the exponential backup used
to throttle session setup retry attempts. It also specifies a
mechanism for resetting the backoff parameters in response to LSR
configuration changes by adding an optional parameter to the
Hello message.
- This draft adds Appendix "LDP Label Distribution Procedures".
- This draft adds rules for resolving differences in the Label
Distribution Discipline and Merge session parameters exchanged in
the Initialization message.
- This draft modifies message and TLV encodings slightly by adding
explicit specification of LSR behavior when an LSR does not
recognize the message or TLV.
- This draft modifies the encodings for the Initialization and
Hello messages to group parameters likely to be used together and
to reduce message sizes. It defines some new TLVs for use with
these messages and eliminates some previously defined TLVs.
- This draft specifies a procedure for negotiating the maximum PDU
length to be used for a session.
Andersson, et al. [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- This draft simplifies the encodings for the Label Mapping, Label
Request, Label Withdraw and Label Release messages by eliminating
the FEC-Label Mapping, FEC-Request, and FEC-Withdraw-Release
TLVs.
- This draft modifies the CoS TLV by specifying that its detailed
definition is a subject for further study.
- This draft adds a Return Message Id optional parameter to the
Label Request message and a Label Request Message Id parameter to
the Label Mapping message to enable an LSR to match received
Label Mapping messages with outstanding Label Request messages.
- This draft refines support for vendor-private protocol extensions
and specifies support for experimental protocol extensions.
- This draft specifies optional use of the TCP MD5 Signature Option
to protect against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments into
LDP session connection streams.
Open Issues
The following LDP issues are left unresolved with this version of the
spec:
- LDP support for CoS is not completely specified in this version.
Cos support will be more fully addressed in a future version.
- LDP support for multicast is not specified in this version.
Multicast support will be addressed in a future version.
- LDP support for multipath label switching is not specified in
this version. Multipath support will be addressed in a future
version.
Andersson, et al. [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Table of Contents
1 LDP Overview ....................................... 7
1.1 LDP Peers .......................................... 7
1.2 LDP Message Exchange ............................... 7
1.3 LDP Message Structure .............................. 8
1.4 LDP Error Handling ................................. 8
1.5 LDP Extensibility and Future Compatibility ......... 9
2 LDP Operation ...................................... 9
2.1 FECs ............................................... 9
2.2 Label Spaces, Identifiers, Sessions and Transport .. 10
2.2.1 Label Spaces ....................................... 10
2.2.2 LDP Identifiers .................................... 11
2.2.3 LDP Sessions ....................................... 11
2.2.4 LDP Transport ...................................... 11
2.3 LDP Sessions between non-Directly Connected LSRs ... 12
2.4 LDP Discovery ..................................... 12
2.4.1 Basic Discovery Mechanism .......................... 12
2.4.2 Extended Discovery Mechanism ....................... 13
2.5 Establishing and Maintaining LDP Sessions .......... 14
2.5.1 LDP Session Establishment .......................... 14
2.5.2 Transport Connection Establishment ................. 14
2.5.3 Session Initialization ............................. 15
2.5.4 Initialization State Machine ....................... 17
2.5.5 Maintaining Hello Adjacencies ...................... 20
2.5.6 Maintaining LDP Sessions ........................... 20
2.6 Label Distribution and Management .................. 21
2.6.1 Label Distribution Control Mode .................... 21
2.6.1.1 Independent Label Distribution Control ............. 21
2.6.1.2 Ordered Label Distribution Control ................. 21
2.6.2 Label Retention Mode ............................... 22
2.6.2.1 Conservative Label Retention Mode .................. 22
2.6.2.2 Liberal Label Retention Mode ....................... 22
2.6.3 Label Advertisement Mode ........................... 23
2.7 LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses ............. 23
2.8 Loop Detection ..................................... 24
2.8.1 Label Request Message .............................. 24
2.8.2 Label Mapping Message .............................. 26
2.8.3 Discussion ......................................... 27
3 Protocol Specification ............................. 28
3.1 LDP PDUs ........................................... 28
3.2 LDP Procedures ..................................... 29
3.3 Type-Length-Value Encoding ......................... 30
3.4 TLV Encodings for Commonly Used Parameters ......... 31
3.4.1 FEC TLV ............................................ 31
3.4.1.1 FEC Procedures ..................................... 34
Andersson, et al. [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.4.2 Label TLVs ......................................... 34
3.4.2.1 Generic Label TLV .................................. 34
3.4.2.2 ATM Label TLV ...................................... 34
3.4.2.3 Frame Relay Label TLV .............................. 35
3.4.3 Address List TLV ................................... 36
3.4.4 COS TLV ............................................ 37
3.4.5 Hop Count TLV ...................................... 37
3.4.5.1 Hop Count Procedures ............................... 38
3.4.6 Path Vector TLV .................................... 38
3.4.6.1 Path Vector Procedures ............................. 39
3.4.6.1.1 Label Request Path Vector .......................... 39
3.4.6.1.2 Label Mapping Path Vector .......................... 40
3.4.7 Status TLV ......................................... 40
3.5 LDP Messages ....................................... 42
3.5.1 Notification Message ............................... 44
3.5.1.1 Notification Message Procedures .................... 45
3.5.1.2 Events Signaled by Notification Messages ........... 45
3.5.1.2.1 Malformed PDU or Message ........................... 46
3.5.1.2.2 Unknown or Malformed TLV ........................... 46
3.5.1.2.3 Session Hold Timer Expiration ...................... 47
3.5.1.2.4 Unilateral Session Shutdown ........................ 47
3.5.1.2.5 Initialization Message Events ...................... 47
3.5.1.2.6 Events Resulting From Other Messages ............... 47
3.5.1.2.7 Miscellaneous Events ............................... 48
3.5.2 Hello Message ...................................... 48
3.5.2.1 Hello Message Procedures ........................... 50
3.5.3 Initialization Message ............................. 51
3.5.3.1 Initialization Message Procedures .................. 58
3.5.4 KeepAlive Message .................................. 59
3.5.4.1 KeepAlive Message Procedures ....................... 59
3.5.5 Address Message .................................... 59
3.5.5.1 Address Message Procedures ......................... 60
3.5.6 Address Withdraw Message ........................... 61
3.5.6.1 Address Withdraw Message Procedures ................ 61
3.5.7 Label Mapping Message .............................. 61
3.5.7.1 Label Mapping Message Procedures ................... 63
3.5.7.1.1 Independent Control Mapping ........................ 63
3.5.7.1.2 Ordered Control Mapping ............................ 64
3.5.7.1.3 Downstream-on-Demand Label Advertisement ........... 64
3.5.7.1.4 Downstream Unsolicited Label Advertisement ......... 65
3.5.8 Label Request Message .............................. 65
3.5.8.1 Label Request Message Procedures ................... 66
3.5.9 Label Withdraw Message ............................. 67
3.5.9.1 Label Withdraw Message Procedures .................. 68
3.5.10 Label Release Message .............................. 69
3.5.10.1 Label Release Message Procedures ................... 70
3.6 Messages and TLVs for Extensibility ................ 71
3.6.1 LDP Vendor-private Extensions ...................... 71
Andersson, et al. [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.6.1.1 LDP Vendor-private TLVs ............................ 71
3.6.1.2 LDP Vendor-private Messages ........................ 72
3.6.2 LDP Experimental Extensions ........................ 74
3.7 Message Summary .................................... 74
3.8 TLV Summary ........................................ 75
3.9 Status Code Summary ................................ 76
3.10 UDP and TCP Ports .................................. 76
4 Security ........................................... 77
4.1 The TCP MD5 Signature Option ....................... 77
4.2 LDP Use of the TCP MD5 Signature Option ............ 78
5 Intellectual Property Considerations ............... 79
6 Acknowledgments .................................... 79
7 References ......................................... 79
8 Author Information ................................. 80
Appendix.A LDP Label Distribution Procedures .................. 82
A.1 Handling Label Distribution Events ................. 84
A.1.1 Receive Label Request .............................. 85
A.1.2 Receive Label Mapping .............................. 88
A.1.3 Receive Label Release .............................. 92
A.1.4 Receive Label Withdraw ............................. 94
A.1.5 Recognize New FEC .................................. 95
A.1.6 Detect change in FEC next hop ...................... 98
A.1.7 Receive Notification / No Label Resources .......... 100
A.1.8 Receive Notification / No Route .................... 101
A.1.9 Receive Notification / Loop Detected ............... 102
A.1.10 Receive Notification / Label Resources Available ... 102
A.1.11 Detect local label resources have become available . 103
A.1.12 LSR decides to no longer label switch a FEC ........ 104
A.1.13 Timeout of deferred label request .................. 104
A.2 Common Label Distribution Procedures ............... 105
A.2.1 Send_Label ......................................... 105
A.2.2 Send_Label_Request ................................. 107
A.2.3 Send_Label_Withdraw ................................ 108
A.2.4 Send_Notification .................................. 108
A.2.5 Send_Message ....................................... 109
A.2.6 Check_Received_Attributes .......................... 109
A.2.7 Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes ................... 110
A.2.8 Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes ................... 112
Andersson, et al. [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
1. LDP Overview
LDP is the set of procedures and messages by which Label Switched
Routers (LSRs) establish Label Switched Paths (LSPs) through a
network by mapping network-layer routing information directly to
data-link layer switched paths. These LSPs may have an endpoint at a
directly attached neighbor (comparable to IP hop-by-hop forwarding),
or may have an endpoint at a network egress node, enabling switching
via all intermediary nodes.
LDP associates a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) [ARCH] with each
LSP it creates. The FEC associated with an LSP specifies which
packets are "mapped" to that LSP. LSPs are extended through a
network as each LSR "splices" incoming labels for a FEC to the
outgoing label assigned to the next hop for the given FEC.
Note that this document is written with respect to unicast routing
only. Multicast will be addressed in a future revision.
1.1. LDP Peers
Two LSRs which use LDP to exchange label/stream mapping information
are known as "LDP Peers" with respect to that information and we
speak of there being an "LDP Session" between them. A single LDP
session allows each peer to learn the other's label mappings; i.e.,
the protocol is bi-directional.
1.2. LDP Message Exchange
There are four categories of LDP messages:
1. Discovery messages, used to announce and maintain the presence
of an LSR in a network.
2. Session messages, used to establish, maintain, and terminate
sessions between LDP peers.
3. Advertisement messages, used to create, change, and delete
label mappings for FECs.
4. Notification messages, used to provide advisory information and
to signal error information.
Discovery messages provide a mechanism whereby LSRs indicate their
presence in a network by sending the Hello message periodically.
This is transmitted as a UDP packet to the LDP port at the `all
Andersson, et al. [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
routers' group multicast address. When an LSR chooses to establish a
session with another LSR learned via the Hello message, it uses the
LDP initialization procedure over TCP transport. Upon successful
completion of the initialization procedure, the two LSRs are LDP
peers, and may exchange advertisement messages.
When to request a label or advertise a label mapping to a peer is
largely a local decision made by an LSR. In general, the LSR
requests a label mapping from a neighboring LSR when it needs one,
and advertises a label mapping to a neighboring LSR when it wishes
the neighbor to use a label.
Correct operation of LDP requires reliable and in order delivery of
messages. To satisfy these requirements LDP uses the TCP transport
for session, advertisement and notification messages; i.e., for
everything but the UDP-based discovery mechanism.
1.3. LDP Message Structure
All LDP messages have a common structure that uses a Type-
Length_Value (TLV) encoding scheme; see Section "Type-Length-Value"
encoding. The Value part of a TLV-encoded object, or TLV for short,
may itself contain one or more TLVs.
1.4. LDP Error Handling
LDP errors and other events of interest are signaled to an LDP peer
by notification messages.
There are two kinds of LDP notification messages:
1. Error notifications, used to signal fatal errors. If an LSR
receives an error notification from a peer for an LDP session,
it terminates the LDP session by closing the TCP transport
connection for the session and discarding all label mappings
learned via the session.
2. Advisory notifications, used to pass an LSR information about
the LDP session or the status of some previous message received
from the peer.
Andersson, et al. [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
1.5. LDP Extensibility and Future Compatibility
Functionality may be added to LDP in the future. It is likely that
future functionality will utilize new messages and object types
(TLVs). It may be desirable to employ such new messages and TLVs
within a network using older implementations that do not recognize
them. While it is not possible to make every future enhancement
backwards compatible, some prior planning can ease the introduction
of new capabilities. This specification defines rules for handling
unknown message types and unknown TLVs for this purpose.
2. LDP Operation
2.1. FECs
It is necessary to precisely specify which IP packets may be mapped
to each LSP. This is done by providing a FEC specification for each
LSP. The FEC identifies the set of IP packets which may be mapped to
that LSP.
Each FEC is specified as a set of one or more FEC elements. Each FEC
element identifies a set of IP packets which may be mapped to the
corresponding LSP. When an LSP is shared by multiple FEC elements,
that LSP is terminated at (or before) the node where the FEC elements
can no longer share the same path.
Following are the currently defined types of FEC elements. New
element types may be added as needed:
1. IP Address Prefix. This element is an IP address prefix of any
length from 0 to 32 bits, inclusive.
2. Host Address. This element is a 32-bit IP address.
We say that a particular IP address "matches" a particular IP address
prefix if and only if that address begins with that prefix. We also
say that a particular packet matches a particular LSP if and only if
that LSP has an IP Address Prefix FEC element which matches the
packet's IP destination address. With respect to a particular packet
and a particular LSP, we refer to any IP Address Prefix FEC element
which matches the packet as the "matching prefix".
The procedure for mapping a particular packet to a particular LSP
uses the following rules. Each rule is applied in turn until the
packet can be mapped to an LSP.
Andersson, et al. [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- If there is exactly one LSP which has a Host Address FEC element
that is identical to the packet's IP destination address, then
the packet is mapped to that LSP.
- If there multiple LSPs, each containing a Host Address FEC
element that is identical to the packet's IP destination address,
then the packet is mapped to one of those LSPs. The procedure
for selecting one of those LSPs is beyond the scope of this
document.
- If a packet matches exactly one LSP, the packet is mapped to that
LSP.
- If a packet matches multiple LSPs, it is mapped to the LSP whose
matching prefix is the longest. If there is no one LSP whose
matching prefix is longest, the packet is mapped to one of those
LSPs. The procedure for selecting one of those LSPs is beyond
the scope of this document.
- If it is known that a packet must traverse a particular egress
router, and there is an LSP which has an IP Address Prefix FEC
element (of length 32 bits) which is an address of that router,
then the packet is mapped to that LSP. The procedure for
obtaining this knowledge is beyond the scope of this document.
2.2. Label Spaces, Identifiers, Sessions and Transport
2.2.1. Label Spaces
The notion of "label space" is useful for discussing the assignment
and distribution of labels. There are two types of label spaces:
- Per interface label space. Interface-specific incoming labels
are used for interfaces that use interface resources for labels.
An example of such an interface is a label-controlled ATM
interface that uses VCIs as labels, or a Frame Relay interface
that uses DLCIs as labels.
Note that the use of a per interface label space only makes sense
when the LDP peers are "directly connected" over an interface,
and the label is only going to be used for traffic sent over that
interface.
- Per platform label space. Platform-wide incoming labels are used
for interfaces that can share the same labels.
Andersson, et al. [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
2.2.2. LDP Identifiers
An LDP identifier is a six octet quantity used to identify an LSR
label space. The first four octets encode an IP address assigned to
the LSR, and the last two octets identify a specific label space
within the LSR. The last two octets of LDP Identifiers for
platform-wide label spaces are always both zero. This document uses
the following print representation for LDP Identifiers:
:
e.g., 171.32.27.28:0, 192.0.3.5:2.
Note that an LSR that manages and advertises multiple label spaces
uses a different LDP Identifier for each such label space.
A situation where an LSR would need to advertise more than one label
space to a peer and hence use more than one LDP Identifier occurs
when the LSR has two links to the peer and both are ATM (and use per
interface labels). Another situation would be where the LSR had two
links to the peer, one of which is ethernet (and uses per platform
labels) and the other of which is ATM.
2.2.3. LDP Sessions
LDP sessions exist between LSRs to support label exchange between
them.
When an LSR uses LDP to advertise more than one label space to
another LSR it uses a separate LDP session for each label space.
2.2.4. LDP Transport
LDP uses TCP as a reliable transport for sessions.
When multiple LDP sessions are required between two LSRs there is
one TCP session for each LDP session.
Andersson, et al. [Page 11]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
2.3. LDP Sessions between non-Directly Connected LSRs
LDP sessions between LSRs that are not directly connected at the link
level may be desirable in some situations.
For example, consider a "traffic engineering" application where LSRa
sends traffic matching some criteria via an LSP to non-directly
connected LSRb rather than forwarding the traffic along its normally
routed path.
The path between LSRa and LSRb would include one or more intermediate
LSRs (LSR1,...LSRn). An LDP session between LSRa and LSRb would
enable LSRb to label switch traffic arriving on the LSP from LSRa by
providing LSRb means to advertise labels for this purpose to LSRa.
In this situation LSRa would apply two labels to traffic it forwards
on the LSP to LSRb: a label learned from LSR1 to forward traffic
along the LSP path from LSRa to LSRb; and a label learned from LSRb
to enable LSRb to label switch traffic arriving on the LSP.
LSRa first adds the label learned via its LDP session with LSRb to
the packet label stack (either by replacing the label on top of the
packet label stack with it if the packet arrives labeled or by
pushing it if the packet arrives unlabeled). Next, it pushes the
label for the LSP learned from LSR1 onto the label stack.
2.4. LDP Discovery
LDP discovery is a mechanism that enables an LSR to discover
potential LDP peers. Discovery makes it unnecessary to explicitly
configure an LSR's label switching peers.
There are two variants of the discovery mechanism:
- A basic discovery mechanism used to discover LSR neighbors that
are directly connected at the link level.
- An extended discovery mechanism used to locate LSRs that are not
directly connected at the link level.
2.4.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism
To engage in LDP Basic Discovery on an interface an LSR periodically
sends LDP Link Hellos out the interface. LDP Link Hellos are sent as
UDP packets addressed to the well-known LDP discovery port for the
"all routers" group multicast address.
Andersson, et al. [Page 12]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
An LDP Link Hello sent by an LSR carries the LDP Identifier for the
label space the LSR intends to use for the interface and possibly
additional information.
Receipt of an LDP Link Hello on an interface identifies a "Hello
adjacency" with a potential LDP peer reachable at the link level on
the interface as well as the label space the peer intends to use for
the interface.
2.4.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism
LDP sessions between non-directly connected LSRs are supported by LDP
Extended Discovery.
To engage in LDP Extended Discovery an LSR periodically sends LDP
Targeted Hellos to a specific IP address. LDP Targeted Hellos are
sent as UDP packets addressed to the well-known LDP discovery port at
the specific address.
An LDP Targeted Hello sent by an LSR carries the LDP Identifier for
the label space the LSR intends to use and possibly additional
optional information.
Extended Discovery differs from Basic Discovery in the following
ways:
- A Targeted Hello is sent to a specific IP address rather than to
the "all routers" group multicast address for the outgoing
interface.
- Unlike Basic Discovery, which is symmetric, Extended Discovery is
asymmetric.
One LSR initiates Extended Discovery with another targeted LSR,
and the targeted LSR decides whether to respond to or ignore the
Targeted Hello. A targeted LSR that chooses to respond does so
by periodically sending Targeted Hellos to the initiating LSR.
Receipt of an LDP Targeted Hello identifies a "Hello adjacency" with
a potential LDP peer reachable at the network level and the label
space the peer intends to use.
Andersson, et al. [Page 13]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
2.5. Establishing and Maintaining LDP Sessions
2.5.1. LDP Session Establishment
The exchange of LDP Discovery Hellos between two LSRs triggers LDP
session establishment. Session establishment is a two step process:
- Transport connection establishment.
- Session initialization
The following describes establishment of an LDP session between LSRs
LSR1 and LSR2 from LSR1's point of view. It assumes the exchange of
Hellos specifying label space LSR1:a for LSR1 and label space LSR2:b
for LSR2.
2.5.2. Transport Connection Establishment
The exchange of Hellos results in the creation of a Hello adjacency
at LSR1 that serves to bind the link (L) and the label spaces LSR1:a
and LSR2:b.
1. If LSR1 does not already have an LDP session for the exchange
of label spaces LSR1:a and LSR2:b it attempts to open a TCP
connection for a new LDP session with LSR2.
LSR1 determines the transport addresses to be used at its end
(A1) and LSR2's end (A2) of the LDP TCP connection. Address A1
is determined as follows:
a. If LSR1 uses the Transport Address optional object (TLV) in
Hello's it sends to LSR2 to advertise an address, A1 is the
address LSR1 advertises via the optional object;
b. If LSR1 does not use the Transport Address optional object,
A1 is the source IP address used in Hellos it sends to
LSR2.
Similarly, address A2 is determined as follows:
a. If LSR2 uses the Transport Address optional object, A2 is
the address LSR2 advertises via the optional object;
b. If LSR2 does not use the Transport Address optional object,
A2 is the source IP address in Hellos received from LSR2.
2. LSR1 determines whether it will play the active or passive role
in session establishment by comparing addresses A1 and A2 as
Andersson, et al. [Page 14]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
unsigned integers. If A1 > A2, LSR1 plays the active role;
otherwise it is passive.
3. If LSR1 is active, it attempts to establish the LDP TCP
connection by connecting to the well-known LDP port at address
A2. If LSR1 is passive, it waits for LSR2 to establish the LDP
TCP connection to its well-known LDP port.
2.5.3. Session Initialization
After LSR1 and LSR2 establish a transport connection they negotiate
session parameters by exchanging LDP Initialization messages. The
parameters negotiated include LDP protocol version, label
distribution method, timer values, VPI/VCI ranges for label
controlled ATM, DLCI ranges for label controlled Frame Relay, etc.
Successful negotiation completes establishment of an LDP session
between LSR1 and LSR2 for the advertisement of label spaces LSR1:a
and LSR2:b.
The following describes the session initialization from LSR1's point
of view.
After the connection is established, if LSR1 is playing the active
role, it initiates negotiation of session parameters by sending an
Initialization message to LSR2. If LSR1 is passive, it waits for
LSR2 to initiate the parameter negotiation.
In general when there are multiple links between LSR1 and LSR2 and
multiple label spaces to be advertised by each, the passive LSR
cannot know which label space to advertise over a newly established
TCP connection until it receives the first LDP PDU on the connection.
By waiting for the Initialization message from its peer the passive
LSR can match the label space to be advertised by the peer (as
determined from the LDP Identifier in the PDU header for the
Initialization message) with a Hello adjacency previously created
when Hellos were exchanged.
1. When LSR1 plays the passive role:
a. If LSR1 receives an Initialization message it attempts to
match the LDP Identifier carried by the message PDU with a
Hello adjacency.
b. If there is a matching Hello adjacency, the adjacency
specifies the local label space for the session.
Andersson, et al. [Page 15]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Next LSR1 checks whether the session parameters proposed in
the message are acceptable. If they are, LSR1 replies with
an Initialization message of its own to propose the
parameters it wishes to use and a KeepAlive message to
signal acceptance of LSR2's parameters. If the parameters
are not acceptable, LSR1 responds by sending a Session
Rejected/Parameters Error Notification message and closing
the TCP connection.
c. If LSR1 cannot find a matching Hello adjacency it sends a
Session Rejected/No Hello Error Notification message and
closes the TCP connection.
d. If LSR1 receives a KeepAlive in response to its
Initialization message, the session is operational from
LSR1's point of view.
e. If LSR1 receives an Error Notification message, LSR2 has
rejected its proposed session and LSR1 closes the TCP
connection.
2. When LSR1 plays the active role:
a. If LSR1 receives an Error Notification message, LSR2 has
rejected its proposed session and LSR1 closes the TCP
connection.
b. If LSR1 receives an Initialization message, it checks
whether the session parameters are acceptable. If so, it
replies with a KeepAlive message. If the session
parameters are unacceptable, LSR1 sends a Session
Rejected/Parameters Error Notification message and closes
the connection.
c. If LSR1 receives a KeepAlive message, LSR2 has accepted its
proposed session parameters.
d. When LSR1 has received both an acceptable Initialization
message and a KeepAlive message the session is operational
from LSR1's point of view.
It is possible for a pair of incompatibly configured LSRs that
disagree on session parameters to engage in an endless sequence
of messages as each NAKs the other's Initialization messages with
Error Notification messages.
An LSR must throttle its session setup retry attempts with an
exponential backoff in situations where Initialization messages
Andersson, et al. [Page 16]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
are being NAK'd. It is also recommended that an LSR detecting
such a situation take action to notify an operator.
The session establishment setup attempt following a NAK'd
Initialization message must be delayed no less than 15 seconds,
and subsequent delays must grow to a maximum delay of no less
than 2 minutes. The specific session establishment action that
must be delayed is the attempt to open the session transport
connection by the LSR playing the active role.
The throttled sequence of Initialization NAKs is unlikely to
cease until operator intervention reconfigures one of the LSRs.
After such a configuration action there is no further need to
throttle subsequent session establishment attempts (until their
initialization messages are NAK'd).
Due to the asymmetric nature of session establishment,
reconfiguration of the passive LSR will go unnoticed by the
active LSR without some further action. Section "Hello Message"
describes an optional mechanism an LSR can use to signal
potential LDP peers that it has been reconfigured.
2.5.4. Initialization State Machine
It is convenient to describe LDP session negotiation behavior in
terms of a state machine. We define the LDP state machine to have
five possible states and present the behavior as a state transition
table and as a state transition diagram.
Andersson, et al. [Page 17]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Session Initialization State Transition Table
STATE EVENT NEW STATE
NON EXISTENT Session TCP connection established INITIALIZED
established
INITIALIZED Transmit Initialization msg OPENSENT
(Active Role)
Receive acceptable OPENREC
Initialization msg
(Passive Role )
Action: Transmit Initialization
msg and KeepAlive msg
Receive Any other LDP msg NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Error Notification msg
(NAK) and close transport connection
OPENREC Receive KeepAlive msg OPERATIONAL
Receive Any other LDP msg NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Error Notification msg
(NAK) and close transport connection
OPENSENT Receive acceptable OPENREC
Initialization msg
Action: Transmit KeepAlive msg
Receive Any other LDP msg NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Error Notification msg
(NAK) and close transport connection
OPERATIONAL Receive Shutdown msg NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Shutdown msg and
close transport connection
Receive other LDP msgs OPERATIONAL
Timeout NON EXISTENT
Action: Transmit Shutdown msg and
close transport connection
Andersson, et al. [Page 18]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Session Initialization State Transition Diagram
+------------+
| |
+------------>|NON EXISTENT|<--------------------+
| | | |
| +------------+ |
| Session | ^ |
| connection | | |
| established | | Rx any LDP msg except |
| V | Init msg or Timeout |
| +-----------+ |
Rx Any other | | | |
msg or | |INITIALIZED| |
Timeout / | +---| |-+ |
Tx NAK msg | | +-----------+ | |
| | (Passive Role) | (Active Role) |
| | Rx Acceptble | Tx Init msg |
| | Init msg / | |
| | Tx Init msg | |
| | Tx KeepAlive | |
| V msg V |
| +-------+ +--------+ |
| | | | | |
+---|OPENREC| |OPENSENT|----------------->|
+---| | | | Rx Any other msg |
| +-------+ +--------+ or Timeout |
Rx KeepAlive | ^ | Tx NAK msg |
msg | | | |
| | | Rx Acceptable |
| | | Init msg / |
| +----------------+ Tx KeepAlive msg |
| |
| +-----------+ |
+----->| | |
|OPERATIONAL| |
| |---------------------------->+
+-----------+ Rx Shutdown msg
All other | ^ or Timeout /
LDP msgs | | Tx Shutdown msg
| |
+---+
Andersson, et al. [Page 19]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
2.5.5. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies
An LDP session with a peer has one or more Hello adjacencies.
An LDP session has multiple Hello adjacencies when a pair of LSRs is
connected by multiple links that share the same label space; for
example, multiple PPP links between a pair of routers. In this
situation the Hellos an LSR sends on each such link carry the same
LDP Identifier.
LDP includes mechanisms to monitor the necessity of an LDP session
and its Hello adjacencies.
LDP uses the regular receipt of LDP Discovery Hellos to indicate a
peer's intent to use the label space identified by the Hello. An LSR
maintains a hold timer with each Hello adjacency which it restarts
when it receives a Hello that matches the adjacency. If the timer
expires without receipt of a matching Hello from the peer, LDP
concludes that the peer no longer wishes to label switch using that
label space for that link (or target, in the case of Targeted Hellos)
or that the peer has failed. The LSR then deletes the Hello
adjacency. When the last Hello adjacency for a LDP session is
deleted, the LSR terminates the LDP session by closing the transport
connection.
2.5.6. Maintaining LDP Sessions
LDP includes mechanisms to monitor the integrity of the LDP session.
LDP uses the regular receipt of LDP PDUs on the session transport
connection to monitor the integrity of the session. An LSR maintains
a KeepAlive timer for each peer session which it resets whenever it
receives an LDP PDU from the session peer. If the KeepAlive timer
expires without receipt of an LDP PDU from the peer the LSR concludes
that the transport connection is bad or that the peer has failed, and
it terminates the LDP session by closing the transport connection.
After an LDP session has been established, an LSR must arrange that
its peer receive an LDP PDU from it at least every KeepAlive time
period to ensure the peer restarts the session KeepAlive timer. The
LSR may send any protocol message to meet this requirement. In
circumstances where an LSR has no other information to communicate to
its peer, it sends a KeepAlive message.
An LSR may choose to terminate an LDP session with a peer at any
time. Should it choose to do so, it informs the peer with a Shutdown
message.
Andersson, et al. [Page 20]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
2.6. Label Distribution and Management
The MPLS architecture [ARCH] allows an LSR to distribute a FEC label
binding in response to an explicit request from another LSR. This is
known as Downstream On Demand label distribution. It also allows an
LSR to distribute label bindings to LSRs that have not explicitly
requested them. This is known as Downstream Unsolicited label
distribution.
Both of these label distribution techniques may be used in the same
network at the same time. However, for any given LDP session, each
LSR must be aware of the label distribution method used by its peer
in order to avoid situations where one peer using Downstream
Unsolicted label distribution assumes its peer is also. See Section
"Downstream-on-Demand label Advertisement".
2.6.1. Label Distribution Control Mode
The behavior of the initial setup of LSPs is determined by whether
the LSR is operating with independent or ordered LSP control. An LSR
may support both types of control as a configurable option.
2.6.1.1. Independent Label Distribution Control
When using independent LSP control, each LSR may advertise label
mappings to its neighbors at any time it desires. For example, when
operating in independent Downstream-on-Demand mode, an LSR may answer
requests for label mappings immediately, without waiting for a label
mapping from the next hop. When operating in independent Downstream
Unsolicited mode, an LSR may advertise a label mapping for a FEC to
its neighbors whenever it is prepared to label-switch that FEC.
A consequence of using independent mode is that an upstream label can
be advertised before a downstream label is received. This can result
in unlabeled packets being sent to the downstream LSR.
2.6.1.2. Ordered Label Distribution Control
When using LSP ordered control, an LSR may initiate the transmission
of a label mapping only for a FEC for which it has a label mapping
for the FEC next hop, or for which the LSR is the egress. For each
FEC for which the LSR is not the egress and no mapping exists, the
LSR MUST wait until a label from a downstream LSR is received before
mapping the FEC and passing corresponding labels to upstream LSRs.
Andersson, et al. [Page 21]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
An LSR may be an egress for some FECs and a non-egress for others.
An LSR may act as an egress LSR, with respect to a particular FEC,
under any of the following conditions:
1. The FEC refers to the LSR itself (including one of its
directly attached interfaces).
2. The next hop router for the FEC is outside of the Label
Switching Network.
3 FEC elements are reachable by crossing a routing domain
boundary, such as another area for OSPF summary networks,
or another autonomous system for OSPF AS externals and BGP
routes [rfc1583] [rfc1771].
2.6.2. Label Retention Mode
2.6.2.1. Conservative Label Retention Mode
In Downstream Unsolicited advertisement mode, label mapping adver-
tisements for all routes may be received from all peer LSRs. When
using conservative label retention, advertised label mappings are
retained only if they will be used to forward packets (i.e., if they
are received from a valid next hop according to routing). If operat-
ing in Downstream-on-Demand mode, an LSR will request label mappings
only from the next hop LSR according to routing. Since Downstream-
on-Demand mode is primarily used when label conservation is desired
(e.g., an ATM switch with limited cross connect space), it is typi-
cally used with the conservative label retention mode.
The main advantage of the conservative mode is that only the labels
that are required for the forwarding of data are allocated and main-
tained. This is particularly important in LSRs where the label space
is inherently limited, such as in an ATM switch. A disadvantage of
the conservative mode is that if routing changes the next hop for a
given destination, a new label must be obtained from the new next hop
before labeled packets can be forwarded.
2.6.2.2. Liberal Label Retention Mode
In Downstream Unsolicited advertisement mode, label mapping adver-
tisements for all routes may be received from all LDP peers. When
using liberal label retention, every label mappings received from a
peer LSR is retained regardless of whether the LSR is the next hop
for the advertised mapping. When operating in Downstream-on-Demand
mode with liberal label retention, an LSR might choose to request
Andersson, et al. [Page 22]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
label mappings for all known prefixes from all peer LSRs. Note, how-
ever, that Downstream-on-Demand mode is typically used by devices
such as ATM switch-based LSRs for which the conservative approach is
recommended.
The main advantage of the liberal label retention mode is that reac-
tion to routing changes can be quick because labels already exist.
The main disadvantage of the liberal mode is that unneeded label map-
pings are distributed and maintained.
2.6.3. Label Advertisement Mode
Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate in either Down-
stream Unsolicited or Downstream-on-Demand advertisement mode. LSRs
exchange advertisement modes during initialization. The major
difference between Downstream Unsolicited and Downstream-on-Demand
modes is in which LSR takes responsibility for initiating mapping
requests and mapping advertisements.
2.7. LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses
An LSR maintains learned labels in a Label Information Base (LIB).
When operating in Downstream Unsolicited mode, the LIB entry for an
address prefix associates a collection of (LDP Identifier, label)
pairs with the prefix, one such pair for each peer advertising a
label for the prefix.
When the next hop for a prefix changes the LSR must retrieve the
label advertised by the new next hop from the LIB for use in forward-
ing. To retrieve the label the LSR must be able to map the next hop
address for the prefix to an LDP Identifier.
Similarly, when the LSR learns a label for a prefix from an LDP peer,
it must be able to determine whether that peer is currently a next
hop for the prefix to determine whether it needs to start using the
newly learned label when forwarding packets that match the prefix.
To make that decision the LSR must be able to map an LDP Identifier
to the peer's addresses to check whether any are a next hop for the
prefix.
To enable LSRs to map between a peer LDP identifier and the peer's
addresses, LSRs advertise their addresses using LDP Address and With-
draw Address messages.
An LSR sends an Address message to advertise its addresses to a peer.
An LSR sends a Withdraw Address message to withdraw previously
Andersson, et al. [Page 23]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
advertised addresses from a peer
2.8. Loop Detection
Loop detection is a configurable option which provides a mechanism
for finding looping LSPs and for preventing Label Request messages
from looping in the presence of non-merge capable LSRs.
The mechanism makes use of Path Vector and Hop Count TLVs carried by
Label Request and Label Mapping messages. It builds on the following
basic properties of these TLVs:
- A Path Vector TLV contains a list of the LSRs that its containing
message has traversed. An LSR is identified in a Path Vector
list by its unique LSR Identifier (Id), which is the IP address
component of its LDP Identifier. When an LSR propagates a mes-
sage containing a Path Vector TLV it adds its LSR Id to the Path
Vector list. An LSR that receives a message with a Path Vector
that contains its LSR Id detects that the message has traversed a
loop. LDP supports the notion of a maximum allowable Path Vector
length; an LSR that detects a Path Vector has reached the maximum
length behaves as if the containing message has traversed a loop.
- A Hop Count TLV contains a count of the LSRS that the containing
message has traversed. When an LSR propagates a message contain-
ing a Hop Count TLV it increments the count. An LSR that detects
a Hop Count has reached a configured maximum value behaves as if
the containing message has traversed a loop. By convention a
count of 0 is interpreted to mean the hop count is unknown.
Incrementing an unknown hop count value results in an unknown hop
count value (0).
The following paragraphs describes LDP loop detection procedures. In
these paragraphs, "MUST" means "MUST if configured for loop detec-
tion". The paragraphs specify messages that must carry Path Vector
and Hop Count TLVs. Note that the Hop Count TLV and its procedures
are used without the Path Vector TLV in situations when loop detec-
tion is not configured (see [ATM]).
2.8.1. Label Request Message
The use of the Path Vector TLV and Hop Count TLV prevent Label
Request messages from looping in environments that include non-merge
capable LSRs.
The rules that govern use of the Hop Count TLV in Label Request
Andersson, et al. [Page 24]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
messages by LSR R when Loop Detection is enabled are the following:
- The Label Request message MUST include a Hop Count TLV.
- If R is sending the Label Request because it is a FEC ingress, it
MUST include a Hop Count TLV with hop count value 1.
- If R is sending the Label Request as a result of having received a
Label Request from an upstream LSR, and if the received Label
Request contains a Hop Count TLV, R MUST increment the received hop
count value by 1 and MUST pass the resulting value in a Hop Count
TLV to its next hop along with the Label Request message;
The rules that govern use of the Path Vector TLV in Label Request
messages by LSR R when Loop Detection is enabled are the following:
- If R is sending the Label Request because it is a FEC ingress, then
if R is non-merge capable, it MUST include a Path Vector TLV of
length 1 containing its own LSR Id.
- If R is sending the Label Request as a result of having received a
Label Request from an upstream LSR, then if the received Label
Request contains a Path Vector TLV or if R is non-merge capable:
R MUST add its own LSR Id to the Path Vector, and MUST pass the
resulting Path Vector to its next hop along with the Label
Request message. If the Label Request contains no Path Vector
TLV, R MUST include a Path Vector TLV of length 1 containing
its own LSR Id.
Note that if R receives a Label Request message for a particular FEC,
and R has previously sent a Label Request message for that FEC to its
next hop and has not yet received a reply, and if R intends to merge
the newly received Label Request with the existing outstanding Label
Request, then R does not propagate the Label Request to the next hop.
If R receives a Label Request message from its next hop with a Hop
Count TLV which exceeds the configured maximum value, or with a Path
Vector TLV containing its own LSR Id or which exceeds the maximum
allowable length, then R detects that the Label Reqeust message has
traveled in a loop.
When R detects a loop, it MUST send a Loop Detected Notification mes-
sage to the source of the Label Request message and drop the Label
Request message.
Andersson, et al. [Page 25]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
2.8.2. Label Mapping Message
The use of the Path Vector TLV and Hop Count TLV in the Label Mapping
message provide a mechanism to find and terminate looping LSPs. When
an LSR receives a Label Mapping message from a next hop, the message
is propagated upstream as specified below until an a ingress LSR is
reached or a loop is found.
The rules that govern the use of the Hop Count TLV in Label Mapping
messages sent by an LSR R when Loop Detection is enabled are the fol-
lowing:
- R MUST include a Hop Count TLV.
- If R is the egress, the hop count value MUST be 1.
- If the Label Mapping message is being sent to propagate a Label
Mapping message received from the next hop to an upstream peer, the
hop count value MUST be the result of incrementing the hop count
value received from the next hop.
- If the Label Mapping message is not being sent to propagate a Label
Mapping message, the hop count value MUST be the result of incre-
menting R's current knowledge of the hop count to the egress. Note
that the hop count to the egress will be unknown if R has not
received a Label Mapping message from the next hop.
Any Label Mapping message MAY contain a Path Vector TLV. The rules
that govern the mandatory use of the Path Vector TLV in Label Mapping
messages sent by LSR R when Loop Detection is enabled are the follow-
ing:
- If R is the egress, the Label Mapping message need not include a
Path Vector TLV.
- If R is sending the Label Mapping message to propagate a Label Map-
ping message received from the next hop to an upstream peer, then:
o If R is merge capable and if R has not previously sent a Label
Mapping message to the upstream peer, then it MUST include a
Path Vector TLV.
o If the received message contains an unknown hop count, then R
MUST include a Path Vector TLV.
o If R has previously sent a Label Mapping message to the
upstream peer, then it MUST include a Path Vector TLV if the
received message reports an LSP hop count increase, a change in
Andersson, et al. [Page 26]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
hop count from unknown to known, or a change from known to
unknown.
If the above rules require R include a Path Vector TLV in the Label
Mapping message, R computes it as follows:
o If the received Label Mapping message included a Path Vector,
the Path Vector sent upstream MUST be the result of adding R's
LSR Id to the received Path Vector.
o If the received message had no Path Vector, the Path Vector
sent upstream MUST be a path vector of length 1 containing R's
LSR Id.
- If the Label Mapping message is not being sent to propagate a
received message upstream, the Label Mapping message MUST include a
Path Vector of length 1 containing R's LSR Id.
If R receives a Label Mapping message from its next hop with a Hop
Count TLV which exceeds the configured maximum value, or with a Path
Vector TLV containing its own LSR Id or which exceeds the maximum
allowable length, then R detects that the corresponding LSP contains
a loop.
When R detects a loop, it MUST stop using the label for forwarding,
drop the Label Mapping message. and send a Loop Detected Notification
message to the source of the Label Mapping message.
2.8.3. Discussion
LSRs which are configured for loop detection are NOT expected to
store the path vectors as part of the LSP state.
Note that in a network where only non-merge capable LSRs are present,
Path Vectors are passed downstream from ingress to egress, and are
not passed upstream. Even when merge is supported, Path Vectors need
not be passed upstream along an LSP which is known to reach the
egress. When an LSR experiences a change of next hop, it need pass
Path Vectors upstream only when it cannot tell from the hop count
that the change of next hop does not result in a loop.
In the case of ordered label distribution, Label Mapping messages are
propagated from egress toward ingress, naturally creating the Path
Vector along the way. In the case of independent label distribution,
an LSR may originate a Label Mapping message for an FEC before
receiving a Label Mapping message from its downstream peer for that
FEC. In this case, the subsequent Label Mapping message for the FEC
Andersson, et al. [Page 27]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
received from the downstream peer is treated as an update to LSP
attributes, and the Label Mapping message must be propagated
upstream. Thus, it is recommended that loop detection be configured
in conjunction with ordered label distribution, to minimize the
number of Label Mapping update messages.
If loop detection is desired in some portion of the network, then it
should be turned on in ALL LSRs within that portion of the network,
else loop detection will not operate properly.
3. Protocol Specification
Previous sections that describe LDP operation have discussed
scenarios that involve the exchange of messages among LDP peers.
This section specifies the message encodings and procedures for pro-
cessing the messages.
LDP message exchanges are accomplished by sending LDP protocol data
units (PDUs) over LDP session TCP connections.
Each LDP PDU can carry one or more LDP messages. Note that the mes-
sages in an LDP PDU need not be related to one another. For example,
a single PDU could carry a message advertising FEC-label bindings for
several FECs, another message requesting label bindings for several
other FECs, and a third notification message signaling some event.
3.1. LDP PDUs
Each LDP PDU is an LDP header followed by one or more LDP messages.
The LDP header is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version | PDU Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LDP Identifier |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version
Two octet unsigned integer containing the version number of the
protocol. This version of the specification specifies LDP protocol
version 1.
Andersson, et al. [Page 28]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
PDU Length
Two octet integer specifying the total length of this PDU in
octets, excluding the Version and PDU Length fields.
The maximum allowable PDU Length is negotiable when an LDP session
is initialized. Prior to completion of the negotiation the maximum
allowable length is 4096 bytes.
LDP Identifier
Six octet field that uniquely identifies the label space for which
this PDU applies. The first four octets encode an IP address
assigned to the LSR. This address should be the router-id, also
used to identify the LSR in loop detection Path Vectors. The last
two octets identify a label space within the LSR. For a platform-
wide label space, these should both be zero.
Note that there is no alignment requirement for the first octet of an
LDP PDU.
3.2. LDP Procedures
LDP defines messages, TLVs and procedures in the following areas:
- Peer discovery;
- Session management;
- Label distribution;
- Notification of errors and advisory information.
The sections that follow describe the message and TLV encodings for
these areas and the procedures that apply to them.
The label distribution procedures are complex and are difficult to
describe fully, coherently and unambiguously as a collection of
separate message and TLV specifications.
Appendix A, "LDP Label Distribution Procedures", describes the label
distribution procedures in terms of label distribution events that
may occur at an LSR and how the LSR must respond. Appendix A is the
specification of LDP label distribution procedures. If a procedure
described elsewhere in this document conflicts with Appendix A,
Appendix A specifies LDP behavior.
Andersson, et al. [Page 29]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.3. Type-Length-Value Encoding
LDP uses a Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding scheme to encode much of
the information carried in LDP messages.
An LDP TLV is encoded as a 2 octet field that uses 14 bits to specify
a Type and 2 bits to specify behavior when an LSR doesn't recognize
the Type, followed by a 2 octet Length Field, followed by a variable
length Value field.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Value |
~ ~
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
U bit
Unknown TLV bit. Upon receipt of an unknown TLV, if U is clear
(=0), a notification must be returned to the message originator and
the entire message must be ignored; if U is set (=1), the unknown
TLV is silently ignored and the rest of the message is processed as
if the unknown TLV did not exist.
F bit
Forward unknown TLV bit. This bit applies only when the U bit is
set and the LDP message containing the unknown TLV is to be for-
warded. If F is clear (=0), the unknown TLV is not forwarded with
the containing message; if F is set (=1), the unknown TLV is for-
warded with the containing message.
Type
Encodes how the Value field is to be interpreted.
Length
Specifies the length of the Value field in octets.
Value
Octet string of Length octets that encodes information to be inter-
preted as specified by the Type field.
Andersson, et al. [Page 30]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Note that there is no alignment requirement for the first octect of a
TLV.
Note that the Value field itself may contain TLV encodings. That is,
TLVs may be nested.
The TLV encoding scheme is very general. In principle, everything
appearing in an LDP PDU could be encoded as a TLV. This specifica-
tion does not use the TLV scheme to its full generality. It is not
used where its generality is unnecessary and its use would waste
space unnecessarily. These are usually places where the type of a
value to be encoded is known, for example by its position in a mes-
sage or an enclosing TLV, and the length of the value is fixed or
readily derivable from the value encoding itself.
Some of the TLVs defined for LDP are similar to one another. For
example, there is a Generic Label TLV, an ATM Label TLV, and a Frame
Relay TLV; see Sections "Generic Label TLV", "ATM Label TLV", and
"Frame Relay TLV".
While it is possible to think about TLVs related in this way in terms
of a TLV type that specifies a TLV class and a TLV subtype that
specifies a particular kind of TLV within that class, this specifica-
tion does not formalize the notion of a TLV subtype.
The specification assigns type values for related TLVs, such as the
label TLVs, from of a contiguous block in the 16-bit TLV type number
space.
Section "TLV Summary" lists the TLVs defined in this version of the
protocol and the section in this document that describes each.
3.4. TLV Encodings for Commonly Used Parameters
There are several parameters used by more than one LDP message. The
TLV encodings for these commonly used parameters are specified in
this section.
3.4.1. FEC TLV
Labels are bound to Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs). a FEC is
a list of one or more FEC elements. The FEC TLV encodes FEC items.
Its encoding is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 31]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| FEC (0x0100) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC Element 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC Element n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
FEC Element 1 to FEC Element n
There are several types of FEC elements; see Section "FECs". The
FEC element encoding depends on the type of FEC element.
A FEC Element value is encoded as a 1 octet field that specifies
the element type, and a variable length field that is the type-
dependent element value. Note that while the representation of the
FEC element value is type-dependent, the FEC element encoding
itself is one where standard LDP TLV encoding is not used.
The FEC Element value encoding is:
FEC Element Type Value
type name
Wildcard 0x01 No value; i.e., 0 value octets;
see below.
Prefix 0x02 See below.
Host Address 0x03 4 octet full IP address; see below.
Wildcard FEC Element
To be used only in the Label Withdraw and Label Release Messages.
Indicates the withdraw/release is to be applied to all FECs asso-
ciated with the label within the following label TLV. Must be
the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.
Prefix FEC Element value encoding:
Andersson, et al. [Page 32]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix (2) | Address Family | PreLen |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Family
Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS in [rfc1700] that encodes the address family for the
address prefix in the Prefix field.
PreLen
One octet unsigned integer containing the length in bits of the
address prefix that follows.
Prefix
An address prefix encoded according to the Address Family
field, whose length, in bits, was specified in the PreLen
field, padded to a byte boundary.
Host Address FEC Element encoding:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Host Addr (3) | Address Family | Host Addr Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Host Addr |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Family
Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY
NUMBERS in [rfc1700] that encodes the address family for the
address prefix in the Prefix field.
Host Addr Len
Length of the Host address in octets.
Host Addr
An address encoded according to the Address Family field.
Andersson, et al. [Page 33]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.4.1.1. FEC Procedures
If in decoding a FEC TLV an LSR encounters a FEC Element type it can-
not decode, it should stop decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the
message containing the TLV, and send an Notification message to its
LDP peer signaling an error.
3.4.2. Label TLVs
Label TLVs encode labels. Label TLVs are carried by the messages
used to advertise, request, release and withdraw label mappings.
There are several different kinds of Label TLVs which can appear in
situations that require a Label TLV.
3.4.2.1. Generic Label TLV
An LSR uses Generic Label TLVs to encode labels for use on links for
which label values are independent of the underlying link technology.
Examples of such links are PPP and Ethernet.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Generic Label (0x0200) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Label
This is a 20-bit label value as specified in [ENCAP] represented as
a 20-bit number in a 4 octet field.
3.4.2.2. ATM Label TLV
An LSR uses ATM Label TLVs to encode labels for use on ATM links.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| ATM Label (0x0201) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Res| V | VPI | VCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Andersson, et al. [Page 34]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Res
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission and
must be ignored on receipt.
V-bits
Two-bit switching indicator. If V-bits is 00, both the VPI and VCI
are significant. If V-bits is 01, only the VPI field is signifi-
cant. If V-bit is 10, only the VCI is significant.
VPI
Virtual Path Identifier. If VPI is less than 12-bits it should be
right justified in this field and preceding bits should be set to
0.
VCI
Virtual Channel Identifier. If the VCI is less than 16- bits, it
should be right justified in the field and the preceding bits must
be set to 0. If Virtual Path switching is indicated in the V-bits
field, then this field must be ignored by the receiver and set to 0
by the sender.
3.4.2.3. Frame Relay Label TLV
An LSR uses Frame Relay Label TLVs to encode labels for use on Frame
Relay links.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Frame Relay Label (0x0202)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |Len| DLCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Res
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission and
must be ignored on receipt.
Len
This field specifies the number of bits of the DLCI. The following
values are supported:
0 = 10 bits DLCI
1 = 17 bits DLCI
2 = 23 bits DLCI
Andersson, et al. [Page 35]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
DLCI
The Data Link Connection Identifier. Refer to [FR] for the label
values and formats.
3.4.3. Address List TLV
The Address List TLV appears in Address and Address Withdraw mes-
sages.
Its encoding is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Address List (0x0101) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address Family | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
| Addresses |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Address Family
Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY NUMBERS
in [rfc1700] that encodes the addresses contained in the Addresses
field.
Addresses
A list of addresses from the specified Address Family. The encod-
ing of the individual addresses depends on the Address Family.
The following address encodings are defined by this version of the
protocol:
Address Family Address Encoding
IPv4 4 octet full IPv4 address
Andersson, et al. [Page 36]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.4.4. COS TLV
The COS (Class of Service) TLV may appear as an optional field in
messages that request and carry label mappings. It is used to
request and advertise (Label, FEC, class of service) bindings. Its
encoding is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| COS (0x0102) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| COS Value |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
COS Value
The value field for this TLV is a subject for further study.
One possibility is to define a set of CoS values that map to Dif-
ferentiated Services [DIFFSERV] code points. Other CoS values
could be supported in addition to or in place of the Differentiated
Services code points.
3.4.5. Hop Count TLV
The Hop Count TLV appears as an optional field in messages that set
up LSPs. It calculates the number of LSR hops along an LSP as the
LSP is being setup.
Note that setup procedures for LSPs that traverse ATM links require
use of the Hop Count TLV (see [ATM]).
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Hop Count (0x0103) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HC Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
HC Value
1 octet unsigned integer hop count value.
Andersson, et al. [Page 37]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.4.5.1. Hop Count Procedures
During setup of an LSP an LSR may receive a Label Mapping or Label
Request message for the LSP that contains the Hop Count TLV. If it
does, it should record the hop count value. If the LSR then pro-
pagates the Label Mapping message for the LSP to an upstream peer or
the Label Request message to a downstream peer to continue the LSP
setup, it must increment the recorded hop count value and include it
in a Hop Count TLV in the message. The first LSR in the LSP should
set the hop count value to 1.
By convention a value of 0 indicates an unknown hop count. The
result of incrementing an unknown hop count is itself an unknown hop
count (0).
If an LSR receives a message containing a Hop Count TLV, it must
check the hop count value to determine whether the hop count has
exceeded its configured maximum allowable value. If so, it must
behave as if the containing message has traversed a loop by sending a
Notification message signaling Loop Detected in reply to the sender
of the message.
If Loop Detection is configured, the LSR must follow the procedures
specified in Section "Loop Detection".
3.4.6. Path Vector TLV
The Path Vector TLV is used with the Hop Count TLV in Label Request
and Label Mapping messages to implement the optional LDP loop detec-
tion mechanism. See Section "Loop Detection". Its use in the Label
Request message records the path of LSRs the request has traversed.
Its use in the Label Mapping message records the path of LSRs a label
advertisement has traversed to setup an LSP.
Its encoding is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 38]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Path Vector (0x0104) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR Id 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR Id n |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
One or more LSR Ids
A list of router-ids indicating the path of LSRs the message has
traversed. Each LSR Id is the IP address (router-id) component of
the LDP identifier for the corresponding LSR. This ensures it is
unique within the LSR network.
3.4.6.1. Path Vector Procedures
The Path Vector TLV is carried in Label Mapping and Label Request
messages when loop detection is configured.
3.4.6.1.1. Label Request Path Vector
Section "Loop Detection" specifies situations when an LSR must
include a Path Vector TLV in a Label Request message.
An LSR that receives a Path Vector in a Label Request message must
perform the procedures described in Section "Loop Detection".
If the LSR detects a loop, it must reject the Label Request message.
The LSR must:
1. Transmit a Notification message to the sending LSR signaling
"Loop Detected".
2. Not propagate the Label Reqeust message further.
Note that a Label Request message with Path Vector TLV is forwarded
until:
Andersson, et al. [Page 39]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
1. A loop is found,
2. The LSP egress is reached,
3. The maximum Path Vector limit or maximum Hop Count limit is
reached. This is treated as if a loop had been detected.
3.4.6.1.2. Label Mapping Path Vector
Section "Loop Detection" specifies the situations when an LSR must
include a Path Vector TLV in a Label Mapping message.
An LSR that receives a Path Vector in a Label Mapping message must
perform the procedures described in Section "Loop Detection".
If the LSR detects a loop, it must reject the Label Mapping message
in order to prevent a forwarding loop. The LSR must:
1. Transmit a Notification message to the sending LSR signaling
"Loop Detected".
2. Not propagate the message further.
3. Check whether the Label Mapping message is for an existing LSP.
If so, the LSR must unsplice any upstream labels which are
spliced to the downstream label for the FEC.
Note that a Label Mapping message with a Path Vector TLV is forwarded
until:
1. A loop is found,
2. An LSP ingress is reached, or
3. The maximum Path Vector or maximum Hop Count limit is reached.
This is treated as if a loop had been detected.
3.4.7. Status TLV
Notification messages carry Status TLVs to specify events being sig-
naled.
The encoding for the Status TLV is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 40]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Status (0x0300) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Status Code
32-bit unsigned integer encoding the event being signaled. The
structure of a Status Code is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E|F| Status Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
E bit
Fatal error bit. If set (=1), this is a fatal error notifica-
tion. If clear (=0), this is an advisory notification.
F bit
Forward bit. If set (=1), the notification should be forwarded
to the LSR for the next-hop or previous-hop for the LSP, if any,
associated with the event being signaled. If clear (=0), the
notification should not be forwarded.
Status Data
30-bit unsigned integer which specifies the status information.
This specification defines Status Codes (32-bit unsigned integers
with the above encoding).
A Status Code of 0 signals success.
Message ID
If non-zero, 32-bit value that identifies the peer message to which
the Status TLV refers. If zero, no specific peer message is being
identified.
Message Type
If non-zero, the type of the peer message to which the Status TLV
Andersson, et al. [Page 41]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
refers. If zero, the Status TLV does not refer to any specific
peer message.
3.5. LDP Messages
All LDP messages have the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Message Type | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Mandatory Parameters |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Optional Parameters |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
U bit
Unknown message bit. Upon receipt of an unknown message, if U is
clear (=0), a notification is returned to the message originator;
if U is set (=1), the unknown message is silently ignored.
Message Type
Identifies the type of message
Message Length
Specifies the cumulative length in octets of the Message ID, Manda-
tory Parameters, and Optional Parameters.
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message. Used by the sending
LSR to facilitate identifying notification messages that may apply
to this message. An LSR sending a notification message in response
to this message should include this Message Id in the notification
message; see Section "Notification Message".
Andersson, et al. [Page 42]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Mandatory Parameters
Variable length set of required message parameters. Some messages
have no required parameters.
For messages that have required parameters, the required parameters
MUST appear in the order specified by the individual message
specifications in the sections that follow.
Optional Parameters
Variable length set of optional message parameters. Many messages
have no optional parameters.
For messages that have optional parameters, the optional parameters
may appear in any order.
Note that there is no alignment requirement for the first octet of an
LDP message.
The following message types are defined in this version of LDP:
Message Name Section Title
Notification "Notification Message"
Hello "Hello Message"
Initialization "Initialization Message"
KeepAlive "KeepAlive Message"
Address "Address Message"
Address Withdraw "Address Withdraw Message"
Label Mapping "Label Mapping Message"
Label Request "Label Request Message"
Label Withdraw "Label Withdraw Message"
Label Release "Label Release Message"
The sections that follow specify the encodings and procedures for
these messages.
Some of the above messages are related to one another, for example
the Label Mapping, Label Request, Label Withdraw, and Label Release
messages.
While is possible to think about messages related in this way in
terms of a message type that specifies a message class and a message
subtype that specifies a particular kind of message within that
class, this specification does not formalize the notion of a message
subtype.
Andersson, et al. [Page 43]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
The specification assigns type values for related messages, such as
the label messages, from of a contiguous block in the 16-bit message
type number space.
3.5.1. Notification Message
An LSR sends a Notification message to inform an LDP peer of a signi-
ficant event. A Notification message signals a fatal error or pro-
vides advisory information such as the outcome of processing an LDP
message or the state of the LDP session.
The encoding for the Notification Message is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Notification (0x0001) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Status (TLV) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
Status TLV
Indicates the event being signaled. The encoding for the Status
TLV is specified in Section "Status TLV".
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The following Optional Parameters are generic
and may appear in any Notification Message:
Optional Parameter Type Length Value
Extended Status 0x0301 4 See below
Returned PDU 0x0302 var See below
Returned Message 0x0303 var See below
Other Optional Parameters, specific to the particular event being
signaled by the Notification Messages may appear. These are
Andersson, et al. [Page 44]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
described elsewhere.
Extended Status
The 4 octet value is an Extended Status Code that encodes addi-
tional information that supplements the status information con-
tained in the Notification Status Code.
Returned PDU
An LSR uses this parameter to return part of an LDP PDU to the
LSR that sent it. The value of this TLV is the PDU header and
as much PDU data following the header as appropriate for the
condition being signalled by the Notification message.
Returned Message
An LSR uses this parameter to return part of an LDP message to
the LSR that sent it. The value of this TLV is the message
type and length fields and as much message data following the
type and length fields as appropriate for the condition being
signalled by the Notification message.
3.5.1.1. Notification Message Procedures
If an LSR encounters a condition requiring it to notify its peer with
advisory or error information it sends the peer a Notification mes-
sage containing a Status TLV that encodes the information and option-
ally additional TLVs that provide more information about the event.
If the condition is one that is a fatal error the Status Code carried
in the notification will indicate that. In this case, after sending
the Notification message the LSR should terminate the LDP session by
closing the session TCP connection and discard all state associated
with the session, including all label-FEC bindings learned via the
session.
When an LSR receives a Notification message that carries a Status
Code that indicates a fatal error, it should terminate the LDP ses-
sion immediately by closing the session TCP connection and discard
all state associated with the session, including all label-FEC bind-
ings learned via the session.
3.5.1.2. Events Signaled by Notification Messages
It is useful for descriptive purpose to classify events signaled by
Notification Messages into the following categories.
Andersson, et al. [Page 45]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.5.1.2.1. Malformed PDU or Message
Malformed LDP PDUs or Messages that are part of the LDP Discovery
mechanism are handled by silently discarding them.
An LDP PDU received on a TCP connection for an LDP session is mal-
formed if:
- The LDP Identifier in the PDU header is unknown to the receiver,
or it is known but is not the LDP Identifier associated by the
receiver with the LDP session. This is a fatal error signaled by
the Bad LDP Identifier Status Code.
- The LDP protocol version is not supported by the receiver, or it
is supported but is not the version negotiated for the session
during session establishment. This is a fatal error signaled by
the Bad Protocol Version Status Code.
- The PDU Length field is too short (< 20) or too long
(> maximum PDU length). This is a fatal error signaled by the
Bad PDU Length Status Code. Section "Initialization Message"
describes how the maximum PDU length for a session is determined.
An LDP Message is malformed if:
- The Message Type is unknown.
If the Message Type is < 0x8000 (high order bit = 0) it is a
fatal error signaled by the Unknown Message Type Status Code.
If the Message Type is >= 0x8000 (high order bit = 1) it is
silently discarded.
- The Message Length is too large, that is, indicates that the mes-
sage extends beyond the end of the containing LDP PDU. This is a
fatal error signaled by the Bad Message Length Status Code.
3.5.1.2.2. Unknown or Malformed TLV
Malformed TLVs contained in LDP messages that are part of the LDP
Discovery mechanism are handled by silently discarding the containing
message.
A TLV contained in an LDP message received on a TCP connection of an
LDP is malformed if:
Andersson, et al. [Page 46]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- The TLV Length is too large, that is, indicates that the TLV
extends beyond the end of the containing message. This is a
fatal error signaled by the Bad TLV Length Status Code.
- The TLV type is unknown.
If the TLV type is < 0x8000 (high order bit 0) it is a fatal
error signaled by the Unknown TLV Status Code.
If the TLV type is >= 08000 (high order bit 1) the TLV is
silently dropped. Section "Unknown TLV in Known Message Type"
elaborates on this behavior.
- The TLV Value is malformed. This occurs when the receiver han-
dles the TLV but cannot decode the TLV Value. This is inter-
preted as indicative of a bug in either the sending or receiving
LSR. It is a fatal error signaled by the Malformed TLV Value
Status Code.
3.5.1.2.3. Session Hold Timer Expiration
This is a fatal error signaled by the Hold Timer Expired Status Code.
3.5.1.2.4. Unilateral Session Shutdown
This is a fatal event signaled by the Shutdown Status Code. The
Notification Message may optionally include an Extended Status TLV to
provide a reason for the Shutdown. The sending LSR terminates the
session immediately after sending the Notification.
3.5.1.2.5. Initialization Message Events
The session initialization negotiation (see Section "Session Initial-
ization") may fail if the session parameters received in the Initial-
ization Message are unacceptable. This is a fatal error. The
specific Status Code depends on the parameter deemed unacceptable,
and is defined in Sections "Initialization Message".
3.5.1.2.6. Events Resulting From Other Messages
Messages other than the Initialization message may result in events
that must be signaled to LDP peers via Notification Messages. These
events and the Status Codes used in the Notification Messages to sig-
nal them are described in the sections that describe these messages.
Andersson, et al. [Page 47]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.5.1.2.7. Miscellaneous Events
These are events that fall into none of the categories above. There
are no miscellaneous events defined in this version of the protocol.
3.5.2. Hello Message
LDP Hello Messages are exchanged as part of the LDP Discovery Mechan-
ism; see Section "LDP Discovery".
The encoding for the Hello Message is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Hello (0x0100) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Common Hello Parameters TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
Common Hello Parameters TLV
Specifies parameters common to all Hello messages. The encoding
for the Common Hello Parameters TLV is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Common Hello Parms(0x0400)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hold Time |T|R| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Hold Time,
Hello hold time in seconds. An LSR maintains a record of Hellos
received from potential peers (see Section "Hello Message Pro-
cedures"). Hello Hold Time specifies the time the sending LSR
will maintain its record of Hellos from the receiving LSR without
receipt of another Hello.
Andersson, et al. [Page 48]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
A pair of LSRs negotiates the hold times they use for Hellos from
each other. Each proposes a hold time. The hold time used is
the minimum of the hold times proposed in their Hellos.
A value of 0 means use the default. There are interface type
specific defaults for Link Hellos as well as a default for Tar-
geted Hellos. A value of 0xfffff means infinite.
T, Targeted Hello
A value of 1 specifies that this Hello is a Targeted Hello. A
value of 0 specifies that this Hello is a Link Hello.
R, Request Send Targeted Hellos
A value of 1 requests the receiver to send periodic Targeted Hel-
los to the source of this Hello. A value of 0 makes no request.
An LSR initiating Extended Discovery sets R to 1. If R is 1, the
receiving LSR checks whether it has been configured to send Tar-
geted Hellos to the Hello source in response to Hellos with this
request. If not, it ignores the request. If so, it initiates
periodic transmission of Targeted Hellos to the Hello source.
Reserved
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
and ignored on receipt.
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The optional parameters defined by this ver-
sion of the protocol are
Optional Parameter Type Length Value
Transport Address 0x0401 4 See below
Configuration 0x0402 4 See below
Sequence Number
Transport Address
Specifies the IPv4 address to be used for the sending LSR when
opening the LDP session TCP connection. If this optional TLV
is not present the IPv4 source address for the UDP packet car-
rying the Hello should be used.
Configuration Sequence Number
Specifies a 4 octet unsigned configuration sequence number that
identifies the configuration state of the sending LSR. Used by
the receiving LSR to detect configuration changes on the
Andersson, et al. [Page 49]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
sending LSR.
3.5.2.1. Hello Message Procedures
An LSR receiving Hellos from another LSR maintains a Hello adjacency
corresponding to the Hellos. The LSR maintains a hold timer with the
Hello adjacency which it restarts whenever it receives a Hello that
matches the Hello adjacency. If the hold timer for a Hello adjacency
expires the LSR discards the Hello adjacency: see sections "Maintain-
ing Hello Adjacencies" and "Maintaining LDP Sessions".
We recommend that the interval between Hello transmissions be at most
one third of the Hello hold time.
An LSR processes a received LDP Hello as follows:
1. The LSR checks whether the Hello is acceptable. The criteria
for determining whether a Hello is acceptable are implementa-
tion dependent (see below for example criteria).
2. If the Hello is not acceptable, the LSR ignores it.
3. If the Hello is acceptable, the LSR checks whether it has a
Hello adjacency for the Hello source. If so, it restarts the
hold timer for the Hello adjacency. If not it creates a Hello
adjacency for the Hello source and starts its hold timer.
4. If the Hello carries any optional TLVs the LSR processes them
(see below).
5. Finally, if the LSR has no LDP session for the label space
specified by the LDP identifier in the PDU header for the
Hello, it follows the procedures of Section "LDP Session Estab-
lishment".
The following are examples of acceptability criteria for Link and
Targeted Hellos:
A Link Hello is acceptable if the interface on which it was
received has been configured for label switching.
A Targeted Hello from IP source address a.b.c.d is acceptable if
either:
Andersson, et al. [Page 50]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- The LSR has been configured to accept Targeted Hellos, or
- The LSR has been configured to send Targeted Hellos to
a.b.c.d.
The following describes how an LSR processes Hello optional TLVs:
Transport Address
The LSR associates the specified transport address with the
Hello adjacency.
Configuration Sequence Number
The Configuration Sequence Number optional parameter is used by
the sending LSR to signal configuration changes to the receiv-
ing LSR. When a receiving LSR playing the active role in LDP
session establishment detects a change in the sending LSR con-
figuration, it may clear the session setup backoff delay, if
any, associated with the sending LSR (see Section "Session Ini-
tialization").
A sending LSR using this optional parameter is responsible for
maintaining the configuration sequence number it transmits in
Hello messages. Whenever there is a configuration change on
the sending LSR, it increments the configuration sequence
number.
3.5.3. Initialization Message
The LDP Initialization Message is exchanged as part of the LDP ses-
sion establishment procedure; see Section "LDP Session Establish-
ment".
The encoding for the Initialization Message is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Initialization (0x0200) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Common Session Parameters TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Andersson, et al. [Page 51]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
Common Session Parameters TLV
Specifies values proposed by the sending LSR for parameters common
to all LDP sessions.
The encoding for the Common Session Parameters TLV is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Common Sess Parms (0x0500)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Protocol Version | Hold Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|A|D| PVLim | Reserved | Max PDU Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Receiver LDP Identifer |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++
Protocol Version
Two octet unsigned integer containing the version number of the
protocol. This version of the specification specifies LDP pro-
tocol version 1.
Hold Time
Two octet unsigned non zero integer that indicates the number
of seconds that the sending LSR proposes for the value of the
KeepAlive Interval. The receiving LSR MUST calculate the value
of the KeepAlive Timer by using the smaller of its proposed
Hold Time and the Hold Time received in the PDU. The value
chosen for Hold Time indicates the maximum number of seconds
that may elapse between the receipt of successive PDUs from the
LDP peer. The KeepAlive Timer is reset each time a PDU
arrives.
A, Label Advertisement Discipline
Indicates the type of Label advertisement. A value of 0 means
Downstream Unsolicited advertisement; a value of 1 means Down-
stream On Demand.
If one LSR proposes Downstream Unsolicted and the other pro-
poses Downstream on Demand, the rules for resolving this
difference is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 52]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- If the session is for a label-controlled ATM link or a
label-controlled Frame Relay link, then Downstream on
Demand must be used.
- Otherwise, Downstream Unsolicted must be used.
If the label advertisement discipline determined in this way is
unacceptable to an LSR, it must send a Session
Rejected/Parameters Advertisement Mode Notification message in
response to the Initialization message and not establish the
session.
D, Loop Detection
Indicates whether loop detection based on path vectors is
enabled. A value of 0 means loop detection is disabled; a
value of 1 means that loop detection is enabled.
PVLim, Path Vector Limit
The configured maximum path vector length. Must be 0 if loop
detection is disabled (D = 0). If the loop detection pro-
cedures would require the LSR to send a path vector that
exceeds this limit, the LSR will behave as if a loop had been
detected for the FEC in question.
When Loop Detection is enabled in a portion of a network, it is
recommended that all LSRs in that portion of the network be
configured with the same path vector limit. Although
knowledege of a peer's path vector limit will not change an
LSR's behavior, it does enable the LSR to alert an operator to
a possible misconfiguration.
Reserved
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
and ignored on receipt.
Max PDU Length
Two octet unsigned integer that proposes the maximum allowable
length for LDP PDUs for the session. A value of 255 or less
specifies the default maximum length of 4096 octets.
The receiving LSR MUST calculate the maximum PDU length for the
session by using the smaller of its and its peer's proposals
for Max PDU Length. The default maximum PDU length applies
before session initialization completes.
If the maximum PDU length determined this way is unacceptable
to an LSR, it must send a Session Rejected/Parameters Max PDU
Length Notification message in response to the Initialization
Andersson, et al. [Page 53]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
message and not establish the session.
Receiver LDP Identifer
Identifies the receiver's label space. This LDP Identifier,
together with the sender's LDP Identifier in the PDU header
enables the receiver to match the Initialization message with
one of its Hello adjacencies; see Section "Hello Message Pro-
cedures".
If there is no matching Hello adjacency, the LSR must send a
Session Rejected/No Hello Notification message in response to
the Initialization message and not establish the session.
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The optional parameters are:
Optional Parameter Type Length Value
ATM Session Parameters 0x0501 var See below
Frame Relay Session 0x0502 var See below
Parameters
ATM Session Parameters
Used when an LDP session manages label exchange for an ATM link
to specify ATM-specific session parameters.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| ATM Sess Parms (0x0501) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| M | N |E| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ATM Label Range Component 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ATM Label Range Component N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
M, ATM Merge Capabilities
Specifies the merge capabilities of an ATM switch. The follow-
ing values are supported in this version of the specification:
Andersson, et al. [Page 54]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Value Meaning
0 Merge not supported
1 VP Merge supported
2 VC Merge supported
3 VP & VC Merge supported
If the merge capabilities of the LSRs differ, then:
- Non-merge and VC-merge LSRs may freely interoperate.
- The interoperability of VP-merge-capable switches with
non-VPN-merge-capable switches is a subject for future
study.
Note that if VP merge is used, it is the responsibility of the
ingress node to ensure that the chosen VCI is unique within the
LSR domain.
N, Number of label range components
Specifies the number of ATM Label Range Components included in
the TLV.
E, ATM Null Encapsulation
A value of 1 specifies specifies that the LSR supports the null
encapsulation of [rfc1483] for its data VCs on the ATM link
managed by the LDP session. In this case IP packets are car-
ried directly inside AAL5 frames. A value of 0 specifies that
the null encapsulation is not supported.
Reserved
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
and ignored on receipt.
One or more ATM Label Range Components
A list of ATM Label Range Components which together specify the
Label range supported by the transmitting LSR.
A receiving LSR MUST calculate the intersection between the
received range and its own supported label range. The inter-
section is the range in which the LSR may allocate and accept
labels. LSRs MUST NOT establish a session with neighbors for
which the intersection of ranges is NULL. In this case, the
LSR must send a Session Rejected/Parameters Label Range Notifi-
cation message in response to the Initialization message and
not establish the session.
The encoding for an ATM Label Range Component is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 55]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Res | Minimum VPI | Minimum VCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Res | Maximum VPI | Maximum VCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Res
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmis-
sion and must be ignored on receipt.
Minimum VPI (12 bits)
This 12 bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of
Virtual Path Identifiers that is supported on the originating
switch. If the VPI is less than 12-bits it should be right
justified in this field and preceding bits should be set to
0.
Minimum VCI (16 bits)
This 16 bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of
Virtual Connection Identifiers that is supported on the ori-
ginating switch. If the VCI is less than 16-bits it should
be right justified in this field and preceding bits should be
set to 0.
Maximum VPI (12 bits)
This 12 bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of
Virtual Path Identifiers that is supported on the originating
switch. If the VPI is less than 12-bits it should be right
justified in this field and preceding bits should be set to
0.
Maximum VCI (16 bits)
This 16 bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of
Virtual Connection Identifiers that is supported on the ori-
ginating switch. If the VCI is less than 16-bits it should
be right justified in this field and preceding bits should be
set to 0.
Frame Relay Session Parameters
Used when an LDP session manages label exchange for a Frame Relay
link to specify Frame Relay-specific session parameters.
Andersson, et al. [Page 56]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| FR Sess Parms (0x0502) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| M | N | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frame Relay Label Range Component 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Frame Relay Label Range Component N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
M, Frame Relay Merge Capabilities
Specifies the merge capabilities of a Frame Relay switch. The
following values are supported in this version of the specifi-
cation:
Value Meaning
0 Merge not supported
1 Merge supported
Non-merge and merge Frame Relay LSRs may freely interoperate.
N, Number of label range components
Specifies the number of Frame Relay Label Range Components
included in the TLV.
Reserved
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
and ignored on receipt.
One or more Frame Relay Label Range Components
A list of Frame Relay Label Range Components which together
specify the Label range supported by the transmitting LSR.
A receiving LSR MUST calculate the intersection between the
received range and its own supported label range. The inter-
section is the range in which the LSR may allocate and accept
labels. LSRs MUST NOT establish a session with neighbors for
which the intersection of ranges is NULL. In this case, the
LSR must send a Session Rejected/Parameters Label Range Notifi-
cation message in response to the Initialization message and
Andersson, et al. [Page 57]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
not establish the session.
The encoding for a Frame Relay Label Range Component is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |Len| Minimum DLCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Maximum DLCI |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved
This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmis-
sion and ignored on receipt.
Len
This field specifies the number of bits of the DLCI. The
following values are supported:
Len DLCI bits
0 10
1 17
2 23
Minimum DLCI
This 23-bit vield specifies the lower bound of a block of
Data Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs) that is supported on
the originating switch. The DLCI should be right justified
in this field and unused bits should be set to 0.
Maximum DLCI
This 23-bit vield specifies the upper bound of a block of
Data Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs) that is supported on
the originating switch. The DLCI should be right justified
in this field and unused bits should be set to 0.
Note that there is no Generic Session Parameters TLV for sessions
which advertise Generic Labels.
3.5.3.1. Initialization Message Procedures
See Section "LDP Session Establishment" and particularly Section
"Session Initialization" for general procedures for handling the
Andersson, et al. [Page 58]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Initialization Message.
3.5.4. KeepAlive Message
An LSR sends KeepAlive Messages as part of a mechanism that monitors
the integrity of the LDP session transport connection.
The encoding for the KeepAlive Message is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| KeepAlive (0x0201) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the KeepAlive message.
3.5.4.1. KeepAlive Message Procedures
The Hold Timer mechanism described in Section "Maintaining LDP Ses-
sions" resets a session hold timer every time an LDP PDU is received.
The KeepAlive Message is provided to allow reset of the Hold Timer in
circumstances where an LSR has no other information to communicate to
an LDP peer.
An LSR must arrange that its peer receive an LDP Message from it at
least every Hold Time period. Any LDP protocol message will do but,
in circumstances where no other LDP protocol messages have been sent
within the period, a KeepAlive message must be sent.
3.5.5. Address Message
An LSR sends the Address Message to an LDP peer to advertise its
interface addresses.
The encoding for the Address Message is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 59]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Address (0x0300) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address List TLV |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
Address List TLV
The list of interface addresses being advertised by the sending
LSR. The encoding for the Address List TLV is specified in Section
"Address List TLV".
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Address message.
3.5.5.1. Address Message Procedures
An LSR that receives an Address Message message uses the addresses it
learns to maintain a database for mapping between peer LDP Identif-
iers and next hop addresses; see Section "LDP Identifiers and Next
Hop Addresses".
When a new LDP session is initialized and before sending Label Map-
ping or Label Request messages an LSR should advertise its interface
addresses with one or more Address messages.
Whenever an LSR "activates" a new interface address, it should adver-
tise the new address with an Address message.
Whenever an LSR "de-activates" a previously advertised address, it
should withdraw the address with an Address Withdraw message; see
Section "Address Withdraw Message".
Andersson, et al. [Page 60]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.5.6. Address Withdraw Message
An LSR sends the Address Message to an LDP peer to withdraw previ-
ously advertised interface addresses.
The encoding for the Address Withdraw Message is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U Address Withdraw (0x0301) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Address List TLV |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
Address list TLV
The list of interface addresses being withdrawn by the sending LSR.
The encoding for the Address list TLV is specified in Section
"Address List TLV".
Optional Parameters
No optional parameters are defined for the Address Withdraw mes-
sage.
3.5.6.1. Address Withdraw Message Procedures
See Section "Address Message Procedures"
3.5.7. Label Mapping Message
An LSR sends a Label Mapping message to an LDP peer to advertise
FEC-label bindings to the peer.
The encoding for the Label Mapping Message is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 61]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Label Mapping (0x0400) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
FEC TLV
Specifies the FEC component of the FEC-Label mapping being adver-
tised. See Section "FEC TLV" for encoding.
Label TLV
Specifies the Label component of the FEC-Label mapping. See Sec-
tion "Label TLV" for encoding.
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The optional parameters are:
Optional Parameter Length Value
Label Request 4 See below
Message Id
COS TLV 1 See below
Hop Count TLV 1 See below
Path Vector TLV variable See below
The encodings for the COS, Hop Count, and Path Vector TLVs can be
found in Section "TLV Encodings for Commonly Used Parameters".
Label Request Message Id
If this Label Mapping message is a response to a Label Request
message that carried the Return Message Id optional parameter
(see Section "Label Request Message") the Label Mapping message
must include the Request Message Id optional parameter. The
value of this optional parameter is the Message Id of the
corresponding Label Request Message.
Andersson, et al. [Page 62]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
COS
Specifies the Class of Service (COS) to be associated with the
FEC-Label mapping. If not present, the LSR should use its
default COS for IP packets as the COS.
Hop Count
Specifies the running total of the number of LSR hops along the
LSP being setup by the Label Message. Section "Hop Count Pro-
cedures" describes how to handle this TLV.
Path Vector
Specifies the LSRs along the LSP being setup by the Label Mes-
sage. Section "Path Vector Procedures" describes how to handle
this TLV.
3.5.7.1. Label Mapping Message Procedures
The Mapping message is used by an LSR to distribute a label mapping
for a FEC to an LDP peer. If an LSR distributes a mapping for a FEC
to multiple LDP peers, it is a local matter whether it maps a single
label to the FEC, and distributes that mapping to all its peers, or
whether it uses a different mapping for each of its peers.
An LSR is responsible for the consistency of the label map- pings it
has distributed, and that its peers have these mappings.
See Appendx A "LDP Label Distribution Procedures" for more details.
3.5.7.1.1. Independent Control Mapping
If an LSR is configured for independent control, a mapping message is
transmitted by the LSR upon any of the following conditions:
1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and the
label advertisement mode is Downstream Unsolicited advertise-
ment.
2. The LSR receives a Request message from an upstream peer for a
FEC present in the LSR's forwarding table.
3. The next hop for a FEC changes to another LDP peer, and loop
detection is configured.
Andersson, et al. [Page 63]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
4. The attributes of a mapping change.
5. The receipt of a mapping from the downstream next hop AND
a) no upstream mapping has been created OR
b) loop detection is configured OR
c) the attributes of the mapping have changed.
3.5.7.1.2. Ordered Control Mapping
If an LSR is doing ordered control, a Mapping message is transmitted
by downstream LSRs upon any of the following conditions:
1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and is
the egress for that FEC.
2. The LSR receives a Request message from an upstream peer for a
FEC present in the LSR's forwarding table, and the LSR is the
egress for that FEC OR has a downstream mapping for that FEC.
3. The next hop for a FEC changes to another LDP peer, and loop
detection is configured.
4. The attributes of a mapping change.
5. The receipt of a mapping from the downstream next hop AND
a) no upstream mapping has been created OR
b) loop detection is configured OR
c) the attributes of the mapping have changed.
3.5.7.1.3. Downstream-on-Demand Label Advertisement
In general, the upstream LSR is responsible for requesting label map-
pings when operating in Downstream-on-Demand mode. However, unless
some rules are followed, it is possible for neighboring LSRs with
different advertisement modes to get into a livelock situation where
everything is functioning properly, but no labels are distributed.
For example, consider two LSRs Ru and Rd where Ru is the upstream LSR
and Rd is the downstream LSR for a particular FEC. In this example,
Ru is using Downstream Unsolicited advertisement mode and Rd is using
Downstream-on-Demand mode. In this case, Rd may assume that Ru will
request a label mapping when it wants one and Ru may assume that Rd
will advertise a label if it wants Ru to use one. If Rd and Ru
operate as suggested, no labels will be distributed from Rd to Ru.
This livelock situation can be avoided if the following rule is
observed: an LSR operating in Downstream-on-Demand mode should not be
Andersson, et al. [Page 64]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
expected to send unsolicited mapping advertisements. Therefore, if
the downstream LSR is operating in Downstream-on-Demand mode, the
upstream LSR is responsible for requesting label mappings as needed.
3.5.7.1.4. Downstream Unsolicited Label Advertisement
In general, the downstream LSR is responsible for advertising a label
mapping when it wants an upstream LSR to use the label. An upstream
LSR may issue a mapping request if it so desires.
3.5.8. Label Request Message
An LSR sends the Label Request Message to an LDP peer to request a
binding (mapping) for a FEC.
The encoding for the Label Request Message is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Label Request (0x0401) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Optional Parameters |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
FEC TLV
The FEC for which a label is being requested. See Section "FEC
TLV" for encoding.
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The optional parameters are:
Optional Parameter Length Value
Return Message Id 0 See below
COS TLV 1 See below
Hop Count TLV 1 See below
Andersson, et al. [Page 65]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Path Vector TLV variable See below
The encodings for the COS, Hop Count, and Path Vector TLVs can be
found in Section "TLV Encodings for Commonly Used Parameters".
Return Message Id
Requests the LDP peer include the Message Id of this Label
Request message in its Label Mapping message response. If an
LDP peer receives a Label Request message with the Return Mes-
sage Id optional parameter, its Label Mapping message response
must contain a Label Request Message Id optional parameter with
the Message Id of the Label Request message. See Section
"Label Mapping Message".
COS
Specifies the Class of Service (COS) to be associated with the
requested FEC-Label mapping. If not present, the LSR should
use its default COS for IP packets as the COS.
Hop Count
Specifies the running total of the number of LSR hops along the
LSP being setup by the Label Request Message. Section "Hop
Count Procedures" describes how to handle this TLV.
Path Vector
Specifies the LSRs along the LSR being setup by the Label
Request Message. Section "Path Vector Procedures" describes
how to handle this TLV.
3.5.8.1. Label Request Message Procedures
The Request message is used by an upstream LSR to explicitly request
that the downstream LSR assign and advertise a label for a FEC.
An LSR may transmit a Request message under any of the following con-
ditions:
1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and the
next hop is an LDP peer, and the LSR doesn't already have a
mapping from the next hop for the given FEC.
2. The next hop to the FEC changes, and the LSR doesn't already
have a mapping from that next hop for the given FEC.
Andersson, et al. [Page 66]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3. The LSR receives a Label Request for a FEC from an upstream LDP
peer, the FEC next hop is an LDP peer, and the LSR doesn't
already have a mapping from the next hop.
The receiving LSR should respond to a Label Request message with a
Label Mapping for the requested label or with a Notification message
indicating why it cannot satisfy the request.
This version of the protocol defines the following Status Codes for
the Notification message that signals a request cannot be satisfied:
No Route
The FEC for which a label was requested is for a Prefix FEC Ele-
ment, and the LSR does not have a route for that prefix.
No Label Resources
The LSR cannot provide a label because of resource limitations.
When resources become available the LSR must notify the request-
ing LSR by sending a Notification message with the Label
Resources Available Status Code.
An LSR that receives a No Label Resources response to a Label
Request message must not issue further Label Request messages
until it receives a Notification message with the Label Resources
Available Status code.
Loop Detected
The LSR has detected a looping Label Requst message.
See Appendx A "LDP Label Distribution Procedures" for more details.
3.5.9. Label Withdraw Message
An LSR sends a Label Withdraw Message to an LDP peer to signal the
peer that the peer may not continue to use specific FEC-label map-
pings the LSR had previously advertised. This breaks the mapping
between the FECs and the labels.
The encoding for the Label Withdraw Message is:
Andersson, et al. [Page 67]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Label Withdraw (0x0402) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
FEC TLV
Identifies the FEC for which the FEC-label mapping is being with-
drawn.
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The optional parameters are:
Optional Parameter Length Value
Label TLV variable See below
The encoding for Label TLVs are found in Section "Label TLVs".
Label
If present, specifies the label being withdrawn (see procedures
below).
3.5.9.1. Label Withdraw Message Procedures
An LSR transmits a Label Withdraw message under the following condi-
tions:
1. The LSR no longer recognizes a previously known FEC.
2. The LSR has decided unilaterally (e.g., via configuration) to
no longer label switch a FEC (or FECs) with the label mapping
being withdrawn.
The FEC TLV specifies the FEC for which labels are to be withdrawn.
If no Label TLV follows the FEC, all labels associated with the FEC
Andersson, et al. [Page 68]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
are to be withdrawn; otherwise only the label specified in the
optional Label TLV is to be withdrawn.
The FEC TLV may contain the Wildcard FEC Element; if so, it may con-
tain no other FEC Elements. In this case, if the Label Withdraw mes-
sage contains an optional Label TLV, then the label is to be with-
drawn from all FECs to which it is bound. If there is not an
optional Label TLV in the Label Withdraw message, then the sending
LSR is withdrawing all label mappings previously advertised to the
receiving LSR.
See Appendx A "LDP Label Distribution Procedures" for more details.
3.5.10. Label Release Message
An LSR sends a Label Release message to an LDP peer to signal the
peer that the LSR no longer needs specific FEC-label mappings previ-
ously requested of and/or advertised by the peer.
The encoding for the Label Release Message is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Label Release (0x0403) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label TLV (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Message Id
32-bit value used to identify this message.
FEC TLV
Identifies the FEC for which the FEC-label mapping is being
released.
Optional Parameters
This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
encoded as a TLV. The optional parameters are:
Optional Parameter Length Value
Andersson, et al. [Page 69]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Label TLV variable See below
The encodings for Label TLVs are found in Section "Label TLVs".
Label
If present, the label being released (see procedures below).
3.5.10.1. Label Release Message Procedures
An LSR transmits a Label Release message to a peer when it is no
longer needs a label previously received from or requested of that
peer.
An LSR must transmit a Label Release message under any of the follow-
ing conditions:
1. The LSR which sent the label mapping is no longer the next hop
for the mapped FEC, and the LSR is configured for conservative
operation.
2. The LSR receives a label mapping from an LSR which is not the
next hop for the FEC, and the LSR is configured for conserva-
tive operation.
3. The LSR has received a Label Withdraw message for a previously
received label.
Note that if an LSR is configured for "liberal mode", a release mes-
sage will never be transmitted in the case of conditions (1) and (2)
as specified above. In this case, the upstream LSR keeps each unused
label, so that it can immediately be used later if the downstream
peer becomes the next hop for the FEC.
The FEC TLV specifies the FEC for which labels are to be released.
If no Label TLV follows the FEC, all labels associated with the FEC
are to be released; otherwise only the label specified in the
optional Label TLV is to be released.
The FEC TLV may contain the Wildcard FEC Element; if so, it may con-
tain no other FEC Elements. In this case, if the Label Release mes-
sage contains an optional Label TLV, then the label is to be released
for all FECs to which it is bound. If there is not an optional Label
TLV in the Label Release message, then the sending LSR is releasing
all label mappings previously learned from the receiving LSR.
See Appendx A "LDP Label Distribution Procedures" for more details.
Andersson, et al. [Page 70]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.6. Messages and TLVs for Extensibility
Support for LDP extensibility includes the rules for the U and F bits
that specify how an LSR should handle unknown TLVs and messages.
This section specifies TLVs and messages for vendor-private and
experimental use.
3.6.1. LDP Vendor-private Extensions
Vendor-private TLVs and messages are used to convey vendor-private
information between LSRs.
3.6.1.1. LDP Vendor-private TLVs
The Type range 0x2F00 through 0x2FFF is reserved for vendor-private
TLVs.
The encoding for a vendor-private TLV is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Type (0x2F00-0x2FFF) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Data.... |
~ ~
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
U bit
Unknown TLV bit. Upon receipt of an unknown TLV, if U is clear
(=0), a notification must be returned to the message originator and
the entire message must be ignored; if U is set (=1), the unknown
TLV is silently ignored and the rest of the message is processed as
if the unknown TLV did not exist.
The determination as to whether a vendor-private message is under-
stood is based on the Type and the mandatory Vendor ID field.
Andersson, et al. [Page 71]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
F bit
Forward unknown TLV bit. This bit only applies when the U bit is
set and the LDP message containing the unknown TLF is is to be for-
warded. If F is clear (=0), the unknown TLV is not forwarded with
the containing message; if F is set (=1), the unknown TLV is for-
warded with the containing message.
Type
Type value in the range 0x2F00 through 0x2FFF. Together, the Type
and Vendor Id field specify how the Data field is to be inter-
preted.
Length
Specifies the cumulative length in octets of the Vendor ID and Data
fields.
Vendor Id
802 Vendor ID as assigned by the IEEE.
Data
The remaining octets after the Vendor ID in the Value field are
optional vendor-dependent data.
3.6.1.2. LDP Vendor-private Messages
The Message Type range 0x2F00 through 0x2FFF is reserved for vendor-
private Messages.
Andersson, et al. [Page 72]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U| Msg Type (0x2F00-0x2FFF) | Message Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Message ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ +
| Remaining Mandatory Parameters |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Optional Parameters |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
U bit
Unknown message bit. Upon receipt of an unknown message, if U is
clear (=0), a notification is returned to the message originator;
if U is set (=1), the unknown message is silently ignored.
The determination as to whether a vendor-private message is under-
stood is based on the Msg Type and the Vendor ID parameter.
Msg Type
Message type value in the range 0x2F00 through 0x2FFF. Together,
the Msg Type and the Vendor ID specify how the message is to be
interpreted.
Message Length
Specifies the cumulative length in octets of the Message ID, Vendor
ID, Remaining Mandatory Parameters and Optional Parameters.
Message ID
32-bit integer used to identify this message. Used by the sending
LSR to facilitate identifying notification messages that may apply
to this message. An LSR sending a notification message in response
to this message will include this Message Id in the notification
message; see Section "Notification Message".
Vendor ID
802 Vendor ID as assigned by the IEEE.
Andersson, et al. [Page 73]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Remaining Mandatory Parameters
Variable length set of remaining required message parameters.
Optional Parameters
Variable length set of optional message parameters.
3.6.2. LDP Experimental Extensions
LDP support for experimentation is similar to support for vendor-
private extensions with the following differences:
- The Type range 0x3F00 through 0x3FFF is reserved for experimental
TLVs.
- The Message Type range 0x3F00 through 0x3FFF is reserved for
experimental messages.
- The encodings for experimental TLVs and messages are similar to
the vendor-private encodings with the following difference.
Experimental TLVs and messages use an Experiment ID field in
place of a Vendor ID field. The Experiment ID field is used with
the Type or Message Type field to specify the interpretation of
the experimental TLV or Message.
Administration of Experiment IDs is the responsiblity of the
experimenters.
3.7. Message Summary
The following are the LDP messages defined in this version of the
protocol.
Andersson, et al. [Page 74]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Message Name Type Section Title
Notification 0x0001 "Notification Message"
Hello 0x0100 "Hello Message"
Initialization 0x0200 "Initialization Message"
KeepAlive 0x0201 "KeepAlive Message"
Address 0x0300 "Address Message"
Address Withdraw 0x0301 "Address Withdraw Message"
Label Mapping 0x0400 "Label Mapping Message"
Label Request 0x0401 "Label Request Message"
Label Withdraw 0x0402 "Label Withdraw Message"
Label Release 0x0403 "Label Release Message"
Vendor-Private 0x2F00-0x2FFF
Experimental 0x3F00-0x3FFF
3.8. TLV Summary
The following are the TLVs defined in this version of the protocol.
TLV Type Section Title
FEC 0x0100 "FEC TLV"
Address List 0x0101 "Address List TLV"
COS 0x0102 "COS TLV"
Hop Count 0x0103 "Hop Count TLV"
Path Vector 0x0104 "Path Vector TLV"
Generic Label 0x0200 "Generic Label TLV"
ATM Label 0x0201 "ATM Label TLV"
Frame Relay Label 0x0202 "Frame Relay Label TLV"
Status 0x0300 "Status TLV"
Extended Status 0x0301 "Notification Message"
Returned PDU 0x0302 "Notification Message"
Returned Message 0x0303 "Notification Message"
Common Hello 0x0400 "Hello Message"
Parameters
Transport Address 0x0401 "Hello Message"
Configuration 0x0402 "Hello Message"
Sequence Number
Common Session 0x0500 "Initialization Message"
Parameters
ATM Session Parameters 0x0501 "Initialization Message"
Frame Relay Session 0x0502 "Initialization Message"
Parameters
Vendor-Private 0x2F00-0x2FFF
Experimental 0x3F00-0x3FFF
Andersson, et al. [Page 75]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3.9. Status Code Summary
The following are the Status Codes defined in this version of the
protocol.
Status Code Type Section Title
Success 0x00000000 "Status TLV"
Bad LDP Identifer 0x80000001 "Events Signaled by ..."
Bad Protocol Version 0x80000002 "Events Signaled by ..."
Bad PDU Length 0x80000003 "Events Signaled by ..."
Unknown Message Type 0x80000004 "Events Signaled by ..."
Bad Message Length 0x80000005 "Events Signaled by ..."
Unknown TLV 0x80000006 "Events Signaled by ..."
Bad TLV length 0x80000007 "Events Signaled by ..."
Malformed TLV Value 0x80000008 "Events Signaled by ..."
Hold Timer Expired 0x80000009 "Events Signaled by ..."
Shutdown 0x8000000A "Events Signaled by ..."
Loop Detected 0x0000000B "Loop Detection"
Unknown FEC 0x0000000C "FEC Procedures"
No Route 0x0000000D "Label Request Mess ..."
No Label Resources 0x0000000E "Label Request Mess ..."
Label Resources Available 0x0000000F "Label Request Mess ..."
Session Rejected/ 0x80000010 "Session Initialization"
No Hello
Session Rejected/ 0x80000011 "Session Initialization"
Parameters Advertisement Mode
Session Rejected/ 0x80000012 "Session Initialization"
Parameters Max PDU Length
Session Rejected/ 0x80000013 "Session Initialization"
Parameters Label Range
3.10. UDP and TCP Ports
The UDP port for LDP Hello messages is 646.
The TCP port for establishing LDP session connections is 646.
Andersson, et al. [Page 76]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
4. Security
This section specifies an optional mechanism to protect against the
introduction of spoofed TCP segments into LDP session connection
streams.
It is based on use of the TCP MD5 Signature Option specified in
[rfc2385] for use by BGP. See [rfc1321] for a specification of the
MD5 hash function.
4.1. The TCP MD5 Signature Option
The following quotes from [rfc2385] outline the security properties
achieved by using the TCP MD5 Signature Option and summarizes its
operation:
"IESG Note
This document describes currrent existing practice for securing
BGP against certain simple attacks. It is understood to have
security weaknesses against concerted attacks."
"Abstract
This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for
BGP. It defines a new TCP option for carrying an MD5 [RFC1321 ]
digest in a TCP segment. This digest acts like a signature for
that segment, incorporating information known only to the con-
nection end points. Since BGP uses TCP as its transport, using
this option in the way described in this paper significantly
reduces the danger from certain security attacks on BGP."
"Introduction
The primary motivation for this option is to allow BGP to pro-
tect itself against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments
into the connection stream. Of particular concern are TCP
resets.
To spoof a connection using the scheme described in this paper,
an attacker would not only have to guess TCP sequence numbers,
but would also have had to obtain the password included in the
MD5 digest. This password never appears in the connection
stream, and the actual form of the password is up to the appli-
cation. It could even change during the lifetime of a particu-
lar connection so long as this change was synchronized on both
ends (although retransmission can become problematical in some
Andersson, et al. [Page 77]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
TCP implementations with changing passwords).
Finally, there is no negotiation for the use of this option in
a connection, rather it is purely a matter of site policy
whether or not its connections use the option."
"MD5 as a Hashing Algorithm
Since this memo was first issued (under a different title), the
MD5 algorithm has been found to be vulnerable to collision
search attacks [Dobb], and is considered by some to be insuffi-
ciently strong for this type of application.
This memo still specifies the MD5 algorithm, however, since the
option has already been deployed operationally, and there was
no "algorithm type" field defined to allow an upgrade using the
same option number. The original document did not specify a
type field since this would require at least one more byte, and
it was felt at the time that taking 19 bytes for the complete
option (which would probably be padded to 20 bytes in TCP
implementations) would be too much of a waste of the already
limited option space.
This does not prevent the deployment of another similar option
which uses another hashing algorithm (like SHA-1). Also, if
most implementations pad the 18 byte option as defined to 20
bytes anyway, it would be just as well to define a new option
which contains an algorithm type field.
This would need to be addressed in another document, however."
End of quotes from [rfc2385].
4.2. LDP Use of the TCP MD5 Signature Option
LDP uses the TCP MD5 Signature Option as follows:
- Use of the MD5 Signature Option for LDP TCP connections is a con-
figurable LSR option.
- An LSR that uses the MD5 Signature Option is configured with a
password for each potential LDP peer.
- The LSR applies the MD5 algorithm as specified in [RFC2385 ] to
compute the MD5 digest for a TCP segment to be sent to a peer.
This computation makes use of the peer password as well as the
TCP segment.
Andersson, et al. [Page 78]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- When the LSR receives a TCP segment with an MD5 digest, it vali-
dates the segment by calculating the MD5 digest (using its own
record of the password) and compares the computed digest with the
received digest. If the comparison fails, the segment is dropped
without any response to the sender.
- The LSR ignores LDP Hellos from any LSR for which a password has
not been configured. This ensures that the LSR establishes LDP
TCP connections only with LSRs for which a password has been con-
figured.
5. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this docu-
ment. For more information consult the online list of claimed
rights.
6. Acknowledgments
The ideas and text in this document have been collected from a number
of sources. We would like to thank Rick Boivie, Ross Callon, Alex
Conta, Eric Gray, Yoshihiro Ohba, Eric Rosen, Bernard Suter, Yakov
Rekhter, and Arun Viswanathan.
7. References
[ARCH] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture", draft-ietf-mpls-arch-02 .txt, July 1998
[ATM] B. Davie, J. Lawrence, K. McCloghrie, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen, G.
Swallow, P. Doolan, "Use of Label Switching With ATM", draft-ietf-
mpls-atm-00.txt, September, 1998
[DIFFSERV] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W.
Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", draft-ietf-
diffserv-arch-02.txt, October, 1998
[ENCAP] E. Rosen, Y. Rekhter, D. Tappan, D. Farinacci, G. Fedorkow,
T. Li, A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding" draft-ietf-mpls-label-
encaps-02.txt, July, 1998
[FR] A. Conta, P. Doolan, A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching on Frame
Relay Networks" draft-ietf-mpls-fr-02 .txt, October, 1998
Andersson, et al. [Page 79]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
[FRAMEWORK] R. Callon, P. Doolan, N. Feldman, A. Fredette, G. Swal-
low, A. Viswanathan, "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching"
draft-ietf-mpls-framework-02 .txt, November 1997
[rfc1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm," RFC 1321 ,
April 1992.
[rfc1483] J. Heinanen, "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adapta-
tion Layer 5", RFC 1483 , Telecom Finland, July 1993
[rfc1583] J. Moy, "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1583 , Proteon Inc, March 1994
[rfc1700] J. Reynolds, J.Postel, "ASSIGNED NUMBERS", October 1994.
[rfc1771] Y. Rekhter, T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC 1771 , IBM Corp, Cisco Systems, March 1995
[rfc2385] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385 , August 1998.
8. Author Information
Loa Andersson
Nortel Networks Inc
Kungsgatan 34, PO Box 1788
111 97 Stockholm
Sweden
Phone: +46 8 441 78 34, Mobile: +46 70 522 78 34
email: loa_andersson@baynetworks.com
Paul Doolan
Ennovate Networks
330 Codman Hill Rd
Marlborough MA 01719
Phone: 978-263-2002
email: pdoolan@ennovatenetworks.com
Nancy Feldman
IBM Corp.
17 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne NY 10532
Phone: 914-784-3254
email: nkf@us.ibm.com
Andre Fredette
Nortel Networks Inc
3 Federal Street
Andersson, et al. [Page 80]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: 978-916-8524
email: fredette@baynetworks.com
Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Dr.
Chelmsford, MA 01824
Phone: 978-244-8078
email: rhthomas@cisco.com
Andersson, et al. [Page 81]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Appendix A. LDP Label Distribution Procedures
This section specifies label distribution behavior in terms of LSR
response to the following events:
- Receive Label Request Message;
- Receive Label Mapping Message;
- Receive Label Release Message;
- Receive Label Withdraw Message;
- Recognize new FEC;
- Detect change in FEC next hop;
- Receive Notification Message / No Label Resources;
- Receive Notification Message / No Route;
- Receive Notification Message / Loop Detected;
- Receive Notification Message / Label Resources Available;
- Detect local label resources have become available;
- LSR decides to no longer label switch a FEC;
- Timeout of deferred label request.
The specification of LSR behavior in response to an event has three
parts:
1. Summary. Prose that describes LSR response to the event in
overview.
2. Context. A list of elements referred to by the Algorithm part
of the specification. (See 3.)
3. Algorithm. An algorithm for LSR response to the event.
The Summary may omit details of the LSR response, such as bookkeeping
action or behavior dependent on the LSR label advertisement mode,
control mode, or label retention mode in use. The intent is that the
Algorithm fully and unambiguously specify the LSR response.
The algorithms in this section use procedures defined in the MPLS
architecture specification [ARCH] for hop-by-hop routed traffic.
These procedures are:
- Label Distribution procedure, which is performed by a downstream
LSR to determine when to distribute a label for a FEC to LDP
peers. The architecture defines four Label Distribution pro-
cedures:
. Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control, called PushUncon-
ditional in [ARCH].
Andersson, et al. [Page 82]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
. Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control, called PushCondi-
tional in [ARCH].
. Downstream On Demand Independent Control, called PulledUncon-
ditional in [ARCH].
. Downstream On Demand Ordered Control, called PulledCondi-
tional in [ARCH].
- Label Withdrawal procedure, which is performed by a downstream
LSR to determine when to withdraw a FEC label mapping previously
distributed to LDP peers. The architecture defines a single Label
Withdrawal procedure. Whenever an LSR breaks the binding between
a label and a FEC, it must withdraw the FEC label mapping from
all LDP peers to which it has previously sent the mapping.
- Label Request procedure, which is performed by an upstream LSR to
determine when to explicitly request that a downstrem LSR bind a
label to a FEC and send it the corresponding label mapping. The
architecture defines three Label Request procedures:
. Request Never. The LSR never requests a label.
. Request When Needed. The LSR requests a label whenever it
needs one.
. Request On Request. This procedure is used by non-label merg-
ing LSRs. The LSR requests a label when it receives a request
for one, in addition to whenever it needs one.
- Label Release procedure, which is performed by an upstream LSR to
determine when to release a previously received label mapping for
a FEC. The architecture defines two Label Release procedures:
. Conservative label retention, called Release On Change in
[ARCH].
. Liberal label retention, called No Release On Change in
[ARCH].
- Label Use procedure, which is performed by an LSR to determine
when to start using a FEC label for forwarding/switching. The
architecture defines three Label Use procedures:
. Use Immediate. The LSR immediately uses a label received from
a FEC next hop for forwarding/switching.
Andersson, et al. [Page 83]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
. Use If Loop Free. The LSR uses a FEC label received from a
FEC next hop for forwarding/switching only if it has deter-
mined that by doing so it will not cause a forwarding loop.
. Use If Loop Not Detected. This procedure is the same as Use
Immediate unless the LSR has detected a loop in the FEC LSP.
Use of the FEC label for forwarding/switching will continue
until the next hop for the FEC changes or the loop is no
longer detected.
This version of LDP does not include a loop prevention mechanism;
therefore, the procedures below do not make use of the Use If
Loop Free procedure.
- Label No Route procedure (called Label Not Available procedure in
[ARCH]), which is performed by an upstream LSR to determine how
to respond to a No Route notification from a downstream LSR in
response to a request for a FEC label mapping. The architecture
specification defines two Label No Route procedures:
. Request Retry. The LSR should issue the label request at a
later time.
. No Request Retry. The LSR should assume the downstream LSR
will provide a label mapping when the downstream LSR has a
next hop and it should not reissue the request.
A.1. Handling Label Distribution Events
The algorithms for handling label distribution events share common
actions. The specifications below package these common actions into
procedure units. Specifications for these common procedures are in
their own section "Common Label Distribution Procedures", which fol-
lows this.
An implementation would use data structures to store information
about protocol activity. This appendix specifies the information to
be stored in sufficient detail to describe the algorithms, and
assumes the ability to retrieve the information as needed. It does
not specify the details of the data structures.
Andersson, et al. [Page 84]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
A.1.1. Receive Label Request
Summary:
The response by an LSR to receipt of a FEC label request from an
LDP peer may involve one or more of the following actions:
- Transmission of a notification message to the requesting LSR
indicating why a label mapping for the FEC cannot be provided;
- Transmission of a FEC label mapping to the requesting LSR;
- Transmission of a FEC label request to the FEC next hop;
- Installation of labels for forwarding/switching use by the LSR.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- MsgSource. The LDP peer that sent the message.
- FEC. The FEC specified in the message.
- RAttributes. Attributes received with the message. E.g., CoS, Hop
Count Path Vector.
- SAttributes. Attributes to be included in Label Request message,
if any, propagated to FEC Next Hop.
- StoredHopCount. The hop count, if any, previously recorded for
the FEC.
Algorithm:
LRq.1 Execute procedure Check_Received_Attributes (MsgSource, RAt-
tributes).
If Loop Detected, goto LRq.11.
LRq.2 Is there a Next Hop for FEC?
If so, goto LRq.4.
LRq.3 Execute procedure Send_Notification (MsgSource, No Route).
Goto LRq.11.
LRq.4 Has LSR previously received a label request for FEC from
MsgSource?
If not, goto LRq.6. (See Note 1.)
Andersson, et al. [Page 85]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
LRq.5 Is the label request a duplicate request?
If so, Goto LRq.11. (See Note 2.)
LRq.6 Record label request for FEC received from MsgSource and mark
it pending.
LRq.7 Perform LSR Label Distribution procedure:
For Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control OR
For Downstream On Demand Independent Control
1. Has LSR previously received and retained a label map-
ping for FEC from Next Hop?.
Is so, set Propagating to IsPropagating.
If not, set Propagating to NotPropagating.
2. Execute procedure
Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(MsgSource, FEC, RAt-
tributes, SAttributes, Propagating, StoredHopCount).
3. Execute procedure Send_Label (MsgSource, FEC, SAttri-
butes).
4. Is LSR egress for FEC? OR
Has LSR previously received and retained a label map-
ping for FEC from Next Hop?
If so, goto LRq.9. If not, goto LRq.8.
For Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control OR
For Downstream On Demand Ordered Control
1. Is LSR egress for FEC? OR
Has LSR previously received and retained a label map-
ping for FEC from Next Hop?
If not, goto LRq.8.
2. Execute procedure
Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(MsgSource, FEC, RAt-
tributes, SAttributes, IsPropagating, StoredHopCount)
3. Execute procedure Send_Label (MsgSource, FEC, SAttri-
butes).
Goto LRq.9.
LRq.8 Perform LSR Label Request procedure:
For Request Never
Andersson, et al. [Page 86]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
1. Goto LRq.11.
For Request When Needed OR
For Request On Request
1. Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes
(Next Hop, FEC, RAttributes, SAttributes);
2. Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (Next Hop, FEC,
SAttributes).
Goto LRq.11.
LRq.9 Has LSR successfully sent a label for FEC to MsgSource?
If not, goto LRq.11. (See Note 3.)
LRq.10 Perform LSR Label Use procedure.
For Use Immediate OR
For Use If Loop Not Detected
1. Install label sent to MsgSource and label from Next
Hop (if LSR is not egress) for forwarding/switching
use.
LRq.11 DONE
Notes:
1. In the case where MsgSource is a non-label merging LSR it will
send a label request for each upstream LDP peer that has
requested a label for FEC from it. The LSR must be able to dis-
tinguish such requests from a non-label merging MsgSource from
duplicate label requests.
2. When an LSR sends a label request to a peer it records that the
request has been sent and marks it as outstanding. As long as
the request is marked outstanding the LSR should not send
another request for the same label to the peer. Such a second
request would be a duplicate. The Send_Label_Request procedure
described below obeys this rule.
A duplicate label request is considered a protocol error and
should be dropped by the receiving LSR (perhaps with a suitable
notification returned to MsgSource).
Andersson, et al. [Page 87]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
3. The Send_Label procedure may fail due to lack of label
resources, in which case the LSR should not perform the Label
Use procedure.
A.1.2. Receive Label Mapping
Summary:
The response by an LSR to receipt of a FEC label mapping from an
LDP peer may involve one or more of the following actions:
- Transmission of a label release message for the FEC label to the
LDP peer;
- Transmission of label mapping messages for the FEC to one or more
LDP peers,
- Installation of the newly learned label for forwarding/switching
use by the LSR.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- MsgSource. The LDP peer that sent the message.
- FEC. The FEC specified in the message.
- Label. The label specified in the message.
- PrevAdvLabel. The label for FEC, if any, previously advertised to
an upstream peer.
- StoredHopCount. The hop count previously recorded for the FEC.
- RAttributes. Attributes received with the message. E.g., CoS, Hop
Count, Path Vector.
- SAttributes to be included in Label Mapping message, if any, pro-
pagated to upstream peers.
Algorithm:
LMp.1 Does the received label mapping match an outstanding label
request for FEC previously sent to MsgSource.
If not, goto LMp.9.
Andersson, et al. [Page 88]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
LMp.2 Delete record of outstanding FEC label request.
LMp.3 Execute procedure Check_Received_Attributes (MsgSource, RAt-
tributes).
If No Loop Detected, goto LMp.9.
LMp.4 Does the LSR have a previously received label mapping for FEC
from MsgSource?
If not, goto LMp.8. (See Note 1.).
LMp.5 Does the label previously received from MsgSource match Label
(i.e., the label received in the message)?
If not, goto LMp.8. (See Note 2.)
LMp.6 Delete matching label mapping for FEC previously received
from MsgSource.
LMp.7 Remove Label from forwarding/switching use. (See Note 3.).
LMp.8 Execute procedure Send_Message (MsgSource, Label Release,
FEC, Label). Goto LMp.26.
LMp.9 Determine the Next Hop for FEC.
LMp.10 Is MsgSource the Next Hop for FEC?
If so, goto LMp.12.
LMp.11 Perform LSR Label Release procedure:
For Conservative Label retention:
1. Execute procedure Send_Message (MsgSource, Label
Release, FEC, Label).
Goto LMp.26.
For Liberal Label retention:
1. Record label mapping for FEC with Label and RAttri-
butes has been received from MsgSource.
Goto LMp.26.
LMp.12 Does LSR have a previously received label mapping for FEC
from MsgSource?
If not, goto LMp.14
LMp.13 Does the label previously received from MsgSource match Label
(i.e., the label received in the message)?
If not, goto LMp.8. (See Note 2.)
Andersson, et al. [Page 89]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
LMp.14 Is LSR an ingress for FEC?
If not, goto LMp.16.
LMp.15 Install Label for forwarding/switching use.
LMp.16 Record label mapping for FEC with Label and RAttributes has
been received from MsgSource.
LMp.17 Iterate through for LMp.25 for each Peer, other than
MsgSource.
LMp.18 Has LSR previously sent a label mapping for FEC to Peer?
If not, goto LMp.23.
LMp.19 Are RAttributes in the received label mapping consistent with
those previously sent to Peer?
If so, goto LMp.24. (See Note 4.)
LMp.20 Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(Peer, FEC,
RAttributes, SAttributes, IsPropagating, StoredHopCount).
LMp.21 Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Mapping, FEC,
PrevAdvLabel, SAttributes). (See Note 5.)
LMp.22 Update record of label mapping for FEC previously sent to
Peer to include the new attributes sent.
Goto LMp.24.
LMp.23 Perform LSR Label Distribution procedure:
For Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control OR
For Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control
1. Execute procedure
Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(Peer, FEC, RAttri-
butes, SAttributes, IsPropagating, UnknownHopCount).
2. Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, SAttri-
butes).
If the procedure fails, continue iteration for next
Peer at LMp.17.
3. Goto LMp.24.
For Downstream On Demand Independent Control OR
For Downstream On Demand Ordered Control
1. Does LSR have a label request for FEC from Peer
Andersson, et al. [Page 90]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
marked as pending?
If not, continue iteration for next Peer at LMp.17.
2. Execute procedure
Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(Peer, FEC, RAttri-
butes, SAttributes, IsPropagating, UnknownHopCount)
3. Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, SAttri-
butes).
If the procedure fails, continue iteration for next
Peer at LMp.17.
4. Goto LMp.24.
LMp.24 Perform LSR Label Use procedure:
For Use Immediate OR
For Use If Loop Not Detected
1. Install label received and label sent to Peer for
forwarding/switching use.
Goto LMp.25.
LMp.25 End iteration from LMp.17.
LMp.26 DONE.
Notes:
1. If LSR has detected a loop and it has not previously received a
label mapping from MsgSource for the FEC, it simply releases
the label.
2. A mapping with a different label from the same peer would be an
attempt to establish multipath label switching, which is not
supported in this version of LDP.
3. If Label is not in forwarding/switching use, LMp.7 has no
effect.
4. The loop detection Path Vector attribute is considered in this
check. If the received RAttributes include a Path Vector and
no Path Vector had been previously sent to the Peer, or if the
received Path Vector is inconsistent with the Path Vector pre-
viously sent to the Peer, then the attributes are considered to
be inconsistent. Note that an LSR is not required to store a
received Path Vector after it propagates the Path Vector in a
mapping message. If an LSR does not store the Path Vector, it
Andersson, et al. [Page 91]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
has no way to check the consistency of a newly received Path
Vector. This means that whenever such an LSR receives a map-
ping message carrying a Path Vector it must always propagate
the Path Vector.
5. LMp.19 through LMp.21 deal with a situation that can arise when
the LSR is using independent control and it receives a mapping
from the downstream peer after it has sent a mapping to an
upstream peer. In this situation the LSR needs to propagate any
changed attributes, such as Hop Count, upstream. If Loop Detec-
tion is configured on, the propagated attributes must include
the Path Vector
A.1.3. Receive Label Release
Summary:
When an LSR receives a label release message for a FEC from a peer,
it checks whether other peers hold the released label. If none do,
the LSR removes the label from forwarding/switching use, if it has
not already done so, and if the LSR holds a label mapping from the
FEC next hop, it releases the label mapping.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- MsgSource. The LDP peer that sent the message.
- Label. The label specified in the message.
- FEC. The FEC specified in the message.
Algorithm:
LRl.1 Remove MsgSource from record of peers that hold Label for
FEC. (See Note 1.)
LRl.2 Does message match an outstanding label withdraw for FEC pre-
viously sent to MsgSource?
If not, goto LRl.4
LRl.3 Delete record of outstanding label withdraw for FEC previ-
ously sent to MsgSource.
LRl.4 Is LSR merging labels for this FEC?
If not, goto LRl.6. (See Note 2.)
Andersson, et al. [Page 92]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
LRl.5 Has LSR previously advertised a label for this FEC to other
peers?
If so, goto LRl.10.
LRl.6 Is LSR egress for the FEC?
If so, goto LRl.10
LRl.7 Is there a Next Hop for FEC? AND
Does LSR have a previously received label mapping for FEC
from Next Hop?
If not, goto LRl.10.
LRl.8 Is LSR configured to propagate releases?
If so, goto LRl.10. (See Note 3.)
LRl.9 Execute procedure Send_Message (Next Hop, Label Release, FEC,
Label from Next Hop).
LRl.10 Remove Label from forwarding/switching use for traffic from
MsgSource.
LRl.11 Do any peers still hold Label for FEC?
If so, goto LRl.13.
LRl.12 Free the Label.
LRl.13 DONE.
Notes:
1. If LSR is using Downstream Unsolicted label distribution, it
should not re-advertise a label mapping for FEC to MsgSource
until MsgSource requests it.
2. LRl.4 through LRl.8 deal with determining whether where the LSR
should propagate the label release to a downstream peer
(LRl.9).
3. If LRl.8 is reached, no upstream LSR holds a label for the FEC,
and the LSR holds a label for the FEC from the FEC Next Hop.
The LSR could propagate the Label Release to the Next Hop. By
propagating the Label Release the LSR releases a potentially
scarce label resource. In doing so, it also increases the
latency for re-establishing the LSP should MsgSource or some
other upstream LSR send it a new Label Request for FEC.
Whether or not to propagate the release is not a protocol
issue. Label distribution will operate properly whether or not
Andersson, et al. [Page 93]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
the release is propagated. The decision to propagate or not
should take into consideration factors such as: whether labels
are a scarce resource in the operating environment; the impor-
tance of keeping LSP setup latency low by keeping the amount of
signalling required small; whether LSP setup is ingress-
controlled or egress-controlled in the operating environment.
A.1.4. Receive Label Withdraw
Summary:
When an LSR receives a label withdraw message for a FEC from an LDP
peer, it responds with a label release message and it removes the
label from any forwarding/switching use. If ordered control is in
use, the LSR sends a label withdraw message to each LDP peer to
which it had previously sent a label mapping for the FEC. If the
LSR is using Downstream on Demand label advertisement with indepen-
dent control, it then acts as if it had just recognized the FEC.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- MsgSource. The LDP peer that sent the message.
- Label. The label specified in the message.
- FEC. The FEC specified in the message.
Algorithm:
LWd.1 Remove Label from forwarding/switching use. (See Note 1.)
LWd.2 Execute procedure Send_Message (MsgSource, Label Release,
FEC, Label)
LWd.3 Has LSR previously received and retained a matching label
mapping for FEC from MsgSource?
If not, goto LWd.13.
LWd.4 Delete matching label mapping for FEC previously received
from MsgSource.
LWd.5 Is LSR using ordered control?
If so, goto LWd.8.
LWd.6 Is MsgSource using Downstream On Demand label advertisement?
Andersson, et al. [Page 94]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
If not, goto LWd.13.
LWd.7 Generate Event: Recognize New FEC for FEC.
Goto LWd.13. (See Note 2.)
LWd.8 Iterate through LWd.12 for each Peer, other than MsgSource.
LWd.9 Has LSR previously sent a label mapping for FEC to Peer?
If not, continue interation for next Peer at LWd.8.
LWd.10 Does the label previously sent to Peer "map" to the withdrawn
Label?
If not, continue iteration for next Peer at LWd.8. (See Note
3.)
LWd.11 Execute procedure Send_Label_Withdraw (Peer, FEC, Label pre-
viously sent to Peer).
LWd.12 End iteration from LWd.8.
LWd.13 DONE
Notes:
1. If Label is not in forwarding/switching use, LWd.1 has no
effect.
2. LWd.7 handles the case where the LSR is using Downstream On
Demand label distribution with independent control. In this
situation the LSR should send a label request to the FEC next
hop as if it had just recognized the FEC.
3. LWd.10 handles both label merging (one or more incoming labels
map to the same outgoing label) and no label merging (one label
maps to the outgoing label) cases.
A.1.5. Recognize New FEC
Summary:
The response by an LSR to learning a new FEC may involve one or
more of the following actions:
- Transmission of label mappings for the FEC to one or more LDP
peers;
Andersson, et al. [Page 95]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- Transmission of a label request for the FEC to the FEC next hop;
- Any of the actions that can occur when the LSR receives a label
mapping for the FEC from the FEC next hop.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- FEC. The newly recognized FEC.
- Next Hop. The next hop for the FEC.
- InitAttributes. Attributes to be associated with the new FEC.
(See Note 1.)
- SAttributes. Attributes to be included in Label Mapping or Label
Request messages, if any, sent to peers.
- StoredHopCount. Hop count associated with FEC label mapping , if
any, previously received from Next Hop.
Algorithm:
FEC.1 Perform LSR Label Distribution procedure:
For Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control
1. Iterate through 5 for each Peer.
2. Has LSR previously received and retained a label map-
ping for FEC from Next Hop?
If so, set Propagating to IsPropagating.
If not, set Propagating to NotPropagating.
3. Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes
(Peer, FEC, InitAttributes, SAttributes, Propagating,
Unknown hop count(0)).
4. Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, SAttributes)
5. End iteration from 1.
Goto FEC.2.
For Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control
1. Iterate through 5 for each Peer.
Andersson, et al. [Page 96]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
2. Is LSR egress for the FEC? OR
Has LSR previously received and retained a label map-
ping for FEC from Next Hop?
If not, continue iteration for next Peer.
3. xecute procedure Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes
(Peer, FEC, InitAttributes, SAttributes, Propagating,
StoredHopCount).
4. Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, SAttributes)
5. End iteration from 1.
Goto FEC.2.
For Downstream On Demand Independent Control OR
For Downstream On Demand Ordered Control
1. Goto FEC.2. (See Note 2.)
FEC.2 Has LSR previously received and retained a label mapping for
FEC from Next Hop?
If so, goto FEC.5
FEC.3 Is Next Hop an LDP peer?
If not, Goto FEC.6
FEC.4 Perform LSR Label Request procedure:
For Request Never
1. Goto FEC.6
For Request When Needed OR
For Request On Request
1. Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes
(Next Hop, FEC, InitAttributes, SAttributes);
2. Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (Next Hop, FEC,
SAttributes).
Goto FEC.6.
FEC.5 Generate Event: Received Label Mapping from Next Hop. (See
Note 3.)
FEC.6 DONE.
Andersson, et al. [Page 97]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Notes:
1. An example of an attribute that might be part of InitAttributes
is CoS. The means by which FEC InitAttributes, if any, are
specified is beyond the scope of LDP. Note that the InitAttri-
butes will not include a known Hop Count or a Path Vector.
2. An LSR using Downstream On Demand label distribution would send
a label only if it had a previously received label request
marked as pending. The LSR would have no such pending requests
because it responds to any label request for an unknown FEC by
sending the requesting LSR a No Route notification and discard-
ing the label request; see LRq.3
3. If the LSR has a label for the FEC from the Next Hop, it should
behave as if it had just received the label from the Next Hop.
This occurs in the case of Liberal label retention mode.
A.1.6. Detect change in FEC next hop
Summary:
The response by an LSR to a change in the next hop for a FEC may
involve one or more of the following actions:
- Removal of the label from the FEC's old next hop from
forwarding/switching use;
- Transmission of label mappping messages for the FEC to one or
more LDP peers;
- Transmission of a label request to the FEC's new next hop;
- Any of the actions that can occur when the LSR receives a label
mapping from the FEC's new next hop.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- FEC. The FEC whose next hop changed.
- New Next Hop. The current next hop for the FEC.
Andersson, et al. [Page 98]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- Old Next Hop. The previous next hop for the FEC.
- OldLabel. Label, if any, previously received from Old Next Hop.
- CurAttributes. The attributes, if any, currently associated with
the FEC.
- SAttributes. Attributes to be included in Label Label Request
message, if any, sent to New Next Hop.
Algorithm:
NH.1 Has LSR previously received and retained a label mapping for
FEC from Old Next Hop?
If not, goto NH.6.
NH.2 Remove label from forwarding/switching use. (See Note 1.)
NH.3 Is LSR using Liberal label retention?
If so, goto NH.6.
NH.4 Execute procedure Send_Message (Old Next Hop, Label Release,
OldLlabel).
NH.5 Delete label mapping for FEC previously received from Old
Next Hop.
NH.6 Has LSR previously received and retained a label mapping for
FEC from New Next Hop?
If not, goto NH.8.
NH.7 Generate Event: Received Label Mapping from New Next Hop.
Goto NH.11. (See Note 2.)
NH.8 Is LSR using Downstream on Demand advertisement? OR
Is Next Hop using Downstream on Demand advertisement? OR
Is LSR using Conservative label retention? (See Note 3.)
If so, goto NH.9. If not, goto NH.11.
NH.9 Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes (Next Hop,
FEC, CurAttributes, SAttributes)
NH.10 Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (New Next Hop, FEC, SAt-
tributes).
(See Note 4.)
NH.11 DONE.
Andersson, et al. [Page 99]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Notes:
1. If Label is not in forwarding/switching use, NH.2 has no
effect.
2. If the LSR has a label for the FEC from the New Next Hop, it
should behave as if it had just received the label from the New
Next Hop.
3. The purpose of the check on label retention mode is to avoid a
race with steps LMp.10-LMp.11 of the procedure for handling a
Label Mapping message where the LSR operating in Conservative
Label retention mode may have released a label mapping received
from the New Next Hop before it detected the FEC next hop had
changed.
4. Regardless of the Label Request procedure in use by the LSR, it
must send a label request if the conditions in NH.8 hold.
Therefore it executes the Send_Label_Request procedure directly
rather than perform LSR Label Request procedure.
A.1.7. Receive Notification / No Label Resources
Summary:
When an LSR receives a No Label Resources notification from an LDP
peer, it stops sending label request messages to the peer until it
receives a Label Resources Available Notification from the peer.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- FEC. The FEC for which a label was requested.
- MsgSource. The LDP peer that sent the Notification message.
Algorithm:
NoRes.1 Delete record of outstanding label request for FEC sent to
MsgSource.
NoRes.2 Record label mapping for FEC from MsgSource is needed but
that no label resources are available.
NoRes.3 Set status record indicating it is not OK to send label
requests to MsgSource.
Andersson, et al. [Page 100]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
NoRes.4 DONE.
A.1.8. Receive Notification / No Route
Summary:
When an LSR receives a No Route notification from an LDP peer in
response to a Label Request message, the Label No Route procedure
in use dictates its response. The LSR either will take no further
action, or it will defer the label request by starting a timer and
send another Label Request message to the peer when the timer later
expires.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- FEC. The FEC for which a label was requested.
- Attributes. The attibutes associated with the label request.
- MsgSource. The LDP peer that sent the Notification message.
Algorithm:
NoNH.1 Delete record of outstanding label request for FEC sent to
MsgSource.
NoNH.2 Perform LSR Label No Route procedure.
For Request No Retry
1. Goto NoNH.3.
For Request Retry
1. Record deferred label request for FEC and Attributes
to be sent to MsgSource.
2. Start timeout. Goto NoNH.3.
NoNH.3 DONE.
Andersson, et al. [Page 101]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
A.1.9. Receive Notification / Loop Detected
Summary:
When an LSR receives a Loop Detected notification from an LDP peer
in response to a Label Request message, it behaves as if it had
received a No Route notification.
Context:
See "Receive Notification / No Route".
Algorithm:
See "Receive Notification / No Route"
A.1.10. Receive Notification / Label Resources Available
Summary:
When an LSR receives a Label Resources Available notification from
an LDP peer, it resumes sending label requests to the peer.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- MsgSource. The LDP peer that sent the Notification message.
- SAttributes. Attributes stored with postponed Label Request mes-
sage.
Algorithm:
Res.1 Set status record indicating it is OK to send label requests
to MsgSource.
Res.2 Iterate through Res.6 for each record of a FEC label mapping
needed from MsgSource for which no label resources are avail-
able.
Res.3 Is MsgSource the next hop for FEC?
If not, goto Res.5.
Res.4 Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (MsgSource, FEC, SAttri-
butes). If the procedure fails, terminate iteration.
Andersson, et al. [Page 102]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Res.5 Delete record that no resources are available for a label
mapping for FEC needed from MsgSource.
Res.6 End iteration from Res.2
Res.7 DONE.
A.1.11. Detect local label resources have become available
Summary:
After an LSR has sent a No Label Resources notification to an LDP
peer, when label resources later become available it sends a Label
Resources Available notification to each such peer.
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- Attributes. Attributes stored with postponed Label Mapping mes-
sage.
Algorithm:
ResA.1 Iterate through ResA.4 for each Peer to which LSR has previ-
ously sent a No Label Resources notification.
ResA.2 Execute procedure Send_Notification (Peer, Label Resources
Available)
ResA.3 Delete record that No Label Resources notification was previ-
ously sent to Peer.
ResA.4 End iteration from ResA.1
ResA.5 Iterate through ResA.8 for each record of a label mapping
needed for FEC for Peer but no-label-resources. (See Note
1.)
ResA.6 Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, Attributes). If the
procedure fails, terminate iteration.
ResA.7 Clear record of FEC label mapping needed for peer but no-
label-resources.
ResA.8 End iteration from ResA.5
Andersson, et al. [Page 103]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
ResA.9 DONE.
Notes:
1. Iteration ResA.5 through ResA.8 handles the situation where the
LSR is using Downstream Unsolicited label distribution and was
previously unable to allocate a label for a FEC.
A.1.12. LSR decides to no longer label switch a FEC
Summary:
An LSR may unilaterally decide to no longer label switch a FEC for
an LDP peer. An LSR that does so must send a label withdraw message
for the FEC to the peer.
Context:
- Peer. The peer.
- FEC. The FEC.
- PrevAdvLabel. The label for FEC previously advertised to Peer.
Algorithm:
NoLS.1 Execute procedure Send_Label_Withdraw (Peer, FEC, PrevAdvLa-
bel). (See Note 1.)
NoLS.2 DONE.
Notes:
1. The LSR may remove the label from forwarding/switching use as
part of this event or as part of processing the label release
from the peer in response to the label withdraw.
A.1.13. Timeout of deferred label request
Summary:
Label requests are deferred in response to No Route and Loop
Detected notifications. When a deferred FEC label request for a
peer times out, the LSR sends the label request.
Andersson, et al. [Page 104]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Context:
- LSR. The LSR handling the event.
- FEC. The FEC associated with the timeout event.
- Peer. The LDP peer associated with the timeout event.
- Attributes. Attributes stored with deferred Label Request mes-
sage.
Algorithm:
TO.1 Retrieve the record of the deferred label request.
TO.2 Is Peer the next hop for FEC?
If not, goto TO.4.
TO.3 Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (Peer, FEC).
TO.4 DONE.
A.2. Common Label Distribution Procedures
This section specifies utility procedures used by the algorithms that
handle label distribution events.
A.2.1. Send_Label
Summary:
The Send_Label procedure allocates a label for a FEC for an LDP
peer, if possible, and sends a label mapping for the FEC to the
peer. If the LSR is unable to allocate the label and if it has a
pending label request from the peer, it sends the LDP peer a No
Label Resources notification.
Parameters:
- Peer. The LDP peer to which the label mapping is to be sent.
- FEC. The FEC for which a label mapping is to be sent.
Andersson, et al. [Page 105]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- Attributes. The attributes to be included with the label mapping.
Additional Context:
- LSR. The LSR executing the procedure.
- Label. The label allocated and sent to Peer.
Algorithm:
SL.1 Does LSR have a label to allocate?
If not, goto SL.9.
SL.2 Allocate Label and bind it to the FEC.
SL.3 Install Label for forwarding/switchng use.
SL.4 Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Mapping, FEC,
Label, Attributes).
SL.5 Record label mapping for FEC with Label and Attributes has
been sent to Peer.
SL.6 Does LSR have a record of a FEC label request from Peer
marked as pending?
If not, goto SL.8.
SL.7 Delete record of pending label request for FEC from Peer.
SL.8 Return success.
SL.9 Does LSR have a label request for FEC from Peer marked as
pending?
If not, goto SL.13.
SL.10 Execute procedure Send_Notification (Peer, No Label
Resources).
SL.11 Delete record of pending label request for FEC from Peer.
SL.12 Record No Label Resources notification has been sent to Peer.
Goto SL.14.
SL.13 Record label mapping needed for FEC and Attributes for Peer,
but no-label-resources. (See Note 1.)
SL.14 Return failure.
Andersson, et al. [Page 106]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Notes:
1. SL.13 handles the case of Downstream Unsolicited label distri-
bution when the LSR is unable to allocate a label for a FEC to
send to a Peer.
A.2.2. Send_Label_Request
Summary:
An LSR uses the Send_Label_Request procedure to send a request for
a label for a FEC to an LDP peer if currently permitted to do so.
Parameters:
- Peer. The LDP peer to which the label request is to be sent.
- FEC. The FEC for which a label request is to be sent.
- Attributes. Attributes to be included in the label request. E.g.,
Hop Count, Path Vector, CoS.
Additional Context:
- LSR. The LSR executing the procedure.
Algorithm:
SLRq.1 Has a label request for FEC previously been sent to Peer and
is it marked as outstanding?
If so, Return success. (See Note 1.)
SLRq.2 Is status record indicating it is OK to send label requests
to Peer set?
If not, goto SLRq.6
SLRq.3 Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Request, FEC,
Attributes).
SLRq.4 Record label request for FEC has been sent to Peer and mark
it as outstanding.
SLRq.5 Return success.
SLRq.6 Postpone the label request by recording label mapping for FEC
and Attributes from Peer is needed but that no label
resources are available.
Andersson, et al. [Page 107]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
SLRq.7 Return failure.
Notes:
1. If the LSR is a non-merging LSR it must distinguish between
attempts to send label requests for a FEC triggered by dif-
ferent upstream LDP peers from duplicate requests. This pro-
cedure will not send a duplicate label request.
A.2.3. Send_Label_Withdraw
Summary:
An LSR uses the Send_Label_Withdraw procedure to withdraw a label
for a FEC from an LDP peer. To do this the LSR sends a Label With-
draw message to the peer.
Parameters:
- Peer. The LDP peer to which the label withdraw is to be sent.
- FEC. The FEC for which a label is being withdrawn.
- Label. The label being withdrawn
Additional Context:
- LSR. The LSR executing the procedure.
Algorithm:
SWd.1 Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Withdraw, FEC,
Label)
SWd.2 Record label withdraw for FEC has been sent to Peer and mark
it as outstanding.
A.2.4. Send_Notification
Summary:
An LSR uses the Send_Notification procedure to send an LDP peer a
notificaction message.
Andersson, et al. [Page 108]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Parameters:
- Peer. The LDP peer to which the label withdraw is to be sent.
- Status. Status code to be included in the Notification message.
Additional Context:
None.
Algorithm:
SNt.1 Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Notification, Status)
A.2.5. Send_Message
Summary:
An LSR uses the Send_Message procedure to send an LDP peer an LDP
message.
Parameters:
- Peer. The LDP peer to which the message is to be sent.
- Message Type. The type of message to be sent.
- Additional message contents . . . .
Additional Context:
None.
Algorithm:
This procedure is the means by which an LSR sends an LDP message of
the specified type to the specified LDP peer.
A.2.6. Check_Received_Attributes
Summary:
Check the attributes received in a Label Mapping or Label Request
message. If the attributes include a Hop Count or Path Vector, per-
form a loop detection check. If a loop is detected, send a Loop
Detected Notification message to MsgSource.
Andersson, et al. [Page 109]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Parameters:
- MsgSource. The LDP peer that sent the message.
- RAttributes. The attributes in the message.
Additional Context:
- LSR Id. The unique LSR Id of this LSR.
- Hop Count. The Hop Count, if any, in the received attributes.
- Path Vector. The Path Vector, if any in the received attributes.
Algorithm:
CRa.1 Do RAttributes include Hop Count?
If not, goto CRa.5.
CRa.2 Does Hop Count exceed Max allowable hop count?
If so, goto CRa.6.
CRa.3 Do RAttributes include Path Vector?
If not, goto CRa.5.
CRa.4 Does Path Vector Include LSR Id? OR
Does length of Path Vector exceed Max allowable length?
If so, goto CRa.6
CRa.5 Return No Loop Detected.
CRa.6 Execute procedure Send_Notification (MsgSource, Loop
Detected)
CRa.7 Return Loop Detected.
CRa.8 DONE
A.2.7. Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes
Summary:
This procedure is used whenever a Label Request is to be sent to a
Peer to compute the Hop Count and Path Vector, if any, to include
in the message.
Andersson, et al. [Page 110]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
Parameters:
- Peer. The LDP peer to which the message is to be sent.
- FEC. The FEC for which a label request is to be sent.
- RAttributes. The attributes this LSR associates with the LSP for
FEC.
- SAttributes. The attributes to be included in the Label Request
message.
Additional Context:
- LSR Id. The unique LSR Id of this LSR.
Algorithm:
PRqA.1 Is Hop Count required for this Peer (see Note 1.) ? OR
Do RAttributes include a Hop Count? OR
Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
If not, goto PRqA.14.
PRqA.2 Is LSR ingress for FEC?
If not, goto PRqA.6.
PRqA.3 Include Hop Count of 1 in SAttributes.
PRqA.4 Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
If not, goto PRqA.14.
PRqA.5 Is LSR merge-capable?
If so, goto PRqA.14.
If not, goto PRqA.13.
PRqA.6 Do RAttributes include a Hop Count?
If not, goto PRqA.8.
PRqA.7 Increment RAttributes Hop Count and copy the resulting Hop
Count to SAttributes. (See Note 2.)
Goto PRqA.9.
PRqA.8 Include Hop Count of unknown (0) in SAttributes.
PRqA.9 Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
If not, goto PRqA.14.
PRqA.10 Do RAttributes have a Path Vector?
Andersson, et al. [Page 111]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
If so, goto PRqA.12.
PRqA.11 Is LSR merge-capable?
If so, goto PRqA.14.
If not, goto PRqA.13.
PRqA.12 Add LSR Id to beginning of Path Vector from RAttributes and
copy the resulting Path Vector into SAttributes.
Goto PRqA.14.
PRqA.13 Include Path Vector of length 1 containing LSR Id in SAttri-
butes.
PRqA.14 DONE.
Notes:
1. The link with Peer may require that Hop Count be
included in Label Request messages; for example, see
[ATM].
2. For hop count arithmetic, unknown + 1 = unknown.
A.2.8. Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes
Summary:
This procedure is used whenever a Label Mapping is to be sent to a
Peer to compute the Hop Count and Path Vector, if any, to include
in the message.
Parameters:
- Peer. The LDP peer to which the message is to be sent.
- FEC. The FEC for which a label request is to be sent.
- RAttributes. The attributes this LSR associates with the LSP for
FEC.
- SAttributes. The attributes to be included in the Label Request
message.
- IsPropagating. The LSR is sending the Label Mapping message to
propagate one received from the FEC next hop.
Andersson, et al. [Page 112]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
- PrevHopCount. The Hop Count, if any, this LSR associates with the
LSP for the FEC.
Additional Context:
- LSR Id. The unique LSR Id of this LSR.
Algorithm:
PMpA.1 Is Hop Count required for this Peer (see Note 1.) ? OR
Do RAttributes include a Hop Count? OR
Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
If not, goto PMpA.19.
PMpA.2 Is LSR egress for FEC?
If not, goto PMpA.4.
PMpA.3 Include Hop Count of 1 in SAttributes. Goto PMpA.19.
PMpA.4 Do RAttributes have a Hop Count?
If not, goto PMpA.6.
PMpA.5 Increment RAttributes Hop Count and copy the resulting Hop
Count to SAttributes. See Note 2. Goto PMpA.7.
PMpA.6 Include Hop Count of unknown (0) in SAttributes.
PMpA.7 Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
If not, goto PMpA.19.
PMpA.8 Do RAttributes have a Path Vector?
If so, goto PMpA.17.
PMpA.9 Is LSR propagating a received Label Mapping?
If not, goto PMpA.18.
PMpA.10 Does LSR support merging?
If not, goto PMpA.12.
PMpA.11 Has LSR previously sent a Label Mapping for FEC to Peer?
If not, goto PMpA.18.
PMpA.12 Do RAttributes include a Hop Count?
If not, goto PMpA.19.
Res.13 Is Hop Count in Rattributes unknown(0)?
If so, goto PMpA.18.
Andersson, et al. [Page 113]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-02 .txt November 1998
PMpA.14 Has LSR previously sent a Label Mapping for FEC to Peer?
If not goto PMpA.19.
PMpA.15 Is Hop Count in RAttributes different from PrevHopCount ?
If not goto PMpA.19.
PMpA.16 Is the Hop Count in RAttributes > PrevHopCount? OR
Is PrevHopCount unknown(0)
If not, goto PMpA.19.
PMpA.17 Add LSR Id to beginning of Path Vector from RAttributes and
copy the resulting Path Vector into SAttributes. Goto
PMpA.19.
PMpA.18 Include Path Vector of length 1 containing LSR Id in SAttri-
butes.
PMpA.19 DONE.
Notes:
1. The link with Peer may require that Hop Count be included in
Label Mapping messages; for example, see [ATM].
2. For hop count arithmetic, unknown + 1 = unknown.
Andersson, et al. [Page 114]