draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-01.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-02.txt 
MPLS Working Group Rajiv Asati MPLS Working Group Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft Cisco Systems Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 2009 Pradosh Mohapatra Expires: June 2009 Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Bob Thomas Bob Thomas
Emily Chen Emily Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
September 15, 2008 December 29, 2008
LDP End-of-LIB LDP End-of-LIB
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-01.txt draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79. BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 29, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
There are situations following Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) There are situations following Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
session establishment where it would be useful for an LDP speaker to session establishment where it would be useful for an LDP speaker to
know when its peer has advertised all of its labels. The LDP know when its peer has advertised all of its labels. The LDP
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
completion of its initial label advertisements following session completion of its initial label advertisements following session
establishment. establishment.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2 1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Specification Language.........................................3 2. Specification Language.........................................3
3. Unrecognized Notification Capability...........................3 3. Unrecognized Notification Capability...........................3
4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement....................4 4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement....................4
5. Usage Guidelines...............................................5 5. Usage Guidelines...............................................5
5.1. IGP-Sync..................................................5 5.1. LDP-IGP Sync..............................................5
5.2. LDP Graceful Restart......................................6 5.2. LDP Graceful Restart......................................6
5.3. Wildcard Label Request....................................7 5.3. Wildcard Label Request....................................7
5.4. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications.................7 5.4. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications.................7
6. Security Considerations........................................7 6. Security Considerations........................................7
7. IANA Considerations............................................7 7. IANA Considerations............................................7
8. Acknowledgments................................................8 8. Acknowledgments................................................8
9. References.....................................................9 9. References.....................................................9
9.1. Normative References......................................9 9.1. Normative References......................................9
9.2. Informative References....................................9 9.2. Informative References....................................9
Author's Addresses...............................................10 Author's Addresses...............................................10
skipping to change at page 4, line 39 skipping to change at page 4, line 39
An LDP speaker MAY signal completion of its label advertisements to a An LDP speaker MAY signal completion of its label advertisements to a
peer by means of a Notification message, if its peer had advertised peer by means of a Notification message, if its peer had advertised
the Unrecognized Notification capability during session the Unrecognized Notification capability during session
establishment. The LDP speaker MAY send the Notification message (per establishment. The LDP speaker MAY send the Notification message (per
FEC Type) to a peer even if the LDP speaker had zero Label bindings FEC Type) to a peer even if the LDP speaker had zero Label bindings
to advertise to that peer. to advertise to that peer.
Such a Notification message MUST carry: Such a Notification message MUST carry:
- A status TLV with TLV E- and F-bits set to zero that carries an - A status TLV (with TLV E- and F-bits set to zero) that carries
"End-of-LIB" Status Code. an "End-of-LIB" Status Code (value to be assigned by IANA).
- A FEC TLV with the Typed Wildcard FEC Element [TypedWC] that - A FEC TLV with the Typed Wildcard FEC Element [TypedWC] that
identifies the FEC type for which initial label advertisements identifies the FEC type for which initial label advertisements
have been completed. In terms of Section 3.5.1 of RFC5036, have been completed. In terms of Section 3.5.1 of RFC5036,
this TLV is an "Optional Parameter" of the Notification this TLV is an "Optional Parameter" of the Notification
message. message.
An LDP speaker MUST NOT send a Notification which carries a Status An LDP speaker MUST NOT send a Notification which carries a Status
TLV with the End-of-LIB Status Code to a peer unless the peer had TLV with the End-of-LIB Status Code to a peer unless the peer had
advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability during session advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability during session
skipping to change at page 7, line 37 skipping to change at page 7, line 37
To deal with the possibility of missing notifications, an LDP speaker To deal with the possibility of missing notifications, an LDP speaker
may time out receipt of an expected End-of-LIB Notification, and if may time out receipt of an expected End-of-LIB Notification, and if
the timeout occurs, it may behave as if it had received the the timeout occurs, it may behave as if it had received the
notification. If the End-of-LIB Notification message is received notification. If the End-of-LIB Notification message is received
after the time-out occurs, then the message should be ignored. after the time-out occurs, then the message should be ignored.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP
specification and described in [RFC5036] apply to signaling the End- specification [RFC5036] and further described in [MPLSsec] apply to
of-LIB condition as described in this document. signaling the End-of-LIB condition as described in this document.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This draft introduces a new LDP Status Code and a new LDP Capability This draft introduces a new LDP Status Code and a new LDP Capability
both of which require IANA assignment. both of which require IANA assignment -
The 'End-of-LIB' status code requires a code point from the Status
Code Name Space. [RFC5036] partitions the Status Code Name Space
into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come First Served
region, and Private Use region. The authors recommend that a code
point from the IETF Consensus range be assigned to the 'End-of-
LIB' status code.
The 'Unrecognized Notification' Capability requires a code point
from the TLV Type name space. [RFC5036] partitions the TLV TYPE
name space into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come
First Served region, and Private Use region. The authors
recommend that a code point from the IETF Consensus range be
assigned to the 'Unrecognized Notification' Capability.
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ina Minei, Alia Atlas, Yakov Rekhter, The authors would like to thank Ina Minei, Alia Atlas, Yakov Rekhter,
Loa Andersson and Luyuan Fang for their valuable feedback and Loa Andersson and Luyuan Fang for their valuable feedback and
contribution. contribution.
The authors would like to recognize Kamran Raza, who helped to
formulate this draft.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 33
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[LDPSync] Jork, M., Atlas, A., Fang, L., "LDP IGP Synchronization", [LDPSync] Jork, M., Atlas, A., Fang, L., "LDP IGP Synchronization",
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-02, Work in Progress, June draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync-02, Work in Progress, June
2008. 2008.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., Aggarwal, R., "Graceful [RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., Aggarwal, R., "Graceful
Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol", Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol",
February 2003. February 2003.
[MPLSsec] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-04, Work
in Progress, Nov 2008.
Author's Addresses Author's Addresses
Rajiv Asati Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems, Cisco Systems,
7025-6 Kit Creek Rd, RTP, NC, 27709-4987 7025-6 Kit Creek Rd, RTP, NC, 27709-4987
Email: rajiva@cisco.com Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Pradosh Mohapatra Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems, Cisco Systems,
3750 Cisco Way, San Jose, CA, 95134 3750 Cisco Way, San Jose, CA, 95134
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 30 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/