rfc-4972

Routing Extensions for Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh Membership

JP. Vasseur (Editor), JL. Leroux (Editor), S. Yasukawa, S. Previdi, P. Psenak, P. Mabbey
date2007-07 streamIETF areartg wgccamp statusPROPOSED STANDARD pages15 canonicalhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4972 doi10.17487/RFC4972
The setup of a full mesh of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSP) among a set of Label Switch Routers (LSR) is a common deployment scenario of MPLS Traffic Engineering either for bandwidth optimization, bandwidth guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast Reroute. Such deployment may require the configuration of a potentially large number of TE LSPs (on the order of the square of the number of LSRs). This document specifies Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing extensions for Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS) and Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) so as to provide an automatic discovery of the set of LSRs members of a mesh in order to automate the creation of such mesh of TE LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

Extracted elements (17)

design-rationale §1

A full mesh of TE LSPs between N LSRs requires O(N^2) configurations, and adding a new LSR requires 2*N additional TE LSP configurations. This combinatorial complexity motivates IGP-based automatic discovery of TE mesh-group membership rather than manual configuration.

mpls, routing

design-rationale §1

The document explicitly limits scope to IGP-based discovery of mesh membership; the actual mechanism for dynamically creating TE LSPs once membership is discovered is implementation-specific and outside scope. This separation keeps the IGP extensions minimal and stable.

mpls, routing

design-rationale §1

The TE-MESH-GROUP information is carried in the existing OSPF Router Information LSA and IS-IS Router Capability TLV (defined in RFC 4970 and RFC 4971) rather than new LSA types. This choice leverages established advertisement and flooding mechanisms without introducing new IGP machinery.

mpls, routing

interoperability-note §6

The TE-MESH-GROUP TLVs do not introduce interoperability issues. OSPF routers not supporting the TLV SHOULD silently ignore it per RFC 2370; IS-IS routers not supporting the sub-TLV SHOULD silently ignore it.

mpls, routing

normative-requirement §5 MUST

A router MUST originate a new LSA/LSP whenever the content of the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV/sub-TLV changes or whenever required by regular routing procedures (e.g., periodic updates).

mpls, routing

normative-requirement §5.2 MUST

If an LSR desires to join or leave a TE mesh-group in IS-IS, it MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP comprising the refreshed Router Capability TLV with the updated TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV.

mpls, routing

normative-requirement §5 SHOULD

If either the IPv4 or IPv6 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV/sub-TLV occurs more than once within the Router Information LSA or IS-IS Router Capability TLV, only the first instance is processed; subsequent instances SHOULD be silently ignored.

mpls, routing

normative-requirement §5.2 MUST

If the flooding scope of a TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV is limited to an IS-IS level/area, it MUST NOT be leaked across level/area boundaries and the S flag of the Router Capability TLV MUST be cleared. If the scope is the entire routing domain, the TLV MUST be leaked and the S flag MUST be set.

mpls, routing

normative-requirement §5.1 MUST

If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single OSPF area, the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within an Area-local Router Information LSA. If it spans multiple areas, the TLV MUST be generated within a Routing-domain scope Router Information LSA.

mpls, routing

normative-requirement §5 MUST NOT

The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT include more than one IPv4 instance or more than one IPv6 instance within a given Router Information LSA or Router Capability TLV.

mpls, routing

protocol-element §3

A TE mesh-group is defined as a group of LSRs connected by a full mesh of TE LSPs. Each mesh-group membership advertisement includes a mesh-group number, a tail-end address (used as TE LSP tail-end by peer members), and a tail-end name display string.

mpls, routing

registry §7.2

IANA assigned two new IS-IS sub-TLV code-points in the Router Capability TLV registry: value 3 for TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (IPv4) and value 4 for TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (IPv6), both referencing RFC 4972.

registry, mpls, routing

registry §7.1

IANA assigned two new OSPF TLV code-points in the Router Information LSA registry: value 3 for TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4) and value 4 for TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv6), both referencing RFC 4972.

registry, mpls, routing

security-consideration §8

Advertisement of fake TE Mesh Group memberships by a misconfigured or malicious LSR does not have major network impact because a TE LSP can only be established if the same mesh-group membership is configured on both the head-end and tail-end LSRs. Thus fake advertisements cannot amplify DoS attacks beyond overloading the IGP.

security, mpls, routing

wire-format §4.2

The IS-IS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV for IPv6 (Type 4) encodes entries with a 32-bit mesh-group-number, 128-bit tail-end IPv6 address, 1-octet name-length, and variable-length tail-end name, carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV.

mpls, routing

wire-format §4.1

The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV for IPv4 (Type 3) encodes one or more entries each containing: a 32-bit mesh-group-number, a 32-bit tail-end IPv4 address, a 1-octet name-length field, and a variable-length tail-end name. The TLV is padded to 4-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length field.

mpls, routing

wire-format §4.1

The OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV for IPv6 (Type 4) encodes one or more entries each containing: a 32-bit mesh-group-number, a 128-bit tail-end IPv6 address, a 1-octet name-length field, and a variable-length tail-end name. Format otherwise mirrors the IPv4 variant.

mpls, routing