[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown

CCAMP Working Group
                                                               Zafar Ali
                                                   Jean Philippe Vasseur
                                                             Anca Zamfir
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.

IETF Internet Draft
Category: Standard
Expires: December, 2004                                        June 2004




             draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt


         Graceful Shutdown in MPLS Traffic Engineering Networks


Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

















Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 1                       6/14/2004

     draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt       June 2004



Abstract

Graceful shutdown is a method for explicitly notifying a set of LSRs
that either a Link or an entire node will remove itself from the
network or the protocol is going to be disabled for a link or a node.
Graceful shut down mechanisms are tailored towards addressing the
planned outage in the network.

This document provides protocol mechanisms so as to reduce/eliminate
traffic disruption in the event of a planned shutdown of a network
resource.

Conventions used in this document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [i].

Routing Area ID Summary

(This section to be removed before publication.)

SUMMARY

   This document describes graceful shutdown mechanisms used in MPLS
Traffic Engineering network.

WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE ROUTING AREA WORK?

   This work requires protocol extension to signaling (RSVP-TE) and
routing (OSPF/ ISIS) protocols that are under IETF Routing Area.

WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG?

   This work fits in the context of [RFC 3209], [RFC 3473] and
extensions to these RFCs being defined in CCAMP.

RELATED REFERENCES

   See the reference section.

Table of Contents

4.1.      Graceful Shutdown of TE link(s).................................4
4.2.      Graceful Shutdown of Component Link(s) in a Bundled TE Link.....5
4.3.      Graceful Shutdown of TE Node....................................5
4.4.      Grace Period and Removal of Resource............................5
5.1.      Graceful Shutdown of TE link(s).................................5
5.2.      Graceful Shutdown of Component Link(s) in a Bundled TE Link.....6

Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 2                       6/14/2004


     draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt       June 2004



5.3.      Graceful Shutdown of TE Node....................................6
9.1.      Normative Reference.............................................7
9.2.      Informative Reference...........................................8


1.      Terminology

LSR - Label Switch Router

LSP - An MPLS Label Switched Path

Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: TE LSP whose Head-end LSR and Tail-end LSR do not
reside within the same Autonomous System (AS) or both Head-end LSR and
Tail-end LSR are in the same AS but the TE tunnel transiting path may
be across different ASes.

Inter-Area MPLS TE LSP: TE LSP whose Head-end LSR and Tail-end LSR do
not reside within the same IGP area/ level or both Head-end LSR and
Tail-end LSR are in the same area/ level but the TE tunnel transiting
path may be across different areas/ levels.

PCE: Path Computation Element whose function is to compute the path of a
TE LSP it is not the head-end for. The PCE may be an LSR (e.g ABR or
ASBR) in the context of some distributed PCE-based path computation
scenario as defined in [INTER-AREA-AS] or a centralized Path Computation
Element not forwarding packet.

2.      Introduction

Some of the outages in a network are planned, in which case protocols
extensions can be used so as to avoid traffic disruption by contrast
with unplanned network element failure, where traffic disruption can be
reduced but may not avoided. Hence, a Service Provider may desire to
gracefully (temporarily or definitely) remove a TE Link, a group of TE
Links or an entire node for administrative reasons such as link
maintenance or LSR software/hardware upgrade. In all these cases, the
goal is to minimize impact on the MPLS traffic engineered flows in the
network.

In an MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) enabled network, there are
currently no defined mechanisms to allow for graceful shutdown of
network resources (TE links or TE nodes). In this document, we describe
graceful shutdown mechanisms for MPLS Traffic Engineering network.
Specifically, this document proposes signaling and routing extensions
to alert the head-end LSR of the graceful shutdown events.

Graceful shutdown mechanisms allow for the rerouting of the affected TE
LSPs in a non disruptive fashion using the so-called make-before-break
technique. Furthermore, such mechanisms also prevent other network

Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 3                       6/14/2004


     draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt       June 2004



nodes to use network resources which are about to be shutdown, should
new TE LSP be set up.

3.      Applicability of IGP and RSVP-TE Mechanisms

An IGP based solution is not applicable when dealing with Inter-area
and Inter-AS traffic engineering, as LSA or LSP flooding is restricted
to IGP areas/levels. Consequently, RSVP based mechanisms are required
to cope with TE LSPs spanning multiple domains, where a domain is
defined as either an IGP area or an Autonomous System.

Nonetheless, RSVP mechanisms only convey the information for the
transiting LSPs to the router along the upstream Path and not to all
nodes in the network. Indication of graceful shutdown via IGP flooding
is required to discourage a node from establishing new LSPs through the
resources being shut-down.

The following sections specify OSPF/ISIS flooding and RSVP-TE signaling
procedures for graceful removal of resources.

4.      OSPF/ ISIS Mechanisms for graceful shutdown

The procedures provided in this section are equally applicable to OSPF
and ISIS.

4.1.    Graceful Shutdown of TE link(s)

The link-attribute sub-TLV defined in [OSPF-LINK-ATTRI] and [ISIS-LINK-
ATTRI] has been extended to allow a Service Provider to take a TE Link
or a group of TE Links out of service for administrative reasons.
Specifically, the node where graceful-shutdown of a link is desired
MUST originate the TE LSA/LSP containing link-attribute sub-TLV with
ôlocal maintenance requiredö bit set (see OSPF-LINK-ATTRI] and [ISIS-
LINK-ATTRI] for encoding details).

Extension to link attribute sub-TLV is preferred over use of MAX-METRIC
based solution, as links with MAX-METRIC bandwidth can be used as last
resort links in path computation. Nonetheless, to deal with LSRs not
compliant with this document, the node initiating graceful shutdown MAY
also originate the TE LSA/LSP containing Link TLV with 0 unreserved
bandwidth, Traffic Engineering metric set to 0xffffffff, and if the
Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max
LSP Bandwidth.

Neighbors of the node under graceful shutdown procedure (either at the
link, or a group of links) SHOULD continue advertise the actual
unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node,
without any routing adjacency change.


Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 4                       6/14/2004


     draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt       June 2004



The motivation behind procedure outlined in this section is to
discourage new LSP establishment through the resource being shutdown.
Hence, nodes receiving link-attribute sub-TLV with graceful shutdown
indication SHOULD mark the link as unusable for further path
computation in both directions.

4.2.    Graceful Shutdown of Component Link(s) in a Bundled TE Link

If graceful shutdown procedure is performed for a component link within
a TE Link bundle and it is not the last component link available within
the TE link, the link attributes associated with the TE link are
recomputed. If the removal of the component link results in a
significant change event, the TE link is re-flooded with the new
traffic parameters. If the last component link is being shut-down, the
routing procedure outlined in Section 4.1 is used.

4.3.    Graceful Shutdown of TE Node

In the event of Graceful Shutdown of the entire node, procedure
outlined in Section 4.1 is applied to all the links advertised by the
node under shutdown. Neighbors of the node under graceful shutdown
procedure SHOULD continue advertise the actual unreserved bandwidth on
the TE links from the neighbors to that node, without any routing
adjacency change.

4.4.    Grace Period and Removal of Resource

The node initiating the graceful shutdown condition SHOULD delay the
removal of resources in question for some period determined by local
policy. This is to allow other LSRs in the network to gracefully
reroute their TE LSP away from the resources being removed.

5.      RSVP-TE Signaling Mechanism for graceful shutdown

5.1.    Graceful Shutdown of TE link(s)

The ôlocal TE link maintenance requiredö error code as defined in
[PATH-REOPT] is used to explicitly signal graceful shutdown of a link
to the head-end LSR for triggering the reroute of an affected TE LSP.
Specifically, the node where graceful-shutdown of a link or a set of
links is desired MUST trigger a Path Error message with ôlocal link
maintenance requiredö sub-code for all affected LSPs. However, when a
GS operation is performed along the path of a protected LSP, the PLR
MAY trigger Fast Reroute [FRR] for the appropriate set of affected TE
LSPs and forward a Path Error with ôTunnel locally repairedö sub-code,
as per the procedures specified in [MPLS-FRR].

When a head-end node or an intermediate node (in the case of loose hops
path computation) or a PCE receives Path Error notify message with sub-
code "Local Maintenance on TE Link required Flag", it SHOULD

Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 5                       6/14/2004


     draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt       June 2004



immediately perform a make-before-break to avoid traffic loss. A head-
end router or an intermediate node (in the case of loose hops path
computation) or a PCE SHOULD avoid the IP address contained in the
PathErr in performing path computation for rerouting the LSP.

5.2.    Graceful Shutdown of Component Link(s) in a Bundled TE Link

MPLS TE Link Bundling draft [BUNDLE] requires that an LSP is pinned
down to component link(s). Hence, when a component link is shut-down,
the LSPs affected by such maintenance action needs to be re-signaled.

Graceful shutdown of a component link in a bundled TE link differs from
graceful shutdown of unbundled TE link or entire bundled TE link.
Specifically, in the former case, when only a subset of component links
and not the entire TE bundled link is being shutdown, the remaining
component links of the TE links may still be able to admit new LSPs.
Consequently a new error sub-code for Path Error - Notify Error is
needed:

      9 (TBA)      Local component link maintenance required

Error Sub-code for ôLocal component link maintenance requiredö is to be
assigned by IANA.

If the last component link is being shut-down, the procedure outlined
in Section 5.1 is used.

When a head-end node or an intermediate node (in the case of loose hops
path computation) or a PCE receives an RSVP Path Error notification
with sub-code "local component link maintenance requiredö Flag set, it
SHOULD immediately perform a make-before-break to avoid traffic loss.
The head-end router or an intermediate node (in the case of loose hops
path computation) or a PCE MAY NOT avoid the IP address contained in
the PathErr in performing path computation for rerouting the LSP. This
is because, as mentioned earlier, this address is an IP address of the
component link and the flag is an implicit indication that the TE link
may still have capacity to admit new LSPs. However, if the ERO is to be
computed such that it also provides details of the component link
selection(s) along the Path, the component link selection with IP
address contained in the PathErr SHOULD be avoided.

As in the case of singling for bundled TE link, the choice of the
component link to use is always made by the sender of the Path/REQUEST
message, a node receiving the Path Err with "Maintenance on component
link requiredö Flag set SHOULD mark the component link blocked for any
future selection.

5.3.    Graceful Shutdown of TE Node


Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 6                       6/14/2004


     draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt       June 2004



When graceful shutdown at node level is desired, the node in question
follows procedure specified in this section for all LSPs.

6.      Security Considerations

This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RSVP] remain
relevant.

7.      Intellectual Property Considerations

Cisco Systems may have intellectual property rights claimed in regard
to some of the specification contained in this document

8.      Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge useful comments from their
colleagues David Ward and Sami Boutros.

9.      Reference

9.1.     Normative Reference

[RSVP] Braden, et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Version
1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

[RSVP-TE] Awduche, et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
3209, December 2001.

[RFC3471] Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Functional Description, RFC 3471, L. Berger, et al, January 2003.

[RFC3473] L. Berger, et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473.

[OSPF-GMPLS] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, et al, ôOSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized MPLSö, draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-
12.txt.

[ISIS-GMPLS] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, et al, ôIS-IS Extensions in
Support of Generalized MPLSö, draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-19.txt.

[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-10.txt.

[ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt (work in progress).


Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 7                       6/14/2004


     draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt       June 2004



[MPLS-FRR] Ping Pan, George Swallow, Alia Atlas, et al ôFast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnelsö, draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-
fastreroute-05.txt.

[OSPF-CAP] Jean-Philippe Vasseur, P. Psenak, and S. Yasukawa, ôOSPF
MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilitiesö draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-
caps-00.txt.

[ISIS-CAP] Jean-Philippe Vasseur, S. Previdi, J. Mabey, and Jean-Louis
Le Roux, ôIS-IS MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilitiesö, draft-vasseur-
ccamp-isis-te-caps-00.txt.

[OSPF-LINK-ATTRI] work in progress.

[ISIS-LINK_ATTRI] Jean-Philippe Vasseur, S. Previdi, ôDefinition of an
IS-IS Link Attribute sub-TLVö, draft-vasseur-isis-link-attr-00.txt.

[PATH-REOPT] Jean-Philippe Vasseur, and Y. Ikejiri, ôReoptimization of
MPLS Traffic Engineering loosely routed LSP pathsö, draft-vasseur-
ccamp-loose-path-reopt-01.txt.

9.2.     Informative Reference

[INTER-AREA-AS] Adrian Farrel, Jean-Philippe Vasseur, Arthi Ayyangar,
ôA Framework for Inter-Domain MPLS Traffic Engineeringö, draft-farrel-
ccamp-inter-domain-framework-00.txt.

[BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Berger, L., "Link Bundling in
MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-mpls-bunle-04.txt (work in
progress)

Authors' Address:

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

Jean Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com

Anca Zamfir
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive

Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 8                       6/14/2004


     draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt       June 2004



Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada
ancaz@cisco.com















































Z. Ali, et al.                  Page 9                       6/14/2004


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/