wdiff rfc5037.original rfc5037.txt

Network Working Group Loa Andersson
Internet Draft Ina Minei
Expiration Date: February 2006 Bob Thomas L. Andersson, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5037 Acreo AB
Category: Informational Editors

August 2005 I. Minei, Ed.
Juniper Networks
B. Thomas, Ed.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
September 2007

Experience with the LDP protocol

draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-experience-00.txt Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)

Status of this This Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that 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 becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of

This memo provides information for 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. community. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list does
not specify an Internet standard of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list any kind. Distribution of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. this
memo is unlimited.

Abstract

The purpose of this memo is to document how some of the requirements
specified in RFC 1264 for advancing protocols developed by working
groups within the IETF Routing Area to Draft Standard have been
satisfied by LDP (Label Distribution Protocol). Specifically, this
report documents operational experience with LDP, requirement 5 of
section 5.0 in RFC 1264.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .......................................... 3
2 ....................................................2
2. Operational experience ................................ 3
2.1 Experience ..........................................2
2.1. Environment and duration .............................. 3
2.2 Duration ...................................2
2.2. Applications and motivation ........................... 4
2.3 Motivation ................................3
2.3. Protocol features ..................................... 4
2.4 Features ..........................................3
2.4. Security concerns ..................................... 4
2.5 Concerns ..........................................4
2.5. Implementations and inter-operability ................. 5
2.6 Inter-Operability ......................4
2.6. Operational experience ................................ 5
3 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 6
4 Experience .....................................4
3. Security Considerations .........................................5
4. Acknowledgments ....................................... 6
5 .................................................5
5. References ............................................ 7
5.1 ......................................................5
5.1. Normative References .................................. 7
5.2 .......................................5
5.2. Informative References ................................ 7
6 Editors' Addresses .................................... 7
Full Copyright Statement .............................. 8 .....................................6

1. Introduction

The purpose of this memo is to document how some of the requirements
specified in RFC 1264 [RFC1264] for advancing protocols developed by working
groups within the IETF Routing Area to Draft Standard have been sat-
isfied
satisfied by LDP. Specifically, this report documents operational expe-
rience
experience with LDP, requirement 5 of section 5.0 in RFC 1264.

LDP was originally published as RFC 3036 [RFC3036] in January 2001. It was
produced by the MPLS Working Group of the IETF and was jointly
authored by Loa Andersson, Paul Doolan, Nancy Feldman, Andre Fredette
Fredette, and Bob Thomas.

2. Operational experience Experience

This section discusses operational experience with the protocol. The
information is based on a survey sent to the MPLS Working Group in
October 2004. The questionnaire can be found in the MPLS Working
Group mail archives for October 2004.

11 responses were received, all but two 2 requesting confidentiality.
The survey results are summarized to maintain confidentiality. The
networks surveyed span different geographic locations: US, Europe Europe,
and Asia. Both academic and commercial networks responded to the
survey.

2.1. Environment and duration Duration

The size of the deployments ranges from less than 20 Label Switching
Routers (LSRs) to over 1000 LSRs. Eight out of the 11 deployments
use LDP in the edge and the core, two on the edge only only, and one in
the core only.

Sessions exist to peers discovered via both the basic and the
extended discovery mechanisms. In half the cases, more than one adja-
cency
adjacency (and as many as four adjacencies) are maintained per
session. The average number of LDP sessions on an LSR ranges from
under 10 to just over 80. The responses are spread out as follows:
under 10: 4 responses, 20-50: 4 responses, and over 80: 1 response.

In the surveyed networks, the time LDP has been deployed ranges from
under one 1 year to over 4 years. The responses are spread out as fol-
lows:
follows: under 1 year - year: 3 responses, 2 years - years: 2 responses, 3 years -3
responses years: 3
responses, and over 4 years - years: 3 responses.

2.2. Applications and motivation Motivation

Nine out of the 11 responses list L3VPNs Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks
(L3VPNs) as the application driving the LDP deployment in the
network.

The list of applications is as follows. follows: L3VPNs: 9, pseudo-wires: pseudowires: 4
current (and one planned deployment), L2VPNs: 4, forwarding based on
labels: 2, and BGP-free core: 1 1.

There are two major options for label distribution protocols, LDP and
RSVP-TE.
Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). One of
the key differences between the two is that RSVP-TE has support for Traffic Engineering (TE),
traffic engineering, while LDP does not. The reasons cited for
picking LDP as the label distribution protocol are:

o The deployment does not require traffic engineering - 6

o Inter-operability concerns if a different protocol is used - 5

o Equipment vendor only supports LDP - 5

o Ease of configuration - 4

o Ease of management - 3

o Scalability concerns with other protocols - 3

o Required for a service offering of the service provider - 1

2.3. Protocol features Features

All deployments surveyed use the downstream unsolicited label distri-
bution Downstream Unsolicited Label
Distribution mode. All but one deployment use liberal label Liberal Label
retention (one uses conservative).

LSP setup is established with both independent and ordered control. Ordered Control.
Five of the deployments use both control modes in the same network.

The number of LDP FECs Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) advertised
and LDP routes installed falls in one of two categories: 1) roughly
the same as the number of LSRs in the network and 2) roughly the same
as the number of IGP routes in the network. Of the 8 responses that
were received. received, 6 were in the first category and 2 in the second.

2.4. Security concerns Concerns

A security concern was raised by one of the operators with respect to
the lack of a mechanism for securing LDP Hellos.

2.5. Implementations and inter-operability Inter-Operability

Eight out of the 11 responses state that more than one implementation
(and as many as four different ones) are deployed in the same net-
work.
network.

The consensus is that although implementations differ, no inter-oper-
ability inter-
operability issues exist. The challenges listed by providers running mul-
tiple
multiple implementations are:

o Different flexibility in picking for which FECs to advertise labels
for.
labels.

o Different flexibility in setting transport and LDP router-id
addresses.

o Different default utilization of LDP labels for traffic resolu-
tion.
resolution. Some vendors use LDP for both VPN and IPv4 traffic forward-
ing,
forwarding, while other vendors allow only VPN traffic to
resolve via LDP. The challenge is to restrict the utilization
of LDP labels to VPN traffic in a mixed-vendor environment.

o Understanding the differences in the implementations.

2.6. Operational experience Experience

In general, operators reported stable implementations and steady
improvement in resiliency to failure and convergence times over the
years. Some operators reported that no issues were found with the
protocol since deploying.

The operational issues reported fall in three categories:

1. Configuration issues. Both the session and adjacency endpoints
must be allowed by the firewall filters. Misconfiguration of
the filters causes sessions to drop (if already established) or
not to establish.

2. Vendor bugs. These include traffic blackholing, unnecessary
label withdrawals and changes, session resets resets, and problems
migrating from older versions of the technology. Most reports
stated that the problems reported occurred in early versions of
the implementations.

3. Protocol issues.

- The synchronization required between LDP and the IGP was
listed as the main protocol issue. Two issues were reported.
reported: 1) Slow slow convergence, due to the fact that LDP
convergence time is tied to the IGP convergence time. time, and 2) Traffic
traffic blackholing on a link-up event. When an interface
comes up, the LDP session may come up slower than the IGP
session. This results in dropping MPLS traf-
fic traffic for a link-up link-
up event (not a failure but a restoration). This issue is
described in more detail in [LDP-SYNC].

- Silent failures. Failure not being propagated to the head
end of the LSP when setting up LSPs using independent
control.

3. Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope Security Considerations

This document is a survey of experiences from deployment of LDP
implementations; it does not specify any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of protocol behavior. Thus,
security issues introduced by the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might are not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assur-
ances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org. discussed.

4. Acknowledgments

The editors would like to thank the operators who participated in the
survey for their valuable input: Shane Amante, Niclas Comstedt, Bruno
Decraene, Mourad Kaddache, Kam Lee Yap, Lei Wang Wang, and Otto Kreiter.
Not all who participated are listed here, due to confidentiality
requests. Those listed have given their consent.

Also, a big thank you to Scott Bradner Bradner, who acted as an independent
third party ensuring anonymity of the responses.

The editors would like to thank Rajiv Papneja, Halit Ustundag Ustundag, and
Loa Andersson for their input to the survey questionnaire.

5. References

5.1. Normative References

[RFC1264] Hinden, R., "Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Rout-
ing
Routing Protocol Standardization Criteria", RFC 1264,
October 1991.

[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. A., and
B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.

[RFC3815] Cucchiara,J., Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H. H., and J. Luciani, J., "Definitions
of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3815, June
2004.

5.2. Informative References

[RFC1321] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm," Algorithm", RFC 1321,
April 1992.

[LDP-SYNC] Jork, M., Atlas, A. A., and L. Fang, L., "LDP IGP Synchroniza-
tion", draft-jork-ldp-igp-sync-00

6.
Synchronization", Work in Progress, July 2007.

Editors' Addresses

Loa Andersson
Acreo AB
Isafjordsgatan 22
Kista, Sweden
email:
EMail: loa.andersson@acreo.se
loa@pi.se

Ina Minei
Juniper Networks
1194 N.Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
e-mail:
EMail: ina@juniper.net

Bob Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
email:
EMail: rhthomas@cisco.com

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

Additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents
except in the case where such document is the product of a joint
development effort between the IETF and another standards development
organization or the document is a republication of the work of
another standards organization. Such exceptions must be approved on
an individual basis by the IAB.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFOR-
MATION INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

Funding for

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC Editor function is currently provided documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the
Internet Society. IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.