]> Ericsson

Bangalore India anush.mohan@ericsson.com

Ericsson

Bangalore India anupkumar.t@ericsson.com

Network This document is intended for clarification of LDP behaviour of link-down scenarios. Base LDP RFC5036 lacks sufficient clarity on what an LDP enabled node should be doing when a link down event is received, and the only LDP adjacency for an LDP peer is over this link. Different vendors have handled this scenario differently, with some immediately resetting tcp session with neighbour and some waiting for igp recovergence instead of reacting directly to link events. With this document we intend to clarify the expected behaviour explicitly so that any interop issues can be avoided.

details LDP specification and procedures to be followed by LDP implementations. However, for some scenarios like link down, the rfc isn’t particularly clear as what to implementation is supposed to do. This could lead to interop issues when routers when different vendors are part of the network. More details are given in the problem description section below. A possible solution is also suggested in the subsequent section.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. LDP: Label distribution protocol. GR: Graceful-restart.

Consider the following topology:

All the nodes here are LDP enabled and also support GR. We have an lsp from C-E via C-A-E path(this is igp bestpath). IGP has also computed LFA backup for this primary-lsp via C-D-B-A-E path and we have LDP lfa backup as well (taking this path). Now, lets bring down A-C link. Node A has detected link-shut event and since this link is the only adjacency to LDP-neighbor C, it resets the LDP session and sends shutdown to neighbour C. At node-C, the link-down event is detected bit late and subsequently the IGP update is also delayed. Meanwhile, C has received shutdown from peer A, and it that results in flushing all labels received from A. Since the primary-label for C-E lsp is no longer available (from A), the lsp itself is deleted by LDP, as LDP can’t be congruent with IGP. This LDP-lsp flap can in turn impact l3vpn/l2vpn routes which are dependent on this LSP. We can definitely reduce traffic-loss by running BFD and switching traffic to lfa backup in forwarding, but the intention above is to highlight that IGP updates and subsequently LDP updates would be asynchronous at nodes A and C, which may be more prominent if there are routers with different capabilities (and maybe from different vendors) in the network. So even if traffic has moved to lfa-backup lsp in forwarding, the primary-lsp itself could be deleted by the shutdown message (which is a fatal error).

When a node has LDP adjacency to its neighbour (With GR enabled on both nodes) over a ‘single’ directly connected link and that link goes down, the node MAY reset the tcp session with neighbor. However, it MUST NOT send shutdown message, which flushes advertised labels at neighbor immediately. The neighbor itself could have different backup mechanisms (ldp-lfa or rsvp-bypass) to ensure minimal traffic loss in forwarding for lsps having this node as active(primary)-path. Transmitting shutdown message immediately could result in neighbor prematurely deleting LSPs instead of letting IGP recoverge. Another approach could be to avoid reacting immediately to link down events. Instead, let hello timeout bringdown the session and update LSP-paths as soon as IGP reconverges. Both approaches can help to avoid traffic loss by accounting for asynchronous ordering of events in LDP-peering routers.

The security considerations described in RFC5036 apply to this document.

.

&rfc2119; &rfc5036; &rfc3478; &rfc8174;