mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing
draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-09

MPLS Working Group                                          IJ. Wijnands
Internet-Draft                                                Individual
Updates: 7307 (if approved)                           M. Mishra (Editor)
Intended status: Standards Track                                 K. Raza
Expires: 21 November 2024                            Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                Z. Zhang
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                                A. Gulko
                                          Edward Jones wealth management
                                                             20 May 2024

               mLDP Extensions for Multi-Topology Routing
                 draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-09

Abstract

   Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) is a technology to enable service
   differentiation within an IP network.  Flexible Algorithm (FA) is
   another mechanism of creating a sub-topology within a topology using
   defined topology constraints and computation algorithm.  In order to
   deploy mLDP (Multipoint label distribution protocol) in a network
   that supports MTR, FA, or other methods of signaling non-default IGP
   algorithms, mLDP is required to become topology and algorithm aware.
   This document specifies extensions to mLDP to support MTR, with an
   algorithm, in order for Multipoint LSPs(Label Switched Paths) to
   follow a particular topology and algorithm.  It updates [RFC7307] by
   allocating eight bits from a previously reserved field to be used as
   the IGP Algorithm (IPA) field.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 November 2024.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Glossary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  MT Scoped mLDP FECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  MP FEC Extensions for MT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  MP FEC Element  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  MT IP Address Families  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.3.  MT MP FEC Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Topology IDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  MT Multipoint Capability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  MT Applicability on FEC-based features  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Typed Wildcard MP FEC Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  End-of-LIB  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Topology-Scoped Signaling and Forwarding  . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.1.  Upstream LSR selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Downstream forwarding interface selection . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  LSP Ping Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.1.  Cisco Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Glossary

      FA - Flexible Algorithm

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

      FEC - Forwarding Equivalence Class

      IGP - Interior Gateway Protocol

      IPA - IGP Algorithm

      LDP - Label Distribution Protocol

      LSP - Label Switched Path

      mLDP - Multipoint LDP

      MP - Multipoint (P2MP or MP2MP)

      MP2MP - Multipoint-to-Multipoint

      MT - Multi-Topology

      MT-ID - Multi-Topology Identifier

      MTR - Multi-Topology Routing

      MVPN - Multicast over Virtual Private Network defined in section
      2.3 of [RFC6513]

      P2MP - Point-to-Multipoint

      PMSI - Provider Multicast Service Interfaces [RFC6513]

2.  Introduction

   Multi-Topology Routing (MTR) is a technology to enable service
   differentiation within an IP network.  IGP protocols (OSPF and IS-IS)
   and LDP have already been extended to support MTR.  To support MTR,
   an IGP maintains independent IP topologies, termed as "Multi-
   Topologies" (MT), and computes/installs routes per topology.  OSPF
   extensions [RFC4915] and IS-IS extensions [RFC5120] specify the MT
   extensions under respective IGPs.  To support IGP MT, similar LDP
   extensions [RFC7307] have been specified to make LDP MT-aware and be
   able to setup unicast Label Switched Paths (LSPs) along IGP MT
   routing paths.

   A more lightweight mechanism to define constraint-based topologies is
   the Flexible Algorithm (FA) [RFC9350].  FA can be seen as creating a
   sub-topology within a topology using defined topology constraints and
   computation algorithms.  This can be done within an MTR topology or
   the default Topology.  An instance of such a sub-topology is
   identified by a 1 octet value (Flex-Algorithm) as documented in

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

   [RFC9350].  A flexible Algorithm is a mechanism to create a sub-
   topology, but in the future, different algorithms might be defined
   for how to achieve that.  For that reason, in the remainder of this
   document, we'll refer to this as the IGP Algorithm.  The IGP
   Algorithm (IPA) Field Section 4.1.2 Section 6.1 is an 8-bit
   identifier for the algorithm.  The permissible values are tracked in
   the IANA IGP Algorithm Types registry [IANA-IGP-ALGO-TYPES].

   Throughout this document, the term Flexible Algorithm (FA) shall
   denote the process of generating a sub-topology and signaling it
   through Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).  However, it is essential to
   note that the procedures outlined in this document are not
   exclusively applicable to Flexible Algorithm but are extendable to
   any non-default algorithm as well.

   Multipoint LDP (mLDP) refers to extensions in LDP to setup multi-
   point LSPs (point-to-multipoint (P2MP) or multipoint-to-multipoint
   (MP2MP)), by means of a set of extensions and procedures defined in
   [RFC6388].  In order to deploy mLDP in a network that supports MTR
   and FA, mLDP is required to become topology and algorithm aware.
   This document specifies extensions to mLDP to support MTR/IGP
   Algorithm such that when building a Multi-Point LSPs it can follow a
   particular topology and algorithm.  This means that the identifier
   for the particular topology to be used by mLDP have to become a
   2-tuple (MTR Topology Id, IGP Algorithm).

3.  Specification of Requirements

   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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

4.  MT Scoped mLDP FECs

   As defined in [RFC7307], MPLS Multi-Topology Identifier (MT-ID) is an
   identifier that is used to associate an LSP with a certain MTR
   topology.  In the context of MP LSPs, this identifier is part of the
   mLDP FEC encoding so that LDP peers are able to setup an MP LSP via
   their own defined MTR policy.  In order to avoid conflicting MTR
   policies for the same mLDP FEC, the MT-ID needs to be a part of the
   FEC, so that different MT-ID values will result in unique MP-LSP FEC
   elements.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

   The same applies to the IGP Algorithm.  The IGP Algorithm needs to be
   encoded as part of the mLDP FEC to create unique MP-LSPs.  The IGP
   Algorithm is also used to signal to mLDP (hop-by-hop) which Algorithm
   needs to be used to create the MP-LSP.

   Since the MT-ID and IGP Algorithm are part of the FEC, they apply to
   all the LDP messages that potentially include an mLDP FEC element.

4.1.  MP FEC Extensions for MT

   The following subsections define the extensions to bind an mLDP FEC
   to a topology.  These mLDP MT extensions reuse some of the extensions
   specified in [RFC7307].

4.1.1.  MP FEC Element

   Base mLDP specification [RFC6388] defines MP FEC Element as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | MP FEC type   |       Address Family          |    AF Length  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                Root Node Address                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Opaque Length              |       Opaque Value            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      ~                                                               ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 1: MP FEC Element Format [RFC6388]

   Where the "Root Node Address" encoding is defined according to the
   given "Address Family" with its length (in octets) specified by the
   "AF Length" field.

   To extend MP FEC elements for MT, the {MT-ID, IPA} tuple is relevant
   in the context of the root address of the MP LSP.  This tuple
   determines the (sub)-topology in which the root address needs to be
   resolved.  As the {MT-ID, IPA} tuple should be considered part of the
   mLDP FEC, it is most naturally encoded as part of the root address.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

4.1.2.  MT IP Address Families

   [RFC7307] specifies new address families, named "MT IP" and "MT
   IPv6," to allow for the specification of an IP prefix within a
   topology scope.  In addition to using these address families for
   mLDP, 8 bits of the 16-bit Reserved field are utilized to encode the
   IGP Algorithm.  The resulting format of the data associated with
   these new Address Families is as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     IPv4 Address                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Reserved   |      IPA      |        MT-ID                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     IPv6 Address                              |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Reserved   |      IPA      |        MT-ID                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 2: Modified MT IP Address Families Data Format

   Where:

      IPv4/IPv6 Address: An IP address corresponding to "MT IP" and "MT
      IPv6" address families respectively.

      IPA: The IGP Algorithm.

      Reserved: This 8-bit field MUST be zero on transmission and MUST
      be ignored on receipt.

4.1.3.  MT MP FEC Element

   By using the extended MT IP Address Family, the resulting MT MP FEC
   element should be encoded as follows:

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

      0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | MP FEC type   |  AF (MT IP/ MT IPv6)          |    AF Length  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Root Node Address                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Reserved   |      IPA      |        MT-ID                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Opaque Length              |       Opaque Value            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      ~                                                               ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                Figure 3: IP MT-Scoped MP FEC Element Format

   In the context of this document, the applicable LDP FECs for MT mLDP
   ([RFC6388]) include:

   *  MP FEC Elements:

      -  P2MP (type 0x6)

      -  MP2MP-up (type 0x7)

      -  MP2MP-down (type 0x8)

   *  Typed Wildcard FEC Element (type 0x5 defined in [RFC5918] )

   In case of "Typed Wildcard FEC Element", the FEC Element type MUST be
   one of the MP FECs listed above.

   This specification allows the use of Topology-scoped mLDP FECs in LDP
   label and notification messages, as applicable.

   [RFC6514] defines the PMSI tunnel attribute for MVPN, and specifies
   that when the Tunnel Type is set to mLDP P2MP LSP, the Tunnel
   Identifier is a P2MP FEC Element, and when the Tunnel Type is set to
   mLDP Multipoint-to-Multipoint (MP2MP) LSP, the Tunnel Identifier is
   an MP2MP FEC Element.  When the extension defined in this
   specification is in use, the "IP MT-Scoped MP FEC Element Format"
   form of the respective FEC elements MUST be used in these two cases.

4.2.  Topology IDs

   This document assumes the same definitions and procedures associated
   with MPLS MT-ID as specified in [RFC7307] specification.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

5.  MT Multipoint Capability

   The "MT Multipoint Capability" is a new LDP capability, defined in
   accordance with the LDP Capability definition guidelines outlined in
   [RFC5561].  An mLDP speaker advertises this capability to its peers
   to announce its support for MTR and the procedures specified in this
   document.  This capability MAY be sent either in an Initialization
   message at session establishment or dynamically during the session's
   lifetime via a Capability message, provided that the "Dynamic
   Announcement" capability from [RFC5561] has been successfully
   negotiated with the peer.

   The format of this capability is as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |U|F|  MT Multipoint Capability |            Length             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |S| Reserved    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 4: MT Multipoint Capability TLV Format

   Where:

      U- and F-bits: MUST be 1 and 0, respectively, as per Section 3 of
      LDP Capabilities [RFC5561].

      MT Multipoint Capability: TLV type.

      Length: The length (in octets) of TLV.  The value of this field
      MUST be 1 as there is no Capability-specific data [RFC5561] that
      follows in the TLV.  Length: This field specifies the length of
      the TLV in octets.  The value of this field MUST be 1, as there is
      no Capability-specific data [[RFC5561]] following the TLV.

      S-bit: Set to 1 to announce and 0 to withdraw the capability (as
      per [RFC5561].

   An mLDP speaker that has successfully advertised and negotiated "MT
   Multipoint" capability MUST support the following:

   1.  Topology-scoped mLDP FECs in LDP messages (Section 4.1)

   2.  Topology-scoped mLDP forwarding setup (Section 7)

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

6.  MT Applicability on FEC-based features

6.1.  Typed Wildcard MP FEC Elements

   [RFC5918] extends base LDP and defines Typed Wildcard FEC Element
   framework.  Typed Wildcard FEC element can be used in any LDP message
   to specify a wildcard operation for a given type of FEC.

   The MT extensions, defined in this document, do not require any
   extension to procedures for Typed Wildcard FEC Element support
   [RFC5918], and these procedures apply as-is to Multipoint MT FEC
   wildcarding.  Similar to Typed Wildcard MT Prefix FEC Element, as
   defined in [RFC7307], the MT extensions allow the use of "MT IP" or
   "MT IPv6" in the Address Family field of the Typed Wildcard MP FEC
   element.  This is done in order to use wildcard operations for MP
   FECs in the context of a given (sub)-topology as identified by the
   MT-ID and IPA field.

   This document defines the following format and encoding for a Typed
   Wildcard MP FEC element:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Typed Wcard (5)| Type = MP FEC |   Len = 6     |  AF = MT IP ..|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |... or MT IPv6 |    Reserved   |      IPA      |     MT-ID     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |MT ID (contd.) |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                 Figure 5: Typed Wildcard MT MP FEC Element

   Where:

      Type: One of MP FEC Element type (P2MP, MP2MPup, MP2MP-down).

      MT ID: MPLS MT ID

      IPA: The IGP Algorithm

   The defined format allows an LSR to perform wildcard MP FEC
   operations under the scope of a (sub-)topology.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

6.2.  End-of-LIB

   [RFC5919] specifies extensions and procedures that allow an LDP
   speaker to signal its End-of-LIB for a given FEC type to a peer.  By
   leveraging the End-of-LIB message, LDP ensures that label
   distribution remains consistent and reliable, even during network
   disruptions or maintenance activities.  The MT extensions for MP FEC
   do not require any modifications to these procedures and apply as-is
   to MT MP FEC elements.  Consequently, an MT mLDP speaker MAY signal
   its convergence per (sub-)topology using the MT Typed Wildcard MP FEC
   element.

7.  Topology-Scoped Signaling and Forwarding

   Since the {MT-ID, IPA} tuple is part of an mLDP FEC, there is no need
   to support the concept of multiple (sub-)topology forwarding tables
   in mLDP.  Each MP LSP will be unique due to the tuple being part of
   the FEC.  There is also no need to have specific label forwarding
   tables per topology, and each MP LSP will have its own unique local
   label in the table.  However, In order to implement MTR in an mLDP
   network, the selection procedures for upstream LSR and downstream
   forwarding interface need to be changed.

7.1.  Upstream LSR selection

   The procedures as described in RFC-6388 section-2.4.1.1 depend on the
   best path to reach the root.  When the {MT-ID, IPA} tuple is signaled
   as part of the FEC, this tuple is used to select the (sub-)topology
   that must be used to find the best path to the root address.  Using
   the next-hop from this best path, a LDP peer is selected following
   the procedures as defined in [RFC6388].

7.2.  Downstream forwarding interface selection

   The procedures as described in RFC-6388 section-2.4.1.2 describe how
   a downstream forwarding interface is selected.  In these procedures,
   any interface leading to the downstream LDP neighbor can be
   considered as candidate forwarding interface.  When the {MT-ID, IPA}
   tuple is part of the FEC, this is no longer true.  An interface must
   only be selected if it is part of the same (sub-)topology that was
   signaled in the mLDP FEC element.  Besides this restriction, the
   other procedures in [RFC6388] apply.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

8.  LSP Ping Extensions

   [RFC6425] defines procedures to detect data plane failures in
   Multipoint MPLS LSPs.  Section 3.1.2 of [RFC6425] defines new Sub-
   Types and Sub-TLVs for Multipoint LDP FECs to be sent in "Target FEC
   Stack" TLV of an MPLS echo request message [RFC8029].

   To support LSP ping for MT Multipoint LSPs, this document uses
   existing sub-types "P2MP LDP FEC Stack" and "MP2MP LDP FEC Stack"
   defined in [RFC6425].  The LSP Ping extension is to specify "MT IP"
   or "MT IPv6" in the "Address Family" field, set the "Address Length"
   field to 8 (for MT IP) or 20 (for MT IPv6), and encode the sub-TLV
   with additional {MT-ID, IPA} information as an extension to the "Root
   LSR Address" field.  The resultant format of sub-tlv is as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Address Family (MT IP/MT IPv6) | Address Length|               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               |
      ~                   Root LSR Address (Cont.)                    ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Reserved   |      IPA      |        MT-ID                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Opaque Length          |         Opaque Value ...      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      ~                                                               ~
      |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

          Figure 6: Multipoint LDP FEC Stack Sub-TLV Format for MT

   The rules and procedures of using this new sub-TLV in an MPLS echo
   request message are the same as defined for P2MP/MP2MP LDP FEC Stack
   Sub-TLV in [RFC6425].  The only difference is that the Root LSR
   address is now (sub-)topology scoped.

9.  Implementation Status

   [Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
   well as remove the reference to [RFC7942]

   This section records the status of known implementations of the
   protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
   Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942] .
   The description of implementations in this section is intended to

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

   assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
   RFCs.  Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
   here does not imply endorsement by the IETF.  Furthermore, no effort
   has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
   supplied by IETF contributors.  This is not intended as, and must not
   be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
   features.  Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
   exist.

   According to [RFC7942] , "this will allow reviewers and working
   groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit
   of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
   experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
   more mature.  It is up to the individual working groups to use this
   information as they see fit".

9.1.  Cisco Systems

   The feature has been implemented on IOS-XR.

   *  Organization: Cisco Systems

   *  Implementation: Cisco systems IOS-XR has an implementation.
      Capability has been used from [RFC7307] and plan to update the
      value once IANA assigns new value.

   *  Description: The implementation has been done.

   *  Maturity Level: Product

   *  Contact: mankamis@cisco.com

10.  Security Considerations

   This extension to mLDP does not introduce any new security
   considerations beyond that already applied to the base LDP
   specification [RFC5036], LDP extensions for Multi-Topology
   specification [RFC7307] base mLDP specification [RFC6388], and MPLS
   security framework [RFC5920].

11.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines a new LDP capability parameter TLV.  IANA is
   requested to assign the lowest available value after 0x0500 from "TLV
   Type Name Space" in the "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
   Parameters" registry within "Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Name
   Spaces" as the new code point for the LDP TLV code point.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

    +-----+------------------+---------------+-------------------------+
    |Value| Description      | Reference     | Notes/Registration Date |
    +-----+------------------+---------------+-------------------------+
    | TBA | MT Multipoint    | This document |                         |
    |     | Capability       |               |                         |
    +-----+------------------+---------------+-------------------------+

                       Figure 7: IANA Code Point

12.  Contributor

   Anuj Budhiraja Cisco systems

13.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to acknowledge Eric Rosen for his input on
   this specification.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4915]  Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
              Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
              RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC4915, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4915>.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.

   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
              Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
              to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

   [RFC6425]  Saxena, S., Ed., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A.,
              Yasukawa, S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane
              Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP
              Ping", RFC 6425, DOI 10.17487/RFC6425, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6425>.

   [RFC6513]  Rosen, E., Ed. and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Multicast in MPLS/
              BGP IP VPNs", RFC 6513, DOI 10.17487/RFC6513, February
              2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6513>.

   [RFC6514]  Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
              Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
              VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.

   [RFC7307]  Zhao, Q., Raza, K., Zhou, C., Fang, L., Li, L., and D.
              King, "LDP Extensions for Multi-Topology", RFC 7307,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7307, July 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7307>.

   [RFC7942]  Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
              Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
              RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.

   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9350]  Psenak, P., Ed., Hegde, S., Filsfils, C., Talaulikar, K.,
              and A. Gulko, "IGP Flexible Algorithm", RFC 9350,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9350, February 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9350>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [IANA-IGP-ALGO-TYPES]
              "IGP Algorithm Types", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
              igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types>.

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
              "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
              October 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.

   [RFC5561]  Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL.
              Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5561, July 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5561>.

   [RFC5918]  Asati, R., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
              Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class
              (FEC)", RFC 5918, DOI 10.17487/RFC5918, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5918>.

   [RFC5919]  Asati, R., Mohapatra, P., Chen, E., and B. Thomas,
              "Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion", RFC 5919,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5919, August 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5919>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

Authors' Addresses

   IJsbrand Wijnands
   Individual
   Email: ice@braindump.be

   Mankamana Mishra
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   821 Alder Drive
   Milpitas, CA 95035
   United States of America
   Email: mankamis@cisco.com

   Kamran Raza
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata ON K2K-3E8
   Canada
   Email: skraza@cisco.com

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft             Multi-Topology mLDP                  May 2024

   Zhaohui Zhang
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Dr.
   Westford,  MA 01886
   United States of America
   Email: zzhang@juniper.net

   Arkadiy Gulko
   Edward Jones wealth management
   United States of America
   Email: Arkadiy.gulko@edwardjones.com

Wijnands, et al.        Expires 21 November 2024               [Page 16]