Network Working Group                                      Loa Andersson
Internet Draft                                                 Ina Minei
Expiration Date: March 2005                                   Bob Thomas
                                                                 Editors

                                                          September 2004


                           LDP Specification


                   draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, we certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which we are aware have been disclosed,
   or will be disclosed, and any of which we become aware will be
   disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.

   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.


How to read this document

   This section will be removed prior to publication.

   This document is produced as part of advancing the LDP specification
   to draft standard status.  This document contains the original text
   of RFC3036, with a few changes that are the result of the experience
   gained with the protocol.




Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 1]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Sections that changed from RFC3036 are marked ### in the body of this
   document, to facilitate the review process. The marking will be
   removed prior to publication.

   A list of changes from RFC 3036 is also included. This list will
   remain in the final version of the document, but will move towards
   the end of the document.


Source of this document

   ###

   This document is produced as part of advancing the LDP specification
   to draft standard status.  The LDP specification was originally
   published as RFC 3036 in January 2001.  It was produced by the MPLS
   working of the IETF and was jointly authored by Loa Andersson, Paul
   Doolan, Nancy Feldman, Andre Fredette and Bob Thomas.

   ###


Changes from RFC3036

   ###

   Here is a list of changes from RFC3036

      1. Split the reference list into normative and non-normative
         references
      2. Removed "MPLS using ATM VP Switching" from the list of
         normative references.
      3. Clarified the use of the F bit.
      4. Added option to allow split horizon when doing ordered control.
      5. Clarified the processing of messages with the U-bit set during
         the session initialization procedures
      6. Clarified the processing of the E-bit during session
         initialization procedures.
      7. Added case for TLV length too short in the specification for
         handling malformed TLVs.
      8. Clarified the use of the Wildcard FEC in label request
         messages.
      9. In the section describing handling of unknown TLV, removed
         reference to inexistent section (errata in original document)
     10. In the "receive label request" procedures, if a loop is
         detected, changed the procedure to send a notification before
         aborting the rest of the processing.




Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 2]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


     11. In "receive label release" procedures, clarified the behavior
         for merge-capable LSRs.
     12. In "receive label release" procedures, clarified the behavior
         for receipt of an unknown FEC.
     13. In note 4 of "Detect Change in FEC Next Hop", modified the text
         to reference the correct set of conditions for sending a label
         request procedure (typo in the original document)
     14. In the procedures for "LSR decides to no longer label switch a
         FEC", clarified the fact that the label must not be reused
         until a label release is received.
     15. In the routine "Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes" added a note
         regarding the treatment of unknown TLVs according to their U
         and F bits.
     16. In the address message processing procedures, clarified the
         behavior for the case where an LSR receives re-advertisement of
         an address previously advertised it, or withdrawal of an
         address from an LSR that has not previously advertised that
         address.
     17.  In the routine "Receive Label Mapping" clarified the meaning
         of PrevAdvLabel when no label advertisement message has been
         sent previously.
     18. In the "receive label mapping" procedures, if a loop is
         detected, modified the procedure to send a notification before
         aborting the rest of the processing.
     19. In  the "receive label mapping" procedures, corrected step
         LMp.10 to handle label mapping messages for additional (non-
         merged) LSPs for the FEC.
     20. In  the "receive label mapping" procedures, removed unnecessary
         checks in step LMp.29.
     21. In the routine "Receive Label Abort Request" clarified the
         behavior for non-merging LSRs.
     22. Added the following items to the section discussing areas for
         future study:
     o extensions for communicating the maximum transmission unit
     o basic peer discovery on NBMA media
     o option of shutting down an adjacency
     o mechanisms for securing Hello messages
     o detection of a stateless fast control plane restart
     o o support of "end of LIB" message
     o mechanisms for dealing with the case where different LSRs
       advertise the same address.

   ####








Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 3]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


Abstract

   The architecture for Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is
   described in RFC 3031.  A fundamental concept in MPLS is that two
   Label Switching Routers (LSRs) must agree on the meaning of the
   labels used to forward traffic between and through them.  This common
   understanding is achieved by using a set of procedures, called a
   label distribution protocol, by which one LSR informs another of
   label bindings it has made.  This document defines a set of such
   procedures called LDP (for Label Distribution Protocol) by which LSRs
   distribute labels to support MPLS forwarding along normally routed
   paths.







































Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 4]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


Table of Contents

            How to read this document  .............................   1
            Source of this document  ...............................   2
            Changes from RFC3036  ..................................   2
 1          LDP Overview  ..........................................   9
 1.1        LDP Peers  .............................................  10
 1.2        LDP Message Exchange  ..................................  10
 1.3        LDP Message Structure  .................................  11
 1.4        LDP Error Handling  ....................................  11
 1.5        LDP Extensibility and Future Compatibility  ............  11
 1.6        Specification Language  ................................  11
 2          LDP Operation  .........................................  12
 2.1        FECs  ..................................................  12
 2.2        Label Spaces, Identifiers, Sessions and Transport  .....  13
 2.2.1      Label Spaces  ..........................................  13
 2.2.2      LDP Identifiers  .......................................  14
 2.2.3      LDP Sessions  ..........................................  14
 2.2.4      LDP Transport  .........................................  15
 2.3        LDP Sessions between non-Directly Connected LSRs  ......  15
 2.4        LDP Discovery  .........................................  15
 2.4.1      Basic Discovery Mechanism  .............................  16
 2.4.2      Extended Discovery Mechanism  ..........................  16
 2.5         Establishing and Maintaining LDP Sessions  ............  17
 2.5.1      LDP Session Establishment  .............................  17
 2.5.2      Transport Connection Establishment  ....................  17
 2.5.3      Session Initialization  ................................  19
 2.5.4      Initialization State Machine  ..........................  21
 2.5.5      Maintaining Hello Adjacencies  .........................  24
 2.5.6      Maintaining LDP Sessions  ..............................  24
 2.6        Label Distribution and Management  .....................  25
 2.6.1      Label Distribution Control Mode  .......................  25
 2.6.1.1    Independent Label Distribution Control  ................  25
 2.6.1.2    Ordered Label Distribution Control  ....................  25
 2.6.2      Label Retention Mode  ..................................  26
 2.6.2.1    Conservative Label Retention Mode  .....................  26
 2.6.2.2    Liberal Label Retention Mode  ..........................  27
 2.6.3      Label Advertisement Mode  ..............................  27
 2.7        LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses  ................  27
 2.8        Loop Detection  ........................................  28
 2.8.1      Label Request Message  .................................  29
 2.8.2      Label Mapping Message  .................................  30
 2.8.3      Discussion  ............................................  32
 2.9        Authenticity and Integrity of LDP Messages  ............  32
 2.9.1      TCP MD5 Signature Option  ..............................  33
 2.9.2      LDP Use of TCP MD5 Signature Option  ...................  34
 2.10       Label Distribution for Explicitly Routed LSPs  .........  35
 3          Protocol Specification  ................................  35



Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 5]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


 3.1        LDP PDUs  ..............................................  35
 3.2        LDP Procedures  ........................................  36
 3.3        Type-Length-Value Encoding  ............................  37
 3.4        TLV Encodings for Commonly Used Parameters  ............  39
 3.4.1      FEC TLV  ...............................................  39
 3.4.1.1    FEC Procedures  ........................................  42
 3.4.2      Label TLVs  ............................................  42
 3.4.2.1    Generic Label TLV  .....................................  42
 3.4.2.2    ATM Label TLV  .........................................  43
 3.4.2.3    Frame Relay Label TLV  .................................  43
 3.4.3      Address List TLV  ......................................  44
 3.4.4      Hop Count TLV  .........................................  45
 3.4.4.1    Hop Count Procedures  ..................................  45
 3.4.5      Path Vector TLV  .......................................  47
 3.4.5.1    Path Vector Procedures  ................................  47
 3.4.5.1.1  Label Request Path Vector  .............................  47
 3.4.5.1.2  Label Mapping Path Vector  .............................  49
 3.4.6      Status TLV  ............................................  50
 3.5        LDP Messages  ..........................................  52
 3.5.1      Notification Message  ..................................  54
 3.5.1.1    Notification Message Procedures  .......................  55
 3.5.1.2    Events Signaled by Notification Messages  ..............  56
 3.5.1.2.1  Malformed PDU or Message  ..............................  56
 3.5.1.2.2  Unknown or Malformed TLV  ..............................  58
 3.5.1.2.3  Session KeepAlive Timer Expiration  ....................  59
 3.5.1.2.4  Unilateral Session Shutdown  ...........................  60
 3.5.1.2.5  Initialization Message Events  .........................  60
 3.5.1.2.6  Events Resulting From Other Messages  ..................  60
 3.5.1.2.7  Internal Errors  .......................................  60
 3.5.1.2.8  Miscellaneous Events  ..................................  60
 3.5.2      Hello Message  .........................................  60
 3.5.2.1    Hello Message Procedures  ..............................  63
 3.5.3      Initialization Message  ................................  64
 3.5.3.1    Initialization Message Procedures  .....................  72
 3.5.4      KeepAlive Message  .....................................  72
 3.5.4.1    KeepAlive Message Procedures  ..........................  73
 3.5.5      Address Message  .......................................  73
 3.5.5.1    Address Message Procedures  ............................  74
 3.5.6      Address Withdraw Message  ..............................  74
 3.5.6.1    Address Withdraw Message Procedures  ...................  75
 3.5.7      Label Mapping Message  .................................  75
 3.5.7.1    Label Mapping Message Procedures  ......................  77
 3.5.7.1.1  Independent Control Mapping  ...........................  77
 3.5.7.1.2  Ordered Control Mapping  ...............................  78
 3.5.7.1.3  Downstream on Demand Label Advertisement  ..............  78
 3.5.7.1.4  Downstream Unsolicited Label Advertisement  ............  80
 3.5.8      Label Request Message  .................................  80
 3.5.8.1    Label Request Message Procedures  ......................  81



Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 6]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


 3.5.9      Label Abort Request Message  ...........................  84
 3.5.9.1    Label Abort Request Message Procedures  ................  85
 3.5.10     Label Withdraw Message  ................................  86
 3.5.10.1   Label Withdraw Message Procedures  .....................  87
 3.5.11     Label Release Message  .................................  89
 3.5.11.1   Label Release Message Procedures  ......................  90
 3.6        Messages and TLVs for Extensibility  ...................  91
 3.6.1      LDP Vendor-private Extensions  .........................  91
 3.6.1.1    LDP Vendor-private TLVs  ...............................  91
 3.6.1.2    LDP Vendor-private Messages  ...........................  94
 3.6.2      LDP Experimental Extensions  ...........................  95
 3.7        Message Summary  .......................................  95
 3.8        TLV Summary  ...........................................  96
 3.9        Status Code Summary  ...................................  97
 3.10       Well-known Numbers  ....................................  99
 3.10.1     UDP and TCP Ports  .....................................  99
 3.10.2     Implicit NULL Label  ...................................  99
 4          IANA Considerations  ...................................  99
 4.1        Message Type Name Space  ...............................  99
 4.2        TLV Type Name Space  ................................... 101
 4.3        FEC Type Name Space  ................................... 101
 4.4        Status Code Name Space  ................................ 102
 4.5        Experiment ID Name Space  .............................. 102
 5          Security Considerations  ............................... 102
 5.1        Spoofing  .............................................. 102
 5.2        Privacy  ............................................... 104
 5.3        Denial of Service  ..................................... 104
 6          Areas for Future Study  ................................ 106
 7          Acknowledgments  ....................................... 107
 8          References  ............................................ 108
 8.1        Normative references  .................................. 108
 8.2        Non-normative references  .............................. 109
 9          Intellectual Property Statement  ....................... 111
10          Editors' Addresses  .................................... 111
Appendix A  LDP Label Distribution Procedures  ..................... 113
A.1         Handling Label Distribution Events  .................... 115
A.1.1       Receive Label Request  ................................. 116
A.1.2       Receive Label Mapping  ................................. 120
A.1.3       Receive Label Abort Request  ........................... 130
A.1.4       Receive Label Release  ................................. 133
A.1.5       Receive Label Withdraw  ................................ 135
A.1.6       Recognize New FEC  ..................................... 137
A.1.7       Detect Change in FEC Next Hop  ......................... 140
A.1.8       Receive Notification / Label Request Aborted  .......... 143
A.1.9       Receive Notification / No Label Resources  ............. 144
A.1.10      Receive Notification / No Route  ....................... 144
A.1.11      Receive Notification / Loop Detected  .................. 146
A.1.12      Receive Notification / Label Resources Available  ...... 146



Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 7]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


A.1.13      Detect local label resources have become available  .... 147
A.1.14      LSR decides to no longer label switch a FEC  ........... 148
A.1.15      Timeout of deferred label request  ..................... 149
A.2         Common Label Distribution Procedures  .................. 150
A.2.1       Send_Label  ............................................ 150
A.2.2       Send_Label_Request  .................................... 151
A.2.3       Send_Label_Withdraw  ................................... 153
A.2.4       Send_Notification  ..................................... 154
A.2.5       Send_Message  .......................................... 154
A.2.6       Check_Received_Attributes  ............................. 155
A.2.7       Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes  ...................... 156
A.2.8       Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes  ...................... 158
            Full Copyright Statement  .............................. 162






































Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 8]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


1. LDP Overview

   The MPLS architecture [RFC3031] defines a label distribution protocol
   as a set of procedures by which one Label Switched Router (LSR)
   informs another of the meaning of labels used to forward traffic
   between and through them.

   The MPLS architecture does not assume a single label distribution
   protocol.  In fact, a number of different label distribution proto-
   cols are being standardized.  Existing protocols have been extended
   so that label distribution can be piggybacked on them.  New protocols
   have also been defined for the explicit purpose of distributing
   labels.  The MPLS architecture discusses some of the considerations
   when choosing a label distribution protocol for use in particular
   MPLS applications such as Traffic Engineering [RFC2702].

   ### New text to reflect that this document builds on 3036

   The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) is a protocol defined for dis-
   tributing labels.  It was originally published as RFC3036 in January
   2001. It was produced by the MPLS working of the IETF and was jointly
   authored by Loa Andersson, Paul Doolan, Nancy Feldman, Andre Fredette
   and Bob Thomas.

   ###

   LDP is a protocol defined for distributing labels.  It is the set of
   procedures and messages by which Label Switched Routers (LSRs) estab-
   lish Label Switched Paths (LSPs) through a network by mapping net-
   work-layer routing information directly to data-link layer switched
   paths.  These LSPs may have an endpoint at a directly attached neigh-
   bor (comparable to IP hop-by-hop forwarding), or may have an endpoint
   at a network egress node, enabling switching via all intermediary
   nodes.

   LDP associates a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) [RFC3031] with
   each LSP it creates.  The FEC associated with an LSP specifies which
   packets are "mapped" to that LSP.  LSPs are extended through a net-
   work as each LSR "splices" incoming labels for a FEC to the outgoing
   label assigned to the next hop for the given FEC.

   More information about the applicability of LDP can be found in
   [RFC3037].

   This document assumes familiarity with the MPLS architecture
   [RFC3031].  Note that [RFC3031] includes a glossary of MPLS terminol-
   ogy, such as ingress, label switched path, etc.




Andersson, et al.                                               [Page 9]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


1.1. LDP Peers

   Two LSRs which use LDP to exchange label/FEC mapping information are
   known as "LDP Peers" with respect to that information and we speak of
   there being an "LDP Session" between them.  A single LDP session
   allows each peer to learn the other's label mappings; i.e., the pro-
   tocol is bi-directional.



1.2. LDP Message Exchange

   There are four categories of LDP messages:

      1. Discovery messages, used to announce and maintain the presence
         of an LSR in a network.

      2. Session messages, used to establish, maintain, and terminate
         sessions between LDP peers.

      3. Advertisement messages, used to create, change, and delete
         label mappings for FECs.

      4. to signal error information.

   Discovery messages provide a mechanism whereby LSRs indicate their
   presence in a network by sending a Hello message periodically.  This
   is transmitted as a UDP packet to the LDP port at the `all routers on
   this subnet' group multicast address.  When an LSR chooses to estab-
   lish a session with another LSR learned via the Hello message, it
   uses the LDP initialization procedure over TCP transport.  Upon suc-
   cessful completion of the initialization procedure, the two LSRs are
   LDP peers, and may exchange advertisement messages.

   When to request a label or advertise a label mapping to a peer is
   largely a local decision made by an LSR.  In general, the LSR
   requests a label mapping from a neighboring LSR when it needs one,
   and advertises a label mapping to a neighboring LSR when it wishes
   the neighbor to use a label.

   Correct operation of LDP requires reliable and in order delivery of
   messages.  To satisfy these requirements LDP uses the TCP transport
   for session, advertisement and notification messages; i.e., for
   everything but the UDP-based discovery mechanism.







Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 10]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


1.3. LDP Message Structure

   All LDP messages have a common structure that uses a Type-Length-
   Value (TLV) encoding scheme; see Section "Type-Length-Value" encod-
   ing.  The Value part of a TLV-encoded object, or TLV for short, may
   itself contain one or more TLVs.


1.4. LDP Error Handling

   LDP errors and other events of interest are signaled to an LDP peer
   by notification messages.

   There are two kinds of LDP notification messages:

      1. Error notifications, used to signal fatal errors.  If an LSR
         receives an error notification from a peer for an LDP session,
         it terminates the LDP session by closing the TCP transport con-
         nection for the session and discarding all label mappings
         learned via the session.

      2. Advisory notifications, used to pass an LSR information about
         the LDP session or the status of some previous message received
         from the peer.


1.5. LDP Extensibility and Future Compatibility

   Functionality may be added to LDP in the future.  It is likely that
   future functionality will utilize new messages and object types
   (TLVs).  It may be desirable to employ such new messages and TLVs
   within a network using older implementations that do not recognize
   them.  While it is not possible to make every future enhancement
   backwards compatible, some prior planning can ease the introduction
   of new capabilities.  This specification defines rules for handling
   unknown message types and unknown TLVs for this purpose.



1.6. Specification Language

   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 [RFC2119].







Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 11]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2. LDP Operation

2.1. FECs

   It is necessary to precisely specify which packets may be mapped to
   each LSP.  This is done by providing a FEC specification for each
   LSP.  The FEC identifies the set of IP packets which may be mapped to
   that LSP.

   Each FEC is specified as a set of one or more FEC elements.  Each FEC
   element identifies a set of packets which may be mapped to the corre-
   sponding LSP.  When an LSP is shared by multiple FEC elements, that
   LSP is terminated at (or before) the node where the FEC elements can
   no longer share the same path.

   Following are the currently defined types of FEC elements.  New ele-
   ment types may be added as needed:

      1. Address Prefix.  This element is an address prefix of any
         length from 0 to a full address, inclusive.

      2. Host Address.  This element is a full host address.

   (We will see below that an Address Prefix FEC element which is a full
   address has a different effect than a Host Address FEC element which
   has the same address.)

   We say that a particular address "matches" a particular address pre-
   fix if and only if that address begins with that prefix.  We also say
   that a particular packet matches a particular LSP if and only if that
   LSP has an Address Prefix FEC element which matches the packet's des-
   tination address.  With respect to a particular packet and a particu-
   lar LSP, we refer to any Address Prefix FEC element which matches the
   packet as the "matching prefix".

   The procedure for mapping a particular packet to a particular LSP
   uses the following rules.  Each rule is applied in turn until the
   packet can be mapped to an LSP.

     - If there is exactly one LSP which has a Host Address FEC element
       that is identical to the packet's destination address, then the
       packet is mapped to that LSP.

     - If there are multiple LSPs, each containing a Host Address FEC
       element that is identical to the packet's destination address,
       then the packet is mapped to one of those LSPs.  The procedure
       for selecting one of those LSPs is beyond the scope of this docu-
       ment.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 12]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


     - If a packet matches exactly one LSP, the packet is mapped to that
       LSP.

     - If a packet matches multiple LSPs, it is mapped to the LSP whose
       matching prefix is the longest.  If there is no one LSP whose
       matching prefix is longest, the packet is mapped to one from the
       set of LSPs whose matching prefix is longer than the others.  The
       procedure for selecting one of those LSPs is beyond the scope of
       this document.

     - If it is known that a packet must traverse a particular egress
       router, and there is an LSP which has an Address Prefix FEC ele-
       ment which is an address of that router, then the packet is
       mapped to that LSP.  The procedure for obtaining this knowledge
       is beyond the scope of this document.

   The procedure for determining that a packet must traverse a particu-
   lar egress router is beyond the scope of this document.  (As an exam-
   ple, if one is running a link state routing algorithm, it may be pos-
   sible to obtain this information from the link state data base.  As
   another example, if one is running BGP, it may be possible to obtain
   this information from the BGP next hop attribute of the packet's
   route.)

   It is worth pointing out a few consequences of these rules:

     - A packet may be sent on the LSP whose Address Prefix FEC element
       is the address of the packet's egress router ONLY if there is no
       LSP matching the packet's destination address.

     - A packet may match two LSPs, one with a Host Address FEC element
       and one with an Address Prefix FEC element.  In this case, the
       packet is always assigned to the former.

     - A packet which does not match a particular Host Address FEC ele-
       ment may not be sent on the corresponding LSP, even if the Host
       Address FEC element identifies the packet's egress router.



2.2. Label Spaces, Identifiers, Sessions and Transport

2.2.1. Label Spaces

   The notion of "label space" is useful for discussing the assignment
   and distribution of labels.  There are two types of label spaces:





Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 13]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


     - Per interface label space.  Interface-specific incoming labels
       are used for interfaces that use interface resources for labels.
       An example of such an interface is a label-controlled ATM inter-
       face that uses VCIs as labels, or a Frame Relay interface that
       uses DLCIs as labels.

       Note that the use of a per interface label space only makes sense
       when the LDP peers are "directly connected" over an interface,
       and the label is only going to be used for traffic sent over that
       interface.

     - Per platform label space.  Platform-wide incoming labels are used
       for interfaces that can share the same labels.


2.2.2. LDP Identifiers

   An LDP identifier is a six octet quantity used to identify an LSR
   label space.  The first four octets identify the LSR and must be a
   globally unique value, such as a 32-bit router Id assigned to the
   LSR.  The last two octets identify a specific label space within the
   LSR.  The last two octets of LDP Identifiers for platform-wide label
   spaces are always both zero.  This document uses the following print
   representation for LDP Identifiers:

             <LSR Id> : <label space id>

   e.g., lsr171:0, lsr19:2.

   Note that an LSR that manages and advertises multiple label spaces
   uses a different LDP Identifier for each such label space.

   A situation where an LSR would need to advertise more than one label
   space to a peer and hence use more than one LDP Identifier occurs
   when the LSR has two links to the peer and both are ATM (and use per
   interface labels).  Another situation would be where the LSR had two
   links to the peer, one of which is ethernet (and uses per platform
   labels) and the other of which is ATM.


2.2.3. LDP Sessions

   LDP sessions exist between LSRs to support label exchange between
   them.

      When an LSR uses LDP to advertise more than one label space to
      another LSR it uses a separate LDP session for each label space.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 14]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.2.4. LDP Transport

   LDP uses TCP as a reliable transport for sessions.

      When multiple LDP sessions are required between two LSRs there is
      one TCP session for each LDP session.


2.3. LDP Sessions between non-Directly Connected LSRs

   LDP sessions between LSRs that are not directly connected at the link
   level may be desirable in some situations.

   For example, consider a "traffic engineering" application where LSRa
   sends traffic matching some criteria via an LSP to non-directly con-
   nected LSRb rather than forwarding the traffic along its normally
   routed path.

   The path between LSRa and LSRb would include one or more intermediate
   LSRs (LSR1,...LSRn).  An LDP session between LSRa and LSRb would
   enable LSRb to label switch traffic arriving on the LSP from LSRa by
   providing LSRb means to advertise labels for this purpose to LSRa.

   In this situation LSRa would apply two labels to traffic it forwards
   on the LSP to LSRb: a label learned from LSR1 to forward traffic
   along the LSP path from LSRa to LSRb; and a label learned from LSRb
   to enable LSRb to label switch traffic arriving on the LSP.

   LSRa first adds the label learned via its LDP session with LSRb to
   the packet label stack (either by replacing the label on top of the
   packet label stack with it if the packet arrives labeled or by push-
   ing it if the packet arrives unlabeled).  Next, it pushes the label
   for the LSP learned from LSR1 onto the label stack.


2.4. LDP Discovery

   LDP discovery is a mechanism that enables an LSR to discover poten-
   tial LDP peers.  Discovery makes it unnecessary to explicitly config-
   ure an LSR's label switching peers.

   There are two variants of the discovery mechanism:

     - A basic discovery mechanism used to discover LSR neighbors that
       are directly connected at the link level.






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 15]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


     - An extended discovery mechanism used to locate LSRs that are not
       directly connected at the link level.


2.4.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism

   To engage in LDP Basic Discovery on an interface an LSR periodically
   sends LDP Link Hellos out the interface.  LDP Link Hellos are sent as
   UDP packets addressed to the well-known LDP discovery port for the
   "all routers on this subnet" group multicast address.

   An LDP Link Hello sent by an LSR carries the LDP Identifier for the
   label space the LSR intends to use for the interface and possibly
   additional information.

   Receipt of an LDP Link Hello on an interface identifies a "Hello
   adjacency" with a potential LDP peer reachable at the link level on
   the interface as well as the label space the peer intends to use for
   the interface.


2.4.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism

   LDP sessions between non-directly connected LSRs are supported by LDP
   Extended Discovery.

   To engage in LDP Extended Discovery an LSR periodically sends LDP
   Targeted Hellos to a specific address.  LDP Targeted Hellos are sent
   as UDP packets addressed to the well-known LDP discovery port at the
   specific address.

   An LDP Targeted Hello sent by an LSR carries the LDP Identifier for
   the label space the LSR intends to use and possibly additional
   optional information.

   Extended Discovery differs from Basic Discovery in the following
   ways:

     - A Targeted Hello is sent to a specific address rather than to the
       "all routers" group multicast address for the outgoing interface.

     - Unlike Basic Discovery, which is symmetric, Extended Discovery is
       asymmetric.

       One LSR initiates Extended Discovery with another targeted LSR,
       and the targeted LSR decides whether to respond to or ignore the
       Targeted Hello.  A targeted LSR that chooses to respond does so
       by periodically sending Targeted Hellos to the initiating LSR.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 16]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Receipt of an LDP Targeted Hello identifies a "Hello adjacency" with
   a potential LDP peer reachable at the network level and the label
   space the peer intends to use.


2.5.  Establishing and Maintaining LDP Sessions

2.5.1. LDP Session Establishment

   The exchange of LDP Discovery Hellos between two LSRs triggers LDP
   session establishment.  Session establishment is a two step process:

               -  Transport connection establishment.
               -  Session initialization


   The following describes establishment of an LDP session between LSRs
   LSR1 and LSR2 from LSR1's point of view.  It assumes the exchange of
   Hellos specifying label space LSR1:a for LSR1 and label space LSR2:b
   for LSR2.


2.5.2. Transport Connection Establishment

   The exchange of Hellos results in the creation of a Hello adjacency
   at LSR1 that serves to bind the link (L) and the label spaces LSR1:a
   and LSR2:b.

     1. If LSR1 does not already have an LDP session for the exchange of
         label spaces LSR1:a and LSR2:b it attempts to open a TCP con-
         nection for a new LDP session with LSR2.

         LSR1 determines the transport addresses to be used at its end
         (A1) and LSR2's end (A2) of the LDP TCP connection.  Address A1
         is determined as follows:

         a. If LSR1 uses the Transport Address optional object (TLV) in
             Hello's it sends to LSR2 to advertise an address, A1 is the
             address LSR1 advertises via the optional object;

         b. If LSR1 does not use the Transport Address optional object,
             A1 is the source address used in Hellos it sends to LSR2.


         Similarly, address A2 is determined as follows:

         a. If LSR2 uses the Transport Address optional object, A2 is
             the address LSR2 advertises via the optional object;



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 17]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         b. If LSR2 does not use the Transport Address optional object,
             A2 is the source address in Hellos received from LSR2.

     2. LSR1 determines whether it will play the active or passive role
         in session establishment by comparing addresses A1 and A2 as
         unsigned integers.  If A1 > A2, LSR1 plays the active role;
         otherwise it is passive.

         The procedure for comparing A1 and A2 as unsigned integers is:

           - If A1 and A2 are not in the same address family, they are
             incomparable, and no session can be established.

           - Let U1 be the abstract unsigned integer obtained by treat-
             ing A1 as a sequence of bytes, where the byte which appears
             earliest in the message is the most significant byte of the
             integer and the byte which appears latest in the message is
             the least significant byte of the integer.

             Let U2 be the abstract unsigned integer obtained from A2 in
             a similar manner.

           - Compare U1 with U2.  If U1 > U2, then A1 > A2; if U1 < U2,
             then A1 < A2.

     3. If LSR1 is active, it attempts to establish the LDP TCP connec-
         tion by connecting to the well-known LDP port at address A2.
         If LSR1 is passive, it waits for LSR2 to establish the LDP TCP
         connection to its well-known LDP port.

   Note that when an LSR sends a Hello it selects the transport address
   for its end of the session connection and uses the Hello to advertise
   the address, either explicitly by including it in an optional Trans-
   port Address TLV or implicitly by omitting the TLV and using it as
   the Hello source address.

   An LSR MUST advertise the same transport address in all Hellos that
   advertise the same label space.  This requirement ensures that two
   LSRs linked by multiple Hello adjacencies using the same label spaces
   play the same connection establishment role for each adjacency.











Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 18]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.5.3. Session Initialization

   After LSR1 and LSR2 establish a transport connection they negotiate
   session parameters by exchanging LDP Initialization messages.  The
   parameters negotiated include LDP protocol version, label distribu-
   tion method, timer values, VPI/VCI ranges for label controlled ATM,
   DLCI ranges for label controlled Frame Relay, etc.

   Successful negotiation completes establishment of an LDP session
   between LSR1 and LSR2 for the advertisement of label spaces LSR1:a
   and LSR2:b.

   The following describes the session initialization from LSR1's point
   of view.

   After the connection is established, if LSR1 is playing the active
   role, it initiates negotiation of session parameters by sending an
   Initialization message to LSR2.  If LSR1 is passive, it waits for
   LSR2 to initiate the parameter negotiation.

   In general when there are multiple links between LSR1 and LSR2 and
   multiple label spaces to be advertised by each, the passive LSR can-
   not know which label space to advertise over a newly established TCP
   connection until it receives the LDP Initialization message on the
   connection.  The Initialization message carries both the LDP Identi-
   fier for the sender's (active LSR's) label space and the LDP Identi-
   fier for the receiver's (passive LSR's) label space.

   By waiting for the Initialization message from its peer the passive
   LSR can match the label space to be advertised by the peer (as deter-
   mined from the LDP Identifier in the PDU header for the Initializa-
   tion message) with a Hello adjacency previously created when Hellos
   were exchanged.

     1. When LSR1 plays the passive role:

         a. If LSR1 receives an Initialization message it attempts to
             match the LDP Identifier carried by the message PDU with a
             Hello adjacency.

         b. If there is a matching Hello adjacency, the adjacency speci-
             fies the local label space for the session.

             Next LSR1 checks whether the session parameters proposed in
             the message are acceptable.  If they are, LSR1 replies with
             an Initialization message of its own to propose the parame-
             ters it wishes to use and a KeepAlive message to signal
             acceptance of LSR2's parameters.  If the parameters are not



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 19]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


             acceptable, LSR1 responds by sending a Session
             Rejected/Parameters Error Notification message and closing
             the TCP connection.

         c. If LSR1 cannot find a matching Hello adjacency it sends a
             Session Rejected/No Hello Error Notification message and
             closes the TCP connection.

         d. If LSR1 receives a KeepAlive in response to its Initializa-
             tion message, the session is operational from LSR1's point
             of view.

         e. If LSR1 receives an Error Notification message, LSR2 has
             rejected its proposed session and LSR1 closes the TCP con-
             nection.

     2. When LSR1 plays the active role:

         a. If LSR1 receives an Error Notification message, LSR2 has
             rejected its proposed session and LSR1 closes the TCP con-
             nection.

         b. If LSR1 receives an Initialization message, it checks
             whether the session parameters are acceptable.  If so, it
             replies with a KeepAlive message.  If the session parame-
             ters are unacceptable, LSR1 sends a Session Rejected/Param-
             eters Error Notification message and closes the connection.

         c. If LSR1 receives a KeepAlive message, LSR2 has accepted its
             proposed session parameters.

         d. When LSR1 has received both an acceptable Initialization
             message and a KeepAlive message the session is operational
             from LSR1's point of view.

             ###

             Until the LDP session is established, no other messages
             except those listed in the procedures above may be
             exchanged, and the rules for processing the U-bit in LDP
             messages are overridden.

             ###

       It is possible for a pair of incompatibly configured LSRs that
       disagree on session parameters to engage in an endless sequence
       of messages as each NAKs the other's Initialization messages with
       Error Notification messages.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 20]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


       An LSR must throttle its session setup retry attempts with an
       exponential backoff in situations where Initialization messages
       are being NAK'd.  It is also recommended that an LSR detecting
       such a situation take action to notify an operator.

       The session establishment setup attempt following a NAK'd Ini-
       tialization message must be delayed no less than 15 seconds, and
       subsequent delays must grow to a maximum delay of no less than 2
       minutes.  The specific session establishment action that must be
       delayed is the attempt to open the session transport connection
       by the LSR playing the active role.

       The throttled sequence of Initialization NAKs is unlikely to
       cease until operator intervention reconfigures one of the LSRs.
       After such a configuration action there is no further need to
       throttle subsequent session establishment attempts (until their
       initialization messages are NAK'd).

       Due to the asymmetric nature of session establishment, reconfigu-
       ration of the passive LSR will go unnoticed by the active LSR
       without some further action.  Section "Hello Message" describes
       an optional mechanism an LSR can use to signal potential LDP
       peers that it has been reconfigured.


2.5.4. Initialization State Machine

   It is convenient to describe LDP session negotiation behavior in
   terms of a state machine.  We define the LDP state machine to have
   five possible states and present the behavior as a state transition
   table and as a state transition diagram.




















Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 21]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


               Session Initialization State Transition Table



   STATE         EVENT                               NEW STATE

   NON EXISTENT  Session TCP connection established  INITIALIZED
                 established

   INITIALIZED   Transmit Initialization msg         OPENSENT
                       (Active Role)

                 Receive acceptable                  OPENREC
                       Initialization msg
                       (Passive Role )
                   Action: Transmit Initialization
                           msg and KeepAlive msg

                 Receive Any other LDP msg           NON EXISTENT
                   Action: Transmit Error Notification msg
                           (NAK) and close transport connection

   OPENREC       Receive KeepAlive msg               OPERATIONAL

                 Receive Any other LDP msg           NON EXISTENT
                   Action: Transmit Error Notification msg
                           (NAK) and close transport connection

   OPENSENT      Receive acceptable                  OPENREC
                       Initialization msg
                   Action: Transmit KeepAlive msg

                 Receive Any other LDP msg           NON EXISTENT
                   Action: Transmit Error Notification msg
                           (NAK) and close transport connection

   OPERATIONAL   Receive Shutdown msg                NON EXISTENT
                   Action: Transmit Shutdown msg and
                           close transport connection

                 Receive other LDP msgs              OPERATIONAL

                 Timeout                             NON EXISTENT
                   Action: Transmit Shutdown msg and
                           close transport connection






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 22]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


              Session Initialization State Transition Diagram
                              +------------+
                              |            |
                +------------>|NON EXISTENT|<--------------------+
                |             |            |                     |
                |             +------------+                     |
                | Session        |    ^                          |
                |   connection   |    |                          |
                |   established  |    | Rx any LDP msg except    |
                |                V    |   Init msg or Timeout    |
                |            +-----------+                       |
   Rx Any other |            |           |                       |
      msg or    |            |INITIALIZED|                       |
      Timeout / |        +---|           |-+                     |
   Tx NAK msg   |        |   +-----------+ |                     |
                |        | (Passive Role)  | (Active Role)       |
                |        | Rx Acceptable   | Tx Init msg         |
                |        |    Init msg /   |                     |
                |        | Tx Init msg     |                     |
                |        |    Tx KeepAlive |                     |
                |        V    msg          V                     |
                |   +-------+        +--------+                  |
                |   |       |        |        |                  |
                +---|OPENREC|        |OPENSENT|----------------->|
                +---|       |        |        | Rx Any other msg |
                |   +-------+        +--------+    or Timeout    |
   Rx KeepAlive |        ^                |     Tx NAK msg       |
      msg       |        |                |                      |
                |        |                | Rx Acceptable        |
                |        |                |    Init msg /        |
                |        +----------------+ Tx KeepAlive msg     |
                |                                                |
                |      +-----------+                             |
                +----->|           |                             |
                       |OPERATIONAL|                             |
                       |           |---------------------------->+
                       +-----------+     Rx Shutdown msg
                All other  |   ^            or Timeout /
                  LDP msgs |   |         Tx Shutdown msg
                           |   |
                           +---+










Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 23]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.5.5. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies

   An LDP session with a peer has one or more Hello adjacencies.

   An LDP session has multiple Hello adjacencies when a pair of LSRs is
   connected by multiple links that share the same label space; for
   example, multiple PPP links between a pair of routers.  In this situ-
   ation the Hellos an LSR sends on each such link carry the same LDP
   Identifier.

   LDP includes mechanisms to monitor the necessity of an LDP session
   and its Hello adjacencies.

   LDP uses the regular receipt of LDP Discovery Hellos to indicate a
   peer's intent to use the label space identified by the Hello.  An LSR
   maintains a hold timer with each Hello adjacency which it restarts
   when it receives a Hello that matches the adjacency.  If the timer
   expires without receipt of a matching Hello from the peer, LDP con-
   cludes that the peer no longer wishes to label switch using that
   label space for that link (or target, in the case of Targeted Hellos)
   or that the peer has failed.  The LSR then deletes the Hello adja-
   cency.  When the last Hello adjacency for a LDP session is deleted,
   the LSR terminates the LDP session by sending a Notification message
   and closing the transport connection.


2.5.6. Maintaining LDP Sessions

   LDP includes mechanisms to monitor the integrity of the LDP session.

   LDP uses the regular receipt of LDP PDUs on the session transport
   connection to monitor the integrity of the session.  An LSR maintains
   a KeepAlive timer for each peer session which it resets whenever it
   receives an LDP PDU from the session peer.  If the KeepAlive timer
   expires without receipt of an LDP PDU from the peer the LSR concludes
   that the transport connection is bad or that the peer has failed, and
   it terminates the LDP session by closing the transport connection.

   After an LDP session has been established, an LSR must arrange that
   its peer receive an LDP PDU from it at least every KeepAlive time
   period to ensure the peer restarts the session KeepAlive timer.  The
   LSR may send any protocol message to meet this requirement.  In cir-
   cumstances where an LSR has no other information to communicate to
   its peer, it sends a KeepAlive message.

   An LSR may choose to terminate an LDP session with a peer at any
   time.  Should it choose to do so, it informs the peer with a Shutdown
   message.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 24]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.6. Label Distribution and Management

   The MPLS architecture [RF3031] allows an LSR to distribute a FEC
   label binding in response to an explicit request from another LSR.
   This is known as Downstream On Demand label distribution.  It also
   allows an LSR to distribute label bindings to LSRs that have not
   explicitly requested them.  [RFC3031] calls this method of label dis-
   tribution Unsolicited Downstream; this document uses the term Down-
   stream Unsolicited.

   Both of these label distribution techniques may be used in the same
   network at the same time.  However, for any given LDP session, each
   LSR must be aware of the label distribution method used by its peer
   in order to avoid situations where one peer using Downstream Unso-
   licited label distribution assumes its peer is also.  See Section
   "Downstream on Demand label Advertisement".



2.6.1. Label Distribution Control Mode

   The behavior of the initial setup of LSPs is determined by whether
   the LSR is operating with independent or ordered LSP control.  An LSR
   may support both types of control as a configurable option.


2.6.1.1. Independent Label Distribution Control

   When using independent LSP control, each LSR may advertise label map-
   pings to its neighbors at any time it desires.  For example, when
   operating in independent Downstream on Demand mode, an LSR may answer
   requests for label mappings immediately, without waiting for a label
   mapping from the next hop.  When operating in independent Downstream
   Unsolicited mode, an LSR may advertise a label mapping for a FEC to
   its neighbors whenever it is prepared to label-switch that FEC.

   A consequence of using independent mode is that an upstream label can
   be advertised before a downstream label is received.


2.6.1.2. Ordered Label Distribution Control

   When using LSP ordered control, an LSR may initiate the transmission
   of a label mapping only for a FEC for which it has a label mapping
   for the FEC next hop, or for which the LSR is the egress.  For each
   FEC for which the LSR is not the egress and no mapping exists, the
   LSR MUST wait until a label from a downstream LSR is received before
   mapping the FEC and passing corresponding labels to upstream LSRs.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 25]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   An LSR may be an egress for some FECs and a non-egress for others.
   An LSR may act as an egress LSR, with respect to a particular FEC,
   under any of the following conditions:

      1. The FEC refers to the LSR itself (including one of its directly
         attached interfaces).

      2. The next hop router for the FEC is outside of the Label Switch-
         ing Network.

      3. FEC elements are reachable by crossing a routing domain bound-
         ary, such as another area for OSPF summary networks, or another
         autonomous system for OSPF AS externals and BGP routes
         [RFC2328] [RFC1771].

   Note that whether an LSR is an egress for a given FEC may change over
   time, depending on the state of the network and LSR configuration
   settings.


2.6.2. Label Retention Mode

   The MPLS architecture [RFC3031] introduces the notion of label reten-
   tion mode which specifies whether an LSR maintains a label binding
   for a FEC learned from a neighbor that is not its next hop for the
   FEC.


2.6.2.1. Conservative Label Retention Mode

   In Downstream Unsolicited advertisement mode, label mapping adver-
   tisements for all routes may be received from all peer LSRs.  When
   using conservative label retention, advertised label mappings are
   retained only if they will be used to forward packets (i.e., if they
   are received from a valid next hop according to routing).  If operat-
   ing in Downstream on Demand mode, an LSR will request label mappings
   only from the next hop LSR according to routing.  Since Downstream on
   Demand mode is primarily used when label conservation is desired
   (e.g., an ATM switch with limited cross connect space), it is typi-
   cally used with the conservative label retention mode.

   The main advantage of the conservative mode is that only the labels
   that are required for the forwarding of data are allocated and main-
   tained.  This is particularly important in LSRs where the label space
   is inherently limited, such as in an ATM switch.  A disadvantage of
   the conservative mode is that if routing changes the next hop for a
   given destination, a new label must be obtained from the new next hop
   before labeled packets can be forwarded.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 26]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.6.2.2. Liberal Label Retention Mode

   In Downstream Unsolicited advertisement mode, label mapping adver-
   tisements for all routes may be received from all LDP peers.  When
   using liberal label retention, every label mappings received from a
   peer LSR is retained regardless of whether the LSR is the next hop
   for the advertised mapping.  When operating in Downstream on Demand
   mode with liberal label retention, an LSR might choose to request
   label mappings for all known prefixes from all peer LSRs.  Note, how-
   ever, that Downstream on Demand mode is typically used by devices
   such as ATM switch-based LSRs for which the conservative approach is
   recommended.

   The main advantage of the liberal label retention mode is that reac-
   tion to routing changes can be quick because labels already exist.
   The main disadvantage of the liberal mode is that unneeded label map-
   pings are distributed and maintained.


2.6.3. Label Advertisement Mode

   Each interface on an LSR is configured to operate in either Down-
   stream Unsolicited or Downstream on Demand advertisement mode.  LSRs
   exchange advertisement modes during initialization.  The major dif-
   ference between Downstream Unsolicited and Downstream on Demand modes
   is in which LSR takes responsibility for initiating mapping requests
   and mapping advertisements.


2.7. LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses

   An LSR maintains learned labels in a Label Information Base (LIB).
   When operating in Downstream Unsolicited mode, the LIB entry for an
   address prefix associates a collection of (LDP Identifier, label)
   pairs with the prefix, one such pair for each peer advertising a
   label for the prefix.

   When the next hop for a prefix changes the LSR must retrieve the
   label advertised by the new next hop from the LIB for use in forward-
   ing.  To retrieve the label the LSR must be able to map the next hop
   address for the prefix to an LDP Identifier.

   Similarly, when the LSR learns a label for a prefix from an LDP peer,
   it must be able to determine whether that peer is currently a next
   hop for the prefix to determine whether it needs to start using the
   newly learned label when forwarding packets that match the prefix.
   To make that decision the LSR must be able to map an LDP Identifier
   to the peer's addresses to check whether any are a next hop for the



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 27]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   prefix.

   To enable LSRs to map between a peer LDP identifier and the peer's
   addresses, LSRs advertise their addresses using LDP Address and With-
   draw Address messages.

   An LSR sends an Address message to advertise its addresses to a peer.
   An LSR sends a Withdraw Address message to withdraw previously adver-
   tised addresses from a peer


2.8. Loop Detection

   Loop detection is a configurable option which provides a mechanism
   for finding looping LSPs and for preventing Label Request messages
   from looping in the presence of non-merge capable LSRs.

   The mechanism makes use of Path Vector and Hop Count TLVs carried by
   Label Request and Label Mapping messages.  It builds on the following
   basic properties of these TLVs:

     - A Path Vector TLV contains a list of the LSRs that its containing
       message has traversed.  An LSR is identified in a Path Vector
       list by its unique LSR Identifier (Id), which is the first four
       octets of its LDP Identifier.  When an LSR propagates a message
       containing a Path Vector TLV it adds its LSR Id to the Path Vec-
       tor list.  An LSR that receives a message with a Path Vector that
       contains its LSR Id detects that the message has traversed a
       loop.  LDP supports the notion of a maximum allowable Path Vector
       length; an LSR that detects a Path Vector has reached the maximum
       length behaves as if the containing message has traversed a loop.

     - A Hop Count TLV contains a count of the LSRS that the containing
       message has traversed.  When an LSR propagates a message contain-
       ing a Hop Count TLV it increments the count.  An LSR that detects
       a Hop Count has reached a configured maximum value behaves as if
       the containing message has traversed a loop.  By convention a
       count of 0 is interpreted to mean the hop count is unknown.
       Incrementing an unknown hop count value results in an unknown hop
       count value (0).

   The following paragraphs describes LDP loop detection procedures.
   For these paragraphs, and only these paragraphs, "MUST" is redefined
   to mean "MUST if configured for loop detection".  The paragraphs
   specify messages that must carry Path Vector and Hop Count TLVs.
   Note that the Hop Count TLV and its procedures are used without the
   Path Vector TLV in situations when loop detection is not configured
   (see [RFC3035] and [RFC3034]).



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 28]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.8.1. Label Request Message

   The use of the Path Vector TLV and Hop Count TLV prevent Label
   Request messages from looping in environments that include non-merge
   capable LSRs.

   The rules that govern use of the Hop Count TLV in Label Request mes-
   sages by LSR R when Loop Detection is enabled are the following:

   -  The Label Request message MUST include a Hop Count TLV.

   -  If R is sending the Label Request because it is a FEC ingress, it
     MUST include a Hop Count TLV with hop count value 1.

   -  If R is sending the Label Request as a result of having received a
     Label Request from an upstream LSR, and if the received Label
     Request contains a Hop Count TLV, R MUST increment the received hop
     count value by 1 and MUST pass the resulting value in a Hop Count
     TLV to its next hop along with the Label Request message;

     The rules that govern use of the Path Vector TLV in Label Request
     messages by LSR R when Loop Detection is enabled are the following:

     -  If R is sending the Label Request because it is a FEC ingress,
       then if R is non-merge capable, it MUST include a Path Vector TLV
       of length 1 containing its own LSR Id.

     -  If R is sending the Label Request as a result of having received
       a Label Request from an upstream LSR, then if the received Label
       Request contains a Path Vector TLV or if R is non-merge capable:

           R MUST add its own LSR Id to the Path Vector, and MUST pass
           the resulting Path Vector to its next hop along with the
           Label Request message.  If the Label Request contains no Path
           Vector TLV, R MUST include a Path Vector TLV of length 1 con-
           taining its own LSR Id.

     Note that if R receives a Label Request message for a particular
     FEC, and R has previously sent a Label Request message for that FEC
     to its next hop and has not yet received a reply, and if R intends
     to merge the newly received Label Request with the existing out-
     standing Label Request, then R does not propagate the Label Request
     to the next hop.

     If R receives a Label Request message from its next hop with a Hop
     Count TLV which exceeds the configured maximum value, or with a
     Path Vector TLV containing its own LSR Id or which exceeds the max-
     imum allowable length, then R detects that the Label Request



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 29]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


     message has traveled in a loop.

     When R detects a loop, it MUST send a Loop Detected Notification
     message to the source of the Label Request message and drop the
     Label Request message.


2.8.2. Label Mapping Message

   The use of the Path Vector TLV and Hop Count TLV in the Label Mapping
   message provide a mechanism to find and terminate looping LSPs.  When
   an LSR receives a Label Mapping message from a next hop, the message
   is propagated upstream as specified below until an ingress LSR is
   reached or a loop is found.

   The rules that govern the use of the Hop Count TLV in Label Mapping
   messages sent by an LSR R when Loop Detection is enabled are the fol-
   lowing:

   -  R MUST include a Hop Count TLV.

   -  If R is the egress, the hop count value MUST be 1.

   -  If the Label Mapping message is being sent to propagate a Label
     Mapping message received from the next hop to an upstream peer, the
     hop count value MUST be determined as follows:

     o  If R is a member of the edge set of an LSR domain whose LSRs do
       not perform 'TTL-decrement' (e.g., an ATM LSR domain or a Frame
       Relay LSR domain) and the upstream peer is within that domain, R
       MUST reset the hop count to 1 before propagating the message.

     o  Otherwise, R MUST increment the hop count received from the next
       hop before propagating the message.

   -  If the Label Mapping message is not being sent to propagate a
     Label Mapping message, the hop count value MUST be the result of
     incrementing R's current knowledge of the hop count learned from
     previous Label Mapping messages.  Note that this hop count value
     will be unknown if R has not received a Label Mapping message from
     the next hop.

   Any Label Mapping message MAY contain a Path Vector TLV.  The rules
   that govern the mandatory use of the Path Vector TLV in Label Mapping
   messages sent by LSR R when Loop Detection is enabled are the follow-
   ing:

   -  If R is the egress, the Label Mapping message need not include a



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 30]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


     Path Vector TLV.

   -  If R is sending the Label Mapping message to propagate a Label
     Mapping message received from the next hop to an upstream peer,
     then:

       o  If R is merge capable and if R has not previously sent a Label
         Mapping message to the upstream peer, then it MUST include a
         Path Vector TLV.

       o  If the received message contains an unknown hop count, then R
         MUST include a Path Vector TLV.

       o  If R has previously sent a Label Mapping message to the
         upstream peer, then it MUST include a Path Vector TLV if the
         received message reports an LSP hop count increase, a change in
         hop count from unknown to known, or a change from known to
         unknown.


     If the above rules require R include a Path Vector TLV in the Label
     Mapping message, R computes it as follows:

       o  If the received Label Mapping message included a Path Vector,
         the Path Vector sent upstream MUST be the result of adding R's
         LSR Id to the received Path Vector.

       o  If the received message had no Path Vector, the Path Vector
         sent upstream MUST be a path vector of length 1 containing R's
         LSR Id.

       -  If the Label Mapping message is not being sent to propagate a
         received message upstream, the Label Mapping message MUST
         include a Path Vector of length 1 containing R's LSR Id.

       If R receives a Label Mapping message from its next hop with a
       Hop Count TLV which exceeds the configured maximum value, or with
       a Path Vector TLV containing its own LSR Id or which exceeds the
       maximum allowable length, then R detects that the corresponding
       LSP contains a loop.

       When R detects a loop, it MUST stop using the label for forward-
       ing, drop the Label Mapping message, and signal Loop Detected
       status to the source of the Label Mapping message.







Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 31]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.8.3. Discussion

   If loop detection is desired in an MPLS domain, then it should be
   turned on in ALL LSRs within that MPLS domain, else loop detection
   will not operate properly and may result in undetected loops or in
   falsely detected loops.

   LSRs which are configured for loop detection are NOT expected to
   store the path vectors as part of the LSP state.

   Note that in a network where only non-merge capable LSRs are present,
   Path Vectors are passed downstream from ingress to egress, and are
   not passed upstream.  Even when merge is supported, Path Vectors need
   not be passed upstream along an LSP which is known to reach the
   egress.  When an LSR experiences a change of next hop, it need pass
   Path Vectors upstream only when it cannot tell from the hop count
   that the change of next hop does not result in a loop.

   In the case of ordered label distribution, Label Mapping messages are
   propagated from egress toward ingress, naturally creating the Path
   Vector along the way.  In the case of independent label distribution,
   an LSR may originate a Label Mapping message for an FEC before
   receiving a Label Mapping message from its downstream peer for that
   FEC.  In this case, the subsequent Label Mapping message for the FEC
   received from the downstream peer is treated as an update to LSP
   attributes, and the Label Mapping message must be propagated
   upstream.  Thus, it is recommended that loop detection be configured
   in conjunction with ordered label distribution, to minimize the num-
   ber of Label Mapping update messages.


2.9. Authenticity and Integrity of LDP Messages

   This section specifies a mechanism to protect against the introduc-
   tion of spoofed TCP segments into LDP session connection streams.
   The use of this mechanism MUST be supported as a configurable option.

   The mechanism is based on use of the TCP MD5 Signature Option speci-
   fied in [RFC2385] for use by BGP.  See [RFC1321] for a specification
   of the MD5 hash function.











Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 32]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.9.1. TCP MD5 Signature Option

   The following quotes from [RFC2385] outline the security properties
   achieved by using the TCP MD5 Signature Option and summarizes its
   operation:

      "IESG Note

         This document describes current existing practice for securing
         BGP against certain simple attacks.  It is understood to have
         security weaknesses against concerted attacks."

      "Abstract

         This memo describes a TCP extension to enhance security for
         BGP.  It defines a new TCP option for carrying an MD5 [RFC1321]
         digest in a TCP segment.  This digest acts like a signature for
         that segment, incorporating information known only to the con-
         nection end points.  Since BGP uses TCP as its transport, using
         this option in the way described in this paper significantly
         reduces the danger from certain security attacks on BGP."

      "Introduction

         The primary motivation for this option is to allow BGP to pro-
         tect itself against the introduction of spoofed TCP segments
         into the connection stream.  Of particular concern are TCP
         resets.

         To spoof a connection using the scheme described in this paper,
         an attacker would not only have to guess TCP sequence numbers,
         but would also have had to obtain the password included in the
         MD5 digest.  This password never appears in the connection
         stream, and the actual form of the password is up to the appli-
         cation.  It could even change during the lifetime of a particu-
         lar connection so long as this change was synchronized on both
         ends (although retransmission can become problematical in some
         TCP implementations with changing passwords).

         Finally, there is no negotiation for the use of this option in
         a connection, rather it is purely a matter of site policy
         whether or not its connections use the option."

      "MD5 as a Hashing Algorithm

         Since this memo was first issued (under a different title), the
         MD5 algorithm has been found to be vulnerable to collision
         search attacks [Dobb], and is considered by some to be



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 33]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         insufficiently strong for this type of application.

         This memo still specifies the MD5 algorithm, however, since the
         option has already been deployed operationally, and there was
         no "algorithm type" field defined to allow an upgrade using the
         same option number.  The original document did not specify a
         type field since this would require at least one more byte, and
         it was felt at the time that taking 19 bytes for the complete
         option (which would probably be padded to 20 bytes in TCP
         implementations) would be too much of a waste of the already
         limited option space.

         This does not prevent the deployment of another similar option
         which uses another hashing algorithm (like SHA-1).  Also, if
         most implementations pad the 18 byte option as defined to 20
         bytes anyway, it would be just as well to define a new option
         which contains an algorithm type field.

         This would need to be addressed in another document, however."

   End of quotes from [RFC2385].


2.9.2. LDP Use of TCP MD5 Signature Option

   LDP uses the TCP MD5 Signature Option as follows:

     - Use of the MD5 Signature Option for LDP TCP connections is a con-
       figurable LSR option.

     - An LSR that uses the MD5 Signature Option is configured with a
       password (shared secret) for each potential LDP peer.

     - The LSR applies the MD5 algorithm as specified in [RFC2385] to
       compute the MD5 digest for a TCP segment to be sent to a peer.
       This computation makes use of the peer password as well as the
       TCP segment.

     - When the LSR receives a TCP segment with an MD5 digest, it vali-
       dates the segment by calculating the MD5 digest (using its own
       record of the password) and compares the computed digest with the
       received digest.  If the comparison fails, the segment is dropped
       without any response to the sender.

     - The LSR ignores LDP Hellos from any LSR for which a password has
       not been configured.  This ensures that the LSR establishes LDP
       TCP connections only with LSRs for which a password has been con-
       figured.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 34]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


2.10. Label Distribution for Explicitly Routed LSPs

   Traffic Engineering [RFC2702] is expected to be an important MPLS
   application.  MPLS support for Traffic Engineering uses explicitly
   routed LSPs, which need not follow normally-routed (hop-by-hop) paths
   as determined by destination-based routing protocols.  CR-LDP [CRLDP]
   defines extensions to LDP to use LDP to set up explicitly routed
   LSPs.


3. Protocol Specification

   Previous sections that describe LDP operation have discussed scenar-
   ios that involve the exchange of messages among LDP peers.  This sec-
   tion specifies the message encodings and procedures for processing
   the messages.

   LDP message exchanges are accomplished by sending LDP protocol data
   units (PDUs) over LDP session TCP connections.

   Each LDP PDU can carry one or more LDP messages.  Note that the mes-
   sages in an LDP PDU need not be related to one another.  For example,
   a single PDU could carry a message advertising FEC-label bindings for
   several FECs, another message requesting label bindings for several
   other FECs, and a third notification message signaling some event.


3.1. LDP PDUs

   Each LDP PDU is an LDP header followed by one or more LDP messages.
   The LDP header is:


 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Version                      |         PDU Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                         LDP Identifier                        |
+                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Version
  Two octet unsigned integer containing the version number of the proto-
  col.  This version of the specification specifies LDP protocol version



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 35]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


  1.

PDU Length
  Two octet integer specifying the total length of this PDU in octets,
  excluding the Version and PDU Length fields.

  The maximum allowable PDU Length is negotiable when an LDP session is
  initialized.  Prior to completion of the negotiation the maximum
  allowable length is 4096 bytes.

LDP Identifier
  Six octet field that uniquely identifies the label space of the send-
  ing LSR for which this PDU applies.  The first four octets identify
  the LSR and must be a globally unique value.  It should be a 32-bit
  router Id assigned to the LSR and also used to identify it in loop
  detection Path Vectors.  The last two octets identify a label space
  within the LSR.  For a platform-wide label space, these should both be
  zero.

Note that there is no alignment requirement for the first octet of an
LDP PDU.


3.2. LDP Procedures

   LDP defines messages, TLVs and procedures in the following areas:

     - Peer discovery;
     - Session management;
     - Label distribution;
     - Notification of errors and advisory information.

   The sections that follow describe the message and TLV encodings for
   these areas and the procedures that apply to them.

   The label distribution procedures are complex and are difficult to
   describe fully, coherently and unambiguously as a collection of sepa-
   rate message and TLV specifications.

   Appendix A, "LDP Label Distribution Procedures", describes the label
   distribution procedures in terms of label distribution events that
   may occur at an LSR and how the LSR must respond.  Appendix A is the
   specification of LDP label distribution procedures.  If a procedure
   described elsewhere in this document conflicts with Appendix A,
   Appendix A specifies LDP behavior.






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 36]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.3. Type-Length-Value Encoding

   LDP uses a Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding scheme to encode much of
   the information carried in LDP messages.

   An LDP TLV is encoded as a 2 octet field that uses 14 bits to specify
   a Type and 2 bits to specify behavior when an LSR doesn't recognize
   the Type, followed by a 2 octet Length Field, followed by a variable
   length Value field.










































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 37]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


    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|        Type               |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                             Value                             |
   ~                                                               ~
   |                                                               |
   |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   U bit
      Unknown TLV bit.  Upon receipt of an unknown TLV, if U is clear
      (=0), a notification must be returned to the message originator
      and the entire message must be ignored; if U is set (=1), the
      unknown TLV is silently ignored and the rest of the message is
      processed as if the unknown TLV did not exist.  The sections fol-
      lowing that define TLVs specify a value for the U-bit.

   F bit
      Forward unknown TLV bit.  This bit applies only when the U bit is
      set and the LDP message containing the unknown TLV is to be for-
      warded.  If F is clear (=0), the unknown TLV is not forwarded with
      the containing message; if F is set (=1), the unknown TLV is for-
      warded with the containing message.

      ###

      Thus, by setting both the U and F bits, a TLV can be propagated as
      opaque data through nodes that do not recognize the TLV.

      ###

      The sections following that define TLVs specify a value for the F-
      bit.

   Type
      Encodes how the Value field is to be interpreted.

   Length
      Specifies the length of the Value field in octets.

   Value
      Octet string of Length octets that encodes information to be
      interpreted as specified by the Type field.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 38]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Note that there is no alignment requirement for the first octet of a
   TLV.

   Note that the Value field itself may contain TLV encodings.  That is,
   TLVs may be nested.

   The TLV encoding scheme is very general.  In principle, everything
   appearing in an LDP PDU could be encoded as a TLV.  This specifica-
   tion does not use the TLV scheme to its full generality.  It is not
   used where its generality is unnecessary and its use would waste
   space unnecessarily.  These are usually places where the type of a
   value to be encoded is known, for example by its position in a mes-
   sage or an enclosing TLV, and the length of the value is fixed or
   readily derivable from the value encoding itself.

   Some of the TLVs defined for LDP are similar to one another.  For
   example, there is a Generic Label TLV, an ATM Label TLV, and a Frame
   Relay TLV; see Sections "Generic Label TLV", "ATM Label TLV", and
   "Frame Relay TLV".

   While it is possible to think about TLVs related in this way in terms
   of a TLV type that specifies a TLV class and a TLV subtype that spec-
   ifies a particular kind of TLV within that class, this specification
   does not formalize the notion of a TLV subtype.

   The specification assigns type values for related TLVs, such as the
   label TLVs, from a contiguous block in the 16-bit TLV type number
   space.

   Section "TLV Summary" lists the TLVs defined in this version of the
   protocol and the section in this document that describes each.


3.4. TLV Encodings for Commonly Used Parameters

   There are several parameters used by more than one LDP message.  The
   TLV encodings for these commonly used parameters are specified in
   this section.


3.4.1. FEC TLV

   Labels are bound to Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs).  A FEC is
   a list of one or more FEC elements.  The FEC TLV encodes FEC items.







Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 39]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Its encoding is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0| FEC (0x0100)              |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        FEC Element 1                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                                                               ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        FEC Element n                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   FEC Element 1 to FEC Element n
      There are several types of FEC elements; see Section "FECs".  The
      FEC element encoding depends on the type of FEC element.

      A FEC Element value is encoded as a 1 octet field that specifies
      the element type, and a variable length field that is the type-
      dependent element value.  Note that while the representation of
      the FEC element value is type-dependent, the FEC element encoding
      itself is one where standard LDP TLV encoding is not used.

      The FEC Element value encoding is:

         FEC Element       Type      Value
         type name

           Wildcard        0x01      No value; i.e., 0 value octets;
                                         see below.
           Prefix          0x02      See below.
           Host Address    0x03      Full host address; see below.

      Note that this version of LDP supports the use of multiple FEC
      Elements per FEC for the Label Mapping message only.  The use of
      multiple FEC Elements in other messages is not permitted in this
      version, and is a subject for future study.

      Wildcard FEC Element
         To be used only in the Label Withdraw and Label Release Mes-
         sages.  Indicates the withdraw/release is to be applied to all
         FECs associated with the label within the following label TLV.
         Must be the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.





Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 40]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      Prefix FEC Element value encoding:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Prefix (2)   |     Address Family            |     PreLen    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Prefix                                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Address Family
         Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY NUM-
         BERS in [RFC1700] that encodes the address family for the
         address prefix in the Prefix field.

      PreLen
         One octet unsigned integer containing the length in bits of the
         address prefix that follows.  A length of zero indicates a pre-
         fix that matches all addresses (the default destination); in
         this case the Prefix itself is zero octets).

      Prefix
         An address prefix encoded according to the Address Family
         field, whose length, in bits, was specified in the PreLen
         field, padded to a byte boundary.

      Host Address FEC Element encoding:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Host Addr (3) |     Address Family            | Host Addr Len |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                     Host Addr                                 |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Address Family
         Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY
         NUMBERS in [RFC1700] that encodes the address family for the
         address prefix in the Prefix field.

      Host Addr Len
         Length of the Host address in octets.

      Host Addr
         An address encoded according to the Address Family field.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 41]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.4.1.1. FEC Procedures

   If in decoding a FEC TLV an LSR encounters a FEC Element with an
   Address Family it does not support, it should stop decoding the FEC
   TLV, abort processing the message containing the TLV, and send an
   "Unsupported Address Family" Notification message to its LDP peer
   signaling an error.

   If it encounters a FEC Element type it cannot decode, it should stop
   decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the message containing the
   TLV, and send an "Unknown FEC" Notification message to its LDP peer
   signaling an error.


3.4.2. Label TLVs

   Label TLVs encode labels.  Label TLVs are carried by the messages
   used to advertise, request, release and withdraw label mappings.

   There are several different kinds of Label TLVs which can appear in
   situations that require a Label TLV.


3.4.2.1. Generic Label TLV

   An LSR uses Generic Label TLVs to encode labels for use on links for
   which label values are independent of the underlying link technology.
   Examples of such links are PPP and Ethernet.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0| Generic Label (0x0200)    |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Label                                                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Label
      This is a 20-bit label value as specified in [RFC3032] represented
      as a 20-bit number in a 4 octet field.











Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 42]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.4.2.2. ATM Label TLV

   An LSR uses ATM Label TLVs to encode labels for use on ATM links.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0| ATM Label (0x0201)        |         Length                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Res| V |          VPI          |         VCI                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Res
      This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmission
      and must be ignored on receipt.

   V-bits
      Two-bit switching indicator.  If V-bits is 00, both the VPI and
      VCI are significant.  If V-bits is 01, only the VPI field is sig-
      nificant.  If V-bit is 10, only the VCI is significant.

   VPI
      Virtual Path Identifier.  If VPI is less than 12-bits it should be
      right justified in this field and preceding bits should be set to
      0.

   VCI
      Virtual Channel Identifier.  If the VCI is less than 16- bits, it
      should be right justified in the field and the preceding bits must
      be set to 0.  If Virtual Path switching is indicated in the V-bits
      field, then this field must be ignored by the receiver and set to
      0 by the sender.


3.4.2.3. Frame Relay Label TLV

   An LSR uses Frame Relay Label TLVs to encode labels for use on Frame
   Relay links.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0| Frame Relay Label (0x0202)|       Length                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Reserved    |Len|                     DLCI                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 43]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Res
      This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmission
      and must be ignored on receipt.

   Len
      This field specifies the number of bits of the DLCI.  The follow-
      ing values are supported:

         0 = 10 bits DLCI
         2 = 23 bits DLCI

      Len values 1 and 3 are reserved.

   DLCI
      The Data Link Connection Identifier.  Refer to [RFC3034] for the
      label values and formats.


3.4.3. Address List TLV

   The Address List TLV appears in Address and Address Withdraw mes-
   sages.

   Its encoding is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0| Address List (0x0101)     |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Address Family            |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                        Addresses                              |
   ~                                                               ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Address Family
      Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS FAMILY NUMBERS
      in [RFC1700] that encodes the addresses contained in the Addresses
      field.

   Addresses
      A list of addresses from the specified Address Family.  The
      encoding of the individual addresses depends on the Address Family.





Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 44]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      The following address encodings are defined by this version of the
      protocol:

         Address Family      Address Encoding

         IPv4                4 octet full IPv4 address
         IPv6                16 octet full IPv6 address


3.4.4. Hop Count TLV

   The Hop Count TLV appears as an optional field in messages that set
   up LSPs.  It calculates the number of LSR hops along an LSP as the
   LSP is being setup.

   Note that setup procedures for LSPs that traverse ATM and Frame Relay
   links require use of the Hop Count TLV (see [RFC3035] and [RFC3034]).

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0| Hop Count (0x0103)        |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     HC Value  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   HC Value
      1 octet unsigned integer hop count value.


3.4.4.1. Hop Count Procedures

   During setup of an LSP an LSR R may receive a Label Mapping or Label
   Request message for the LSP that contains the Hop Count TLV.  If it
   does, it should record the hop count value.

   If LSR R then propagates the Label Mapping message for the LSP to an
   upstream peer or the Label Request message to a downstream peer to
   continue the LSP setup, it must must determine a hop count to include
   in the propagated message as follows:

   -  If the message is a Label Request message, R must increment the
      received hop count;

   -  If the message is a Label Mapping message, R determines the hop
      count as follows:





Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 45]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      o  If R is a member of the edge set of an LSR domain whose LSRs do
         not perform 'TTL-decrement' and the upstream peer is within
         that domain, R must reset the hop count to 1 before propagating
         the message.

      o  Otherwise, R must increment the received hop count.

   The first LSR in the LSP (ingress for a Label Request message, egress
   for a Label Mapping message) should set the hop count value to 1.

   By convention a value of 0 indicates an unknown hop count.  The
   result of incrementing an unknown hop count is itself an unknown hop
   count (0).

   Use of the unknown hop count value greatly reduces the signaling
   overhead when independent control is used.  When a new LSP is estab-
   lished, each LSR starts with unknown hop count.  Addition of a new
   LSR whose hop count is also unknown does not cause a hop count update
   to be propagated upstream since the hop count remains unknown.  When
   the egress is finally added to the LSP, then the LSRs propagate hop
   count updates upstream via Label Mapping messages.

   Without use of the unknown hop count, each time a new LSR is added to
   the LSP a hop count update would need to be propagated upstream if
   the new LSR is closer to the egress than any of the other LSRs.
   These updates are useless overhead since they don't reflect the hop
   count to the egress.

   >From the perspective of the ingress node, the fact that the hop
   count is unknown implies nothing about whether a packet sent on the
   LSP will actually make it to the egress.  All it implies is that the
   hop count update from the egress has not yet reached the ingress.

   If an LSR receives a message containing a Hop Count TLV, it must
   check the hop count value to determine whether the hop count has
   exceeded its configured maximum allowable value.  If so, it must
   behave as if the containing message has traversed a loop by sending a
   Notification message signaling Loop Detected in reply to the sender
   of the message.

   If Loop Detection is configured, the LSR must follow the procedures
   specified in Section "Loop Detection".









Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 46]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.4.5. Path Vector TLV

   The Path Vector TLV is used with the Hop Count TLV in Label Request
   and Label Mapping messages to implement the optional LDP loop detec-
   tion mechanism.  See Section "Loop Detection".  Its use in the Label
   Request message records the path of LSRs the request has traversed.
   Its use in the Label Mapping message records the path of LSRs a label
   advertisement has traversed to setup an LSP.

   Its encoding is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|0| Path Vector (0x0104)      |        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            LSR Id 1                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                                                               ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            LSR Id n                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   One or more LSR Ids
      A list of router-ids indicating the path of LSRs the message has
      traversed.  Each LSR Id is the first four octets (router-id) of
      the LDP identifier for the corresponding LSR.  This ensures it is
      unique within the LSR network.


3.4.5.1. Path Vector Procedures

   The Path Vector TLV is carried in Label Mapping and Label Request
   messages when loop detection is configured.


3.4.5.1.1. Label Request Path Vector

   Section "Loop Detection" specifies situations when an LSR must
   include a Path Vector TLV in a Label Request message.

   An LSR that receives a Path Vector in a Label Request message must
   perform the procedures described in Section "Loop Detection".

   If the LSR detects a loop, it must reject the Label Request message.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 47]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   The LSR must:

      1. Transmit a Notification message to the sending LSR signaling
         "Loop Detected".















































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 48]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      2. Not propagate the Label Request message further.

   Note that a Label Request message with Path Vector TLV is forwarded
   until:

      1. A loop is found,

      2. The LSP egress is reached,

      3. The maximum Path Vector limit or maximum Hop Count limit is
         reached.  This is treated as if a loop had been detected.


3.4.5.1.2. Label Mapping Path Vector

   Section "Loop Detection" specifies the situations when an LSR must
   include a Path Vector TLV in a Label Mapping message.

   An LSR that receives a Path Vector in a Label Mapping message must
   perform the procedures described in Section "Loop Detection".

   If the LSR detects a loop, it must reject the Label Mapping message
   in order to prevent a forwarding loop.  The LSR must:

      1. Transmit a Label Release message carrying a Status TLV to the
         sending LSR to signal "Loop Detected".

      2. Not propagate the message further.

      3. Check whether the Label Mapping message is for an existing LSP.
         If so, the LSR must unsplice any upstream labels which are
         spliced to the downstream label for the FEC.

   Note that a Label Mapping message with a Path Vector TLV is forwarded
   until:

      1. A loop is found,

      2. An LSP ingress is reached, or

      3. The maximum Path Vector or maximum Hop Count limit is reached.
         This is treated as if a loop had been detected.









Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 49]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.4.6. Status TLV

   Notification messages carry Status TLVs to specify events being sig-
   naled.















































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 50]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   The encoding for the Status TLV is:

    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| Status (0x0300)           |      Length                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Status Code                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Message Type             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   U bit
      Should be 0 when the Status TLV is sent in a Notification message.
      Should be 1 when the Status TLV is sent in some other message.

   F bit
      Should be the same as the setting of the F-bit in the Status Code
      field.

   Status Code
      32-bit unsigned integer encoding the event being signaled.  The
      structure of a Status Code is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |E|F|                 Status Data                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      E bit
         Fatal error bit.  If set (=1), this is a fatal error notifica-
         tion.  If clear (=0), this is an advisory notification.

      F bit
         Forward bit.  If set (=1), the notification should be forwarded
         to the LSR for the next-hop or previous-hop for the LSP, if
         any, associated with the event being signaled.  If clear (=0),
         the notification should not be forwarded.

      Status Data
         30-bit unsigned integer which specifies the status information.

      This specification defines Status Codes (32-bit unsigned integers
      with the above encoding).




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 51]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      A Status Code of 0 signals success.

   Message ID
      If non-zero, 32-bit value that identifies the peer message to
      which the Status TLV refers.  If zero, no specific peer message is
      being identified.

   Message Type
      If non-zero, the type of the peer message to which the Status TLV
      refers.  If zero, the Status TLV does not refer to any specific
      message type.

   Note that use of the Status TLV is not limited to Notification mes-
   sages.  A message other than a Notification message may carry a Sta-
   tus TLV as an Optional Parameter.  When a message other than a Noti-
   fication carries a Status TLV the U-bit of the Status TLV should be
   set to 1 to indicate that the receiver should silently discard the
   TLV if unprepared to handle it.


3.5. LDP Messages

   All LDP messages have the following format:

    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|   Message Type              |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                     Mandatory Parameters                      |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+








Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 52]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   U bit
      Unknown message bit.  Upon receipt of an unknown message, if U is
      clear (=0), a notification is returned to the message originator;
      if U is set (=1), the unknown message is silently ignored.  The
      sections following that define messages specify a value for the U-
      bit.

   Message Type
      Identifies the type of message

   Message Length
      Specifies the cumulative length in octets of the Message ID,
      Mandatory Parameters, and Optional Parameters.

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.  Used by the sending
      LSR to facilitate identifying notification messages that may apply
      to this message.  An LSR sending a notification message in
      response to this message should include this Message Id in the
      Status TLV carried by the notification message; see Section "Noti-
      fication Message".

   Mandatory Parameters
      Variable length set of required message parameters.  Some messages
      have no required parameters.

      For messages that have required parameters, the required parame-
      ters MUST appear in the order specified by the individual message
      specifications in the sections that follow.

   Optional Parameters
      Variable length set of optional message parameters.  Many messages
      have no optional parameters.

      For messages that have optional parameters, the optional parame-
      ters may appear in any order.

   Note that there is no alignment requirement for the first octet of an
   LDP message.

   The following message types are defined in this version of LDP:

      Message Name            Section Title

      Notification            "Notification Message"
      Hello                   "Hello Message"
      Initialization          "Initialization Message"
      KeepAlive               "KeepAlive Message"



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 53]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      Address                 "Address Message"
      Address Withdraw        "Address Withdraw Message"
      Label Mapping           "Label Mapping Message"
      Label Request           "Label Request Message"
      Label Abort Request     "Label Abort Request Message"
      Label Withdraw          "Label Withdraw Message"
      Label Release           "Label Release Message"

   The sections that follow specify the encodings and procedures for
   these messages.

   Some of the above messages are related to one another, for example
   the Label Mapping, Label Request, Label Withdraw, and Label Release
   messages.

   While it is possible to think about messages related in this way in
   terms of a message type that specifies a message class and a message
   subtype that specifies a particular kind of message within that
   class, this specification does not formalize the notion of a message
   subtype.

   The specification assigns type values for related messages, such as
   the label messages, from of a contiguous block in the 16-bit message
   type number space.


3.5.1. Notification Message

   An LSR sends a Notification message to inform an LDP peer of a sig-
   nificant event.  A Notification message signals a fatal error or pro-
   vides advisory information such as the outcome of processing an LDP
   message or the state of the LDP session.

   The encoding for the Notification Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Notification (0x0001)     |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Status (TLV)                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 54]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   Status TLV
      Indicates the event being signaled.  The encoding for the Status
      TLV is specified in Section "Status TLV".

   Optional Parameters
      This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
      encoded as a TLV.  The following Optional Parameters are generic
      and may appear in any Notification Message:

         Optional Parameter     Type     Length  Value

         Extended Status        0x0301    4      See below
         Returned PDU           0x0302    var    See below
         Returned Message       0x0303    var    See below

      Other Optional Parameters, specific to the particular event being
      signaled by the Notification Messages may appear.  These are
      described elsewhere.

      Extended Status
         The 4 octet value is an Extended Status Code that encodes addi-
         tional information that supplements the status information con-
         tained in the Notification Status Code.

      Returned PDU
         An LSR uses this parameter to return part of an LDP PDU to the
         LSR that sent it.  The value of this TLV is the PDU header and
         as much PDU data following the header as appropriate for the
         condition being signaled by the Notification message.

      Returned Message
         An LSR uses this parameter to return part of an LDP message to
         the LSR that sent it.  The value of this TLV is the message
         type and length fields and as much message data following the
         type and length fields as appropriate for the condition being
         signaled by the Notification message.


3.5.1.1. Notification Message Procedures

   If an LSR encounters a condition requiring it to notify its peer with
   advisory or error information it sends the peer a Notification mes-
   sage containing a Status TLV that encodes the information and option-
   ally additional TLVs that provide more information about the condi-
   tion.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 55]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   If the condition is one that is a fatal error the Status Code carried
   in the notification will indicate that.  In this case, after sending
   the Notification message the LSR should terminate the LDP session by
   closing the session TCP connection and discard all state associated
   with the session, including all label-FEC bindings learned via the
   session.

   When an LSR receives a Notification message that carries a Status
   Code that indicates a fatal error, it should terminate the LDP ses-
   sion immediately by closing the session TCP connection and discard
   all state associated with the session, including all label-FEC bind-
   ings learned via the session.

   ###

   The above statement does not apply to the processing of the shutdown
   message in the session initialization procedure. When an LSR receives
   a shutdown message during session initialization, it should transmit
   a shutdown message and then close the transport connection.

   ###


3.5.1.2. Events Signaled by Notification Messages

   It is useful for descriptive purpose to classify events signaled by
   Notification Messages into the following categories.


3.5.1.2.1. Malformed PDU or Message

   Malformed LDP PDUs or Messages that are part of the LDP Discovery
   mechanism are handled by silently discarding them.

   An LDP PDU received on a TCP connection for an LDP session is mal-
   formed if:

      -  The LDP Identifier in the PDU header is unknown to the
         receiver, or it is known but is not the LDP Identifier associ-
         ated by the receiver with the LDP peer for this LDP session.
         This is a fatal error signaled by the Bad LDP Identifier Status
         Code.

      -  The LDP protocol version is not supported by the receiver, or
         it is supported but is not the version negotiated for the ses-
         sion during session establishment.  This is a fatal error sig-
         naled by the Bad Protocol Version Status Code.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 56]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      -  The PDU Length field is too small (< 14) or too large
         (> maximum PDU length).  This is a fatal error signaled by the
         Bad PDU Length Status Code.  Section "Initialization Message"
         describes how the maximum PDU length for a session is deter-
         mined.

   An LDP Message is malformed if:

      -  The Message Type is unknown.

         If the Message Type is < 0x8000 (high order bit = 0) it is an
         error signaled by the Unknown Message Type Status Code.







































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 57]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         If the Message Type is >= 0x8000 (high order bit = 1) it is
         silently discarded.

      -  The Message Length is too large, that is, indicates that the
         message extends beyond the end of the containing LDP PDU.  This
         is a fatal error signaled by the Bad Message Length Status
         Code.


      ###

         - The Message Length is too small, that is, smaller than the
         smallest possible value component. This is a fatal error sig-
         naled by the Bad Message Length Status Code.

         ###

      -  The message is missing one or more Mandatory Parameters.  This
         is a non-fatal error signalled by the Missing Message Parame-
         ters Status Code.


3.5.1.2.2. Unknown or Malformed TLV

   Malformed TLVs contained in LDP messages that are part of the LDP
   Discovery mechanism are handled by silently discarding the containing
   message.

   A TLV contained in an LDP message received on a TCP connection of an
   LDP is malformed if:

      -  The TLV Length is too large, that is, indicates that the TLV
         extends beyond the end of the containing message.  This is a
         fatal error signaled by the Bad TLV Length Status Code.

      -  The TLV type is unknown.

         If the TLV type is < 0x8000 (high order bit 0) it is an error
         signaled by the Unknown TLV Status Code.

         If the TLV type is >= 0x8000 (high order bit 1) the TLV is
         silently dropped.

         ### Remove the following line

         Section "Unknown TLV in Known Message Type" elaborates on this
         behavior.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 58]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         Here is why: http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-
         bin/errataSearch.pl?rfc=3036& The referenced section does not
         exist.  This behavior is covered in section 3.3.

         ###

      -  The TLV Value is malformed.  This occurs when the receiver han-
         dles the TLV but cannot decode the TLV Value.  This is inter-
         preted as indicative of a bug in either the sending or receiv-
         ing LSR.  It is a fatal error signaled by the Malformed TLV
         Value Status Code.


3.5.1.2.3. Session KeepAlive Timer Expiration

   This is a fatal error signaled by the KeepAlive Timer Expired Status
   Code.


































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 59]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.5.1.2.4. Unilateral Session Shutdown

   This is a fatal event signaled by the Shutdown Status Code.  The
   Notification Message may optionally include an Extended Status TLV to
   provide a reason for the Shutdown.  The sending LSR terminates the
   session immediately after sending the Notification.


3.5.1.2.5. Initialization Message Events

   The session initialization negotiation (see Section "Session Initial-
   ization") may fail if the session parameters received in the Initial-
   ization Message are unacceptable.  This is a fatal error.  The spe-
   cific Status Code depends on the parameter deemed unacceptable, and
   is defined in Sections "Initialization Message".


3.5.1.2.6. Events Resulting From Other Messages

   Messages other than the Initialization message may result in events
   that must be signaled to LDP peers via Notification Messages.  These
   events and the Status Codes used in the Notification Messages to sig-
   nal them are described in the sections that describe these messages.


3.5.1.2.7. Internal Errors

   An LDP implementation may be capable of detecting problem conditions
   specific to its implementation.  When such a condition prevents an
   implementation from interacting correctly with a peer, the implemen-
   tation should, when capable of doing so, use the Internal Error Sta-
   tus Code to signal the peer.  This is a fatal error.


3.5.1.2.8. Miscellaneous Events

   These are events that fall into none of the categories above.  There
   are no miscellaneous events defined in this version of the protocol.


3.5.2. Hello Message

   LDP Hello Messages are exchanged as part of the LDP Discovery Mecha-
   nism; see Section "LDP Discovery".

   The encoding for the Hello Message is:





Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 60]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Hello (0x0100)            |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Common Hello Parameters TLV               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   Common Hello Parameters TLV
      Specifies parameters common to all Hello messages.  The encoding
      for the Common Hello Parameters TLV is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|0| Common Hello Parms(0x0400)|      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Hold Time                |T|R| Reserved                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Hold Time,
         Hello hold time in seconds.  An LSR maintains a record of Hel-
         los received from potential peers (see Section "Hello Message
         Procedures").  Hello Hold Time specifies the time the sending
         LSR will maintain its record of Hellos from the receiving LSR
         without receipt of another Hello.

         A pair of LSRs negotiates the hold times they use for Hellos
         from each other.  Each proposes a hold time.  The hold time
         used is the minimum of the hold times proposed in their Hellos.

         A value of 0 means use the default, which is 15 seconds for
         Link Hellos and 45 seconds for Targeted Hellos.  A value of
         0xffff means infinite.

      T, Targeted Hello
         A value of 1 specifies that this Hello is a Targeted Hello.  A
         value of 0 specifies that this Hello is a Link Hello.






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 61]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      R, Request Send Targeted Hellos
         A value of 1 requests the receiver to send periodic Targeted
         Hellos to the source of this Hello.  A value of 0 makes no
         request.

         An LSR initiating Extended Discovery sets R to 1.  If R is 1,
         the receiving LSR checks whether it has been configured to send
         Targeted Hellos to the Hello source in response to Hellos with
         this request.  If not, it ignores the request.  If so, it ini-
         tiates periodic transmission of Targeted Hellos to the Hello
         source.

      Reserved
         This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmission
         and ignored on receipt.

      Optional Parameters
         This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
         encoded as a TLV.  The optional parameters defined by this ver-
         sion of the protocol are

         Optional Parameter         Type     Length  Value

         IPv4 Transport Address     0x0401     4      See below
         Configuration              0x0402     4      See below
            Sequence Number
         IPv6 Transport Address     0x0403    16      See below

      IPv4 Transport Address
         Specifies the IPv4 address to be used for the sending LSR when
         opening the LDP session TCP connection.  If this optional TLV
         is not present the IPv4 source address for the UDP packet car-
         rying the Hello should be used.

      Configuration Sequence Number
         Specifies a 4 octet unsigned configuration sequence number that
         identifies the configuration state of the sending LSR.  Used by
         the receiving LSR to detect configuration changes on the send-
         ing LSR.

      IPv6 Transport Address
         Specifies the IPv6 address to be used for the sending LSR when
         opening the LDP session TCP connection.  If this optional TLV
         is not present the IPv6 source address for the UDP packet car-
         rying the Hello should be used.






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 62]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.5.2.1. Hello Message Procedures

   An LSR receiving Hellos from another LSR maintains a Hello adjacency
   corresponding to the Hellos.  The LSR maintains a hold timer with the
   Hello adjacency which it restarts whenever it receives a Hello that
   matches the Hello adjacency.  If the hold timer for a Hello adjacency
   expires the LSR discards the Hello adjacency: see sections "Maintain-
   ing Hello Adjacencies" and "Maintaining LDP Sessions".

   We recommend that the interval between Hello transmissions be at most
   one third of the Hello hold time.

   An LSR processes a received LDP Hello as follows:

      1. The LSR checks whether the Hello is acceptable.  The criteria
         for determining whether a Hello is acceptable are implementa-
         tion dependent (see below for example criteria).

      2. If the Hello is not acceptable, the LSR ignores it.

      3. If the Hello is acceptable, the LSR checks whether it has a
         Hello adjacency for the Hello source.  If so, it restarts the
         hold timer for the Hello adjacency.  If not it creates a Hello
         adjacency for the Hello source and starts its hold timer.

      4. If the Hello carries any optional TLVs the LSR processes them
         (see below).

      5. Finally, if the LSR has no LDP session for the label space
         specified by the LDP identifier in the PDU header for the
         Hello, it follows the procedures of Section "LDP Session Estab-
         lishment".

   The following are examples of acceptability criteria for Link and
   Targeted Hellos:

      A Link Hello is acceptable if the interface on which it was
      received has been configured for label switching.

      A Targeted Hello from source address A is acceptable if either:

      -  The LSR has been configured to accept Targeted Hellos, or

      -  The LSR has been configured to send Targeted Hellos to A.

      The following describes how an LSR processes Hello optional TLVs:





Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 63]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      Transport Address
         The LSR associates the specified transport address with the
         Hello adjacency.

      Configuration Sequence Number
         The Configuration Sequence Number optional parameter is used by
         the sending LSR to signal configuration changes to the receiv-
         ing LSR.  When a receiving LSR playing the active role in LDP
         session establishment detects a change in the sending LSR con-
         figuration, it may clear the session setup backoff delay, if
         any, associated with the sending LSR (see Section "Session Ini-
         tialization").

         A sending LSR using this optional parameter is responsible for
         maintaining the configuration sequence number it transmits in
         Hello messages.  Whenever there is a configuration change on
         the sending LSR, it increments the configuration sequence num-
         ber.


3.5.3. Initialization Message

   The LDP Initialization Message is exchanged as part of the LDP ses-
   sion establishment procedure; see Section "LDP Session Establish-
   ment".

   The encoding for the Initialization Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Initialization (0x0200)   |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Common Session Parameters TLV             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   Common Session Parameters TLV
      Specifies values proposed by the sending LSR for parameters that
      must be negotiated for every LDP session.

      The encoding for the Common Session Parameters TLV is:



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 64]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|0| Common Sess Parms (0x0500)|      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Protocol Version              |      KeepAlive Time           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |A|D|  Reserved |     PVLim     |      Max PDU Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 Receiver LDP Identifier                       |
      +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                               |
      -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++

      Protocol Version
         Two octet unsigned integer containing the version number of the
         protocol.  This version of the specification specifies LDP pro-
         tocol version 1.

      KeepAlive Time
         Two octet unsigned non zero integer that indicates the number
         of seconds that the sending LSR proposes for the value of the
         KeepAlive Time.  The receiving LSR MUST calculate the value of
         the KeepAlive Timer by using the smaller of its proposed
         KeepAlive Time and the KeepAlive Time received in the PDU.  The
         value chosen for KeepAlive Time indicates the maximum number of
         seconds that may elapse between the receipt of successive PDUs
         from the LDP peer on the session TCP connection.  The KeepAlive
         Timer is reset each time a PDU arrives.

      A, Label Advertisement Discipline
         Indicates the type of Label advertisement.  A value of 0 means
         Downstream Unsolicited advertisement; a value of 1 means Down-
         stream On Demand.

         If one LSR proposes Downstream Unsolicited and the other pro-
         poses Downstream on Demand, the rules for resolving this dif-
         ference is:

         -  If the session is for a label-controlled ATM link or a
            label-controlled Frame Relay link, then Downstream on Demand
            must be used.

         -  Otherwise, Downstream Unsolicited must be used.

         If the label advertisement discipline determined in this way is
         unacceptable to an LSR, it must send a Session Rejected/Parame-
         ters Advertisement Mode Notification message in response to the



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 65]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         Initialization message and not establish the session.

      D, Loop Detection
         Indicates whether loop detection based on path vectors is
         enabled.  A value of 0 means loop detection is disabled; a
         value of 1 means that loop detection is enabled.

      PVLim, Path Vector Limit
         The configured maximum path vector length.  Must be 0 if loop
         detection is disabled (D = 0).  If the loop detection proce-
         dures would require the LSR to send a path vector that exceeds
         this limit, the LSR will behave as if a loop had been detected
         for the FEC in question.

         When Loop Detection is enabled in a portion of a network, it is
         recommended that all LSRs in that portion of the network be
         configured with the same path vector limit.  Although knowledge
         of a peer's path vector limit will not change an LSR's behav-
         ior, it does enable the LSR to alert an operator to a possible
         misconfiguration.

      Reserved
         This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmission
         and ignored on receipt.

      Max PDU Length
         Two octet unsigned integer that proposes the maximum allowable
         length for LDP PDUs for the session.  A value of 255 or less
         specifies the default maximum length of 4096 octets.

         The receiving LSR MUST calculate the maximum PDU length for the
         session by using the smaller of its and its peer's proposals
         for Max PDU Length.  The default maximum PDU length applies
         before session initialization completes.

         If the maximum PDU length determined this way is unacceptable
         to an LSR, it must send a Session Rejected/Parameters Max PDU
         Length Notification message in response to the Initialization
         message and not establish the session.

      Receiver LDP Identifier
         Identifies the receiver's label space.  This LDP Identifier,
         together with the sender's LDP Identifier in the PDU header
         enables the receiver to match the Initialization message with
         one of its Hello adjacencies; see Section "Hello Message Proce-
         dures".

         If there is no matching Hello adjacency, the LSR must send a



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 66]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         Session Rejected/No Hello Notification message in response to
         the Initialization message and not establish the session.

   Optional Parameters
      This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
      encoded as a TLV.  The optional parameters are:

         Optional Parameter       Type     Length  Value

         ATM Session Parameters   0x0501   var     See below
         Frame Relay Session      0x0502   var     See below
           Parameters

      ATM Session Parameters
         Used when an LDP session manages label exchange for an ATM link
         to specify ATM-specific session parameters.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|0|   ATM Sess Parms (0x0501) |      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | M |   N   |D|                        Reserved                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 ATM Label Range Component 1                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                                                               ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                 ATM Label Range Component N                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      M, ATM Merge Capabilities
         Specifies the merge capabilities of an ATM switch.  The
         following values are supported in this version of the
         specification:

                  Value          Meaning

                    0            Merge not supported
                    1            VP Merge supported
                    2            VC Merge supported
                    3            VP & VC Merge supported

         If the merge capabilities of the LSRs differ, then:

         -  Non-merge and VC-merge LSRs may freely interoperate.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 67]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         -  The interoperability of VP-merge-capable switches with non-
            VP-merge-capable switches is a subject for future study.
            When the LSRs differ on the use of VP-merge, the session is
            established, but VP merge is not used.

         Note that if VP merge is used, it is the responsibility of the
         ingress node to ensure that the chosen VCI is unique within the
         LSR domain (see [ATM-VP]).

      N, Number of label range components
         Specifies the number of ATM Label Range Components included in
         the TLV.

      D, VC Directionality
         A value of 0 specifies bidirectional VC capability, meaning the
         LSR can (within a given VPI) support the use of a given VCI as
         a label for both link directions independently.  A value of 1
         specifies unidirectional VC capability, meaning (within a given
         VPI) a given VCI may appear in a label mapping for one direc-
         tion on the link only.  When either or both of the peers speci-
         fies unidirectional VC capability, both LSRs use unidirectional
         VC label assignment for the link as follows.  The LSRs compare
         their LDP Identifiers as unsigned integers.  The LSR with the
         larger LDP Identifier may assign only odd-numbered VCIs in the
         VPI/VCI range as labels.  The system with the smaller LDP Iden-
         tifier may assign only even-numbered VCIs in the VPI/VCI range
         as labels.

      Reserved
         This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmission
         and ignored on receipt.

      One or more ATM Label Range Components
         A list of ATM Label Range Components which together specify the
         Label range supported by the transmitting LSR.

         A receiving LSR MUST calculate the intersection between the
         received range and its own supported label range.  The inter-
         section is the range in which the LSR may allocate and accept
         labels.  LSRs MUST NOT establish a session with neighbors for
         which the intersection of ranges is NULL.  In this case, the
         LSR must send a Session Rejected/Parameters Label Range Notifi-
         cation message in response to the Initialization message and
         not establish the session.

         The encoding for an ATM Label Range Component is:

       0                   1                   2                   3



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 68]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Res  |    Minimum VPI        |      Minimum VCI              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Res  |    Maximum VPI        |      Maximum VCI              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Res
            This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmis-
            sion and must be ignored on receipt.

         Minimum VPI (12 bits)
            This 12 bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of
            Virtual Path Identifiers that is supported on the originat-
            ing switch.  If the VPI is less than 12-bits it should be
            right justified in this field and preceding bits should be
            set to 0.

         Minimum VCI (16 bits)
            This 16 bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of
            Virtual Connection Identifiers that is supported on the
            originating switch.  If the VCI is less than 16-bits it
            should be right justified in this field and preceding bits
            should be set to 0.

         Maximum VPI (12 bits)
            This 12 bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of
            Virtual Path Identifiers that is supported on the originat-
            ing switch.  If the VPI is less than 12-bits it should be
            right justified in this field and preceding bits should be
            set to 0.

         Maximum VCI (16 bits)
            This 16 bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of
            Virtual Connection Identifiers that is supported on the
            originating switch.  If the VCI is less than 16-bits it
            should be right justified in this field and preceding bits
            should be set to 0.

      When peer LSRs are connected indirectly by means of an ATM VP, the
      sending LSR should set the Minimum and Maximum VPI fields to 0,
      and the receiving LSR must ignore the Minimum and Maximum VPI
      fields.

      See [ATM-VP] for specification of the fields for ATM Label Range
      Components to be used with VP merge LSRs.

      Frame Relay Session Parameters



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 69]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         Used when an LDP session manages label exchange for a Frame
         Relay link to specify Frame Relay-specific session parameters.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|0|   FR Sess Parms (0x0502)  |      Length                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | M |   N   |D|                        Reserved                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Frame Relay Label Range Component 1               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                                                               ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |             Frame Relay Label Range Component N               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      M, Frame Relay Merge Capabilities
         Specifies the merge capabilities of a Frame Relay switch.  The
         following values are supported in this version of the specifi-
         cation:

                  Value          Meaning

                    0            Merge not supported
                    1            Merge supported

         Non-merge and merge Frame Relay LSRs may freely interoperate.

      N, Number of label range components
         Specifies the number of Frame Relay Label Range Components
         included in the TLV.

      D, VC Directionality
         A value of 0 specifies bidirectional VC capability, meaning the
         LSR can support the use of a given DLCI as a label for both
         link directions independently.  A value of 1 specifies unidi-
         rectional VC capability, meaning a given DLCI may appear in a
         label mapping for one direction on the link only.  When either
         or both of the peers specifies unidirectional VC capability,
         both LSRs use unidirectional VC label assignment for the link
         as follows.  The LSRs compare their LDP Identifiers as unsigned
         integers.  The LSR with the larger LDP






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 70]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         Identifier may assign only odd-numbered DLCIs in the range as
         labels.  The system with the smaller LDP Identifier may assign
         only even-numbered DLCIs in the range as labels.

      Reserved
         This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmission
         and ignored on receipt.

      One or more Frame Relay Label Range Components
         A list of Frame Relay Label Range Components which together
         specify the Label range supported by the transmitting LSR.

         A receiving LSR MUST calculate the intersection between the
         received range and its own supported label range.  The inter-
         section is the range in which the LSR may allocate and accept
         labels.  LSRs MUST NOT establish a session with neighbors for
         which the intersection of ranges is NULL.  In this case, the
         LSR must send a Session Rejected/Parameters Label Range Notifi-
         cation message in response to the Initialization message and
         not establish the session.

         The encoding for a Frame Relay Label Range Component is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Reserved    |Len|                     Minimum DLCI            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Reserved        |                     Maximum DLCI            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

         Reserved
            This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmis-
            sion and ignored on receipt.

         Len
            This field specifies the number of bits of the DLCI.  The
            following values are supported:

                 Len    DLCI bits

                 0       10
                 2       23

            Len values 1 and 3 are reserved.






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 71]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         Minimum DLCI
            This 23-bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of
            Data Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs) that is supported
            on the originating switch.  The DLCI should be right justi-
            fied in this field and unused bits should be set to 0.

         Maximum DLCI
            This 23-bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of
            Data Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs) that is supported
            on the originating switch.  The DLCI should be right justi-
            fied in this field and unused bits should be set to 0.

   Note that there is no Generic Session Parameters TLV for sessions
   which advertise Generic Labels.


3.5.3.1. Initialization Message Procedures

   See Section "LDP Session Establishment" and particularly Section
   "Session Initialization" for general procedures for handling the Ini-
   tialization Message.


3.5.4. KeepAlive Message

   An LSR sends KeepAlive Messages as part of a mechanism that monitors
   the integrity of the LDP session transport connection.

   The encoding for the KeepAlive Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   KeepAlive (0x0201)        |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   Optional Parameters
      No optional parameters are defined for the KeepAlive message.






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 72]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.5.4.1. KeepAlive Message Procedures

   The KeepAlive Timer mechanism described in Section "Maintaining LDP
   Sessions" resets a session KeepAlive timer every time an LDP PDU is
   received on the session TCP connection.  The KeepAlive Message is
   provided to allow reset of the KeepAlive Timer in circumstances where
   an LSR has no other information to communicate to an LDP peer.

   An LSR must arrange that its peer receive an LDP Message from it at
   least every KeepAlive Time period.  Any LDP protocol message will do
   but, in circumstances where no other LDP protocol messages have been
   sent within the period, a KeepAlive message must be sent.


3.5.5. Address Message

   An LSR sends the Address Message to an LDP peer to advertise its
   interface addresses.

   The encoding for the Address Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Address (0x0300)          |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                     Address List TLV                          |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   Address List TLV
      The list of interface addresses being advertised by the sending
      LSR.  The encoding for the Address List TLV is specified in Section
      "Address List TLV".

   Optional Parameters
      No optional parameters are defined for the Address message.






Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 73]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.5.5.1. Address Message Procedures

   An LSR that receives an Address Message message uses the addresses it
   learns to maintain a database for mapping between peer LDP Identi-
   fiers and next hop addresses; see Section "LDP Identifiers and Next
   Hop Addresses".

   When a new LDP session is initialized and before sending Label Map-
   ping or Label Request messages an LSR should advertise its interface
   addresses with one or more Address messages.

   Whenever an LSR "activates" a new interface address, it should adver-
   tise the new address with an Address message.

   Whenever an LSR "de-activates" a previously advertised address, it
   should withdraw the address with an Address Withdraw message; see
   Section "Address Withdraw Message".

   If an LSR does not support the Address Family specified in the
   Address List TLV, it should send an "Unsupported Address Family"
   Notification to its LDP signalling an error and abort processing the
   message.

   ###

   An LSR may re-advertise an address (A) that it has previously adver-
   tised without explicitly withdrawing the address.  If the receiver
   already has address binding (LSR, A) it should take no further
   action.

   An LSR may withdraw an address (A) without having previously adver-
   tised it.  If the receiver has no address binding (LSR, A), it should
   take no further action.

   ###


3.5.6. Address Withdraw Message

   An LSR sends the Address Withdraw Message to an LDP peer to withdraw
   previously advertised interface addresses.

   The encoding for the Address Withdraw Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Address Withdraw (0x0301) |      Message Length           |



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 74]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                     Address List TLV                          |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   Address list TLV
      The list of interface addresses being withdrawn by the sending
      LSR.  The encoding for the Address list TLV is specified in Sec-
      tion "Address List TLV".

   Optional Parameters
      No optional parameters are defined for the Address Withdraw mes-
      sage.


3.5.6.1. Address Withdraw Message Procedures

   See Section "Address Message Procedures"


3.5.7. Label Mapping Message

   An LSR sends a Label Mapping message to an LDP peer to advertise FEC-
   label bindings to the peer.

   The encoding for the Label Mapping Message is:

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Label Mapping (0x0400)    |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     FEC TLV                                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Label TLV                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 75]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   FEC TLV
      Specifies the FEC component of the FEC-Label mapping being adver-
      tised.  See Section "FEC TLV" for encoding.

   Label TLV
      Specifies the Label component of the FEC-Label mapping.  See Sec-
      tion "Label TLV" for encoding.

   Optional Parameters
      This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
      encoded as a TLV.  The optional parameters are:

         Optional Parameter    Length       Value

         Label Request         4            See below
             Message ID TLV
         Hop Count TLV         1            See below
         Path Vector TLV       variable     See below






























Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 76]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      The encodings for the Hop Count, and Path Vector TLVs can be found
      in Section "TLV Encodings for Commonly Used Parameters".

      Label Request Message ID
         If this Label Mapping message is a response to a Label Request
         message it must include the Request Message Id optional parame-
         ter.  The value of this optional parameter is the Message Id of
         the corresponding Label Request Message.

      Hop Count
         Specifies the running total of the number of LSR hops along the
         LSP being setup by the Label Message.  Section "Hop Count Pro-
         cedures" describes how to handle this TLV.

      Path Vector
         Specifies the LSRs along the LSP being setup by the Label Mes-
         sage.  Section "Path Vector Procedures" describes how to handle
         this TLV.


3.5.7.1. Label Mapping Message Procedures

   The Mapping message is used by an LSR to distribute a label mapping
   for a FEC to an LDP peer.  If an LSR distributes a mapping for a FEC
   to multiple LDP peers, it is a local matter whether it maps a single
   label to the FEC, and distributes that mapping to all its peers, or
   whether it uses a different mapping for each of its peers.

   An LSR is responsible for the consistency of the label mappings it
   has distributed, and that its peers have these mappings.

   An LSR receiving a Label Mapping message from a downstream LSR for a
   Prefix or Host Address FEC Element should not use the label for for-
   warding unless its routing table contains an entry that exactly
   matches the FEC Element.

   See Appendix A "LDP Label Distribution Procedures" for more details.


3.5.7.1.1. Independent Control Mapping

   If an LSR is configured for independent control, a mapping message is
   transmitted by the LSR upon any of the following conditions:

      1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and the
         label advertisement mode is Downstream Unsolicited advertise-
         ment.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 77]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      2. The LSR receives a Request message from an upstream peer for a
         FEC present in the LSR's forwarding table.

      3. The next hop for a FEC changes to another LDP peer, and loop
         detection is configured.

      4. The attributes of a mapping change.

      5. The receipt of a mapping from the downstream next hop  AND
            a) no upstream mapping has been created  OR
            b) loop detection is configured  OR
            c) the attributes of the mapping have changed.


3.5.7.1.2. Ordered Control Mapping

   If an LSR is doing ordered control, a Mapping message is transmitted
   by downstream LSRs upon any of the following conditions:

      1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and is
         the egress for that FEC.

      2. The LSR receives a Request message from an upstream peer for a
         FEC present in the LSR's forwarding table, and the LSR is the
         egress for that FEC OR has a downstream mapping for that FEC.

      3. The next hop for a FEC changes to another LDP peer, and loop
         detection is configured.

      4. The attributes of a mapping change.

      5. The receipt of a mapping from the downstream next hop  AND
            a) no upstream mapping has been created   OR
            b) loop detection is configured   OR
            c) the attributes of the mapping have changed.


3.5.7.1.3. Downstream on Demand Label Advertisement

   In general, the upstream LSR is responsible for requesting label map-
   pings when operating in Downstream on Demand mode.  However, unless
   some rules are followed, it is possible for neighboring LSRs with
   different advertisement modes to get into a livelock situation where
   everything is functioning properly, but no labels are distributed.
   For example, consider two LSRs Ru and Rd where Ru is the upstream LSR
   and Rd is the downstream LSR for a particular FEC.  In this example,
   Ru is using Downstream Unsolicited advertisement mode and Rd is using
   Downstream on Demand mode.  In this case, Rd may assume that Ru will



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 78]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   request a label mapping when it wants one and Ru may assume that Rd
   will advertise a label if it wants Ru to use one.  If Rd and Ru oper-
   ate as suggested, no labels will be distributed from Rd to Ru.
















































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 79]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   This livelock situation can be avoided if the following rule is
   observed: an LSR operating in Downstream on Demand mode should not be
   expected to send unsolicited mapping advertisements.  Therefore, if
   the downstream LSR is operating in Downstream on Demand mode, the
   upstream LSR is responsible for requesting label mappings as needed.


3.5.7.1.4. Downstream Unsolicited Label Advertisement

   In general, the downstream LSR is responsible for advertising a label
   mapping when it wants an upstream LSR to use the label.  An upstream
   LSR may issue a mapping request if it so desires.

   The combination of Downstream Unsolicited mode and conservative label
   retention can lead to a situation where an LSR releases the label for
   a FEC that it later needs.  For example, if LSR Rd advertises to LSR
   Ru the label for a FEC for which it is not Ru's next hop, Ru will
   release the label.  If Ru's next hop for the FEC later changes to Rd,
   it needs the previously released label.

   To deal with this situation either Ru can explicitly request the
   label when it needs it, or Rd can periodically readvertise it to Ru.
   In many situations Ru will know when it needs the label from Rd.  For
   example, when its next hop for the FEC changes to Rd.  However, there
   could be situations when Ru does not.  For example, Rd may be
   attempting to establish an LSP with non-standard properties.  Forcing
   Ru to explicitly request the label in this situation would require it
   to maintain state about a potential LSP with non-standard properties.

   In situations where Ru knows it needs the label, it is responsible
   for explicitly requesting the label by means of a Label Request mes-
   sage.  In situations where Ru may not know that it needs the label,
   Rd is responsible for periodically readvertising the label to Ru.

   For this version of LDP, the only situation where Ru knows it needs a
   label for a FEC from Rd is when Rd is its next hop for the FEC, Ru
   does not have a label from Rd, and the LSP for the FEC is one that
   can be established with TLVs defined in this document.


3.5.8. Label Request Message

   An LSR sends the Label Request Message to an LDP peer to request a
   binding (mapping) for a FEC.







Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 80]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   The encoding for the Label Request Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Label Request (0x0401)    |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     FEC TLV                                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   FEC TLV
      The FEC for which a label is being requested.  See Section "FEC
      TLV" for encoding.

   Optional Parameters
      This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
      encoded as a TLV.  The optional parameters are:

         Optional Parameter     Length       Value

         Hop Count TLV          1            See below
         Path Vector TLV        variable     See below

      The encodings for the Hop Count, and Path Vector TLVs can be found
      in Section "TLV Encodings for Commonly Used Parameters".

      Hop Count
         Specifies the running total of the number of LSR hops along the
         LSP being setup by the Label Request Message.  Section "Hop
         Count Procedures" describes how to handle this TLV.

      Path Vector
         Specifies the LSRs along the LSR being setup by the Label
         Request Message.  Section "Path Vector Procedures" describes
         how to handle this TLV.


3.5.8.1. Label Request Message Procedures

   The Request message is used by an upstream LSR to explicitly request
   that the downstream LSR assign and advertise a label for a FEC.



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 81]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   An LSR may transmit a Request message under any of the following con-
   ditions:

      1. The LSR recognizes a new FEC via the forwarding table, and the
         next hop is an LDP peer, and the LSR doesn't already have a
         mapping from the next hop for the given FEC.

      2. The next hop to the FEC changes, and the LSR doesn't already
         have a mapping from that next hop for the given FEC.

         Note that if the LSR already has a pending Label Request mes-
         sage for the new next hop it should not issue an additional
         Label Request in response to the next hop change.

      3. The LSR receives a Label Request for a FEC from an upstream LDP
         peer, the FEC next hop is an LDP peer, and the LSR doesn't
         already have a mapping from the next hop.

         Note that since a non-merge LSR must setup a separate LSP for
         each upstream peer requesting a label, it must send a separate
         Label Request for each such peer.  A consequence of this is
         that a non-merge LSR may have multiple Label Request messages
         for a given FEC outstanding at the same time.

      ###

         4. An LSR may send a request for all a peer's bindings by send-
         ing a label Request message with the Wildcard FEC.

         ###


   The receiving LSR should respond to a Label Request message with a
   Label Mapping for the requested label or with a Notification message
   indicating why it cannot satisfy the request.

   When the FEC for which a label is requested is a Prefix FEC Element
   or a Host Address FEC Element, the receiving LSR uses its routing ta-
   ble to determine its response.  Unless its routing table includes an
   entry that exactly matches the requested Prefix or Host Address, the
   LSR must respond with a No Route Notification message.

   The message ID of the Label Request message serves as an identifier
   for the Label Request transaction.  When the receiving LSR responds
   with a Label Mapping message, the mapping message must include a
   Label Request/Returned Message ID TLV optional parameter which
   includes the message ID of the Label Request message.  Note that
   since LSRs use Label Request message IDs as transaction identifiers



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 82]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   an LSR should not reuse the message ID of a Label Request message
   until the corresponding transaction completes.

   This version of the protocol defines the following Status Codes for
   the Notification message that signals a request cannot be satisfied:














































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 83]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      No Route
         The FEC for which a label was requested includes a FEC Element
         for which the LSR does not have a route.

      No Label Resources
         The LSR cannot provide a label because of resource limitations.
         When resources become available the LSR must notify the
         requesting LSR by sending a Notification message with the Label
         Resources Available Status Code.

         An LSR that receives a No Label Resources response to a Label
         Request message must not issue further Label Request messages
         until it receives a Notification message with the Label
         Resources Available Status code.

      Loop Detected
         The LSR has detected a looping Label Request message.

   See Appendix A "LDP Label Distribution Procedures" for more details.


3.5.9. Label Abort Request Message

   The Label Abort Request message may be used to abort an outstanding
   Label Request message.

   The encoding for the Label Abort Request Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Label Abort Req (0x0404)  |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     FEC TLV                                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Label Request Message ID TLV              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   FEC TLV
      Identifies the FEC for which the Label Request is being aborted.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 84]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Label Request Message ID TLV
      Specifies the message ID of the Label Request message to be
      aborted.

   Optional Parameters
      No optional parameters are defined for the Label Abort Req mes-
      sage.


3.5.9.1. Label Abort Request Message Procedures

   An LSR Ru may send a Label Abort Request message to abort an out-
   standing Label Request message for FEC sent to LSR Rd in the follow-
   ing circumstances:

      1. Ru's next hop for FEC has changed from LSR Rd to LSR X; or

      2. Ru is a non-merge, non-ingress LSR and has received a Label
         Abort Request for FEC from an upstream peer Y.

      3. Ru is a merge, non-ingress LSR and has received a Label Abort
         Request for FEC from an upstream peer Y and Y is the only
         (last) upstream LSR requesting a label for FEC.

   There may be other situations where an LSR may choose to abort an
   outstanding Label Request message in order to reclaim resource asso-
   ciated with the pending LSP.  However, specification of general
   strategies for using the abort mechanism is beyond the scope of LDP.

   When an LSR receives a Label Abort Request message, if it has not
   previously responded to the Label Request being aborted with a Label
   Mapping message or some other Notification message, it must acknowl-
   edge the abort by responding with a Label Request Aborted Notifica-
   tion message.  The Notification must include a Label Request Message
   ID TLV that carries the message ID of the aborted Label Request mes-
   sage.

   If an LSR receives a Label Abort Request Message after it has
   responded to the Label Request in question with a Label Mapping mes-
   sage or a Notification message, it ignores the abort request.

   If an LSR receives a Label Mapping message in response to a Label
   Request message after it has sent a Label Abort Request message to
   abort the Label Request, the label in the Label Mapping message is
   valid.  The LSR may choose to use the label or to release it with a
   Label Release message.





Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 85]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   An LSR aborting a Label Request message may not reuse the Message ID
   for the Label Request message until it receives one of the following
   from its peer:

      -  A Label Request Aborted Notification message acknowledging the
         abort;

      -  A Label Mapping message in response to the Label Request mes-
         sage being aborted;

      -  A Notification message in response to the Label Request message
         being aborted (e.g., Loop Detected, No Label Resources, etc.).

   To protect itself against tardy peers or faulty peer implementations
   an LSR may choose to time out receipt of the above.  The time out
   period should be relatively long (several minutes).  If the time out
   period elapses with no reply from the peer the LSR may reuse the Mes-
   sage Id of the Label Request message; if it does so, it should also
   discard any record of the outstanding Label Request and Label Abort
   messages.

   Note that the response to a Label Abort Request message is never
   "ordered".  That is, the response does not depend on the downstream
   state of the LSP setup being aborted.  An LSR receiving a Label Abort
   Request message must process it immediately, regardless of the down-
   stream state of the LSP, responding with a Label Request Aborted
   Notification or ignoring it, as appropriate.


3.5.10. Label Withdraw Message

   An LSR sends a Label Withdraw Message to an LDP peer to signal the
   peer that the peer may not continue to use specific FEC-label map-
   pings the LSR had previously advertised.  This breaks the mapping
   between the FECs and the labels.
















Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 86]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   The encoding for the Label Withdraw Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Label Withdraw (0x0402)   |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     FEC TLV                                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Label TLV (optional)                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   FEC TLV
      Identifies the FEC for which the FEC-label mapping is being with-
      drawn.

   Optional Parameters
      This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
      encoded as a TLV.  The optional parameters are:

         Optional Parameter    Length       Value

         Label TLV             variable     See below

      The encoding for Label TLVs are found in Section "Label TLVs".

      Label
         If present, specifies the label being withdrawn (see procedures
         below).


3.5.10.1. Label Withdraw Message Procedures

   An LSR transmits a Label Withdraw message under the following condi-
   tions:

      1. The LSR no longer recognizes a previously known FEC for which
         it has advertised a label.

      2. The LSR has decided unilaterally (e.g., via configuration) to
         no longer label switch a FEC (or FECs) with the label mapping



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 87]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         being withdrawn.


















































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 88]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   The FEC TLV specifies the FEC for which labels are to be withdrawn.
   If no Label TLV follows the FEC, all labels associated with the FEC
   are to be withdrawn; otherwise only the label specified in the
   optional Label TLV is to be withdrawn.

   The FEC TLV may contain the Wildcard FEC Element; if so, it may con-
   tain no other FEC Elements.  In this case, if the Label Withdraw mes-
   sage contains an optional Label TLV, then the label is to be with-
   drawn from all FECs to which it is bound.  If there is not an
   optional Label TLV in the Label Withdraw message, then the sending
   LSR is withdrawing all label mappings previously advertised to the
   receiving LSR.

   An LSR that receives a Label Withdraw message must respond with a
   Label Release message.

   See Appendix A "LDP Label Distribution Procedures" for more details.


3.5.11. Label Release Message

   An LSR sends a Label Release message to an LDP peer to signal the
   peer that the LSR no longer needs specific FEC-label mappings previ-
   ously requested of and/or advertised by the peer.

   The encoding for the Label Release Message is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|   Label Release (0x0403)   |      Message Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     FEC TLV                                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Label TLV (optional)                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Message ID
      32-bit value used to identify this message.

   FEC TLV
      Identifies the FEC for which the FEC-label mapping is being
      released.




Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 89]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Optional Parameters
      This variable length field contains 0 or more parameters, each
      encoded as a TLV.  The optional parameters are:

         Optional Parameter    Length       Value

         Label TLV             variable     See below

      The encodings for Label TLVs are found in Section "Label TLVs".

      Label
         If present, the label being released (see procedures below).


3.5.11.1. Label Release Message Procedures

   An LSR transmits a Label Release message to a peer when it is no
   longer needs a label previously received from or requested of that
   peer.

   An LSR must transmit a Label Release message under any of the follow-
   ing conditions:

      1. The LSR which sent the label mapping is no longer the next hop
         for the mapped FEC, and the LSR is configured for conservative
         operation.

      2. The LSR receives a label mapping from an LSR which is not the
         next hop for the FEC, and the LSR is configured for conserva-
         tive operation.

      3. The LSR receives a Label Withdraw message.

   Note that if an LSR is configured for "liberal mode", a release mes-
   sage will never be transmitted in the case of conditions (1) and (2)
   as specified above.  In this case, the upstream LSR keeps each unused
   label, so that it can immediately be used later if the downstream
   peer becomes the next hop for the FEC.

   The FEC TLV specifies the FEC for which labels are to be released.
   If no Label TLV follows the FEC, all labels associated with the FEC
   are to be released; otherwise only the label specified in the
   optional Label TLV is to be released.

   The FEC TLV may contain the Wildcard FEC Element; if so, it may con-
   tain no other FEC Elements.  In this case, if the Label Release mes-
   sage contains an optional Label TLV, then the label is to be released
   for all FECs to which it is bound.  If there is not an



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 90]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   optional Label TLV in the Label Release message, then the sending LSR
   is releasing all label mappings previously learned from the receiving
   LSR.

   See Appendix A "LDP Label Distribution Procedures" for more details.


3.6. Messages and TLVs for Extensibility

   Support for LDP extensibility includes the rules for the U and F bits
   that specify how an LSR should handle unknown TLVs and messages.

   This section specifies TLVs and messages for vendor-private and
   experimental use.


3.6.1. LDP Vendor-private Extensions

   Vendor-private TLVs and messages are used to convey vendor-private
   information between LSRs.


3.6.1.1. LDP Vendor-private TLVs

   The Type range 0x3E00 through 0x3EFF is reserved for vendor-private
   TLVs.

   The encoding for a vendor-private TLV is:

    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|    Type (0x3E00-0x3EFF)   |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Vendor ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                           Data....                            |
   ~                                                               ~
   |                                                               |
   |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   U bit
      Unknown TLV bit.  Upon receipt of an unknown TLV, if U is clear
      (=0), a notification must be returned to the message originator
      and the entire message must be ignored; if U is set (=1), the



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 91]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      unknown TLV is silently ignored and the rest of the message is
      processed as if the unknown TLV did not exist.

















































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 92]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      The determination as to whether a vendor-private message is under-
      stood is based on the Type and the mandatory Vendor ID field.

   F bit
      Forward unknown TLV bit.  This bit only applies when the U bit is
      set and the LDP message containing the unknown TLV is is to be
      forwarded.  If F is clear (=0), the unknown TLV is not forwarded
      with the containing message; if F is set (=1), the unknown TLV is
      forwarded with the containing message.

   Type
      Type value in the range 0x3E00 through 0x3EFF.  Together, the Type
      and Vendor Id field specify how the Data field is to be inter-
      preted.

   Length
      Specifies the cumulative length in octets of the Vendor ID and
      Data fields.

   Vendor Id
      802 Vendor ID as assigned by the IEEE.

   Data
      The remaining octets after the Vendor ID in the Value field are
      optional vendor-dependent data.


























Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 93]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


3.6.1.2. LDP Vendor-private Messages

   The Message Type range 0x3E00 through 0x3EFF is reserved for vendor-
   private Messages.

    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|    Msg Type (0x3E00-0x3EFF) |      Message Length           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Message ID                                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Vendor ID                                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   +                                                               +
   |                     Remaining Mandatory Parameters            |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                     Optional Parameters                       |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   U bit
      Unknown message bit.  Upon receipt of an unknown message, if U is
      clear (=0), a notification is returned to the message originator;
      if U is set (=1), the unknown message is silently ignored.

      The determination as to whether a vendor-private message is under-
      stood is based on the Msg Type and the Vendor ID parameter.

   Msg Type
      Message type value in the range 0x3E00 through 0x3EFF.  Together,
      the Msg Type and the Vendor ID specify how the message is to be
      interpreted.

   Message Length
      Specifies the cumulative length in octets of the Message ID, Ven-
      dor ID, Remaining Mandatory Parameters and Optional Parameters.









Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 94]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Message ID
      32-bit integer used to identify this message.  Used by the sending
      LSR to facilitate identifying notification messages that may apply
      to this message.  An LSR sending a notification message in
      response to this message will include this Message Id in the noti-
      fication message; see Section "Notification Message".

   Vendor ID
      802 Vendor ID as assigned by the IEEE.

   Remaining Mandatory Parameters
      Variable length set of remaining required message parameters.

   Optional Parameters
      Variable length set of optional message parameters.


3.6.2. LDP Experimental Extensions

   LDP support for experimentation is similar to support for vendor-
   private extensions with the following differences:

      -  The Type range 0x3F00 through 0x3FFF is reserved for experimen-
         tal TLVs.

      -  The Message Type range 0x3F00 through 0x3FFF is reserved for
         experimental messages.

      -  The encodings for experimental TLVs and messages are similar to
         the vendor-private encodings with the following difference.

         Experimental TLVs and messages use an Experiment ID field in
         place of a Vendor ID field.  The Experiment ID field is used
         with the Type or Message Type field to specify the interpreta-
         tion of the experimental TLV or Message.

         Administration of Experiment IDs is the responsibility of the
         experimenters.


3.7. Message Summary

   The following are the LDP messages defined in this version of the
   protocol.

      Message Name            Type     Section Title

      Notification            0x0001   "Notification Message"



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 95]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      Hello                   0x0100   "Hello Message"
      Initialization          0x0200   "Initialization Message"
      KeepAlive               0x0201   "KeepAlive Message"
      Address                 0x0300   "Address Message"
      Address Withdraw        0x0301   "Address Withdraw Message"
      Label Mapping           0x0400   "Label Mapping Message"
      Label Request           0x0401   "Label Request Message"
      Label Withdraw          0x0402   "Label Withdraw Message"
      Label Release           0x0403   "Label Release Message"
      Label Abort Request     0x0404   "Label Abort Request Message"
      Vendor-Private          0x3E00-  "LDP Vendor-private Extensions"
                              0x3EFF
      Experimental            0x3F00-  "LDP Experimental Extensions"
                              0x3FFF


3.8. TLV Summary

   The following are the TLVs defined in this version of the protocol.

      TLV                      Type      Section Title

      FEC                      0x0100    "FEC TLV"
      Address List             0x0101    "Address List TLV"
      Hop Count                0x0103    "Hop Count TLV"
      Path Vector              0x0104    "Path Vector TLV"
      Generic Label            0x0200    "Generic Label TLV"
      ATM Label                0x0201    "ATM Label TLV"
      Frame Relay Label        0x0202    "Frame Relay Label TLV"
      Status                   0x0300    "Status TLV"
      Extended Status          0x0301    "Notification Message"
      Returned PDU             0x0302    "Notification Message"
      Returned Message         0x0303    "Notification Message"
      Common Hello             0x0400    "Hello Message"
         Parameters
      IPv4 Transport Address   0x0401    "Hello Message"
      Configuration            0x0402    "Hello Message"
         Sequence Number
      IPv6 Transport Address   0x0403    "Hello Message"
      Common Session           0x0500    "Initialization Message"
         Parameters
      ATM Session Parameters   0x0501    "Initialization Message"
      Frame Relay Session      0x0502    "Initialization Message"
         Parameters
      Label Request            0x0600    "Label Mapping Message"
          Message ID
      Vendor-Private           0x3E00-   "LDP Vendor-private Extensions"
                               0x3EFF



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 96]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      Experimental             0x3F00-   "LDP Experimental Extensions"
                               0x3FFF


3.9. Status Code Summary

   The following are the Status Codes defined in this version of the
   protocol.

   The "E" column is the required setting of the Status Code E-bit; the
   "Status Data" column is the value of the 30-bit Status Data field in
   the Status Code TLV.

   Note that the setting of the Status Code F-bit is at the discretion
   of the LSR originating the Status TLV.

      Status Code           E   Status Data   Section Title

      Success               0   0x00000000    "Status TLV"
      Bad LDP Identifier    1   0x00000001    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Bad Protocol Version  1   0x00000002    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Bad PDU Length        1   0x00000003    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Unknown Message Type  0   0x00000004    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Bad Message Length    1   0x00000005    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Unknown TLV           0   0x00000006    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Bad TLV length        1   0x00000007    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Malformed TLV Value   1   0x00000008    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Hold Timer Expired    1   0x00000009    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Shutdown              1   0x0000000A    "Events Signaled by ..."
      Loop Detected         0   0x0000000B    "Loop Detection"
      Unknown FEC           0   0x0000000C    "FEC Procedures"
      No Route              0   0x0000000D    "Label Request Mess ..."
      No Label Resources    0   0x0000000E    "Label Request Mess ..."
      Label Resources /     0   0x0000000F    "Label Request Mess ..."
          Available
      Session Rejected/     1   0x00000010    "Session Initialization"
         No Hello
      Session Rejected/     1   0x00000011    "Session Initialization"
         Parameters Advertisement Mode
      Session Rejected/     1   0x00000012    "Session Initialization"
         Parameters Max PDU Length
      Session Rejected/     1   0x00000013    "Session Initialization"
         Parameters Label Range
      KeepAlive Timer       1   0x00000014    "Events Signaled by ..."
          Expired
      Label Request Aborted 0   0x00000015    "Label Request Abort ..."
      Missing Message       0   0x00000016    "Events Signaled by ..."
          Parameters



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 97]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      Unsupported Address   0   0x00000017    "FEC Procedures"
          Family                              "Address Message Proc ..."

















































Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 98]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      Session Rejected/     1   0x00000018    "Session Initialization"
         Bad KeepAlive Time
      Internal Error        1   0x00000019    "Events Signaled by ..."


3.10. Well-known Numbers

3.10.1. UDP and TCP Ports

   The UDP port for LDP Hello messages is 646.

   The TCP port for establishing LDP session connections is 646.


3.10.2. Implicit NULL Label

   The Implicit NULL label (see [RFC3031]) is represented as a Generic
   Label TLV with a Label field value as specified by [RFC3032].


4. IANA Considerations

   LDP defines the following name spaces which require management:

      -  Message Type Name Space.
      -  TLV Type Name Space.
      -  FEC Type Name Space.
      -  Status Code Name Space.
      -  Experiment ID Name Space.

   The following sections provide guidelines for managing these name
   spaces.


4.1. Message Type Name Space

   LDP divides the name space for message types into three ranges.  The
   following are the guidelines for managing these ranges:

      -  Message Types 0x0000 - 0x3DFF.  Message types in this range are
         part of the LDP base protocol.  Following the policies outlined
         in [IANA], Message types in this range are allocated through an
         IETF Consensus action.

      -  Message Types 0x3E00 - 0x3EFF.  Message types in this range are
         reserved for Vendor Private extensions and are the responsibil-
         ity of the individual vendors (see Section "LDP Vendor-private
         Messages").  IANA management of this range of the Message Type



Andersson, et al.                                              [Page 99]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         Name Space is unnecessary.


















































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 100]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      -  Message Types 0x3F00 - 0x3FFF.  Message types in this range are
         reserved for Experimental extensions and are the responsibility
         of the individual experimenters (see Sections "LDP Experimental
         Extensions" and "Experiment ID Name Space").  IANA management
         of this range of the Message Type Name Space is unnecessary;
         however, IANA is responsible for managing part of the Experi-
         ment ID Name Space (see below).


4.2. TLV Type Name Space

   LDP divides the name space for TLV types into three ranges.  The fol-
   lowing are the guidelines for managing these ranges:

      -  TLV Types 0x0000 - 0x3DFF.  TLV types in this range are part of
         the LDP base protocol.  Following the policies outlined in
         [IANA], TLV types in this range are allocated through an IETF
         Consensus action.

      -  TLV Types 0x3E00 - 0x3EFF.  TLV types in this range are
         reserved for Vendor Private extensions and are the responsibil-
         ity of the individual vendors (see Section "LDP Vendor-private
         TLVs").  IANA management of this range of the TLV Type Name
         Space is unnecessary.

      -  TLV Types 0x3F00 - 0x3FFF.  TLV types in this range are
         reserved for Experimental extensions and are the responsibility
         of the individual experimenters (see Sections "LDP Experimental
         Extensions" and "Experiment ID Name Space").  IANA management
         of this range of the TLV Name Space is unnecessary; however,
         IANA is responsible for managing part of the Experiment ID Name
         Space (see below).


4.3. FEC Type Name Space

   The range for FEC types is 0 - 255.

   Following the policies outlined in [IANA], FEC types in the range 0 -
   127 are allocated through an IETF Consensus action, types in the
   range 128 - 191 are allocated as First Come First Served, and types
   in the range 192 - 255 are reserved for Private Use.









Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 101]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


4.4. Status Code Name Space

   The range for Status Codes is 0x00000000 - 0x3FFFFFFF.

   Following the policies outlined in [IANA], Status Codes in the range
   0x00000000 - 0x1FFFFFFF are allocated through an IETF Consensus
   action, codes in the range 0x20000000 - 0x3EFFFFFF are allocated as
   First Come First Served, and codes in the range 0x3F000000 -
   0x3FFFFFFF are reserved for Private Use.


4.5. Experiment ID Name Space

   The range for Experiment Ids is 0x00000000 - 0xffffffff.

   Following the policies outlined in [IANA], Experiment Ids in the
   range 0x00000000 - 0xefffffff are allocated as First Come First
   Served and Experiment Ids in the range 0xf0000000 - 0xffffffff are
   reserved for Private Use.


5. Security Considerations

   This section identifies threats to which LDP may be vulnerable and
   discusses means by which those threats might be mitigated.


5.1. Spoofing

   There are two types of LDP communication that could be the target of
   a spoofing attack.

   1. Discovery exchanges carried by UDP.

      LSRs directly connected at the link level exchange Basic Hello
      messages over the link.  The threat of spoofed Basic Hellos can be
      reduced by:

         o  Accepting Basic Hellos only on interfaces to which LSRs that
            can be trusted are directly connected.

         o  Ignoring Basic Hellos not addressed to the All Routers on
            this Subnet multicast group.

      LSRs not directly connected at the link level may use Extended
      Hello messages to indicate willingness to establish an LDP ses-
      sion.  An LSR can reduce the threat of spoofed Extended Hellos by
      filtering them and accepting only those originating at sources



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 102]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      permitted by an access list.


















































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 103]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   2. Session communication carried by TCP.

      LDP specifies use of the TCP MD5 Signature Option to provide for
      the authenticity and integrity of session messages.

      [RFC2385] asserts that MD5 authentication is now considered by
      some to be too weak for this application.  It also points out that
      a similar TCP option with a stronger hashing algorithm (it cites
      SHA-1 as an example) could be deployed.  To our knowledge no such
      TCP option has been defined and deployed.  However, we note that
      LDP can use whatever TCP message digest techniques are available,
      and when one stronger than MD5 is specified and implemented,
      upgrading LDP to use it would be relatively straightforward.


5.2. Privacy

   LDP provides no mechanism for protecting the privacy of label distri-
   bution.

   The security requirements of label distribution protocols are essen-
   tially identical to those of the protocols which distribute routing
   information.  By providing a mechanism to ensure the authenticity and
   integrity of its messages LDP provides a level of security which is
   at least as good as, though no better than, that which can be pro-
   vided by the routing protocols themselves.  The more general issue of
   whether privacy should be required for routing protocols is beyond
   the scope of this document.

   One might argue that label distribution requires privacy to address
   the threat of label spoofing.  However, that privacy would not pro-
   tect against label spoofing attacks since data packets carry labels
   in the clear.  Furthermore, label spoofing attacks can be made with-
   out knowledge of the FEC bound to a label.

   To avoid label spoofing attacks, it is necessary to ensure that
   labeled data packets are labeled by trusted LSRs and that the labels
   placed on the packets are properly learned by the labeling LSRs.


5.3. Denial of Service

   LDP provides two potential targets for denial of service (DoS)
   attacks:

   1. Well known UDP Port for LDP Discovery

      An LSR administrator can address the threat of DoS attacks via



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 104]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      Basic Hellos by ensuring that the LSR is directly connected only
      to peers which can be trusted to not initiate such an attack.
      Interfaces to peers interior to the administrator's domain should
      not represent a threat since interior peers are under the adminis-
      trator's control.  Interfaces to peers exterior to the domain rep-
      resent a potential threat since exterior peers are not.  An admin-
      istrator can reduce that threat by connecting the LSR only to
      exterior peers that can be trusted to not initiate a Basic Hello
      attack.

      DoS attacks via Extended Hellos are potentially a more serious
      threat.  This threat can be addressed by filtering Extended Hellos
      using access lists that define addresses with which extended dis-
      covery is permitted.  However, performing the filtering requires
      LSR resource.

      In an environment where a trusted MPLS cloud can be identified,
      LSRs at the edge of the cloud can be used to protect interior LSRs
      against DoS attacks via Extended Hellos by filtering out Extended
      Hellos originating outside of the trusted MPLS cloud, accepting
      only those originating at addresses permitted by access lists.
      This filtering protects LSRs in the interior of the cloud but con-
      sumes resources at the edges.

   2. Well known TCP port for LDP Session Establishment

      Like other control plane protocols that use TCP, LDP may be the
      target of DoS attacks, such a SYN attacks.  LDP is no more or less
      vulnerable to such attacks than other control plane protocols that
      use TCP.

      The threat of such attacks can be mitigated somewhat by the fol-
      lowing:

         o  An LSR should avoid promiscuous TCP listens for LDP session
            establishment.  It should use only listens that are specific
            to discovered peers.  This enables it to drop attack packets
            early in their processing since they are less likely to
            match existing or in-progress connections.

         o  The use of the MD5 option helps somewhat since it prevents a
            SYN from being accepted unless the MD5 segment checksum is
            valid.  However, the receiver must compute the checksum
            before it can decide to discard an otherwise acceptable SYN
            segment.

         o  The use of access list mechanisms applied at the boundary of
            the MPLS cloud in a manner similar to that suggested above



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 105]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


            for Extended Hellos can protect the interior against attacks
            originating from outside the cloud.


6. Areas for Future Study

   The following topics not addressed in this version of LDP are possi-
   ble areas for future study:

      -  Section 2.16 of the MPLS architecture [RFC3031] requires that
         the initial label distribution protocol negotiation between
         peer LSRs enable each LSR to determine whether its peer is
         capable of popping the label stack.  This version of LDP
         assumes that LSRs support label popping for all link types
         except ATM and Frame Relay.  A future version may specify means
         to make this determination part of the session initiation nego-
         tiation.

      -  LDP support for CoS is not specified in this version.  CoS sup-
         port may be addressed in a future version.

      -  LDP support for multicast is not specified in this version.
         Multicast support may be addressed in a future version.

      -  LDP support for multipath label switching is not specified in
         this version.  Multipath support may be addressed in a future
         version.

      ###

         - LDP support for signalling the maximum transmission unit is
         not specified in this version. It is discussed in the experi-
         mental document [LDP-MTU].

         ###

      ### -  The current specification does not address basic peer dis-
         covery on non-broadcast multi access (NBMA) media. The solution
         available in the current specification is to use extended peer
         discovery in such setups. The issue of defining a mechanism
         semantically similar to basic discovery (1 hop limit, bind the
         hello adjacency to an interface) that uses a preconfigured
         neighbor addresses, is left for further study.  ###

      ### - The current specification does not support shutting down an
         adjacency.  The motivation for doing it, and the mechanisms for
         achieving it are left for further study.  ###




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 106]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      ### - The current specification does not include a method for
         securing Hello messages, to detect spoofing of Hellos. The sce-
         narios where this is necessary, as well as the mechanism for
         achieving it are left for future study.  ###

      ### - The current specification does not have the ability to
         detect a stateless fast control plane restart. The method for
         achieving this, possibly through an "incarnation/instance" num-
         ber carried in the Hello message is left for future study.  ###

      ### - The current specification does not support an "end of LIB"
         message, analogous to BGP's end of RIB message which an LDP LSR
         (operating in DU mode) would use following session establish-
         ment. The discussion on the need for such a mechanism and its
         implementation are left for future study.  ###

      ### - The current specification does not deal with situations
         where different LSRs advertise the same address.  Such situa-
         tions typically occur as the result of configuration errors,
         and the goal in this case is to provide the LSRs advertising
         the same address with enough information to enable operators to
         take corrective action. The specification of this mechanism is
         left for a separate document.  ###


7. Acknowledgments

   ###

   This document was originally published as RFC 3036 in January 2001.
   It was produced by the MPLS working of the IETF and was jointly
   authored by Loa Andersson, Paul Doolan, Nancy Feldman, Andre Fredette
   and Bob Thomas.

   The ideas and text in RFC3036 were collected from a number of
   sources.  We would like to thank Rick Boivie, Ross Callon, Alex
   Conta, Eric Gray, Yoshihiro Ohba, Eric Rosen, Bernard Suter, Yakov
   Rekhter, and Arun Viswanathan for their input for RFC3036.

   The editors would like to thank Eric Gray for his insight and input
   to the current document.

   In addition, the editors would like to thank the members of the mpls
   working group for their ideas and the support they have given to this
   document, and in particular to Luca Martini, Markus Jork, Mark Duffy,
   Eric Rosen, Vach Kompella, Kishore Tiruveedhula. Rama Ramakrishnan
   and Nick Weeds.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 107]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   ###


8. References

8.1. Normative references

   ### Remove the following reference, it never went past the -00 stage.

               [ATM-VP]    N. Feldman, B. Jamoussi, S. Komandur, A,
               Viswanathan, T Worster, "MPLS using ATM VP Switching",
               Work in Progress.  ###

   [IANA]      Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
               IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
               October 1998.

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

   [RFC1483]   Heinanen, J., "Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adap-
               tation Layer 5", RFC 1483, July 1993.

   [RFC1700]   Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "ASSIGNED NUMBERS", STD 2,
               RFC 1700, October 1994.

   [RFC2119]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3031]   Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
               Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3032]   Rosen, E., Rekhter, Y., Tappan, D., Farinacci, D.,
               Fedorkow, G.,  Li, T. and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
               Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC3034]   Conta, A., Doolan, P. and A. Malis, "Use of Label Switch-
               ing on Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 3034,
               January 2001.












Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 108]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   [RFC3035]   Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rekhter, Y.,
               Rosen, E., Swallow, G. and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and
               ATM VC Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001.

   [RFC3037]   Thomas, B. and E. Gray, "LDP Applicability", RFC 3037,
               January 2001.


8.2. Non-normative references

   [RFC2205]   Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S.
   Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
   Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC2385]   Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP
   MD5 Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.

   [CRLDP]     L. Andersson, A. Fredette, B. Jamoussi, R. Callon, P.
   Doolan, N. Feldman, E. Gray, J. Halpern, J. Heinanen T. E. Kilty, A.
   G.  Malis, M. Girish, K. Sundell, P. Vaananen, T. Worster, L. Wu, R.
   Dantu, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002






























Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 109]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   [DIFFSERV]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.
   and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC
   2475, December 1998.


   [LDP-MTU]  Black, B. and Kompella, K. "Maximum Transmission Unit Sig-
   nalling Extensions for the Label Distribution Protocol", draft-ietf-
   mpls-ldp-mtu-extensions-03.txt, April 2004.

   [RFC1771]   Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4
   (BGP-4)", RFC 1771, March 1995.

   [RFC2702]   Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M. and J.
   McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering over MPLS", RFC 2702,
   September 1999.




































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 110]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


9. Intellectual Property Statement

   ###


   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 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.

   ###


10. Editors' Addresses

   ###

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

   Ina Minei
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   email: ina@juniper.net

   Bob Thomas



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 111]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


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

   ###













































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 112]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


Appendix A. LDP Label Distribution Procedures

   This section specifies label distribution behavior in terms of LSR
   response to the following events:

      -  Receive Label Request Message;
      -  Receive Label Mapping Message;
      -  Receive Label Abort Request Message;
      -  Receive Label Release Message;
      -  Receive Label Withdraw Message;
      -  Recognize new FEC;
      -  Detect change in FEC next hop;
      -  Receive Notification Message / Label Request Aborted;
      -  Receive Notification Message / No Label Resources;
      -  Receive Notification Message / No Route;
      -  Receive Notification Message / Loop Detected;
      -  Receive Notification Message / Label Resources Available;
      -  Detect local label resources have become available;
      -  LSR decides to no longer label switch a FEC;
      -  Timeout of deferred label request.

   The specification of LSR behavior in response to an event has three
   parts:

      1. Summary.  Prose that describes LSR response to the event in
         overview.

      2. Context.  A list of elements referred to by the Algorithm part
         of the specification.  (See 3.)

      3. Algorithm.  An algorithm for LSR response to the event.

   The Summary may omit details of the LSR response, such as bookkeeping
   action or behavior dependent on the LSR label advertisement mode,
   control mode, or label retention mode in use.  The intent is that the
   Algorithm fully and unambiguously specify the LSR response.

   The algorithms in this section use procedures defined in the MPLS
   architecture specification [RFC3031] for hop-by-hop routed traffic.
   These procedures are:

      -  Label Distribution procedure, which is performed by a down-
         stream LSR to determine when to distribute a label for a FEC to
         LDP peers.  The architecture defines four Label Distribution
         procedures:






Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 113]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         .  Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control, called
            PushUnconditional in [RFC3031].

         .  Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control, called
            PushConditional in [RFC3031].

         .  Downstream On Demand Independent Control, called
            PulledUnconditional in [RFC3031].

         .  Downstream On Demand Ordered Control, called
            PulledConditional in [RFC3031].

      -  Label Withdrawal procedure, which is performed by a downstream
         LSR to determine when to withdraw a FEC label mapping previ-
         ously distributed to LDP peers.  The architecture defines a
         single Label Withdrawal procedure.  Whenever an LSR breaks the
         binding between a label and a FEC, it must withdraw the FEC
         label mapping from all LDP peers to which it has previously
         sent the mapping.

      -  Label Request procedure, which is performed by an upstream LSR
         to determine when to explicitly request that a downstream LSR
         bind a label to a FEC and send it the corresponding label map-
         ping.  The architecture defines three Label Request procedures:

         .  Request Never.  The LSR never requests a label.

         .  Request When Needed.  The LSR requests a label whenever
            it needs one.

         .  Request On Request.  This procedure is used by
            non-label merging LSRs.  The LSR requests a label
            when it receives a request for one, in addition
            to whenever it needs one.

      -  Label Release procedure, which is performed by an upstream LSR
         to determine when to release a previously received label map-
         ping for a FEC.  The architecture defines two Label Release
         procedures:

         .  Conservative label retention, called Release On Change in
            [RFC3031].

         .  Liberal label retention, called No Release On Change in
            [RFC3031].






Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 114]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      -  Label Use procedure, which is performed by an LSR to determine
         when to start using a FEC label for forwarding/switching.  The
         architecture defines three Label Use procedures:

         .  Use Immediate.  The LSR immediately uses a label received
            from a FEC next hop for forwarding/switching.

         .  Use If Loop Free.  The LSR uses a FEC label received from a
            FEC next hop for forwarding/switching only if it has
            determined that by doing so it will not cause a forwarding
            loop.

         .  Use If Loop Not Detected.  This procedure is the same as Use
            Immediate unless the LSR has detected a loop in the FEC LSP.
            Use of the FEC label for forwarding/switching will continue
            until the next hop for the FEC changes or the loop is no
            longer detected.

         This version of LDP does not include a loop prevention mecha-
         nism; therefore, the procedures below do not make use of the
         Use If Loop Free procedure.

      -  Label No Route procedure (called Label Not Available procedure
         in [RFC3031]), which is performed by an upstream LSR to deter-
         mine how to respond to a No Route notification from a down-
         stream LSR in response to a request for a FEC label mapping.
         The architecture specification defines two Label No Route pro-
         cedures:

         .  Request Retry.  The LSR should issue the label request at a
            later time.

         .  No Request Retry.  The LSR should assume the downstream LSR
            will provide a label mapping when the downstream LSR has a
            next hop and it should not reissue the request.


A.1. Handling Label Distribution Events

   This section defines LDP label distribution procedures by specifying
   an algorithm for each label distribution event.  The requirement on
   an LDP implementation is that its event handling must have the effect
   specified by the algorithms.  That is, an implementation need not
   follow exactly the steps specified by the algorithms as long as the
   effect is identical.






Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 115]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   The algorithms for handling label distribution events share common
   actions.  The specifications below package these common actions into
   procedure units.  Specifications for these common procedures are in
   their own section "Common Label Distribution Procedures", which fol-
   lows this.

   An implementation would use data structures to store information
   about protocol activity.  This appendix specifies the information to
   be stored in sufficient detail to describe the algorithms, and
   assumes the ability to retrieve the information as needed.  It does
   not specify the details of the data structures.

A.1.1. Receive Label Request

   Summary:

      The response by an LSR to receipt of a FEC label request from an
      LDP peer may involve one or more of the following actions:

      -  Transmission of a notification message to the requesting LSR
         indicating why a label mapping for the FEC cannot be provided;

      -  Transmission of a FEC label mapping to the requesting LSR;

      -  Transmission of a FEC label request to the FEC next hop;

      -  Installation of labels for forwarding/switching use by the LSR.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the message.

      -  FEC.  The FEC specified in the message.

      -  RAttributes.  Attributes received with the message.  E.g., Hop
         Count, Path Vector.

      -  SAttributes.  Attributes to be included in Label Request mes-
         sage, if any, propagated to FEC Next Hop.

      -  StoredHopCount.  The hop count, if any, previously recorded for
         the FEC.







Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 116]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Algorithm:

      LRq.1   Execute procedure Check_Received_Attributes (MsgSource,
              LabelRequest, RAttributes).
              If Loop Detected, goto LRq.4.
   ###

   In the "goto" statement above, changed to LRq.4 from LRq.13,
   see mpls archive june 01 "error in RFC33036"

   ###

      LRq.2   Is there a Next Hop for FEC?
              If not, goto LRq.5.

      LRq.3   Is MsgSource the Next Hop?
              Ifnot, goto LRq.6.

      LRq.4   Execute procedure Send_Notification (MsgSource, Loop
              Detected).
              Goto LRq.13

      LRq.5   Execute procedure Send_Notification (MsgSource, No Route).
              Goto LRq.13.

      LRq.6   Has LSR previously received a label request for FEC from
              MsgSource?
              If not, goto LRq.8.  (See Note 1.)

      LRq.7   Is the label request a duplicate request?
              If so, Goto LRq.13.  (See Note 2.)

      LRq.8   Record label request for FEC received from MsgSource and
              mark it pending.

      LRq.9   Perform LSR Label Distribution procedure:

            For Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control OR
            For Downstream On Demand Independent Control

               1. Has LSR previously received and retained a label map-
                  ping for FEC from Next Hop?.
                  Is so, set Propagating to IsPropagating.
                  If not, set Propagating to NotPropagating.

               2. Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Map-
                  ping_Attributes(MsgSource, FEC, RAttributes, SAt-
                  tributes, Propagating, StoredHopCount).



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 117]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


               3. Execute procedure Send_Label (MsgSource, FEC, SAt-
                  tributes).

















































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 118]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


               4. Is LSR egress for FEC? OR
                  Has LSR previously received and retained a label map-
                  ping for FEC from Next Hop?
                  If so, goto LRq.11.
                  If not, goto LRq.10.

            For Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control OR
            For Downstream On Demand Ordered Control

               1. Is LSR egress for FEC? OR
                  Has LSR previously received and retained a label map-
                  ping for FEC from Next Hop?  (See Note 3.)
                  If not, goto LRq.10.

               2. Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Map-
                  ping_Attributes(MsgSource, FEC, RAttributes, SAt-
                  tributes, IsPropagating, StoredHopCount)

               3. Execute procedure Send_Label (MsgSource, FEC, SAt-
                  tributes).
                  Goto LRq.11.

      LRq.10  Perform LSR Label Request procedure:

            For Request Never

               1. Goto LRq.13.

            For Request When Needed OR
            For Request On Request

               1. Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes
                  (Next Hop, FEC, RAttributes, SAttributes);

               2. Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (Next Hop, FEC,
                  SAttributes).
                  Goto LRq.13.

      LRq.11  Has LSR successfully sent a label for FEC to MsgSource?
              If not, goto LRq.13.  (See Note 4.)

      LRq.12  Perform LSR Label Use procedure.

            For Use Immediate OR
            For Use If Loop Not Detected






Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 119]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


               1. Install label sent to MsgSource and label from Next
                  Hop (if LSR is not egress) for forwarding/switching
                  use.

      LRq.13  DONE

   Notes:

      1. In the case where MsgSource is a non-label merging LSR it will
         send a label request for each upstream LDP peer that has
         requested a label for FEC from it.  The LSR must be able to
         distinguish such requests from a non-label merging MsgSource
         from duplicate label requests.

         The LSR uses the message ID of received Label Request messages
         to detect duplicate requests.  This means that an LSR (the
         upstream peer) may not reuse the message ID used for a Label
         Request until the Label Request transaction has completed.

      2. When an LSR sends a label request to a peer it records that the
         request has been sent and marks it as outstanding.  As long as
         the request is marked outstanding the LSR should not send
         another request for the same label to the peer.  Such a second
         request would be a duplicate.  The Send_Label_Request procedure
         described below obeys this rule.

         A duplicate label request is considered a protocol error and
         should be dropped by the receiving LSR (perhaps with a suitable
         notification returned to MsgSource).

      3. If LSR is not merge-capable, this test will fail.

      4. The Send_Label procedure may fail due to lack of label
         resources, in which case the LSR should not perform the Label
         Use procedure.

A.1.2. Receive Label Mapping

   Summary:

      The response by an LSR to receipt of a FEC label mapping from an
      LDP peer may involve one or more of the following actions:

      -  Transmission of a label release message for the FEC label to
         the LDP peer;

      -  Transmission of label mapping messages for the FEC to one or
         more LDP peers,



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 120]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      -  Installation of the newly learned label for forwarding/switch-
         ing use by the LSR.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the message.

      -  FEC.  The FEC specified in the message.

      -  Label.  The label specified in the message.

      -  PrevAdvLabel.  The label for FEC, if any, previously advertised
         to an upstream peer.

         ###

         Add the following text: Assuming no label was previously adver-
         tised, this is the same label as the one in the Label Mapping
         Message being processed.

         THis is the reason why: This would have to be done both to
         allow for later re-use of the value (in the event that a later
         Label Mapping is received - possibly with a different hop-count
         or path vector) and so that it can be immediately re-used in
         step LMp.25 (if needed).  The procedure, as it currently is,
         seems to assume that this has been done apriori (before step
         LMp.18).

         ###

      -  StoredHopCount.  The hop count previously recorded for the FEC.

      -  RAttributes.  Attributes received with the message.  E.g., Hop
         Count, Path Vector.

      -  SAttributes to be included in Label Mapping message, if any,
         propagated to upstream peers.

   Algorithm:

      LMp.1   Does the received label mapping match an outstanding
              label request for FEC previously sent to MsgSource.
              If not, goto LMp.3.

      LMp.2   Delete record of outstanding FEC label request.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 121]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      LMp.3   Execute procedure Check_Received_Attributes (MsgSource,
              LabelMapping, RAttributes).
              If No Loop Detected, goto LMp.9.

      LMp.4   Does the LSR have a previously received label mapping for
              FEC from MsgSource? (See Note 1.)
              If not, goto LMp.8.  (See Note 2.)

      LMp.5   Does the label previously received from MsgSource match
              Label (i.e., the label received in the message)?
              (See Note 3.)
              If not, goto LMp.8.  (See Note 4.)

      LMp.6   Delete matching label mapping for FEC previously
              received from MsgSource.

      LMp.7   Remove Label from forwarding/switching use.  (See Note 5.)

      ###

         Remove this goto: Goto LMp.33.

      ###

      LMp.8   Execute procedure Send_Message (MsgSource, Label Release,
              FEC, Label, Loop Detected Status code).  Goto LMp.33.

      LMp.9   Does LSR have a previously received label mapping for FEC
              from MsgSource for the LSP in question?  (See Note 6.)
              If not, goto LMp.11.

      LMp.10  Does the label previously received from MsgSource match
              Label (i.e., the label received in the message)?
              (See Note 3.)
      ###
      Add:
                 OR
                 Is the received label mapping in response to a previously
                 outstanding label request sent to MsgSource?  (See Note 12).
                 If so, goto LMp.11.

       LMp.10a Is LSR operating in Downstream Unsolicited mode with Liberal
                 Label retention?
                 If not, goto LMp.32. (See Note 4.)

      ###

      LMp.11  Determine the Next Hop for FEC.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 122]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      LMp.12  Is MsgSource the Next Hop for FEC?
              If so, goto LMp.14.

      LMp.13  Perform LSR Label Release procedure:

            For Conservative Label retention:

              1. Goto LMp.32.

            For Liberal Label retention:

              1. Record label mapping for FEC with Label and
                 RAttributes has been received from MsgSource.
                 Goto LMp.33.

      LMp.14  Is LSR an ingress for FEC?
              If not, goto LMp.16.

      LMp.15  Install Label for forwarding/switching use.

      LMp.16  Record label mapping for FEC with Label and RAttributes
              has been received from MsgSource.

      LMp.17  Iterate through LMp.31 for each Peer.  (See Note 7).

      LMp.18  Has LSR previously sent a label mapping for FEC to Peer
              for the LSP in question?  (See Note 8.)
              If so, goto LMp.22.























Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 123]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      LMp.19  Is the Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control Label
              Distribution procedure being used by LSR?

      ###

        (formatting only) If not, goto LMp.28.

      ###

      LMp.20  Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(Peer,
              FEC, RAttributes, SAttributes, IsPropagating,
              StoredHopCount).

      LMp.21  Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Mapping, FEC,
              PrevAdvLabel, SAttributes). (See note 9.)
              Goto LMp.28

      LMp.22  Iterate through LMp.27 for each label mapping for FEC
              previously sent to Peer.

      LMp.23  Are RAttributes in the received label mapping consistent
              with those previously sent to Peer?
              If so, continue iteration from LMp.22 for next label
              mapping. (See Note 9.)

      LMp.24  Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(Peer,
              FEC, RAttributes, SAttributes, IsPropagating,
              StoredHopCount).

      LMp.25  Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Mapping, FEC,
              PrevAdvLabel, SAttributes).  (See Note 10.)

      LMp.26  Update record of label mapping for FEC previously sent to
              Peer to include the new attributes sent.

      LMp.27  End iteration from LMp.22.

      LMp.28  Does LSR have any label requests for FEC from Peer marked
              as pending?
              If not, goto LMp.30.

      LMp.29  Perform LSR Label Distribution procedure:

            For Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control OR
            For Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control

              1. Execute procedure
                 Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(Peer, FEC,



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 124]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


                 RAttributes, SAttributes, IsPropagating,
                 UnknownHopCount).

















































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 125]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


              2. Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, SAttributes).
                 If the procedure fails, continue iteration for
                 next Peer at LMp.17.

              3. If no pending requests exist for Peer goto LMp.30.
                 (See Note 11.)

      ###

      Remove the following two lines, since the behavior is the same.

            For Downstream On Demand Independent Control OR
            For Downstream On Demand Ordered Control

      ###
              1. Iterate through Step 5 for each pending label
                 request for FEC from Peer marked as pending.

              2. Execute procedure
                 Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes(Peer, FEC,
                 RAttributes, SAttributes, IsPropagating,
                 UnknownHopCount)

              3. Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC,
                 SAttributes).
                 If the procedure fails, continue iteration for next
                 Peer at LMp.17.

              4. Delete record of pending request.

              5. End iteration from Step 1.

              6. Goto LMp.30.

      LMp.30  Perform LSR Label Use procedure:

            For Use Immediate OR
            For Use If Loop Not Detected

              1. Iterate through Step 3 for each label mapping for
                 FEC previously sent to Peer.

              2. Install label received and label sent to Peer for
                 forwarding/switching use.

              3. End iteration from Step 1.

              4. Goto LMp.31.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 126]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      LMp.31  End iteration from LMp.17.
              Go to LMp.33.

















































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 127]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      LMp.32  Execute procedure Send_Message (MsgSource, Label Release,
              FEC, Label).

      LMp.33  DONE.

   Notes:

      1.  If the LSR is merging there should be at most 1 received map-
          ping for the FEC for the LSP in question.  In the non-merging
          case there could be multiple received mappings for the FEC for
          the LSP in question.

      2.  If LSR has detected a loop and it has not previously received
          a label mapping from MsgSource for the FEC, it simply releases
          the label.

      3.  Does the Label received in the message match any of the 1 or
          more label mappings identified in the previous step (LMp.4 or
          LMp.9)?

      4.  An unsolicited mapping with a different label from the same
          peer would be an attempt to establish multipath label switch-
          ing, which is not supported in this version of LDP.

      5.  If Label is not in forwarding/switching use, LMp.7 has no
          effect.

      6.  If the received label mapping message matched an outstanding
          label request in LMp.1, then (by definition) LSR has not pre-
          viously received a label mapping for FEC for the LSP in ques-
          tion.  If the LSR is merging upstream labels for the LSP in
          question, there should be at most 1 received mapping.  In the
          non-merging case, there could be multiple received label map-
          pings for the same FEC, one for each resulting LSP.

      7.  The LMp.17 iteration includes MsgSource in order to handle the
          case where LSR is operating in Downstream Unsolicited ordered
          control mode.  Ordered control prevents LSR from advertising a
          label for FEC until it has received a label mapping from its
          next hop (MsgSource) for FEC.

      8.  If LSR is merging the LSP it may have previously sent label
          mappings for the FEC LSP to one or more peers.  If LSR is not
          merging, it may have sent a label mapping for the LSP in ques-
          tion to at most one LSR.

      ###




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 128]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


          9. An LSR operating in ordered control mode may choose to skip
          at this stage the peer from which it received the advertise-
          ment that caused it to generate the label-map message. Doing
          so will in effect provide a form of split-horizon.

          ###













































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 129]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      9.  The loop detection Path Vector attribute is considered in this
          check.  If the received RAttributes include a Path Vector and
          no Path Vector had been previously sent to the Peer, or if the
          received Path Vector is inconsistent with the Path Vector pre-
          viously sent to the Peer, then the attributes are considered
          to be inconsistent.  Note that an LSR is not required to store
          a received Path Vector after it propagates the Path Vector in
          a mapping message.  If an LSR does not store the Path Vector,
          it has no way to check the consistency of a newly received
          Path Vector.  This means that whenever such an LSR receives a
          mapping message carrying a Path Vector it must always propa-
          gate the Path Vector.

      10. LMp.22 through LMp.27 deal with a situation that can arise
          when the LSR is using independent control and it receives a
          mapping from the downstream peer after it has sent a mapping
          to an upstream peer.  In this situation the LSR needs to prop-
          agate any changed attributes, such as Hop Count, upstream.  If
          Loop Detection is configured on, the propagated attributes
          must include the Path Vector

      11. An LSR operating in Downstream Unsolicited mode must process
          any Label Request messages it receives.  If there are pending
          label requests, fall through into the Downstream on Demand
          procedures in order to satisfy the pending requests.

      ###

          12.  As determined by step LMp.1.

          ###

A.1.3. Receive Label Abort Request

   Summary:

      When an LSR receives a label abort request message from a peer, it
      checks whether it has already responded to the label request in
      question. If it has, it silently ignores the message.  If it has
      not, it sends the peer a Label Request Aborted Notification.  In
      addition, if it has a label request outstanding for the LSP in
      question to a downstream peer, it sends a Label Abort Request to
      the downstream peer to abort the LSP.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 130]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the message.

      -  FEC.  The FEC specified in the message.

      -  RequestMessageID.  The message ID of the label request message
         to be aborted.

      -  Next Hop.  The next hop for the FEC.

   Algorithm:

      LAbR.1  Does the message match a previously received label request
              message from MsgSource? (See Note 1.)
              If not, goto LAbR.12.

      LAbR.2  Has LSR responded to the previously received label
              request?
              If so, goto LAbR.12.

      LAbR.3  Execute procedure Send_Message(MsgSource, Notification,
              Label Request Aborted, TLV), where TLV is the Label
              Request Message ID TLV received in the label abort
              request message.

      LAbR.4  Does LSR have a label request message outstanding for
              FEC?
              If so, goto LAbR.7

      LAbR.5  Does LSR have a label mapping for FEC?
              If not, goto LAbR.11

      LAbR.6  Generate Event: Received Label Release Message for FEC
              from MsgSource.  (See Note 2.)
              Goto LAbR.11.

      LAbR.7  Is LSR merging the LSP for FEC?
              If not, goto LAbR.9.

      ####

      LAbR.8  Are there upstream peers other than MsgSource that have
              requested a label for FEC?  The condition must be changed
      to read: "Are there outstanding label requrests for this FEC?"
      This is because if there are outstanding requests for MsgSource,
      the test wil fail, and LAbR.9 will be executed, resulting in
      killing the downstream propagation of these other requests.

      ###



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 131]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


              If so, goto LAbR.11.

      LAbR.9  Execute procedure Send_Message (Next Hop, Label Abort
              Request, FEC, TLV), where TLV is a Label Request Message
              ID TLV containing the Message ID used by the LSR in the
              outstanding Label Request message.

      LAbR.10  Record that a label abort request for FEC is pending.

      LAbR.11  Delete record of label request for FEC from MsgSource.

      LAbR.12  DONE







































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 132]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Notes:

      1. LSR uses FEC and the Label Request Message ID TLV carried by
         the label abort request to locate its record (if any) for the
         previously received label request from MsgSource.

      2. If LSR has received a label mapping from NextHop, it should
         behave as if it had advertised a label mapping to MsgSource and
         MsgSource has released it.

A.1.4. Receive Label Release

   Summary:

      When an LSR receives a label release message for a FEC from a
      peer, it checks whether other peers hold the released label.  If
      none do, the LSR removes the label from forwarding/switching use,
      if it has not already done so, and if the LSR holds a label map-
      ping from the FEC next hop, it releases the label mapping.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the message.

      -  Label.  The label specified in the message.

      -  FEC.  The FEC specified in the message.

   Algorithm:


      ###

      LRl.0   Does FEC match a known FEC? If not, goto LRl.13

      ###

      LRl.1   Remove MsgSource from record of peers that hold Label for
              FEC.  (See Note 1.)

      LRl.2   Does message match an outstanding label withdraw for FEC
              previously sent to MsgSource?
              If not, goto LRl.4

      LRl.3   Delete record of outstanding label withdraw for FEC
              previously sent to MsgSource.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 133]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      LRl.4   Is LSR merging labels for this FEC?
              If not, goto LRl.6.  (See Note 2.)


      LRl.5
      ###

      REPLACE :
      Has LSR previously advertised a label for this FEC to
              other peers?
      WITH
       Does LSR have outstanding label advertisements for this FEC?
      See
      MPLS WG archive, May 01, "Label Release receive doubt !!"

      ###
              If so, goto LRl.10.

      LRl.6   Is LSR egress for the FEC?
              If so, goto LRl.10

      LRl.7   Is there a Next Hop for FEC? AND
              Does LSR have a previously received label mapping for FEC
              from Next Hop?
              If not, goto LRl.10.

      LRl.8   Is LSR configured to propagate releases?
              If not, goto LRl.10.  (See Note 3.)

      LRl.9   Execute procedure Send_Message (Next Hop, Label Release,
              FEC, Label from Next Hop).

      LRl.10  Remove Label from forwarding/switching use for traffic
              from MsgSource.

      LRl.11  Do any peers still hold Label for FEC?
              If so, goto LRl.13.

      LRl.12  Free the Label.

      LRl.13  DONE.

   Notes:

      1. If LSR is using Downstream Unsolicited label distribution, it
         should not re-advertise a label mapping for FEC to MsgSource
         until MsgSource requests it.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 134]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      2. LRl.4 through LRl.8 deal with determining whether where the LSR
         should propagate the label release to a downstream peer
         (LRl.9).

      3. If LRl.8 is reached, no upstream LSR holds a label for the FEC,
         and the LSR holds a label for the FEC from the FEC Next Hop.
         The LSR could propagate the Label Release to the Next Hop.  By
         propagating the Label Release the LSR releases a potentially
         scarce label resource.  In doing so, it also increases the
         latency for re-establishing the LSP should MsgSource or some
         other upstream LSR send it a new Label Request for FEC.

         Whether or not to propagate the release is not a protocol
         issue.  Label distribution will operate properly whether or not
         the release is propagated.  The decision to propagate or not
         should take into consideration factors such as: whether labels
         are a scarce resource in the operating environment; the impor-
         tance of keeping LSP setup latency low by keeping the amount of
         signaling required small; whether LSP setup is ingress-con-
         trolled or egress-controlled in the operating environment.

A.1.5. Receive Label Withdraw

   Summary:

      When an LSR receives a label withdraw message for a FEC from an
      LDP peer, it responds with a label release message and it removes
      the label from any forwarding/switching use.  If ordered control
      is in use, the LSR sends a label withdraw message to each LDP peer
      to which it had previously sent a label mapping for the FEC.  If
      the LSR is using Downstream on Demand label advertisement with
      independent control, it then acts as if it had just recognized the
      FEC.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the message.

      -  Label.  The label specified in the message.

      -  FEC.  The FEC specified in the message.

   Algorithm:

      LWd.1   Remove Label from forwarding/switching use.  (See Note 1.)




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 135]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      LWd.2   Execute procedure Send_Message (MsgSource, Label Release,
              FEC, Label)

      LWd.3   Has LSR previously received and retained a matching label
              mapping for FEC from MsgSource?
              If not, goto LWd.13.

      LWd.4   Delete matching label mapping for FEC previously received
              from MsgSource.

      LWd.5   Is LSR using ordered control?
              If so, goto LWd.8.

      LWd.6   Is MsgSource using Downstream On Demand label
              advertisement?
              If not, goto LWd.13.

      LWd.7   Generate Event: Recognize New FEC for FEC.
              Goto LWd.13.  (See Note 2.)

      LWd.8   Iterate through LWd.12 for each Peer, other than
              MsgSource.

      LWd.9   Has LSR previously sent a label mapping for FEC to Peer?
              If not, continue iteration for next Peer at LWd.8.

      LWd.10  Does the label previously sent to Peer "map" to the
              withdrawn Label?
              If not, continue iteration for next Peer at LWd.8.
              (See Note 3.)

      LWd.11  Execute procedure Send_Label_Withdraw (Peer, FEC, Label
              previously sent to Peer).

      LWd.12  End iteration from LWd.8.

      LWd.13  DONE

   Notes:

      1. If Label is not in forwarding/switching use, LWd.1 has no
         effect.

      2. LWd.7 handles the case where the LSR is using Downstream On
         Demand label distribution with independent control.  In this
         situation the LSR should send a label request to the FEC next
         hop as if it had just recognized the FEC.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 136]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      3. LWd.10 handles both label merging (one or more incoming labels
         map to the same outgoing label) and no label merging (one label
         maps to the outgoing label) cases.

A.1.6. Recognize New FEC

   Summary:

      The response by an LSR to learning a new FEC via the routing table
      may involve one or more of the following actions:

      -  Transmission of label mappings for the FEC to one or more LDP
         peers;

      -  Transmission of a label request for the FEC to the FEC next
         hop;

      -  Any of the actions that can occur when the LSR receives a label
         mapping for the FEC from the FEC next hop.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  FEC. The newly recognized FEC.

      -  Next Hop.  The next hop for the FEC.

      -  InitAttributes.  Attributes to be associated with the new FEC.
         (See Note 1.)

      -  SAttributes.  Attributes to be included in Label Mapping or
         Label Request messages, if any, sent to peers.

      -  StoredHopCount.  Hop count associated with FEC label mapping,
         if any, previously received from Next Hop.

   Algorithm:

      FEC.1   Perform LSR Label Distribution procedure:

            For Downstream Unsolicited Independent Control

               1. Iterate through 5 for each Peer.

               2. Has LSR previously received and retained a label
                  mapping for FEC from Next Hop?
                  If so, set Propagating to IsPropagating.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 137]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


                  If not, set Propagating to NotPropagating.

               3. Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes
                  (Peer, FEC, InitAttributes, SAttributes, Propagating,
                  Unknown hop count(0)).

               4. Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, SAttributes)

               5. End iteration from 1.
                  Goto FEC.2.

            For Downstream Unsolicited Ordered Control

               1. Iterate through 5 for each Peer.





































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 138]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


               2. Is LSR egress for the FEC? OR
                  Has LSR previously received and retained a label
                  mapping for FEC from Next Hop?
                  If not, continue iteration for next Peer.

               3. Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes
                  (Peer, FEC, InitAttributes, SAttributes, Propagating,
                  StoredHopCount).

               4. Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, SAttributes)

               5. End iteration from 1.
                  Goto FEC.2.

            For Downstream On Demand Independent Control OR
            For Downstream On Demand Ordered Control

               1. Goto FEC.2.  (See Note 2.)

      FEC.2   Has LSR previously received and retained a label
              mapping for FEC from Next Hop?
              If so, goto FEC.5

      FEC.3   Is Next Hop an LDP peer?
              If not, Goto FEC.6

      FEC.4   Perform LSR Label Request procedure:

            For Request Never

              1. Goto FEC.6

            For Request When Needed OR
            For Request On Request

              1. Execute procedure
                 Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes
                 (Next Hop, FEC, InitAttributes, SAttributes);

              2. Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (Next
                 Hop, FEC, SAttributes).
                 Goto FEC.6.

      FEC.5   Generate Event: Received Label Mapping from Next Hop.
              (See Note 3.)

      FEC.6   DONE.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 139]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Notes:

      1. An example of an attribute that might be part of InitAttributes
         is one which specifies desired LSP characteristics, such as
         class of service (CoS).  (Note that while the current version
         of LDP does not specify a CoS attribute, LDP extensions may.)

         The means by which FEC InitAttributes, if any, are specified is
         beyond the scope of LDP.  Note that the InitAttributes will not
         include a known Hop Count or a Path Vector.

      2. An LSR using Downstream On Demand label distribution would send
         a label only if it had a previously received label request
         marked as pending.  The LSR would have no such pending requests
         because it responds to any label request for an unknown FEC by
         sending the requesting LSR a No Route notification and discard-
         ing the label request; see LRq.3

      3. If the LSR has a label for the FEC from the Next Hop, it should
         behave as if it had just received the label from the Next Hop.
         This occurs in the case of Liberal label retention mode.

A.1.7. Detect Change in FEC Next Hop

   Summary:

   The response by an LSR to a change in the next hop for a FEC may
   involve one or more of the following actions:

      -  Removal of the label from the FEC's old next hop from forward-
         ing/switching use;

      -  Transmission of label mapping messages for the FEC to one or
         more LDP peers;

      -  Transmission of a label request to the FEC's new next hop;

      -  Any of the actions that can occur when the LSR receives a label
         mapping from the FEC's new next hop.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  FEC.  The FEC whose next hop changed.

      -  New Next Hop.  The current next hop for the FEC.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 140]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      -  Old Next Hop.  The previous next hop for the FEC.

      -  OldLabel.  Label, if any, previously received from Old Next
         Hop.

      -  CurAttributes.  The attributes, if any, currently associated
         with the FEC.

      -  SAttributes.  Attributes to be included in Label Label Request
         message, if any, sent to New Next Hop.

   Algorithm:

      NH.1   Has LSR previously received and retained a label mapping
             for FEC from Old Next Hop?
             If not, goto NH.6.

      NH.2   Remove label from forwarding/switching use.  (See Note 1.)

      NH.3   Is LSR using Liberal label retention?
             If so, goto NH.6.

      NH.4   Execute procedure Send_Message (Old Next Hop, Label
             Release, OldLabel).

      NH.5   Delete label mapping for FEC previously received from Old
             Next Hop.

      NH.6   Does LSR have a label request pending with Old Next Hop?
             If not, goto NH.10.

      NH.7   Is LSR using Conservative label retention?
             If not, goto NH.10.

      NH.8   Execute procedure Send_Message (Old Next Hop, Label Abort
             Request, FEC, TLV), where TLV is a Label Request Message
             ID TLV that carries the message ID of the pending label
             request.

      NH.9   Record a label abort request is pending for FEC with Old
             Next Hop.

      NH.10  Is there a New Next Hop for the FEC?
             If not, goto NH.16.

      NH.11  Has LSR previously received and retained a label mapping
             for FEC from New Next Hop?
             If not, goto NH.13.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 141]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      NH.12  Generate Event: Received Label Mapping from New Next Hop.
             Goto NH.20.  (See Note 2.)

      NH.13  Is LSR using Downstream on Demand advertisement? OR
             Is Next Hop using Downstream on Demand advertisement? OR
             Is LSR using Conservative label retention? (See Note 3.)
             If so, goto NH.14.
             If not, goto NH.20.

      NH.14  Execute procedure Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes (Next
             Hop, FEC, CurAttributes, SAttributes)

      NH.15  Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (New Next Hop, FEC,
             SAttributes).  (See Note 4.)
             Goto NH.20.

      NH.16  Iterate through NH.19 for each Peer.

      NH.17  Has LSR previously sent a label mapping for FEC to Peer?
             If not, continue iteration for next Peer at NH.16.

      NH.18  Execute procedure Send_Label_Withdraw (Peer, FEC, Label
             previously sent to Peer).

      NH.19  End iteration from NH.16.

      NH.20  DONE.

   Notes:

      1. If Label is not in forwarding/switching use, NH.2 has no
         effect.

      2. If the LSR has a label for the FEC from the New Next Hop, it
         should behave as if it had just received the label from the New
         Next Hop.

      3. The purpose of the check on label retention mode is to avoid a
         race with steps LMp.12-LMp.13 of the procedure for handling a
         Label Mapping message where the LSR operating in Conservative
         Label retention mode may have released a label mapping received
         from the New Next Hop before it detected the FEC next hop had
         changed.

      4. Regardless of the Label Request procedure in use by the LSR, it
         must send a label request if the conditions in
         ###




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 142]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


         REPLACE
         NH.8 hold.
         WITH
         NH.13.hold

         ###

         Therefore it executes the Send_Label_Request procedure directly
         rather than perform LSR Label Request procedure.

A.1.8. Receive Notification / Label Request Aborted

   Summary:

      When an LSR receives a Label Request Aborted notification from an
      LDP peer it records that the corresponding label request
      transaction, if any, has completed.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  FEC.  The FEC for which a label was requested.

      -  RequestMessageID.  The message ID of the label request message
         to be aborted.

      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the Notification message.

   Algorithm:

      LRqA.1  Does the notification correspond to an outstanding label
              request abort for FEC? (See Note 1).
              If not, goto LRqA.3.

      LRqA.2  Record that the label request for FEC has been aborted.

      LRqA.3  DONE

   Notes:

      1. The LSR uses the FEC and RequestMessageID to locate its record,
         if any, of the outstanding label request abort.








Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 143]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


A.1.9. Receive Notification / No Label Resources

   Summary:

      When an LSR receives a No Label Resources notification from an LDP
      peer, it stops sending label request messages to the peer until it
      receives a Label Resources Available Notification from the peer.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  FEC.  The FEC for which a label was requested.

      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the Notification message.

   Algorithm:

      NoRes.1 Delete record of outstanding label request for FEC sent
              to MsgSource.

      NoRes.2 Record label mapping for FEC from MsgSource is needed but
              that no label resources are available.

      NoRes.3 Set status record indicating it is not OK to send label
              requests to MsgSource.

      NoRes.4 DONE.

A.1.10. Receive Notification / No Route

   Summary:

      When an LSR receives a No Route notification from an LDP peer in
      response to a Label Request message, the Label No Route procedure
      in use dictates its response. The LSR either will take no further
      action, or it will defer the label request by starting a timer and
      send another Label Request message to the peer when the timer
      later expires.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  FEC.  The FEC for which a label was requested.

      -  Attributes.  The attributes associated with the label request.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 144]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the Notification message.

   Algorithm:

      NoNH.1  Delete record of outstanding label request for FEC sent
              to MsgSource.

      NoNH.2  Perform LSR Label No Route procedure.

            For Request No Retry

              1. Goto NoNH.3.







































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 145]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


            For Request Retry

              1. Record deferred label request for FEC and Attributes
                 to be sent to MsgSource.

              2. Start timeout.  Goto NoNH.3.

      NoNH.3  DONE.

A.1.11. Receive Notification / Loop Detected

   Summary:

      When an LSR receives a Loop Detected Status Code from an LDP peer
      in response to a Label Request message or a Label Mapping message,
      it behaves as if it had received a No Route notification.

   Context:

      See "Receive Notification / No Route".

   Algorithm:

      See "Receive Notification / No Route"

   Notes:

      1. When the Loop Detected notification is in response to a Label
         Request message, it arrives in a Status Code TLV in a Notifica-
         tion message.  When it is in response to a Label Mapping mes-
         sage, it arrives in a Status Code TLV in a Label Release mes-
         sage.

A.1.12. Receive Notification / Label Resources Available

   Summary:

   When an LSR receives a Label Resources Available notification from an
   LDP peer, it resumes sending label requests to the peer.

   Context:

   -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

   -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the Notification message.

      -  SAttributes.  Attributes stored with postponed Label Request
         message.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 146]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Algorithm:

      Res.1   Set status record indicating it is OK to send label
              requests to MsgSource.

      Res.2   Iterate through Res.6 for each record of a FEC label
              mapping needed from MsgSource for which no label
              resources are available.

      Res.3   Is MsgSource the next hop for FEC?
              If not, goto Res.5.

      Res.4   Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (MsgSource, FEC,
              SAttributes).  If the procedure fails, terminate
              iteration.

      Res.5   Delete record that no resources are available for a label
              mapping for FEC needed from MsgSource.

      Res.6   End iteration from Res.2

      Res.7   DONE.

A.1.13. Detect local label resources have become available

   Summary:

      After an LSR has sent a No Label Resources notification to an LDP
      peer, when label resources later become available it sends a Label
      Resources Available notification to each such peer.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  Attributes.  Attributes stored with postponed Label Mapping
         message.

   Algorithm:

      ResA.1  Iterate through ResA.4 for each Peer to which LSR has
              previously sent a No Label Resources notification.

      ResA.2  Execute procedure Send_Notification (Peer, Label
              Resources Available)

      ResA.3  Delete record that No Label Resources notification was
              previously sent to Peer.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 147]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      ResA.4  End iteration from ResA.1

      ResA.5  Iterate through ResA.8 for each record of a label mapping
              needed for FEC for Peer but no-label-resources.  (See Note
              1.)

      ResA.6  Execute procedure Send_Label (Peer, FEC, Attributes).  If
              the procedure fails, terminate iteration.

      ResA.7  Clear record of FEC label mapping needed for peer but no-
              label-resources.

      ResA.8  End iteration from ResA.5

      ResA.9  DONE.

   Notes:

      1. Iteration ResA.5 through ResA.8 handles the situation where the
         LSR is using Downstream Unsolicited label distribution and was
         previously unable to allocate a label for a FEC.

A.1.14. LSR decides to no longer label switch a FEC

   Summary:

      An LSR may unilaterally decide to no longer label switch a FEC for
      an LDP peer.  An LSR that does so must send a label withdraw message
      for the FEC to the peer.

   Context:

      -  Peer.  The peer.

      -  FEC.  The FEC.

      -  PrevAdvLabel.  The label for FEC previously advertised to Peer.

   Algorithm:

      NoLS.1  Execute procedure Send_Label_Withdraw (Peer, FEC,
              PrevAdvLabel).  (See Note 1.)

      NoLS.2  DONE.







Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 148]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Notes:

      1. The LSR may remove the label from forwarding/switching use as
         part of this event or as part of processing the label release
         from the peer in response to the label withdraw.  ###

         If the LSR doesn't wait for the label reelase message from the
         peer it should not reuse the label until it receives the label
         release.

         ###

A.1.15. Timeout of deferred label request

   Summary:

      Label requests are deferred in response to No Route and Loop
      Detected notifications.  When a deferred FEC label request for a
      peer times out, the LSR sends the label request.

   Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR handling the event.

      -  FEC.  The FEC associated with the timeout event.

      -  Peer.  The LDP peer associated with the timeout event.

      -  Attributes.  Attributes stored with deferred Label Request mes-
         sage.

   Algorithm:

      TO.1    Retrieve the record of the deferred label request.

      TO.2    Is Peer the next hop for FEC?
              If not, goto TO.4.

      TO.3    Execute procedure Send_Label_Request (Peer, FEC).

      TO.4    DONE.










Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 149]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


A.2. Common Label Distribution Procedures

   This section specifies utility procedures used by the algorithms that
   handle label distribution events.

A.2.1. Send_Label

   Summary:

      The Send_Label procedure allocates a label for a FEC for an LDP
      peer, if possible, and sends a label mapping for the FEC to the
      peer.  If the LSR is unable to allocate the label and if it has a
      pending label request from the peer, it sends the LDP peer a No
      Label Resources notification.

   Parameters:

      -  Peer.  The LDP peer to which the label mapping is to be sent.

      -  FEC.  The FEC for which a label mapping is to be sent.

      -  Attributes.  The attributes to be included with the label map-
         ping.

   Additional Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR executing the procedure.

      -  Label.  The label allocated and sent to Peer.

   Algorithm:

      SL.1   Does LSR have a label to allocate?
             If not, goto SL.9.

      SL.2   Allocate Label and bind it to the FEC.

      SL.3   Install Label for forwarding/switching use.

      SL.4   Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Mapping, FEC,
             Label, Attributes).

      SL.5   Record label mapping for FEC with Label and Attributes has
             been sent to Peer.

      SL.6   Does LSR have a record of a FEC label request from Peer
             marked as pending?
             If not, goto SL.8.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 150]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      SL.7   Delete record of pending label request for FEC from Peer.

      SL.8   Return success.

      SL.9   Does LSR have a label request for FEC from Peer marked as
             pending?
             If not, goto SL.13.

      SL.10  Execute procedure Send_Notification (Peer, No Label
             Resources).

      SL.11  Delete record of pending label request for FEC from Peer.

      SL.12  Record No Label Resources notification has been sent to
             Peer.
             Goto SL.14.

      SL.13  Record label mapping needed for FEC and Attributes for
             Peer, but no-label-resources.  (See Note 1.)

      SL.14  Return failure.

   Notes:

      1. SL.13 handles the case of Downstream Unsolicited label distri-
         bution when the LSR is unable to allocate a label for a FEC to
         send to a Peer.

A.2.2. Send_Label_Request

   Summary:

      An LSR uses the Send_Label_Request procedure to send a request for
      a label for a FEC to an LDP peer if currently permitted to do so.

   Parameters:

      -  Peer.  The LDP peer to which the label request is to be sent.

      -  FEC.  The FEC for which a label request is to be sent.

      -  Attributes.  Attributes to be included in the label request.
         E.g., Hop Count, Path Vector.

   Additional Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR executing the procedure.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 151]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


   Algorithm:

      SLRq.1  Has a label request for FEC previously been sent to Peer
              and is it marked as outstanding?
              If so, Return success.  (See Note 1.)

      SLRq.2  Is status record indicating it is OK to send label
              requests to Peer set?
              If not, goto SLRq.6










































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 152]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      SLRq.3  Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Request, FEC,
              Attributes).

      SLRq.4  Record label request for FEC has been sent to Peer and
              mark it as outstanding.

      SLRq.5  Return success.

      SLRq.6  Postpone the label request by recording label mapping for
              FEC and Attributes from Peer is needed but that no label
              resources are available.

      SLRq.7  Return failure.

   Notes:

      1. If the LSR is a non-merging LSR it must distinguish between
         attempts to send label requests for a FEC triggered by differ-
         ent upstream LDP peers from duplicate requests.  This procedure
         will not send a duplicate label request.

A.2.3. Send_Label_Withdraw

   Summary:

      An LSR uses the Send_Label_Withdraw procedure to withdraw a label
      for a FEC from an LDP peer.  To do this the LSR sends a Label
      Withdraw message to the peer.

   Parameters:

      -  Peer.  The LDP peer to which the label withdraw is to be sent.

      -  FEC.  The FEC for which a label is being withdrawn.

      -  Label.  The label being withdrawn

   Additional Context:

      -  LSR.  The LSR executing the procedure.

   Algorithm:

      SWd.1  Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Label Withdraw, FEC,
             Label)

      SWd.2  Record label withdraw for FEC has been sent to Peer and
             mark it as outstanding.



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 153]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


A.2.4. Send_Notification

   Summary:

      An LSR uses the Send_Notification procedure to send an LDP peer a
      notification message.

   Parameters:

      -  Peer.  The LDP peer to which the Notification message is to be
         sent.

      -  Status.  Status code to be included in the Notification mes-
         sage.

   Additional Context:

      None.

   Algorithm:

      SNt.1  Execute procedure Send_Message (Peer, Notification, Status)

A.2.5. Send_Message

   Summary:

   An LSR uses the Send_Message procedure to send an LDP peer an LDP
   message.

   Parameters:

   -  Peer.  The LDP peer to which the message is to be sent.

   -  Message Type.  The type of message to be sent.

   -  Additional message contents . . .  .

   Additional Context:

   None.

   Algorithm:

   This procedure is the means by which an LSR sends an LDP message of
   the specified type to the specified LDP peer.





Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 154]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


A.2.6. Check_Received_Attributes

   Summary:

      Check the attributes received in a Label Mapping or Label Request
      message.  If the attributes include a Hop Count or Path Vector,
      perform a loop detection check.  If a loop is detected, cause a
      Loop Detected Notification message to be sent to MsgSource.

   Parameters:

      -  MsgSource.  The LDP peer that sent the message.

      -  MsgType.  The type of message received.

      -  RAttributes.  The attributes in the message.

   Additional Context:

      -  LSR Id.  The unique LSR Id of this LSR.

      -  Hop Count.  The Hop Count, if any, in the received attributes.

      -  Path Vector.  The Path Vector, if any in the received
         attributes.

   Algorithm:

      CRa.1   Do RAttributes include Hop Count?
              If not, goto CRa.5.

      CRa.2   Does Hop Count exceed Max allowable hop count?
              If so, goto CRa.6.

      CRa.3   Do RAttributes include Path Vector?
              If not, goto CRa.5.

      CRa.4   Does Path Vector Include LSR Id? OR
              Does length of Path Vector exceed Max allowable length?
              If so, goto CRa.6

      CRa.5   Return No Loop Detected.

      CRa.6   Is MsgType LabelMapping?
              If so, goto CRa.8.  (See Note 1.)

      CRa.7   Execute procedure Send_Notification (MsgSource, Loop
              Detected)



Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 155]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      CRa.8   Return Loop Detected.

      CRa.9   DONE

   Notes:

      1. When the attributes being checked were received in a Label Map-
         ping message, the LSR sends the Loop Detected notification in a
         Status Code TLV in a Label Release message.  (See Section
         "Receive Label Mapping").

A.2.7. Prepare_Label_Request_Attributes

   Summary:

      This procedure is used whenever a Label Request is to be sent to a
      Peer to compute the Hop Count and Path Vector, if any, to include
      in the message.

   Parameters:

      -  Peer.  The LDP peer to which the message is to be sent.

      -  FEC.  The FEC for which a label request is to be sent.

      -  RAttributes.  The attributes this LSR associates with the LSP
         for FEC.

      -  SAttributes.  The attributes to be included in the Label
         Request message.

   Additional Context:

      -  LSR Id.  The unique LSR Id of this LSR.

   Algorithm:

      PRqA.1  Is Hop Count required for this Peer (see Note 1.) ? OR
              Do RAttributes include a Hop Count? OR
              Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
              If not, goto PRqA.14.

      PRqA.2  Is LSR ingress for FEC?
              If not, goto PRqA.6.

      PRqA.3  Include Hop Count of 1 in SAttributes.





Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 156]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      PRqA.4  Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
              If not, goto PRqA.14.

      PRqA.5  Is LSR merge-capable?
              If so, goto PRqA.14.
              If not, goto PRqA.13.

      PRqA.6  Do RAttributes include a Hop Count?
              If not, goto PRqA.8.

      PRqA.7  Increment RAttributes Hop Count and copy the resulting Hop
              Count to SAttributes.  (See Note 2.)
              Goto PRqA.9.

      PRqA.8  Include Hop Count of unknown (0) in SAttributes.

      PRqA.9  Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
              If not, goto PRqA.14.

      PRqA.10 Do RAttributes have a Path Vector?
              If so, goto PRqA.12.

      PRqA.11 Is LSR merge-capable?
              If so, goto PRqA.14.
              If not, goto PRqA.13.

      PRqA.12 Add LSR Id to beginning of Path Vector from RAttributes
              and copy the resulting Path Vector into SAttributes.
              Goto PRqA.14.

      PRqA.13 Include Path Vector of length 1 containing LSR Id in
              SAttributes.

      PRqA.14 DONE.

   Notes:

      1. The link with Peer may require that Hop Count be included in
         Label Request messages; for example, see [RFC3035] and
         [RFC3034].

      2. For hop count arithmetic, unknown + 1 = unknown.









Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 157]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


A.2.8. Prepare_Label_Mapping_Attributes

   Summary:

      This procedure is used whenever a Label Mapping is to be sent to a
      Peer to compute the Hop Count and Path Vector, if any, to include
      in the message.

   Parameters:

      -  Peer.  The LDP peer to which the message is to be sent.

      -  FEC.  The FEC for which a label request is to be sent.

      -  RAttributes.  The attributes this LSR associates with the LSP
         for FEC.

      -  SAttributes.  The attributes to be included in the Label Map-
         ping message.

      -  IsPropagating.  The LSR is sending the Label Mapping message to
         propagate one received from the FEC next hop.

      -  PrevHopCount.  The Hop Count, if any, this LSR associates with
         the LSP for the FEC.

   Additional Context:

      -  LSR Id.  The unique LSR Id of this LSR.

   Algorithm:

      ###

      Add the following and renumber all the lines:

      PMpA.0  Do the RAttributes include any unknown TLVs? If not, goto PMpA.1.
      PMpA.0a Do the settings of the U and F bits require forwarding of
      these TLVs? If not, goto PMpA.1.
      PMpA.0b Copy the unknown TLVs in SAttributes.

      ####

      PMpA.1  Is Hop Count required for this Peer (see Note 1.) ? OR
              Do RAttributes include a Hop Count? OR
              Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
              If not, goto PMpA.21.




Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 158]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      PMpA.2  Is LSR egress for FEC?
              If not, goto PMpA.4.

      PMpA.3  Include Hop Count of 1 in SAttributes.  Goto PMpA.21.

      PMpA.4  Do RAttributes have a Hop Count?
              If not, goto PMpA.8.












































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 159]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      PMpA.5  Is LSR member of edge set for an LSR domain whose LSRs do
              not perform TTL decrement AND
              Is Peer in that domain (See Note 2.).
              If not, goto PMpA.7.

      PMpA.6  Include Hop Count of 1 in SAttributes.  Goto PMpA.9.

      PMpA.7  Increment RAttributes Hop Count and copy the resulting
              Hop Count to SAttributes.  See Note 2.  Goto PMpA.9.

      PMpA.8  Include Hop Count of unknown (0) in SAttributes.

      PMpA.9  Is Loop Detection configured on LSR?
              If not, goto PMpA.21.

      PMpA.10 Do RAttributes have a Path Vector?
              If so, goto PMpA.19.

      PMpA.11 Is LSR propagating a received Label Mapping?
              If not, goto PMpA.20.

      PMpA.12 Does LSR support merging?
              If not, goto PMpA.14.

      PMpA.13 Has LSR previously sent a Label Mapping for FEC to Peer?
              If not, goto PMpA.20.

      PMpA.14 Do RAttributes include a Hop Count?
              If not, goto PMpA.21.

      PMpA.15 Is Hop Count in Rattributes unknown(0)?
              If so, goto PMpA.20.

      PMpA.16 Has LSR previously sent a Label Mapping for FEC to Peer?
              If not goto PMpA.21.

      PMpA.17 Is Hop Count in RAttributes different from PrevHopCount ?
              If not goto PMpA.21.

      PMpA.18 Is the Hop Count in RAttributes > PrevHopCount? OR
              Is PrevHopCount unknown(0)
              If not, goto PMpA.21.

      PMpA.19 Add LSR Id to beginning of Path Vector from RAttributes
              and copy the resulting Path Vector into SAttributes.
              Goto PMpA.21.





Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 160]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


      PMpA.20 Include Path Vector of length 1 containing LSR Id in
              SAttributes.

      PMpA.21 DONE.

   Notes:

      1. The link with Peer may require that Hop Count be included in
         Label Mapping messages; for example, see [RFC3035] and
         [RFC3034].

      2. If the LSR is at the edge of a cloud of LSRs that do not per-
         form TTL-decrement and it is propagating the Label Mapping mes-
         sage upstream into the cloud, it sets the Hop Count to 1 so
         that Hop Count across the cloud is calculated properly.  This
         ensures proper TTL management for packets forwarded across the
         part of the LSP that passes through the cloud.

      3. For hop count arithmetic, unknown + 1 = unknown.
































Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 161]

Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3036bis-00.txt     September 2004


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (year).  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 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
   OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.


























Andersson, et al.                                             [Page 162]