[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-berger-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps) 00 01 02 RFC 5467

Internet Draft                                         Lou Berger (LabN)
Category: Experimental                          Attila Takacs (Ericsson)
Expiration Date: May 17, 2009                  Diego Caviglia (Ericsson)
                                                      Don Fedyk (Nortel)
                                          Julien Meuric (France Telecom)

                                                       November 17, 2008

  GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)

              draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of 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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS Asymmetric
   Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  The presented
   approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
   original RSVP model for the transport of traffic related parameters.
   The procedures described in this document are experimental.








Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 1]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


Table of Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 1.1    Background  ................................................   3
 1.2    Approach Overview  .........................................   4
 1.3    Conventions used in this document  .........................   5
 2      Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs  .......   5
 2.1    UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object  ..................................   5
 2.1.1  Procedures  ................................................   5
 2.2    UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object  .....................................   6
 2.2.1  Procedures  ................................................   6
 2.3    UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object  ....................................   6
 2.3.1  Procedures  ................................................   6
 3      Packet Formats  ............................................   7
 4      Compatibility  .............................................   8
 5      IANA Considerations  .......................................   8
 5.1    UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object  ..................................   8
 5.2    UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object  .....................................   9
 5.3    UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object  ....................................   9
 6      Security Considerations  ...................................   9
 7      References  ................................................   9
 7.1    Normative References  ......................................   9
 7.2    Informative References  ....................................  10
 8      Authors' Addresses  ........................................  11
 A.     Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object  ........  11
 A.1.   Applicability  .............................................  11
 A.2.   Overview  ..................................................  12
 A.3.   Procedures  ................................................  13
 A.4.   Compatibility  .............................................  14
        Full Copyright Statement  ..................................  14
        Intellectual Property  .....................................  14











Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 2]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


1. Introduction

   GMPLS, see [RFC3473], introduced explicit support for bidirectional
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs).  The defined support matched the
   switching technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division
   Multiplexing (TDM) and lambdas, and specifically only supported
   bidirectional LSPs with symmetric bandwidth allocation.  Symmetric
   bandwidth requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects
   defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210].

   Recent work, see [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC], has looked at
   extending GMPLS to control Ethernet switching.  In this context there
   has been discussion of the support of bidirectional LSPs with
   asymmetric bandwidth. (That is, bidirectional LSPs that have
   different bandwidth reservations in each direction.)  This discussion
   motivated the extensions defined in this document, which may be used
   with any switching technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth
   bidirectional LSPs.  The procedures described in this document are
   experimental.


1.1. Background

   Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP (see [RFC2210],
   [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to RSVP.
   While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model for
   the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP session
   sender (ingress) and receiver (egress).  The original model of
   communication defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209] used
   the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the FLOWSPEC
   object in Resv messages.  The SENDER_TSPEC object was used to
   indicate a sender's data generation capabilities.  The FLOWSPEC
   object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that
   should be allocated to the associated data traffic.  The ADSPEC
   object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the
   actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic.

   With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473] the model of
   communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed.  In the
   context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object
   indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream
   directions.  The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the
   allocated resources.  The definition of the ADSPEC object is either
   unmodified, and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is
   implicitly or explicitly (see [RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC])
   irrelevant.





Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 3]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


1.2. Approach Overview

   The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs
   defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the
   transport of traffic related parameters and GMPLS' support for
   bidirectional LSPs.  An alternative approach was considered and
   rejected in favor of the more generic approach presented below.  For
   reference purposes only, the rejected approach is summarized in
   Appendix A.

   The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching
   technology supported by GMPLS.  With this approach, the existing
   SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the
   addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
   objects.  The existing objects are used in the original fashion
   defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only to traffic
   associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream direction.  The new
   objects are used in exactly the same fashion as the old objects, but
   refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 shows the bandwidth
   related objects used for Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs.

                        |---|        Path        |---|
                        | I |------------------->| E |
                        | n | -SENDER_TSPEC      | g |
                        | g | -ADSPEC            | r |
                        | r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |
                        | e |                    | s |
                        | s |        Resv        | s |
                        | s |<-------------------|   |
                        |   | -FLOWSPEC          |   |
                        |   | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC    |   |
                        |   | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC   |   |
                        |---|                    |---|

         Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs

   This extensions defined in this document are limited to P2P LSPs.
   Support for P2MP bidirectional LSPs is not currently defined and, as
   such, not covered in this document.












Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 4]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


1.3. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs

   The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled
   using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with
   the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC and
   UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects.

   The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in
   the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in
   that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while
   the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream
   direction.  The new objects also differ in that they are used on
   messages in the opposite directions.


2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object

   The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC
   object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
   formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object object is
   TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).


2.1.1. Procedures

   The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST
   contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional
   LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473].  The C-Type of the
   UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC
   object used in the Path message.  The contents of the
   UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a format and
   procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC
   object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328].

   Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
   Object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object in the
   upstream label and resource allocation procedure defined in Section
   3.1 of [RFC3473].  Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable
   to allocate a label or internal resources based on the contents of
   the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object, MUST issue a PathErr message with a
   "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.



Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 5]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object

   The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC
   object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
   formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object object is TBA
   by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).


2.2.1. Procedures

   The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates
   at the egress.  The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any
   Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an
   UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.  The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object
   MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
   The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a
   format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the
   FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or
   [RFC4328].  The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MAY differ from
   contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data
   transmission requirements.

   When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress
   MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to
   satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path
   message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the
   resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification
   might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might
   result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not
   available.


2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object

   The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC
   object.  This includes the definition of class types and their
   formats.  The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC  object is TBA by
   IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).


2.3.1. Procedures

   The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that
   corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
   The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the
   C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of
   the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a format and
   procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object



Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 6]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


   that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC].  The
   UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the
   ADSPEC object and as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes.


3. Packet Formats

   This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by
   this section.  This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205],
   [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. See [RSVP-BNF] for the syntax used by RSVP.
   Unmodified formats are not listed.  Three new objects are defined in
   this section:

      Object name            Applicable RSVP messages
      ---------------        ------------------------
      UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC      Path, PathTear, PathErr and Notify
                                 (via sender descriptor)
      UPSTREAM_TSPEC         Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr and
                                 Notify (via flow descriptor list)
      UPSTREAM_ADSPEC        Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr and
                                 Notify (via flow descriptor list)

   The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric
   LSPs is:

      <sender descriptor> ::=  <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
                               [ <ADSPEC> ]
                               [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
                               [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
                               [ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
                               <UPSTREAM_LABEL>
                               <UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>

   The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric
   LSPs is:

      <flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
                               | <SE flow descriptor>

      <FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
                               <UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
                               <FILTER_SPEC>
                               <LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
                               | <FF flow descriptor list>
                               <FF flow descriptor>

      <FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ]
                               [ <UPSTREAM_TSPEC>] [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]



Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 7]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


                               <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL>
                               [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]

      <SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
                               <UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
                               <SE filter spec list>

      <SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document.


4. Compatibility

   This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in
   [RFC2205], [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to support bidirectional LSPs with
   asymmetric bandwidth.  To indicate the use of asymmetric bandwidth
   three new objects are defined.  Each of these objects is defined with
   class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], nodes not
   supporting this extension will not recognize the new class numbers
   and should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error.  The error
   message will propagate to the ingress which can then take action to
   avoid the path with the incompatible node, or may simply terminate
   the session.


5. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
   namespaces defined in this section and reviewed in this subsection.

   Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignments
   described below in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"
   section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters


5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object

   A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb
   range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:

      Class Types or C-types:

      Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)








Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 8]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object

   A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb
   range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:

      Class Types or C-types:

      Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)


5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object

   A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb
   range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:

      Class Types or C-types:

      Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13)


6. Security Considerations

   This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS
   signaling [RFC3473].  Specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC,
   UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.  These object parallel
   the exiting SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects but are used in
   the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities that are due to
   the use of the old objects now apply to messages flowing in the
   reverse direction.

   From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new
   signaling messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are
   adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no
   additional message or neighbor related security considerations.

   See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC-
   FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security
   discussions.


7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol
             -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
             September 1997.




Berger, et. al.               Experimental                      [Page 9]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


   [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
             Services," RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
             LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
             Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
             RFC 3473, January 2003.


7.2. Informative References

   [GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS control of Ethernet" ,
                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt, Work in
                 progress, July 2008.

   [MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic
                 Parameters,"
                 draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-06.txt,
                 Work in progress, October 2008.

   [RFC4606] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized
             Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
             Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
             Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.

   [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
             Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709
             Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January
             2006.

   [RSVP-BNF] Farrel, A., "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax
              Used in Various Protocol Specifications", Work in
              progress. draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-07.txt, November
              2008.

   [SEC-FRAMEWORK] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and
             GMPLS Networks",
             draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-04.txt,
             Work in progress, November 2008.






Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 10]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


8. Authors' Addresses

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Attila Takacs
   Ericsson
   1. Laborc u.
   1037 Budapest, Hungary
   Phone: +36-1-4377044
   Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com

   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
   Phone: +390106003738
   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com

   Don Fedyk
   Nortel Networks
   600 Technology Park Drive
   Billerica, MA, USA 01821
   Phone: +1-978-288-3041
   Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com

   Julien Meuric
   France Telecom
   Research & Development
   2, avenue Pierre Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex - France
   Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
   Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com


 A. Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object

   This section is included for historic purposes and its implementation
   is NOT RECOMMENDED.


 A.1. Applicability

   This section presents an alternate method for the support of
   asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP establishment with a single
   RSVP-TE signaling session. This approach differs in applicability and
   generality from the approach presented in the main body of this



Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 11]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


   document.  In particular this approach is technology specific; it
   uses the ADSPEC object to carry traffic parameters for upstream data
   and requires MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameter while the approach
   presented above is suitable for use with any technology.

   The generalized asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP presented in
   the main body of this document has the benefit of being applicable to
   any switching technology, but requires support for three new types of
   object classes, i.e., the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and
   UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.

   The solution presented in this section is based on the Ethernet
   specific ADSPEC Object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC Object"
   approach.  This approach limits applicability to cases where the
   [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters are appropriate, and to switching
   technologies that define no use for the ADSPEC object.  While
   ultimately it is this limited scope that has resulted in this
   approach being relegated to an Appendix, the semantics of this
   approach are quite simple in that they only require the definition of
   a new ADSPEC object C-Type.

   In summary, the "ADSPEC Object" approach presented in this section
   SHOULD NOT be implemented.


 A.2. Overview

   The "ADSPEC Object" approach is specific to Ethernet and uses [MEF-
   TRAFFIC] traffic parameters.  This approach is not generic and is
   aimed at providing asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs for just
   Ethernet transport.  With this approach, the ADSPEC object carries
   the traffic parameters for the upstream data flow.  SENDER_TSPEC
   object is used to indicate the traffic parameters for the downstream
   data flow. The FLOWSPEC object provides confirmation of the allocated
   downstream resources.  Confirmation of the upstream resource
   allocation is a Resv message, as any resource allocation failure for
   the upstream direction will always result in a PathErr message.
   Figure 2 shows the bandwidth related objects used in the first
   approach.












Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 12]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


                         |---|        Path      |---|
                         | I |----------------->| E |
                         | n | -SENDER_TSPEC    | g |
                         | g | -ADSPEC          | r |
                         | r |                  | e |
                         | e |        Resv      | s |
                         | s |<-----------------| s |
                         | s | -FLOWSPEC        |   |
                         |---|                  |---|

   Figure 2: Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs Using ADSPEC Object

   In the "ADSPEC Object" approach, the setup of an asymmetric bandwidth
   bidirectional LSP would be signaled using the bidirectional
   procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with the inclusion of a new
   ADSPEC object.  The new ADSPEC object would be specific to Ethernet
   and could be called the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC
   object.  The Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object would
   use the Class-Number 13 and C-Type UNASSIGNED (this approach should
   not be implemented).  The format of the object would be the same as
   the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC].

   This approach would not modify behavior of symmetric bandwidth LSPs.
   Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], such LSPs are signaled without an ADSPEC or with
   an INTSERV ADSPEC.

   The defined approach could be reused to support asymmetric bandwidth
   bidirectional LSPs for other types of switching technologies.  All
   that would be needed would be to define the proper ADSPEC object.


 A.3. Procedures

   Using the approach presented in this section, the process of
   establishing an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP would follow
   the process of establishing symmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP, as
   defined in Section 3 of [RFC3473], with two modifications.  These
   modifications would be followed when an incoming Path message is
   received containing an Upstream_Label object and the Ethernet
   Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object.

   The first modification to the symmetric bandwidth process would be
   that when allocating the upstream label, the bandwidth associated
   with the upstream label would be taken from the Ethernet Upstream
   Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object, see Section 3.1 of [RFC3473].
   Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable to allocate a label
   or internal resources based on the contents of the ADSPEC Object,
   would issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label



Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 13]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


   allocation failure" indication.

   The second modification would be that the ADSPEC object would not be
   modified by transit nodes.


 A.4. Compatibility

   The approach presented in this section reuses semantics and
   procedures defined in [RFC3473].  To indicate the use of asymmetric
   bandwidth a new ADSPEC object c-type would be defined.  Per
   [RFC2205], nodes not supporting the approach should not recognize
   this new C-type and respond with an "Unknown object C-Type" error.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.

   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, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

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

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository



Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 14]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt  November 17, 2008


   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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







































Berger, et. al.               Experimental                     [Page 15]
Generated on: Thu Nov 13 15:24:58 EST 2008


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/