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

Versions: (draft-shiomoto-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 6107

Network Working Group                                  K. Shiomoto (Ed.)
Internet Draft                                                       NTT
Updates: 3477, 4206                                      A. Farrel (Ed.)
Proposed Category: Proposed Standard                  Old Dog Consulting
Created: February 27, 2010
Expires: August 27, 2010


                      Procedures for Dynamically Signaled
                       Hierarchical Label Switched Paths

                    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08.txt


Abstract

   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) set up in Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks can be used to form links
   to carry traffic in those networks or in other (client) networks.

   Protocol mechanisms already exist to facilitate the establishment of
   such LSPs and to bundle TE links to reduce the load on routing
   protocols. This document defines extensions to those mechanisms to
   support identifying the use to which such LSPs are to be put and to
   enable the TE link endpoints to be assigned addresses or unnumbered
   identifiers during the signaling process.

   The mechanisms defined in this document deprecates the technique
   for the signaling of LSPs that are to be used as numbered TE links
   described in RFC 4206.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

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

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].

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction and Problem Statement ............................. 3
   1.1. Background ................................................... 4
   1.1.1. Hierarchical LSPs .......................................... 4
   1.1.2. LSP Stitching Segments ..................................... 5
   1.1.3. Private Links .............................................. 5
   1.1.4. Routing Adjacencies ........................................ 5
   1.1.5. Forwarding Adjacencies ..................................... 5
   1.1.6. Client/Server Networks ..................................... 6
   1.1.7. Link Bundles ............................................... 6
   1.2. Desired Function ............................................. 6
   1.3. Existing Mechanisms .......................................... 7
   1.3.1. LSP Setup .................................................. 7
   1.3.2. Routing Adjacency Establishment and Link State Advertisement 7
   1.3.3. TE Link Advertisement ...................................... 7
   1.3.4. Configuration and Management Techniques .................... 7
   1.3.5. Signaled Unnumbered FAs .................................... 8
   1.3.6. Establishing Numbered FAs Through Signaling and Routing .... 9
   1.4. Overview of Required Extensions ............................. 10
   1.4.1. Efficient Signaling of Numbered FAs ....................... 10
   1.4.2. LSPs for Use as Private Links ............................. 10
   1.4.3. Signaling an LSP For use in Another Network ............... 10
   1.4.4. Signaling an LSP for Use in a Link Bundle ................. 10
   1.4.5. Support for IPv4 and IPv6 ................................. 11
   1.4.6. Backward Compatibility .................................... 11
   2. Overview of Solution .......................................... 11


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   2.1. Common Approach for Numbered and Unnumbered Links ........... 11
   2.2. LSP Usage Indication ........................................ 11
   2.3. IGP Instance Identification ................................. 11
   2.4. Link Bundle Identification .................................. 12
   2.5. Backward Compatibility ...................................... 12
   3. Mechanisms and Protocol Extensions ............................ 12
   3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object .............................. 12
   3.1.1. Existing Definition and Usage ............................. 12
   3.1.2. Unnumbered Links with Action Identification ............... 13
   3.1.3. IPv4 Numbered Links with Action Identification ............ 15
   3.1.4. IPv6 Numbered Links with Action Identification ............ 16
   3.2. Target IGP Identification TLV ............................... 17
   3.3. Component Link Identification TLV ........................... 19
   3.3.1. Unnumbered Component Link Identification .................. 19
   3.3.2. IPv4 Numbered Component Link Identification ............... 19
   3.3.3. IPv6 Numbered Component Link Identification ............... 20
   3.4. Link State Advertisement .................................... 20
   3.5. Message Formats ............................................. 21
   3.6. Error Cases and Non-Acceptance .............................. 22
   3.7. Backward Compatibility ...................................... 23
   4. Security Considerations ....................................... 24
   5. IANA Considerations ........................................... 24
   5.1. New Class Types ............................................. 24
   5.2. Hierarchy Actions ........................................... 25
   5.3. New Error Codes and Error Values ............................ 25
   6. Acknowledgements .............................................. 26
   7. References .................................................... 26
   7.1. Normative References ........................................ 26
   7.2. Informative References ...................................... 27
   8. Editors' Addresses ............................................ 28
   9. Authors' Addresses ............................................ 29

1. Introduction and Problem Statement

   Traffic Engineering (TE) links in a Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (MPLS) or a Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network may be constructed from
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC4206]. Such LSPs are known as
   hierarchical LSPs (H-LSPs).

   The LSPs established in one network may be used as TE links in
   another network, and this is particularly useful when a server layer
   network (for example, an optical network) provides LSPs for use as TE
   links in a client network (for example, a packet network). This
   enables the construction of a multilayer networks (MLN) [RFC5212].

   When the number of TE links (created from LSPs or otherwise) between
   a pair of nodes grows large, it is inefficient to advertise them
   individually. This may cause scaling issues in configuration and in


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   the routing protocols used to carry the advertisements. The solution
   (described in [RFC4201]) is to collect the TE links together and to
   advertise them as a single TE link called a link bundle.

   These various mechanisms have proved to be very powerful in building
   dynamically provisioned networks, but, as set out later in this
   document, several issues have been identified during deployment with
   how LSPs are established and made available for use as H-LSPs or as
   components of a link bundle, and with how these links are advertised
   appropriately in an interior gateway protocol (IGP). These issues
   relate to coordinating between the LSP's end points the use to which
   the LSP is put, and the allocation of the identifiers of the end
   points.

   This document provides solutions to the issues by defining mechanisms
   so that the ends of signaled LSPs can exchange information about:

   - Whether the LSP is an ordinary LSP or an H-LSP.
   - In which IGP instances the LSP should be advertised as a link.
   - How the client networks should make use of the new links.
   - Whether the link should form part of a bundle (and if so, which).
   - How the link end points should be identified when advertised.

   This document deprecates one of the mechanisms defined in [RFC4206]
   for the signaling of LSPs that are to be used as numbered TE links
   (see Sections 1.3.6 and 1.4.6 for more details), and provides
   extensions to the other mechanisms defined in [RFC4206] so that the
   use to which the new LSP is to be put may be indicated during
   signaling. It also extends the mechanisms defined in [RFC3477] for
   signaling unnumbered TE links.

1.1. Background

1.1.1. Hierarchical LSPs

   [RFC3031] describes how Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) labels
   may be stacked so that LSPs may be nested with one LSP running
   through another. This concept of H-LSPs is formalized in [RFC4206]
   with a set of protocol mechanisms for the establishment of an H-LSP
   that can carry one or more other LSPs.

   [RFC4206] goes on to explain that an H-LSP may carry other LSPs only
   according to their switching types. This is a function of the way
   labels are carried. In a packet switch capable (PSC) network, the
   H-LSP can carry other PSC LSPs using the MPLS label stack. In non-
   packet networks where the label is implicit, label stacks are not
   possible, and H-LSPs rely on the ability to nest switching
   technologies. Thus, for example, a lambda switch capable (LSC) LSP


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   can carry a time division multiplexing (TDM) LSP, but cannot carry
   another LSC LSP.

   Signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC4206] allow an H-LSP to be
   treated as a single hop in the path of another LSP (i.e., one hop of
   the LSP carried by the H-LSP). This mechanism is known as "non-
   adjacent signaling."

1.1.2. LSP Stitching Segments

   LSP stitching is defined in [RFC5150]. It enables LSPs of the same
   switching type to be included (stitched) as hops in an end-to-end
   LSP. The stitching LSP (S-LSP) is used in the control plane in the
   same way as an H-LSP, but in the data plane the LSPs are stitched so
   that there is no label stacking or nesting of technologies. Thus, an
   S-LSP must be of the same switching technology as the end-to-end LSP
   that it facilitates.

1.1.3. Private Links

   An H-LSP or S-LSP can be used as a private link. Such links are known
   by their end-points, but are not more widely known and are not
   advertised by routing protocols. They can be used to carry traffic
   between the end-points, but are not usually used to carry traffic
   that is going beyond the egress of the LSP.

1.1.4. Routing Adjacencies

   A routing adjacency is formed between two IGP-speakers that are
   logically adjacent. In this sense, 'logically adjacent' means that
   the routers have a protocol tunnel between them through which they
   can exchange routing protocol messages. The tunnel is also usually
   available for carrying IP data although a distinction should be made
   in GMPLS networks between data plane traffic and control plane
   traffic.

   Routing adjacencies for forwarding data traffic are only relevant in
   PSC networks (i.e., IP/MPLS networks).

1.1.5. Forwarding Adjacencies

   A Forwarding Adjacency (FA) is defined in [RFC4206] as a data link
   created from an LSP and advertised in the same instance of the
   control plane that advertises the TE links from which the LSP is
   constructed. The LSP itself is called an FA-LSP.

   Thus, an H-LSP or S-LSP may form an FA such that it is advertised as
   a TE link in the same instance of the routing protocol as was used to


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses.

   As observed in [RFC4206] the nodes at the ends of an FA would not
   usually have a routing adjacency.

1.1.6. Client/Server Networks

   An LSP may be created in one network and used as a link (sometimes
   called a virtual link) in another networks [RFC5212]. In this case
   the networks are often referred to as server and client networks
   respectively.

   The server network LSP is used as an H-LSP or an S-LSP as described
   above, but does not form an FA because the client and server networks
   run separate instances of the control plane routing protocols.

   The virtual link may be used in the client network as a private link
   or may be advertised in the client network IGP. Additionally, the
   link may be used in the client network to form a routing adjacency
   and/or as a TE link.

1.1.7. Link Bundles

   [RFC4201] recognizes that a pair of adjacent routers may have a large
   number of TE links that run between them. This can be a considerable
   burden to the operator who may need to configure them, and to the IGP
   that must distribute information about each of them. A TE link bundle
   is defined by [RFC4201] as a TE link that is advertised as an
   aggregate of multiple TE links that could have been advertised in
   their own right. All TE links that are collected into a TE link
   bundle have the same TE properties.

   Thus, a link bundle is a shorthand that improves the scaling
   properties of the network.

   Since a TE link may, itself, be an LSP (either an FA or a virtual
   link), a link bundle may be constructed from FA-LSPs or virtual
   links.

1.2. Desired Function

   It should be possible to signal an LSP and automatically coordinate
   its use and advertisement in any of the ways described in Section 1.3
   with minimum involvement from an operator. The mechanisms used should
   be applicable to numbered and unnumbered links, and should not
   require implementation complexities.




Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


1.3. Existing Mechanisms

   This section briefly introduces existing protocol mechanisms used to
   satisfy the desired function described in Section 1.2.

1.3.1. LSP Setup

   Both unidirectional LSPs and bidirectional LSPs are signaled from the
   ingress label switching router (LSR) to the egress LSR. That is, the
   ingress LSR is the initiator, and the egress learns about the LSP
   through the signaling protocol [RFC3209], [RFC3473].

1.3.2. Routing Adjacency Establishment and Link State Advertisement

   Although hosts can discover routers (for example through ICMP
   [RFC1256]), routing adjacencies are usually configured at both ends
   of the adjacency. This requires that each router know the identity
   of the router at the other end of the link connecting the routers,
   and know that the IGP is to be run on this link.

   Once a routing adjacency has been established, a pair of routers may
   use the IGP to share information about the links available for
   carrying IP traffic in the network.

   Suitable routing protocols are OSPF version 2 [RFC2328], OSPF version
   3 [RFC5340], and IS-IS [RFC1195].

1.3.3. TE Link Advertisement

   Extensions have been made to IGPs to advertise TE link properties
   ([RFC3630], [RFC5329], [RFC5305], [RFC5308], and [ISIS-IPV6-TE]) and
   also to advertise link properties in GMPLS networks ([RFC4202],
   [RFC4203], and [RFC5307]).

   TE link advertisement can be performed by the same instance of the
   IGP as is used for normal link state advertisement, or can use a
   separate instance. Furthermore, the ends of a TE link advertised in
   an IGP do not need to form a routing adjacency. This is particularly
   the case with FAs as described in Section 1.1.5.

1.3.4. Configuration and Management Techniques

   LSPs are usually created as the result of a management action. This
   is true even when a control plane is used: the management action is a
   request to the control plane to signal the LSP.

   If the LSP is to be used as an H-LSP or S-LSP, management commands
   can be used to install the LSP as a link. The link must be defined,


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   interface identifiers allocated, and the end points configured to
   know about (and advertise, if necessary) the new link.

   If the LSP is to be used as part of a link bundle, the operator must
   decide which bundle it forms part of and ensure that information is
   configured at the ingress and egress, along with the necessary
   interface identifiers.

   These mechanisms are perfectly functional and quite common in MLNs,
   but require configuration coordination and additional management.
   They are open to user error and misconfiguration that might result in
   the LSP not being used (a waste of resources) or the LSP being made
   available in the wrong way with some impact on traffic engineering.

1.3.5. Signaled Unnumbered FAs

   [RFC3477] describes how to establish an LSP and to make it available
   automatically as a TE link in the same instance of the routing
   protocol as advertises the TE links it traverses, using IPv4-based
   unnumbered identifiers to identify the new TE link. That is,
   [RFC3477] describes how to create an unnumbered FA.

   The mechanism, as defined in Section 3 of [RFC3477], is briefly as
   follows:

   - The ingress of the LSP signals the LSP as normal using a Path
     message, and includes an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object. The
     LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object identifies:
     - The sender's LSR Router ID
     - The sender's interface ID for the TE link being created

   - The egress of the LSP responds as normal to accept the LSP and set
     it up, and includes an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object. The
     LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object identifies:
     - The egress's LSR Router ID
     - The egress's interface ID for the TE link being created.

   - Following the exchange of the Path and Resv messages, both the
     ingress and the egress know that the LSP is to be advertised as a
     TE link in the same instance of the routing protocol as was used to
     advertise the TE links that it traverses, and also know the
     unnumbered interface identifiers to use in the advertisement.

   [RFC3477] does not include mechanisms to support IPv6-based
   unnumbered identifiers, nor IPv4 or IPv6 numbered identifiers.





Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


1.3.6. Establishing Numbered FAs Through Signaling and Routing

   [RFC4206] describes procedures to establish an LSP and to make it
   available automatically as a TE link that is identified using IPv4
   addresses in the same instance of the routing protocol as advertised
   the TE links it traverses (that is, as a numbered FA).

   The mechanism, as defined in [RFC4206], is briefly as follows:

   - The ingress of the LSP signals the LSP as normal using a Path
     message, and sets the IPv4 tunnel sender address to the IP address
     it will use to identify its interface for the TE link being
     created. This is one address from a /31 pair.

   - The egress of the LSP responds as normal to accept the LSP and set
     it up. It infers the address that it must assign to identify its
     interface for the TE link being created as the partner address of
     the /31 pair.

   - The ingress decides whether the LSP is to be advertised as a TE
     link (i.e., as an FA). If so, it advertises the link in the IGP
     in the usual way.

   - If the link is unidirectional, nothing more needs to be done. If
     the link is bidirectional, the egress must also advertise the link,
     but it does not know that advertisement is required as there is no
     indication in the signaling messages.

   - When the ingress's advertisement of the link is received by the
     egress it must check to see whether it is the egress of the LSP
     that formed the link. Typically this means:
     - Check to see if the link advertisement is new
     - Check to see if the Link-ID address in the received advertisement
       matches its own TE Router ID
     - Checks the advertising router ID from the advertisement against
       the ingress address of each LSPs for which it is the egress
     - Deduce the LSP that has been advertised as a TE link and issue
       the corresponding advertisement for the reverse direction.

   It is possible that some reduction in processing can be achieved by
   mapping based on the /31 pairing, but nevertheless, there is a fair
   amount of processing required, and this does not scale well in large
   networks.

   Note that this document deprecates this procedure as explained in
   Section 1.4.6.

   No explanation is provided in [RFC4206] of how to create numbered


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   IPv6 FAs.

1.4. Overview of Required Extensions

   This section provides a brief outline of the required protocol
   extensions.

1.4.1. Efficient Signaling of Numbered FAs

   The mechanism described in Section 1.3.6. is inefficient. The egress
   must wait until it receives an advertisement from the ingress before
   it knows that the LSP is to be installed as a TE link and advertised
   as an FA. Further, it must parse all received advertisements to
   determine if any is the trigger for it to advertise an FA.

   An efficient signaling mechanism is required so that the egress is
   informed by the ingress during LSP establishment.

1.4.2. LSPs for Use as Private Links

   There is currently no mechanism by which an ingress can indicate that
   an LSP is set up for use as a private link. Any attempt to make it
   a link would currently cause it to be advertised as an FA.

   A signaling mechanism is needed to identify the use to which an LSP
   is to be put.

1.4.3. Signaling an LSP For use in Another Network

   The existing signaling/routing mechanisms are designed for use in the
   creation of FAs. That is, the TE link created is advertised in the
   single IGP instance.

   The numbered TE link mechanism (Section 1.3.6) could, in theory, be
   used in an MLN with multiple IGP instances if the addressing model is
   kept consistent across the networks, and if the egress searches all
   advertisements in all IGP instances. But this is complex and does not
   work for unnumbered interfaces.

   A signaling mechanism is required to indicate in which IGP instance
   the TE link should be advertised.

1.4.4. Signaling an LSP for Use in a Link Bundle

   A signaling mechanism is required to indicate that an LSP is intended
   to form a component link of a link bundle, and to identify the
   bundle and the IGP instance in which the bundle is advertised.



Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


1.4.5. Support for IPv4 and IPv6

   The protocol mechanisms must support IPv4 and IPv6 numbered and
   unnumbered TE links.

1.4.6. Backward Compatibility

   The existing protocol mechanisms for unnumbered FAs as defined in
   [RFC4206] and [RFC3477] must continue to be supported, and new
   mechanisms must be devised such that their introduction will not
   break existing implementations or deployments.

   Note that an informal survey in the CCAMP working group established
   that there are no significant deployments of numbered FAs established
   using the technique described in [RFC4206] and set out in Section
   1.3.6. Therefore, this document deprecates this procedure.

2. Overview of Solution

   This section provides an overview of the mechanisms and protocol
   extensions defined in this document. Details are presented in Section
   3.

2.1. Common Approach for Numbered and Unnumbered Links

   The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object [RFC3477] is extended for use for
   all H-LSPs and S-LSPs whether they form numbered or unnumbered, IPv4
   or IPv6 links. Different class-types of the object identify the
   address type for which it applies.

2.2. LSP Usage Indication

   The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object is given flags in a new Actions
   field to say how the LSP is to be used. The following categories are
   supported:
   - LSP is used as an advertised TE link
   - LSP is used to form a routing adjacency
   - LSP is used to form an advertised TE link and a routing adjacency
   - LSP forms a private link and is not advertised
   - The LSP is used as part of a link bundle
   - The LSP is used as a hierarchical LSP or a stitching segment

2.3. IGP Instance Identification

   An optional TLV is added to the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object to
   identify the IGP instance into which the link formed by the LSP is to
   be advertised. If the TLV is absent and the link is to be advertised
   as indicated by the Actions field, the link is advertised in the same


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   instance of the IGP as was used to advertise the TE links it
   traverses.

2.4. Link Bundle Identification

   When an LSP is to be used as a component link of a link bundle, the
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object refers to the bundle indicating how
   the bundle is addressed and used, and a new TLV indicates the
   component link identifier for the link that the LSP creates.

2.5. Backward Compatibility

   Backward compatibility has three aspects.

   - Existing mechanisms for unnumbered FAs described in [RFC3477] and
     [RFC4206] must continue to work, so that ingress nodes do not have
     to be updated when egresses are updated.

   - Existing mechanisms for establishing numbered FAs described in
     [RFC4206] are safely deprecated by this document as they are not
     significantly deployed.

   - New mechanisms must be gracefully rejected by existing egress
     implementations so that egress nodes do not have to be updated when
     ingresses are updated.

3. Mechanisms and Protocol Extensions

   This section defines protocol mechanisms and extensions to achieve
   the function described in the previous section.

3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object

   The principal signaling protocol element used to achieve all of the
   required functions is the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object defined in
   [RFC3477]. The existing definition and usage continues to be
   supported as described in the next section. Subsequent sections
   describe new variants of the object (denoted by new Class Types), and
   additional information carried in the object by means of extensions.

3.1.1. Existing Definition and Usage

   This document does not deprecate the mechanisms defined in [RFC3477]
   and [RFC4206]. Those procedures must continue to operate as described
   in Section 3.7.

   That means that the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with Class Type 1
   remains unchanged, and can be used to establish an LSP that will be


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   advertised as an unnumbered TE link in the same instance of the IGP
   as was used to advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses. That
   is, as an FA. The procedure is unchanged and operates as summarized
   in Section 1.3.5.

   [RFC3477] does not make any suggestions about where in Path or Resv
   messages the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object should be placed. See
   Section 3.5 for recommended placement of this object in new
   implementations.

3.1.2. Unnumbered Links with Action Identification

   A new C-Type variant of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object is defined
   to carry an unnumbered interface identifier and to indicate into
   which instance of the IGP the consequent TE link should be
   advertised. This does not deprecate the use of C-Type 1.

   The format of the object is as shown below.

   C-NUM = 193, C-Type = 4 (TBD by IANA)

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                        LSR's Router ID                        |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    Interface ID (32 bits)                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Actions    |                Reserved                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                           TLVs                                ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      LSR's Router ID

         Unchanged from the definition in [RFC3477].

      Interface ID

         Unchanged from the definition in [RFC3477].

      Actions

        This field specifies how the LSP that is being set up is to be
        treated.

        The field has meaning only on a Path message. On a Resv message
        the field SHOULD be set to reflect the value received on the


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


        corresponding Path message, and MUST be ignored on receipt.

        The field is composed of bit flags as follows:

         -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
        | | | |H|B|R|T|P|
         -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

        P-flag (Private)
          0 means that the LSP is to be advertised as a link according
            to the settings of the other flags.
          1 means the LSP is to form a private link and is not to be
            advertised in the IGP, but is to be used according to the
            settings of the other flags.

        T-flag (TE link)
          0 means that the LSP is to be used as a TE link.
          1 means that the LSP is not to be used as a TE link. It may
            still be used as an IP link providing a routing adjacency as
            defined by the R-flag.

        R-flag (routing adjacency)
          0 means that the link is not to be used as a routing
            adjacency.
          1 means that the link is to be used to form a routing
            adjacency.

        B-flag (bundle)
          0 means that the LSP will not form part of a link bundle.
          1 means that the LSP will form part of a bundle. See Section
            3.3 for more details.

        H-flag (hierarchy/stitching)
          The use of an LSP as an H-LSP or as an S-LSP is usually
          implicit from the network technologies of the networks and the
          LSP, but this is not always the case (for example, in PSC
          networks).
          0 means LSP to be used as a hierarchical LSP.
          1 means LSP to be used as a stitching segment.

        Other bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be set to zero
        on transmission and SHOULD be ignored on receipt.

        Note that all defined bit flags have meaning at the same time.
        An LSP that is to form an FA would carry the Actions field set
        to 0x00. That is:
          P=0 (advertised)
          T=0 (TE link)


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


          R=0 (not a routing adjacency)
          B=0 (not a bundle)
          H=0 (hierarchical LSP)

      Reserved

        The Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and SHOULD
        be ignored on receipt.

      TLVs

         Zero, one, or more TLVs may be present. Each TLV is encoded as
         follows:

           Type (16 bits)

             The identifier of the TLV. Two type values are defined in
             this document:

             1  IGP Instance Identifier TLV
             2  Component Link Identifier TLV

           Length (16 bits)

             Indicates the total length of the TLV in octets. I.e.,
             4 + the length of the value field in octets. A value field
             whose length is not a multiple of four MUST be zero-padded
             so that the TLV is four-octet aligned.

           Value

             The data for the TLV padded as described above.

   If this object is carried in a Path message it is known as the
   "Forward Interface ID" for the LSP that is being set up. On a Resv
   message the object is known as the "Reverse Interface ID" for the
   LSP.

3.1.3. IPv4 Numbered Links with Action Identification

   A new C-Type variant of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object is defined
   to carry an IPv4 numbered interface address.

   The format of the object is as shown below.






Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   C-NUM = 193, C-Type = 2 (TBD by IANA)

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               IPv4 Interface Address                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Actions    |                Reserved                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                           TLVs                                ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      IPv4 Interface Address

         The address assigned to the interface the sender applies to
         this LSP.

      Actions

        See Section 3.1.2.

     Reserved

        See Section 3.1.2.

     TLVs

        See Section 3.1.2.

   If this object is carried in a Path message it is known as the
   "Forward Interface ID" for the LSP that is being set up. On a Resv
   message the object is known as the "Reverse Interface ID" for the
   LSP.

3.1.4. IPv6 Numbered Links with Action Identification

   A new C-Type variant of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object is defined
   to carry an IPv6 numbered interface address.

   The format of the object is as shown below.










Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   C-NUM = 193, C-Type = 3 (TBD by IANA)

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               IPv6 Interface Address (128 bits)               |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               IPv6 Interface Address (continued)              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               IPv6 Interface Address (continued)              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               IPv6 Interface Address (continued)              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Actions    |                Reserved                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                           TLVs                                ~
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      IPv6 Interface Address

         The address assigned to the interface the sender applies to
         this LSP.

      Actions

        See Section 3.1.2.

     Reserved

        See Section 3.1.2.

     TLVs

        See Section 3.1.2.

   If this object is carried in a Path message it is known as the
   "Forward Interface ID" for the LSP that is being set up. On a Resv
   message the object is known as the "Reverse Interface ID" for the
   LSP.

3.2. Target IGP Identification TLV

   If the LSP being set up is to be advertised as a link, the egress
   needs to know which instance of the IGP it should use to make the
   advertisement. The default in [RFC4206] and [RFC3477] is that the LSP
   is advertised as an FA, that is, in the same instance of the IGP as
   was used to advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses.



Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   In order to facilitate an indication from the ingress to the egress
   of which IGP instance to use, the IGP Identification TLV is defined
   for inclusion in the new variants of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
   object defined in this document.

   The TLV has meaning only in a Path message. It SHOULD NOT be included
   in the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object in a Resv message and MUST be
   ignored if found.

   If the P-flag in the Actions field of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
   object in a Path message is clear (i.e., zero), this TLV indicates
   the IGP instance to use for the advertisement. If the TLV is absent,
   the same instance of the IGP should be used as is used to advertise
   the TE links that the LSP traverses. Thus, for an FA, the TLV can be
   omitted; alternatively, the IGP Instance TLV may be present
   identifying the IGP instance or carrying the reserved value
   0xffffffff.

   If the P-flag in the Actions field in the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
   object in a Resv message is set (i.e., one) indicating that the LSP
   is not to be advertised as a link, this TLV SHOULD NOT be present and
   MUST be ignored if encountered.

   The TLV is formatted as described in Section 3.1.2. The Type field
   has the value 1, and the Value field has the following content:

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   IGP Instance Identifier                     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     IGP Instance Identifier

       A 32-bit identifier be assigned to each of the IGP instances
       within a network, such that ingress and egress LSRs have the same
       understanding of these numbers. This is a management
       configuration exercise outside the scope of this document.

       Note that the IGP Instance Identifier might be mapped from an
       instance identifier used in the IGP itself (such as section 2.4
       of [RFC5340] for OSPFv3, or [OSPFv2-MI] for OSPFv2) as a matter
       of network policy. See [OSPF-TI] for further discussion of this
       topic in OSPF, and [ISIS-GENAP] for IS-IS.

       The value 0xffffffff is reserved to mean that the LSP is to be
       advertised in the same instance of the IGP as was used to
       advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses.


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


3.3. Component Link Identification TLV

   If the LSP that is being set up is to be used as a component link in
   a link bundle [RFC4201], it is necessary to indicate both the
   identity of the component link and the identity of the link bundle.
   Furthermore, it is necessary to indicate how the link bundle (that
   may be automatically created by the establishment of this LSP) is
   to be used and advertised.

   If the B-flag in the Actions field of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
   object is set, the other fields of the object apply to the link
   bundle itself. That is, the interface identifiers (numbered or
   unnumbered) and the other flags in the Actions field apply to the
   link bundle and not to the component link that the LSP will form.

   Furthermore, the IGP Instance Identifier TLV (if present) also
   applies to the link bundle and not to the component link.

   In order to exchange the identity of the component link, the
   Component Link Identifier TLVs are introduced as set out in the
   next sections. If the B-flag is set in the Actions field of the
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object in the Path message, exactly one of
   these TLVs MUST be present in the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object in
   both the Path and Resv objects.

3.3.1. Unnumbered Component Link Identification

   If the component link is to be unnumbered, the Unnumbered Component
   Link Identifier TLV is used. The TLV is formatted as described in
   Section 3.1.2. The Type field has the value 2, and the Value field
   has the following content:

        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   Component Link Identifier                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Component Link Identifier

       Unnumbered identifier that is assigned to this component link
       within the bundle [RFC4201].

3.3.2. IPv4 Numbered Component Link Identification

   If the component link is identified with an IPv4 address, the IPv4
   Numbered Component Link Identifier TLV is used. The TLV is formatted
   as described in Section 3.1.2. The Type field has the value 3, and


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   the Value field has the following content:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         IPv4 Address                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     IPv4 Address

       The IPv4 address that is assigned to this component link within
       the bundle.

3.3.3. IPv6 Numbered Component Link Identification

   If the component link is identified with an IPv6 address, the IPv6
   Numbered Component Link Identifier TLV is used. The TLV is formatted
   as described in Section 3.1.2. The Type field has the value 4, and
   the Value field has the following content:

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                         IPv6 Address                          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   IPv6 Address (continued)                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   IPv6 Address (continued)                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                   IPv6 Address (continued)                    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     IPv6 Address

       The IPv6 address that is assigned to this component link within
       the bundle.

3.4. Link State Advertisement

   The ingress and egress of an LSP that is set up using the
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object MUST advertise the LSP as agreed in
   the parameters of the object.

   Where a TE link is created from the LSP, the TE link SHOULD inherit
   the TE properties of the LSP as described in [RFC5212] but this
   process is subject to local and network-wide policy.

   It is possible that an LSP will be used to offer capacity and


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   connectivity to multiple other networks. In this case, multiple
   instances of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object are permitted in
   the same Path and Resv messages. Each instance MUST have a different
   IGP Instance Identifier.

   Note, however, that a Path or Resv message MUST NOT contain more than
   one instance of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with C-Type 1, and
   if such an object is present, all other instances of the
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object MUST include an IGP Instance
   Identifier TLV with IGP Instance Identifier set to a value that
   identifies some other IGP instance (in particular, not the value
   0xffffffff).

   If the link created from an LSP is advertised in the same IGP
   instance as was used to advertise the TE links that the LSP
   traverses, the addresses for the new link and that for the links it
   is built from MUST come from the same address space.

   If the link is advertised into another IGP instance the addresses
   MAY be drawn from overlapping address spaces such that some addresses
   have different meanings in each IGP instance.

   In the IGP the TE Router ID of the ingress LSR is taken from the
   Tunnel Sender Address in the Sender Template object signaled in the
   Path message. It is assumed that the ingress LSR knows the TE Router
   ID of the egress LSR since it has chosen to establish an LSP to that
   LSR and plans to use the LSP as a TE link.

   The link interface addresses or link interface identifiers for the
   forward and reverse direction links are taken from the
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTREFACE_ID object on the Path and Resv messages
   respectively.

   When an LSP is torn down through explicit action (a PathTear message
   or a PathErr message with the Path_State_Removed flag set) the
   ingress and egress LSRs SHOULD withdraw the advertisement of any link
   that the LSP created and that was previously advertised. The link
   state advertisement MAY be retained as a virtual link in another
   layer network according to network-wide policy [PCE-LAYER].

3.5. Message Formats

   [RFC3477] does not state where in the Path message or Resv message
   the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object should be placed.

   It is RECOMMENDED that new implementations place the
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID objects in the Path message immediately after
   the SENDER_TSPEC object, and in the Resv message immediately after


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   the FILTER_SPEC object.

   All implementations SHOULD be able to handle received messages with
   objects in any order as described in [RFC3209].

3.6. Error Cases and Non-Acceptance

   Error cases and non-acceptance of new object variants caused by back-
   level implementations are discussed in Section 3.7.

   An egress LSR that receives an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object may
   have cause to reject the parameters carried in the object for a
   number of reasons as set out below. In all cases, the egress SHOULD
   respond with a PathErr message with the error code as indicated in
   the list below. In most cases the error will arise during LSP setup,
   no Resv state will exist, and the PathErr will cause Path state to be
   removed. Where the error arises after the LSP has been successfully
   set up, the PathErr SHOULD be sent with the Path_State_Removed flag
   [RFC3473] clear so that the LSP remains operational.

   The error cases identified are as follows and are reported using the
   new error code 'LSP Hierarchy Issue' (code 34 TBD by IANA) and the
   error values listed below.

   Error | Error | Error-case
   code  | value |
   ------+-------+------------------------------------------------------
    34        1    Link advertisement not supported
    34        2    Link advertisement not allowed by policy
    34        3    TE link creation not supported
    34        4    TE link creation not allowed by policy
    34        5    Routing adjacency creation not supported
    34        6    Routing adjacency creation not allowed by policy
    34        7    Bundle creation not supported
    34        8    Bundle creation not allowed by policy
    34        9    Hierarchical LSP not supported
    34       10    LSP stitching not supported
    34       11    Link address type or family not supported
    34       12    IGP instance unknown
    34       13    IGP instance advertisement not allowed by policy
    34       14    Component link identifier not valid
    34       15    Unsupported component link identifier address family

   When an ingress LSR receives an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object on a
   Resv message it may need to reject it because of the setting of
   certain parameters in the object. Since these reasons all represent
   errors rather than negotiable parameter-mismatches, the ingress
   SHOULD respond with a PathTear to remove the LSP. The ingress MAY use


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   a ResvErr with one of the following error codes, allowing the egress
   the option to correct the error in a new Resv message, or to tear the
   LSP with a PathErr with Path_State_Removed flag set. An ingress that
   uses the ResvErr MUST take precautions against a protocol loop where
   the egress responds with the same LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with
   the same or different) issues.

   Error | Error | Error-case
   code  | value |
   ------+-------+------------------------------------------------------
    34       11    Link address type or family not supported
    34       14    Component link identifier not valid
    34       15    Unsupported component link identifier address family
    34       16    Component link identifier missing

3.7. Backward Compatibility

   The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object defined in [RFC3477] has a class
   number of 193. According to [RFC2205], this means that a node that
   does not understand the object SHOULD ignore the object but forward
   it, unexamined and unmodified. Thus there are no issues with transit
   LSRs supporting the pre-existing or new Class Types of this object.

   A back-level ingress node will behave as follows:

   - It will not issue Path messages containing LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
     objects with the new Class Types defined in this document.

   - It will reject Resv messages containing LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
     objects with the new Class Types defined in this document as
     described in [RFC2205]. In any case, such a situation would
     represent an error by the egress.

   - It will continue to use the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with
     Class Type 1 as defined in [RFC3477]. This behavior is supported by
     back-level egresses and by egresses conforming to this document.

   - According to an informal survey, there is no significant deployment
     of numbered FA establishment following the procedures defined in
     [RFC4206] and set out in Section 1.3.6 of this document. It is
     therefore safe to assume that back-level ingress LSRs will not use
     this mechanism.

   A back-level egress node will behave as follows:

   - It will continue to support the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with
     Class Type 1 as defined in [RFC3477] if issued by an ingress.



Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   - It will reject a Path message that carries an
     LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with any of the new Class Types
     defined in this document using the procedures of [RFC2205]. This
     will inform the ingress that the egress is a back-level LSR.

   - It will not expect to use the procedures for numbered FA
     establishment defined in [RFC4206] and set out in Section 1.3.6 of
     this document.

   In summary, the new mechanisms defined in this document do not impact
   the method to exchange unnumbered FA information described in
   [RFC3477]. That mechanism can be safely used in combination with the
   new mechanisms described here and is functionally equivalent to using
   the new C-Type indicating an unnumbered link with target IGP instance
   identifier with the Target IGP Instance value set to 0xffffffff.

   The mechanisms in this document obsolete the method to exchange the
   numbered FA information described in [RFC4206] as described in
   Section 1.4.6.

4. Security Considerations

   [RFC3477] points out that one can argue that the use of the extra
   interface identifier that it provides could make an RSVP message
   harder to spoof. In that respect, the minor extensions to the
   protocol made in this document do not constitute an additional
   security risk, but could also be said to improve security.

   It should be noted that the ability of an ingress LSR to request that
   an egress LSR advertise an LSP as a TE link MUST be subject to
   appropriate policy checks at the egress LSR. That is, the egress LSR
   MUST NOT automatically accept the word of the ingress unless it is
   configured with such a policy.

   Further details of security for MPLS-TE and GMPLS can be found in
   [GMPLS-SEC].

5. IANA Considerations

5.1. New Class Types

   IANA maintains a registry of RSVP parameters called "Resource
   Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called
   "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types." There is an entry in
   this registry for the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object defined in
   [RFC3477] with one Class Type defined.

   IANA is requested to allocate three new Class Types for this object


Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   as defined in Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.1.4 as follows:

   C-Type       Meaning                                 Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------------
     2          IPv4 interface identifier with target   [This.doc]
     3          IPv6 interface identifier with target   [This.doc]
     4          Unnumbered interface with target        [This.doc]

5.2. Hierarchy Actions

   Section 3.1.2 defines an 8-bit flags field in the
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object. IANA is requested to create a new
   sub-registry of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry called the "Hierarchy Actions"
   sub-registry as follows:

   Registry Name: Hierarchy Actions
   Reference: [This.doc]
   Registration Procedures: IETF Standards Action RFC

   Registry:
   Bit Number  Hex Value    Name                     Reference
   ----------  -----------  -----------------------  ---------
   0-2                      Unassigned
   3           0x10         Hierarchy/stitching (H)  [This.doc]
   4           0x08         Bundle (B)               [This.doc]
   5           0x04         Routing adjacency(R)     [This.doc]
   6           0x02         TE link (T)              [This.doc]
   7           0x01         Private (P)              [This.doc]

5.3. New Error Codes and Error Values

   IANA maintains a registry of RSVP error codes and error values as the
   "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" sub-registry
   of the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry.

   IANA is requested to define a new error code with suggested value 34
   as below (see also Section 3.6).

   Error Code   Meaning

     34         LSP Hierarchy Issue            [This.doc]

   IANA is requested to list the following error values for this error
   code (see also Section 3.6).





Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


     This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
      Value sub-codes:

        1 = Link advertisement not supported                  [This.doc]
        2 = Link advertisement not allowed by policy          [This.doc]
        3 = TE link creation not supported                    [This.doc]
        4 = TE link creation not allowed by policy            [This.doc]
        5 = Routing adjacency creation not supported          [This.doc]
        6 = Routing adjacency creation not allowed by policy  [This.doc]
        7 = Bundle creation not supported                     [This.doc]
        8 = Bundle creation not allowed by policy             [This.doc]
        9 = Hierarchical LSP not supported                    [This.doc]
       10 = LSP stitching not supported                       [This.doc]
       11 = Link address type or family not supported         [This.doc]
       12 = IGP instance unknown                              [This.doc]
       13 = IGP instance advertisement not allowed by policy  [This.doc]
       14 = Component link identifier not valid               [This.doc]
       15 = Unsupported component link identifier address     [This.doc]
            family
       16 = Component link identifier missing                 [This.doc]

6. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Lou Berger, Deborah Brungard, John
   Drake, Yakov Rekhter, Igor Bryskin, and Lucy Yong for their valuable
   discussions and comments.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
             Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
             Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
             Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
             and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

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

Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered Links
             in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
             (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.

   [RFC4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L.," Link Bundling
             in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.

   [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with
             Generalized MPLS TE", RFC 4206, October 2005.

   [RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, J.P, and Farrel, A., "Label Switched
             Path Stitching with Generalized Multiprotocol Label
             Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)", RFC 5150,
             February 2008.

7.2. Informative References

   [RFC1195] Callon, R.W., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
             dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990

   [RFC1256] Deering, S., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages", RFC 1256,
             September 1991.

   [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K. and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
            (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
             2003.

   [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
             in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.

   [RFC4203] Kompella, K. Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
             Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.

   [RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., et al, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
             Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212, July
             2008

   [RFC5305] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
             System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
             RFC 5305, October 2008.

   [RFC5307] Kompella, K. Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate System
             to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of
             Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
             5307, October 2008.

Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


   [RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, October
             2008.

   [RFC5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and Lindem, A.,
             (Ed.), "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3",
             RFC 5329, September 2008.

   [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for
             IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.

   [GMPLS-SEC] Fang, L., et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
             Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-
             framework, work in progress.

   [ISIS-GENAP] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Shand, M., "Advertising
             Generic Information in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-genapp, work
             in progress.

   [ISIS-IPV6-TE] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and Bartlett, M., "IPv6
             Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te,
             work in progress.

   [OSPF-TI] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and Mirtorabi, S., "OSPF Transport
             Instance Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-transport-instance,
             work in progress.

   [OSPFv2-MI] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and Mirtorabi, S., "OSPF Multi-
             Instance Extensions", draft-ietf-ospf-multi-instance, work
             in progress.

   [PCE-LAYER] Oki, E. (Ed.), "PCC-PCE Communication and PCE Discovery
             Requirements for Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering",
             draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-req, work in progress.

8. Editors' Addresses

   Kohei Shiomoto
   NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
   3-9-11 Midori
   Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585
   Japan
   Phone: +81 422 59 4402
   Email: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Adrian Farrel
   Old Dog Consulting
   EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk



Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08    February 2010


9. Authors' Addresses

   Richard Rabbat
   Google Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
   Mountain View, CA 94043
   Email: rabbat@alum.mit.edu

   Arthi Ayyangar
   Juniper Networks
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089
   United States of America
   Email: arthi@juniper.net

   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
   Canada.
   EMail: zali@cisco.com





























Shiomoto and Farrel          Expires August 2010               [Page 29]


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