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

Versions: (draft-ali-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 6511

   MPLS Working Group                                            Z. Ali
                                                             G. Swallow
   Internet Draft                                   Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                             R. Aggarwal
                                                        Juniper Networks
   Intended status: Standard Track                        September 2007
   Expires: March 2008
   
   
   
           Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs
               draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-00.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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
   
      The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
      http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
   
      This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2008.
   
   Copyright Notice
   
      Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
   
   Abstract
   
   
   
   
   
   

                          Expires March 2008                  [Page 1]
   

   Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-00.txt
   
   
      There are many deployment scenarios which require Egress LSR to
      receive binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to an application, and payload
      identification, using some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This
      document proposes protocol mechanisms to address this
      requirement. The procedures described in this document are
      equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) and point-to-
      multipoint (P2MP) LSPs.
   
   Conventions used in this document
   
      In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
      server respectively.
   
      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
      RFC-2119 0.
   
   Table of Contents
   
   
      1. Introduction...............................................2
      2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...............................3
         2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior............................3
         2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication......................4
         2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP bits.............4
         2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding....................4
      3. Security Considerations....................................5
      4. IANA Considerations........................................5
         4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.............5
      5. Acknowledgments............................................6
      6. References.................................................6
         6.1. Normative References..................................6
         6.2. Informative References................................6
      Author's Addresses............................................7
      Intellectual Property Statement...............................7
      Disclaimer of Validity........................................7
   
   1. Introduction
   
      When RSVP-TE is used for applications like MVPN [MVPN] and VPLS
      [VPLS], an Egress LSR receives the binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to
      an application, and payload identification, using an "out-of-
      band" (OOB) mechanism (e.g., using BGP). In such cases, the
      Egress LSR cannot make correct forwarding decision until such OOB
      mapping information is received. Furthermore, in order to apply
      the binding information, the Egress LSR needs to identify the
      incoming LSP. Therefore, non Penultimate Hop Popping (non-PHP)
      behavior is required at the Egress LSR to apply OOB mapping.
                      Expires March 2008                     [Page 2]
   

   Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-00.txt
   
   
      There are other applications that require non-PHP behavior. When
      RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs are used to carry IP multicast traffic, non-PHP
      behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify the P2MP TE LSP on which
      traffic is received. Hence, the egress LSR can determine whether
      traffic is received on the expected P2MP LSP and discard traffic
      that is not received on the expected P2MP LSP. Non-PHP behavior
      is also required to determine the context of upstream assigned
      labels [UPSTREAM] when the context is a MPLS LSP.
   
      This document defines two new bits in the Attributes Flags TLV of
      the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC4420]: one bit for
      communication of non-PHP behavior, and one bit to indicate that
      the binding of the LSP to an application and payload identifier
      (payload-Id) needs to be learned via an out-of-band mapping
      mechanism.
   
      The procedures described in this document are equally applicable
      for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB communication
      mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of the document.
   
   2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
   
      This section describes the signaling extensions required to
      address the above-mentioned requirements.
   
   2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior
   
      In order to request non-PHP behavior for RSVP-TE LSP, this
      document defines a new bit in the Attributes Flags TLV of the
      LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC4420]:
   
   
      Bit Number 6 (TBD): non-PHP behavior desired bit.
   
      This bit SHOULD be set by Ingress node in the Attributes Flags
      TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message for the LSP
      that desires Non-PHP behavior. This bit MUST NOT be modified by
      any other nodes in the network. Nodes other than the Egress nodes
      SHOULD ignore this bit.
   
      If an egress node receiving the Path message, supports the
      LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
      recognizes the "non-PHP behavior desired bit", it MUST allocate a
      non-NULL local label. If the egress node supports the
      LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the Attributes Flags
      TLV, or supports the TLV as well but does not recognize this
      particular bit, then it SHOULD simply ignore the above request.
   
   
                      Expires March 2008                     [Page 3]
   

   Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-00.txt
   
   
      An ingress node requesting non-PHP behavior MAY examine the label
      value corresponding to the Egress node(s) in the RRO, and MAY
      send a Path Tear to the Egress which assigns a Null label value.
   
   2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication
   
      In order to indicate to the Egress LSR that binding of RSVP-TE
      LSP to an application and payload identification is being
      communicated by an OOB mechanism, this document defines a new bit
      in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined
      in [RFC4420]:
   
   
      Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping indication bit.
   
      This bit SHOULD be set by Ingress node in the Attributes Flags
      TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message for the LSP
      that desires OOB mapping. This bit MUST NOT be modified by any
      other nodes in the network. Nodes other than the Egress nodes
      SHOULD ignore this bit.
   
      If an egress node receiving the Path message, supports the
      LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
      recognizes the "OOB mapping indication bit", it MUST wait for the
      OOB mapping before accepting traffic on the P2MP LSP. This
      implies that the egress node MUST NOT setup forwarding state for
      the P2MP LSP before it receives the OOB mapping, though it SHOULD
      proceed with RSVP-TE signaling and send RESV messages as per
      regular RSVP-TE procedures [RFC3209]. It MUST also ignore L3PID
      in the Label Request Object [RFC3209]. If the egress node
      supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the
      Attributes Flags TLV, or supports the TLV as well but does not
      recognize this particular bit, then it SHOULD simply ignore the
      above request.
   
   2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP bits
   
      Non-PHP behavior desired and OOB mapping indication bit can
      appear and be processed independently of each other. However, as
      mentioned earlier, in the context of application discussed in
      this draft, OOB mapping require non-PHP behavior. An Ingress node
      requesting OOB mapping MAY also set non-PHP behavior desired bit
      in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message.
   
   2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding
   
      RSVP-TE signaling completion and the OOB mapping information
      reception happen asynchronously at the Egress. As mentioned in
   
                      Expires March 2008                     [Page 4]
   

   Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-00.txt
   
   
      Section 2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting
      traffic on the P2MP LSP.
   
      In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible
      block-holing of traffic, if the OOB mapping information is not
      received within a reasonable time, Egress MAY trigger a Path
      Error message with the error code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB
      mapping received" for all affected LSPs. If available, and where
      notify requests were included when the LSPs were initially setup,
      Notify message (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY also be used for
      delivery of this information to the Ingress node. Egress node may
      implement a cleanup timer for this purpose. The time-out value is
      a local decision at the Egress, with recommended default value is
      to be added later.
   
   3. Security Considerations
   
      This document does not introduce any new security issues above
      those identified in [RFC3209], [RFC4420] and [RSVP-TE-P2MP].
   
   
   4. IANA Considerations
   
   4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
   
      The following new bit is being defined for the Attributes Flags
      TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.  The numeric value is to be
      assigned by IANA.
   
   
      o  Non-PHP behavior desired bit - Bit Number 6 (Suggested value).
   
      o  OOB mapping indication bit - Bit Number 7 (Suggested value).
   
      These bits are only to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV on a
      Path message.
   
      The following new error sub-code for Error Code = 25 "Notify
      Error" (see [RFC3209]) is needed. The numeric value for this sub-
      code is to be assigned by IANA.
   
      o  No OOB mapping received.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
                      Expires March 2008                     [Page 5]
   

   Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-00.txt
   
   
   5. Acknowledgments
   
      The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his suggestions
      on the draft.
   
   
   6. References
   
   6.1. Normative References
   
      [RFC4420] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, J. P. Vasseur and A.
                Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for  Multiprotocol
                Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
                Establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC 4420, February 2006.
   
      [RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan,
                and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
                Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
   
      [RSVP-TE-P2MP] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa, et al,
                "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE
                LSPs", RFC4875.
   
      [RFC3473]  L. Berger, Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
                Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
                3473, January 2003.
   
   
   6.2. Informative References
   
   
      [MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
                VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-05.txt.
   
      [VPLS] R. Aggarwal, et al, "Propagation of VPLS IP Multicast
                Group Membership Information", draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-
                vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, work in progress.
   
      [UPSTREAM] TBA.
   
   
   
                      Expires March 2008                     [Page 6]
   

   Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-00.txt
   
   
   Author's Addresses
   
      Zafar Ali
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      Email: zali@cisco.com
   
      George Swallow
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      Email: swallow@cisco.com
   
      Rahul Aggarwal
      Juniper Networks
      Email: rahul@juniper.net
   
   
   Intellectual Property Statement
   
      The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
      Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
      claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
      described in this document or the extent to which any license
      under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
      represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
      such rights.  Information on the procedures with respect to
      rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
   
      Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
      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 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.
   
   Disclaimer of Validity
   
      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.
                      Expires March 2008                     [Page 7]
   

   Internet-Draft  draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-00.txt
   
   
   Copyright Statement
   
      Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
   
      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.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
                      Expires March 2008                     [Page 8]
   

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/