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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6882

Network Working Group                                     K. Kumaki, Ed.
Internet Draft                                          KDDI Corporation
Intended Status: Standards Track                                T. Murai
Expires: October 29, 2012               Furukawa Network Solutions Corp.
                                                                D. Cheng
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           S. Matsushima
                                                        Softbank Telecom
                                                                P. Jiang
                                                        KDDI Corporation
                                                          April 29, 2012

                       Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs
                  draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05.txt

Abstract

   IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) provide connectivity between sites
   across an IP/MPLS backbone. These VPNs can be operated using BGP/MPLS
   and a single provider edge (PE) node may provide access to multiple
   customer sites belonging to different VPNs.

   The VPNs may support a number of customer services including RSVP and
   RSVP-TE traffic. This document describes how to support RSVP-TE
   between customer sites when a single PE supports multiple VPNs.


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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2012.




K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 1]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction..................................................3
   2. Motivation....................................................3
      2.1 Network Example...........................................3
   3. Protocol Extensions and Procedures............................5
      3.1 Object Definitions........................................5
      3.1.1 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION Object
      ..............................................................5
      3.1.2 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE
      Objects.......................................................7
      3.1.3 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC
      Objects.......................................................8
      3.1.4 VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP Objects..................8
      3.2 Handling..................................................8
      3.2.1 Path Message Processing at Ingress PE...................8
      3.2.2 Path Message Processing at Egress PE....................9
      3.2.3 Resv Processing at Egress PE............................10
      3.2.4 Resv Processing at Ingress PE...........................10
      3.2.5 Other RSVP Messages.....................................11
   4. Management Considerations.....................................11
      4.1 Impact on Network Operation...............................11
   5. Security Considerations.......................................11
   6. IANA Considerations...........................................12
   7. References....................................................12
      7.1 Normative References......................................12
      7.2 Informative References....................................12
   8. Acknowledgments...............................................13
   9. Author's Addresses............................................13





K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 2]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


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].


1. Introduction

   Service Providers would like to use BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs [RFC4364] to
   support connections between Customer Edge (CE) sites. As described in
   [RFC5824], these connections can be MPLS Traffic Engineered (TE)
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) established using extensions to RSVP
   [RFC3209] for a number of different deployment scenarios. The
   requirements for supporting MPLS-TE LSP connections across BGP/MPLS
   IP-VPNs are documented in [RFC5824].

   In order to establish a customer MPLS-TE LSP over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN,
   it is necessary for the RSVP-TE control messages, including Path
   messages and Resv messages described in [RFC3209], to be
   appropriately handled by the Provider Edge (PE) routers. [RFC6016]
   defines the new types of existing RSVP objects (i.e. SESSION,
   SENDER_TEMPLATE, FILTERSPEC and RSVP_HOP) to replace those described
   in [RFC2205] for use to establish reservations for customer flows in
   the context of a BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. Section 7.4 of [RFC6016] notes
   the applicability of [RFC6016], but delegates a description of
   RSPV-TE in the BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environment to a separate document.
   This document provides the necessary description.

   In order to support multiple MPLS-TE LSPs in different BGP/MPLS
   IP-VPNs that are interconnected via the same Provider Edge (PE)
   routers, new RSVP-TE extensions are required. This document defines
   the required extensions and describes the procedures.


2. Motivation

   If multiple BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs are supported at the same PE, new
   RSVP-TE extensions are required so that RSVP-TE control messages
   from the CEs can be appropriately handled by the PE.

2.1 Network Example

   Figure 1 (Customer MPLS TE LSPs in the context of BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs)
   shows two VPNs supported by a core IP/MPLS network. Both VPNs have
   customer sites supported by the two PEs shown in the figure. The
   customer sites operate MPLS-TE LSPs.

   Here, we make the following set of assumptions.

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 3]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


   1. VPN1 and VPN2 are for different customers.
   2. CE1 and CE3 are head-end routers.
   3. CE2 and CE4 are tail-end routers.
   4. The same address (e.g., 192.0.2.1) is assigned at CE2 and CE4.

     <--------A customer MPLS TE LSP for VPN1-------->

   .......                                        .......
   . --- .    ---      ---       ---      ---     . --- .
   .|CE1|----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2|.
   . --- .    ---      ---       ---      ---     . --- .
   .......     |                           |      .......
   (VPN1)      |                           |      (VPN1)
               |                           |
   .......     |                           |      .......
   . --- .     |                           |      . --- .
   .|CE3|------+                           +-------|CE4|.
   . --- .                                        . --- .
   .......                                        .......
   (VPN2)                                         (VPN2)

     <--------A customer MPLS TE LSP for VPN2-------->
               ^                           ^
               |                           |
          VRF instance                VRF instance

   <-Customer->    <---BGP/MPLS IP-VPN--->   <-Customer->
      network                                   network

     Figure 1: Customer MPLS TE LSPs in the context of BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs

   Consider that customers in VPN1 and VPN2 would like to establish a
   customer MPLS TE LSPs between their sites (i.e., between CE1 and CE2,
   and between CE3 and CE4). In this situation the following RSVP-TE
   Path messages would be sent:

      1. CE1 would send a Path message to PE1 to establish
         the MPLS TE LSP (VPN1) between CE1 and CE2.

      2. CE3 would also send a Path message to PE1 to establish
         the MPLS TE LSP (VPN2) between CE1 and CE2.

   After receiving each Path messages, PE1 can identify the customer
   context for each Path message from the incoming interface over which
   the message was received. PE1 forwards the messages to PE2 using the
   routing mechanisms described in [RFC4364] and [RFC4659].

   When the Path messages are received at PE2, that node needs to
   distinguish the messages and determine which applies to VPN1 and

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 4]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


   which to VPN2 so that the right forwarding state can be established
   and so that the messages can be passed on to the correct CE. Although
   the messages will arrive at PE2 with an MPLS label that identifies
   the VPN, the messages will be delivered to the RSVP-TE component on
   PE2 and the context of the core VPN LSP (i.e., the label) will be
   lost. Some RSVP-TE protocol mechanism is therefore needed to embed
   the VPN identifier within the RSVP-TE message.

   Similarly, Resv messages sent from PE2 to PE1 need an RSVP-TE
   mechanisms to assign them to the correct VPN.


3. Protocol Extensions and Procedures

   This section provides the additional RSVP-TE objects to meet the
   requirements described in Section 2.   These are new variants of the
   SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTERSPEC objects. These new objects
   will act as identifiers and allow PEs to The new object types are
   defined in Section 3.1, and the specific procedure is described in
   Section 3.2.

3.1 Object Definitions

3.1.1 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION Object

   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) SESSION object appears in
   RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a SESSION object and are
   sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction. The object
   MUST NOT be included in any RSVP-TE message that is sent outside of
   the provider's backbone.

   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is analogous to the
   LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 SESSION object, using a VPN-IPv6 address
   ([RFC4659]) instead of a VPN-IPv4 address ([RFC4364]).

   The formats of the objects are as follows:

   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = TBA












K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 5]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |            VPN-IPv4 tunnel end point address (12 bytes)       |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MUST be zero                 |      Tunnel ID                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = TBA


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |            VPN-IPv6 tunnel end point address                  |
   +                                                               +
   |                            (24 bytes)                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MUST be zero                 |      Tunnel ID                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
   +                                                               +
   |                            (16 bytes)                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The VPN-IPv4 tunnel end point address (respectively, VPN-IPv6 tunnel
   end point address) field contains an address of
   the VPN-IPv4 (respectively, VPN-IPv6) address family encoded as
   specified in [RFC4364](respectively, [RFC4659]).



K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 6]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


   The Tunnel ID and Extended Tunnel ID are identical to the same fields
   in the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SESSION objects
   as per [RFC3209].

3.1.2 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE
Objects

   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) SENDER_TEMPLATE object appears
   in RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a SENDER_TEMPLATE object
   and are sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction
   (such as Path, PathError, and PathTear).  The object MUST NOT be
   included in any RSVP-TE messages that are sent outside of the
   provider's backbone. The format of the object is as follows:

     Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = TBA

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |            VPN-IPv4 tunnel sender address (12 bytes)          |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MUST be zero                 |            LSP ID             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = TBA

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |            VPN-IPv6 tunnel sender address                     |
   +                                                               +
   |                            (24 bytes)                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MUST be zero                 |            LSP ID             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 7]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


   The VPN-IPv4 tunnel sender address (respectively, VPN-IPv6 tunnel
   sender address) field contains an address of the VPN-IPv4
   (respectively, VPN-IPv6) address family encoded as specified
   in [RFC4364] (respectively, [RFC4659]).

   The LSP ID is identical to the LSP ID field in the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4
   and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE objects as
   per [RFC3209].

3.1.3 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC Objects

   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) FILTER_SPEC object appears in
   RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a FILTER_SPEC object and are
   sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction (such as
   Resv, ResvError, and ResvTear).  The object MUST NOT be included in
   any RSVP-TE messages that are sent outside of the provider's
   backbone.

      Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = TBA

   The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is identical
   to the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.

      Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = TBA

   The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is identical
   to the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.

3.1.4 VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP Objects

   The format of the VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP objects are
   identical to objects described in [RFC6016].

3.2 Handling

   It assumes that ingress PEs and egress PEs in the context of BGP/MPLS
   IP-VPNs have RSVP-TE capabilities.

3.2.1 Path Message Processing at Ingress PE

   When a Path message arrives at the ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1), the
   PE needs to establish suitable Path state and forward the Path
   message on to the egress PE (PE2 in Figure 1). In this section
   we described the message handling process at the ingress PE.

      1. CE1 would send a Path message to PE1 to establish the MPLS TE
         LSP (VPN1) between CE1 and CE2. The Path message
         is addressed to the eventual destination (the receiver at the
         remote customer site) and carries the IP Router Alert option,

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 8]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


         in accordance with [RFC2205].  The ingress PE must recognize
         the router alert, intercept these messages and process them
         as RSVP-TE signalling messages.

      2. When the ingress PE receives a Path message from a CE that is
         addressed to the receiver, the VRF that is associated with the
         incoming interface can be identified (this step does not
         deviate from current behavior).

      3. The tunnel end point address of the receiver is looked up in
         the appropriate VRF, and the BGP Next-Hop for that tunnel end
         point address is identified. The next-hop is the egress PE.

      4. A new LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is
         constructed, containing the Route Distinguisher (RD) that is
         part of the VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 route prefix for this tunnel end
         point address, and the IPv4/IPv6 tunnel end point address from
         the original SESSION object.

      5. A new LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-Pv4/IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object is
         constructed, with the original IPv4/IPv6 tunnel sender address
         from the incoming SENDER_TEMPLATE plus the RD that is used by
         the PE to advertise the prefix for the customers VPN.

      6. A new Path message is sent containing all the objects from the
         original Path message, replacing the original SESSION and
         SENDER_TEMPLATE objects with the new
         LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 type objects. This Path message is
         sent directly to the egress PE (the next hop as being looked up
         in step 3 above) without IP Router Alert.

3.2.2 Path Message Processing at Egress PE

   In this section we described the message handling process at the
   egress PE.

       1. When a Path message arrives at the egress PE (PE2 in Figure 1)
          , it is addressed to the PE itself, and is handed to RSVP for
          processing.

       2. The router extracts the RD and IPv4/IPv6 address from the
          LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object, and determines
          the local VRF context by finding a matching VPN-IPv4 prefix
          with the specified RD that has been advertised by this router
          into BGP.

       3. The entire incoming RSVP message, including the VRF
          information, is stored as part of the Path state.


K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 9]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


       4. The egress PE can now construct a Path message which differs
          from the Path message it received in the following ways:

            a.  Its tunnel end point address is the IP address extracted
                from the SESSION object;

            b.  The SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE objects are converted
                back to IPv4-type/IPv6-type by discarding the attached
                RD;

            c. The RSVP_HOP object contains the IP address of the
               outgoing interface of the egress PE and an LIH, as per
               normal RSVP processing.

        5. The egress PE then sends the Path message on towards its
           tunnel end point address over the interface identified above.
           This Path message carries the IP Router-Alert option as
           required by [RFC2205].

3.2.3 Resv Processing at Egress PE

   When a receiver at the customer site originates a Resv message for
   the session, normal RSVP procedures apply until the Resv, making its
   way back towards the sender, arrives at the "egress" PE (it is
   "egress" with respect to the direction of data flow, i.e.  PE2 in
   figure 1).  On arriving at PE2, the SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects
   in the Resv, and the VRF in which the Resv was received, are used to
   find the matching Path state stored previously.

   The PE constructs a Resv message to send to the RSVP HOP stored in
   the Path state, i.e., the ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1).  The LSP
   TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 SESSION object is replaced with the same
   LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object received in the Path. The
   LSP TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is replaced with a
   LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object, which copies the
   VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 address from the LSP TUNNEL SENDER_TEMPLATE
   received in the matching Path message.

   The Resv message MUST be addressed to the IP address contained within
   the RSVP_HOP object in the Path message.

3.2.4 Resv Processing at Ingress PE

   Upon receiving a Resv message at the ingress PE (with respect to data
   flow, i.e.  PE1 in Figure 1), the PE determines the local VRF context
   and associated Path state for this Resv by decoding the received
   SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects.  It is now possible to generate a
   Resv message to send to the appropriate CE.  The Resv message sent to
   the ingress CE will contain LSP TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 SESSION and LSP
   TUNNEL FILTER_SPEC objects, derived from the appropriate Path state.

K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 10]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


3.2.5 Other RSVP Messages

   Processing of other RSVP messages, i.e., PathError, PathTear,
   ResvError, ResvTear, and ResvConf message in general follows the
   rules defined in [RFC2205], with additional rules that MUST be
   observed for messages transmitted within the VPN, i.e., between the
   PEs as follows:

   o The SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE, and FILTER_SPEC objects MUST be
     converted from LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 [RFC3209] to
     LSP_TUNNEL_VPN_IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_VPN_IPv6 form, respectively, and
     back in the same manner as described above for Path and Resv
     messages.

   o The appropriate type of RSVP_HOP object (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6) MUST
     be used as described in Section 8.4 of [RFC6016].

   o Depending on the type of RSVP_HOP object received from the
     neighbor, the message MUST be MPLS encapsulated or IP encapsulated.

   o The matching state and VRF MUST be determined by decoding the
     corresponding RD and IPv4 (respectively, IPv6) address in the
     SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects.

   o The message MUST be directly addressed to the appropriate PE,
     without using the Router Alert Option.


4. Management Considerations

   MPLS-TE based BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs are based on a peer model. If an
   operator would like to configure a new site to an existing VPN
   configuration of both the CE router and the attached PE router is
   required. The operator is not required to modify the configuration
   of PE routers connected to other sites or modify the configuration
   of other VPNs.

4.1 Impact on Network Operation

   It is expected that the use of the extensions specified in this
   document will not significantly increase the level of operational
   traffic.

   Furthermore, the additional extensions described in this document
   will have no impact on the operation of existing MPLS-TE resiliency
   mechanisms available within MPLS-TE.

5.  Security Considerations

K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 11]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


   This document defines RSVP-TE extensions for BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. Hence
   the security of the RSVP-TE extensions relies on the security of
   RSVP-TE extensions for LSP tunnels.

   The security issues are described in the existing RSVP-TE extensions
   for LSP tunnels. [RFC3209]


6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains a registry of RSVP parameters. As described in Section
   3 (Protocol Extensions and Procedures) six new Class Types (C-types)
   have been defined. IANA is requested to make the following
   allocations from the "RSVP C-Types" sub-registry:

   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = TBA
   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = TBA
   Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = TBA
   Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = TBA
   Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = TBA
   Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = TBA


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.

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

7.2 Informative References

   [RFC5824]     Kumaki, K., Zhang, R. and Kamite, Y., "Requirements for
                 supporting Customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS
                 IP-VPN", RFC 5824, April 2010.

   [RFC6016]     Davie, B., Faucheur, F. and Narayanan, A., "Support for
                 the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) in Layer 3
                 VPNs",  RFC 6016, October 2010.

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


K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 12]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


   [RFC4364]     Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
                 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

   [RFC4659]     De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and
                 F. Le Faucheur, "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network
                 (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659,
                 September 2006.


8. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to express thanks to Makoto Nakamura for his
   helpful and useful comments and feedback.


9. Author's Addresses

   Kenji Kumaki
   KDDI Corporation
   Garden Air Tower
   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
   Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
   Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com

   Tomoki Murai
   Furukawa Network Solutions Corp.
   5-1-9, Higashi-Yawata, Hiratsuka
   Kanagawa 254-0016, JAPAN
   Email: murai@fnsc.co.jp

   Dean Cheng
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara CA 95050, U.S.A.
   Email: dean.cheng@huawei.com

   Satoru Matsushima
   Softbank Telecom
   1-9-1,Higashi-Shimbashi,Minato-Ku
   Tokyo 105-7322, JAPAN
   Email: satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp

   Peng Jiang
   KDDI Corporation
   Garden Air Tower
   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
   Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
   Email: pe-jiang@kddi.com



K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 13]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012


   Chikara Sasaki
   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
   2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino
   Saitama 356-8502, JAPAN
   Email: ch-sasaki@kddilabs.jp

   Daisuke Tatsumi
   KDDI Corporation
   Garden Air Tower
   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
   Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
   Email: da-tatsumi@kddi.com






































K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 14]
draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-05                         April 2012

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