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

Versions: (draft-kompella-mpls-rsvp-unnum) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 3477

Network Working Group                             Kireeti Kompella
Internet Draft                                    Juniper Networks
Expiration Date: May 2001                            Yakov Rekhter
                                                     Cisco Systems


                 Signalling Unnumbered Links in RSVP-TE

                   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt


1. Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

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


2. Abstract

   Current signalling used by MPLS TE doesn't provide support for
   unnumbered links.  This document defines procedures and extensions to
   RSVP-TE, one of the MPLS TE signalling protocols, that are needed in
   order to support unnumbered links.












draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt                               [Page 1]


Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt      November 2000


3. Overview

   Supporting MPLS TE over unnumbered links (i.e., links that do not
   have IP addresses) involves two components: (a) the ability to carry
   (TE) information about unnumbered links in IGP TE extensions (ISIS or
   OSPF), and (b) the ability to specify unnumbered links in MPLS TE
   signalling.  The former is covered in [ISIS-TE, OSPF-TE]. The focus
   of this document is on the latter.

   Current signalling used by MPLS TE doesn't provide support for
   unnumbered links because the current signalling doesn't provide a way
   to indicate an unnumbered link in its Explicit Route and Record Route
   Objects.  This document proposes simple procedures and extensions
   that allow RSVP-TE signalling [RSVP-TE] to be used with unnumbered
   links.


4. Interface Identifiers

   Since unnumbered links are not identified by an IP address, then for
   the purpose of MPLS TE they need some other identifier.  We assume
   that each unnumbered link on a Label Switched Router (LSR) is given a
   unique 32-bit identifier.  The scope of this identifier is the LSR to
   which the link belongs; moreover, the IS-IS and/or OSPF and RSVP
   modules on an LSR must agree on interface identifiers.

   Note that links are directed, i.e., a link l is from some LSR A to
   some other LSR B.  LSR A chooses the interface identifier for link l.
   To be completely clear, we call this the "outgoing interface
   identifier from LSR A's point of view".  If there is a reverse link
   from LSR B to LSR A (for example, a point-to-point SONET interface
   connecting LSRs A and B would be represented as two links, one from A
   to B, and another from B to A), B chooses the outgoing interface
   identifier for the reverse link; we call this the link's "incoming
   interface identifier from A's point of view".  There is no a priori
   relationship between the two interface identifiers.















draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt                               [Page 2]


Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt      November 2000


5. Unnumbered Forwarding Adjacencies

   If an LSR that originates an LSP advertises this LSP as an unnumbered
   Forwarding Adjacency in IS-IS or OSPF [LSP-HIER], the LSR MUST
   allocate an interface ID to that Forwarding Adjacency.  Moreover, the
   Path message MUST contain an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object
   (described below), with the LSR's Router ID set to the head end's
   router ID, and the Interface ID set to the LSP's interface ID.

   If the LSP is bidirectional, and the tail-end LSR (of the forward
   LSP) advertises the reverse LSP as an unnumbered Forwarding
   Adjacency, the tail-end LSR MUST allocate an interface ID to the
   reverse Forwarding Adjacency.  Furthermore, the Resv message for the
   LSP MUST contain an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object, with the LSR's
   Router ID set to the tail end's router ID, and the Interface ID set
   to the reverse LSP's interface ID.


5.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object

   The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object has a class number of type
   11bbbbbb (to be assigned by IANA), C-Type of 1 and length of 12.  The
   format is given below.

   Figure 1: LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object

    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)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   This object can optionally appear in either a Path message or a Resv
   message.  In the former case, we call it the "Forward Interface ID"
   for that LSP; in the latter case, we call it the "Reverse Interface
   ID" for the LSP.












draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt                               [Page 3]


Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt      November 2000


6. Signalling Unnumbered Links in EROs

   A new subobject of the Explicit Route Object (ERO) is used to specify
   unnumbered links.  This subobject has the following format:

   Figure 2: Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |L|    Type     |     Length    |    Reserved (MUST be zero)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Interface ID (32 bits)                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   This subobject MUST be strict (i.e., the L bit MUST be 0).  The Type
   is 4 (Unnumbered Interface ID).  The Length is 8.


6.1. Interpreting the Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject

   The Interface ID is the outgoing interface identifier with respect to
   the previous node in the path (i.e., the PHOP).  If the Path message
   contains an Unnumbered Interface ID subobject as the first subobject
   in the ERO, then the PHOP object in the message must contain the
   router ID of the previous node.


6.2. Processing the Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject

   A node that receives a Path message with an Unnumbered Interface ID
   as the first subobject in the ERO carried by the message MUST check
   whether the tuple <PHOP, Interface ID> matches the tuple <LSR's
   Router ID, Forward Interface ID> of any of the LSPs for which the
   node is a tail-end.  If a match is found, the match identifies the
   Forwarding Adjacency for which the node has to perform label
   allocation.

   Otherwise, the node MUST check whether the tuple <PHOP, Interface ID>
   matches the tuple <LSR's Router ID, Reverse Interface ID> of any of
   the bidirectional LSPs for which the node is the head-end.  If a
   match is found, the match identifies the Forwarding Adjacency for
   which the node has to perform label allocation, namely, the reverse
   Forwarding Adjacency for the LSP identified by the match.

   Otherwise, if the node maintains information about Interface IDs
   assigned by its neighbors for the unnumbered links between the node



draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt                               [Page 4]


Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt      November 2000


   and the neighbors (i.e., incoming interface identifiers from the
   node's point of view), the node SHOULD check whether the tuple <PHOP,
   Interface ID> matches <neighbor's Router ID, Incoming Interface ID>
   for any link.  If a match is found, the match identifies the link for
   which the node has to perform label allocation.

   Otherwise, it is assumed that the node has to perform label
   allocation for the link over which the Path message was received.  In
   this case the receiving node MAY validate that it received the Path
   message correctly.  To do so, the node must maintain a database of
   Traffic Engineering information distributed by IS-IS and/or OSPF.

   To validate that it received the Path message correctly, the node
   looks up in its Traffic Engineering database for the node
   corresponding to the router ID in the PHOP object in the Path.  It
   then checks that there is a link from the previous node to itself
   that carries the same Interface ID as the one in the ERO subobject.
   If this is not the case, the receiving node has received the message
   in error and SHOULD return a "Bad initial subobject" error.
   Otherwise, the receiving node removes the first subobject, and
   continues processing the ERO.


6.3. Selecting the Next Hop

   If, after processing and removing all initial subobjects in the ERO
   that refer to itself, the receiving node finds a subobject of type
   Unnumbered Interface ID, it determines the next hop as follows.  The
   Interface ID MUST refer to an outgoing interface identifier that this
   node allocated; if not, the node SHOULD return a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
   object" error.  The next hop is the node at the other end of the link
   that the Interface ID refers to.

   Furthermore, when sending a Path message to the next hop, the ERO to
   be used is the current ERO (starting with the Unnumbered Interface ID
   subobject); the PHOP object is the sending node's router ID.















draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt                               [Page 5]


Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt      November 2000


7. Record Route Object

   A new subobject of the Record Route Object (RRO) is used to record
   that the LSP path traversed an unnumbered link.  This subobject has
   the following format:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      Type     |     Length    |     Flags     | Reserved (MBZ)|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Interface ID (32 bits)                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Type is 4 (Unnumbered Interface ID); the Length is 8.  Flags are
   defined below.

      0x01  Local protection available

            Indicates that the link downstream of this node is protected
            via a local repair mechanism.  This flag can only be set if
            the Local protection flag was set in the SESSION_ATTRIBUITE
            object of the cooresponding Path message.

      0x02  Local protection in use

            Indicates that a local repair mechanism is in use to
            maintain this tunnel (usually in the face a an outage of the
            link it was previously routed over).


7.1. Handling RRO

   If at an intermediate node (or at the head-end), the ERO subobject
   that was used to determine the next hop is of type Unnumbered
   Interface ID, and a RRO object was received in the Path message (or
   is desired in the original Path message), an RRO subobject of type
   Unnumbered Interface ID MUST be appended to the received RRO when
   sending a Path message downstream.

   If the ERO subobject that was used to determine the next hop is of
   any other type, the handling procedures of [RSVP-TE] apply.  Also, if
   Label Recording is desired, the procedures of [RSVP-TE] apply.








draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt                               [Page 6]


Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt      November 2000


8. Security Considerations

   This document raises no new security concerns for RSVP.


9. IANA Considerations

   The responsible Internet authority (presently called the IANA)
   assigns values to RSVP protocol parameters.  The current document
   defines a new subobject for the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object and for the
   ROUTE_RECORD object.  The rules for the assignment of subobject
   numbers have been defined in [RSVP-TE], using the terminology of BCP
   26 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs".
   Those rules apply to the assignment of subobject numbers for the new
   subobject of the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and ROUTE_RECORD objects.

   Furthermore, the same Internet authority needs to assign a class
   number to the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object.  This must be of the
   form 11bbbbbb (i.e., this is an 8-bit number whose two most
   significant bits are 1).


10. Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Lou Berger and Markus Jork for pointing out that the RRO
   should be extended in like fashion to the ERO.  Thanks also to Rahul
   Aggarwal and Alan Kullberg for their comments on the text.


11. References

   [ISIS-TE] Smit, H., and Li, T., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
   Engineering", draft-ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt (work in progress)

   [LSP-HIER] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with MPLS
   TE", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-01.txt (work in progress)

   [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
   OSPF", draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-02.txt (work in progress)

   [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D. H., Li, T., Srinivasan,
   V., and Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-07.txt (work in progress)








draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt                               [Page 7]


Internet Draft      draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt      November 2000


12. Author Information


Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
e-mail: kireeti@juniper.net

Yakov Rekhter
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
e-mail: yakov@cisco.com





































draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-00.txt                               [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/