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

Versions: (draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7570

TEAS                                                    C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track                           G. Martinelli
Expires: September 24, 2015                                        Cisco
                                                                S. Balls
                                                               B. Wright
                                                              Metaswitch
                                                          March 23, 2015


                          LSP Attribute in ERO
                  draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-05

Abstract

   RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which
   apply to the whole of the path of a Label Switched Path (LSP).  This
   document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO)
   and Record Route Object (RRO) objects to allow it to specify or
   record generic attributes which apply to a given hop.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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



Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  ERO Hop Attributes Subobject  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  RRO Hop Attributes Subobject  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.1.  Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.2.  Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes  . . . .   7
       3.2.3.  Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  ERO Hop Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Existing Attribute Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit
   Route object (ERO) and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209],
   [RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
   Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be
   targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163],
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] or
   [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound].  This document
   provides a generic mechanism for use by these other documents.

   RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP Attributes in
   [RFC5420].  In order to support current and future ERO constraint
   extensions this document provides a mechanism to define per-Hop
   attributes.




Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information
   related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP.  This document does
   not restrict what that information can be used for.  The defined
   approach builds on LSP Attributes defined in [RFC5420], and enables
   attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route object
   (SERO) objects.  A new ERO sub-object is defined, containing a list
   of generic per-Hop attributes.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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 [RFC2119].

2.  ERO Hop Attributes Subobject

   The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL.  If used it is carried
   in the ERO or SERO.  The subobject uses the standard format of an ERO
   subobject.

2.1.  Encoding

   The length is variable and content is a list of HOP Attributes TLVs
   defined in Section 2.2.  The size of the ERO sub-object limits the
   size of the attribute TLV to 250 bytes.  The typical size of
   currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs applicable to a
   specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, Objective Function (OF) and Metric) is
   not foreseen to exceed this limit.

   The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:

      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                 |R|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      //                      Attributes TLVs                        //
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The L, Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209]
   Section 4.3.3.  The L bit MUST be set to 0.  The Type for the ERO Hop
   Attributes subobject is TBA-1 by IANA.  The attributes TLV are
   encoded as defined in Section 2.2.





Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   Reserved  Reserved, MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
      in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO and
      MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO
      subobjects.

   R  This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE
      semantic defined in [RFC5420].  When set it indicates required hop
      attributes to be processed by the node.  When cleared, it
      indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in
      Section 2.3.

   Attributes TLVs  The TLVs as defined in Section 2.2.

2.2.  HOP Attributes TLVs

   ERO Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document
   are encoded within TLVs.  Each object MAY contain one or more TLVs.
   There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation SHOULD NOT
   be placed on the order in which TLVs are received.  The TLV format is
   defined in [RFC5420] Section 3.

   The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] are carried in an ERO
   Hop Attributes Subobject.  Flags set in the an Attribute Flags TLV
   [RFC5420] carried in an ERO Hop Attributes Subobject SHALL be
   interpreted in the context of the received ERO.  Only a subset of
   defined flags are defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV
   carried in an ERO Hop Attributes Subobject.  Invalid flags SHALL be
   silently ignored.  Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a
   PathErr with Error Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in
   [RFC5420] Section 5.2.  The set of valid flags are defined in
   Section 4.3.

   The presence and ordering rule of the Attribute Flags TLV in an ERO
   Hop Attributes Subobject is defined by each Flag.  A document
   defining a Flag to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the
   ERO Hop Attributes Subobject has to describe:

   o  after which kinds of ERO subobject the Flag is valid

   o  if ordering of the Flag and other ERO subobjects associated with
      the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant,

   o  if ordering is significant, how the Flag is interpreted in
      association with the preceding subobjects,

   o  any Flag modification rules that might apply.





Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


2.3.  Procedures

   As described in [RFC3209] the ERO is managed as a list of subobjects
   each identifying a specific entity, an abstract node or a link that
   defines a waypoint in the network path.  Identifying subobjects of
   various types are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
   [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].

   [RFC3473] modified the ERO list by allowing one or two Label
   subobjects to be interposed in the list after a subobject identifying
   a link.  One or more ERO Hop Attributes subobjects applicable to a
   particular hop MAY be inserted directly after any of the existing
   identifying subobjects defined in[RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
   [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].  If any Label subobjects are
   present for a hop, the ERO Hop Attributes subobject(s) MAY also be
   inserted after the Label subobjects.

   The attributes specified in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject apply to
   the immediately preceding subobject(s) in the ERO subobject list.

   A document defining a specific Hop Attribute TLV has to describe:

   o  after which kinds of ERO subobject they are valid ,

   o  if ordering of the Hop Attributes subobject and other ERO
      subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects)
      is significant,

   o  if ordering is significant, how the attribute is interpreted in
      association with the preceding ERO subobjects, and

   o  any TLV modification rules that might apply.

   For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by describing
   rules similar to [RFC4990] Section 6.1.

   If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not
   support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in
   [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered.  This
   node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error
   value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
   included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
   subobject.

   When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present
   in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420]
   Section 5.2.  When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the




Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   attribute TLV present in the subobject following the rules described
   in [RFC5420] Section 4.2.

   A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with a HOP
   Attributes TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr
   with error code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
   object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the
   left) to the offending malformed subobject.  A processing node MUST
   NOT originates a HOP Attributes TLV longer than the ERO HOP
   Attributes Subobject.  The processing of the Hop attribute TLVs
   SHOULD be described in the documents defining them.

3.  RRO Hop Attributes Subobject

   In some cases it is important to determine if an OPTIONAL Hop
   attribute has been processed by a node.

3.1.  Encoding

   The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL.  If used it is carried
   in the RECORD_ROUTE object.  The subobject uses the standard format
   of an RRO subobject.

   The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:

       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    |    Reserved                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      //                      Attributes TLVs                        //
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209]
   Section 4.4.1.  The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is
   TBA-2 by IANA.  The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in
   Section 2.2.

   Reserved  Reserved, MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
      in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the RRO and
      MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO
      subobjects.

   Attributes TLVs  The processed or additional HOP Attributes, using
      the format defined in Section 2.2.



Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


3.2.  Procedures

3.2.1.  Subobject Presence Rule

   The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed.  The RRO Hop
   Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes
   subobject (if present) defined in [RFC5420].  The RRO Hop Attributes
   subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects identifying
   Label Switching Router (LSR) or links.  Unless local policy apply all
   such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs.

   It is noted that a node (e.g., a domain edge node) MAY edit the RRO
   to prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attribute subobject
   before forwarding due to confidentiality policy or other reasons (for
   instance RRO size reduction).

3.2.2.  Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes

   To report that an ERO Hop attribute has been considered, or to report
   an additional attribute, an LSR can add a RRO Hop Attributes
   subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to
   be reported.  The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified
   in the document that defines the usage of a Hop attribute.

3.2.3.  Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject

   The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO
   Attributes subobject defined in [RFC5420] Section 7.2 by allowing the
   node to report the attribute value.  The mechanism defined in this
   document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using the
   following procedures.

   For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
   LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
   subobject to report processing of those attributes.

   For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
   not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
   node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop
   Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject.
   Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will
   drop the information, as described in [RFC3209] Section 4.4.5.

   A node can use the RRO Hop Attribute to report an LSP Attribute
   signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only if the
   following conditions are met:





Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


      The Attribute and its corresponding flag is allowed on both the
      LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP Hop Attributes
      subobject.

      The document defining this Attribute specify this specific
      behavior.

4.  IANA Considerations

4.1.  ERO Hop Attribute Subobject

   IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
   We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 20
   EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry.

   This document introduces a new ERO sub-object:

             Value  Description       Reference
             ------ ----------------- ------------------------
             TBA-1  Hop Attributes    This document, Section 2

4.2.  RRO LSP Attribute Subobject

   IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
   We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 21
   ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry.  We request the value to
   be the same as Section 4.1.

   This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:

             Value  Description       Reference
             ------ ----------------- ------------------------
             TBA-2  Hop Attributes    This document, Section 3

4.3.  Existing Attribute Flags

   IANA manages the "Attribute Flags" registry as part of the "RSVP-TE
   PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
   te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xml.  A new column in the registry
   is introduced by this document.  This column indicates if the flag is
   permitted to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the ERO Hop
   Attributes Subobject.  The column uses the heading "ERO" and the
   registry is to be updated as follows:






Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   Bit Name                    Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
                               FlagsPath FlagsResv
   0   End-to-end re-routing   Yes       No        No  No  [RFC4920]
                                                           This Document
   1   Boundary re-routing     Yes       No        No  No  [RFC4920]
                                                           This Document
   2   Segment-based re-       Yes       No        No  No  [RFC4920]
       routing
                                                           This Document
   3   LSP Integrity Required  Yes       No        No  No  [RFC4875]
                                                           This Document
   4   Contiguous LSP          Yes       No        Yes No  [RFC5151]
                                                           This Document
   5   LSP stitching desired   Yes       No        Yes No  [RFC5150]
                                                           This Document
   6   Pre-Planned LSP Flag    Yes       No        No  No  [RFC6001]
                                                           This Document
   7   Non-PHP behavior flag   Yes       No        Yes No  [RFC6511]
                                                           This Document
   8   OOB mapping flag        Yes       No        Yes No  [RFC6511]
                                                           This Document
   9   Entropy Label           Yes       Yes       No  No  [RFC6790]
       Capability
                                                           This Document
   10  OAM MEP entities        Yes       Yes       Yes No  [RFC7260]
       desired
                                                           This Document
   11  OAM MIP entities        Yes       Yes       Yes No  [RFC7260]
       desired
                                                           This Document
   12  SRLG collection Flag    Yes       Yes       Yes No  [I.D.draft-
       (TEMPORARY - registered                             ietf-teas-
       2014-09-11, expires                                 rsvp-te-
       2015-09-11)                                         srlg-collect]
                                                           This Document

   New allocation requests to this registry SHALL indicate the value to
   be used in the ERO column.

4.4.  Existing LSP Attribute TLVs

   IANA manages the "RSVP-TE PARAMETERS" registry located at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-
   parameters.xml.  The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manage the
   following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]:

   o  TLV Type (T-field value)




Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   o  TLV Name

   o  Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object

   o  Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object

   We request IANA to add the following information for each TLV in the
   RSVP TLV type identifier registry.

   o  Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject

   The existing registry is modified for existing TLVs as follows: The
   following abbreviation are used in the table:

   LSP_A  Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.

   LSP_RA  Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.

   HOP_A  Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.

         T Name                  LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
         - --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------
         1 Attribute Flags       Yes   Yes    Yes   [RFC5420]
                                                    This Document
         2 Service ID TLV        Yes   No     No    [RFC6060]
                                                    This Document
         3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes   Yes    No    [RFC7260]
                                                    This Document

5.  Security Considerations

   This document adds new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the
   ROUTE_RECORD object carried in RSVP message used in MPLS and GMPLS
   signaling.  It builds on mechanism defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420]
   and does not introduce any new security.  The existing security
   considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and
   [RFC5420] do apply.

   As any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this
   document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences
   on specific node.  The mechanism added in this document does allow
   more control of LSP attributes at a given node.  As other inputs, a
   node SHOULD check the Hop Attributes against his policies and
   admission procedures.  A node MAY reject the message using existing
   RSVP error code like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission Control
   Failure".  The node MAY also, depending on the specific TLV
   procedures, modify the requested attribute.  This can reveal
   information about the LSP request and status to anyone with



Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   unauthorized access.  The mechanism described in this document do not
   contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by encrypting
   the content of the whole signaling message.

   In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO can reveal
   details about the node that the operator wishes to remains
   confidential.  The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO
   subobjects also apply to this new mechanism.  It is RECOMMENDED that
   domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes
   into consideration.

6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and
   Attila Takacs for inspiring this
   [I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes].  The authors also thanks Dirk
   Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the
   documents (version -00 up to -02).

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

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

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

   [RFC4873]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.

   [RFC4874]  Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
              Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.



Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.

   [RFC4920]  Farrel, A., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N., and
              G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
              RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, July 2007.

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

   [RFC5151]  Farrel, A., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-Domain
              MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation
              Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
              5151, February 2008.

   [RFC5420]  Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
              Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
              Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.

   [RFC5520]  Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
              Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
              Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.

   [RFC5553]  Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
              Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
              Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.

   [RFC6001]  Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
              D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
              Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
              MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.

   [RFC6060]  Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
              "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control
              of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-
              TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.

   [RFC6511]  Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate
              Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE
              Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, February 2012.






Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, November 2012.

   [RFC7260]  Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
              Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
              (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]
              Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
              Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource
              ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
              Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric
              Bound", draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-
              bound-05 (work in progress), February 2014.

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling]
              Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
              Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
              Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-10
              (work in progress), March 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb]
              Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
              RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft-
              ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-05 (work in progress), March 2015.

   [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect]
              Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M.,
              and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
              Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00
              (work in progress), December 2014.

   [I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]
              Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
              intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-
              hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009.

   [RFC4990]  Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of
              Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, September 2007.

   [RFC6163]  Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
              GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
              Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
              April 2011.



Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         General ERO LSP parameters             March 2015


Authors' Addresses

   Cyril Margaria (editor)
   Juniper
   200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
   Bridgewater, NJ  08807
   USA

   Email: cmargaria@juniper.net


   Giovanni Martinelli
   Cisco
   via Philips 12
   Monza  20900
   IT

   Phone: +39 039 209 2044
   Email: giomarti@cisco.com


   Steve Balls
   Metaswitch
   100 Church Street
   Enfield  EN2 6BQ
   GB

   Phone: +44 208 366 1177
   Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com


   Ben Wright
   Metaswitch
   100 Church Street
   Enfield  EN2 6BQ
   GB

   Phone: +44 208 366 1177
   Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com












Margaria, et al.       Expires September 24, 2015              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/