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

Versions: (draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7898

TEAS Working Group                                              D. Dhody
Internet-Draft                                                  U. Palle
Intended status: Experimental                               V. Kondreddy
Expires: May 22, 2016                                Huawei Technologies
                                                             R. Casellas
                                                                    CTTC
                                                       November 19, 2015


     Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic
                         Engineering (RSVP-TE)
              draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-05

Abstract

   The Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
   specification and the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS) extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to
   be explicitly included in a path setup.  Further Exclude Routes
   extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be
   explicitly excluded in a path setup.

   This document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude 4-Byte
   Autonomous System (AS) and Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area
   during path setup.

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 May 22, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Subobjects for Domains  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects  . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.2.  IGP Area  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.3.  Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.1.  Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.2.  IGP Area  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.3.3.  Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . .  10
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  New Subobjects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     A.1.  Inter-Area LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     A.2.  Inter-AS LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       A.2.1.  Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       A.2.2.  Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and the GMPLS extensions to RSVP-
   TE [RFC3473] allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly
   included in a path setup using the Explicit Route Object (ERO).




Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   Further Exclude Routes extensions [RFC4874] allow abstract nodes or
   resources to be excluded from the whole path using the Exclude Route
   object (XRO).  To exclude certain abstract nodes or resources between
   a specific pair of abstract nodes present in an ERO, a Explicit
   Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) is used.

   [RFC3209] already describes the notion of abstract nodes, where an
   abstract node is a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque
   to the ingress node of the Label Switched Path (LSP).  It further
   defines a subobject for AS, but with a 2-Byte AS number only.

   This document extends the notion of abstract nodes by adding new
   subobjects for IGP Areas and 4-byte AS numbers (as per [RFC6793]).
   These subobjects can be included in Explicit Route Object (ERO),
   Exclude Route Object (XRO) or Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject
   (EXRS).

   In case of per-domain path computation [RFC5152], where the full path
   of an inter-domain TE LSP cannot be or is not determined at the
   ingress node, and signaling message could use domain identifiers.
   The use of these new subobjects is illustrated in Appendix A.

   Further, the domain identifier could simply act as delimiter to
   specify where the domain boundary starts and ends.

   This is a companion document to Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) extensions for the domain sequence [PCE-DOMAIN].

1.1.  Scope

   The procedures described in this document are experimental.  The
   experiment is intended to enable research for the usage of Domain
   subobjects for inter-domain path setup.  For this purpose this
   document specify new domain subobjects as well as how they
   incorporate with existing subobjects.

   The experiment will end two years after the RFC is published.  At
   that point, the RFC authors will attempt to determine how widely this
   has been implemented and deployed.

   This document does not change the procedures for handling subobjects
   in RSVP-TE.

   The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood
   by legacy implementations.  If a legacy implementation receives one
   of the subobjects that it does not understand in an RSVP-TE object,
   the legacy implementation will behave as described in [RFC3209] and
   [RFC4874].  Therefore, it is assumed that this experiment will be



Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   conducted only when all nodes processing the new subobject form part
   of the experiment.

   When the result of implementation and deployment are available, this
   document will be updated and refined, and then be moved from
   Experimental to Standard Track.

   It should be noted that there are other ways such as use of boundary
   node to identify the domain (instead of domain identifier), the
   mechanism defined in this document is just another tool in the
   toolkit for the operator.

1.2.  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 [RFC2119].

2.  Terminology

   The following terminology is used in this document.

   AS:  Autonomous System.

   Domain:  As per [RFC4655], any collection of network elements within
      a common sphere of address management or path computational
      responsibility.  Examples of domains include Interior Gateway
      Protocol (IGP) areas and Autonomous Systems (ASs).

   ERO:  Explicit Route Object

   EXRS:  Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject

   IGP:  Interior Gateway Protocol.  Either of the two routing
      protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System
      to Intermediate System (IS-IS).

   IS-IS:  Intermediate System to Intermediate System.

   OSPF:  Open Shortest Path First.

   PCE:  Path Computation Element.  An entity (component, application,
      or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
      route based on a network graph and applying computational
      constraints.

   PCEP:  Path Computation Element Protocol.




Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   RSVP:  Resource Reservation Protocol

   TE LSP:  Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.

   XRO:  Exclude Route Object

3.  Subobjects for Domains

3.1.  Domains

   [RFC4726] and [RFC4655] define domain as a separate administrative or
   geographic environment within the network.  A domain could be further
   defined as a zone of routing or computational ability.  Under these
   definitions a domain might be categorized as an AS or an IGP area.

   As per [RFC3209], an abstract node is a group of nodes whose internal
   topology is opaque to the ingress node of the LSP.  Using this
   concept of abstraction, an explicitly routed LSP can be specified as
   a sequence of IP prefixes or a sequence of Autonomous Systems.  In
   this document we extend the notion to include IGP area and 4-Byte AS
   number.

   These sub-objects appear in RSVP-TE, notably in -

   o  Explicit Route Object (ERO): As per [RFC3209], an explicit route
      is a particular path in the network topology including abstract
      nodes (including domains).

   o  Exclude Route Object (XRO): As per [RFC4874], an exclude route
      identifies a list of abstract nodes (including domains), that
      should not be traversed along the path of the LSP being
      established.

   o  Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS): As per [RFC4874], used
      to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific
      pair of nodes.  EXRS are a subobject carried inside the ERO.
      These subobjects can be used to specify the domains to be excluded
      between two abstract nodes.

3.2.  Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects

   As stated in [RFC3209], an explicit route is a particular path in the
   network topology.  In addition to the ability to identify specific
   nodes along the path, an explicit route can identify a group of nodes
   (abstract nodes) to be traversed along the path.






Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477],
   [RFC4874] and [RFC5553] but new subobjects related to domains are
   needed.

   This document extends the support for 4-Byte AS numbers and IGP
   Areas.

                Type    Subobject
                 TBD1   Autonomous system number (4 Byte)
                 TBD2   OSPF Area id
                 TBD3   ISIS Area id

3.2.1.  Autonomous system

   [RFC3209] already defines 2-Byte AS number.

   To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], the following
   subobject is defined:

      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              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          AS-ID (4 bytes)                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in
      [RFC3209], i.e., set if the subobject represents a loose hop in
      the explicit route.  If the bit is not set, the subobject
      represents a strict hop in the explicit route.

   Type:  (TBD1 by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte AS Number.

   Length:  8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes).

   Reserved:  Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.

   AS-ID:  The 4-Byte AS Number.  Note that if 2-Byte AS numbers are in
      use, the low order bits (16 through 31) MUST be used and the high
      order bits (0 through 15) MUST be set to zero.  For the purpose of
      this experiment, it is advised to use 4-Byte AS number subobject
      as default.







Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


3.2.2.  IGP Area

   Since the length and format of Area-id is different for OSPF and
   ISIS, the following two subobjects are defined:

   For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number.  The subobject is encoded
   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              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                    OSPF Area Id (4 bytes)                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in
      [RFC3209].

   Type:  (TBD2 by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte OSPF Area ID.

   Length:  8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes).

   Reserved:  Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.

   OSPF Area Id:  The 4-Byte OSPF Area ID.

   For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of
   the subobject is variable.  The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by
   ISO standard [ISO10589].  The subobject is encoded 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    |  Area-Len     |  Reserved     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     //                        IS-IS Area ID                        //
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in
      [RFC3209].

   Type:  (TBD3 by IANA) indicating IS-IS Area ID.

   Length:  Variable.  The Length MUST be at least 8, and MUST be a
      multiple of 4.



Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   Area-Len:  Variable (Length of the actual (non-padded) IS-IS Area
      Identifier in octets; Valid values are from 1 to 13 inclusive).

   Reserved:  Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.

   IS-IS Area Id:  The variable-length IS-IS area identifier.  Padded
      with trailing zeroes to a four-byte boundary.

3.2.3.  Mode of Operation

   The new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area
   could be used in the ERO to specify an abstract node (a group of
   nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress node of the
   LSP).

   All the rules of processing (for example Next Hop Selection, L bit
   processing, unrecognized subobjects etc) are as per the [RFC3209].
   Note that if a node is called upon to process subobject defined in
   this document, and it does not recognize, it will behave as described
   in [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered.  This
   means that 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 subobject.

3.3.  Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects

   As stated in [RFC4874], the exclude route identifies a list of
   abstract nodes that to exclude (not be traversed) along the path of
   the LSP being established.

   Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4874] and
   [RFC6001] but new subobjects related to domains are needed.

   This document extends the support for 4-Byte AS numbers and IGP
   Areas.

                Type    Subobject
                 TBD1   Autonomous system number (4 Byte)
                 TBD2   OSPF Area id
                 TBD3   ISIS Area id

3.3.1.  Autonomous system

   [RFC3209] and [RFC4874] already define a 2-Byte AS number.






Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], a subobject is with
   the same format as defined in Section 3.2.1 with following
   difference:

   The meaning of the L bit is as per [RFC4874], where.

   0: indicates that the abstract node specified MUST be excluded.

   1: indicates that the abstract node specified SHOULD be avoided.

3.3.2.  IGP Area

   Since the length and format of Area-id is different for OSPF and
   ISIS, the following two subobjects are defined:

   For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number.  Subobjects for OSPF and
   IS-IS are of the same format as defined in Section 3.2.2 with
   following difference:

   The meaning of the L bit is as per [RFC4874].

3.3.3.  Mode of Operation

   The new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area
   could also be used in the XRO to specify exclusion of an abstract
   node (a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the
   ingress node of the LSP).

   All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874].

   Note that if a node is called upon to process a subobject defined in
   this document, and it does not recognize, it will behave as described
   in [RFC4874] when an unrecognized XRO subobject is encountered, i.e.
   to ignore it.  In this case the desired exclusion will not be carried
   out.

   IGP Area subobjects in the XRO are local to the current AS.  In case
   of multi-AS path computation to exclude an IGP area in a different
   AS, IGP Area subobject should be part of Explicit Exclusion Route
   Subobject (EXRS) in the ERO to specify the AS in which the IGP area
   is to be excluded.  Further policy may be applied to prune/ignore
   Area subobjects in XRO at AS boundary.

3.4.  Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject

   As per [RFC4874], the Explicit Exclusion Route is used to specify
   exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair of nodes




Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   or resources in the explicit route.  EXRS is an ERO subobject that
   contains one or more subobjects of its own, called EXRS subobjects.

   The EXRS subobject could carry any of the subobjects defined for XRO,
   thus the new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS)
   Area can also be used in the EXRS.  The meanings of the fields of the
   new XRO subobjects are unchanged when the subobjects are included in
   an EXRS, except that scope of the exclusion is limited to the single
   hop between the previous and subsequent elements in the ERO.

   All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874].

4.  Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE)

   The domain subobjects to be used in Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) are referred to in [PCE-DOMAIN].  Note that the new domain
   subobjects follow the principle that subobjects used in PCEP
   [RFC5440] are identical to the subobjects used in RSVP-TE and thus
   are interchangeable between PCEP and RSVP-TE.

5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  New Subobjects

   IANA maintains the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
   at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>.  Within this
   registry IANA maintains two sub-registries:

   o  EXPLICIT_ROUTE subobjects (see Sub-object type 20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE
      Type 1 Explicit Route at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
      parameters)

   o  EXCLUDE_ROUTE subobjects (see Sub-object types of Class Types or
      C-Types 232 EXCLUDE_ROUTE at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
      parameters)

   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical
   additions to these registries as follows, in sync with [PCE-DOMAIN]:

   Subobject Type                          Reference
   TBD1      4-Byte AS number              [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN]
   TBD2      OSPF Area ID                  [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN]
   TBD3      IS-IS Area ID                 [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN]


   Further upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to add a
   reference to this document to the new PCEP numbers that are
   registered by [PCE-DOMAIN].



Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


6.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for RSVP-TE and GMPLS signaling RSVP-TE
   extensions are covered in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].  This document
   does not introduce any new messages or any substantive new
   processing, and so those security considerations continue to apply.
   Further, general considerations for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and
   GMPLS networks can be found in [RFC5920].  The section 8 of [RFC5920]
   describes the inter-provider security considerations, which continue
   to apply.

   The route exclusion security consideration are covered in [RFC4874]
   and continue to apply.

7.  Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, George Swallow,
   Chirag Shah, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina and Avantika for their useful
   comments and suggestions.

   Thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for shepherding this document.

   Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the Responsible AD.

   Thanks to Amanda Baber for IANA Review.

   Thanks to Brian Carpenter for Gen-ART Review.

   Thanks to Liang Xia (Frank) for SecDir Review.

   Thanks to Spencer Dawkins and Barry Leiba for comments during the
   IESG Review.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.





Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

   [RFC3477]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
              in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
              (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.

   [RFC4874]  Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
              Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874,
              April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.

   [ISO10589]
              ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing
              information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
              the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
              Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 1992.

   [PCE-DOMAIN]
              Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects
              for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
              (PCEP). (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence)", November
              2015.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.

   [RFC4726]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
              Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 4726, DOI 10.17487/RFC4726, November
              2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4726>.

   [RFC5152]  Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A
              Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-
              Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
              (LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>.






Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC5553]  Farrel, A., Ed., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
              Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
              Support", RFC 5553, DOI 10.17487/RFC5553, May 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5553>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

   [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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.

   [RFC6793]  Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
              Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>.



























Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


Appendix A.  Examples

   These examples are for illustration purposes only, to show how the
   new subobjects could be encoded.  They are not meant to be an
   exhaustive list of all possible usecases and combinations.

A.1.  Inter-Area LSP Path Setup

   In an inter-area LSP path setup where the ingress and the egress
   belong to different IGP areas within the same AS, the domain
   subobjects could be represented using an ordered list of IGP area
   subobjects in an ERO.

                                   D2 Area D
                                   |
                                   |
                                   D1
                                   |
                                   |
                           ********BD1******
                           *       |       *
                           *       |       *                Area C
     Area A                *       |       *
                           *       |       *
     Ingress------A1-----ABF1------B1------BC1------C1------Egress
                         / *       |       *
                       /   *       |       *
                     /     * Area  | B     *
                   F1      *       |       *
                 /         ********BE1******
               /                   |
             /                     |
            F2                     E1
                                   |
    Area F                         |
                                   E2 Area E

     * All IGP Area in one AS (AS 100)

                Figure 1: Domain Corresponding to IGP Area

   As per Figure 1, the signaling at Ingress could be -

   ERO:(A1, ABF1, Area B, Area C, Egress)

   It should be noted that there are other ways to achieve the desired
   signaling, the area subobject provides another tool in the toolkit
   and can have operational benefits when -



Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   o  Use of PCEP like domain-sequence [PCE-DOMAIN] configurations in
      explicit path such that area subobjects can be used to signal the
      loose path.

   o  Alignment of subobjects and registries between PCEP and RSVP-TE,
      thus allowing easier interworking between path computation and
      signaling i.e. to and fro of subobjects between signalling and
      path computation (if need be).

A.2.  Inter-AS LSP Path Setup

A.2.1.  Example 1

   In an inter-AS LSP path setup where the ingress and the egress belong
   to different AS, the domain subobjects (AS) could be used in an ERO.


              AS A                AS E                AS C
         <------------->      <---------->      <------------->

                  A4----------E1---E2---E3---------C4
                 /           /                       \
               /            /                          \
             /            /       AS B                   \
           /            /      <---------->                \
     Ingress------A1---A2------B1---B2---B3------C1---C2------Egress
           \                                    /          /
             \                                /          /
               \                            /          /
                 \                        /          /
                  A3----------D1---D2---D3---------C3

                              <---------->
                                  AS D

     * All AS have one area (area 0)

                   Figure 2: Domain Corresponding to AS

   As per Figure 2, the signaling at Ingress could be -

   ERO:(A1, A2, AS B, AS C, Egress); or

   ERO:(A1, A2, AS B, Area 0, AS C, Area 0, Egress).

   Each AS has a single IGP area (area 0), Area subobject is optional.





Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   Note that to get a domain disjoint path, the ingress could also
   signal the backup path with -

   XRO:(AS B)

A.2.2.  Example 2

   As shown in Figure 3, where AS 200 is made up of multiple areas, the
   signaling can include both AS and Area subobject to uniquely identify
   a domain.









































Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


         Ingress                *
            |                 *
            |               *
            |             *
            X1          *
            \\        *
             \ \    *
              \  \*   Inter-AS
      AS 100   \*  \  Link
              * \    \
            *    \     \
          *       \      \
                   \       \          D2 Area D
         AS 200     \        \        |
                     \         \      |
              Inter   \          \    D1
                -AS    \           \  |
               Link     \            \|
                         \    ********BD1******
                          \   *       |       *
                           \  *       |       *                Area C
                Area A      \ *       |       *
                             \*       |       *
            A2------A1------AB1------B1------BC1------C1------Egress
                              *       |       *
                              *       |       *
                              *       |       *
                              * Area  | B     *
                              ********BE1******
                                      |
                                      |
                                      E1
                                      |
                                      |
                                      E2 Area E


               Figure 3: Domain Corresponding to AS and Area

   As per Figure 3, the signaling at Ingress could be -

   ERO:(X1, AS 200, Area B, Area C, Egress).

Authors' Addresses







Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                DOMAIN SUBOBJ                November 2015


   Dhruv Dhody
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com


   Udayasree Palle
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com


   Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy
   Huawei Technologies
   Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560037
   India

   EMail: venugopalreddyk@huawei.com


   Ramon Casellas
   CTTC
   Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7
   Castelldefels, Barcelona    08860
   Spain

   EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es

















Dhody, et al.             Expires May 22, 2016                 [Page 18]


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