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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 4216

IETF Internet Draft                               Raymond Zhang, Editor
Internet Engineering Task Force            Infonet Services Corporation
draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-09.txt        JP Vasseur, Co-Editor
Expires: March. 2005                                  CISCO Systems,Inc
                                                         September 2004


         MPLS Inter-AS Traffic Engineering requirements


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

   This document discusses requirements for the support of inter-AS
   MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE).  Its main objective is to
   present a set of requirements and scenarios which would result in
   general guidelines for the definition, selection and specification
   development for any technical solution(s) meeting these requirements
   and supporting the scenarios.

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 [RFC-2119].


Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 1]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements...............             September 2004


Table of Contents

1. Introduction.......................................................3
2. Contributing Authors...............................................4
3. Definitions and Requirements Statement.............................5
3.1. Definitions......................................................5
3.2. Objectives and Requirements of Inter-AS Traffic Engineering......6
3.2.1. Inter-AS Bandwidth Guarantees..................................6
3.2.2. Inter-AS Resource Optimization.................................7
3.2.3. Fast Recovery across ASes......................................8
3.3. Inter-AS Traffic Engineering Requirements Statement..............8
4. Application Scenarios..............................................8
4.1. Application Scenarios Requiring Inter-AS Bandwidth Guarantees....9
4.1.1. Scenario I - Extended or Virtual PoP...........................9
4.1.2. Scenario II - Extended or Virtual Trunk.......................10
4.1.3. Scenario III - End-to-end Inter-AS MPLS TE From CE to CE......11
4.2. Application Scenarios Requiring Inter-AS Resource Optimization..12
4.2.1. Scenario IV - TE across multi-AS within a Single SP
       Administrative Domain.........................................12
4.2.2. Scenario V - Transit ASes as Primary and Redundant Transport..13
5. Detailed Requirements for Inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engnineering......14
5.1. Requirements within one SP Administrative Domain................14
5.1.1. Inter-AS MPLS TE Operations and Interoperability..............14
5.1.2. Protocol Signaling and Path Computations......................15
5.1.3. Optimality....................................................15
5.1.4. Support of diversely routed inter-AS TE LSP...................15
5.1.5. Re-optimization...............................................16
5.1.6. Fast Recovery support using MPLS TE Fast Reroute..............16
5.1.7. DS-TE Support.................................................17
5.1.8. Scalability and Hierarchical LSP Support......................17
5.1.9. Mapping of traffic onto Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnels..............17
5.1.10. Inter-AS MPLS TE Management..................................18
5.1.10.1. Inter-AS MPLS TE MIB Requirements..........................18
5.1.10.2. Inter-AS MPLS TE Fault Management Requirements.............18
5.1.11. Extensibility................................................19
5.1.12. Complexity and Risks.........................................19
5.1.13. Backward Compatibility.......................................19
5.1.14. Performance..................................................19
5.2. Requirements for Inter-AS MPLS TE across Multiple SP
     Administrative Domains..........................................20
5.2.1. Confidentiality...............................................20
5.2.2. Policy Control................................................20
5.2.2.1. Inter-AS TE Agreement Enforcement Polices...................21
5.2.2.2. Inter-AS TE Rewrite Policies................................21
5.2.2.3 Inter-AS Traffic Policing....................................22
6. Security Considerations...........................................22
7. Acknowledgements..................................................22
8. Editor's Addresses................................................22
9. Normative References............................................. 23
10. Informative References...........................................23



Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 2]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004



11. Full Copyright Statement.........................................25
12. Intellectual Property............................................25
13. Acknowledgement..................................................25
Appendix A. Brief Description of BGP based Inter-AS Traffic
            Engineering..............................................26

1. Introduction

   The MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) mechanism documented in [TE-RSVP]
   may be deployed by Service Providers (SPs) to achieve some of the
   most important objectives of network traffic engineering as
   described in [TE-OVW].  These objectives are summarized as:

      - Supporting end-to-end services requiring QoS guarantees
      - Performing network resource optimization
      - Providing fast recovery

   However, this traffic engineering mechanism can only be used within
   an Autonomous System (AS).

   This document discusses requirements for an inter-AS MPLS Traffic
   Engineering mechanism that may be used to achieve the same set of
   objectives across AS boundaries within or beyond a SP's
   aministrative domains.

   The document will also present a set of application scenarios where
   the inter-AS traffic engineering mechanism may be required.  This
   mechanism could be implemented based upon the requirements presented
   in this document.

   These application scenarios will also facilitate discussions for a
   detailed requirements list for this inter-AS Traffic Engineering
   mechanism.

   Please note that there are other means of traffic engineering
   including Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP); metrics based (for use
   within an AS); and Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) attribute based
   (for use across ASes, as described in Appendix A), which provide
   coarser control of traffic paths.  However, this document addresses
   requirements for a MPLS based, fine-grained approach for inter-AS
   TE.

   This document doesn't make any claims with respect to whether it is
   possible to have a practical solution that meets all the
   requirements listed in this document.







Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 3]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements..............              September 2004


2. Contributing Authors

   The text and content of this document was contributed to by the
   co-authors listed below (The contact information for the editors
   appears in section 9, and is not repeated below.):

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

   Paul Mabey
   Qwest Communications
   950 17th Street,
   Denver, CO 80202, USA
   Email: pmabey@qwest.com

   Nadim Constantine
   Infonet Services Corporation
   2160 E. Grand Ave.
   El Segundo, CA 90025. USA
   Email: nadim_constantine@infonet.com

   Pierre Merckx
   EQUANT
   1041 route des Dolines - BP 347
   06906 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS Cedex, FRANCE
   Email: pierre.merckx@equant.com

   Ting Wo Chung
   Bell Canada
   181 Bay Street, Suite 350
   Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5J 2T3
   Email: ting_wo.chung@bell.ca

   Jean-Louis Le Roux
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex, France
   E-mail: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com

   Yonghwan Kim
   SBC Laboratories, Inc.
   4698 Willow Road
   Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
   Email: Yonghwan_Kim@labs.sbc.com





Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 4]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements..............              September 2004

3. Definitions and Requirements Statement

3.1. Definitions

   The following provides a list of abbreviations or acronyms
   specifically pertaining to this document:

   SP: Service Providers including regional or global providers

   SP Administrative Domain: a single SP administration over a network
                             or networks that may consist of one AS or
                             multiple ASes.

   IP-only networks: SP's network where IP routing protocols such as
                     IGP/ BGP are activated

   IP/MPLS networks: SP's network where MPLS switching capabilities and
                     signaling controls (e.g. ones described in
                     [MPLS-ARCH]) are activated in addition to IP
                     routing protocols.

   Intra-AS TE: A generic definition for traffic engineering mechanisms
                operating over IP-only and/ or IP/MPLS network within
                an AS.

   Inter-AS TE: A generic definition for traffic engineering mechanisms
                operating over IP-only and/ or IP/MPLS network across
                one or multiple ASes.  Since this document only
                addresses IP/MPLS networks, any reference to Inter-AS
                TE in this document refers only to IP/MPLS networks and
                is not intended to address IP-only TE requirements.

   TE LSP: MPLS Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path

   Intra-AS MPLS TE: An MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanism where its
                     TE Label Switched Path (LSP), Head-end Label
                     Switching Router (LSR) and Tail-end LSR reside in
                     the same AS for traffic engineering purposes.

   Inter-AS MPLS TE: An MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanism where its
                     TE LSPs Head-end LSR and Tail-end LSR do not
                     reside within the same AS or both Head-end LSR and
                     Tail-end LSR are in the same AS but the TE LSP
                     transiting path may be across different ASes

   ASBR Routers: Border routers used to connect to another AS of a
                 different or the same Service Provider via one or more
                 links inter-connecting between ASes.

   Inter-AS TE Path: An TE path traversing multiple ASes and ASBRs,
                     e.g. AS1-ASBR1-inter-AS link(s)-ASBR2-AS2...
                     ASBRn-ASn.


Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 5]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements..............              September 2004


   Inter-AS TE Segment: A portion of the Inter-AS TE path.

   Inter-AS DS-TE: Diffserv-aware Inter-AS TE.

   CE: Customer Edge Equipment

   PE: Provider Edge Equipment that has direct connections to CEs.

   P: Provider Equipment that has backbone trunk connections only.

   VRF: Virtual Private Network (VPN) Routing and Forwarding Instance.

   PoP: Point of presence or a node in SP's network.

   SRLG: A set of links may constitute a 'shared risk link group'
         (SRLG) if they share a resource whose failure may affect all
         links in the set as defined in [GMPLS-ROUT].

   Please note that the terms of CE, PE and P used throughout this
   document are generic in their definitions.  In particular, whenever
   such acronyms are used, it does not necessarily mean that CE is
   connected to a PE in a VRF environment described in such IETF drafts
   as [BGP-MPLSVPN].

3.2. Objectives and Requirements of Inter-AS Traffic Engineering

   As mentioned in section 1 above, some SPs have requirements for
   achieving the same set of traffic engineering objectives as
   presented in [TE-OVW] across AS boundaries.

   This section examines these requirements in each of the key
   corresponding areas: 1) Inter-AS bandwidth guarantees; 2)
   Inter-AS Resource Optimization and 3) Fast Recovery across ASes,
   i.e. Recovery of Inter-AS Links/SRLG and ASBR Nodes.

3.2.1. Inter-AS Bandwidth Guarantees

   The DiffServ IETF working group has defined a set of mechanisms
   described in [DIFF_ARCH], [DIFF_AF] and [DIFF_EF] or [MPLS-Diff]
   that can be activated at the edge or over a DiffServ domain to
   contribute to the enforcement of a (set of) QoS policy(ies), which
   can be expressed in terms of maximum one-way transit delay,
   inter-packet delay variation, loss rate, etc.

   Many SPs have partial or full deployment of Diffserv implementations
   in their networks today, either across the entire network or
   minimally on the edge of the network across CE-PE links.

   In situations where strict Quality of Service (QOS) bounds are
   required, admission control inside the backbone of a network is in
   some cases required in addition to current Diffserv mechanisms.


Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 6]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004

   When the propagation delay can be bounded, the performance targets,
   such as maximum one-way transit delay, may be guaranteed by
   providing bandwidth guarantees along the Diffserv-enabled path.

   One typical example of this requirement is to provide bandwidth
   guarantees over an end-to-end path for VoIP traffic classified as EF
   (Expedited Forwarding [DIFF_EF]) class in a Diffserv-enabled
   network.  When the EF path is extended across multiple ASes,
   inter-AS bandwidth guarantee is then required.

   Another case for inter-AS bandwidth guarantee is the requirement for
   guaranteeing a certain amount of transit bandwidth across one or
   multiple ASes.

   Several application scenarios are presented to further illustrate
   this requirement in section 4 below.

3.2.2. Inter-AS Resource Optimization

   In Service Provider (SP) networks, the BGP protocol [BGP] is
   deployed to exchange routing information between ASes.  The inter-AS
   capabilities of BGP may also be employed for traffic engineering
   purposes across the AS boundaries.  Appendix A provides a
   brief description of the current BGP-based inter-AS traffic
   engineering practices.

   SPs have managed to survive with this coarse set of BGP-based
   traffic engineering facilities across inter-AS links in a largely
   best-effort environment.  Certainly in many cases ample bandwidth
   within SP's network and across inter-AS links reduces the need for
   more elaborate inter-AS TE policies.

   However, in the case where a SP network is deployed over multiple
   ASes, for example, as the number of inter-AS links grows, the
   complexity of the inter-AS policies and the difficulty in inter-AS
   TE path optimization increase to a level such that it may soon
   become unmanageable.

   Another example is where inter-AS links are established between
   different SP administrative domains. Nondeterministic factors such
   as uncoordinated routing and network changes, as well as sub-
   optimum traffic conditions would potentially lead to a complex set
   of Inter-AS traffic engineering policies where current traffic
   engineering mechanisms would probably not scale well.

   In these situations where resource optimization is required and/ or
   specific routing requirements arise, the BGP-based inter-AS
   facilities will need to be complemented by a more granular inter-AS
   traffic engineering mechanism.





Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 7]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


3.2.3. Fast Recovery across ASes

   When extending services such as VoIP across ASes, customers often
   reqiure SPs to maintain the same level of performance targets, such
   as packet loss and service availability, as achieved within an AS.
   As a consequence, fast convergence in a stable fashion upon
   link/SRLG/node failures becomes a strong requirement.  This is
   clearly difficult to achieve with current inter-domain techniques,
   especially in cases of link/SRLG failures between ASBRs or ASBR node
   failures.

3.3. Inter-AS Traffic Engineering Requirements Statement

   Just as in the applicable case of deploying MPLS TE in a SP's
   network, an inter-AS TE method in addition to BGP-based traffic
   engineering capabilities needs to be deployed across inter-AS links
   where resource optimization, bandwidth guarantees and fast recovery
   are required.

   This is especially critical in a Diffserv-enabled, multi-class
   environment described in [PSTE] where statistical performance
   targets must be maintained consistently over the entire path
   across different ASes.

   The approach of extending current intra-AS MPLS TE capabilities
   [TE-RSVP] across inter-AS links for IP/MPLS networks is considered
   here because of already available implementations and operational
   experiences.

   Please note that the inter-AS traffic engineering over an IP-only
   network is for future consideration since there is not sufficient
   interest for similar requirements to those of IP/MPLS networks
   at this time.  More specifically, this document only covers the
   inter-AS TE requirements for packet based IP/MPLS networks.

4. Application Scenarios

   The following sections present a few application scenarios over
   IP/MPLS networks where requirements cannot be addressed with current
   intra-AS MPLS TE mechanism and give rise to considerations for
   inter-AS MPLS traffic engineering requirements.

   Although not explicitly noted in the following discussions, fast
   recovery of traffic path(s) crossing multiple ASes in a stable
   fashion is particularly important in the case of link/SRLG/node
   failures at AS boundaries for all application scenarios presented
   here.






Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 8]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                                 June 2004


4.1. Application Scenarios Requiring Inter-AS Bandwidth Guarantees

4.1.1 Scenario I - Extended or Virtual PoP (VPoP)

   A global service provider (SP1) would like to expand its reach into
   a region where a regional service provider's (SP2) network has
   already established a denser network presence.

   In this scenario, the SP1 may establish interconnections with SP2 in
   one or multiple points in that region.  In their customer dense
   regions, SP1 may utilize SP2's network as an extended transport by
   co-locating aggregation routers in SP2's PoPs.

   In order to ensure bandwidth capacity provided by SP2 and achieve
   some degrees of transparency to SP2's network changes in terms of
   capacity and network conditions, one or more Inter-AS MPLS TE
   trunk(s) can be built between SP1's ASBR or PE router inside AS1 and
   SP1's PE routers co-locating in SP2's PoPs, as illustrated in the
   diagram below:

    <===========Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel===========>
                              -----                -----
                     ________|ASBR |___Inter-AS___|ASBR |________
                    |        | RTR |     Link     | RTR |        |
    ----            -----     -----                -----         -----
   |SP1 |_Inter-AS_| SP2 |                                      | SP1 |
   |VPoP|   Link   |P/PE |                                      |P/PE |
    ----            -----      -----                -----        -----
                     |________|ASBR |___Inter-AS___|ASBR |________|
                              | RTR |     Link     | RTR |
                               -----                -----
    <=================Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel======================>
   +-SP1 AS1-+     +---SP2 AS2-----+          +------SP1 AS1------+

   In situations where end-to-end Diffserv paths must be maintained,
   both SP's networks may need to provision Diffserv PHB at each hop
   supporting a set of traffic classes with compatible performance
   targets.  The subsequent issues regarding Service Level Agreement
   (SLA) boundaries, reporting and measuring system inter-operability
   and support demarcations are beyond the scope of this document and
   are not discussed further.

   If either SP1's or SP2's network is not a Diffserv-aware network,
   the scenario would still apply to provide bandwidth guarantees.

   The SP2, on the other hand, can similarly choose to expand its reach
   beyond its servicing region over SP1's network via inter-AS MPLS
   TE paths.





Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                        [Page 9]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


   It is worth mentioning that these remote aggregation routers
   co-located in another SP's network are unlikely to host SP1's IGP
   and BGP routing planes and will more likely maintain their own AS or
   be part of the SP1's AS.  In this case, such TE tunnels may cross
   several ASes, but the Head-end and Tail-end LSRs of TE tunnel may
   have the same AS number, as shown in the diagram above.

4.1.2. Scenario II - Extended or Virtual Trunk

   Instead of co-locating a PE router in SP2's PoP, SP1 may also choose
   to aggregate customer VPN sites onto a SP2's PE router where inter-
   AS TE tunnels can be built and signaled through SP2's MPLS network
   between the SP2 PoP (to which SP1 a customer CEs are directly
   connected) and SP1's ASBR or PE routers inside SP2's network.  This
   allows SP1's customers connected to SP2 PE router to receive a
   guaranteed bandwidth service up to the TE LSP tail-end router
   located in SP1's network.

   In this scenario, there could be two applicable cases:

   Case 1 - the inter-AS MPLS TE tunnel functions as an extended or
   virtual trunk aggregating SP1's CE's local-loop access circuits on
   SP2's MPLS network over which the bandwidth can be guaranteed to the
   TE LSP tail-end router located in SP1's network, as shown in the
   diagram below:

                        <====Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel====>
                                       or
                        < ===Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel===============>

    ----               -----     -----                -----     -----
   | CE |_____Local___| SP2 |___|ASBR |___Inter-AS___|ASBR |___|SP1  |
   |    |     Loop    | PE  |   | RTR |     Link     | RTR |   |PE   |
    ----               -----     -----                -----     -----

   +SP1 Customer ASx+ +-----SP2 AS2---+              +-SP1 AS1-------+

   Case 2 - the inter-AS MPLS TE tunnel in this case functions as an
   extended or virtual local access link from SP1's CE on SP2's network
   to the SP1's ASBR or PE:

      <==============Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel==============>
                               or
      <==============Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel========================>

    ----                -----       -----              -----     -----
   | CE |____Local_____| SP2 |___|ASBR |___Inter-AS___|ASBR |___|SP1  |
   |    |    Loop      | PE  |   | RTR |     Link     | RTR |   |PE   |
    ----                -----     -----                -----     -----

   +SP1 Customer ASx+ +------SP2 AS2---+               +--SP1 AS1-----+


Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 10]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


   In case 2 above, SP2 may elect to establish an aggregating or
   hierarchical intra-AS MPLS TE tunnel between the transiting P or PE
   router and SP2's ASBR router just to reduce the number of tunnel
   states signaled from the SP2 PE to where SP1's CEs are connected.

4.1.3. Scenario III - End-to-end Inter-AS MPLS TE From CE to CE

   In this scenario as illustrated below, customers require the
   establishment of MPLS TE tunnel from CE1 to CE2 end-to-end across
   several SPsÆ networks.

    <======================Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel==================>

    ---       -----     -----              -----      -----       ---
   |CE1|_____| SP2 |___|ASBR |__Inter-AS__|ASBR |____| SP1 |_____|CE2|
   |   |     | PE  |   | RTR |    Link    | RTR |    | PE  |     |   |
    ---       -----     -----              -----      -----       ---

   +Cust ASx+ +---SP2 AS-----+        +-------SP1 AS-------+ +Cust ASy+

   The diagram below illustrates another example where CE1 and CE2 are
   customers of SP1 with extenal BGP (eBGP) peering relationships
   established across the CE-PE links.  An inter-AS MPLS TE tunnel may
   then be established from CE1 in ASx to CE2 which may belong to the
   same AS or a different AS than that of CE1 across SP1's network in
   AS2.

    <===============Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel=====================>

    ---        -----       ----      ----      -----           ---
   |CE1|______| SP1 |_____|SP1 |____|SP1 |____| SP1 |_________|CE2|
   |   |      | PE1 |     |P1  |    |P2  |    | PE2 |         |   |
    ---        -----       ----      ----      -----           ---

   +-Cust ASx-+ +-------------SP1 AS2----------------+ +-Cust ASy-+

   The above example shows that SP1's network has a single AS.
   Obviously, there may be multiple ASes between CE1 and CE2 as well as
   in the SP1's network.

   In addition, where both CE1 and CE2 reside in the same AS, they will
   likely share the same private AS number.

   Scenario III however, will not scale well if there is a greater
   number of inter-AS TE MPLS tunnels in some degrees of partial mesh
   or full mesh.  Therefore, it is expected that this scenario will
   have few deployments, unless some mechanisms such as hierarchical
   intra-AS TE-LSPs are used to reduce the number of signaling states.





Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 11]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                             Septmber 2004


4.2. Application Scenarios Requiring Inter-AS Resource Optimization

   The scenarios presented in this section mainly deal with inter-AS
   resource optimization.

4.2.1. Scenario IV - TE across multi-AS within a Single SP
       Administrative Domain

   As mentioned in [TE-APP], SPs have generally admitted that the
   current MPLS TE mechanism provides a great deal of tactical and
   strategic value in areas of traffic path optimization [TE-RSVP] and
   rapid local repair capabilities [TE-FRR] via a set of on-line or
   off-line constraint-based searching algorithms.

   From a service provider's perspective, another way of stating the
   objectives of traffic engineering is to utilize available capacity
   in the network for delivering customer traffic without violating
   performance targets, and/ or to provide better QOS services via an
   improved network utilization, operating more likely below congestion
   thresholds.

   It is worth noting that situations where resource provisioning is
   not an issue, e.g. low density in inter-AS connectivity or ample
   inter-AS capacity, it may not require more scalable and granular TE
   facilities beyond BGP routing policies since such policies can be
   rather simple and because inter-AS resource optimization is not an
   absolute requirement.

   However many SPs, especially those with networks across multiple
   continents, as well as those with sparsely connected networks, have
   designed their multi-AS routing policies along or within the
   continental or sub-continental boundaries where the number of ASes
   can range from a very few to dozens.  Generally, inter-continent or
   sub-continent capacity is very expensive.  Some Service Providers
   have multiple ASes in the same country and would like to optimize
   resources over their inter-region links.  This would demand a
   more scalable degree of resource optimization, which warrants the
   consideration of extending current intra-AS MPLS TE capabilities
   across inter-AS links.

   In addition, one may only realize higher efficiency in conducting
   traffic optimization and path protection/ restoration planning when
   coordinating all network resources as a whole, rather than
   partially. For a network which may consist of many ASes, this could
   be realized via the establishment of inter-AS TE LSPs as shown in
   the diagragm below:










Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 12]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004

       <===================Inter-AS MPLS Tunnel=============>
     --------                 --------              --------
    |        |_______________|        |____________|        |
    |  SP1   |_______________|  SP1   |____________|  SP1   |
    |  AS1   |_______________|  AS2   |____________|  AS3   |
    |        |               |        |            |        |
     --------                 --------              --------
        ||                                             ||
        ||                   ---------                 ||
        ||___________________|  SP1   |________________||
        |____________________|  AS4   |_________________|
                             |        |
                             ---------
   The motivation for inter-AS MPLS TE is even more prominent in a
   Diffserv-enabled network over which statistical performance targets
   are to be maintained from any point to any point of the network as
   illustrated in the diagram below with an inter-AS DS-TE LSP:

     <===================Inter-AS MPLS DS-TE Tunnel=============>
    ----    -----     -----                -----     -----     ----
   | PE |__| P   |___|ASBR |___Inter-AS___|ASBR |___|P    |___|PE  |
   | RTR|  | RTR |   | RTR |     Link     | RTR |   |RTR  |   |RTR |
    ----    -----     -----                -----     -----     ----
   +------------SP1 AS1---------+        +------------SP1 AS2------+

   For example , the inter-AS MPLS DS-TE LSP shown in the diagram above
   could be used to transport a set of L2 Pseudo Wires or VoIP traffic
   with corresponding bandwidth requirement.

   Furthermore, fast recovery in case of ASBR-ASBR link failure or ASBR
   node failure is a strong requirement for such services.

4.2.2. Scenario V - Transit ASes as Primary and Redundant Transport

   Scenario V presents another possible deployment case.  SP1 with AS1
   wants to link a regional network to its core backbone by building an
   inter-AS MPLS TE tunnel over one or multiple transit ASes belonging
   to SP2, SP3, etc. as shown in the following diagram:

                <===========Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel=======>
   [               ]          [             ]          [              ]
   [  ----    ---- ]          [ ----   ---- ]          [ ----    ---- ]
   [ |P/PE|__|ASBR|]_Inter-AS_[|ASBR|.|ASBR|]_Inter-AS_[|ASBR|  |P/PE|]
   [ |RTR |  |RTR |]   Link   [|RTR | |RTR |]   Link   [|RTR |  |RTR |]
   [  ----    ---- ]          [ ----   ---- ]          [ ----    ---- ]
   [               ]          [             ]          [              ]
       <================Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel=====================>
   +SP1 Regional ASx+  +Transit SP2 AS2,etc...SPi ASi+ +------SP1 AS1-+

   This scenario can be viewed as a broader case of Scenario I shown in
   section 4.1.1 where the "VPoP" could be expanded into a regional
   network of SP1.  By the same token, the AS number for SP1's regional
   network ASx may be the same as or different from AS1.

Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 13]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


   The inter-AS MPLS TE LSP in this case may also be used to backup an
   internal path as depicted in the diagram below, although this could
   introduce routing complexities:

                <===========Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel=======>
   +----------------------------SP1 AS1-----------------------------+
   [                                                                ]
   [  ----    ----                                     ----    ---- ]
   [ |P/PE|__|ASBR|__________Primary Intera-AS________|P   |  |PE  |]
   [ |RTR |  |RTR |                Link               |RTR |  |RTR |]
   [  ----    ----                                     ----    ---- ]
   [           |                                        |           ]
   [          ----                                     ----         ]
   [         |ASBR|                                   |ASBR|        ]
   [         |RTR |                                   |RTR |        ]
   [          ----                                     ----         ]
               ^ |                                      | ^
               | |                                      | |
               | |            [              ]          | |
               | |            [ ----    ---- ]          | |
               | |__ Inter-AS_[|ASBR|..|ASBR|]_Inter-AS_| |
               |       Link   [|RTR |  |RTR |]   Link     |
               |              [ ----    ---- ]            |
               |              [              ]            |
               |                                          |
               +======Backup Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnel======+
                 +Transit SP2 AS2,SP3 AS3,etc....SPi ASi+

5. Detailed Requirements for Inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering

   This section discusses detailed requirements for inter-AS MPLS TE in
   two principal areas: 1) requirements for inter-AS MPLS TE in the
   same SP administrative domain and 2) requirements for inter-AS MPLS
   TE across different SP administrative domains.

5.1. Requirements within one SP Administrative Domain

   This section presents detailed requirements for inter-AS MPLS TE
   within the same SP administrative domain.

5.1.1. Inter-AS MPLS TE Operations and Interoperability

   The inter-AS MPLS TE solution SHOULD be consistent with requirements
   discussed in [TE-REQ] and the derived solution MUST be such that
   it will interoperate seamlessly with current intra-AS MPLS TE
   mechanism and inherit its capability sets from [TE-RSVP].

   The proposed solution SHOULD allow the provisioning of a TE LSP at
   the Head/Tail end with end-to-end Resource Reservation Protocol
   (RSVP) signaling (eventually with loose paths) traversing across the
   interconnected ASBRs, without further provisioning required along
   the transit path.

Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 14]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004

5.1.2. Protocol Signaling and Path Computations

   One can conceive that an inter-AS MPLS TE tunnel path signaled
   across inter-AS links consists of a sequence of ASes, ASBRs and
   Inter-AS links.

   The proposed solution SHOULD provide the ability to either
   explicitly select or auto-discover the following elements when
   signaling the inter-AS TE LSP path:

      - a set of AS numbers as loose HoPs and/or
      - a set of LSRs including ASBRs

   It should also specify the above elements in the Explicit Route
   Object (ERO) and record them in the Record Route Object (RRO) of the
   Resv message just to keep track of the set of ASes or ASBRs
   traversed by the inter-As TE LSP.

   In the case of establishing inter-AS TE LSP traversing multiple ASes
   within the same SP networks, the solution SHOULD also allow the
   Head-end LSR to explicitly specify the hops across any one of
   the transiting ASes and the TE tunnel Head-end SHOULD also check
   the explicit segment to make sure that the constraints are met.

   In addition, the proposed solution SHOULD provide the ability
   to specify and signal that certain loose or explicit nodes (e.g. AS
   numbers, etc.) and resources are to be explicitly excluded in the
   inter-AS TE LSP path establishment, such as one defined in
   [EXCLUDE-ROUTE] for instance.

5.1.3 Optimality

   The solution SHOULD allow the set-up of an inter-AS TE LSP that
   complies with a set of TE constraints defined in [TE-REQ]) and
   follows an optimal path.

   An optimal path is defined as a path whose end-to-end cost is
   minimal, based upon either an IGP or a TE metric.  Note that in
   the case of an inter-AS path across several ASes having completely
   different IGP metric policies, the notion of minimal path might
   require IGP metric normalization.

   The solution SHOULD provide mechanism(s) to compute and establish an
   optimal end-to-end path for the inter-AS TE LSP and SHOULD also
   allow for reduced optimality (or sub-optimality) since the path may
   not remain optimal for the life-time of the LSP

5.1.4 Support of diversely routed inter-AS TE LSP

   In some cases it might be desirable to set up multiple inter-AS TE
   LSPs between a pair of LSRs when:



Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 15]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


     (1) a single TE LSP satisfying the required set of constraints
         cannot be found, in which case it may require load splitting;

     (2) multiple TE paths may be required to limit the impact of a
         network element failure to a portion of the traffic (as an
         example, two VoIP gateways may load balance the traffic among
         a set of inter-AS TE LSPs);

     (3) path protection (e.g. 1:1 or 1:N) as discussed in
         [MPLS-Recov].

   In the examples above, being able to set up diversely routed TE LSPs
   becomes a requirement for inter-AS TE.

   The solution SHOULD be able to set up a set of link/SRLG/Node
   diversely routed inter-AS TE LSPs.

5.1.5.  Re-optimization

   Once an inter-AS TE LSP has been established, and should there be
   any resource or other changes inside anyone of the ASes, the
   solution MUST be able to re-optimize the LSP accordingly and
   non-disruptively, either upon expiration of a configurable timer or
   triggered by a network event or a manual request at the TE tunnel
   Head-End.

   The solution SHOULD provide an option for the Head-End LSRs to
   control if re-optimizing or not should there exist a more optimal
   path in one of the ASes.

   In the case of an identical set of traversed path, the solution
   SHOULD provide an option for the Head-End LSRs to control if
   re-optimizing or not should there exist a more optimal path in one
   of the transit ASes along the inter-AS TE LSP path.

   Furthermore, the solution MUST provide the ability to reject
   re-optimization at AS boundaries.

5.1.6. Fast Recovery support using MPLS TE Fast Reroute

   There are in general two or more inter-AS links between multiple
   pairs of ASBRs for redundancy.  The topological density between ASes
   in a SP network with multi-ASes is generally much higher.  In the
   event of an inter-AS link failure, rapid local protection SHOULD
   also be made available and SHOULD interoperate with current intra-AS
   MPLS TE fast re-route mechanism from [TE-FRR].

   The traffic routed onto an inter-AS TE tunnel SHOULD also be fast
   protected against any node failure where the node could be internal
   to an AS or at the AS boundary.



Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 16]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


5.1.7. DS-TE Support

   The proposed inter-AS MPLS TE solution SHOULD satisfy core
   requirements documented in [DS-TE].

   It is worth pointing out that the compatibility clause in section
   4.1 of [DS-TE] SHOULD also be faithfully applied to the solution
   development

5.1.8. Scalability and Hierarchical LSP Support

   The proposed solution(s) MUST have a minimum impact on network
   scalability from both intra and inter-AS perspectives.

   This requirement applies to all of the following:

      - IGP (impact in terms of IGP flooding, Path computation, etc.)
      - BGP (impact in terms of additional information carried within
        BGP, number of routes, flaps, overload events, etc.)
      - RSVP TE (message rate, number of retained states, ,etc.)

   It is also conceivable that there would potentially be scalability
   issues as the number of required inter-AS MPLS TE tunnels increases.
   In order to reduce the number of tunnel states to be maintained by
   each transiting PoP, the proposed solution SHOULD allow TE LSP
   aggregation such that individual tunnels can be carried onto one or
   more aggregating LSP(s).  One such mechanism, for example is
   described in [MPLS-LSPHIE].

5.1.9. Mapping of traffic onto Inter-AS MPLS TE Tunnels

   There SHOULD be several possibilities to map particular traffic
   to a particular destination onto a specific inter-AS TE LSP.

   For example, static routing could be used if IP destination
   addresses are known.  Another example is to utilize static routing
   using recursive BGP route resolution.

   The proposed solution SHOULD also provide the ability to "announce"
   the inter-AS MPLS TE tunnels as a link into the IGPs (ISIS or OSPF)
   with the link's cost associated with it.  By doing so, PE routers
   that do not participate in the inter-AS TE path computation can take
   into account such links in its IGP-based SPF computation.










Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 17]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


5.1.10. Inter-AS MPLS TE Management

5.1.10.1. Inter-AS MPLS TE MIB Requirements

   An inter-AS TE Management Information Base (MIB) is required for use
   with network management protocols by SPs to manage and configure
   inter-AS traffic engineering tunnels.  This new MIB SHOULD extend
   (and not reinvent) the existing MIBs to accommodate this new
   functionality.

   An inter-AS TE MIB should have features that include:
      - The setup of inter-AS TE tunnels with associated constraints
        (e.g. resources)
      - The collection of traffic and performance statistics not only
        at the tunnel headend, but any other points of the TE tunnel.
      - The inclusion of both IPv4/v6 + AS# or AS# subobjects in the
        ERO in the path message, e.g:

        EXPLICIT_ROUTE class object:
        address1 (loose IPv4 Prefix, /AS1)
        address2 (loose IPv4 Prefix, /AS1)
        AS2      (AS number)
        address3 (loose IPv4 prefix, /AS3)
        address4 (loose IPv4 prefix, /AS3) - destination

        or

        address1 (loose IPv4 Prefix, /AS1)
        address2 (loose IPv4 Prefix, /AS1)
        address3 (loose IPv4 Prefix, /AS2)
        address4 (loose IPv4 Prefix, /AS2)
        address5 (loose IPv4 prefix, /AS3)
        address6 (loose IPv4 prefix, /AS3) - destination

      - Similarly, the inclusion of the RRO object in the resv message
        recording sub-objects such as interface IPv4/v6 address (if not
        hidden), AS number, a label, a node-id (when required), etc.
      - Inter-AS specific attributes as discussed in section 5 of this
        document including, for example inter-AS MPLS TE tunnel
        accounting records across each AS segment

5.1.10.2. Inter-AS MPLS TE Fault Management Requirements

   In a MPLS network, a SP wants to detect both control plane and data
   plane failures.  But tools for fault detection over LSPs haven't
   been widely developed so far.  SPs today manually troubleshoot such
   failures in a hop-by-hop fashion across the data path.  If they
   detect an error on the data plane, they have to check the control
   plane in order to determine where the faults come from.




Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 18]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


   The proposed solution SHOULD be able to interoperate with fault
   detection mechanisms of intra-AS TE and MAY or MAY NOT require the
   inter-AS TE tunnel ending addresses to be known or routable across
   IGP areas (OSPF) or levels(IS-IS) within the transiting ASes with
   working return paths.

   For example, [LSPPING] is being considered as a failure detection
   mechanism over the data plane against the control plane and could
   be used to troubleshoot intra-AS TE LSPs.  Such facilities, if
   adopted, SHOULD then be extended to inter-AS TE paths.

   However, the above example depicts one such mechanism that does
   require a working return path such that diagnostic test packets can
   return via an alternate data plane, such as a global IPv4 path in
   the event that the LSP is broken.

   [MPLS-TTL] presents how TTL may be processed across a hierarchical
   MPLS networks and such a facility as this SHOULD also be extended
   to inter-AS TE links.

5.1.11. Extensibility

   The solution(s) MUST allow extensions as both inter-AS MPLS TE and
   current intra-AS MPLS TE specifications evolve.

5.1.12. Complexity and Risks

   The proposed solution(s) SHOULD NOT introduce unnecessary complexity
   to the current operating network to such a degree that it would
   affect the stability and diminish the benefits of deploying such a
   solution over SP networks.

5.1.13. Backward Compatibility

   The deployment of inter-AS MPLS TE SHOULD NOT impact existing BGP-
   based traffic engineering or MPLS TE mechanisms, but allow for a
   smooth migration or co-existence.

5.1.14. Performance

   The solution SHOULD be evaluated taking into account various
   performance criteria:

      - Degree of path optimality of the inter-AS TE LSP path
      - TE LSP setup time
      - Failure and restoration time
      - Impact and scalability of the control plane due to added
        overheads, etc.
      - Impact and scalability of the data/forwarding plane due to
        added overheads, etc.



Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 19]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


5.2. Requirements for Inter-AS MPLS TE across Multiple SP
     Administrative Domains

   The requirements for inter-AS MPLS TE across multiple SP admin
   domains SHOULD include all requirements discussed in section 5.1
   above in addition to those that are presented in this section here.

   Please note that the SP with multi-AS networks may choose not to
   turn on the features discussed in the following two sections when
   building TE tunnels across ASes in its own domain.

5.2.1. Confidentiality

   Since an inter-AS TE LSP may span multiple ASes belonging to
   different SPs, the solution MIGHT allow hiding the set of
   hops used by the TE LSP within an AS as illustrated in the following
   example:

   [   ASBR1-----ASBR2   ]
   [       ]     [       ]
   [  A    ]     [   B   ]
   [  AS1  ]     [   AS2 ]
   [  SP1  ]-----[   SP2 ]
   [       ]     [       ]

   Suppose there is an inter-AS TE LSP from A (within AS1 of SP1) to B
   (within AS2 of SP2).  When computing an inter-AS TE LSP path, the
   set of hops within AS2 might be hidden to AS1. In this case, the
   solution will allow A to learn that the more optimal TE LSP path to
   B that complies with the set of constraints traverses ASBR2 without
   a detailed knowledge of the lists of hops used within AS2.

   Optionally, the TE LSP path cost within AS2 could be provided to A,
   via for example PCC-PCS signaling [PATH-COMP], such that A (PCC)
   could use this information to compute an optimal path, even if the
   computed path is not provided by AS2.

   In addition, the management requirements discussed in section 5.1.10
   above, when used across different SP admin domains, SHOULD include
   similar confidentiality requirements discussed here in terms of
   "hiding" intermediate hops or interface address and/or labels in
   the transiting or peering SPs.

5.2.2. Policy Control

   In some cases, policy control might be necessary at the AS
   boundaries, namely ingress policy controls enabling SPs to enforce
   the inter-AS policies per interconnect agreements or modify some
   requested parameters conveyed by incoming inter-AS MPLS TE signaling
   requests.



Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 20]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004

   It is worth noting that such a policy control mechanism may also be
   used between ASes within a SP.

   This section only discusses the elements that may be used to form a
   set of ingress control policies but exactly how SPs establish
   bilateral or multilateral agreements upon which the control policies
   can be built are beyond the scope of this document.

5.2.2.1. Inter-AS TE Agreement Enforcement Polices

   The following provides a set of TE-LSP parameters in the inter-AS TE
   Requests (RSVP Path Message) that SHOULD be enforced at the AS
   boundaries:

      - RSVP-TE session attributes: affinities and preemption
        priorities
      - Per AS or SP bandwidth admission control to ensure that RSVP-TE
        messages do not request for bandwidth resources over their
        allocation
      - Request origins which can be represented by Head-End tunnel
        ending IP address, originating AS#, neighbor AS#, neighbor ASBR
        interface IP address, etc.
      - DS-TE TE-Class <Class-Type, Preemption>
      - FRR attribute: local protection desired bit, node protection
        desired bit and bandwidth protection desired bit carried in the
        SESSION
      - ATTRIBUTE or the FAST-REROUTE objects in the RSVP Path message
        as defined in [TE-FRR]
      - Optimization allowed or not allowed

   In some cases, a TE policy server could also be used for the
   enforcement of inter-AS TE policies.  Implementations SHOULD allow
   the use of a policy enforcement server.  This requirement could
   allow SPs to make the inter-AS TE policies scale better.

   The signaling of a non policy compliant request SHOULD trigger the
   generation of a RSVP Path Error message by the policy enforcing
   node towards the Head-end LSR, indicating the cause. The
   Head-end LSR SHOULD take appropriate actions, such as re-route, upon
   receipt of such a message.

5.2.2.2. Inter-AS TE Rewrite Policies

   In some situations, SPs may need to rewrite some attributes of the
   incoming inter-AS TE signaling requests due to a lack of resources
   for a particular TE-Class, non-compliant preemption, or upon mutual
   agreements.  The following lists parameters that can potentially be
   rewritten at the AS boundaries:

      - RSVP-TE session attributes: affinities and preemption
        priorities
      - DS-TE TE-Class <Class-Type, Preemption>
      - ERO expansion requests

Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 21]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


   Similarly, the re-writing node SHOULD generate a RSVP Path Error
   Message towards the Head-end LSR indicating the cause in terms
   of types of changes made so as to maintain the end-to-end integrity
   of inter-AS TE LSP.

5.2.2.3 Inter-AS Traffic Policing

   The proposed solution SHOULD also provide a set of policing
   mechanisms which could be configured on the inter-AS links
   to ensure that traffic routed through the tunnel does not exceed
   the bandwidth negotiated during LSP signaling.

   For example, an ingress policer could be configured to enforce
   the traffic contract on the mutually agreed resource requirements
   of the established inter-AS TE LSP (i.e. RSVP bandwidth) on the
   interface to which the inter-AS link is connected.

6. Security Considerations

   The proposed solution(s) MUST address security issues across
   multiple SP administrative domains.  Although inter-AS MPLS TE is
   not expected to add specific security extensions beyond those of
   current intra-AS TE, greater considerations MUST be given in terms
   of how to establish a trusted model across AS boundaries.  SPs
   SHOULD have a means to authenticate (such as using RSVP INTEGRITY
   Object), allow and possibly denying inter-AS signaling requests
   and SHOULD be protected from DoS attacks.

7. Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Yuichi Ikejiri, David Allan, Kurt Erik
   Lindqvist, Dave McDysan, Christian Jacquenet, Kireeti Kompella,
   Ed Kern, Jim Boyle, Thomas Nadeauor, Yakov Rekhter and Bert Wijnen
   for their suggestions and helpful comments during the discussions of
   this draft.

8. Editor's Addresses

   Raymond Zhang
   Infonet Services Corporation
   2160 E. Grand Ave.
   El Segundo, CA 90025
   USA
   Email: raymond_zhang@infonet.com

   JP Vasseur
   CISCO Systems, Inc.
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough , MA - 01719
   USA
   Email: jpv@cisco.com


Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 22]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004

9. Normative References

   [TE-REQ], Awduche et. al., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering
   over MPLS", RFC2702, September 1999.

   [TE-RSVP], Awduche et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
   Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001

   [RFC-2119], S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997

10. Informative References

   [MPLS-ARCH], Rosen, et. al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
   Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001

   [BGP-MPLSVPN], Rosen, et. al., "BGP/MPLSVPN", draft-ietf-l3vpn
   -rfc2547bis-01.txt, September 2003 (work in progress).

   [DIFF_ARCH], Blake, et. al., "An Architecture for Differentiated
   Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [DIFF_AF], Heinanen,et. al., "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC
   2597, June 1999.

   [DIFF_EF], Davie, et. al., "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
   Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.

   [MPLS-Diff], Le Faucheur, et. al., "MPLS Support of Differentiated
   Services", RFC 3270, May 2002

   [TE-OVW], Awduche, et. al., "Overview and Principles of Internet
   Traffic Engineering", RFC 3272,May 2002

   [PSTE], Li, et. al., "A Provider Architecture for Differentiated
   Services and Traffic Engineering", RFC 2430, October 1998

   [TE-APP], Boyle, et. al., "Applicability Statement of Traffic
   Engineering", RFC 3346, August 2002.

   [TE-SURVIV], Lai, et. al., "Network Hierachy and Multilayer
   Suvivability", RFC 3386, November, 2002.

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

   [BGP], Rekhter, et. al., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
   RFC 1771, March 1995

   [LSPPING], Kompella, et.. al.," Detecting Data Plane Liveliness in
   MPLS", Internet Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-05.txt>,
   August 2004, (Work in Progress)

Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 23]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


   [MPLS-TTL], Agarwal, et. al., "Time to Live (TTL) Processing in MPLS
   Networks", RFC 3443, January, 2003

   [DS-TE], Le Faucheur, et. al., ''Requirements for support of
   DiffServ-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering'', RFC 3564, July, 2003

   [TE-FRR], Pan, et. al., "Fast Reroute Techniques in RSVP-TE",
   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-05.txt, November 2003
   (Work in Progress).

   [ISIS-TE], Smit, Li, "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering",
   draft-ietf-isis-traffic-05.txt, August, 2003 (Work in Progress).

   [OSPF-TE] Katz, Yeung, "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to
   OSPF Version 2", RFC 2370, September 2003.

   [PATH-COMP], Vasseur, et. al., ''RSVP Path computation request and
   reply messages'', draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-03.txt, June
   2002. (Work in Progress)

   [OSPF-TE-CAP], Vasseur, Psenak. "OSPF TE TLV capabilities",
   draft-vasseur-mpls-ospf-te-cap-00.txt, October 2002.
   (Work in Progress)

   [MPLS-LSPHIE] Kompella, Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized
   MPLS TE", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt , September 2002.
   (work in progress)

   [MPLS-Recov], Sharma V., et al, "Framework for Multi-Protocol Label
   Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery", RFC 3469, Feb, 2003

   [BGP-Label], Rekhter and Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
   BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001

   [INTER-AS-TE], Vasseur and Ayyangar, "Inter-AS MPLS Traffic
   Engineering", draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-area-as-te-00.txt,
   August, 2004 (work in progress).

   [EXCLUDE-ROUTE], Farrel, et. al., "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude
   -route-01.txt", June 2004 (work in progress).













Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 24]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


11. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

12. Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
   in this document or the extent to which any license under such
   rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
   it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
   Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
   documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

13. Acknowledgement

    Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
    Internet Society.











Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 25]

MPLS Inter-AS TE requirements                            September 2004


Appendix A. Brief Description of BGP based Inter-AS Traffic
            Engineering

   In today's Service Provider (SP) network, BGP is deployed to meet
   two different sets of requirements:

      - Establishing a scalable exterior routing plane separate from
        The data forwarding plane within SP's administrative domain
      - Exchanging network reachability information with different BGP
        autonomous systems (ASs) that could belong to a different SP
        or simply, a different AS within a SP network

   Over connections across the AS boundaries, traffic engineering may
   also be accomplished via a set of BGP capabilities by appropriately
   enforcing BGP-based inter-AS routing policies.  The current
   BGP-based inter-AS traffic engineering practices may be summarized
   as follows:

      - "Closest exit" routing where egress traffic from one SP to
        another follows the path defined by the lowest IGP or intra-AS
        MPLS TE tunnel metrics of the BGP next-HOP of exterior routes
        learned from other AS over the inter-AS links
      - "BGP path attribute" based routing selection mechanism where
        the egress traffic path is determined by interconnect (peering
        or transit) policies based upon one or a combination of BGP
        path attributes, like AS_PATH, MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED), and
        Local_Pref.

   SPs have often faced a number of un-deterministic factors in the
   practices of inter-AS traffic engineering employing the methods
   mentioned above:

      - Sub-optimum traffic distribution across inter-AS links
      - Un-deterministic traffic condition changes due to uncoordinated
        IGP routing policies or topology changes within other AS and
        uncoordinated BGP routing policy changes (MED or as-prepend,
        etc.)

   In addition, to achieve some degrees of granularity, SPs may choose
   to enforce BGP inter-AS policies that are specific to one or a set
   of inter-AS links for ingress traffic destined to certain PoPs or
   regions within SP's network from another AS by tagging certain sets
   of routes with a specific attribute when announcing to another AS.
   This of course goes under the assumption that the other AS permits
   automated egress policy by matching the predefined attribute from
   incoming routes.








Zhang, Vasseur, et. al.                                       [Page 26]


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