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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte

MPLS Working Group                                            M. Taillon
Internet-Draft                                                   T. Saad
Intended status: Standards Track                       Cisco Systems Inc
Expires: September 14, 2016                                       N. Tan
                                                         Arista Networks
                                                             A. Deshmukh
                                                                 M. Jork
                                                               V. Beeram
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                           March 13, 2016


        RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for LSP Tunnels
               draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-03

Abstract

   This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions that reduce the
   amount of RSVP signaling required for Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures
   and subsequently improve the scalability of the RSVP-TE signaling
   when undergoing FRR convergence post a link or node failure.  Such
   extensions allow the RSVP message exchange between the Point of Local
   Repair (PLR) and the Merge Point (MP) to be independent of the number
   of protected LSPs traversing between them (eg. when bypass LSP FRR
   protection is used).  The new signaling extensions are fully
   backwards compatible with nodes that do not support them.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2016.








Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Summary FRR Signaling Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure . . . . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.1.  SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject . . . . . . .   4
       2.1.2.  PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.3.  MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure  . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.2.  Signaling Procedures Post Failure . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.1.  SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object  . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.2.2.  PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.2.3.  MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure  . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.3.  Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   3.  Compatibilty  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] describe the mechanisms for the
   PLR to reroute traffic and signaling of a protected RSVP-TE LSP onto
   the bypass tunnel in the event of a TE link or node failure.  Such
   signaling procedures are performed individually for each affected
   protected LSP.  This may eventually lead to control plane scalability
   and latency issues under limited (memory and processing) resources
   after failure that affects a large number of protected LSPs
   traversing the same PLR and MP.

   In a large RSVP-TE LSPs scale deployment, a single P node acting as a
   PLR may host tens of thousands of protected RSVP-TE LSPs egressing



Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


   the same link, and likewise, act as a Merge Point (MP) for similar
   number of LSPs ingressing the same link.  In the event of the failure
   of the link or neighbor node, the RSVP-TE control plane of the node
   acting as PLR becomes busy rerouting protected LSPs signaling over
   the bypass tunnel(s) in one direction.  In addition, its control
   plane acting as MP becomes busy merging RSVP states signaling
   received over bypass tunnels in the opposite direction.  At the same
   time, the head-end PE nodes that are notified of the local repair at
   downstream P nodes, will attempt to (re)converge affected RSVP-TE
   LSPs onto newly computed paths - possibly traversing the same
   previously affected P node(s).  As a result, the RSVP-TE control
   plane at the PLR and MP becomes overwhelmed by the amount of FRR
   RSVP-TE processing overhead following the link or node failure, and
   the competing other control plane protocol(s) (e.g. the IGP) that
   undergo their convergence at the same time.

   The extensions defined in this document enable an MP to become aware
   of the PLR's bypass assignment and allow FRR procedures between PLR
   and MP to be signaled and processed on groups of LSPs.  Further,
   MESSAGE_ID objects for the rerouted PATH and RESV states are
   exchanged a-priori to the fault such that Summary Refresh procedures
   defined in [RFC2961] can continue to be used to refresh the rerouted
   state(s) after FRR has occurred.

1.1.  Terminology

   In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
   "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
   and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].

2.  Summary FRR Signaling Procedures

   This document defines two new subobjects (IPv4 and IPv6
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects) in RSVP RECORD_ROUTE object
   to coordinate bypass tunnel assignment between the PLR and MP.  These
   new subobjects are backward compatible with LSRs that do not
   recognize them (see section 4.4.5 in [RFC3209]).  The document also
   defines a new RSVP SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object that is sent
   within an RSVP Path message to inform the MP that one or more groups
   of protected LSPs that are being protected by the bypass tunnel are
   being rerouted.

   The PLR creates and manages Summary FRR LSP groups
   (Bypass_Group_Identifiers) and shares them with the MP via signaling.
   Protected LSPs sharing the same egress link and bypass assignment are
   grouped together and are assigned the same group.  The MP maintains
   the PLR group assignments learned via signaling, and acknowledges the



Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


   group assignments via signaling.  Once the PLR receives the
   acknowledgment, FRR signaling can proceed as group based.

   The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RRO subobject is used to inform the
   MP of the bypass tunnel being used by the PLR, the assigned Summary
   FRR Bypass_Group_Identifier for the protected LSP, and the MESSAGE_ID
   object that the PLR will use to refresh the protected LSP PATH state
   post FRR trigger.  When used within a RSVP Resv message, the
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is used by the MP to
   acknowledge the PLR's bypass tunnel assignment, and provide the
   MESSAGE_ID object that the MP will use to refresh the protected LSP
   RESV state post FRR trigger (and also indicates support for this
   extension).

2.1.  Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure

   Before Summary FRR procedures can be used, a handshake MUST be
   completed between the PLR and MP.  This handshake is performed using
   RECORD_ROUTE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within both the
   RSVP Path and Resv messages.

2.1.1.  SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject

   The IPv4 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following
   format:


























Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Type    |      Length     |    Bypass_Tunnel_ID         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Bypass_Group_Identifier                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Type: 8 bits

           (TBD-1) IPv4 Summary FRR Bypass Assignment

     Length: 8 bits

           The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
     bytes, including the Type and Length fields.


     Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits

           The bypass tunnel identifier.


     Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address: 32 bits

           The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address.


     Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address: 32 bits

           The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address.


     Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits

           The bypass tunnel group identifier.


     Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID

           A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by {{RFC2961}}.




Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


   The IPv6 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following
   format:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Type    |      Length     |    Bypass_Tunnel_ID         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address                     +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address                +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                Bypass_Group_Identifier                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

        Type: 8 bits

              (TBD-2) IPv6 Summary FRR Bypass Assignment

        Length: 8 bits

              The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
        bytes, including the Type and Length fields.


        Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits

              The bypass tunnel identifier.


        Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address: 128 bits

              The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address.




Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


        Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address: 128 bits

              The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address.


        Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits

              The bypass tunnel group identifier.


        Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID

              A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by {{RFC2961}}.

   The PLR assigns a bypass tunnel and Bypass_Group_Identifier for each
   protected LSP.  The same Bypass_Group_Identifier is used for the set
   of protected LSPs that share the same bypass tunnel and traverse the
   same egress link and are not already rerouted.  The PLR also
   generates a MESSAGE_ID object (flags SHOULD be clear, Epoch and
   Message_Identifier MUST be set according to [RFC2961]) that is used
   by the PLR to later match the last sent subobject and eliminate
   timing issues.

   The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject contents change; for example,
   when PLR changes the bypass tunnel assignment.

   The PLR notifies the MP of the bypass tunnel assignment via adding a
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject to the RSVP Path message
   RECORD_ROUTE object for the protected LSP using procedure described
   in section 2.2.1.

   The MP acknowledges the PLR's assignment by signalling a
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the RSVP Resv messsage
   RECORD_ROUTE object.  With exception of the MESSAGE_ID object, all
   other fields of the received SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject
   are copied into the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT of the Resv
   message.  The MESSAGE_ID object is set according to [RFC2961] with
   the Flags being clear.  A new Message_Identifier MUST be used to
   acknowledge an updated PLR assignment.

   The PLR considers the protected LSP as Summary FRR capable only if
   the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects within the sent RSVP
   Path message RECORD_ROUTE and the received RSVP Resv message
   RECORD_ROUTE match (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID object).  If a
   matching subobject does not exist, or is later absent in a subsequent
   refresh, the PLR MUST consider the protected LSP as not Summary FRR
   capable.



Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


2.1.2.  PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure

   The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added to the
   RECORD_ROUTE object by each PLR in the RSVP Path message of the
   protected LSP to record the bypass tunnel assignment.  This subobject
   is updated every time the PLR updates the bypass tunnel assignment
   (which triggers an RSVP Path change message).  Upon updating the
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject, the PLR MUST consider the
   protected LSP as not Summary FRR capable until a new handshake has
   completed.

   The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the
   RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address.  An
   implementation may choose to also add the interface IPv4/IPv6 address
   sub-object after the node's IP address.  A node MUST NOT add a
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject without also adding the
   node's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject.

   Upon receiving an RSVP Resv message with RECORD_ROUTE object, the PLR
   checks if the expected SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is
   present.  If present, the PLR determines if the MP has acknowledged
   the current PLR assignment.

   To be a valid acknowledgement, the received
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the Resv message MUST
   match the latest SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject sent with
   the Path message (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID) and the received
   Message_Identifier MUST be different (to prevent race condition
   during bypass assignment flip-flop).  If the MP has acknowledged the
   bypass assignment then the LSP is now ready for Summary FRR.

   When forwarding an RSVP Resv message upstream, the PLR MAY remove
   any/all SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching
   Bypass_Source_Address.

2.1.3.  MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure

   Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with RECORD_ROUTE object, the MP
   processes all (there may be multiple PLRs for a single MP)
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASSS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching Bypass
   Destination address.

   The MP first ensures the existence of the bypass tunnel and that the
   Bypass_Group_Identifier is not already active.  That is, an LSP
   cannot join a group that is already active.

   The MP builds a mirrored Summary FRR Group database per PLR, which is
   determined using the Bypass_Source_Address field.  The MESSAGE_ID is



Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


   extracted and recorded for the protected LSP PATH state.  To
   acknowledge each PLR bypass assignment, a matching
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is prepared as per 2.2.
   Note, an MP may received more than a Path message with the
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject from different upstream PLRs.
   In this case, the MP is expected to save all the received MESSAGE_IDs
   from the different PLRs.  Post failure, the MP determines and
   activates the associated Sumamry Refresh ID to use once it receives
   and processes the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE from the PLR.

   Each SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the
   RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address.  An
   implementation may choose to also add the interface IPv4/IPv6 address
   sub-object after the node's IP address.  A node MUST NOT add a
   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject without also adding an IPv4
   or IPv6 subobject.

   When forwarding an RSVP Path message downstream, the MP MAY remove
   any/all SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching
   Bypass_Destination_Address.

2.2.  Signaling Procedures Post Failure

   Upon detection of the fault (egress link or node failure) the PLR
   first performs the object modification procedures described by
   section 6.4.3 of [RFC4090] for all affected protected LSPs.  For
   Summary FRR LSPs assigned to the same bypass tunnel a common RSVP_HOP
   and SENDER_TEMPLATE MUST be used.

   The PLR MUST signal non-Summary FRR LSPs over the bypass tunnel
   before signaling the Summary FRR LSPs.  This is needed to allow for
   the case when the PLR has recently changed a bypass assignment which
   the MP may not have processed the change yet.

   A new object SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE is defined and sent within the
   RSVP Path message of the bypass tunnel for reroute signaling of
   Summary FRR LSPs.

2.2.1.  SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object

   The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is sent within an RSVP Path
   message to inform the MP (bypass tunnel destination) that one or more
   groups of protected LSPs that are being protected by the bypass
   tunnel are being rerouted.

   The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object has the following format:





Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016             [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


     SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class = (TBD-3) (of the form 11bbbbbb)

     Class = SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class, C_Type = (TBD-4)

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                           RSVP_HOP_Object                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Bypass_Group_Identifier                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                 :                             |
     //                                :                            //
     |                                 :                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       Bypass_Group_Identifier                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     RSVP_HOP_Object: Class 3, as defined by {{RFC2205}}]

         Replacement HOP object to be applied to all LSPs associated
     with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers

     Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits

         Bypass_Group_Identifier field from the RECORD_ROUTE object
     SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject(s) corresponding to all
     LSPs that the bypass headend (PLR) advertised this specific
     Bypass_Group_Identifier for.  One or more
     Bypass_Group_Identifiers may be included.

2.2.2.  PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure

   Post a failure event, when using the Summary FRR path signalling
   procedures, an individual RSVP Path message for each Summary FRR LSP
   is not signaled.  Instead, to reroute Summary FRR LSPs via the bypass
   tunnel, the PLR adds the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object in the RSVP
   Path message of the RSVP session of the bypass tunnel.

   The RSVP_HOP_Object field of the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is
   set to the common RSVP_HOP that was used by the PLR in Section 2.2.

   The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the MP is activated.  As a
   result, the MP may refresh the protected rerouted RESV state using
   Summary Refresh procedures.

   For each affected Summary FRR group, its group identifier is added to
   the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object.



Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016            [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


2.2.3.  MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure

   Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE
   object, the MP performs normal merging processing for each LSP
   associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier, as if it received
   individual RSVP Path messages for each Summary FRR LSP.

   For each Summary FRR LSP being merged, the MP first modifies the Path
   state as follows:

   1.  The RSVP_HOP object is copied from the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE
       RSVP_HOP_Object field.

   2.  The SENDER_TEMPLATE object SrcAddress field is copied from the
       bypass tunnel SENDER_TEMPLATE object.  For the case where PLR is
       also the headend, and SENDER_TEMPLATE SrcAddress of the protected
       LSP and bypass tunnel are the same, the MP MUST use the modified
       HOP Hop Address field instead.

   3.  The ERO object is modified as per section 6.4.4. of [RFC4090].
       Once the above modifications are completed, the MP then performs
       the merge processing as per [RFC4090].

   4.  The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the PLR is activated,
       meaning that the PLR may now refresh the protected rerouted PATH
       state using Summary Refresh procedures.

   A failure during merge processing of any individual rerouted LSP MUST
   result in an RSVP Path Error message and the LSP MUST NOT be removed
   from the Bypass_Group - this is to cover the case where the RSVP Path
   Error message doesn't reach the PLR and the RSVP Path Error message
   may need to be resignaled.

   An individual RSVP Resv message for each successfully merged Summary
   FRR LSP is not signaled.  The MP SHOULD immediately use Summary
   Refresh to refresh the protected LSP RESV state.

2.3.  Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs

   Refreshing of Summary FRR active LSPs is performed using Summary
   Refresh as defined by [RFC2961].

3.  Compatibilty

   The new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is to be defined with a
   class number in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with
   non- supporting nodes.  Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this




Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016            [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


   extension will ignore the object but forward it, unexamined and
   unmodified, in all messages.

   The new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RECORD_ROUTE subobject, as per
   section 4.4.5. of [RFC3209], if not recognized SHOULD be ignored and
   forwarded.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces new RSVP subobjects, and one new RSVP
   object.  Thus in the event of the interception of a signaling
   message, slightly more could be deduced about the state of the
   network than was previously the case.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for the
   namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
   IANA maintains and assigns the values for RSVP-TE protocol parameters
   "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters).

   From the registries in this namespace for "Route Record" types, IANA
   is requested to allocate two new RECORD_ROUTE object sub-types (IPv4
   and IPv6) for the new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects.

   From the same registry, a new RSVP Class and C-type (of the form
   11bbbbbb) is requested for the new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object
   defined in this document.

6.  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>.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
              September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.

   [RFC2961]  Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F.,
              and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
              Extensions", RFC 2961, DOI 10.17487/RFC2961, April 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2961>.





Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016            [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             RSVP-TE Summary FRR            September 2015


   [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>.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
              Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.

Authors' Addresses

   Mike Taillon
   Cisco Systems Inc

   Email: mtaillon@cisco.com


   Tarek Saad
   Cisco Systems Inc

   Email: tsaad@cisco.com


   Nicholas Tan
   Arista Networks

   Email: ntan@arista.com


   Abhishek Deshmukh
   Juniper Networks

   Email: adeshmukh@juniper.net


   Markus Jork
   Juniper Networks

   Email: mjork@juniper.net


   Vishnu Pavan Beeram
   Juniper Networks

   Email: vbeeram@juniper.net





Taillon, et al.          Expires September 14, 2016            [Page 13]


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