[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05
MPLS Working Group F. Zhang
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track March 07, 2012
Expires: September 8, 2012
RSVP-TE Extensions to Exchange MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-02
Abstract
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
specifies an initial set of identifiers, such as local assigned
tunnel number and Global_ID, which can be used to form Maintenance
Entity Point Identifier (MEP_ID). As to some Operation,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) functions, such as Connectivity
Verification (CV) [RFC6428], source MEP_ID must be inserted in the
OAM packets, so that the peer endpoint can compare the received and
expected MEP_IDs to judge whether there is a mismatch [RFC6371],
which means that the two MEP nodes need to pre-store each other's
MEP_IDs.
This document defines the signaling extensions to exchange the Label
Switched Path (LSP) identifiers.
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 8, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Zhang Expires September 8, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LSP Identifiers March 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Co-routed Bidirectional LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Associated Bidirectional LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Zhang Expires September 8, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LSP Identifiers March 2012
1. Introduction
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
specifies a initial set of identifiers, such as local assigned tunnel
number (Tunnel_Num) and Global_ID, which can be used to form
Maintenance Entity Point Identifier (MEP_ID). The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID
is Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num, and in situations where global
uniqueness is required, this becomes: Global_ID::Node_ID::
Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num. In order to realize some Operation,
Administration and Maintenance (OAM) functions, such as Connectivity
Verification (CV) [RFC6428], source MEP-ID MUST be inserted in the
OAM packets, in this way the peer endpoint can compare the received
and expected MEP-IDs to judge whether there is a mismatch [RFC6371].
Hence, the two MEP nodes must pre-store each other's MEP-IDs before
sending the CV packets.
Obviously, the exchange of MEP_IDs can be accomplished by the Network
Management System (NMS), but it is complex when the LSPs cross
different adiminstration domains, which involves the cooperation of
NMSs. When the LSPs are set up by control plane, Resource
ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engnieering (RSVP-TE) messages will be
more suitable to realize the exchange of MEP_IDs.
Since the LSP identifiers can be carried in an Extended ASSOCIATION
object, which may also be used in a single session
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext], it is naturally to define the signaling
extensions of co-routed and associated bidirectional LSP to exchange
the LSP identifiers based on the Extended ASSOCIATION object.
2. 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 [RFC2119].
3. Operation
3.1. Co-routed Bidirectional LSP
Consider that LSP1 is across different administration domains, which
is initialized at A1 node with an Extended ASSOCIATION object
inserted in Path message. Association Type is set to "LSP
Identifers", Association ID set to A1-Tunnel_Num, Association Source
set to A1-Node_ID, Global Association Source set to A1-Global_ID, and
the Extended Association ID field is omitted. Upon receipt of the
Extended Association Object, the terminating node Z9 checks the
Zhang Expires September 8, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LSP Identifiers March 2012
Association Type field. If it is "LSP Identifiers" and an
Upstream_Label exists in Path message, the Extended ASSOCIATION
object must be carried in the Resv message also. Similarly,
Association Type is set to "LSP Identifiers", Association ID set to
Z9-Tunnel_Num, Association Source set to Z9-Node_ID, Global
Association Source set to Z9-Global_ID, and the Extended Association
ID field is omitted.
3.2. Associated Bidirectional LSP
The document [I-D.ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp]
discusses the provisioning models and signaling procedures of
associated bidirectional LSPs. Consider the example provided there,
when LSP1 and LSP2 are bound together to be an associated
bidirectional LSP which is across several administration domains, the
global ID filled in the Extended Association objects with Association
Type set to "Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP" or "Single
Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP" is A-Global_ID or B-Global_ID.
If it is A-Global_ID, node A still does know the global ID of node B
in case that LSP1 and LSP2 are across several administration domains.
Since multiple Association objects have always been supported in Path
messages, an Extended Association object with Asssociation Type "LSP
Identifiers" can be inserted in the Path messages of associated
bidirectional LSPs to let the terminating nodes exchange each others
LSP identifiers.
If double sided provisioning model is used, the values of an Extended
Association object in LSP1's Path message are set as below :
Association Type set to "LSP Identifiers", Association ID set to
A-Tunnel_Num, Association Source set to A-Node_ID, Global Association
Source set to A-Global_ID, and the Extended Association ID field
omitted; the object in LSP2's Path message are set similarly :
Association Type is set to "LSP Identifiers", Association ID set to
B-Tunnel_Num, Association Source set to B-Node_ID, Global Association
Source set to B-Global_ID, and the Extended Association ID field
omitted. While in case that single sided provisioning model is
adopted, in the initialized LSP1's Path message, the values of an
Extended Association object are set as following: Association Type
set to "LSP Identifiers", Association ID set to A-Tunnel_Num,
Association Source set to A-Node_ID, Global Association Source set to
A-Global_ID, and the Extended Association ID field omitted. When
node B receives this Path message, LSP2 is triggered to be
established by the received Extended ASSOCIATION objects with the
Association Type "Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs" and
"LSP Identifiers". The Extended Association Object with Association
Type "LSP Identifiers" inserted in LSP2's Path message is like:
Association ID set to B-Tunnel_Num, Association Source set to
B-Node_ID, Global Association Source set to B-Global_ID, and the
Zhang Expires September 8, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LSP Identifiers March 2012
Extended Association ID field omitted.
4. RSVP-TE Extensions
4.1. Association Type
Within the current document, a new Association Type is defined in the
Extended ASSOCIATION object.
Value Type
----- -----
6 (TBD) LSP Identifiers (L)
See [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] for the definition of other fields and
values.
The rules associated with the processing of the Extended ASSOCIATION
objects in RSVP message are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].
It said that in the absence of Association Type-specific rules for
identifying association, the included Extended ASSOCIATION objects
MUST be identical. Since the Association Type "LSP Identifiers" used
here is to carry LSP identifier, there is no need to associate Path
state to Path state or Resv state to Resv state, one specific rule is
added: when the Association Type is "LSP Identifiers", the Extended
ASSOCIATION object can appear in Path or Resv message across sessions
or in a single session, and the values can be different.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
One bit ("LSP Identifers") needs to be allocated in the Association
Type Registry.
6. Security Considerations
A new Association Type is defined in this document, and except this,
there are no security issues about the Extended ASSOCIATION object
are introduced here. For Association object related security issues,
see the documents [RFC4872], [RFC4873], and
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].
Zhang Expires September 8, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LSP Identifiers March 2012
For a more comprehensive discussion on GMPLS security please see the
Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920].
7. Acknowledgement
This document was prepared based on the discussion with George
Swallow, valuable comments and input were also received from Berger
Lou, Venkatesan Mahalingam, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman, Muliu Tao and
Wenjuan He.
8. References
8.1. Normative references
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]
Berger, L., Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
Association Object Extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-02 (work in progress),
February 2012.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp]
Zhang, F. and R. Jing, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated
Bidirectional LSPs",
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02
(work in progress), October 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Zhang Expires September 8, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LSP Identifiers March 2012
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6428] Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive
Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote
Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile",
RFC 6428, November 2011.
Author's Address
Fei Zhang
ZTE Corporation
Email: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Xiao Bao
ZTE Corporation
Email: bao.xiao1@zte.com.cn
Zhang Expires September 8, 2012 [Page 7]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/