[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05
CCAMP Working Group F. Zhang
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track M. Venkatesan
Expires: February 17, 2013 Dell Inc.
Y. Xu
CATR
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems
August 16, 2012
RSVP-TE Extensions to Exchange MPLS-TP LSP Tunnel Numbers
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04
Abstract
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
Z9-Tunnel_Num, 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 mis-connectivity defect [RFC6371], which
means that the two MEP nodes need to pre-store each other's MEP_IDs.
This document defines the signaling extensions to communicate the
local assigned Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching
Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP.
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 February 17, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Zhang, et al. Expires February 17, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num August 16, 2012
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
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
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
specifies a initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
Z9-Tunnel_Num, 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
mis-connectivity defect [RFC6371]. Hence, the two MEP nodes must
pre-store each other's MEP-IDs before sending the CV packets.
Zhang, et al. Expires February 17, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num August 16, 2012
When the LSPs are set up by control plane, Resource ReserVation
Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) messages can be used to
communicate the Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching
Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. Since the LSP identifiers
can be carried in an ASSOCIATION object [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext],
it is naturally to define the signaling extensions based on the
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
Consider that LSP1 is initialized at A1 node with an ASSOCIATION
object inserted in Path message. Association Type is set to "LSP
Identifiers", Association ID set to A1-Tunnel_Num, Association Source
set to A1-Node_ID. Upon receipt of the Association Object, the
egress node Z9 checks the Association Type field. If it is "LSP
Identifiers", the 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. In this way, the ingress LSR can get the Z9-
Tunnel_Num, which may be used for identifying a mis-connectivity
defect of the proactive CV OAM function.
If LSP1 is across different domains, A1 and Z9 nodes may need to know
each other's Global_ID also. When an Extended ASSOCIATION object
with Association Type "LSP Identifiers" in inserted in the
initialized LSP Path message, Global Association Source is set to A1-
Global_ID. Similarly, this field will be set to Z9-Global_ID in the
Resv message.
4. RSVP-TE Extensions
4.1. Association Type
Within the current document, a new Association Type is defined in the
ASSOCIATION object, which MAY be used with any ASSOCIATION object
type. For example, the Extended ASSOCIATION object defined in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] can be used when Global_ID based
identification is desired.
Zhang, et al. Expires February 17, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num August 16, 2012
Value Type
----- -----
5 (TBD) LSP Identifiers (L)
4.2. Signaling Procedure
Association ID: 16 bits
For Path message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node
sending out the Path message, and can be ignored by the receiver.
For Resv message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node
sending out the Resv message.
Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes
Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].
For Path message, Association Source is the IP address of the node
sending out the Path message, and can be ignored by the receiver.
For Resv message, Association Source is the IP address of the node
sending out the Resv message, and can be ignored by the receiver.
Global Association Source: 4 bytes
Same as defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] if Extended
ASSOCIATION object is used.
For Path message, Global Association Source is filled with the
Global_ID of the node sending out the Path message.
For Resv message, Global Association Source is the Global_ID of
the node sending out the Resv message.
Extended Association ID:
Same as defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] if Extended
ASSOCIATION object is used.
Extended Association ID is not added in the Extended ASSOCIATION
object when association type signaled is "LSP Identifiers".
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
Zhang, et al. Expires February 17, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num August 16, 2012
identifying association, the included 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 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 value ("LSP Identifiers") 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 ASSOCIATION object and
Extended ASSOCIATION object are introduced here. For Association
object related security issues, see the documents [RFC4872],
[RFC4873], and [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].
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 Lou
Berger, John E Drake, 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-04 (work in progress),
August 2012.
Zhang, et al. Expires February 17, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num August 16, 2012
[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
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.
Zhang, et al. Expires February 17, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num August 16, 2012
Authors' Addresses
Fei Zhang
ZTE Corporation
Email: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Venkatesan Mahalingam
Dell Inc.
Email: venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com
Yunbin Xu
CATR
Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Xiao Bao
ZTE Corporation
Email: bao.xiao1@zte.com.cn
Zhang, et al. Expires February 17, 2013 [Page 7]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/