--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-00.txt 2011-01-28 04:26:39.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-01.txt 2011-01-28 04:26:39.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,139 +1,143 @@ Network Working Group A. Takacs Internet-Draft Ericsson -Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger -Expires: June 4, 2011 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. - D. Caviglia +Obsoletes: 5467 (if approved) L. Berger +Intended status: Standards Track LabN Consulting, L.L.C. +Expires: August 1, 2011 D. Caviglia Ericsson D. Fedyk Alcatel-Lucent J. Meuric France Telecom Orange - December 1, 2010 + January 28, 2011 GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) - draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-00.txt + draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-01.txt Abstract This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport - of traffic-related parameters. + of traffic-related parameters. This document moves the experiment + documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467. 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 June 4, 2011. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2011. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2011 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Approach Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . 5 - 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.1.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 2.2.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 2.3.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . 6 + 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2.1.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 2.2.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 2.3.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Introduction GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210]. GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs are bidirectional LSPs that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction. Support for bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth, was - previously discussed in the context of Ethernet, notably [GMPLS- - PBBTE] and [RFC6003]. In that context, asymmetric bandwidth support - was considered to be a capability that was unlikely to be deployed, - and hence [RFC5467] was published as Experimental. The MPLS - Transport Profile, MPLS-TP, requires that asymmetric bandwidth - bidirectional LSPs be supported, see [RFC5654], and therefore this - document is being published on the Standards Track. This document - has no technical changes from the approach defined in [RFC5467]. - This document removes an alternate approach that is not part of the - Standards Track solution. + previously discussed in the context of Ethernet, notably [RFC6060] + and [RFC6003]. In that context, asymmetric bandwidth support was + considered to be a capability that was unlikely to be deployed, and + hence [RFC5467] was published as Experimental. The MPLS Transport + Profile, MPLS-TP, requires that asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional + LSPs be supported, see [RFC5654], and therefore this document is + being published on the Standards Track. This document has no + technical changes from the approach defined in [RFC5467]. This + document moves the experiment documented in [RFC5467] to the + standards track and obsoletes [RFC5467]. This document also removes + the Ethernet technology specific alternative approach discussed in + the appendix of [RFC5467] and maintains only one approach that is + suitable for use with any technology. 1.1. Background Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209], used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the - actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic. + actual resources available for the associated data traffic. With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473], the model of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either unmodified and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is - implicitly or explicitly ([RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) irrelevant. + implicitly or explicitly ([RFC4606] and [RFC6003]) irrelevant. 1.2. Approach Overview The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the transport of traffic-related parameters and GMPLS's support for bidirectional LSPs. The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing @@ -251,21 +255,21 @@ the form 0bbbbbbb). 2.3.1. Procedures The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object - that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The + that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC6003]. The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes. 3. Packet Formats This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RFC5511] for the syntax used by RSVP. Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in this section: @@ -371,23 +375,22 @@ parallel the existing SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but are used in the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages flowing in the reverse direction. From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations. - See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC- - FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security - discussions. + See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [RFC5920] for + a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security discussions. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. @@ -401,22 +404,24 @@ V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 7.2. Informative References - [GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS Control of Ethernet", Work in - Progress, July 2008. + [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., et al "Generalized Multiprotocol Label + Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider + Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)", + RFC 6060, 2011. [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters," RFC 6003, October 2008. [RFC5654] B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed., D. Brungard, Ed. and M. Betts, Ed., "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile," RFC 5654, September 2009. [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for