draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-02.txt | draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-03.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Network Working Group A. Takacs | Network Working Group A. Takacs | |||
Internet-Draft Ericsson | Internet-Draft Ericsson | |||
Obsoletes: 5467 (if approved) L. Berger | Obsoletes: 5467 (if approved) L. Berger | |||
Intended status: Standards Track LabN Consulting, L.L.C. | Intended status: Standards Track LabN Consulting, L.L.C. | |||
Expires: December 31, 2011 D. Caviglia | Expires: February 11, 2012 D. Caviglia | |||
Ericsson | Ericsson | |||
D. Fedyk | D. Fedyk | |||
Alcatel-Lucent | Alcatel-Lucent | |||
J. Meuric | J. Meuric | |||
France Telecom Orange | France Telecom Orange | |||
June 29, 2011 | August 10, 2011 | |||
GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) | GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) | |||
draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-02.txt | draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-03.txt | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric | This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric | |||
bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented | bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented | |||
approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the | approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the | |||
original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport | original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport | |||
of traffic-related parameters. This document moves the experiment | of traffic-related parameters. This document moves the experiment | |||
documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467. | documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467. | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 | skipping to change at page 1, line 42 | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2011. | This Internet-Draft will expire on February 11, 2012. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 | skipping to change at page 6, line 24 | |||
that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while | that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while | |||
the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream | the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream | |||
direction. The new objects also differ in that they are carried in | direction. The new objects also differ in that they are carried in | |||
messages traveling in the opposite direction. | messages traveling in the opposite direction. | |||
2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object | 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object | |||
The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC | The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC | |||
object [RFC2210]. This includes the definition of class types and | object [RFC2210]. This includes the definition of class types and | |||
their formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is | their formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is | |||
TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). | 120 (of the form 0bbbbbbb). | |||
2.1.1. Procedures | 2.1.1. Procedures | |||
The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST | The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST | |||
contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional | contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional | |||
LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The C-Type of the | LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The C-Type of the | |||
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC | UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC | |||
object used in the Path message. The contents of the | object used in the Path message. The contents of the | |||
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and | UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and | |||
procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC | procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC | |||
skipping to change at page 6, line 49 | skipping to change at page 6, line 49 | |||
upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in | upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in | |||
Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is | Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is | |||
unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the | unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the | |||
contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message | contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message | |||
with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication. | with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication. | |||
2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object | 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object | |||
The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC | The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC | |||
object. This includes the definition of class types and their | object. This includes the definition of class types and their | |||
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is TBA by | formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is 121 (of | |||
IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). | the form 0bbbbbbb). | |||
2.2.1. Procedures | 2.2.1. Procedures | |||
The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates | The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates | |||
at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any | at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any | |||
Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an | Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an | |||
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object | UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object | |||
MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. | MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. | |||
The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be constructed using a | The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be constructed using a | |||
format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the | format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the | |||
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 | skipping to change at page 7, line 33 | |||
issue a Path message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to | issue a Path message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to | |||
modify the resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This | modify the resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This | |||
modification might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme | modification might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme | |||
cases might result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient | cases might result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient | |||
resources are not available along the path of the LSP. | resources are not available along the path of the LSP. | |||
2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object | 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object | |||
The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC | The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC | |||
object. This includes the definition of class types and their | object. This includes the definition of class types and their | |||
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is TBA by | formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is 122 (of | |||
IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). | the form 0bbbbbbb). | |||
2.3.1. Procedures | 2.3.1. Procedures | |||
The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that | The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that | |||
corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. | corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. | |||
The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the | The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the | |||
C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents | C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents | |||
of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and | of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and | |||
procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object | procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object | |||
that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC6003]. The | that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC6003]. The | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 | skipping to change at page 11, line 7 | |||
bandwidth, three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is | bandwidth, three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is | |||
defined with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], | defined with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], | |||
nodes not supporting this extension will not recognize the new class | nodes not supporting this extension will not recognize the new class | |||
numbers and will respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The | numbers and will respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The | |||
error message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take | error message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take | |||
action to avoid the path with the incompatible node or can simply | action to avoid the path with the incompatible node or can simply | |||
terminate the session. | terminate the session. | |||
5. IANA Considerations | 5. IANA Considerations | |||
IANA is requested to release the Experimental Review code points | The IANA has made the assignments described below in the "Class | |||
allocated by RFC5467 and assigne code points from the Standrads | Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP | |||
Action range from the objects defined in this document. | ||||
The IANA is requested to make the assignments described below in the | ||||
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP | ||||
PARAMETERS" registry. | PARAMETERS" registry. | |||
5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object | 5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object | |||
A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has to be created in the 0bbbbbbb | A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb | |||
range with the following definition: | range (120) with the following definition: | |||
Class Types or C-types: | Class Types or C-types: | |||
Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9) | Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9) | |||
5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object | 5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object | |||
A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has to be created in the 0bbbbbbb | A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb | |||
range with the following definition: | range (121) with the following definition: | |||
Class Types or C-types: | Class Types or C-types: | |||
Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12) | Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12) | |||
5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object | 5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object | |||
A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has to be created in the 0bbbbbbb | A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb | |||
range with the following definition: | range (122) with the following definition: | |||
Class Types or C-types: | Class Types or C-types: | |||
Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13) | Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13) | |||
6. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS | This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS | |||
signaling [RFC3473] -- specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, | signaling [RFC3473] -- specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, | |||
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These objects | UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These objects | |||
End of changes. 11 change blocks. | ||||
21 lines changed or deleted | 17 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |