draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-01.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-02.txt 
Network Working Group Adrian Farrel (editor) Network Working Group Adrian Farrel (editor)
Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting
Category: Standards Track Category: Standards Track
Expires: July 2004 Arun Satyanarayana Expires: January 2005 Arun Satyanarayana
Movaz Networks, Inc. Movaz Networks, Inc.
Atsushi Iwata Atsushi Iwata
Norihito Fujita Norihito Fujita
NEC Corporation NEC Corporation
Gerald R. Ash Gerald R. Ash (AT&T)
AT&T
Simon Marshall-Unitt Simon Marshall-Unitt
Data Connection Ltd. Data Connection Ltd.
July 2004
January 2004
Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS Signaling Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS Signaling
<draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-01.txt> <draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-02.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
skipping to change at line 126 skipping to change at line 126
10. IANA Considerations............................................24 10. IANA Considerations............................................24
10.1. Error Codes..................................................24 10.1. Error Codes..................................................24
10.2. IF_ID_ERROR_SPEC TLVs........................................24 10.2. IF_ID_ERROR_SPEC TLVs........................................24
10.3. LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object........................................24 10.3. LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object........................................24
11. Security Considerations........................................25 11. Security Considerations........................................25
12. Acknowledgments................................................25 12. Acknowledgments................................................25
13. Intellectual Property Considerations...........................25 13. Intellectual Property Considerations...........................25
14. Normative References...........................................25 14. Normative References...........................................25
15. Informational References.......................................26 15. Informational References.......................................26
16. Authors' Addresses.............................................27 16. Authors' Addresses.............................................27
A. Experience of Crankback in TDM-based Networks .................28 17. Disclaimer of Validity.........................................27
Full Copyright Statement.......................................29 18. Full Copyright Statement.......................................28
A. Experience of Crankback in TDM-based Networks..................29
Section A : Problem Statement Section A : Problem Statement
0. Changes 0. Changes
(This section to be removed before publication as an RFC. (This section to be removed before publication as an RFC.)
0.1 Changes from 00 to 01 Versions 0.1 Changes from 01 to 02 Versions
- Update IPR and copyright
- Update references
0.2 Changes from 00 to 01 Versions
- Removal of background descriptive material pertaining to TDM - Removal of background descriptive material pertaining to TDM
network experience from section 3 to an Appendix. network experience from section 3 to an Appendix.
- Removal of definition of Error Spec TLVs for unnumbered bundled - Removal of definition of Error Spec TLVs for unnumbered bundled
links from section 7.2 to a separate document. links from section 7.2 to a separate document.
- More detailed guidance on which Error Spec TLVs to use when. - More detailed guidance on which Error Spec TLVs to use when.
- Change LSP_ATTRIBUTE flags from hex values to bit numbers. - Change LSP_ATTRIBUTE flags from hex values to bit numbers.
- Typographic errors fixed. - Typographic errors fixed.
- Update references. - Update references.
skipping to change at line 667 skipping to change at line 673
the reporting node. the reporting node.
Type Length Format Description Type Length Format Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
1 8 IPv4 Addr. IPv4 (Interface address) 1 8 IPv4 Addr. IPv4 (Interface address)
2 20 IPv6 Addr. IPv6 (Interface address) 2 20 IPv6 Addr. IPv6 (Interface address)
3 12 Compound IF_INDEX (Interface index) 3 12 Compound IF_INDEX (Interface index)
4 12 Compound COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM (Component interface) 4 12 Compound COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM (Component interface)
5 12 Compound COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM (Component interface) 5 12 Compound COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM (Component interface)
Two further TLVs are defined in [IFID_UNNUM] for use in the IF_ID Two further TLVs are defined in [TE-BUNDLE] for use in the IF_ID
PHOP Object and in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object to identify component PHOP Object and in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object to identify component
links of unnumbered interfaces. Note that the Type values shown here links of unnumbered interfaces. Note that the Type values shown here
are only suggested values in [IFID_UNNUM] - final values are TBD and are only suggested values in [TE-BUNDLE] - final values are TBD and
to be determined by IETF consensus. to be determined by IETF consensus.
Type Length Format Description Type Length Format Description
-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
6 16 Compound UNUM_COMPONENT_IF_DOWN (Component interface) 6 16 Compound UNUM_COMPONENT_IF_DOWN (Component interface)
7 16 Compound UNUM_COMPONENT_IF_UP (Component interface) 7 16 Compound UNUM_COMPONENT_IF_UP (Component interface)
In order to facilitate reporting of crankback information, the In order to facilitate reporting of crankback information, the
following additional TLVs are defined. Note that the Type values following additional TLVs are defined. Note that the Type values
shown here are only suggested values - final values are TBD and to be shown here are only suggested values - final values are TBD and to be
skipping to change at line 716 skipping to change at line 722
29 x See below REPORTING_ISIS_AREA (Area Id) 29 x See below REPORTING_ISIS_AREA (Area Id)
30 8 See below REPORTING_AS (Autonomous system) 30 8 See below REPORTING_AS (Autonomous system)
31 var See below PROPOSED_ERO (ERO subobjects) 31 var See below PROPOSED_ERO (ERO subobjects)
32 var See below NODE_EXCLUSIONS (List of nodes) 32 var See below NODE_EXCLUSIONS (List of nodes)
33 var See below LINK_EXCLUSIONS (List of interfaces) 33 var See below LINK_EXCLUSIONS (List of interfaces)
For types 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the format of the Value field For types 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the format of the Value field
is already defined in [RFC3471]. is already defined in [RFC3471].
For types 6 and 7 the format of the Value field is already For types 6 and 7 the format of the Value field is already
defined in [IFID_UNNUM]. defined in [TE-BUNDLE].
For types 16 and 18, they format of the Value field is For types 16 and 18, they format of the Value field is
the same as for type 1. the same as for type 1.
For types 17 and 19, the format of the Value field is the For types 17 and 19, the format of the Value field is the
same as for type 2. same as for type 2.
For types 20, 21 and 22, the formats of the Value fields For types 20, 21 and 22, the formats of the Value fields
are the same as for types 3, 4 and 5 respectively. are the same as for types 3, 4 and 5 respectively.
skipping to change at line 1393 skipping to change at line 1399
We would like to thank Juha Heinanen and Srinivas Makam We would like to thank Juha Heinanen and Srinivas Makam
for their review and comments, and Zhi-Wei Lin for his for their review and comments, and Zhi-Wei Lin for his
considered opinions. Thanks, too, to John Drake for considered opinions. Thanks, too, to John Drake for
encouraging us to resurrect this document and consider encouraging us to resurrect this document and consider
the use of the IF-ID ERROR SPEC object. Thanks for a the use of the IF-ID ERROR SPEC object. Thanks for a
welcome and very thorough review by Dimitri Papadimitriou. welcome and very thorough review by Dimitri Papadimitriou.
13. Intellectual Property Considerations 13. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
Director. ipr@ietf.org.
14. Normative References 14. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] R. Braden, et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] R. Braden, et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC2205, September Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC2205, September
1997. 1997.
skipping to change at line 1434 skipping to change at line 1442
[RFC3471] P. Ashwood-Smith and L. Berger, et al., "Generalized [RFC3471] P. Ashwood-Smith and L. Berger, et al., "Generalized
MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, MPLS - Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003. January 2003.
[RFC3473] L. Berger, et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE [RFC3473] L. Berger, et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE
Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[LSP-ATTRIB] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, JP. Vasseur, "Encoding of [LSP-ATTRIB] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, JP. Vasseur, "Encoding of
Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE", Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using RSVP-TE",
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-00.txt, December 2003, draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-03.txt, March 2003,
work in progress. work in progress.
[ASON-REQ] D. Papadimitriou, J. Drake, J. Ash, A. Farrel, L. Ong, [ASON-REQ] D. Papadimitriou, J. Drake, J. Ash, A. Farrel, L. Ong,
"Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling "Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling
Usage and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Usage and Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON)", daft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-05.txt Network (ASON)", daft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-06.txt
November 2003, work in progress. April 2004, work in progress.
15. Informational References 15. Informational References
[ASH1] G. Ash, ITU-T Recommendations E.360.1 --> E.360.7, "QoS [ASH1] G. Ash, ITU-T Recommendations E.360.1 --> E.360.7, "QoS
Routing & Related Traffic Engineering Methods for IP-, Routing & Related Traffic Engineering Methods for IP-,
ATM-, & TDM-Based Multiservice Networks", May, 2002. ATM-, & TDM-Based Multiservice Networks", May, 2002.
[FASTRR] Ping Pan, et al., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE [FASTRR] Ping Pan, et al., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE
for LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute- for LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-
03.txt, July 2003 (work in progress). 06.txt, November 2003 (work in progress).
[G8080] ITU-T Recommendation G.808/Y.1304, Architecture for the [G8080] ITU-T Recommendation G.808/Y.1304, Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON), November Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON), November
2001. 2001.
[EXCLUDE] C-Y. Lee, A. Farrel and S De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes - [EXCLUDE] C-Y. Lee, A. Farrel and S De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude- Extension to RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-
route-01.txt, December 2003 (work in progress). route-02.txt, July 2004 (work in progress).
[PNNI] ATM Forum, "Private Network-Network Interface [PNNI] ATM Forum, "Private Network-Network Interface
Specification Version 1.0 (PNNI 1.0)", <af-pnni- Specification Version 1.0 (PNNI 1.0)", <af-pnni-
0055.000>, May 1996. 0055.000>, May 1996.
[RFC2702] D. Awduche, et al., "Requirements for Traffic [RFC2702] D. Awduche, et al., "Requirements for Traffic
Engineering Over MPLS", RFC2702, September 1999. Engineering Over MPLS", RFC2702, September 1999.
[RFC3469] V. Sharma, et al., "Framework for MPLS-based Recovery", [RFC3469] V. Sharma, et al., "Framework for MPLS-based Recovery",
RFC 3469, February 2003. RFC 3469, February 2003.
[INTER-AS] JP. Vasseur and R. Zhang, "Inter-AS MPLS Traffic [TE-BUNDLE] Z. Ali, A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, A. Satyanarayana,
Engineering", draft-vasseur-inter-as-te-01.txt, June and A. Zamfir, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
2003, work in progress. Switching (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling using Bundled
Traffic Engineering (TE) Links", draft-dimitri-ccamp-
[IFID_UNNUM] A. Farrel and A. Satyanarayana, "Identification of gmpls-rsvp-te-bundled-links-00.txt, May 2004, work in
Component Links of Unnumbered Interfaces", draft-farrel- progress.
ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt, January 2004, work in progress.
16. Authors' Addresses 16. Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel (editor) Adrian Farrel (editor)
Old Dog Consulting Old Dog Consulting
Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944 Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Arun Satyanarayana Arun Satyanarayana
Movaz Networks, Inc. Movaz Networks, Inc.
skipping to change at line 1527 skipping to change at line 1534
Fax: (+1) 732-368-8659 Fax: (+1) 732-368-8659
EMail: gash@att.com EMail: gash@att.com
Simon Marshall-Unitt Simon Marshall-Unitt
Data Connection Ltd. Data Connection Ltd.
100 Church Street 100 Church Street
Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 6BQ, UK Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 6BQ, UK
Phone: (+44) (0)-208-366-1177 Phone: (+44) (0)-208-366-1177
EMail: smu@dataconnection.com EMail: smu@dataconnection.com
17. Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
18. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Appendix A. Experience of Crankback in TDM-based Networks Appendix A. Experience of Crankback in TDM-based Networks
Experience of using release messages in TDM-based networks for Experience of using release messages in TDM-based networks for
analogous repair and re-routing purposes provides some guidance. analogous repair and re-routing purposes provides some guidance.
One can use the receipt of a release message with a cause value (CV) One can use the receipt of a release message with a cause value (CV)
indicating "link congestion" to trigger a re-routing attempt at the indicating "link congestion" to trigger a re-routing attempt at the
originating node. However, this sometimes leads to problems. originating node. However, this sometimes leads to problems.
*--------------------* *-----------------* *--------------------* *-----------------*
skipping to change at line 1626 skipping to change at line 1649
Therefore, the alternate routing should be indicated based on Therefore, the alternate routing should be indicated based on
an explicit indication (as in examples 3 and 4), and it is best an explicit indication (as in examples 3 and 4), and it is best
to know the following information separately: to know the following information separately:
a) where blockage/congestion occurred (as in examples 1-2), a) where blockage/congestion occurred (as in examples 1-2),
and and
b) whether alternate routing "should" be attempted even if b) whether alternate routing "should" be attempted even if
there is no "blockage" (as in example 4). there is no "blockage" (as in example 4).
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights
Reserved. This document and translations of it may be
copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that
comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its
implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and
this paragraph are included on all such copies and
derivative works. However, this document itself may not
be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright
notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose
of developing Internet standards in which case the
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet
Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and
will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its
successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is
provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/