draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-02.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-03.txt 
CCAMP Working Group J. Drake (Calient) CCAMP Working Group J. Drake (Boeing)
Internet Draft D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Internet Draft D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Proposed Category: Standard Track A. Farrel (Old Dog Consulting) Proposed Category: Standard Track A. Farrel (Old Dog Consulting)
D. Brungard (ATT) D. Brungard (ATT)
Z. Ali (Cisco) Z. Ali (Cisco)
A. Ayyangar (Juniper) A. Ayyangar (Juniper)
H. Ould-Brahim (Nortel) H. Ould-Brahim (Nortel)
D. Fedyk (Nortel) D. Fedyk (Nortel)
Expiration Date: January 2005 July 2004 Expiration Date: August 2005 February 2005
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signalling Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signalling
in support of Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) in support of Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-02.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-03.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. of Section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she 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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 22, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies how Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE This document specifies how Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE
signaling may be used and extended to satisfy the requirements of the signaling may be used and extended to satisfy the requirements of the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) architecture specified Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) architecture specified
by the ITU-T. The requirements are in a companion document by the ITU-T. The requirements are in a companion document
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 1
"Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Usage and Extensions for "Requirements for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Usage and Extensions for
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)." Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)."
In particular, this document details the mechanisms for setting up In particular, this document details the mechanisms for setting up
Soft Permanent Connections (SPC), the necessary extensions in Soft Permanent Connections (SPC), the necessary extensions in
delivering full and logical call/connection separation support, the delivering full and logical call/connection separation support, the
extended restart capabilities during control plane failures, extended extended restart capabilities during control plane failures, extended
label usage and crankback signalling capability. label usage and crankback signalling capability.
The mechanisms proposed in this document are applicable to any The mechanisms proposed in this document are applicable to any
environment (including multi-area) and for any type of interface: environment (including multi-area) and for any type of interface:
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires January 2005 1
packet, layer-2, time-division multiplexed, lambda or fiber packet, layer-2, time-division multiplexed, lambda or fiber
switching. switching.
1. Table of Content 1. Table of Content
Abstract ......................................................... 1 Abstract ......................................................... 1
1. Table of Content .............................................. 3 1. Table of Content .............................................. 2
2. Conventions used in this document ............................. 3 2. Conventions used in this document ............................. 3
3. Introduction .................................................. 3 3. Introduction .................................................. 3
3.1 Comparison with Previous Work ................................ 4 3.1 Comparison with Previous Work ................................ 4
3.2 Applicability ................................................ 5 3.2 Applicability ................................................ 5
3.2.1 Network-Network Interface (I-NNI and E-NNI) ................ 6 3.2.1 Network-Network Interface (I-NNI and E-NNI) ................ 6
3.2.2 User-Network Interface (UNI) ............................... 8 3.2.2 User-Network Interface (UNI) ............................... 8
4. Fulfilling ASON Requirements for GMPLS Signaling .............. 8 4. Fulfilling ASON Requirements for GMPLS Signaling .............. 8
4.1 Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) .............................. 8 4.1 Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) .............................. 8
4.2 Call/Connection Separation .................................. 8 4.2 Call/Connection Separation .................................. 8
4.3 Call Segments ................................................ 9 4.3 Call Segments ................................................ 9
skipping to change at line 97 skipping to change at line 108
6.1.3 Short Call ID Encoding .................................... 13 6.1.3 Short Call ID Encoding .................................... 13
6.2 LINK_CAPABILITY Object ...................................... 14 6.2 LINK_CAPABILITY Object ...................................... 14
6.3 Revised Message Format ...................................... 14 6.3 Revised Message Format ...................................... 14
6.3.1 Notify Message ............................................ 15 6.3.1 Notify Message ............................................ 15
6.4 ADMIN_STATUS Object ......................................... 15 6.4 ADMIN_STATUS Object ......................................... 15
7. Procedures in Support of Call and Connections ................ 16 7. Procedures in Support of Call and Connections ................ 16
7.1 Call/Connection Setup Procedures ............................ 16 7.1 Call/Connection Setup Procedures ............................ 16
7.2 Independent Call Setup ...................................... 17 7.2 Independent Call Setup ...................................... 17
7.2.1 Accepting Independent Call Setup .......................... 18 7.2.1 Accepting Independent Call Setup .......................... 18
7.2.2 Rejecting Independent Call Setup .......................... 19 7.2.2 Rejecting Independent Call Setup .......................... 19
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 2
7.3 Adding a Connection to a Call ............................... 19 7.3 Adding a Connection to a Call ............................... 19
7.3.1 Adding a Reverse Direction Connection to a Call ........... 20 7.3.1 Adding a Reverse Direction Connection to a Call ........... 20
7.4 Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup .......................... 20 7.4 Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup .......................... 20
7.4.1 Accepting Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup .............. 20 7.4.1 Accepting Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup .............. 20
7.4.2 Rejecting Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup .............. 21 7.4.2 Rejecting Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup .............. 21
7.5 Call-Free Connection Setup .................................. 21 7.5 Call-Free Connection Setup .................................. 21
7.6 Call Collision .............................................. 21 7.6 Call Collision .............................................. 21
7.7 Call/Connection Teardown .................................... 22 7.7 Call/Connection Teardown .................................... 22
7.7.1 Removal of a Connection from a Call ....................... 22 7.7.1 Removal of a Connection from a Call ....................... 22
7.7.2 Removal of the Last Connection from a Call ................ 23 7.7.2 Removal of the Last Connection from a Call ................ 23
7.7.3 Teardown of an "Empty" Call ............................... 23 7.7.3 Teardown of an "Empty" Call ............................... 23
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 2
7.7.4 Teardown of a Call with Existing Connections .............. 23 7.7.4 Teardown of a Call with Existing Connections .............. 23
7.7.5 Teardown of a Call from the Egress ........................ 23 7.7.5 Teardown of a Call from the Egress ........................ 23
7.8 Control Plane Survivability ................................. 24 7.8 Control Plane Survivability ................................. 24
8. Applicability of Call and Connection Procedures .............. 25 8. Applicability of Call and Connection Procedures .............. 25
8.1 Network-initiated Calls ..................................... 25 8.1 Network-initiated Calls ..................................... 25
8.2 User-initiated Calls ........................................ 25 8.2 User-initiated Calls ........................................ 25
8.3 External Call Managers ...................................... 26 8.3 External Call Managers ...................................... 26
8.3.1 Call Segments ............................................. 26 8.3.1 Call Segments ............................................. 26
9. Non-support of Call ID ....................................... 26 9. Non-support of Call ID ....................................... 26
9.1 Non-support by External Call Managers ....................... 26 9.1 Non-support by External Call Managers ....................... 26
9.2 Non-support by Transit Nodes ................................ 27 9.2 Non-support by Transit Nodes ................................ 27
9.3 Non-support by Egress Nodes ................................. 27 9.3 Non-support by Egress Nodes ................................. 27
10. Security Considerations ..................................... 28 10. Security Considerations ..................................... 28
10.1 Call and Connection Security Considerations ................ 28 10.1 Call and Connection Security Considerations ................ 28
11. IANA Considerations ......................................... 28 11. IANA Considerations ......................................... 28
12. Acknowledgements ............................................ 29 12. Acknowledgements ............................................ 29
13. Intellectual Property Considerations ........................ 29 13. References .................................................. 29
14. References .................................................. 29 13.1 Normative References ....................................... 30
14.1 Normative References ....................................... 30 13.2 Informative References ..................................... 30
14.2 Informative References ..................................... 30 14. Author's Addresses .......................................... 31
15. Author's Addresses .......................................... 31
Appendix 1. Analysis of G.7713.2 against GMPLS RSVP-TE Signaling Appendix 1. Analysis of G.7713.2 against GMPLS RSVP-TE Signaling
Requirements in Support of ASON.................................. 33 Requirements in Support of ASON.................................. 32
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
In addition, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the In addition, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the
terminology used in [RFC3471] and [RFC3473]. terminology used in [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and [RFC3945].
3. Introduction 3. Introduction
This document describes how GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling [RFC3473] can be This document describes how GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling [RFC3473] can be
used and extended in support of Automatically Optical Switched used and extended in support of Automatically Optical Switched
Networks (ASON) as specified in the ITU-T G.8080 recommendation Networks (ASON) as specified in the ITU-T G.8080 recommendation
[G.8080]. Note, however, that the mechanisms that it describes and [G.8080]. Note, however, that the mechanisms that it describes and
references have a larger scope than the one described in this references have a larger scope than the one described in this
document. document.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 3
[ASON-REQ] identifies the requirements to be covered by the [ASON-REQ] identifies the requirements to be covered by the
extensions to the GMPLS signaling protocols to support the extensions to the GMPLS signaling protocols to support the
capabilities of an ASON network. capabilities of an ASON network.
The following are expected from the GMPLS protocol suite to realize The following are expected from the GMPLS protocol suite to realize
the needed ASON functionality: the needed ASON functionality:
a) support for soft permanent connection functionality a) support for soft permanent connection functionality
b) support for call and connection separation b) support for call and connection separation
c) support for call segments c) support for call segments
d) support for extended restart capabilities during control plane d) support for extended restart capabilities during control plane
failures failures
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 3
e) support for extended label association e) support for extended label association
f) support for crankback capability. f) support for crankback capability.
This document is aligned with the [RSVP-CHANGE] process, which This document is aligned with the [RSVP-CHANGE] process, which
requires evaluation of existing protocol functionality for achieving requires evaluation of existing protocol functionality for achieving
the requested functionality and justification for any requested the requested functionality and justification for any requested
changes or new extensions. In this context, the following summarizes changes or new extensions. In this context, the following summarizes
the evaluation made: the evaluation made:
1. Signaling across the internal network-network interface (I-NNI) 1. Signaling across the internal network-network interface (I-NNI)
skipping to change at line 208 skipping to change at line 217
in [G.7713]. in [G.7713].
While [G.7713.2] make use of GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling, there are key While [G.7713.2] make use of GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling, there are key
differences from the problem statement in [ASON-REQ] and the solution differences from the problem statement in [ASON-REQ] and the solution
it provides. These differences result from the development of a it provides. These differences result from the development of a
fuller and clearer set of requirements in [G.8080] after the time fuller and clearer set of requirements in [G.8080] after the time
that [G.7713.2] was published and [ASON-REQ] considerations for that [G.7713.2] was published and [ASON-REQ] considerations for
compatibility aspects with GMPLS [RFC3473]. These differences are compatibility aspects with GMPLS [RFC3473]. These differences are
enumerated below and detailed in Appendix 1. enumerated below and detailed in Appendix 1.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 4
1. As described in [G.8080], there are various models and multiple 1. As described in [G.8080], there are various models and multiple
methods of achieving connections across multiple domains. methods of achieving connections across multiple domains.
[G.7713.2] is similar to a cooperative connection model between [G.7713.2] is similar to a cooperative connection model between
domains, that is, there is no overall coordination, and it uses domains, that is, there is no overall coordination, and it uses
point-to-point external NNI (E-NNI) signaling between inter- point-to-point external NNI (E-NNI) signaling between inter-
domain border controllers (i.e. single-hop LSP). Additionally, it domain border controllers (i.e. single-hop LSP). Additionally, it
requires address resolution at both border controllers regardless requires address resolution at both border controllers regardless
of the address space used. Recent enhancements to [G.8080] of the address space used. Recent enhancements to [G.8080]
include end-to-end network capabilities based on flexible (end- include end-to-end network capabilities based on flexible (end-
to-end) path selection to support optimal route selection i.e. to-end) path selection to support optimal route selection i.e.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 4
source-based re-routing and crankback. source-based re-routing and crankback.
To provide for these enhancements and future capabilities (e.g., To provide for these enhancements and future capabilities (e.g.,
VPNs), [ASON-REQ] is based on an inter-domain model using an end- VPNs), [ASON-REQ] is based on an inter-domain model using an end-
to-end call model, modeling multiple domains as one virtual to-end call model, modeling multiple domains as one virtual
network, and optional one-time (ingress) address resolution network, and optional one-time (ingress) address resolution
(optional, if multiple address families are needed). Note that (optional, if multiple address families are needed). Note that
this model is the same model used by [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and this model is the same model used by [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and
[GMPLS-OVERLAY]. [GMPLS-OVERLAY].
skipping to change at line 263 skipping to change at line 271
5. [G.7713.2] does not support call segment signaling mechanisms, as 5. [G.7713.2] does not support call segment signaling mechanisms, as
required in [G.8080] and [G.7713]. required in [G.8080] and [G.7713].
6. [G.7713.2] defines control plane restart capabilities that are 6. [G.7713.2] defines control plane restart capabilities that are
incompatible with those described in [RFC3473]. incompatible with those described in [RFC3473].
7. [G.7713.2] does not support crankback signaling mechanisms 7. [G.7713.2] does not support crankback signaling mechanisms
[GMPLS-CRANK], as required in [G.8080] and [G.7713]. [GMPLS-CRANK], as required in [G.8080] and [G.7713].
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 5
3.2 Applicability 3.2 Applicability
The requirements placed on the signaling plane of an optical network The requirements placed on the signaling plane of an optical network
to support the capabilities of an Automatically Switched Optical to support the capabilities of an Automatically Switched Optical
Network (see [ASON-REQ]) apply at both the network-network interface Network (see [ASON-REQ]) apply at both the network-network interface
(NNI) and the user-network interface (UNI). (NNI) and the user-network interface (UNI).
Some extensions to the core signaling features (see [RFC3473]) are Some extensions to the core signaling features (see [RFC3473]) are
required in support of some of the ASON requirements. [GMPLS-OVERLAY] required in support of some of the ASON requirements. [GMPLS-OVERLAY]
defines a common set of standard procedures at the user-network defines a common set of standard procedures at the user-network
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 5
interface (UNI). Other documents referenced in specific subsections interface (UNI). Other documents referenced in specific subsections
of this document define specific protocol extensions in support of of this document define specific protocol extensions in support of
specific ASON requirements. specific ASON requirements.
3.2.1 Network-Network Interface (I-NNI and E-NNI) 3.2.1 Network-Network Interface (I-NNI and E-NNI)
At the NNI, the ingress and egress core nodes play a full part in the At the NNI, the ingress and egress core nodes play a full part in the
GMPLS network from a signaling point of view. Applicability of GMPLS GMPLS network from a signaling point of view. Applicability of GMPLS
RSVP-TE signaling at the I-NNI is implicitly detailed in [RFC3471] RSVP-TE signaling at the I-NNI is implicitly detailed in [RFC3471]
and [RFC3473]. Routing information is fully or partially distributed and [RFC3473]. Routing information is fully or partially distributed
skipping to change at line 319 skipping to change at line 327
its Node ID, or by one or more un/numbered TE links that interconnect its Node ID, or by one or more un/numbered TE links that interconnect
core-nodes. A core node need only to know (and track) the interface core-nodes. A core node need only to know (and track) the interface
addresses and/or Node IDs of client nodes to which incoming messages addresses and/or Node IDs of client nodes to which incoming messages
are directed. are directed.
Links may be either numbered or unnumbered. Further, links may be Links may be either numbered or unnumbered. Further, links may be
bundled or unbundled. See [BUNDLE] and [RFC3477], respectively. bundled or unbundled. See [BUNDLE] and [RFC3477], respectively.
(IF_ID) RSVP_HOP object processing at E-NNI boundaries follows the (IF_ID) RSVP_HOP object processing at E-NNI boundaries follows the
rules defined in [RFC3473]. rules defined in [RFC3473].
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 6
2. ERO Processing 2. ERO Processing
An ingress core node MAY receive and potentially reject a Path An ingress core node MAY receive and potentially reject a Path
message that contains an ERO. Such behavior is controlled by message that contains an ERO. Such behavior is controlled by
(hopefully consistent) configuration. If an ingress core node rejects (hopefully consistent) configuration. If an ingress core node rejects
a Path message due to the presence of an ERO it SHOULD return a a Path message due to the presence of an ERO it SHOULD return a
PathErr message with an error code of "Unknown object class" toward PathErr message with an error code of "Unknown object class" toward
the sender. This causes the path setup to fail. the sender. This causes the path setup to fail.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 6
Further an ingress core node MAY accept EROs which include a sequence Further an ingress core node MAY accept EROs which include a sequence
of [<egress core node, ingress core node>]. This is to support of [<egress core node, ingress core node>]. This is to support
explicit label control on the egress core node interface. Incoming explicit label control on the egress core node interface. Incoming
EROs may also include a combination of the latter with sequence of EROs may also include a combination of the latter with sequence of
loose ingress core node addresses and/or AS numbers. If an ingress loose ingress core node addresses and/or AS numbers. If an ingress
core node rejects a Path message due to the presence of an ERO not of core node rejects a Path message due to the presence of an ERO not of
the permitted format it SHOULD return a PathErr message with an error the permitted format it SHOULD return a PathErr message with an error
code of Bad Explicit Route Object as defined in [RFC3209]. code of Bad Explicit Route Object as defined in [RFC3209].
- Path Message without ERO: when an ingress core node receives a Path - Path Message without ERO: when an ingress core node receives a Path
message from an egress core node that contains no ERO, it MUST message from an egress core node that contains no ERO, it MUST
calculate a route to the destination and include that route in a ERO, calculate a route to the destination and include that route in a
before forwarding the PATH message. One exception would be if the ERO, before forwarding the PATH message. One exception would be if
egress core node were also adjacent to this core node. If no route the egress core node were also adjacent to this core node. If no
can be found, the ingress core node SHOULD return a PathErr message route can be found, the ingress core node SHOULD return a PathErr
with an Error code and value of 24,5 - "No route available toward message with an Error code and value of 24,5 - "No route available
destination". toward destination".
- Path Message with ERO: when an ingress core node receives a Path - Path Message with ERO: when an ingress core node receives a Path
message from an egress core node that contains an ERO, the ingress message from an egress core node that contains an ERO, the ingress
core node SHOULD verify the route against its topology database core node SHOULD verify the route against its topology database
before forwarding the PATH message. If the route is not viable, then before forwarding the PATH message. If the route is not viable,
a PathErr message with an error code and value of 24,5 - "No route then a PathErr message with an error code and value of 24,5 - "No
available toward destination" should be returned. route available toward destination" should be returned.
3. RRO Processing 3. RRO Processing
An egress or an ingress core node MAY include an RRO and MAY remove An egress or an ingress core node MAY include an RRO and MAY remove
the RRO from the received Path message before forwarding it. Further the RRO from the received Path message before forwarding it. Further
an egress or an ingress core node MAY remove the RRO from a Resv an egress or an ingress core node MAY remove the RRO from a Resv
message before forwarding it. Such behavior is controlled by message before forwarding it. Such behavior is controlled by
(hopefully consistent) configuration. (hopefully consistent) configuration.
Further an ingress core node MAY edit the RRO in a Resv message such Further an ingress core node MAY edit the RRO in a Resv message such
that it includes only the subobjects from the egress core node that it includes only the subobjects from the egress core node
through the ingress core node of a neighboring E-NNI. This is to through the ingress core node of a neighboring E-NNI. This is to
allow the ingress core node to be aware of the selected link and allow the ingress core node to be aware of the selected link and
labels on the far end of the connection traversing this network. labels on the far end of the connection traversing this network.
4. Notification 4. Notification
An ingress core node MAY include a NOTIFY_REQUEST object in both the An ingress core node MAY include a NOTIFY_REQUEST object in both the
Path and Resv messages it forwards. An ingress node MAY remove the Path and Resv messages it forwards. An ingress node MAY remove the
NOTIFY_REQUEST object from the Path and Resv message before NOTIFY_REQUEST object from the Path and Resv message before
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 7
forwarding it. An egress node MAY remove the NOTIFY_REQUEST object forwarding it. An egress node MAY remove the NOTIFY_REQUEST object
from the Path and Resv message before forwarding it. Core nodes may from the Path and Resv message before forwarding it. Core nodes may
send Notification messages to ingress/egress core nodes, which have send Notification messages to ingress/egress core nodes, which have
included the NOTIFY_REQUEST object. included the NOTIFY_REQUEST object.
Note: the use of the Notify message for independent Call setup as Note: the use of the Notify message for independent Call setup as
defined in this document extends the one specified in [RFC-3473]. defined in this document extends the one specified in [RFC-3473].
3.2.2 User-Network Interface (UNI) 3.2.2 User-Network Interface (UNI)
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 7
At the UNI, the ingress and/or the egress nodes are not full players At the UNI, the ingress and/or the egress nodes are not full players
in the GMPLS network. Signaling information may be filtered and in the GMPLS network. Signaling information may be filtered and
substituted by the network. This process is described in [GMPLS- substituted by the network. This process is described in [GMPLS-
OVERLAY]. Routing information leaked to the ingress/egress nodes is OVERLAY]. Routing information leaked to the ingress/egress nodes is
very limited. very limited.
The ingress node may initiate an LSP setup/teardown request to the The ingress node may initiate an LSP setup/teardown request to the
network using standard GMPLS procedures. The modifications to network using standard GMPLS procedures. The modifications to
behavior described in [GMPLS-OVERLAY] apply to the nodes within the behavior described in [GMPLS-OVERLAY] apply to the nodes within the
network (in particular, the network edge nodes) and not ingress or network (in particular, the network edge nodes) and not ingress or
skipping to change at line 428 skipping to change at line 437
LSP setup) LSP setup)
- Support of virtual concatenation with diverse path component LSPs - Support of virtual concatenation with diverse path component LSPs
- Multiple LSP association with a single call (note aspects related - Multiple LSP association with a single call (note aspects related
to recovery are detailed in [GMPLS-FUNCT] and [GMPLS-E2E]) to recovery are detailed in [GMPLS-FUNCT] and [GMPLS-E2E])
- Facilitate control plane operations by allowing operational status - Facilitate control plane operations by allowing operational status
change of the associated LSP. change of the associated LSP.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 8
Procedures and protocol extensions to support Call setup, and the Procedures and protocol extensions to support Call setup, and the
association of Calls with Connections are described in sections 5 and association of Calls with Connections are described in sections 5 and
onwards of this document. onwards of this document.
4.3 Call Segments 4.3 Call Segments
Call segments capabilities MUST be supported by both independent call Call segments capabilities MUST be supported by both independent call
setup and simultaneous call/connection setup. setup and simultaneous call/connection setup.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 8
Procedures and (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling protocol extensions to Procedures and (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling protocol extensions to
support call segments are described in sections 8.4.1 of this support call segments are described in sections 8.4.1 of this
document. document.
4.4 Control Plane Restart Capabilities 4.4 Control Plane Restart Capabilities
Restart capabilities are provided by GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling in case Restart capabilities are provided by GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling in case
of control plane failure including nodal and control channel faults. of control plane failure including nodal and control channel faults.
The handling of node and control channels faults is described in The handling of node and control channels faults is described in
[RFC3473] Section 9. No additional RSVP mechanisms or objects are [RFC3473] Section 9. No additional RSVP mechanisms or objects are
skipping to change at line 482 skipping to change at line 491
Crankback mechanisms for (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling are covered in a Crankback mechanisms for (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling are covered in a
dedicated companion document [GMPLS-CRANK]. That document is intended dedicated companion document [GMPLS-CRANK]. That document is intended
to fulfill all the corresponding ASON requirements as well as to fulfill all the corresponding ASON requirements as well as
satisfying any other crankback needs. satisfying any other crankback needs.
4.7 Additional Error Codes 4.7 Additional Error Codes
Error codes corresponding to the mechanisms defined in this document Error codes corresponding to the mechanisms defined in this document
are specified along each section and summarized in Section 11. are specified along each section and summarized in Section 11.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 9
5. Concepts and Terms 5. Concepts and Terms
The concept of a Call and a Connection are discussed in the ASON The concept of a Call and a Connection are discussed in the ASON
architecture [G.8080]. This section is not intended as a substitute architecture [G.8080]. This section is not intended as a substitute
for that document, but is a brief summary of the key terms and for that document, but is a brief summary of the key terms and
concepts. concepts.
5.1 What is a Call? 5.1 What is a Call?
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 9
A Call is an agreement between endpoints possibly in cooperation with A Call is an agreement between endpoints possibly in cooperation with
the nodes that provide access to the network. Call setup may include the nodes that provide access to the network. Call setup may include
capability exchange, policy, authorization and security. capability exchange, policy, authorization and security.
A Call is used to facilitate and manage a set of Connections that A Call is used to facilitate and manage a set of Connections that
provide end to end data services. While Connections require state to provide end to end data services. While Connections require state to
be maintained at nodes along the data path within the network, Calls be maintained at nodes along the data path within the network, Calls
do not involve the participation of transit nodes except to forward do not involve the participation of transit nodes except to forward
the Call management requests as transparent messages. the Call management requests as transparent messages.
skipping to change at line 535 skipping to change at line 545
- LSP IDs are unique within the context of a Tunnel. - LSP IDs are unique within the context of a Tunnel.
Note that the Call_ID value of zero is reserved and MUST NOT be used Note that the Call_ID value of zero is reserved and MUST NOT be used
during LSP-independent call establishment. during LSP-independent call establishment.
Throughout the remainder of this document, the terms LSP and Tunnel Throughout the remainder of this document, the terms LSP and Tunnel
are used interchangeably with the term Connection. The case of a are used interchangeably with the term Connection. The case of a
Tunnel that is supported by more than one LSP is covered implicitly. Tunnel that is supported by more than one LSP is covered implicitly.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 10
5.3 Exchanging Access Link Capabilities 5.3 Exchanging Access Link Capabilities
It is useful for the ingress node of an LSP to know the link It is useful for the ingress node of an LSP to know the link
capabilities of the link between the network and the egress node. capabilities of the link between the network and the egress node.
This information may allow the ingress node to tailor its LSP request This information may allow the ingress node to tailor its LSP request
to fit those capabilities and to better utilize network resources to fit those capabilities and to better utilize network resources
with regard to those capabilities. with regard to those capabilities.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 10
In particular, this may be used to achieve end-to-end spectral In particular, this may be used to achieve end-to-end spectral
routing attribute negotiation for signal quality negotiation (such as routing attribute negotiation for signal quality negotiation (such as
BER) in photonic environments where network edges are signal BER) in photonic environments where network edges are signal
regeneration capable. Similarly, it may be used to provide end-to-end regeneration capable. Similarly, it may be used to provide end-to-end
spatial routing attribute negotiation in multi-area routing spatial routing attribute negotiation in multi-area routing
environments, in particular, when TE links have been bundled based on environments, in particular, when TE links have been bundled based on
technology specific attributes. technology specific attributes.
Call setup may provide a suitable mechanism to exchange information Call setup may provide a suitable mechanism to exchange information
for this purpose, although several other possibilities exist. for this purpose, although several other possibilities exist.
skipping to change at line 589 skipping to change at line 600
defined that provide this function. defined that provide this function.
5.3.3 Utilizing Call Setup 5.3.3 Utilizing Call Setup
When IGP and EGP solutions are not available at the UNI, there is When IGP and EGP solutions are not available at the UNI, there is
still a requirement to have, at the local edge nodes, the knowledge still a requirement to have, at the local edge nodes, the knowledge
of the remote edge link capabilities. of the remote edge link capabilities.
The Call setup procedure provides an opportunity to discover edge The Call setup procedure provides an opportunity to discover edge
link capabilities of remote edge nodes before LSP setup is attempted. link capabilities of remote edge nodes before LSP setup is attempted.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 11
The LINK CAPABILITY object is defined to allow this information to be The LINK CAPABILITY object is defined to allow this information to be
exchanged. The information that is included in this object is similar exchanged. The information that is included in this object is similar
to that distributed by GMPLS-capable IGPs (see [GMPLS-RTG]). to that distributed by GMPLS-capable IGPs (see [GMPLS-RTG]).
6. Protocol Extensions for Calls and Connections 6. Protocol Extensions for Calls and Connections
This section describes the protocol extensions needed in support of This section describes the protocol extensions needed in support of
Call identification and management of Calls and Connections. Call identification and management of Calls and Connections.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 11
Procedures for the use of these protocol extensions are described in Procedures for the use of these protocol extensions are described in
section 7. section 7.
6.1 Call Identification 6.1 Call Identification
As soon as the concept of a call is introduced, it is necessary to As soon as the concept of a call is introduced, it is necessary to
support some means of identifying the call. This becomes particularly support some means of identifying the call. This becomes particularly
important when calls and connections are separated and connections important when calls and connections are separated and connections
must contain some reference to the call. must contain some reference to the call.
skipping to change at line 644 skipping to change at line 655
this field MAY be the object of further formatting depending on the this field MAY be the object of further formatting depending on the
naming convention(s). However, [RFC3209] defines the "Session Name" naming convention(s). However, [RFC3209] defines the "Session Name"
field as a Null padded display string, and that any formatting field as a Null padded display string, and that any formatting
conventions for the Call ID must be limited to this scope. conventions for the Call ID must be limited to this scope.
6.1.2 Short Form Call Identification 6.1.2 Short Form Call Identification
The connections (LSPs) associated with a call need to carry a The connections (LSPs) associated with a call need to carry a
reference to the call - the Call ID. Each LSP MAY carry the full long reference to the call - the Call ID. Each LSP MAY carry the full long
Call ID in the "Session Name" of the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object to Call ID in the "Session Name" of the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object to
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 12
achieve this purpose. However, existing (and future) implementations achieve this purpose. However, existing (and future) implementations
may need to place other strings in this field (in particular, the may need to place other strings in this field (in particular, the
field is currently intended to provide the Session Name). To allow field is currently intended to provide the Session Name). To allow
for this possibility a new field is added to the signaling protocol for this possibility a new field is added to the signaling protocol
to identify an individual LSP with the Call to which it belongs. to identify an individual LSP with the Call to which it belongs.
The new field is a 16-bit identifier (unique within the context of The new field is a 16-bit identifier (unique within the context of
the address pairing provided by the Tunnel_End_Point_Address and the the address pairing provided by the Tunnel_End_Point_Address and the
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 12
Sender_Address) that MUST be exchanged during Call initialization and Sender_Address) that MUST be exchanged during Call initialization and
is used on all subsequent LSP setups that are associated with the is used on all subsequent LSP setups that are associated with the
Call. This identifier is known as the short Call ID and is encoded as Call. This identifier is known as the short Call ID and is encoded as
described in Section 6.1.3. When relevant, the Call Id MUST NOT be described in Section 6.1.3. When relevant, the Call Id MUST NOT be
used as part of the processing to determine the session to which an used as part of the processing to determine the session to which an
RSVP signaling message applies. This does not generate any backward RSVP signaling message applies. This does not generate any backward
compatibility issue since the reserved field of the SESSION object compatibility issue since the reserved field of the SESSION object
defined in [RFC3209] MUST NOT be examined on receipt. defined in [RFC3209] MUST NOT be examined on receipt.
In the unlikely case of short Call_ID exhaustion, local node policy In the unlikely case of short Call_ID exhaustion, local node policy
skipping to change at line 699 skipping to change at line 710
IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel End Point Address: 32 bits/128 bits (see [RFC3209]) IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel End Point Address: 32 bits/128 bits (see [RFC3209])
Call_ID: 16 bits Call_ID: 16 bits
A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains
constant over the life of the call. The Call_ID value MUST be constant over the life of the call. The Call_ID value MUST be
set to zero when there is no corresponding call. set to zero when there is no corresponding call.
Tunnel ID: 16 bits (see [RFC3209]) Tunnel ID: 16 bits (see [RFC3209])
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 13
Extended Tunnel ID: 32 bits/128 bits (see [RFC3209]) Extended Tunnel ID: 32 bits/128 bits (see [RFC3209])
6.2 LINK_CAPABILITY object 6.2 LINK_CAPABILITY object
The LINK CAPABILITY object is introduced to support link capability The LINK CAPABILITY object is introduced to support link capability
exchange during Call setup. This optional object includes the bundled exchange during Call setup. This optional object includes the bundled
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 13
link local capabilities of the call initiating node (or terminating link local capabilities of the call initiating node (or terminating
node) indicated by the source address of the Notify message. node) indicated by the source address of the Notify message.
The Class Number is selected so that the nodes that do not recognize The Class Number is selected so that the nodes that do not recognize
this object drop it silently. That is, the top bit is set and the this object drop it silently. That is, the top bit is set and the
next bit is clear. next bit is clear.
This object has the following format: This object has the following format:
Class-Num = TBA (form 10bbbbbb), C_Type = 1 Class-Num = TBA (form 10bbbbbb), C_Type = 1
skipping to change at line 751 skipping to change at line 761
Note: future revisions of this document may extend the above list. Note: future revisions of this document may extend the above list.
This object MAY also be used to exchange more than one bundled link This object MAY also be used to exchange more than one bundled link
capability. In this case, the following ordering MUST be followed: capability. In this case, the following ordering MUST be followed:
one identifier subobject (Type 1, 2 or 4) MUST be inserted before any one identifier subobject (Type 1, 2 or 4) MUST be inserted before any
capability subobject (Type 64 or 65) to which it refers. capability subobject (Type 64 or 65) to which it refers.
6.3 Revised Message Formats 6.3 Revised Message Formats
One message (the Notify message) is enhanced to support Call The Notify message is enhanced (and referred thereby to as an
establishment and teardown of Calls that operate independent of LSPs. unsolicited Notify message) to support Call establishment and
See section 7 for a description of the procedures.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 14
teardown of Calls that operate independent of LSPs. See section 7 for
a description of the procedures.
6.3.1 Notify Message 6.3.1 Notify Message
The Notify message is modified in support of Call establishment by The Notify message is modified in support of Call establishment by
the optional addition of the LINK CAPABILTY object. Further, the the optional addition of the LINK CAPABILTY object. Further, the
SESSION ATTRIBUTE object is added to the <notify session> sequence to SESSION ATTRIBUTE object is added to the <notify session> sequence to
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 14
carry the long Call ID. The presence of the SESSION ATTIBUTE object carry the long Call ID. The presence of the SESSION ATTIBUTE object
MAY be used to distinguish a Notify message used for Call management. MAY be used to distinguish a Notify message used for Call management.
The <notify session list> MAY be used to setup simultaneously The <notify session list> MAY be used to setup simultaneously
multiple Calls. multiple Calls.
The format of the Notify Message is as follows: The format of the Notify Message is as follows:
<Notify message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] <Notify message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[[ <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>]...] [[ <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>]...]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
skipping to change at line 808 skipping to change at line 819
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| Reserved |C|T|A|D| |R| Reserved |C|T|A|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reflect (R): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] Reflect (R): 1 bit - see [RFC3471]
Testing (T): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] Testing (T): 1 bit - see [RFC3471]
Administratively down (A): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] Administratively down (A): 1 bit - see [RFC3471]
Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit - see [RFC3471]
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 15
Call Management (C): 1 bit Call Management (C): 1 bit
This bit is set when the message is being used to control This bit is set when the message is being used to control
and manage a Call. and manage a Call.
The procedures for the use of the C bit are described in section 7. The procedures for the use of the C bit are described in section 7.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 15
Note that the use of the C bit may appear as redundant since Call Note that the use of the C bit may appear as redundant since Call
setup can be distinguished by the presence of the SESSION ATTRIBUTE setup can be distinguished by the presence of the SESSION ATTRIBUTE
object in a Notify message or an non-zero short Call ID value in a object in a Notify message or an non-zero short Call ID value in a
Path message. However, in the case of lost messages and node restart, Path message. However, in the case of lost messages and node restart,
this further distinction is useful to distinguish Path messages that this further distinction is useful to distinguish Path messages that
set up Calls from Path messages that belong to calls. set up Calls from Path messages that belong to calls.
7. Procedures in Support of Calls and Connections 7. Procedures in Support of Calls and Connections
7.1 Call/Connection Setup Procedures 7.1 Call/Connection Setup Procedures
skipping to change at line 860 skipping to change at line 871
- A Connection may be established without any reference to a Call. - A Connection may be established without any reference to a Call.
This encompasses the previous LSP setup procedure. This encompasses the previous LSP setup procedure.
Note that a Call MAY NOT be imposed upon a Connection that is already Note that a Call MAY NOT be imposed upon a Connection that is already
established. To do so would require changing the short Call Id in the established. To do so would require changing the short Call Id in the
SESSION OBJECT of the existing LSPs and this would constitute a SESSION OBJECT of the existing LSPs and this would constitute a
change in the Session Identifier. This is not allowed by existing change in the Session Identifier. This is not allowed by existing
protocol specifications. protocol specifications.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 16
Call and Connection teardown procedures are described later in Call and Connection teardown procedures are described later in
Section 7.7. Section 7.7.
7.2 Independent Call Setup 7.2 Independent Call Setup
It is possible to set up a Call before, and independent of, LSP It is possible to set up a Call before, and independent of, LSP
setup. A Call setup without LSPs MUST follow the procedure described setup. A Call setup without LSPs MUST follow the procedure described
in this section. in this section.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 16
Prior to the LSP establishment, Call setup MAY necessitate Prior to the LSP establishment, Call setup MAY necessitate
verification of the link status and link capability negotiation verification of the link status and link capability negotiation
between the Call ingress node and the Call egress node. The procedure between the Call ingress node and the Call egress node. The procedure
described below is applied only once for a Call and hence only once described below is applied only once for a Call and hence only once
for the set of LSPs associated with a Call. for the set of LSPs associated with a Call.
The Notify message (see [RFC3473]) is used to signal the Call setup The Notify message (see [RFC3473]) is used to signal the Call setup
request and response. The new Call Management (C) bit in the request and response. The new Call Management (C) bit in the
ADMIN_STATUS object is used to indicate that this Notify is managing ADMIN_STATUS object is used to indicate that this Notify is managing
a Call. The Notify message is sent with source and destination a Call. The Notify message is sent with source and destination
skipping to change at line 914 skipping to change at line 925
the Sender_Address from the SENDER TEMPLATE object (see below). the Sender_Address from the SENDER TEMPLATE object (see below).
Note that the Call_ID value of zero is reserved and MUST NOT be Note that the Call_ID value of zero is reserved and MUST NOT be
used during LSP-independent call establishment. The Tunnel_ID of used during LSP-independent call establishment. The Tunnel_ID of
the SESSION object is not relevant for this procedure and SHOULD the SESSION object is not relevant for this procedure and SHOULD
be set to zero. The Extended_Tunnel_ID of the SESSION object is be set to zero. The Extended_Tunnel_ID of the SESSION object is
not relevant for this procedure and MAY be set to zero or to an not relevant for this procedure and MAY be set to zero or to an
address of the ingress node. address of the ingress node.
- The SESSION ATTRIBUTE object contains priority flags. Currently no - The SESSION ATTRIBUTE object contains priority flags. Currently no
use of these flags is envisioned, however, future work may use of these flags is envisioned, however, future work may
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 17
identify value is assigning priorities to Calls; accordingly the identify value is assigning priorities to Calls; accordingly the
Priority fields MAY be set to non-zero values. None of the Flags Priority fields MAY be set to non-zero values. None of the Flags
in the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object are relevant to this process and in the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object are relevant to this process and
this field SHOULD be set to zero. The Session Name field is used this field SHOULD be set to zero. The Session Name field is used
to carry the long Call Id as described in Section 6. to carry the long Call Id as described in Section 6.
- The SENDER_TEMPLATE object includes as Sender Address any of the - The SENDER_TEMPLATE object includes as Sender Address any of the
call initiating (ingress) node's IPv4/IPv6 routable addresses. The call initiating (ingress) node's IPv4/IPv6 routable addresses. The
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 17
LSP_ID is not relevant and SHOULD be set to zero. LSP_ID is not relevant and SHOULD be set to zero.
- The bandwidth value inserted in the SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC - The bandwidth value inserted in the SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC
objects MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD be set to zero objects MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD be set to zero
when sent. when sent.
Additionally, ingress/egress nodes that need to communicate their Additionally, ingress/egress nodes that need to communicate their
respective link local capabilities may include a LINK_CAPABILITY respective link local capabilities may include a LINK_CAPABILITY
object in the Notify message. object in the Notify message.
skipping to change at line 968 skipping to change at line 979
- The responder removes any LINK CAPABLITY object that was received - The responder removes any LINK CAPABLITY object that was received
and MAY insert a LINK CAPABILITY object that describes its own and MAY insert a LINK CAPABILITY object that describes its own
access link. access link.
- The ADMIN STATUS object is sent with only the C bit set. All other - The ADMIN STATUS object is sent with only the C bit set. All other
bits MUST be set to zero. bits MUST be set to zero.
The responder MAY use the Message ID object to ensure reliable The responder MAY use the Message ID object to ensure reliable
delivery of the response. If no Message ID Acknowledgement is delivery of the response. If no Message ID Acknowledgement is
received after the configured number of retries, the responder should received after the configured number of retries, the responder should
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 18
continue to assume that the Call was successfully established. Call continue to assume that the Call was successfully established. Call
liveliness procedures are covered in section 7.8. liveliness procedures are covered in section 7.8.
7.2.2 Rejecting Independent Call Setup 7.2.2 Rejecting Independent Call Setup
Call setup may fail or be rejected. Call setup may fail or be rejected.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 18
If the Notify message can not be delivered, no Message ID If the Notify message can not be delivered, no Message ID
acknowledgement will be received by the sender. In the event that the acknowledgement will be received by the sender. In the event that the
sender has retransmitted the Notify message a configurable number of sender has retransmitted the Notify message a configurable number of
times without receiving a Message ID Acknowledgement (as described in times without receiving a Message ID Acknowledgement (as described in
[RFC3473]), the initiator SHOULD declare the Call failed and SHOULD [RFC3473]), the initiator SHOULD declare the Call failed and SHOULD
send a Call teardown request (see section 7.7). send a Call teardown request (see section 7.7).
It is also possible that a Message ID Acknowledgement is received but It is also possible that a Message ID Acknowledgement is received but
no Call response Notify message is received. In this case, the no Call response Notify message is received. In this case, the
initiator MAY re-send the Call setup request a configurable number of initiator MAY re-send the Call setup request a configurable number of
skipping to change at line 1022 skipping to change at line 1034
LSPs for different Calls can be distinguished because the Call ID is LSPs for different Calls can be distinguished because the Call ID is
unique within the context of the source address (in the SENDER unique within the context of the source address (in the SENDER
TEMPLATE object) and the destination address (in the SESSION object). TEMPLATE object) and the destination address (in the SESSION object).
Ingress and egress nodes may group together LSPs associated with the Ingress and egress nodes may group together LSPs associated with the
same call and process them as a group according to implementation same call and process them as a group according to implementation
requirements. Transit nodes need not be aware of the association of requirements. Transit nodes need not be aware of the association of
multiple LSPs with the same Call. multiple LSPs with the same Call.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 19
The ingress node MAY choose to set the "Session Name" of an LSP to The ingress node MAY choose to set the "Session Name" of an LSP to
match the long Call ID of the associated Call and the "Session Name" match the long Call ID of the associated Call and the "Session Name"
MAY still be used to distinguish between virtually concatenated LSPs MAY still be used to distinguish between virtually concatenated LSPs
belonging to the same Call. Thus, there is not necessarily a one-to- belonging to the same Call. Thus, there is not necessarily a one-to-
one mapping between the "Session Name" of an LSP and the short one mapping between the "Session Name" of an LSP and the short
Call_ID. Call_ID.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 19
The C bit of the ADMIN STATUS object MUST NOT be set on LSP messages. The C bit of the ADMIN STATUS object MUST NOT be set on LSP messages.
7.3.1 Adding a Reverse Direction LSP to a Call 7.3.1 Adding a Reverse Direction LSP to a Call
Note that once a Call has been established it is symmetric. That is, Note that once a Call has been established it is symmetric. That is,
either end of the Call may add LSPs to the Call. either end of the Call may add LSPs to the Call.
Special care is needed when managing LSPs in the reverse direction Special care is needed when managing LSPs in the reverse direction
since the addresses in the SESSION and SENDER TEMPLATE are reversed. since the addresses in the SESSION and SENDER TEMPLATE are reversed.
However, since the short Call ID is unique in the context of a given However, since the short Call ID is unique in the context of a given
skipping to change at line 1076 skipping to change at line 1088
the SESSION object as described above. The reserved value of zero is the SESSION object as described above. The reserved value of zero is
used when the LSP is being set up with no association to a Call. used when the LSP is being set up with no association to a Call.
7.4.1 Accepting Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup 7.4.1 Accepting Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup
A Path message that requests simultaneous Call and Connection setup A Path message that requests simultaneous Call and Connection setup
is subject to local authorization and policy procedures applicable to is subject to local authorization and policy procedures applicable to
Call establishment in addition to the standard procedures associated Call establishment in addition to the standard procedures associated
with LSP setup described in [RFC3473]. with LSP setup described in [RFC3473].
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 20
If the Call and LSP setup is to be accepted, a Resv message is If the Call and LSP setup is to be accepted, a Resv message is
returned. The Resv message MUST carry the ADMIN STATUS object with returned. The Resv message MUST carry the ADMIN STATUS object with
the R bit clear and the C bit set. Other bits may be set or cleared the R bit clear and the C bit set. Other bits may be set or cleared
according to the requirements of LSP setup. The D bit MUST NOT be according to the requirements of LSP setup. The D bit MUST NOT be
set. set.
The Call ID MUST be reflected in the SESSION object. The Call ID MUST be reflected in the SESSION object.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 20
7.4.2 Rejecting Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup 7.4.2 Rejecting Simultaneous Call/Connection Setup
The Path message that is sent to set up a Call and Connection The Path message that is sent to set up a Call and Connection
simultaneously may fail or be rejected. simultaneously may fail or be rejected.
Failures may include all those reasons described in [RFC3473]. Failures may include all those reasons described in [RFC3473].
Additionally, policy and authorization reasons specifically Additionally, policy and authorization reasons specifically
associated with Call setup may cause the Path message to be rejected. associated with Call setup may cause the Path message to be rejected.
The PathErr message is issued to signal such failures and no new The PathErr message is issued to signal such failures and no new
skipping to change at line 1131 skipping to change at line 1142
a response, itself receives a Call setup request with the same long a response, itself receives a Call setup request with the same long
Call ID and matching source/destination addresses it should process Call ID and matching source/destination addresses it should process
as follows. as follows.
- If its source address is numerically greater than the remote - If its source address is numerically greater than the remote
source address, it MUST discard the received message and continue source address, it MUST discard the received message and continue
to wait for a response to its setup request. to wait for a response to its setup request.
- If its source address is numerically smaller than the remote - If its source address is numerically smaller than the remote
source address, it MUST discard state associated with the Call source address, it MUST discard state associated with the Call
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 21
setup that it initiated, and MUST respond to the received Call setup that it initiated, and MUST respond to the received Call
setup. setup.
In the second case, special processing is necessary if simultaneous In the second case, special processing is necessary if simultaneous
Call and Connection establishment was being used. Firstly, the node Call and Connection establishment was being used. Firstly, the node
that is discarding the Call that it initiated MUST send a PathTear that is discarding the Call that it initiated MUST send a PathTear
message to remove state from transit nodes. Secondly, this node may message to remove state from transit nodes. Secondly, this node may
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 21
want to hold onto the Connection request and establish an LSP once want to hold onto the Connection request and establish an LSP once
the Call is in place since only the Call that it was trying to the Call is in place since only the Call that it was trying to
establish has been set up by the destination - the Connection may establish has been set up by the destination - the Connection may
still be required. still be required.
A further possibility for contention arises when Call IDs are A further possibility for contention arises when Call IDs are
assigned by a pair of nodes for two distinct Calls that are set up assigned by a pair of nodes for two distinct Calls that are set up
simultaneously. In this event a node receives a Call setup request simultaneously. In this event a node receives a Call setup request
carrying a short Call ID that matches one that it previously sent for carrying a short Call ID that matches one that it previously sent for
the same address pair. The following processing MUST be followed. the same address pair. The following processing MUST be followed.
skipping to change at line 1186 skipping to change at line 1197
described in [RFC3473]. described in [RFC3473].
7.7.1 Removal of a Connection from a Call 7.7.1 Removal of a Connection from a Call
An LSP that is associated with a Call may be deleted using the An LSP that is associated with a Call may be deleted using the
standard procedures described in [RFC3743]. No special procedures are standard procedures described in [RFC3743]. No special procedures are
required. required.
Note that it is not possible to remove an LSP from a Call without Note that it is not possible to remove an LSP from a Call without
deleting the LSP. It is not valid to change the short Call ID from deleting the LSP. It is not valid to change the short Call ID from
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 22
non-zero to zero since this involves a change to the SESSION object, non-zero to zero since this involves a change to the SESSION object,
which is not allowed. which is not allowed.
7.7.2 Removal of the Last Connection from a Call 7.7.2 Removal of the Last Connection from a Call
When the last LSP associated with a Call is deleted the question When the last LSP associated with a Call is deleted the question
arises as to what happens to the Call. Since a Call may exist arises as to what happens to the Call. Since a Call may exist
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 22
independently of Connections, it is not always acceptable to say that independently of Connections, it is not always acceptable to say that
the removal of the last LSP from a Call removes the Call. the removal of the last LSP from a Call removes the Call.
If the Call was set up using independent Call setup (that is, using a If the Call was set up using independent Call setup (that is, using a
Notify message) the removal of the last LSP does not remove the Call Notify message) the removal of the last LSP does not remove the Call
and the procedures described in the next section MUST be used to and the procedures described in the next section MUST be used to
delete the Call. delete the Call.
If the Call was set up using simultaneous Call/Connection If the Call was set up using simultaneous Call/Connection
establishment, the removal of the last LSP does remove the Call and establishment, the removal of the last LSP does remove the Call and
skipping to change at line 1241 skipping to change at line 1252
rejected with the Error Code "Call Management" (TBD) and Error Value rejected with the Error Code "Call Management" (TBD) and Error Value
"Connection Still Exists" (TBD). "Connection Still Exists" (TBD).
7.7.5 Teardown of a Call from the Egress 7.7.5 Teardown of a Call from the Egress
Since Calls are symmetric they may be torn down from the ingress or Since Calls are symmetric they may be torn down from the ingress or
egress. egress.
If the Call was established using simultaneous Call/Connection setup If the Call was established using simultaneous Call/Connection setup
the removal of the last LSP deletes the Call. This, regardless of the removal of the last LSP deletes the Call. This, regardless of
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 23
whether the LSP is torn down by using a PathTear message (for an whether the LSP is torn down by using a PathTear message (for an
egress-initiated LSP) or by using a PathErr message with the egress-initiated LSP) or by using a PathErr message with the
Path_State_Removed flag set (for an ingress-initiated LSP). Path_State_Removed flag set (for an ingress-initiated LSP).
If the Call was established using independent Call/Connection setup If the Call was established using independent Call/Connection setup
and the Call is "empty" it may be deleted by the egress sending a and the Call is "empty" it may be deleted by the egress sending a
Notify message just as described above. Notify message just as described above.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 23
Note that there is still a possibility that both ends of a Call Note that there is still a possibility that both ends of a Call
initiate a simultaneous Call deletion. In this case, the Notify initiate a simultaneous Call deletion. In this case, the Notify
message acting as teardown request is interpreted by its recipient as message acting as teardown request is interpreted by its recipient as
a teardown response. Since the Notify messages carry the R bit in the a teardown response. Since the Notify messages carry the R bit in the
ADMIN STATUS object, they are responded to anyway. If a teardown ADMIN STATUS object, they are responded to anyway. If a teardown
request Notify message is received for an unknown Call ID it is, request Notify message is received for an unknown Call ID it is,
nevertheless, responded to in the affirmative. nevertheless, responded to in the affirmative.
7.8 Control Plane Survivability 7.8 Control Plane Survivability
skipping to change at line 1296 skipping to change at line 1308
A node that is unsure of the status of a Call MAY immediately send a A node that is unsure of the status of a Call MAY immediately send a
Notify message as if establishing the Call for the first time. Notify message as if establishing the Call for the first time.
Failure to receive a refresh Notify request has no specific meaning. Failure to receive a refresh Notify request has no specific meaning.
If it receives no response to a refresh Notify request (including no If it receives no response to a refresh Notify request (including no
Message ID Acknowledgement) a node MAY assume that the remote node is Message ID Acknowledgement) a node MAY assume that the remote node is
unreachable or unavailable. It is a local policy matter whether this unreachable or unavailable. It is a local policy matter whether this
causes the local node to teardown associated LSPs and delete the causes the local node to teardown associated LSPs and delete the
Call. Call.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 24
In the event that an edge node restarts without preserved state, it In the event that an edge node restarts without preserved state, it
MAY relearn LSP state from adjacent nodes and Call state from remote MAY relearn LSP state from adjacent nodes and Call state from remote
nodes. If a Path or Resv message is received with a non-zero Call ID nodes. If a Path or Resv message is received with a non-zero Call ID
but without the C bit in the ADMIN STATUS, and for a Call ID that is but without the C bit in the ADMIN STATUS, and for a Call ID that is
not recognized, the receiver is RECOMMENDED to assume that the Call not recognized, the receiver is RECOMMENDED to assume that the Call
establishment is delayed and ignore the received message. If the Call establishment is delayed and ignore the received message. If the Call
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 24
setup never materializes the failure by the restarting node to setup never materializes the failure by the restarting node to
refresh state will cause the LSPs to be torn down. Optionally, the refresh state will cause the LSPs to be torn down. Optionally, the
receiver of such an LSP message for an unknown Call ID may return an receiver of such an LSP message for an unknown Call ID may return an
error (PathErr or ResvErr) with the error code "Call Management" error (PathErr or ResvErr) with the error code "Call Management"
(TBD) and Error Value "Unknown Call ID" (TBD). (TBD) and Error Value "Unknown Call ID" (TBD).
8. Applicability of Call and Connection Procedures 8. Applicability of Call and Connection Procedures
This section considers the applicability of the different Call This section considers the applicability of the different Call
establishment procedures at the NNI and UNI reference points. This establishment procedures at the NNI and UNI reference points. This
skipping to change at line 1350 skipping to change at line 1361
allow the inclusion of the LINK CAPABILITY object. allow the inclusion of the LINK CAPABILITY object.
Further, the first node in the network may be responsible for Further, the first node in the network may be responsible for
managing the Call. In this case, the Notify message that is used to managing the Call. In this case, the Notify message that is used to
set up the Call is addressed to the first node of the core network. set up the Call is addressed to the first node of the core network.
Moreover, neither the long Call ID nor the short Call ID is supplied Moreover, neither the long Call ID nor the short Call ID is supplied
(the Session Name Length is set to zero and the Call ID value is set (the Session Name Length is set to zero and the Call ID value is set
to zero). The Notify message is passed to the first network node to zero). The Notify message is passed to the first network node
which is responsible for generating the long and short Call IDs which is responsible for generating the long and short Call IDs
before dispatching the message to the remote Call end point (which is before dispatching the message to the remote Call end point (which is
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 25
known from the SESSION object). Similarly, the first network node may known from the SESSION object). Similarly, the first network node may
be responsible for generating the long and short Call IDs for be responsible for generating the long and short Call IDs for
inclusion in Path messages that have the C bit set in the ADMIN inclusion in Path messages that have the C bit set in the ADMIN
STATUS object. STATUS object.
Further, when used in an overlay context, the first core node is Further, when used in an overlay context, the first core node is
allowed (see [GMPLS-OVERLAY]) to replace the Session Name assigned by allowed (see [GMPLS-OVERLAY]) to replace the Session Name assigned by
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 25
the ingress node and passed in the Path message. In the case of Call the ingress node and passed in the Path message. In the case of Call
management, the first network node MUST in addition 1) be aware that management, the first network node MUST in addition 1) be aware that
the name it inserts MUST be a long Call ID and 2) replace the long the name it inserts MUST be a long Call ID and 2) replace the long
Call ID when it returns the Resv message to the ingress node. Call ID when it returns the Resv message to the ingress node.
8.3 External Call Managers 8.3 External Call Managers
Third party Call management agents may be used to apply policy and Third party Call management agents may be used to apply policy and
authorization at a point that is neither the initiator nor terminator authorization at a point that is neither the initiator nor terminator
of the Call. The previous example is a particular case of this, but of the Call. The previous example is a particular case of this, but
skipping to change at line 1405 skipping to change at line 1416
9.1 Non-Support by External Call Managers 9.1 Non-Support by External Call Managers
It is unlikely that a Call initiator will be configured to send Call It is unlikely that a Call initiator will be configured to send Call
establishment Notify requests to an external Call manager including establishment Notify requests to an external Call manager including
the first network node, if that node does not support Call setup. the first network node, if that node does not support Call setup.
A node that receives an unexpected Call setup request will fall into A node that receives an unexpected Call setup request will fall into
one of the following categories. one of the following categories.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 26
- Node does not support RSVP. The message will fail to be delivered - Node does not support RSVP. The message will fail to be delivered
or responded. No Message ID Acknowledgement will be sent. The or responded. No Message ID Acknowledgement will be sent. The
initiator will retry and then give up. initiator will retry and then give up.
- Node supports RSVP or RSVP-TE but not GMPLS. The message will be - Node supports RSVP or RSVP-TE but not GMPLS. The message will be
delivered but not understood. It will be discarded. No Message ID delivered but not understood. It will be discarded. No Message ID
Acknowledgement will be sent. The initiator will retry and then Acknowledgement will be sent. The initiator will retry and then
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 26
give up. give up.
- Node supports GMPLS but not Call management. The message will be - Node supports GMPLS but not Call management. The message will be
delivered, but parsing will fail because of the presence of the delivered, but parsing will fail because of the presence of the
SESSION ATTRIBUTE object. A Message ID Acknowledgement may be sent SESSION ATTRIBUTE object. A Message ID Acknowledgement may be sent
before the parse fails. When the parse fails the Notify message before the parse fails. When the parse fails the Notify message
may be discarded in which case the initiator will retry and then may be discarded in which case the initiator will retry and then
give up, alternatively a parse error may be generated and returned give up, alternatively a parse error may be generated and returned
in a Notify message which will indicate to the initiator that Call in a Notify message which will indicate to the initiator that Call
management is not set up. management is not set up.
skipping to change at line 1459 skipping to change at line 1469
It is unlikely that an attempt will be made to set up a Call to It is unlikely that an attempt will be made to set up a Call to
remote node that does not support Calls. remote node that does not support Calls.
If the egress node does not support Call management through the If the egress node does not support Call management through the
Notify message it will react (as described in Section 9.1) in the Notify message it will react (as described in Section 9.1) in the
same way as an external Call manager. same way as an external Call manager.
If the egress node does not support the use of the C bit in the ADMIN If the egress node does not support the use of the C bit in the ADMIN
STATUS object or the Call ID in the SESSION object, it MAY respond STATUS object or the Call ID in the SESSION object, it MAY respond
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 27
with the fields zeroed in which case the initiator will know that the with the fields zeroed in which case the initiator will know that the
Call setup has failed. Call setup has failed.
On the other hand, it is possible that the egress will respond On the other hand, it is possible that the egress will respond
copying the fields from the Path message without understanding or copying the fields from the Path message without understanding or
acting on the fields. In this case the initiator will believe that acting on the fields. In this case the initiator will believe that
the Call has been set up when it has not. This occurrence can be the Call has been set up when it has not. This occurrence can be
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 27
prevented using the independent Call setup procedures, but is, in any prevented using the independent Call setup procedures, but is, in any
case, detected when a Notify message is sent to keep the Call alive. case, detected when a Notify message is sent to keep the Call alive.
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
Please refer to each of the referenced documents for a description of Please refer to each of the referenced documents for a description of
the security considerations applicable to the features that they the security considerations applicable to the features that they
provide. provide.
10.1 Call and Connection Security Considerations 10.1 Call and Connection Security Considerations
skipping to change at line 1514 skipping to change at line 1524
C-Type = 1 (TE Link Capabilities) C-Type = 1 (TE Link Capabilities)
New RSVP Error Codes and Error Values are introduced New RSVP Error Codes and Error Values are introduced
o Error Codes: o Error Codes:
- Call Management (value TBA) - Call Management (value TBA)
o Error Values: o Error Values:
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 28
- Call Management/Call ID Contention (value TBA) - Call Management/Call ID Contention (value TBA)
- Call Management/Connections still Exist (value TBA) - Call Management/Connections still Exist (value TBA)
- Call Management/Unknown Call ID (value TBA) - Call Management/Unknown Call ID (value TBA)
12. Acknowledgements 12. Acknowledgements
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 28
The authors would like to thank George Swallow, Yakov Rekhter, Lou The authors would like to thank George Swallow, Yakov Rekhter, Lou
Berger, Jerry Ash and Kireeti Kompella for their very useful input Berger, Jerry Ash and Kireeti Kompella for their very useful input
and comments to this document. and comments to this document.
13. Intellectual Property Considerations 13. References
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
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
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
13.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
14. References
14.1 Normative References 13.1 Normative References
[ASON-REQ] D.Papadimitriou, et al., "Requirements for [ASON-REQ] D.Papadimitriou, et al., "Requirements for
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Usage and Extensions for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Usage and Extensions for
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," Work Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," Work
in progress, Oct'03. in progress, Oct'03.
[BUNDLE] K.Kompella, Y.Rekhter and L.Berger, "Link Bundling [BUNDLE] K.Kompella, Y.Rekhter and L.Berger, "Link Bundling
in MPLS Traffic Engineering," Work in Progress. in MPLS Traffic Engineering," Work in Progress.
[GMPLS-CRANK] A.Farrel (Editor) et al., "Crankback Routing [GMPLS-CRANK] A.Farrel (Editor) et al., "Crankback Routing
Extensions for MPLS Signaling," Work in progress, Extensions for MPLS Signaling," Work in progress,
Jun'03. Oct'04.
[GMPLS-FUNCT] J.P.Lang and B.Rajagopalan (Editors) et al., [GMPLS-FUNCT] J.P.Lang and B.Rajagopalan (Editors) et al.,
"Generalized MPLS Recovery Functional "Generalized MPLS Recovery Functional
Specification," Work in Progress, Oct'04.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 29
Specification," Work in Progress, Sep'03.
[GMPLS-OVERLAY] G.Swallow et al., "GMPLS RSVP Support for the [GMPLS-OVERLAY] G.Swallow et al., "GMPLS RSVP Support for the
Overlay Model," Work in Progress, Apr'04. Overlay Model," Work in Progress, Oct'04.
[GMPLS-ROUTING] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter (Editors) et al., "Routing [GMPLS-ROUTING] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter (Editors) et al., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS," Work in Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS," Work in
Progress, Oct'03. Progress, Oct'03.
[LMP] J.P.Lang (Editor) et al. "Link Management Protocol [LMP] J.P.Lang (Editor) et al. "Link Management Protocol
(LMP) - Version 1," Work in progress, Oct'03. (LMP) - Version 1," Work in progress, Oct'03.
[RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process -- [RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3," BCP 9, RFC 2026, Oct'96. Revision 3," BCP 9, RFC 2026, Oct'96.
skipping to change at line 1601 skipping to change at line 1578
[RFC2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, Mar'97. Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, Mar'97.
[RFC2205] R.Braden et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol [RFC2205] R.Braden et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP)- Version 1 Functional Specification," (RSVP)- Version 1 Functional Specification,"
RFC 2205, Sep'97 RFC 2205, Sep'97
[RFC2402] S.Kent and R.Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header," [RFC2402] S.Kent and R.Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header,"
RFC 2402, Nov'98. RFC 2402, Nov'98.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 29
[RFC2406] S.Kent and R.Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Payload [RFC2406] S.Kent and R.Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Payload
(ESP)," RFC 2406, Nov'98. (ESP)," RFC 2406, Nov'98.
[RFC3209] D.Awduche et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for [RFC3209] D.Awduche et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels," RFC 3209, Dec'01. LSP Tunnels," RFC 3209, Dec'01.
[RFC3471] L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized MPLS - [RFC3471] L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized MPLS -
Signaling Functional Description," RFC 3471, Jan'03. Signaling Functional Description," RFC 3471, Jan'03.
[RFC3473] L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized MPLS [RFC3473] L.Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized MPLS
skipping to change at line 1623 skipping to change at line 1601
[RFC3477] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered [RFC3477] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered
Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)," RFC 3477, Jan'03. Engineering (RSVP-TE)," RFC 3477, Jan'03.
[RFC3667] S.Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, [RFC3667] S.Bradner, "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
RFC 3667, February 2004. RFC 3667, February 2004.
[RFC3668] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF [RFC3668] S.Bradner, Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004. Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RFC3945] E.Mannie, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October
2004.
[RSVP-CHANGE] K.Kompella and J.P.Lang, "Procedures for Modifying [RSVP-CHANGE] K.Kompella and J.P.Lang, "Procedures for Modifying
RSVP," Work in Progress, draft-kompella-rsvp-change- RSVP," Work in Progress, draft-kompella-rsvp-change-
01.txt, Jun'03. 01.txt, Jun'03.
14.2 Informative References 13.2 Informative References
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 30
[RFC3474] Z.Lin (Editor), " Documentation of IANA assignments [RFC3474] Z.Lin (Editor), " Documentation of IANA assignments
for Generalized MultiProtocol Label Switching for Generalized MultiProtocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic (GMPLS) Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Usage and Extensions for Engineering (RSVP-TE) Usage and Extensions for
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," RFC Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," RFC
3474, Mar'03. 3474, Mar'03.
[RFC3476] B.Rajagopalan (Editor), "Documentation of IANA [RFC3476] B.Rajagopalan (Editor), "Documentation of IANA
Assignments for Label Distribution Protocol Assignments for Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP), Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), and (LDP), Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP), and
Resource ReSerVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering Resource ReSerVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling," RFC (RSVP-TE) Extensions for Optical UNI Signaling," RFC
3476, Mar'03. 3476, Mar'03.
[G.7713] ITU-T, "Distributed Call and Connection Management," [G.7713] ITU-T, "Distributed Call and Connection Management,"
Recommendation G.7713/Y.1304, Nov'01. Recommendation G.7713/Y.1304, Nov'01.
[G.7713.2] ITU-T, "DCM Signalling Mechanisms Using GMPLS RSVP- [G.7713.2] ITU-T, "DCM Signalling Mechanisms Using GMPLS RSVP-
TE," Recommendation G.7713.2, Jan'03. TE," Recommendation G.7713.2, Jan'03.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 30
[G.8080] ITU-T, "Architecture for the Automatically Switched [G.8080] ITU-T, "Architecture for the Automatically Switched
Optical Network (ASON)," Recommendation G.8080/ Optical Network (ASON)," Recommendation G.8080/
Y.1304, Nov'01 (and Revision, Jan'03). Y.1304, Nov'01 (and Revision, Jan'03).
15. Author's Addresses 14. Author's Addresses
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Fr. Wellesplein 1, Fr. Wellesplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +32 3 240-8491
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
John Drake (Calient) John Drake
5853 Rue Ferrari, Boeing Satellite Systems
San Jose, CA 95138, USA 2300 East Imperial Highway
Phone: +1 408 972-3720 El Segundo, CA 90245
EMail: jdrake@calient.net EMail: John.E.Drake2@boeing.com
Adrian Farrel Adrian Farrel
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
Deborah Brungard (AT&T) Deborah Brungard (AT&T)
Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave. Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
EMail: dbrungard@att.com EMail: dbrungard@att.com
Zafar Ali (Cisco) Zafar Ali (Cisco)
100 South Main St. #200 100 South Main St. #200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA
EMail: zali@cisco.com EMail: zali@cisco.com
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 31
Arthi Ayyangar (Juniper) Arthi Ayyangar (Juniper)
1194 N.Mathilda Ave 1194 N.Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
EMail: arthi@juniper.net EMail: arthi@juniper.net
Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks) Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
600 Technology Park Drive 600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA, 01821, USA Billerica, MA, 01821, USA
Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 32 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 31
Appendix 1: Analysis of G.7713.2 against GMPLS RSVP-TE Signaling Appendix 1: Analysis of G.7713.2 against GMPLS RSVP-TE Signaling
Requirements in support of ASON Requirements in support of ASON
Informational RFC [RFC3474] (and [RFC3476]) documents the code points Informational RFC [RFC3474] (and [RFC3476]) documents the code points
for the signaling extensions defined in [G.7713.2] to meet the for the signaling extensions defined in [G.7713.2] to meet the
requirements of ASON Distributed Call and Connection Management (DCM) requirements of ASON Distributed Call and Connection Management (DCM)
as specified in [G.7713]. as specified in [G.7713].
While [G.7713.2] make use of GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling, there are key While [G.7713.2] make use of GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling, there are key
skipping to change at line 1750 skipping to change at line 1731
Tunnel ID Tunnel ID
A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant
over the life of the tunnel. over the life of the tunnel.
Extended Tunnel ID Extended Tunnel ID
A 32-bit (IPv4) or 128-bit (IPv6) identifier used in the SESSION A 32-bit (IPv4) or 128-bit (IPv6) identifier used in the SESSION
that remains constant over the life of the tunnel. Normally set that remains constant over the life of the tunnel. Normally set
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 33 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 32
to all zeros. Ingress nodes that wish to narrow the scope of a to all zeros. Ingress nodes that wish to narrow the scope of a
SESSION to the ingress-egress pair may place their IP address SESSION to the ingress-egress pair may place their IP address
here as a globally unique identifier. here as a globally unique identifier.
IPv4 (or IPv6) tunnel sender address IPv4 (or IPv6) tunnel sender address
IPv4 (or IPv6) address for a sender node IPv4 (or IPv6) address for a sender node
LSP ID LSP ID
skipping to change at line 1805 skipping to change at line 1786
A ----- B -- ... -- I ----- J -- .. -- M ----- N -- ... -- Y ----- Z A ----- B -- ... -- I ----- J -- .. -- M ----- N -- ... -- Y ----- Z
At node I, the GMPLS compliant [RFC3473] Path message would include At node I, the GMPLS compliant [RFC3473] Path message would include
the following information in the IP header, the SESSION and the following information in the IP header, the SESSION and
SENDER_TEMPLATE objects: SENDER_TEMPLATE objects:
Source IP address (Header): Node I IP Controller Address Source IP address (Header): Node I IP Controller Address
Dest. IP address (Header): Node J IP Controller Address Dest. IP address (Header): Node J IP Controller Address
Tunnel End-point Address: Routable Node Z IP Address Tunnel End-point Address: Routable Node Z IP Address
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 34 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 33
Tunnel ID: 16 bit (selected by the sender) Tunnel ID: 16 bit (selected by the sender)
Extended Tunnel ID: optionally set to Node A IP Address Extended Tunnel ID: optionally set to Node A IP Address
Tunnel Sender Address: Routable Node A IP Address Tunnel Sender Address: Routable Node A IP Address
LSP ID: 16 bit (selected by the sender) LSP ID: 16 bit (selected by the sender)
At node I, the [G.7713.2] Path message would include the following: At node I, the [G.7713.2] Path message would include the following:
Source IP address (Header): Node I IP Controller Address Source IP address (Header): Node I IP Controller Address
Dest. IP address (Header): Node J IP Controller Address Dest. IP address (Header): Node J IP Controller Address
Tunnel End-point Address: Node J IP Controller Address Tunnel End-point Address: Node J IP Controller Address
skipping to change at line 1839 skipping to change at line 1820
1. For a given connection, the [G.7713.2] point-to-point signaling 1. For a given connection, the [G.7713.2] point-to-point signaling
interface leads to a sequence of at least N different interface leads to a sequence of at least N different
identifications of the same connection when crossing N identifications of the same connection when crossing N
signaling interfaces (due to the setup and maintenance of N signaling interfaces (due to the setup and maintenance of N
distinct LSP tunnels). distinct LSP tunnels).
2. The information included in the RSVP message header and in the 2. The information included in the RSVP message header and in the
SESSION/SENDER_TEMPLATE objects, is redundant in [G.7713.2]. SESSION/SENDER_TEMPLATE objects, is redundant in [G.7713.2].
3. [G.7713.2] allows only for single-hop LSP tunnels and mandates 3. [G.7713.2] allows only for single-hop LSP tunnels and mandates
the processing of a new object (i.e. the GENERALIZED_UNI object) the processing of a new object, i.e. the GENERALIZED_UNI object,
for the definition of the source and destination connection end- for the definition of the source and destination connection end-
point addresses (A and Z in the above example). point addresses (A and Z in the above example).
4. The processing of the signaling Path message (in particular, the 4. The processing of the signaling Path message, in particular, the
EXPLICIT ROUTE object) mandates the processing of the EXPLICIT ROUTE object (ERO), mandates the processing of the
GENERALIZED_UNI object at E-NNI reference points and at UNI GENERALIZED_UNI object at E-NNI reference points and at UNI
reference points, for the connection end-point addresses (A and reference points, for the connection end-point addresses (A and
Z, in the above example). Z, in the above example).
5. Connection end-point addresses A and Z are allowed by [G.7713.2] 5. Connection end-point addresses A and Z are allowed by [G.7713.2]
to be from different address spaces (for instance, IPv4 source to be from different address spaces (for instance, IPv4 source
and IPv6 destination or an IPv4 source and NSAP destination). and IPv6 destination or an IPv4 source and NSAP destination).
Address resolution, management of addresses (e.g. for Address resolution, management of addresses, e.g., for
uniqueness), and impact evaluation on processing performance, are uniqueness, and impact evaluation on processing performance, are
not provided in these RFCs (considered out of scope). not provided in these RFCs (considered out of scope).
Note: the [ASON-REQ] addressing model of supporting only IP Note: the [ASON-REQ] addressing model of supporting only IP
addressing is aligned with ITU-T G.7713.1 (PNNI) which only uses addressing is aligned with ITU-T G.7713.1 (PNNI) which only uses
NSAP addresses, multiple address families are not supported. NSAP addresses, multiple address families are not supported.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 35 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 34
6. [G.7713.2] defines an incompatible and redundant addressing 6. [G.7713.2] defines an incompatible and redundant addressing
mechanism with [RFC3473] to support IPv4, IPv6, and NSAP mechanism with [RFC3473] to support IPv4, IPv6, and NSAP
addresses. [RFC3473] is part of a GMPLS protocol suite based on addresses. [RFC3473] is part of a GMPLS protocol suite based on
use of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The use of NSAP addresses with use of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The use of NSAP addresses with
[RFC3473] is supported by established procedures defined in [RFC3473] is supported by established procedures defined in
[RFC1884] "IPv6 Addressing Architecture", and only requiring [RFC1884] "IPv6 Addressing Architecture", and only requiring
support by border entities (e.g., DNS). Any other support for support by border entities, e.g., DNS. Any other support for
NSAP addressing is redundant with IETF supported procedures. NSAP addressing is redundant with IETF supported procedures.
[G.7713.2] provides no guidance on the operational aspects [G.7713.2] provides no guidance on the operational aspects
resulting from this modified procedure which uses a non-standard resulting from this modified procedure which uses a non-standard
object, the GENERALIZED_UNI object, to support. Use of the object, the GENERALIZED_UNI object, to support. Use of the
GENERALIZED_UNI object requires every entity to support multi- GENERALIZED_UNI object requires every entity to support multi-
address family resolution, e.g., for ERO processing, and in the address family resolution, e.g., for ERO processing, and in the
case of multi-region path setup. Requiring multi-address family case of multi-region path setup. Requiring multi-address family
resolution at all entities severely impacts performance, scaling, resolution at all entities severely impacts performance, scaling,
and introduces unnecessary complexity for operations. This and introduces unnecessary complexity for operations. This
limitation is well recognized, e.g. [G.7713.2] use in demos has limitation is well recognized, e.g. [G.7713.2] use in demos has
skipping to change at line 1914 skipping to change at line 1895
the network. the network.
[G.7713.2] mandates the use of the GENERALIZED_UNI subobjects (End- [G.7713.2] mandates the use of the GENERALIZED_UNI subobjects (End-
point Connection Address and SPC_LABEL) to support SPC capability. point Connection Address and SPC_LABEL) to support SPC capability.
Thus, in addition to suffering from the problem described in Section Thus, in addition to suffering from the problem described in Section
4, it mandates the processing of an object where it should never 4, it mandates the processing of an object where it should never
occur. This is because SPCs do not assume the existence of a UNI occur. This is because SPCs do not assume the existence of a UNI
signaling interface between the source and the destination user-to- signaling interface between the source and the destination user-to-
network interface. Note also that the SPC_LABEL as defined in network interface. Note also that the SPC_LABEL as defined in
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 36 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 35
[G.7713.2] does not comply with the generalized label C-Type [G.7713.2] does not comply with the generalized label C-Type
definition of [RFC3473] meaning that an implementation adhering to definition of [RFC3473] meaning that an implementation adhering to
[RFC3473] cannot be the "soft" side of the connection. [RFC3473] cannot be the "soft" side of the connection.
This requires the mandatory usage of dedicated connection end-point This requires the mandatory usage of dedicated connection end-point
addresses by the ingress and egress nodes for SPC capability support. addresses by the ingress and egress nodes for SPC capability support.
The existing RECORD_ROUTE object and its capabilities get corrupted The existing RECORD_ROUTE object and its capabilities get corrupted
by the use of the dedicated end-point address subobjects falling by the use of the dedicated end-point address subobjects falling
outside of the corresponding EXPLICIT ROUTE object. outside of the corresponding EXPLICIT ROUTE object.
skipping to change at line 1969 skipping to change at line 1950
Thus, with the introduction of the call concept, it is necessary to Thus, with the introduction of the call concept, it is necessary to
support a means of identifying the call. This becomes important when support a means of identifying the call. This becomes important when
calls and connections are separated and a connection must contain a calls and connections are separated and a connection must contain a
reference to its associated call. The following identification reference to its associated call. The following identification
enables this hierarchy: enables this hierarchy:
- Call IDs are unique within the context of the pair of addresses - Call IDs are unique within the context of the pair of addresses
that are the source and destination of the call. that are the source and destination of the call.
- Tunnel IDs are unique within the context of the Session (that is - Tunnel IDs are unique within the context of the Session (that is
the destination of the Tunnel) and Tunnel IDs may be unique within the destination of the Tunnel) and Tunnel IDs may be unique within
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 37 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 36
the context of a Call. the context of a Call.
- LSP IDs are unique within the context of a Tunnel. - LSP IDs are unique within the context of a Tunnel.
For this purpose, [G.7713.2] introduces two new objects: a CALL_ID For this purpose, [G.7713.2] introduces two new objects: a CALL_ID
and a CALL_OPS object to be used in the Path, Resv, PathTear, and a CALL_OPS object to be used in the Path, Resv, PathTear,
PathErr, and Notify messages (note: additional requirements for PathErr, and Notify messages (note: additional requirements for
ResvErr and ResvTear messages' support are not addressed). The ResvErr and ResvTear messages' support are not addressed). The
CALL_OPS object is also referred to as a "call capability" object, CALL_OPS object is also referred to as a "call capability" object,
since it specifies the capability of the call. These objects belongs since it specifies the capability of the call. These objects belongs
to the range 224-255 defined as "RSVP will silently ignore, but to the range 224-255 defined as "RSVP will silently ignore, but
skipping to change at line 2024 skipping to change at line 2005
- Does not allow for call support *independently* of the initiating/ - Does not allow for call support *independently* of the initiating/
terminating nodes (the CALL_ID is attached to the ingress node) terminating nodes (the CALL_ID is attached to the ingress node)
thus restricting the flexibility in terms of call identifiers. thus restricting the flexibility in terms of call identifiers.
- Requires the inclusion of the CALL ID and CALL OPS objects in - Requires the inclusion of the CALL ID and CALL OPS objects in
PathErr messages that may be generated at transit nodes, which do PathErr messages that may be generated at transit nodes, which do
not implement [G.7713.2] and so do not support these objects. not implement [G.7713.2] and so do not support these objects.
4. Call Segments 4. Call Segments
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 38 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 37
[G.7713.2] cannot, by definition, support call segments signaling [G.7713.2] cannot, by definition, support call segments signaling
mechanisms, as required in [G.8080] and [G.7713], since [G.7713.2] mechanisms, as required in [G.8080] and [G.7713], since [G.7713.2]
does not support full call/connection separation. does not support full call/connection separation.
5. Control Plane Restart Capabilities 5. Control Plane Restart Capabilities
Restart capabilities are provided by GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling in case Restart capabilities are provided by GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling in case
of control plane failure including nodal and control channel faults. of control plane failure including nodal and control channel faults.
The handling of node and control channels faults is described in The handling of node and control channels faults is described in
[RFC3473] Section 9. No additional RSVP mechanisms or objects are [RFC3473] Section 9. No additional RSVP mechanisms or objects are
skipping to change at line 2078 skipping to change at line 2059
the security considerations applicable to the features that they the security considerations applicable to the features that they
provide. provide.
Note that although [RFC3474] is an informational RFC it does document Note that although [RFC3474] is an informational RFC it does document
new protocol elements and functional behavior and as such introduces new protocol elements and functional behavior and as such introduces
new security considerations. In particular, the ability to place new security considerations. In particular, the ability to place
authentication and policy details within the context of Call authentication and policy details within the context of Call
establishment may strengthen the options for security and may weaken establishment may strengthen the options for security and may weaken
the security of subsequent Connection establishment. Also the the security of subsequent Connection establishment. Also the
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 39 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 38
potential to subvert accidentally or deliberately a soft permanent potential to subvert accidentally or deliberately a soft permanent
connection by establishing the soft part of the connection from a connection by establishing the soft part of the connection from a
false remote node needs to be examined. However, [RFC3474] has a false remote node needs to be examined. However, [RFC3474] has a
minimal security considerations section. minimal security considerations section.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 40 D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 39
Full Copyright Statement Intellectual Property Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
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
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires July 2004 41 Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
D.Papadimitriou et al. - Expires August 2005 40
 End of changes. 

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