CCAMP Working Group                                             F. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                           ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track                           M. Venkatesan
Expires: December 08, 2012 February 17, 2013                                     Dell Inc.
                                                                   Y. Xu
                                                                    CATR
                                                           June 08,
                                                               R. Gandhi
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                         August 16, 2012

       RSVP-TE Extensions to Exchange MPLS-TP LSP Tunnnel Tunnel Numbers
           draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03
           draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04

Abstract

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
   specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
   Z9-Tunnel_Num, which can be used to form Maintenance Entity Point
   Identifier (MEP_ID).  As to some Operation, Administration and
   Maintenance (OAM) functions, such as Connectivity Verification (CV)
   [RFC6428], source MEP_ID must be inserted in the OAM packets, so that
   the peer endpoint can compare the received and expected MEP_IDs to
   judge whether there is a mis-connnectivity mis-connectivity defect [RFC6371], which
   means that the two MEP nodes need to pre-store each other's MEP_IDs.

   This document defines the signaling extensions to communicate the
   local assigned Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching
   Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 08, 2012. February 17, 2013.

Copyright Notice
   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info)
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2  3
   3.  Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     4.1.  Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     4.2.  Signaling Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3  5
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  5
   7.  Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  5
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  5
     8.1.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  5
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  6
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5  7

1.  Introduction

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
   specifies a initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
   Z9-Tunnel_Num, which can be used to form Maintenance Entity Point
   Identifier (MEP_ID).  The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is
   Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num, Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::
   LSP_Num, and in situations where global uniqueness is required, this
   becomes: Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num. In order to realize
   some Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) functions, such
   as Connectivity Verification (CV) [RFC6428], source MEP-ID MUST be
   inserted in the OAM packets, in this way the peer endpoint can
   compare the received and expected MEP-IDs to judge whether there is a
   mis-connnectivity
   mis-connectivity defect [RFC6371].  Hence, the two MEP nodes must
   pre-store each other's MEP-IDs before sending the CV packets.

   When the LSPs are set up by control plane, Resource ReserVation
   Protocol Traffic Engnieering Engineering (RSVP-TE) messages can be used to
   communicate the Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching
   Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP.  Since the LSP identifiers
   can be carried in an ASSOCIATION object, which may also be used in a
   single session object [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext],
   it is naturally to define the signaling extensions based on the
   ASSOCIATION object.

2.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  Operation

   Consider that LSP1 is initialized at A1 node with an ASSOCIATION
   object inserted in Path message.  Association Type is set to "LSP
   Identifers",
   Identifiers", Association ID set to A1-Tunnel_Num, Association Source
   set to A1-Node_ID.  Upon receipt of the Association Object, the
   egress node Z9 checks the Association Type field.  If it is "LSP
   Identifiers" and an Upstream_Label exists in Path message,
   Identifiers", the ASSOCIATION object must be carried in the Resv
   message also.  Similarly, Association Type is set to "LSP
   Identifiers", Association ID set to Z9-Tunnel_Num, Association Source
   set to Z9-Node_ID.  In this way, the ingress LSR can get the Z9-Tunnel_Num, Z9-
   Tunnel_Num, which may be used for identifying a mis-connnectivity mis-connectivity
   defect of the proactive CV OAM function.

   If LSP1 is across different domains, A1 and Z9 nodes may need to know
   each other's Global_ID also.  When an Extended ASSOCIATION object
   with Association Type "LSP Identifiers" in inserted in the
   initialized LSP Path message, Global Association Source is set to A1-
   Global_ID.  Similarly, this field will be set to Z9-Global_ID in the
   Resv message.

4.  RSVP-TE Extensions

4.1.  Association Type

   Within the current document, a new Association Type is defined in the
   ASSOCIATION object, which MAY be used with any ASSOCIATION object
   type.  For example, the Extended ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D
   .ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] can be used when Global ID Global_ID based
   identification is desired.

   Value      Type
   -----      -----
   6
   5 (TBD)    LSP Identifiers (L)

   See [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]

4.2.  Signaling Procedure

   Association ID: 16 bits

      For Path message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node
      sending out the Path message, and can be ignored by the receiver.

      For Resv message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node
      sending out the Resv message.

   Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes

      Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].

      For Path message, Association Source is the definition IP address of other fields the node
      sending out the Path message, and
   values. can be ignored by the receiver.

      For Resv message, Association Source is the IP address of the node
      sending out the Resv message, and can be ignored by the receiver.

   Global Association Source: 4 bytes

      Same as defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] if Extended
      ASSOCIATION object is used.

      For Path message, Global Association Source is filled with the
      Global_ID of the node sending out the Path message.

      For Resv message, Global Association Source is the Global_ID of
      the node sending out the Resv message.

   Extended Association ID:

      Same as defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] if Extended
      ASSOCIATION object is used.

      Extended Association ID is not added in the Extended ASSOCIATION
      object when association type signaled is "LSP Identifiers".

   The rules associated with the processing of the Extended ASSOCIATION
   objects in RSVP message are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].
   It said that in the absence of Association Type-specific rules for
   identifying association, the included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be
   identical.  Since the Association Type "LSP Identifiers" used here is
   to carry LSP identifier, there is no need to associate Path state to
   Path state or Resv state to Resv state, one specific rule is added:
   when the Association Type is "LSP Identifiers", the ASSOCIATION
   object can appear in Path or Resv message across sessions or in a
   single session, and the values can be different.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
   namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.

   One bit value ("LSP Identifers") Identifiers") needs to be allocated in the
   Association Type Registry.

6.  Security Considerations

   A new Association Type is defined in this document, and except this,
   there are no security issues about the ASSOCIATION object and
   Extended ASSOCIATION object are introduced here.  For Association
   object related security issues, see the documents [RFC4872],
   [RFC4873], and [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-
   ext]. [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].

   For a more comprehensive discussion on GMPLS security please see the
   Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920].

7.  Acknowledgement

   This document was prepared based on the discussion with George
   Swallow, valuable comments and input were also received from Lou
   Berger, John E Drake, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman, Muliu Tao and Wenjuan
   He.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative references

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]
              Berger, L., Faucheur, F. F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
              Association Object Extensions", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-
              ccamp-assoc-ext-03, March
              draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-04 (work in progress),
              August 2012.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4872]  Lang, J.P., J., Rekhter, Y. Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
              Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
              May 2007.

   [RFC4873]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D. D., and A. Farrel,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

   [RFC6370]  Bocci, M., Swallow, G. G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
              Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.

   [RFC6371]  Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
              Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
              RFC 6371, September 2011.

   [RFC6428]  Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G. G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive
              Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote
              Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile",
              RFC 6428, November 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Fei Zhang
   ZTE Corporation

   Email: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn

   Venkatesan Mahalingam
   Dell Inc.

   Email: venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com

   Yunbin Xu
   CATR

   Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn

   Rakesh Gandhi
   Cisco Systems

   Email: rgandhi@cisco.com

   Xiao Bao
   ZTE Corporation

   Email: bao.xiao1@zte.com.cn