draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt   draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-05.txt 
CCAMP Working Group F. Zhang CCAMP Working Group F. Zhang
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track M. Venkatesan Intended status: Standards Track M. Venkatesan
Expires: February 17, 2013 Dell Inc. Expires: April 15, 2013 Dell Inc.
Y. Xu Y. Xu
CATR CATR
R. Gandhi R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
August 16, 2012 October 12, 2012
RSVP-TE Extensions to Exchange MPLS-TP LSP Tunnel Numbers RSVP-TE Identification of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04 draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-05
Abstract Abstract
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370] The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
Z9-Tunnel_Num, which can be used to form Maintenance Entity Point Z9-Tunnel_Num for co-routed bidirectional LSP, which is not covered
Identifier (MEP_ID). As to some Operation, Administration and by the current specifications, like [RFC3209], [RFC3473]. This
Maintenance (OAM) functions, such as Connectivity Verification (CV) document defines Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engnieering
[RFC6428], source MEP_ID must be inserted in the OAM packets, so that (RSVP-TE) identification of MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional LSP.
the peer endpoint can compare the received and expected MEP_IDs to
judge whether there is a 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 Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 13
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identification . . . . . . 3
4. RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370] The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
specifies a initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned specifies a initial set of identifiers, such as the LSP_ID of of the
Z9-Tunnel_Num, which can be used to form Maintenance Entity Point MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional LSP, which is A1-
Identifier (MEP_ID). The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is Node_ID::Tunnel_Num:: {Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num. The mapping
LSP_Num, and in situations where global uniqueness is required, this from an MPLS-TP LSP_ID to Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic
becomes: Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num. In order to realize Engnieering (RSVP-TE) is also descirbed in [RFC6370], except the
some Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) functions, such local assigned Z9-Tunnel_Num, which is not covered by the current
as Connectivity Verification (CV) [RFC6428], source MEP-ID MUST be specifications, like [RFC3209], [RFC3473]. However, the Z9-
inserted in the OAM packets, in this way the peer endpoint can Tunnel_Num is a part of the Maintenance Entity Point Identifier
compare the received and expected MEP-IDs to judge whether there is a (MEP_ID), and the two MEP nodes must pre-store each other's MEP-IDs
mis-connectivity defect [RFC6371]. Hence, the two MEP nodes must before sending some Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
pre-store each other's MEP-IDs before sending the CV packets. packets, such as Connectivity Verification (CV) [RFC6428]. In this
way the peer endpoint can compare the received and expected MEP-IDs
to judge whether there is a mis-connectivity defect [RFC6371]. In
other words, A1/Z9 nodes need to know each other's Tunnel_Num.
When the LSPs are set up by control plane, Resource ReserVation This document defines Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic
Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) messages can be used to Engnieering (RSVP-TE) identification of MPLS-TP co-routed
communicate the Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching bidirectional LSP. Since the LSP identifiers can be carried in an
Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. Since the LSP identifiers ASSOCIATION object [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext], it is naturally to
can be carried in an ASSOCIATION object [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext], define the signaling extensions based on the ASSOCIATION object.
it is naturally to define the signaling extensions based on the
ASSOCIATION object.
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].
3. Operation 3. MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identification
3.1. Signaling Procedures
Consider that LSP1 is initialized at A1 node with an ASSOCIATION Consider that LSP1 is initialized at A1 node with an ASSOCIATION
object inserted in Path message. Association Type is set to "LSP object inserted in Path message. Association Type is set to "LSP
Identifiers", Association ID set to A1-Tunnel_Num, Association Source Identifiers", Association ID set to A1-Tunnel_Num, Association Source
set to A1-Node_ID. Upon receipt of the Association Object, the set to A1-Node_ID. Upon receipt of the Association Object, the
egress node Z9 checks the Association Type field. If it is "LSP egress node Z9 checks the Association Type field. If it is "LSP
Identifiers", the ASSOCIATION object must be carried in the Resv Identifiers", the ASSOCIATION object MUST be carried in the Resv
message also. Similarly, Association Type is set to "LSP message also. Similarly, Association Type is set to "LSP
Identifiers", Association ID set to Z9-Tunnel_Num, Association Source 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- set to Z9-Node_ID. In this way, the ingress LSR can get the Z9-
Tunnel_Num, which may be used for identifying a mis-connectivity Tunnel_Num, which MAY be used for identifying a mis-connectivity
defect of the proactive CV OAM function. defect of the proactive CV OAM function.
If LSP1 is across different domains, A1 and Z9 nodes may need to know 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 each other's Global_ID also. When an Extended ASSOCIATION object
with Association Type "LSP Identifiers" in inserted in the with Association Type "LSP Identifiers" in inserted in the
initialized LSP Path message, Global Association Source is set to A1- 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 Global_ID. Similarly, this field will be set to Z9-Global_ID in the
Resv message. Resv message.
4. RSVP-TE Extensions 3.2. Association Object
4.1. Association Type
Within the current document, a new Association Type is defined in the Within the current document, a new Association Type is defined in the
ASSOCIATION object, which MAY be used with any ASSOCIATION object ASSOCIATION object, which MAY be used with any ASSOCIATION object
type. For example, the Extended ASSOCIATION object defined in type. For example, the Extended ASSOCIATION object defined in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] can be used when Global_ID based [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] can be used when Global_ID based
identification is desired. identification is desired.
Value Type Value Type
----- ----- ----- -----
5 (TBD) LSP Identifiers (L) 6 (TBD) LSP Identifiers (L)
4.2. Signaling Procedure
Association ID: 16 bits Association ID: 16 bits
For Path message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node For Path message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node
sending out the Path message, and can be ignored by the receiver. sending out the Path message, and can be ignored by the receiver.
For Resv message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node For Resv message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node
sending out the Resv message. sending out the Resv message.
Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 5, line 10
ASSOCIATION object is used. ASSOCIATION object is used.
For Path message, Global Association Source is filled with the For Path message, Global Association Source is filled with the
Global_ID of the node sending out the Path message. Global_ID of the node sending out the Path message.
For Resv message, Global Association Source is the Global_ID of For Resv message, Global Association Source is the Global_ID of
the node sending out the Resv message. the node sending out the Resv message.
Extended Association ID: 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 Extended Association ID is not added in the Extended ASSOCIATION
object when association type signaled is "LSP Identifiers". object when association type signaled is "LSP Identifiers".
The rules associated with the processing of the Extended ASSOCIATION The rules associated with the processing of the Extended ASSOCIATION
objects in RSVP message are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]. 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 It said that in the absence of Association Type-specific rules for
identifying association, the included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be identifying association, the included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be
identical. Since the Association Type "LSP Identifiers" used here is identical. Since the Association Type "LSP Identifiers" used here is
to carry LSP identifier, there is no need to associate Path state to 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: Path state or Resv state to Resv state, one specific rule is added:
when the Association Type is "LSP Identifiers", the ASSOCIATION when the Association Type is "LSP Identifiers", the ASSOCIATION
object can appear in Path or Resv message across sessions or in a object can appear in Path or Resv message across sessions or in a
single session, and the values can be different. single session, and the values can be different.
5. IANA Considerations 3.3. Compatibility
Per [RFC4872], the ASSOCIATION object uses an object class number of
the form 11bbbbbb to ensure compatibility with non-supporting nodes.
Per [RFC2205], such nodes will ignore the object but forward it
without modification. This is also described in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].
Per [RFC4872], transit nodes that support the ASSOCIATION object, but
not the Extended Association C-Types, will "transmit, without
modification, any received ASSOCIATION object in the corresponding
outgoing Path message." Per [RFC2205], an egress node that supports
the ASSOCIATION object, but not the Extended Association C-Types may
generate an "Unknown object C-Type" error. This error will propagate
to the ingress node for standard error processing.
Operators wishing to use a function supported by the association type
"LSP Identifiers" should ensure that the type is supported on any
node which is expected to act on the association.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section. namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
One value ("LSP Identifiers") needs to be allocated in the One value ("LSP Identifiers") needs to be allocated in the
Association Type Registry. Association Type Registry.
6. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
A new Association Type is defined in this document, and except this, A new Association Type is defined in this document, and except this,
there are no security issues about the ASSOCIATION object and there are no security issues about the ASSOCIATION object and
Extended ASSOCIATION object are introduced here. For Association Extended ASSOCIATION object are introduced here. For Association
object related security issues, see the documents [RFC4872], object related security issues, see the documents [RFC4872],
[RFC4873], and [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]. [RFC4873], and [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].
For a more comprehensive discussion on GMPLS security please see the For a more comprehensive discussion on GMPLS security please see the
Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920]. Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920].
7. Acknowledgement 6. Acknowledgement
This document was prepared based on the discussion with George This document was prepared based on the discussion with George
Swallow, valuable comments and input were also received from Lou Swallow, valuable comments and input were also received from Lou
Berger, John E Drake, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman, Muliu Tao and Wenjuan Berger, John E Drake, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman, Muliu Tao and Wenjuan
He. He.
8. References 7. References
8.1. Normative references 7.1. Normative references
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]
Berger, L., Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP Berger, L., Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
Association Object Extensions", Association Object Extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-04 (work in progress), draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-06 (work in progress),
August 2012. September 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE [RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
May 2007. May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 90 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/