draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bundle-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bundle-04.txt 
Network Working Group Anca Zamfir Network Working Group Anca Zamfir
Internet Draft Zafar Ali Internet Draft Zafar Ali
Expires: September 29, 2008 Cisco Systems Expires: January 6, 2009 Cisco Systems
Dimitri Papadimitriou Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
March 30, 2008 July 7, 2008
Component Link Recording and Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Component Link Recording and Resource Control for TE Link Bundles
draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bundle-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-explicit-resource-control-bundle-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
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 September 29, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 6, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
Record Route is a useful administrative tool that has been used Record Route is a useful administrative tool that has been used
extensively by the service providers. However, when TE links are extensively by the service providers. However, when TE links are
bundled, identification of label resource in Record Route Object bundled, identification of label resource in Record Route Object
(RRO) is not enough for the administrative purpose. Network service (RRO) is not enough for the administrative purpose. Network service
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
providers would like to know the component link within a TE link that providers would like to know the component link within a TE link that
is being used by a given LSP. In other words, when link bundling is is being used by a given LSP. In other words, when link bundling is
used, resource recording requires mechanisms to specify the component used, resource recording requires mechanisms to specify the component
link identifier, along with the TE link identifier and Label. As it link identifier, along with the TE link identifier and Label. As it
is not possible to record component link in the RRO, this draft is not possible to record component link in the RRO, this draft
defines the extensions to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to specify defines the extensions to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to specify
component link identifiers for resource recording purposes. component link identifiers for resource recording purposes.
This draft also defines the Explicit Route Object (ERO) counterpart This draft also defines the Explicit Route Object (ERO) counterpart
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 3, line 5
5. Forward Compatibility Note.....................................9 5. Forward Compatibility Note.....................................9
6. Security Considerations........................................9 6. Security Considerations........................................9
7. IANA Considerations...........................................10 7. IANA Considerations...........................................10
8. References....................................................10 8. References....................................................10
8.1 Normative Reference.......................................10 8.1 Normative Reference.......................................10
8.2 Informative Reference.....................................11 8.2 Informative Reference.....................................11
9. Author's Addresses............................................11 9. Author's Addresses............................................11
10. Intellectual Property Considerations.........................12 10. Intellectual Property Considerations.........................12
11. Full Copyright Statement.....................................12 11. Full Copyright Statement.....................................12
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
TE Link: Unless specified otherwise, it refers to a bundled Traffic TE Link: Unless specified otherwise, it refers to a bundled Traffic
Engineering link as defined in [RFC4201]. Furthermore, the terms TE Engineering link as defined in [RFC4201]. Furthermore, the terms TE
Link and bundled TE Link are used interchangeably in this draft. Link and bundled TE Link are used interchangeably in this draft.
Component (interface) link: refers (locally) to a component link as Component (interface) link: refers (locally) to a component link as
part of a bundled TE link. A component link is numbered/ unnumbered part of a bundled TE link. A component link is numbered/ unnumbered
in its own right. For unnumbered component links, the component link in its own right. For unnumbered component links, the component link
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 27
component links, the component link ID is assumed to be unique within component links, the component link ID is assumed to be unique within
a domain. a domain.
Component Interface Identifier: Refers to an ID used to uniquely Component Interface Identifier: Refers to an ID used to uniquely
identify a Component Interface. On a bundled link a combination of identify a Component Interface. On a bundled link a combination of
<component link identifier, label> is sufficient to unambiguously <component link identifier, label> is sufficient to unambiguously
identify the appropriate resources used by an LSP [RFC4201]. identify the appropriate resources used by an LSP [RFC4201].
2. Resource Control and Recording 2. Resource Control and Recording
In GMPLS networks that deals with unbundled (being either PSC, L2SC, In GMPLS networks [RFC3945] that deals with unbundled (being either
TDM or LSC) TE Links, one of the types of resources that an LSP PSC, L2SC, TDM or LSC) TE Links, one of the types of resources that
originator can control and would like to record are the TE Link an LSP originator can control and would like to record are the TE
interfaces used by the LSP. The resource control and recording is Link interfaces used by the LSP. The resource control and recording
done by the use of an explicit route, i.e., Explicit Route (ERO) is done by the use of an explicit route, i.e., Explicit Route (ERO)
Object and record Route, i.e., Record Route Object (RRO) object, Object and record Route, i.e., Record Route Object (RRO) object,
respectively. respectively.
Link Bundling, introduced in [RFC4201], is used to improve routing Link Bundling, introduced in [RFC4201], is used to improve routing
scalability by reducing the amount of TE related information that scalability by reducing the amount of TE related information that
needs to be flooded and handled by IGP in a TE network. This is needs to be flooded and handled by IGP in a TE network. This is
accomplished by aggregating and abstracting the TE Link resource. In accomplished by aggregating and abstracting the TE Link resource. In
some cases the complete resource identification is left as a local some cases the complete resource identification is left as a local
decision. However, as described above there are cases when it is decision. However, as described above there are cases when it is
desirable for a non-local (e.g., LSP head-end) node to identify desirable for a non-local (e.g., LSP head-end) node to identify
skipping to change at page 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
a TE link, label is not the only resource that needs to be identified a TE link, label is not the only resource that needs to be identified
and recorded. In other words, the TE Link and the Label specified in and recorded. In other words, the TE Link and the Label specified in
the ERO/ RRO objects are not enough to completely identify the the ERO/ RRO objects are not enough to completely identify the
resource. For the bundled TE link case, in order to fully specify the resource. For the bundled TE link case, in order to fully specify the
resources on a link for a given LSP, the component link needs to be resources on a link for a given LSP, the component link needs to be
specified along with the label. In the case of bi-directional LSPs specified along with the label. In the case of bi-directional LSPs
both upstream and downstream information may be specified. Therefore, both upstream and downstream information may be specified. Therefore,
explicit resource control and recording over a bundled TE link also explicit resource control and recording over a bundled TE link also
requires ability to specify a component link within the TE link. requires ability to specify a component link within the TE link.
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
This draft defines extensions to and describes the use of RSVP-TE This draft defines extensions to and describes the use of RSVP-TE
[RFC3209], [RFC3471], [RFC3473] to specify the component link [RFC3209], [RFC3471], [RFC3473] to specify the component link
identifier for resource recording and explicit resource control over identifier for resource recording and explicit resource control over
TE link bundles. Specifically, in this document, component interface TE link bundles. Specifically, in this document, component interface
identifier RRO and ERO subobjects are defined to complement their identifier RRO and ERO subobjects are defined to complement their
Label RRO and ERO counterparts. Furthermore, procedures for Label RRO and ERO counterparts. Furthermore, procedures for
processing component interface identifier RRO and ERO subobjects and processing component interface identifier RRO and ERO subobjects and
how they can co-exist with the Label RRO and ERO subobjects are how they can co-exist with the Label RRO and ERO subobjects are
specified. specified.
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
This bit must be set to 0. This bit must be set to 0.
Type Type
Type 10 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv4 Type 10 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv4
Type 11 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv6 Type 11 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv6
Type 12 (TBD): Component Interface identifier Unnumbered Type 12 (TBD): Component Interface identifier Unnumbered
Length Length
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length is bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length is
8 bytes for the Component Interface identifier IPv4 and 8 bytes for the Component Interface identifier IPv4 and
Component Interface identifier Unnumbered types. For Component Interface identifier Unnumbered types. For
Component Interface identifier IPv6 type of sub-object, the Component Interface identifier IPv6 type of sub-object, the
length field is 20 bytes. length field is 20 bytes.
U: 1 bit U: 1 bit
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
In most cases, a node initiates recording for a given LSP by adding In most cases, a node initiates recording for a given LSP by adding
the RRO to the Path message. If the node desires Component Link the RRO to the Path message. If the node desires Component Link
recording and if the outgoing TE link is bundled, then the initial recording and if the outgoing TE link is bundled, then the initial
RRO contains the Component Link identifier (numbered or unnumbered) RRO contains the Component Link identifier (numbered or unnumbered)
as selected by the sender. As well, the Component Link Recording as selected by the sender. As well, the Component Link Recording
desired flag is set in the LSP_ATTRIBUTE object. If the node also desired flag is set in the LSP_ATTRIBUTE object. If the node also
desires label recording, it sets the Label_Recording flag in the desires label recording, it sets the Label_Recording flag in the
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
When a Path message with the "Component Link Recording desired" flag When a Path message with the "Component Link Recording desired" flag
set is received by an intermediate node, if a new Path message is to set is received by an intermediate node, if a new Path message is to
be sent for a downstream bundled TE link, the node adds a new be sent for a downstream bundled TE link, the node adds a new
Component Link subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE object (RRO) and appends Component Link subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE object (RRO) and appends
the resulting RRO to the Path message before transmission. the resulting RRO to the Path message before transmission.
Note also that, unlike Labels, Component Link identifiers are always Note also that, unlike Labels, Component Link identifiers are always
known on receipt of the Path message. known on receipt of the Path message.
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
// IPv4, IPv6 or unnumbered Component Interface Identifier // // IPv4, IPv6 or unnumbered Component Interface Identifier //
| . . . | | . . . |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L: 1 bit L: 1 bit
This bit must be set to 0. This bit must be set to 0.
Type Type
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
Type 10 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv4 Type 10 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv4
Type 11 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv6 Type 11 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv6
Type 12 (TBD): Component Interface identifier Unnumbered Type 12 (TBD): Component Interface identifier Unnumbered
Length Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length is bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length is
8 bytes for the Component Interface identifier types: IPv4 8 bytes for the Component Interface identifier types: IPv4
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
o) Two Component Interface Identifier ERO subobjects with the same o) Two Component Interface Identifier ERO subobjects with the same
U-bit values exist. U-bit values exist.
If a node implements the component interface identifier subobject, it If a node implements the component interface identifier subobject, it
MUST check if it represents a component interface in the bundled TE MUST check if it represents a component interface in the bundled TE
Link specified in the preceding subobject that contains the IPv4/IPv6 Link specified in the preceding subobject that contains the IPv4/IPv6
address or interface identifier of the TE Link. If the content of the address or interface identifier of the TE Link. If the content of the
component interface identifier subobject does not match a component component interface identifier subobject does not match a component
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
interface in the TE link, a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error SHOULD interface in the TE link, a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error SHOULD
be reported as "Routing Problem" (error code 24). be reported as "Routing Problem" (error code 24).
If U-bit of the subobject being examined is cleared (0) and the If U-bit of the subobject being examined is cleared (0) and the
upstream interface specified in this subobject is acceptable, then upstream interface specified in this subobject is acceptable, then
the value of the upstream component interface is translated locally the value of the upstream component interface is translated locally
in the TLV of the IF_ID RSVP HOP object [RFC3471]. The local in the TLV of the IF_ID RSVP HOP object [RFC3471]. The local
decision normally used to select the upstream component link is decision normally used to select the upstream component link is
bypassed except for local translation into the outgoing interface bypassed except for local translation into the outgoing interface
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
o) When both sub-objects are absent, a node may select any o) When both sub-objects are absent, a node may select any
appropriate component link within the TE link and any label on the appropriate component link within the TE link and any label on the
selected component link. selected component link.
o) When the Label subobject is only present for a bundled link, then o) When the Label subobject is only present for a bundled link, then
the selection of the component link within the bundle is a local the selection of the component link within the bundle is a local
decision and the node may select any appropriate component link, decision and the node may select any appropriate component link,
which can assume the label specified in the Label ERO. which can assume the label specified in the Label ERO.
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
o) When only the component interface identifier ERO subobject is o) When only the component interface identifier ERO subobject is
present, a node MUST select the component interface specified in present, a node MUST select the component interface specified in
the ERO and may select any appropriate label value at the the ERO and may select any appropriate label value at the
specified component link. specified component link.
o) When both component interface identifier ERO subobject and Label o) When both component interface identifier ERO subobject and Label
ERO subobject are present, the node MUST select the locally ERO subobject are present, the node MUST select the locally
corresponding component link and the specified label value on that corresponding component link and the specified label value on that
component link. When present, both subobjects may appear in any component link. When present, both subobjects may appear in any
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 5
ignore and pass them on. This limits the full applicability of if ignore and pass them on. This limits the full applicability of if
nodes traversed by the LSP are compliant with the proposed nodes traversed by the LSP are compliant with the proposed
extensions. extensions.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security issues. The security This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RFC2205] considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RFC2205]
remain relevant. remain relevant.
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This document introduces the following RSVP protocol elements: This document introduces the following RSVP protocol elements:
o) Component Interface Identifier RRO subobject of the Record Route o) Component Interface Identifier RRO subobject of the Record Route
Object (RRO). The following Types are defined: Object (RRO). The following Types are defined:
Type 10 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv4 Type 10 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv4
Type 11 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv6 Type 11 (TBD): Component Interface identifier IPv6
skipping to change at page 11, line 5 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
[RFC3473] L. Berger, et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] L. Berger, et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003. 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] K. Kompella, et al., "Signaling Unnumbered Links in [RFC3477] K. Kompella, et al., "Signaling Unnumbered Links in
Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
[RFC4201] K. Kompella, et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic [RFC4201] K. Kompella, et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4201, January 2003. Engineering", RFC 4201, January 2003.
[RFC4420] A. Farrel, et al., "Encoding of Attributes for [RFC4420] A. Farrel, et al., "Encoding of Attributes for
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path
(LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol- (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006. Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.
8.2 Informative Reference 8.2 Informative Reference
skipping to change at page 12, line 5 skipping to change at page 12, line 5
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50 Copernicuslaan 50
B-2018 Antwerpen B-2018 Antwerpen
Belgium Belgium
Phone: +32 3 240-8491 Phone: +32 3 240-8491
Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be Email: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be
Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Mar.2008 Component Link Record. & Resource Control for TE Link Bundles Jul.2008
10. Full Copyright Statement 10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
20 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/