Jean Philippe Vasseur (Editor)
                                                         Zafar Ali
                                                    Siva Sivabalan
                                               Cisco Systems, Inc.

IETF Internet Draft
Expires: July, 2005
                                                     January, 2005



              Definition of an RRO node-id subobject

Status of this Memo

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.

Working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    1


In the context of MPLS TE Fast Reroute, the Merge Point (MP) address is
required at the Point of Local Repair (PLR) in order to select a backup
tunnel intersecting a fast reroutable Traffic Engineering LSP on a
downstream LSR.  However, existing protocol mechanisms are not
sufficient to find an MP address in multi-areas or multi-domain routing
networks. Hence, the current MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism cannot be used
to protect inter-area or inter-AS TE LSPs from a failure of an ABR
(Area Border Router) or ASBR (Autonomous System Border Router)
respectively. Such functionality has been listed as a clear requirement
in [INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] and [INTER-AS-TE-REQS]. This document specifies
the use of existing RRO IPv4 and IPv6 subobjects (with a new flag
defined) to define the node-id subobject in order to solve this issue.
Note that the MPLS Fast reroute mechanism mentioned in this document
refers to the "Facility backup" MPLS TE Fast Reroute method.

Table of content

1. Terminology ----------------------------- 2
2. Introduction ---------------------------- 3
3. Signaling node-ids in RROs -------------- 5
4. Finding Merge Point --------------------- 6
5. Security Considerations ----------------- 6
6. Intellectual Property Considerations ---- 6
7. Acknowledgments ------------------------- 7
8. References ------------------------------ 7

Conventions used in this document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [i].

1. Terminology

LSR - Label Switch Router

LSP - An MPLS Label Switched Path

PCS - Path Computation Server (may be any kind of LSR (ABR, ...)
      or a centralized path computation server

PCC - Path Computation Client (any head-end LSR) requesting a path
      computation of the Path Computation Server.

Local Repair - Techniques used to repair LSP tunnels quickly
               when a node or link along the LSPs path fails.

Protected LSP - An LSP is said to be protected at a given hop if

Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    2
                it has one or multiple associated backup tunnels
                originating at that hop.

Bypass Tunnel - An LSP that is used to protect a set of LSPs
                passing over a common facility.

Backup Tunnel - The LSP that is used to backup up one of the many
                LSPs in many-to-one backup.

PLR - Point of Local Repair. The head-end of a backup tunnel or
      a detour LSP.

MP - Merge Point. The LSR where detour or backup tunnels meet
     the protected LSP. In case of one-to-one backup, this is where
     multiple detours converge. A MP may also be a PLR.

Reroutable LSP - Any LSP for with the "Local protection desired"
                 bit is set in the Flag field of the
                 SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object of its Path messages.

Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: TE LSP whose Head-end LSR and Tail-end LSR do
not reside within the same Autonomous System (AS) or both Head-end
LSR and Tail-end LSR are in the same AS but the TE tunnel
transiting path may be across different ASes

Interconnect or ASBR Routers:  Routers used to connect to another AS of
a different or the same Service Provider via one or more Inter-AS

2. Introduction

MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) ([FAST-REROUTE]) is a fast recovery local
protection technique used to protect Traffic Engineering LSPs from
link/SRLG/node failure.  One or more backup tunnels are pre-established
to protect against the failure of a link/node/SRLG. In case of failure,
every protected TE LSP traversing the failed resource is rerouted onto
the appropriate backup tunnels in 10s of msecs.

There are a couple of requirements on the backup tunnel path. At least,
a backup tunnel should not pass through the element it protects.
Additionally, a primary tunnel and its associated backup tunnel should
intersect at least at two points (nodes): Point of Local Repair (PLR)
and Merge Point (MP). The former should be the head-end LSR of the
backup tunnel, and the latter should be the tail-end LSR of the backup
tunnel. The PLR is where FRR is triggered when link/node/SRLG failure

There are different methods for computing paths for backup tunnels at a
given PLR. Specifically, a user can statically configure one or more
backup tunnels at the PLR, with explicit path or the PLR can be

Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    3

configured to automatically compute a backup path or to send a path
computation request to a PCS (which can be an LSR or an off-line tool).

Consider the following scenario (figure 1)

- A multi-area network made of three areas: 0, 1 and 2.
- A fast reroutable TE LSP T1 (TE LSP signaled with the "local
Protection desired" bit set in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object or the FRR
object) from R0 to R3
- A backup tunnel B1 from R1 to R2, not traversing ABR1, and following
the R1-ABR3-R2 path. R1 reroutes any protected TE LSP traversing ABR1
onto the backup tunnel B1 in case of ABR1's failure.

           <--- area 1 --><---area 0---><---area 2--->
                     \        /
                      \ ABR3 /

Figure 1: Use of Fast Reroute to protect against an ABR failure with
MPLS Traffic Engineering Fast Reroute

When T1 is first signaled, the PLR R1 needs to dynamically select an
appropriate backup tunnel intersecting T1 on a downstream LSR. However,
existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to unambiguously find
the MP address in a network with inter-area or inter-AS traffic
engineering (although the example above was given in the context of
multi-area networks, a similar reasoning applies to TE LSP spanning
multiple ASes). This document addresses these limitations.

R1 needs to ensure the following:

  1. Backup tunnel intersects with the primary tunnel at the MP (and
     thus has a valid MP address), e.g., in Figure 1, R1 needs to
     determine that T1 and B1 share the same MP node R2,

  2. Backup tunnel satisfies the primary LSP's request with respect to
     the bandwidth protection request (i.e., bandwidth guaranteed for
     the primary tunnel during failure), and the type of protection
     (preferably, protecting against a node failure versus a link
     failure), as specified in [FAST-REROUTE].

A PLR can make sure that condition (1) is met by examining the Record
Route Object (RRO) of the primary tunnel to see if any of the addresses
specified in the RRO is attached to the tail-end of the backup tunnel.
As per [RSVP-TE], the addresses specified in the RRO IPv4 or IPv6
subobjects sent in Resv messages can be node-ids and/or interface
addresses. Hence, in Figure 1, router R2 may specify interface
addresses in the RROs for T1 and B1. Note that these interface
addresses are different in this example.

Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    4

The problem of finding the MP using the interface addresses or node-ids
can be easily solved in a single area (OSPF_)/level (IS-IS).
Specifically, in the case of single area/level, the PLR has the
knowledge of all the interfaces attached to the tail-end of the backup
tunnel. This information is available in PLR's IGP topology database.
Thus, the PLR can determine whether a backup tunnel intersecting a
protected TE LSP on a downstream node exists and can also find the MP
address regardless of how the addresses contained in the RRO IPv4 or
IPv6 subobjects are specified (i.e., whether using the interface
addresses or the node IDs). However, such routing information is not
available in multi-area and inter-AS traffic engineering environments.
Hence, unambiguously making sure that condition (1) above is met with
inter-area TE and inter-AS traffic-engineering TE LSPs is not possible
with existing mechanisms.

In this document, we define extensions to and describe the use of RSVP
[RSVP, RSVP-TE] to solve the above-mentioned problem.

3. Signaling node-ids in RROs

As mentioned above, the limitation that we need to address is the
generality of the contents of the RRO IPv4 and IPv6 subobjects, as
defined in [RSVP-TE].[RSVP-TE] defines the IPv4 and IPv6 RRO subobjects
along with two flags (namely the ˘Local "Local Protection Available÷ Available" and
"Local protection in use÷ use" bits). Moreover, other bits have been
specified in [FAST-REROUTE] and [SOFT-PREEMPTION].

In this document, we define the following new flag:

Node-id: 0x20

      When set, this indicates that the address specified in the
      RRO's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject is a node-id address, which refers
      to the "Router Address" as defined in [OSPF-TE], or "Traffic
      Engineering Router ID" as defined in [ISIS-TE]. A node MUST use
      the same address consistently. In other words, once an address
      is used in RRO's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject, it should always be
      used for the lifetime of the LSP.

An IPv4 or IPv6 RRO subobject with the node-id flag set is also called
a node-id subobject. The problem of finding a MP address in a network
with inter-area or inter-AS traffic engineering is solved by inserting
a node-id subobject (an RRO "IPv4" and "IPv6" sub-object with the 0x20
flag set).

An implementation may either decide to:

1) Add the node-id subobject in an RSVP Resv message and, when
required, also add another IPv4/IPv6 subobject to record interface

Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    5

Example: a fast reroutable TE LSP would have in the RRO object carried
in Resv message two subobjects: a node-id subobject and a label
subobject. If recording the interface address is required, then an
additional IPv4/IPv6 subobject is added.

2) Add an IPv4/IPv6 subobject recording the interface address and, when
required, add a node-id subobject in the RRO object.

Example: an inter-area/inter-AS fast reroutable TE LSP would have in
the RRO object carried in Resv message three subobjects: an IPv4/IPv6
subobject recording interface address, a label subobject and a node-id

Note also, that the node-id subobject may have other application than
Fast Reroute backup tunnel selection. Moreover, it is RECOMMENDED that
an LSR recording a node-id address in an IPv4/IPv6 RRO sub-object also
set the Node-id flag.

4. Finding Merge Point

Two cases should be considered:

- case 1: the backup tunnel destination is the MP's node-id. Then a PLR
can find the MP and suitable backup tunnel by simply comparing the
backup tunnel's destination address with the node-id included in the
RRO of the primary tunnel.
- case 2: the backup tunnel terminates at an address different than the
MP's node-id. Then a node-id subobject MUST also be included in the RRO
object of the backup tunnel. A PLR can find the MP and suitable backup
tunnel by simply comparing the node-ids present in the RRO objects of
both the primary and backup tunnels.

When both IPv4 node-id and IPv6 node-id sub-objects are present, a PLR
may use any or both of them in finding the MP address.

5. Security Considerations

This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to [RSVP] and [RSVP-TE] remain relevant.

6. Intellectual Property Considerations

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any
effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of
rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to

Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    6

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
implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the
IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
which may cover technology that may be required to practice this
standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive

The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in
regard to some or all of the specification contained in this document.
For more information consult the online list of claimed rights.

7. Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge input and helpful comments from Carol
Iturralde, Anca Zamfir, Reshad Rahman, Rob Goguen, Philip Matthews and
Adrian Farrel.

8. References

Normative References

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

[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667,
February 2004.

[RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.

[RSVP] Braden, et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Version
1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

[RSVP-TE] Awduche, et al, "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC
3209, December 2001.

Informative references

[FAST-REROUTE] Ping Pan, et al, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for
LSP Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt. Work in

[OSPF-TE] Katz et al., ˘Traffic "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2÷, 2", RFC3630.

[ISIS-TE] Smit et al., ˘Intermediate "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-
IS) - Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)IS-IS extensions for
Traffic Engineering÷, Engineering", RFC3784.

Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    7

[INTER-AREA-TE-REQS] Le Roux, Vasseur, Boyle et al., ˘Requirements "Requirements for
Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering÷, Engineering", draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-mpls-te-
req-03.txt. Work in progress.

[INTER-AS-TE-REQS] Zhang, Vasseur et al, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering requirements", draft-tewg-interas-te-req-09.txt. Work in

[INTER-DOMAIN-SIG] Ayyangar and Vasseur, "Inter domain GMPLS Traffic
Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions÷, extensions", draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-
rsvp-te-01.txt. Work in progress.

[LOOSE-PATH-REOPT] Vasseur et al. "Reoptimization of MPLS
Traffic Engineering loosely routed LSP", <draft-ietf-ccamp-loose-path-
reopt-00.txt>. Work in progress.

[SOFT-PREEMPTION] Meyer, Maddux, Vasseur, Villamizar and Birjandi. ˘MPLS "MPLS
Traffic Engineering Soft preemption÷, preemption", draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-
03.txt. Work in progress.

Authors' Addresses:

Jean Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough , MA - 01719

Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
100 South Main St. #200
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8

Full 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.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    8


Vasseur, Ali and Sivabalan                                    9