draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-09.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-10.txt 
Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed. Networking Working Group JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
Intended status: Standards Track Matthew. R. Meyer Intended status: Standards Track Matthew. R. Meyer
Expires: August 9, 2008 Global Crossing Expires: February 19, 2009 Global Crossing
K. Kumaki K. Kumaki
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
Alberto. Tempia Bonda Alberto. Tempia Bonda
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
February 6, 2008 August 18, 2008
A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link
draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-09 draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-10
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 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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 9, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 19, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
Several Link-type sub-TLVs have been defined for OSPF and IS-IS in Several Link-type sub-TLVs have been defined for OSPF and IS-IS in
the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic
Engineering (TE) in order to advertise some link characteristics such Engineering (TE) in order to advertise some link characteristics such
as the available bandwidth, traffic engineering metric, as the available bandwidth, traffic engineering metric,
administrative group and so on. By making statistical assumption administrative group and so on. By making statistical assumption
about the aggregated traffic carried onto a set of TE Label Switched about the aggregated traffic carried onto a set of TE Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) signalled with zero bandwith (referred to as Paths (LSPs) signalled with zero bandwith (referred to as
skipping to change at page 3, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
signalled across a link. signalled across a link.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Protocol extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Protocol extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Elements of procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Elements of procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
Terminology used in this document Terminology used in this document
CSPF: Constraint Shortest Path First CSPF: Constrained Shortest Path First
IGP : Interior Gateway Protocol IGP : Interior Gateway Protocol
LSA: Link State Advertisement LSA: Link State Advertisement
LSP: Link State Packet LSP: Link State Packet
MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching
LSR: Label Switching Router LSR: Label Switching Router
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
When a reoptimization process is triggered for an existing TE LSP, When a reoptimization process is triggered for an existing TE LSP,
the decision on whether to reroute that TE LSP onto a different path the decision on whether to reroute that TE LSP onto a different path
is governed by the discovery of a lower cost path satisfying the is governed by the discovery of a lower cost path satisfying the
constraints (other metric such that the percentage of reserved constraints (other metric such that the percentage of reserved
bandwidth or the number of hops can also be used). Unfortunately, bandwidth or the number of hops can also be used). Unfortunately,
for instance in the presence of ECMPs (Equal Cost Multi-Paths) in for instance in the presence of ECMPs (Equal Cost Multi-Paths) in
symmetrical networks when unconstrained TE LSPs are used, such symmetrical networks when unconstrained TE LSPs are used, such
metrics (e.g. path cost, number of hops, ...) are usually ineffective metrics (e.g. path cost, number of hops, ...) are usually ineffective
and may lead to poorly load balanced traffic. and may lead to poorly load balanced traffic.
By making statistical assumption about the aggregated traffic carried By making statistical assumptions about the aggregated traffic
by a set of TE LSPs signalled with no bandwidth requirement (referred carried by a set of TE LSPs signalled with no bandwidth requirement
to as unconstrained TE LSPs in this document), algorithms can be (referred to as unconstrained TE LSPs in this document), algorithms
designed to load balance (existing or newly configured) unconstrained can be designed to load balance (existing or newly configured)
TE Label Switched Path (LSP) across a set of equal cost paths. This unconstrained TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across a set of equal
requires knowledge of the number of unconstrained Traffic Engineering cost paths. This requires knowledge of the number of unconstrained
Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) signalled across each link. Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) signalled across
each link.
Note that the specification of load balancing algorithms is outside Note that the specification of load balancing algorithms is outside
the scope of this document and is referred to for the sake of the scope of this document and is referred to for the sake of
illustration of the motivation for gathering such information. illustration of the motivation for gathering such information.
Furthermore, the knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs Furthermore, the knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs
signalled across each link can be used for other purposes (for signalled across each link can be used for other purposes (for
example to evaluate the number of affected unconstrained TE LSPs in example to evaluate the number of affected unconstrained TE LSPs in
case of a link failure). case of a link failure).
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
information related to the number of unconstrained TE LSP(s) is not information related to the number of unconstrained TE LSP(s) is not
available. This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic available. This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic
Engineering sub-TLV used to indicate the number of unconstrained TE Engineering sub-TLV used to indicate the number of unconstrained TE
LSPs signalled across a link. LSPs signalled across a link.
Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and provisioned through a Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and provisioned through a
management system MAY be omitted from the count that is reported. management system MAY be omitted from the count that is reported.
3. Protocol extensions 3. Protocol extensions
The Unconstrained TE LSPs count sub-TLV is defined that specifies the Two Unconstrained TE LSP count sub-TLVs are defined that specify the
number of TE LSPs signalled with zero bandwidth across a link. number of TE LSPs signalled with zero bandwidth across a link.
3.1. IS-IS 3.1. IS-IS
The IS-IS Unconstrained TE LSP Count Sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT The IS-IS Unconstrained TE LSP Count Sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
appear more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV (type appear more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV (type
22) specified in [RFC3784]. If a second instance of the 22) specified in [RFC3784] or the MT Intermediate Systems TLV (type
222) specified in [RFC5120]. If a second instance of the
Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV is present, the receiving system Unconstrained TE LSP Count sub-TLV is present, the receiving system
MUST only process the first instance of the sub-TLV. MUST only process the first instance of the sub-TLV.
The IS-IS Unconstrained TE LSP Count Sub-TLV format is defined below: The IS-IS Unconstrained TE LSP Count Sub-TLV format is defined below:
Type (1 octet): To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 23) Type (1 octet): To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 23)
Length (1 octet): 2 Length (1 octet): 2
Value (2 octets): number of unconstrained TE LSP(s) signalled across Value (2 octets): number of unconstrained TE LSP(s) signalled across
the link. the link.
3.2. OSPF 3.2. OSPF
The OSPF Unconstrained TE LSP Count TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT The OSPF Unconstrained TE LSP Count TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
appear more than once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself appear more than once within the Link TLV (Type 2) that is itself
carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in [RFC3630] or carried within the Traffic Engineering LSA specified in [RFC3630] or
skipping to change at page 7, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 36
The authors would like to thank Jean-Louis Le Roux, Adrian Farrel, The authors would like to thank Jean-Louis Le Roux, Adrian Farrel,
Daniel King, Acee Lindem, Lou Berger, Attila Takacs and Loa Anderson Daniel King, Acee Lindem, Lou Berger, Attila Takacs and Loa Anderson
for their useful inputs. for their useful inputs.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic] [I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic]
Ishiguro, K., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem,
version 3", draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-09 (work in "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3",
progress), September 2007. draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-13 (work in progress),
June 2008.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[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.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2470] Crawford, M., Narten, T., and S. Thomas, "Transmission of [RFC2470] Crawford, M., Narten, T., and S. Thomas, "Transmission of
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 7, line 23
[RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate [RFC3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)", System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004. RFC 3784, June 2004.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005. May 2005.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
JP Vasseur (editor) JP Vasseur (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc Cisco Systems, Inc
1414 Massachusetts Avenue 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
USA USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com Email: jpv@cisco.com
Matthew R. Meyer Matthew R. Meyer
Global Crossing Global Crossing
3133 Indian Valley Tr. 3133 Indian Valley Tr.
Howell, MI 48855 Howell, MI 48855
USA USA
Email: mrm@gblx.net Email: mrminc@gmail.com
Kenji Kumaki Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku, Garden Air Tower Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, 102-8460 Tokyo, 102-8460
JAPAN JAPAN
Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Alberto Tempia Bonda Alberto Tempia Bonda
Telecom Italia Telecom Italia
skipping to change at page 9, line 44 skipping to change at line 355
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
36 lines changed or deleted 39 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/