draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-10.txt   draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-11.txt 
TEAS Working Group M. Taillon TEAS Working Group M. Taillon
Internet-Draft T. Saad, Ed. Internet-Draft T. Saad, Ed.
Updates: 4090 R. Gandhi, Ed. Updates: 4090 R. Gandhi, Ed.
Intended Status: Standards Track Z. Ali Intended Status: Standards Track Z. Ali
Expires: January 19, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: February 4, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
M. Bhatia M. Bhatia
Nokia Nokia
July 18, 2017 August 3, 2017
Updates to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of Updates to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of
Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs
draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-10 draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-11
Abstract Abstract
This document updates the Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic This document updates the Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures defined in RFC Engineering (RSVP-TE) Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures defined in RFC
4090 to support Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Generalized Multi- 4090 to support Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These
updates allow the coordination of a bidirectional bypass tunnel updates allow the coordination of a bidirectional bypass tunnel
assignment protecting a common facility in both forward and reverse assignment protecting a common facility in both forward and reverse
directions of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. In addition, these directions of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. In addition, these
skipping to change at page 3, line 11 skipping to change at page 3, line 11
6. Fast Reroute For Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs with Out-of-band 6. Fast Reroute For Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs with Out-of-band
Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Message and Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Message and Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. FRR Bypass Assignment Error Notify Message . . . . . . . . 18 7.2. FRR Bypass Assignment Error Notify Message . . . . . . . . 18
8. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10.1. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. FRR Bypass Assignment Error Notify Message . . . . . . . 19 10.2. FRR Bypass Assignment Error Notify Message . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) can be setup using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Paths (LSPs) can be setup using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) signaling procedures specified in [RFC3473] for Switching (GMPLS) signaling procedures specified in [RFC3473] for
both unidirectional and bidirectional tunnels. The GMPLS signaling both unidirectional and bidirectional tunnels. The GMPLS signaling
allows sending and receiving the RSVP messages in-band with the data allows sending and receiving the RSVP messages in-band with the data
traffic or out-of-band over a separate control-channel. Fast Reroute traffic or out-of-band over a separate control-channel. Fast Reroute
(FRR) [RFC4090] has been widely deployed in the packet TE networks (FRR) [RFC4090] has been widely deployed in the packet TE networks
skipping to change at page 18, line 40 skipping to change at page 18, line 40
message defined in this document will ignore it but forward it message defined in this document will ignore it but forward it
without modification. without modification.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document introduces a new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject for the This document introduces a new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject for the
RECORD_ROUTE Object that is carried in an RSVP signaling message. RECORD_ROUTE Object that is carried in an RSVP signaling message.
Thus in the event of the interception of a signaling message, more Thus in the event of the interception of a signaling message, more
information about LSP's fast reroute protection can be deduced than information about LSP's fast reroute protection can be deduced than
was previously the case. This is judged to be a very minor security was previously the case. This is judged to be a very minor security
risk as this information is already available by other means. The risk as this information is already available by other means. If a
Notify message for FRR Bypass Assignment Error defined in this MP does not find a matching bypass tunnel with given source and
document does not result in tear-down of the protected LSP and is not destination addresses locally, it ignores the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT
service affecting. subobject. Due to this, security risk introduced by inserting a
random address in this subobject is minimal. The Notify message for
FRR Bypass Assignment Error defined in this document does not result
in tear-down of the protected LSP and is not service affecting.
Otherwise, this document introduces no additional security Security considerations for RSVP-TE and GMPLS signaling extensions
considerations. For general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related are covered in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. Further, general
security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920]. considerations for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks can
be found in [RFC5920]. This document updates the mechanisms defined
in [RFC4090], which also discusses related security measures and are
also applicable to this document. As specified in [RFC4090], a PLR
and its selected merge point trust RSVP messages received from each
other. The security considerations pertaining to the original RSVP
protocol [RFC2205] also remain relevant to the updates in this
document.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
10.1. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject 10.1. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. IANA is requested <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. IANA is requested
to assign a value for the new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the to assign a value for the new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the
"Class Type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record" registry. "Class Type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record" registry.
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 26 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/