draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-00.txt   draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-01.txt 
CCAMP C. Margaria, Ed. TEAS C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli
Expires: June 11, 2015 Cisco Expires: July 3, 2015 Cisco
S. Balls S. Balls
B. Wright B. Wright
Metaswitch Metaswitch
December 08, 2014 December 30, 2014
LSP Attribute in ERO LSP Attribute in ERO
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-00 draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-01
Abstract Abstract
RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which
apply to the whole of the path of an LSP. This document proposes an apply to the whole of the path of an LSP. This document proposes an
extension to the RSVP ERO and RRO objects to allow it to specify or extension to the RSVP ERO and RRO objects to allow it to specify or
record generic attributes which apply to a given hop. record generic attributes which apply to a given hop.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 June 11, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 3, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Specifying Hop Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Recording Hop attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. Subobject presence rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6
4.2.1. Subobject presence rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 6
4.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 6 4.1. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3.1. Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3.2. Service ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3.3. OAM Configuration TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit
Route (ERO) object and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209], Route object (ERO) and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. [RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be
targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163], targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163],
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] or
[I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb] or [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]. This document
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound],. This document
provides a generic mechanism for use by these other documents. provides a generic mechanism for use by these other documents.
RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP attributes in RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP Attributes in
[RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint [RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint
extensions this document defines a mechanism to define per-Hop extensions this document defines a mechanism to define per-Hop
attributes. attributes.
1.1. Contributing Authors The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information
related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This document does
not restrict what that information can be used for. The defined
approach builds on LSP Attributes defined in [RFC5420], and enables
attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route object
(SERO) objects. A new ERO sub-object is defined, containing a list
of generic per-Hop attributes.
1.2. Requirements Language 1.1. 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].
2. Requirements 2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject
The requirement is to provide a generic mechanism to carry
information related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This
document does not restrict what that information can be used for. A
mechanism similar to LSP attribute defined [RFC5420] should be
expressed in ERO and SERO objects. A new ERO sub-object is defined,
containing a list of generic per-Hop attributes. The mechanism
defined in this document limits itself to single HOP attributes, and
does not address attributes valid for a LSP section
3. Specifying Hop Attribute
The ERO Attributes subobject may be carried in the ERO or SERO object The ERO Hop Attributes subobject may be carried in the ERO or SERO
if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format of an object if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format
ERO subobject. of an ERO subobject.
3.1. ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject 2.1. Encoding
The length is variable and content is a list of HOP Attributes TLVs The length is variable and content is a list of HOP Attributes TLVs
defined in Section 3.2. The size of the ERO sub-object limits the defined in Section 2.2. The size of the ERO sub-object limits the
size of the attribute TLV to 250 bytes. The typical size of size of the attribute TLV to 250 bytes. The typical size of
currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs applicable to a currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs applicable to a
specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, OF and Metric) is not foreseen to specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, Objective Function (OF) and Metric) is
exceed this limit. not foreseen to exceed this limit.
The ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject is defined as follows: The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R| |L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Attributes TLVs // // Attributes TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The L, Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] section The L, Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] section
4.3.3. The Type for the ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject is TBA by IANA. 4.3.3. The L bit MUST be set to 0. The Type for the ERO Hop
The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in section Section 3.2. Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA. The attributes TLV are encoded
as defined in section Section 2.2.
Reserved Reserved, MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted Reserved Reserved, MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the ERO and in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO and
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO
subobjects. subobjects.
R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE
semantic defined in [RFC5420]. When set it indicates required hop semantic defined in [RFC5420]. When set it indicates required hop
attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it
indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in
Section Section 3.3. Section Section 2.3.
Attributes TLVs as defined in Section 3.2 . Attributes TLVs as defined in Section 2.2 .
3.2. HOP Attributes TLVs 2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs
ERO Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document ERO Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document
are encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs MAY be present in each are encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs MAY be present in each
object. There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation object. There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation
SHOULD NOT be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The SHOULD NOT be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The
TLV format is defined in [RFC5420] section 3. TLV format is defined in [RFC5420] section 3.
3.3. Procedures 2.3. Procedures
As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list
where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an
abstract node or link. The ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject MUST be abstract node or link. The ERO Hop Attributes subobject MUST be
appended after the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209], appended after the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. [RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject MAY be present, for each hop. Several ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be present, for each hop.
If a node is processing an ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject and does not If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not
support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in
[RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error
value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
subobject. subobject.
When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present
in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] section in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] section
5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV 5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV
present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420]
section 4.2. section 4.2.
A node processing an ERO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject with an HOP A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with an HOP
attribute TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr Attributes TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr
with error code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE with error code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the
left) to the offending malformed subobject. The processing of the left) to the offending malformed subobject. A processing node MUST
Hop attribute TLVs SHOULD be described in the documents defining NOT originates a HOP Attributes TLV longer than the ERO HOP
them. Attributes Subobject. The processing of the Hop attribute TLVs
SHOULD be described in the documents defining them.
4. Recording Hop attribute 3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject
In some cases it is important to determine if an optional Hop In some cases it is important to determine if an optional Hop
attribute has been processed by a node. attribute has been processed by a node.
4.1. RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject 3.1. Encoding
The RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject may be carried in the RECORD_ROUTE The RRO Hop Attributes subobject may be carried in the RECORD_ROUTE
object if it is present. The subobject uses the standard format of object if it is present. The subobject uses the standard format of
an RRO subobject. an RRO subobject.
The RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject is defined as follows: The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved | | Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// Attributes TLVs // // Attributes TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] section The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] section
4.4.1. The Type for the RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject is TBA by IANA. 4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA.
The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in section Section 3.2. The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in section Section 2.2.
Length The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be
always divisible by 4.
Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the RRO and in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the RRO and
must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO
subobjects. subobjects.
Attributes TLVs The processed or addition HOP attributes, using the Attributes TLVs The processed or addition HOP Attributes, using the
format defined in Section 3.2 . format defined in Section 2.2 .
4.2. Procedures 3.2. Procedures
4.2.1. Subobject presence rule 3.2.1. Subobject presence rule
The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop
RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO attribute Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes
subobject (if present) defined in in [RFC5420]. The subobject (if present) defined in in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop
RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject MAY be present between a pair of Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects
subobject identifying LSR or links. All such subobjects MUST be identifying Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. All such
forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs. subobjects MUST be forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs.
4.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes 3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes
To report that an ERO Hop attribute has been considered, or to report To report that an ERO Hop attribute has been considered, or to report
an additional attribute, an LSR MAY add a RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE subobject an additional attribute, an LSR MAY add a RRO Hop Attributes
with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to be subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to
reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified in be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified
the document that defines the usage of an Hop attribute. in the document that defines the usage of an Hop attribute.
4.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject 3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject
The RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE extends the capability of the RRO Attributes The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO
subobject defined in [RFC5420] section 7.2 by allowing the node to Attributes subobject defined in [RFC5420] section 7.2 by allowing the
report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in this document node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in this
is compatible with the RRO Attributes using the following procedures. document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using the
following procedures.
For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes to LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
report processing of those attributes. If a node desires to include subobject to report processing of those attributes.
the LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLV, it SHOULD use both the RRO Attributes and
RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE. Head end nodes not supporting the
RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE will drop the information.
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop attribute and not in the For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES, if a node desires to not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
include the LSP_ATTRIBUTE, it SHOULD use the RRO_HOP_ATTRIBUTE and node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop
SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes. Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject.
Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will
drop the information, as described in [RFC3209] section 4.4.5.
5. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
5.1. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject 4.1. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml. http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 20 We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 20
EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry. EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry.
This document introduces a new ERO sub-object: This document introduces a new ERO sub-object:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- -------------- ------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA ERO HOP Attribute This document TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 2
5.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject 4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml. http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 21 We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 21
ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object: This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- -------------- ------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA RRO HOP Attribute This document TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 3
5.3. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs 4.3. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs
IANA manages the "RSVP-TE PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP-TE PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te- http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-
parameters.xml. The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manage the parameters.xml. The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manage the
following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]: following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]:
o TLV Type (T-field value) o TLV Type (T-field value)
o TLV Name o TLV Name
o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
We request IANA to add the following information for each TLV in the We request IANA to add the following information for each TLV in the
RSVP TLV type identifier registry. RSVP TLV type identifier registry.
o Whether allowed on LSP attribute ERO subobject o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject
The existing registry is modified for existing TLVs as follows:
5.3.1. Attribute Flags
The new TLV type definition is as follow
o TLV Type = 1
o TLV Name = Attribute Flags TLV
o Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
o Allowed on LSP attribute ERO subobject
o Defining RFC = [RFC5420]
5.3.2. Service ID TLV
The new TLV type definition is as follow
o TLV Type = 2
o TLV Name = Service ID TLV
o Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o Not allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
o Not allowed on LSP attribute ERO subobject
o Defining RFC = [RFC7260]
5.3.3. OAM Configuration TLV
The new TLV type definition is as follow
o TLV Type = 3 The existing registry is modified for existing TLVs as follows: The
following abbreviation are used in the table:
o TLV Name = OAM Configuration TLV LSP_A Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
o Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object LSP_RA Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
o Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object HOP_A Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
o Not allowed on LSP attribute ERO subobject
o Defining RFC = [RFC6060] T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes No [RFC5420]
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
6. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document adds new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the This document adds new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the
ROUTE_RECORD object carried in RSVP message used in MPLS and GMPLS ROUTE_RECORD object carried in RSVP message used in MPLS and GMPLS
signaling. It builds on mechanism defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420] signaling. It builds on mechanism defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420]
and does not introduce any new security. The existing security and does not introduce any new security. The existing security
considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and
[RFC5420] do apply. [RFC5420] do apply.
As any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this As any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this
document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences
skipping to change at page 9, line 32 skipping to change at page 8, line 29
be only resolved by encrypting the content of the whole signaling be only resolved by encrypting the content of the whole signaling
message. message.
In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO may reveal In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO may reveal
details about the node that the operator wishes to remains details about the node that the operator wishes to remains
confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO
subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is recommended that subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is recommended that
domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes
into consideration. into consideration.
7. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and
Attila Takacs for inspiring this Attila Takacs for inspiring this
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]. The authors also thanks Dirk [I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]. The authors also thanks Dirk
Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the
documents (version -00 up to -02). documents (version -00 up to -02).
8. References 7. References
8.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[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.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
skipping to change at page 10, line 46 skipping to change at page 9, line 42
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs, [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control
of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB- of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-
TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011. TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014. (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014.
8.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound] [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]
Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K., Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric
Bound", draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric- Bound", draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-
bound-05 (work in progress), February 2014. bound-05 (work in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb]
Dong, J., Chen, M., and Z. Li, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions
for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-
mpls-tp-li-lb-05 (work in progress), December 2012.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling]
Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H. Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09 Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09
(work in progress), September 2014. (work in progress), September 2014.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb]
Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft-
ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-01 (work in progress), December
2014.
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes] [I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]
Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte- intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-
hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009. hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
April 2011. April 2011.
skipping to change at page 12, line 8 skipping to change at page 11, line 8
via Philips 12 via Philips 12
Monza 20900 Monza 20900
IT IT
Phone: +39 039 209 2044 Phone: +39 039 209 2044
Email: giomarti@cisco.com Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Steve Balls Steve Balls
Metaswitch Metaswitch
100 Church Street 100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ Enfield EN2 6BQ
UJ GB
Phone: +44 208 366 1177 Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com
Ben Wright Ben Wright
Metaswitch Metaswitch
100 Church Street 100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ Enfield EN2 6BQ
UJ GB
Phone: +44 208 366 1177 Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com
 End of changes. 64 change blocks. 
179 lines changed or deleted 133 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/