draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-02.txt   draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-03.txt 
TEAS 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: August 6, 2015 Cisco Expires: September 2, 2015 Cisco
S. Balls S. Balls
B. Wright B. Wright
Metaswitch Metaswitch
February 2, 2015 March 01, 2015
LSP Attribute in ERO LSP Attribute in ERO
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-02 draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-03
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 defines an apply to the whole of the path of an Label Switched Path (LSP). This
extension to the RSVP ERO and RRO objects to allow it to specify or document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO)
and Record Route Object (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
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 August 6, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Subobject presence rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6 3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 6 3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 object (ERO) 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-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] or [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-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 provides a mechanism to define per-Hop
attributes. attributes.
The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information
related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This document does related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This document does
not restrict what that information can be used for. The defined not restrict what that information can be used for. The defined
approach builds on LSP Attributes defined in [RFC5420], and enables approach builds on LSP Attributes defined in [RFC5420], and enables
attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route object attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route object
(SERO) objects. A new ERO sub-object is defined, containing a list (SERO) objects. A new ERO sub-object is defined, containing a list
of generic per-Hop attributes. of generic per-Hop attributes.
1.1. 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. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject 2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject may be carried in the ERO or SERO The ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be carried in the ERO or SERO
object if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format object if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format
of an ERO subobject. of an ERO subobject.
2.1. Encoding 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 2.2. 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, Objective Function (OF) and Metric) is specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, Objective Function (OF) and Metric) is
skipping to change at page 3, line 46 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
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]
4.3.3. The L bit MUST be set to 0. The Type for the ERO Hop Section 4.3.3. The L bit MUST be set to 0. The Type for the ERO Hop
Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA. The attributes TLV are encoded Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA. The attributes TLV are encoded
as defined in section Section 2.2. as defined in 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 processes 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 2.3. Section 2.3.
Attributes TLVs as defined in Section 2.2. Attributes TLVs The TLVs as defined in Section 2.2.
2.2. 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.
The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] MAY be carried in an ERO The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] MAY be carried in an ERO
Hop Attributes Subobject. Flags set in the an Attribute Flags TLV Hop Attributes Subobject. Flags set in the an Attribute Flags TLV
[RFC5420] carried in a ERO Hop Attributes Subobject SHALL be [RFC5420] carried in a ERO Hop Attributes Subobject SHALL be
interpreted in the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of interpreted in the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of
defined flags are defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV defined flags are defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV
carried in a ERO Hop Attributes Subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be carried in a ERO Hop Attributes Subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be
silently ignored. Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a silently ignored. Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a
PathErr with Error Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in PathErr with Error Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in
[RFC5420] Section 5.2. [RFC5420] Section 5.2. The set of valid flags are defined in
Section 4.3.
2.3. 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 Attributes subobject MAY be abstract node or link. The ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be
appended after any of the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209], appended after any of the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. [RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be present, for each hop. Several ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be present, for each hop.
Document defining specific Hop attribute TLV must describe after Document defining specific Hop attribute TLV has to describe after
which kind of subobject they are valid and if TLV modification rules which kind of subobject they are valid and if TLV modification rules
applies. For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by applies. For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by
describing rules similar to [RFC4990] section 6.1. describing rules similar to [RFC4990] Section 6.1.
If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes 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]
5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV Section 5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the
present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] attribute TLV present in the subobject following the rules described
section 4.2. in [RFC5420] Section 4.2.
A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with an HOP A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with an HOP
Attributes 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. A processing node MUST left) to the offending malformed subobject. A processing node MUST
NOT originates a HOP Attributes TLV longer than the ERO HOP NOT originates a HOP Attributes TLV longer than the ERO HOP
Attributes Subobject. The processing of the Hop attribute TLVs Attributes Subobject. The processing of the Hop attribute TLVs
SHOULD be described in the documents defining them. SHOULD be described in the documents defining them.
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject 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.
3.1. Encoding 3.1. Encoding
The RRO Hop Attributes 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 Attributes 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]
4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA. Section 4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is TBA
The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in section Section 2.2. by IANA. The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in 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 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 additional HOP Attributes, using Attributes TLVs The processed or additional HOP Attributes, using
the format defined in Section 2.2. the format defined in Section 2.2.
3.2. Procedures 3.2. Procedures
3.2.1. Subobject presence rule 3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule
The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes
subobject (if present) defined in in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop subobject (if present) defined in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop Attributes
Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects identifying
identifying Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local policy apply all
policy apply all such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs.
transit LSRs.
It is noted that a node (e.g. a domain edge node) may edit the RRO to It is noted that a node (e.g., a domain edge node) MAY edit the RRO
prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attribute subobject to prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attribute subobject
before forwarding due to confidentiality policy or other reasons (for before forwarding due to confidentiality policy or other reasons (for
instance RRO size reduction). instance RRO size reduction).
3.2.2. 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 Attributes an additional attribute, an LSR MAY add a RRO Hop Attributes
subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to
be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified
in the document that defines the usage of an Hop attribute. in the document that defines the usage of an Hop attribute.
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject 3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO
Attributes subobject defined in [RFC5420] section 7.2 by allowing the Attributes subobject defined in [RFC5420] Section 7.2 by allowing the
node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in this node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in this
document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using the document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using the
following procedures. following procedures.
For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
subobject to report processing of those attributes. subobject to report processing of those attributes.
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 4
following procedures. following procedures.
For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
subobject to report processing of those attributes. subobject to report processing of those attributes.
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop
Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject. Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject.
Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will
drop the information, as described in [RFC3209] section 4.4.5. drop the information, as described in [RFC3209] Section 4.4.5.
A node MAY use the RRO Hop Attribute to report a LSP Attribute A node MAY use the RRO Hop Attribute to report a LSP Attribute
signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only if the signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only if the
following conditions are met : following conditions are met:
The Attribute and its corresponding flag is allowed on both the The Attribute and its corresponding flag is allowed on both the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP Hop Attributes LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP Hop Attributes
subobject. subobject.
The document defining this Attribute specify this specific The document defining this Attribute specify this specific
behavior. behavior.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 8, line 7
TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 3 TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 3
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags 4.3. Existing Attribute Flags
IANA manages the "Attribute Flags" registry as part of the "RSVP-TE IANA manages the "Attribute Flags" registry as part of the "RSVP-TE
PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xml. A new column in the registry te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xml. A new column in the registry
is introduced by this document. This column indicates if the flag is is introduced by this document. This column indicates if the flag is
permitted to be used in a Attribute Flags TLV carried in the ERO Hop permitted to be used in a Attribute Flags TLV carried in the ERO Hop
Attributes Subobject. The column uses the heading "ERO" and the Attributes Subobject. The column uses the heading "ERO" and the
registery is to be updated as follows: registry is to be updated as follows:
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
FlagsPath FlagsResv FlagsPath FlagsResv
0 End-to-end re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920] 0 End-to-end re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
[RFC5420]
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920] 1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
[RFC5420]
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920] 2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing routing
[RFC5420]
3 LSP Integrity Required Yes No No No [RFC4875] 3 LSP Integrity Required Yes No No No [RFC4875]
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151] 4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151]
5 LSP stitching desired Yes No Yes No [RFC5150] 5 LSP stitching desired Yes No Yes No [RFC5150]
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001] 6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001]
7 Non-PHP behavior flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511] 7 Non-PHP behavior flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511] 8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790] 9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790]
Capability Capability
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260] 10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired desired
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260] 11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired desired
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [I.D.draft- 12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [I.D.draft-
(TEMPORARY - registered ietf-teas- (TEMPORARY - registered ietf-teas-
2014-09-11, expires rsvp-te- 2014-09-11, expires rsvp-te-
2015-09-11) srlg-collect] 2015-09-11) srlg-collect]
New allocation requests to this registry shall indicate the value to New allocation requests to this registry SHALL indicate the value to
be used in the ERO column. be used in the ERO column.
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs 4.4. 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)
skipping to change at page 9, line 43 skipping to change at page 9, line 35
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
on specific node. The mechanism added in this document does allow on specific node. The mechanism added in this document does allow
more control of LSP attributes at a given node. As other inputs, a more control of LSP attributes at a given node. As other inputs, a
node should check the Hop Attributes against his policies and node SHOULD check the Hop Attributes against his policies and
admission procedures. A node may reject the message using existing admission procedures. A node MAY reject the message using existing
RSVP error code like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission Control RSVP error code like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission Control
Failure". The node may also, depending on the specific TLV Failure". The node MAY also, depending on the specific TLV
procedures, modify the requested attribute. This may reveal procedures, modify the requested attribute. This can reveal
information about the LSP request and status to anyone with information about the LSP request and status to anyone with
unauthorized access. The mechanism described in this document do not unauthorized access. The mechanism described in this document do not
contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by encrypting contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by encrypting
the content of the whole signaling message. the content of the whole signaling message.
In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO may reveal In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO can 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.
6. 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).
skipping to change at page 12, line 32 skipping to change at page 12, line 24
[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] [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb]
Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft- RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft-
ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-03 (work in progress), January ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04 (work in progress), February
2015. 2015.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect] [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect]
Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M., Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M.,
and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00 Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00
(work in progress), December 2014. (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
 End of changes. 42 change blocks. 
54 lines changed or deleted 54 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/