draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-03.txt   draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-04.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: September 2, 2015 Cisco Expires: September 5, 2015 Cisco
S. Balls S. Balls
B. Wright B. Wright
Metaswitch Metaswitch
March 01, 2015 March 04, 2015
LSP Attribute in ERO LSP Attribute in ERO
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-03 draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-04
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 Label Switched Path (LSP). This apply to the whole of the path of a Label Switched Path (LSP). This
document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO) document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO)
and Record Route Object (RRO) objects to allow it to specify or 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 September 2, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 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 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
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. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6 3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 7
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 6 3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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
skipping to change at page 4, line 28 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
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 an 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 an 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. The set of valid flags are defined in [RFC5420] Section 5.2. The set of valid flags are defined in
Section 4.3. Section 4.3.
The presence and ordering rule of the Attribute Flags TLV in an ERO
Hop Attributes Subobject is defined by each Flag. A document
defining a Flag to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the
ERO Hop Attributes Subobject has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject the Flag is valid
o if ordering of the Flag and other ERO subobjects associated with
the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the Flag is interpreted in
association with the preceding subobjects,
o any Flag modification rules that might apply.
2.3. Procedures 2.3. Procedures
As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list As described in [RFC3209] the ERO is managed as a list of subobjects
where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an each identifying a specific entity, an abstract node or a link that
abstract node or link. The ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be defines a waypoint in the network path. Identifying subobjects of
appended after any of the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209], various types are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be present, for each hop.
Document defining specific Hop attribute TLV has to describe after [RFC3473] modified the ERO list by allowing one or two Label
which kind of subobject they are valid and if TLV modification rules subobjects to be interposed in the list after a subobject identifying
applies. For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by a link. One or more ERO Hop Attributes subobjects applicable to a
describing rules similar to [RFC4990] Section 6.1. particular hop MAY be inserted directly after any of the existing
identifying subobjects defined in[RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
[RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. If any Label subobjects are
present for a hop, the ERO Hop Attributes subobject(s) MAY also be
inserted after the Label subobjects.
The attributes specified in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject apply to
the immediately preceding subobject(s) in the ERO subobject list.
A document defining a specific Hop Attribute TLV has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject they are valid ,
o if ordering of the Hop Attributes subobject and other ERO
subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects)
is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the attribute is interpreted in
association with the preceding ERO subobjects, and
o any TLV modification rules that might apply.
For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by 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] in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420]
Section 5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the Section 5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the
attribute TLV present in the subobject following the rules described attribute TLV present in the subobject following the rules described
skipping to change at page 5, line 17 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
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] in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420]
Section 5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the Section 5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the
attribute TLV present in the subobject following the rules described attribute TLV present in the subobject following the rules described
in [RFC5420] 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 a 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
skipping to change at page 6, line 35 skipping to change at page 7, line 27
to 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 a 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 45
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 an 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.
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 47
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------ ------ ----------------- ------------------------
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 an 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
registry 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]
This Document
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920] 1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
This Document
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920] 2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing routing
This Document
3 LSP Integrity Required Yes No No No [RFC4875] 3 LSP Integrity Required Yes No No No [RFC4875]
This Document
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151] 4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151]
This Document
5 LSP stitching desired Yes No Yes No [RFC5150] 5 LSP stitching desired Yes No Yes No [RFC5150]
This Document
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001] 6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001]
This Document
7 Non-PHP behavior flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511] 7 Non-PHP behavior flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
This Document
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511] 8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
This Document
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790] 9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790]
Capability Capability
This Document
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260] 10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired desired
This Document
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260] 11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired desired
This Document
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]
This Document
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]:
skipping to change at page 9, line 16 skipping to change at page 10, line 24
The existing registry is modified for existing TLVs as follows: The The existing registry is modified for existing TLVs as follows: The
following abbreviation are used in the table: following abbreviation are used in the table:
LSP_A Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. LSP_A Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
LSP_RA Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object. LSP_RA Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
HOP_A Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject. HOP_A Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref. T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- -------- - --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes Yes [RFC5420] 1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes Yes [RFC5420]
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060] This Document
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260] 2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
This Document
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
This Document
5. 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.
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
46 lines changed or deleted 97 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/