draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-05.txt   rfc7570.txt 
TEAS C. Margaria, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Request for Comments: 7570 Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli Category: Standards Track G. Martinelli
Expires: September 24, 2015 Cisco ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
S. Balls S. Balls
B. Wright B. Wright
Metaswitch Metaswitch
March 23, 2015 July 2015
LSP Attribute in ERO Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-05
Abstract Abstract
RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which RFC 5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes that
apply to the whole of the path of a 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) to allow them to specify or record
record generic attributes which apply to a given hop. generic attributes that apply to a given hop.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2015. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570.
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 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 11
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. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 7 3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 7
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 7 3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes Subobject . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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 subobjects 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 [WSON-SIG], [RFC7571], or [OBJ-FUN]. This document provides a
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]. This document 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 provides 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
(SERO) objects. A new ERO sub-object is defined, containing a list Objects (SEROs). A new ERO subobject 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 is OPTIONAL. If used it is carried The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used, it is carried
in the ERO or SERO. The subobject uses the standard format of an ERO in the ERO or SERO. The subobject uses the standard format of an ERO
subobject. 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 subobject limits the
size of the attribute TLV to 250 bytes. The typical size of size of the Hop Attributes 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
not foreseen to exceed this limit. not foreseen to exceed this limit.
The ERO Hop Attributes 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 // // Hop Attributes TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The L, Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] The L, Type, and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209],
Section 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-1 by IANA. The attributes TLV are Attributes subobject is 35. The Hop Attributes TLVs are encoded as
encoded as defined in Section 2.2. 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
attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it hop 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 2.3. Section 2.3.
Attributes TLVs The TLVs as defined in Section 2.2. Hop 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. Each object MAY contain one or more TLVs. are encoded within TLVs. Each object MAY contain one or more TLVs.
There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation SHOULD NOT There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation SHOULD NOT
be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The TLV format is be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The TLV format is
defined in [RFC5420] Section 3. defined in [RFC5420], Section 3.
The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] are carried in an ERO The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] is carried in an ERO Hop
Hop Attributes Subobject. Flags set in the an Attribute Flags TLV Attributes subobject. Flags set in the Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420]
[RFC5420] carried in an ERO Hop Attributes Subobject SHALL be carried in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject SHALL be interpreted in
interpreted in the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of defined flags are
defined flags are defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV carried in an ERO Hop
carried in an ERO Hop Attributes Subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be Attributes subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be silently ignored.
silently ignored. Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a PathErr with Error
PathErr with Error Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in [RFC5420], Section 5.2.
[RFC5420] Section 5.2. The set of valid flags are defined in 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 The presence and ordering rule of the Attribute Flags TLV in an ERO
Hop Attributes Subobject is defined by each Flag. A document Hop Attributes subobject is defined by each Flag. A document
defining a Flag to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the defining a flag to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the
ERO Hop Attributes Subobject has to describe: ERO Hop Attributes subobject has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject the Flag is valid o after which kinds of ERO subobject the flag is valid,
o if ordering of the Flag and other ERO subobjects associated with o if ordering of the flag and other ERO subobjects associated with
the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant, the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the Flag is interpreted in o if ordering is significant, how the flag is interpreted in
association with the preceding subobjects, association with the preceding subobjects, and
o any Flag modification rules that might apply. o any flag modification rules that might apply.
2.3. Procedures 2.3. Procedures
As described in [RFC3209] the ERO is managed as a list of subobjects As described in [RFC3209], the ERO is managed as a list of subobjects
each identifying a specific entity, an abstract node or a link that each identifying a specific entity, an abstract node, or a link that
defines a waypoint in the network path. Identifying subobjects of defines a waypoint in the network path. Identifying subobjects of
various types are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], various types are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
[RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. [RFC4874], [RFC5520], and [RFC5553].
[RFC3473] modified the ERO list by allowing one or two Label [RFC3473] modified the ERO list by allowing one or two Label
subobjects to be interposed in the list after a subobject identifying subobjects to be interposed in the list after a subobject identifying
a link. One or more ERO Hop Attributes subobjects applicable to a a link. One or more ERO Hop Attributes subobjects applicable to a
particular hop MAY be inserted directly after any of the existing particular hop MAY be inserted directly after any of the existing
identifying subobjects defined in[RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], identifying subobjects defined in[RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
[RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. If any Label subobjects are [RFC4874], [RFC5520], and [RFC5553]. If any Label subobjects are
present for a hop, the ERO Hop Attributes subobject(s) MAY also be present for a hop, the ERO Hop Attributes subobject(s) MAY also be
inserted after the Label subobjects. inserted after the Label subobjects.
The attributes specified in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject apply to The attributes specified in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject apply to
the immediately preceding subobject(s) in the ERO subobject list. the immediately preceding subobject(s) in the ERO subobject list.
A document defining a specific Hop Attribute TLV has to describe: A document defining a specific Hop Attributes TLV has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject they are valid , o after which kinds of ERO subobject they are valid,
o if ordering of the Hop Attributes subobject and other ERO o if ordering of the Hop Attributes subobject and other ERO
subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects)
is significant, is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the attribute is interpreted in o if ordering is significant, how the attribute is interpreted in
association with the preceding ERO subobjects, and association with the preceding ERO subobjects, and
o any TLV modification rules that might apply. o any TLV modification rules that might apply.
For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by describing For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by describing
rules similar to [RFC4990] Section 6.1. 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 the 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 attributes 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 attributes 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 a 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 originate a Hop Attributes TLV longer than the ERO Hop Attributes
Attributes Subobject. The processing of the Hop attribute TLVs subobject. The processing of the Hop Attributes TLVs SHOULD be
SHOULD be described in the documents defining them. 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 is OPTIONAL. If used it is carried The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used, it is carried
in the RECORD_ROUTE object. The subobject uses the standard format in the RECORD_ROUTE object. The subobject uses the standard format
of an RRO subobject. of 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 // // Hop Attributes TLVs //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209],
Section 4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is Section 4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is 35.
TBA-2 by IANA. The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in The Hop Attributes TLVs are encoded as defined in Section 2.2.
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 processes 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 Hop Attributes TLVs: The processed or additional Hop Attributes
the format defined in Section 2.2. TLVs, using 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 [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop Attributes subobject (if present) as defined in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop
subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects identifying Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects
Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local policy apply all identifying the Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local
such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs. policy applies, all such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by
transit LSRs.
It is noted that a node (e.g., a domain edge node) MAY edit the RRO It is noted that a node (e.g., a domain edge node) MAY edit the RRO
to prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attribute subobject to prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attributes 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 can add a RRO Hop Attributes an additional attribute, an LSR can add a RRO Hop Attributes
subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to subobject with the Hop Attributes TLV, which describes the attribute
be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified to be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be
in the document that defines the usage of a Hop attribute. specified 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
node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in this the node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in
document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using the this document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using
following procedures. the 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 can use the RRO Hop Attribute to report an LSP Attribute A node can use the RRO Hop Attributes subobject to report an LSP
signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only if the attribute signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only
following conditions are met: if the 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 reporting of an LSP attribute signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
behavior. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES in the RRO Hop Attribute is specified in
the document defining that LSP attribute.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject 4.1. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml. registry located at
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 20 <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. Per this
document, IANA has made 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 subobject:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------ ------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA-1 Hop Attributes This document, Section 2 35 Hop Attributes This document, Section 2
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject 4.2. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml. registry located at
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 21 <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. Per this
ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. We request the value to document, IANA has made an allocation in the Sub-object type 21
be the same as Section 4.1. ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. This value is the same
as that in Section 4.1.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object: This document introduces a new RRO subobject:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------ ------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA-2 Hop Attributes This document, Section 3 35 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 "Resource
PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters"
te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xml. A new column in the registry registry located at
is introduced by this document. This column indicates if the flag is <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>. A new column
permitted to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the ERO Hop in the registry is introduced by this document. This column
Attributes Subobject. The column uses the heading "ERO" and the indicates if the flag is permitted to be used in an Attribute Flags
registry is to be updated as follows: TLV carried in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject. The column uses the
heading "ERO" and the registry has been updated as follows:
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
FlagsPath FlagsResv No. FlagsPath FlagsResv
0 End-to-end re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920] 0 End-to-end re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
This Document routing [RFC5420]
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920] This Document
This Document 1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920] [RFC5420]
routing This Document
This Document 2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
3 LSP Integrity Required Yes No No No [RFC4875] routing [RFC5420]
This Document This Document
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151] 3 LSP Integrity Yes No No No [RFC4875]
This Document Required
5 LSP stitching desired Yes No Yes No [RFC5150] This Document
This Document 4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151]
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001] This Document
This Document 5 LSP stitching Yes No Yes No [RFC5150]
7 Non-PHP behavior flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511] desired
This Document This Document
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511] 6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001]
This Document This Document
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790] 7 Non-PHP behavior Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
Capability flag
This Document This Document
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260] 8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
desired This Document
This Document 9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790]
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260] Capability
desired This Document
This Document 10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [I.D.draft- desired
(TEMPORARY - registered ietf-teas- This Document
2014-09-11, expires rsvp-te- 11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
2015-09-11) srlg-collect] desired
This Document This Document
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [SRLG-COLLECT]
(TEMPORARY - This Document
registered
2014-09-11, expires
2015-09-11)
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 "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te- (RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located at
parameters.xml. The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manage the <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>. The
following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]: "Attributes TLV Space" registry manages the 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 Per this document, IANA has added the following information for each
RSVP TLV type identifier registry. TLV in the RSVP TLV type identifier registry.
o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject
The existing registry is modified for existing TLVs as follows: The The existing registry has been modified for existing TLVs as follows.
following abbreviation are used in the table: The following abbreviations are used below:
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]
This Document This Document
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060] 2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
This Document This Document
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260] 3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
This Document This Document
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document adds new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the This document adds a new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the
ROUTE_RECORD object carried in RSVP message used in MPLS and GMPLS ROUTE_RECORD objects carried in RSVP messages used in MPLS and GMPLS
signaling. It builds on mechanism defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420] signaling. It builds on mechanisms defined in [RFC3209] and
and does not introduce any new security. The existing security [RFC5420] and does not introduce any new security. The existing
considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and security considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
[RFC5420] do apply. and [RFC5420] do apply.
As any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this As with 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 a 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. A node SHOULD check
node SHOULD check the Hop Attributes against his policies and the hop attributes against its policies and admission procedures as
admission procedures. A node MAY reject the message using existing it does with other inputs. A node MAY reject the message using
RSVP error code like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission Control existing RSVP Error Codes like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission
Failure". The node MAY also, depending on the specific TLV Control Failure". The node MAY also, depending on the specific TLV
procedures, modify the requested attribute. This can 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 does
contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by encrypting not contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by
the content of the whole signaling message. encrypting the content of the whole signaling message.
In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO can 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 remain
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. References
The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and
Attila Takacs for inspiring this
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]. The authors also thanks Dirk
Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the
documents (version -00 up to -02).
7. References
7.1. Normative References 6.1. 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,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., 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, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[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
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes - [RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007. Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874,
April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC4920] Farrel, A., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N., and [RFC4920] Farrel, A., Ed., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N.,
G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS and G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and
RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, July 2007. GMPLS RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, DOI 10.17487/RFC4920, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4920>.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, [RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized "Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008. TE)", RFC 5150, DOI 10.17487/RFC5150, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150>.
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-Domain [RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
5151, February 2008. Extensions", RFC 5151, DOI 10.17487/RFC5151, February
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009. Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource [RFC5553] Farrel, A., Ed., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", RFC 5553, May 2009. Support", RFC 5553, DOI 10.17487/RFC5553, May 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5553>.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, [RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/ Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010. MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6060, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6060>.
[RFC6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate [RFC6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate
Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE
Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, February 2012. Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, DOI 10.17487/RFC6511,
February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6511>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012. RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC7260, June
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260>.
7.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound] [OBJ-FUN] 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", Work in Progress, draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-
bound-05 (work in progress), February 2014. function-metric-bound-05, February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling] [RFC4990] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of
Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H. Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched (GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, DOI 10.17487/RFC4990,
Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-10 September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4990>.
(work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS "Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft- Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-05 (work in progress), March 2015. RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect] [RFC7571] Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", RFC
7571, DOI 10.17487/RFC7571, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7571>.
[RSVP-TE-HOPS]
Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", Work in Progress,
draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00, October 2009.
[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", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
(work in progress), December 2014. srlg-collect-00, December 2014.
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes] [WSON-SIG]
Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte- Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009. Optical Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-
wson-signaling-10, March 2015.
[RFC4990] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of Acknowledgments
Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, September 2007.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for The authors would like to thank Lou Berger for his directions and
GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Attila Takacs for inspiring [RSVP-TE-HOPS]. The authors also thank
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, Dirk Schroetter for his contribution to the initial draft versions of
April 2011. this document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor) Cyril Margaria (editor)
Juniper Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001 200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807 Bridgewater, NJ 08807
USA United States
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Giovanni Martinelli Giovanni Martinelli
Cisco Cisco
via Philips 12 via Philips 12
Monza 20900 Monza 20900
IT Italy
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
GB United Kingdom
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
GB United Kingdom
Phone: +44 208 366 1177 Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com
 End of changes. 127 change blocks. 
298 lines changed or deleted 326 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/