--- 1/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-01.txt 2015-03-09 14:14:46.285017318 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-02.txt 2015-03-09 14:14:46.333018472 -0700 @@ -1,43 +1,43 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen, Ed. Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track R. Torvi, Ed. -Expires: July 14, 2015 Juniper Networks - January 10, 2015 +Expires: September 10, 2015 Juniper Networks + March 9, 2015 Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress Local Protection - draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-01.txt + draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-02.txt Abstract This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node - of a Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) in a Multi- - Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network. + of a Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP), which is a + Point-to-Point (P2P) LSP or a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) LSP. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2015. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -53,42 +53,48 @@ 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. An Example of Ingress Local Protection . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Ingress Local Protection with FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Ingress Failure Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Source Detects Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Backup and Source Detect Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Backup Forwarding State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. Forwarding State for Backup LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. INGRESS_PROTECTION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 5.1.1. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address . . . . . 7 - 5.1.2. Subobject: Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5.1.3. Subobject: Traffic Descriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 5.1.4. Subobject: Label-Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 6. Behavior of Ingress Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 6.2. Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 6.3. Backup Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6.3.1. Backup Ingress Behavior in Off-path Case . . . . . . . 11 - 6.3.2. Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case . . . . . . . 13 - 6.3.3. Failure Detection and Refresh PATH Messages . . . . . 13 - 6.4. Revertive Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 6.4.1. Revert to Primary Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 6.4.2. Global Repair by Backup Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - A. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5.1.1. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4 Address . . . . . . . . 7 + 5.1.2. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.1.3. Subobject: Ingress IPv4 Address . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.1.4. Subobject: Ingress IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 5.1.5. Subobject: Traffic Descriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 5.1.6. Subobject: Label-Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 6. Behavior of Ingress Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6.1.1. Relay-Message Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6.1.2. Proxy-Ingress Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6.1.3. Comparing Two Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6.2. Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 6.2.1. Relay-Message Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 6.2.2. Proxy-Ingress Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 6.3. Backup Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 6.3.1. Backup Ingress Behavior in Off-path Case . . . . . . . 14 + 6.3.2. Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case . . . . . . . 17 + 6.3.3. Failure Detection and Refresh PATH Messages . . . . . 17 + 6.4. Revertive Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 6.4.1. Revert to Primary Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 6.4.2. Global Repair by Backup Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 8.1. A New Class Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + A. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. Co-authors Ning So, Autumn Liu, Alia Atlas, Yimin Shen, Tarek Saad, Fengman Xu, Mehmet Toy, Lei Liu 2. Introduction For MPLS LSPs it is important to have a fast-reroute method for protecting its ingress node as well as transit nodes. This is not @@ -239,21 +245,22 @@ local protection. It is backward compatible. 5.1. INGRESS_PROTECTION Object The INGRESS_PROTECTION object with the FAST_REROUTE object in a PATH message is used to control the backup for protecting the primary ingress of a primary LSP. The primary ingress MUST insert this object into the PATH message to be sent to the backup ingress for protecting the primary ingress. It has the following format: - Class-Num = TBD C-Type = TBD + Class-Num = TBD C-Type = 1 for INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv4 + C-Type = 2 for INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv6 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length (bytes) | Class-Num | C-Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Secondary LSP ID | Flags | Options | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ (Subobjects) ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -298,81 +305,113 @@ when the primary ingress is restored. o P2MP Backup: This option is set to ask for the backup ingress to use P2MP backup LSP to protect the primary ingress. Note that one spare bit of the flags in the FAST-REROUTE object can be used to indicate whether P2MP or P2P backup LSP is desired for protecting an ingress and transit node. The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may contain some sub objects below. -5.1.1. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address +5.1.1. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4 Address When the primary ingress of a protected LSP sends a PATH message with an INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the backup ingress, the object may - have a Backup Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address sub object containing an - IPv4/IPv6 address belonging to the backup ingress. The Type of the - sub object is TBD-1/TBD-2 for Backup Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address. The - body of the sub object is given below: + have a Backup Ingress IPv4 Address sub object containing an IPv4 + address belonging to the backup ingress. The Type of the sub object + is TBD-1, and the body of the sub object is given below: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | IPv4/IPv6 address (4/16 bytres) | + | IPv4 address (4 bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - IPv4/IPv6 address: A 32/128-bit unicast, host address. + IPv4 address: A 32-bit unicast, host address. -5.1.2. Subobject: Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address +5.1.2. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv6 Address - The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have an Ingress IPv4/IPv6 Address - sub object containing an IPv4/IPv6 address belonging to the primary - ingress. The Type of the sub object is TBD-3/TBD-4 for Ingress IPv4/ - IPv6 Address. The sub object has the following body: + When the primary ingress of a protected LSP sends a PATH message with + an INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the backup ingress, the object may + have a Backup Ingress IPv6 Address sub object containing an IPv6 + address belonging to the backup ingress. The Type of the sub object + is TBD-2, the body of the sub object is given below: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - | IPv4/IPv6 address (4/16 bytres) | + | IPv6 address (16 bytes) | + ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - IPv4/IPv6 address: A 32/128-bit unicast, host address. + IPv6 address: A 128-bit unicast, host address. -5.1.3. Subobject: Traffic Descriptor +5.1.3. Subobject: Ingress IPv4 Address + + The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have an Ingress IPv4 Address sub + object containing an IPv4 address belonging to the primary ingress. + The Type of the sub object is TBD-3. The sub object has the + following body: + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv4 address (4 bytes) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + IPv4 address: A 32-bit unicast, host address. + +5.1.4. Subobject: Ingress IPv6 Address + + The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have an Ingress IPv6 Address sub + object containing an IPv6 address belonging to the primary ingress. + The Type of the sub object is TBD-4. The sub object has the + following body: + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (16 bytes) | + ~ ~ + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + IPv6 address: A 128-bit unicast, host address. + +5.1.5. Subobject: Traffic Descriptor The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have a Traffic Descriptor sub object describing the traffic to be mapped to the backup LSP on the backup ingress for locally protecting the primary ingress. The Type - of the sub object is TBD-5/TBD-6/TBD-7 for Interface/IPv4/6 Prefix + of the sub object is TBD-5/TBD-6/TBD-7 for Interface/IPv4/IPv6 Prefix respectively. The sub object has the following body: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Traffic Element 1 | ~ ~ | Traffic Element n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Traffic Descriptor sub object may contain multiple Traffic Elements of same type as follows: o Interface Traffic (Type TBD-5): Each of the Traffic Elements is a 32 bit index of an interface, from which the traffic is imported into the backup LSP. - o IPv4/6 Prefix Traffic (Type TBD-6/TBD-7): Each of the Traffic - Elements is an IPv4/6 prefix, containing an 8-bit prefix length - followed by an IPv4/6 address prefix, whose length, in bits, was - specified by the prefix length, padded to a byte boundary. + o IPv4/IPv6 Prefix Traffic (Type TBD-6/TBD-7): Each of the Traffic + Elements is an IPv4/IPv6 prefix, containing an 8-bit prefix length + followed by an IPv4/IPv6 address prefix, whose length, in bits, + was specified by the prefix length, padded to a byte boundary. -5.1.4. Subobject: Label-Routes +5.1.6. Subobject: Label-Routes The INGRESS_PROTECTION object in a PATH message from the primary ingress to the backup ingress will have a Label-Routes sub object containing the labels and routes that the next hops of the ingress use. The Type of the sub object is TBD-8. The sub object has the following body: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -387,54 +426,128 @@ 6. Behavior of Ingress Protection 6.1. Overview There are four parts of ingress protection: 1) setting up the necessary backup LSP forwarding state; 2) identifying the failure and providing the fast repair (as discussed in Sections 3 and 4); 3) maintaining the RSVP-TE control plane state until a global repair can be done; and 4) performing the global repair(see Section 6.4). + There are two different proposed signaling approaches to obtain + ingress protection. They both use the same new INGRESS_PROTECTION + object. The object is sent in both PATH and RESV messages. + +6.1.1. Relay-Message Method + + The primary ingress relays the information for ingress protection of + an LSP to the backup ingress via PATH messages. Once the LSP is + created, the ingress of the LSP sends the backup ingress a PATH + message with an INGRESS_PROTECTION object with Label-Routes + subobject, which is populated with the next-hops and labels. This + provides sufficient information for the backup ingress to create the + appropriate forwarding state and backup LSP(s). + + The ingress also sends the backup ingress all the other PATH messages + for the LSP with an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object. Thus, the + backup ingress has access to all the PATH messages needed for + modification to refresh control-plane state after a failure. + + The advantages of this method include: 1) the primary LSP is + independent of the backup ingress; 2) simple; 3) less configuration; + and 4) less control traffic. + +6.1.2. Proxy-Ingress Method + + Conceptually, a proxy ingress is created that starts the RSVP + signaling. The explicit path of the LSP goes from the proxy ingress + to the backup ingress and then to the real ingress. The behavior and + signaling for the proxy ingress is done by the real ingress; the use + of a proxy ingress address avoids problems with loop detection. + + [ traffic source ] *** Primary LSP + $ $ --- Backup LSP + $ $ $$ Link + $ $ + [ proxy ingress ] [ backup ] + [ & ingress ] | + * | + *****[ MP ]----| + + Figure 2: Example Protected LSP with Proxy Ingress Node + + The backup ingress must know the merge points or next-hops and their + associated labels. This is accomplished by having the RSVP PATH and + RESV messages go through the backup ingress, although the forwarding + path need not go through the backup ingress. If the backup ingress + fails, the ingress simply removes the INGRESS_PROTECTION object and + forwards the PATH messages to the LSP's next-hop(s). If the ingress + has its LSP configured for ingress protection, then the ingress can + add the backup ingress and itself to the ERO and start forwarding the + PATH messages to the backup ingress. + + Slightly different behavior can apply for the on-path and off-path + cases. In the on-path case, the backup ingress is a next hop node + after the ingress for the LSP. In the off-path, the backup ingress + is not any next-hop node after the ingress for all associated sub- + LSPs. + + The key advantage of this approach is that it minimizes the special + handling code requires. Because the backup ingress is on the + signaling path, it can receive various notifications. It easily has + access to all the PATH messages needed for modification to be sent to + refresh control-plane state after a failure. + +6.1.3. Comparing Two Methods + +-------+-----------+-------+--------------+---------------+---------+ + |\_ Item|Primary LSP|Config |PATH Msg from |RESV Msg from |Reuse | + | \_ |Depends on |Proxy- |Backup Ingress|Primary Ingress|Some | + | \|Backup |Ingress|to Primary |to Backup |Existing | + |Method |Ingress |ID |Ingress |Ingress |Functions| + +-------+-----------+-------+--------------+---------------+---------+ + |Relay- | No | No | No | No | Yes- | + |Message| | | | | | + +-------+-----------+-------+--------------+---------------+---------+ + |Proxy- | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | + |Ingress| | | | | | + +-------+-----------+-------+--------------+---------------+---------+ + 6.2. Ingress Behavior The primary ingress must be configured with a couple of pieces of information for ingress protection. o Backup Ingress Address: The primary ingress must know an IP address for it to be included in the INGRESS_PROTECTION object. + o Proxy-Ingress-Id (only needed for Proxy-Ingress Method): The + Proxy-Ingress-Id is only used in the Record Route Object for + recording the proxy-ingress. If no proxy-ingress-id is specified, + then a local interface address that will not otherwise be included + in the Record Route Object can be used. A similar technique is + used in [RFC4090 Sec 6.1.1]. + o Application Traffic Identifier: The primary ingress and backup ingress must both know what application traffic should be directed into the LSP. If a list of prefixes in the Traffic Descriptor sub-object will not suffice, then a commonly understood Application Traffic Identifier can be sent between the primary ingress and backup ingress. The exact meaning of the identifier should be configured similarly at both the primary ingress and backup ingress. The Application Traffic Identifier is understood within the unique context of the primary ingress and backup ingress. With this additional information, the primary ingress can create and signal the necessary RSVP extensions to support ingress protection. - The primary ingress relays the information for ingress protection of - an LSP to the backup ingress via PATH messages. Once the LSP is - created, the ingress of the LSP sends the backup ingress a PATH - message with an INGRESS_PROTECTION object with Label-Routes - subobject, which is populated with the next-hops and labels. This - provides sufficient information for the backup ingress to create the - appropriate forwarding state and backup LSP(s). - - The ingress also sends the backup ingress all the other PATH messages - for the LSP with an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object. Thus, the - backup ingress has access to all the PATH messages needed for - modification to refresh control-plane state after a failure. +6.2.1. Relay-Message Method To protect the ingress of an LSP, the ingress does the following after the LSP is up. 1. Select a PATH message. 2. If the backup ingress is off-path, then send it a PATH message with the content from the selected PATH message and an INGRESS_PROTECTION object; else (the backup ingress is a next hop, i.e., on-path case) add an INGRESS_PROTECTION object into @@ -444,20 +557,81 @@ object. The flags is set to indicate whether a Backup P2MP LSP is desired. A second LSP-ID is allocated (if it is not allocated yet) and used in the object. The Label-Routes sub-object contains the next-hops of the ingress and their labels. 3. For each of the other PATH messages, send the backup ingress a PATH message with the content copied from the message and an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object, which is an object without any Traffic-Descriptor sub-object. +6.2.2. Proxy-Ingress Method + + The primary ingress is responsible for starting the RSVP signaling + for the proxy-ingress node. To do this, the following is done for + the RSVP PATH message. + + 1. Compute the EROs for the LSP as normal for the ingress. + + 2. If the selected backup ingress node is not the first node on the + path (for all sub-LSPs), then insert at the beginning of the ERO + first the backup ingress node and then the ingress node. + + 3. In the PATH RRO, instead of recording the ingress node's address, + replace it with the Proxy-Ingress-Id. + + 4. Leave the HOP object populated as usual with information for the + ingress-node. + + 5. Add the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the PATH message. Allocate + a second LSP-ID to be used in the INGRESS-PROTECTION object. + Include the Backup Ingress Address (IPv4 or IPv6) sub-object and + the Traffic-Descriptor sub-object. Set or clear the flag + indicating that a Backup P2MP LSP is desired. + + 6. Optionally, add the FAST-REROUTE object [RFC4090] to the Path + message. Indicate whether one-to-one backup is desired. + Indicate whether facility backup is desired. + + 7. The RSVP PATH message is sent to the backup node as normal. + + If the ingress detects that it can't communicate with the backup + ingress, then the ingress should instead send the PATH message to the + next-hop indicated in the ERO computed in step 1. Once the ingress + detects that it can communicate with the backup ingress, the ingress + SHOULD follow the steps 1-7 to obtain ingress failure protection. + + When the ingress node receives an RSVP PATH message with an INGRESS- + PROTECTION object and the object specifies that node as the ingress + node and the PHOP as the backup ingress node, the ingress node SHOULD + remove the INGRESS_PROTECTION object from the PATH message before + sending it out. Additionally, the ingress node must store that it + will install ingress forwarding state for the LSP rather than + midpoint forwarding. + + When an RSVP RESV message is received by the ingress, it uses the + NHOP to determine whether the message is received from the backup + ingress or from a different node. The stored associated PATH message + contains an INGRESS_PROTECTION object that identifies the backup + ingress node. If the RESV message is not from the backup node, then + ingress forwarding state should be set up, and the INGRESS_PROTECTION + object MUST be added to the RESV before it is sent to the NHOP, which + should be the backup node. If the RESV message is from the backup + node, then the LSP should be considered available for use. + + If the backup ingress node is on the forwarding path, then a RESV is + received with an INGRESS_PROTECTION object and an NHOP that matches + the backup ingress. In this case, the ingress node's address will + not appear after the backup ingress in the RRO. The ingress node + should set up ingress forwarding state, just as is done if the LSP + weren't ingress-node protected. + 6.3. Backup Ingress Behavior An LER determines that the ingress local protection is requested for an LSP if the INGRESS_PROTECTION object is included in the PATH message it receives for the LSP. The LER can further determine that it is the backup ingress if one of its addresses is in the Backup Ingress Address sub-object of the INGRESS_PROTECTION object. The LER as the backup ingress will assume full responsibility of the ingress after the primary ingress fails. In addition, the LER determines that it is off-path if it is not a next hop of the primary ingress. @@ -522,43 +695,71 @@ primary ingress, and tear down the one-to-one backup LSPs for protecting the primary ingress if one-to-one backup is used or unbind the facility backup LSPs if facility backup is used. When the backup ingress receives a PATH message from the primary ingress for locally protecting the primary ingress of a protected LSP, it checks to see if any critical information has been changed. If the next hops of the primary ingress are changed, the backup ingress SHALL update its backup LSP(s) accordingly. +6.3.1.1. Relay-Message Method + When the backup ingress receives a PATH message with an non empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object, it examines the object to learn what traffic associated with the LSP. It determines the next-hops to be merged to by examining the Label-Routes sub-object in the object. The backup ingress stores the PATH message received from the primary ingress, but does NOT forward it. The backup ingress responds with a RESV to the PATH message received from the primary ingress. If the INGRESS_PROTECTION object is not "empty", the backup ingress SHALL send the RESV message with the state indicating protection is available after the backup LSP(s) are successfully established. +6.3.1.2. Proxy-Ingress Method + + The backup ingress determines the next-hops to be merged to by + collecting the set of the pair of (IPv4/IPv6 sub-object, Label sub- + object) from the Record Route Object of each RESV that are closest to + the top and not the Ingress router; this should be the second to the + top pair. If a Label-Routes sub-object is included in the + INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the included IPv4/IPv6 sub-objects are + used to filter the set down to the specific next-hops where + protection is desired. A RESV message must have been received before + the Backup Ingress can create or select the appropriate backup LSP. + + When the backup ingress receives a PATH message with the + INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the backup ingress examines the object to + learn what traffic associated with the LSP. The backup ingress + forwards the PATH message to the ingress node with the normal RSVP + changes. + + When the backup ingress receives a RESV message with the + INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the backup ingress records an IMPLICIT- + NULL label in the RRO. Then the backup ingress forwards the RESV + message to the ingress node, which is acting for the proxy ingress. + 6.3.2. Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case An LER as the backup ingress determines that it is on-path if one of - its addresses is a next hop of the primary ingress. The LER on-path - sends the corresponding PATH messages without any INGRESS_PROTECTION - object to its next hops. It creates a number of backup P2P LSPs or a - backup P2MP LSP from itself to the other next hops (i.e., the next - hops other than the backup ingress) of the primary ingress. The - other next hops are from the Label-Routes sub object. + its addresses is a next hop of the primary ingress (and the primary + ingress is not its next hop via checking the PATH message with the + INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the primary ingress for + Proxy-Ingress Method). The LER on-path sends the corresponding PATH + messages without any INGRESS_PROTECTION object to its next hops. It + creates a number of backup P2P LSPs or a backup P2MP LSP from itself + to the other next hops (i.e., the next hops other than the backup + ingress) of the primary ingress. The other next hops are from the + Label-Routes sub object. It also creates a forwarding entry, which sends/multicasts the traffic from the source to the next hops of the backup ingress along the protected LSP when the primary ingress fails. The traffic is described by the Traffic-Descriptor. After the forwarding entry is created, all the backup P2P LSPs or the backup P2MP LSP is up and associated with the protected LSP, the backup ingress sends the primary ingress the RESV message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object containing the state of the local @@ -655,21 +856,50 @@ protected LSP, and then resignal the new LSP with bandwidth. 7. Security Considerations In principle this document does not introduce new security issues. The security considerations pertaining to RFC 4090, RFC 4875 and other RSVP protocols remain relevant. 8. IANA Considerations - TBD + IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined + in this document and summarized in this section. + +8.1. A New Class Number + + IANA maintains a registry called "Class Names, Class Numbers, and + Class Types" under "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering + (RSVP-TE) Parameters". IANA is requested to assign a new Class + Number for new object EGRESS_BACKUP as follows: + + +====================+===============+============================+ + | Class Names | Class Numbers | Class Types | + +====================+===============+============================+ + | INGRESS_PROTECTION | TBD1 (>192) | 1: INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv4 | + | | +----------------------------+ + | | | 2: INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv6 | + +--------------------+---------------+----------------------------+ + + IANA is requested to assign Types for new TLVs in the new objects as + follows: + + Type Name Allowed in + 1 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv4 + 2 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv6 + 3 INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv4 + 4 INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv6 + 5 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_INTERFACE INGRESS_PROTECTION + 6 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv4_PREFIX INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv4 + 7 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv6_PREFIX INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv6 + 8 LabeL_Routes INGRESS_PROTECTION 9. Contributors Renwei Li Huawei Technologies 2330 Central Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95050 USA Email: renwei.li@huawei.com @@ -700,77 +930,43 @@ Email: mjork@juniper.net 10. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya, Rahul Aggarwal, Eric Osborne, Ross Callon, Loa Andersson, Daniel King, Michael Yue, Olufemi Komolafe, Rob Rennison, Neil Harrison, Kannan Sampath, and Ronhazli Adam for their valuable comments and suggestions on this draft. -11. References - -11.1. Normative References - - [RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, - October 1994. +11. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. - [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers - Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004. - - [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. - Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 - Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. - [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. - [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching - (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic - Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. - [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005. - [RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to- - Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths - (LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006. - [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. - [P2MP-FRR] - Le Roux, J., Aggarwal, R., Vasseur, J., and M. Vigoureux, - "P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels", - draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-bypass , March 1997. - -11.2. Informative References - - [RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J. - McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", - RFC 2702, September 1999. - - [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., - Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack - Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. - Appendix A. Authors' Addresses + Huaimo Chen Huawei Technologies Boston, MA USA Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com Raveendra Torvi Juniper Networks 10 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886