draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-14.txt   draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-15.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Experimental R. Torvi, Ed. Intended status: Experimental R. Torvi, Ed.
Expires: September 1, 2018 Juniper Networks Expires: September 2, 2018 Juniper Networks
February 28, 2018 March 1, 2018
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress FRR Protection Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress FRR Protection
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-14.txt draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-15.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node
of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP). It extends the fast- Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP). It extends the fast-
reroute (FRR) protection for transit nodes of an LSP to the ingress reroute (FRR) protection for transit nodes of an LSP to the ingress
node of the LSP. The procedures described in this document are node of the LSP. The procedures described in this document are
experimental. experimental.
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
status on the ingress protection. status on the ingress protection.
4.1. INGRESS_PROTECTION Object 4.1. INGRESS_PROTECTION Object
The INGRESS_PROTECTION object with the FAST_REROUTE object in a PATH The INGRESS_PROTECTION object with the FAST_REROUTE object in a PATH
message is used to control the backup for protecting the primary message is used to control the backup for protecting the primary
ingress of a primary LSP. The primary ingress MUST insert this ingress of a primary LSP. The primary ingress MUST insert this
object into the PATH message to be sent to the backup ingress for object into the PATH message to be sent to the backup ingress for
protecting the primary ingress. It has the following format: protecting the primary ingress. It has the following format:
Class-Num = TBD (Using 37 PROTECTION is suggested) Class-Num = TBD C-Type = 1 for INGRESS_PROTECTION_IP
C-Type = 4 for INGRESS_PROTECTION
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (bytes) | Class-Num | C-Type | | Length (bytes) | Class-Num | C-Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved (zero) | NUB | Flags | Options | | Reserved (zero) | NUB | Flags | Options |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ (Subobjects) ~ ~ (Subobjects) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
NUB Number of Unprotected Branches NUB Number of Unprotected Branches
skipping to change at page 22, line 40 skipping to change at page 22, line 40
protection. One new object is defined to indicate ingress protection protection. One new object is defined to indicate ingress protection
with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per RFC 2205, a node not with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per RFC 2205, a node not
supporting this extension will not recognize the new class number and supporting this extension will not recognize the new class number and
should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The error should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The error
message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take action to message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take action to
avoid the incompatible node as a backup ingress or may simply avoid the incompatible node as a backup ingress or may simply
terminate the session. terminate the session.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains a registry called "Class Names, Class Numbers, and This document defines one new object to indicate ingress protection.
Class Types" under "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters".
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to assign a new
Class Type or C-Type under Class Number 37 and Class Name PROTECTION
located at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/
rsvpparameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-39>, as follows:
Value Description Reference - INGRESS_PROTECTION
----- ----------- ---------
4 Type 4 INGRESS_PROTECTION This Document
It is anticipated that the future document that moves the idea to the The assignment of a new Class Name and corresponding 8-bit Class
standard track expects IANA to create and maintain a new registry Number data object in an RSVP message is defined in ([RFC3936]) with
under PROTECTION object class, Class Number 37, C-Type 4. Initial ranges for Standards Action, Expert Review, and Reserved for Private
values for the registry are given below. The future assignments are Use. The Private Use ranges can be used for experimental use, they
to be made through IETF Review. will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
It is suggested to use the following Private Use range:
o 124-127 Reserved for Private Use
It is for an experimental implementation to choose a value from the
Private Use range, and to agree with cooperating implementations
participating in the same experiments what values to use.
+====================+===============+============================+
| Class Names | Class Numbers | Class Types |
+====================+===============+============================+
| INGRESS_PROTECTION | TBD | 1: INGRESS_PROTECTION_IP |
| |(124 suggested)| |
+--------------------+---------------+----------------------------+
Within the object (Class Name: INGRESS_PROTECTION, Class Type: 1),
there is an 8-bit Sub-object Type. The following list is a suggested
registry for use by experiments:
Value Name Definition Value Name Definition
----- ---- ---------- ----- ---- ----------
0 Reserved 0 Reserved
1 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS Section 4.1.1 1 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS Section 4.1.1
2 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS Section 4.1.2 2 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS Section 4.1.2
3 INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS Section 4.1.3 3 INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS Section 4.1.3
4 INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS Section 4.1.4 4 INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS Section 4.1.4
5 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_INTERFACE Section 4.1.5 5 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_INTERFACE Section 4.1.5
6 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv4_PREFIX Section 4.1.5 6 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv4_PREFIX Section 4.1.5
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
20 lines changed or deleted 31 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/