draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-00.txt   draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-01.txt 
TEAS Working Group D. Dhody TEAS Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Experimental V. Kondreddy Intended status: Experimental V. Kondreddy
Expires: June 11, 2015 Huawei Technologies Expires: November 1, 2015 Huawei Technologies
R. Casellas R. Casellas
CTTC CTTC
December 8, 2014 April 30, 2015
Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Engineering (RSVP-TE)
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-00 draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-01
Abstract Abstract
The Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) The Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
specification and the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching specification and the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to (GMPLS) extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to
be explicitly included in a path setup. Further Exclude Routes be explicitly included in a path setup. Further Exclude Routes
extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be
explicitly excluded in a path setup. explicitly excluded in a path setup.
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 June 11, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Subobjects for Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Subobjects for Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . 9 4. Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1. Inter-Area LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.1. Inter-Area LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.2. Inter-AS LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2. Inter-AS LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and the GMPLS extensions to RSVP- The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and the GMPLS extensions to RSVP-
TE [RFC3473] allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly TE [RFC3473] allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly
included in a path setup using the Explicit Route Object (ERO). included in a path setup using the Explicit Route Object (ERO).
Further Exclude Routes extensions [RFC4874] allow abstract nodes or Further Exclude Routes extensions [RFC4874] allow abstract nodes or
resources to be excluded from the whole path using the Exclude Route resources to be excluded from the whole path using the Exclude Route
object (XRO). To exclude certain abstract nodes or resources between object (XRO). To exclude certain abstract nodes or resources between
a specific pair of abstract nodes present in an ERO, a Explicit a specific pair of abstract nodes present in an ERO, a Explicit
Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) is used. Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) is used.
[RFC3209] already describes the notion of abstract nodes, where an [RFC3209] already describes the notion of abstract nodes, where an
abstract node is a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque abstract node is a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque
to the ingress node of the Label Switched Path (LSP). It further to the ingress node of the Label Switched Path (LSP). It further
defines a subobject for AS, but with a 2-Byte AS number only. defines a subobject for AS, but with a 2-Byte AS number only.
This document extends the notion of abstract nodes by adding new This document extends the notion of abstract nodes by adding new
subobjects for IGP Areas and 4-byte AS numbers (as per [RFC6793]). subobjects for IGP Areas and 4-byte AS numbers (as per [RFC6793]).
These subobjects MAY be included in Explicit Route Object (ERO), These subobjects can be included in Explicit Route Object (ERO),
Exclude Route Object (XRO) or Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject Exclude Route Object (XRO) or Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject
(EXRS). (EXRS).
In case of per-domain path computation [RFC5152], where the full path In case of per-domain path computation [RFC5152], where the full path
of an inter-domain TE LSP cannot be or is not determined at the of an inter-domain TE LSP cannot be or is not determined at the
ingress node, and signaling message may use domain identifiers. The ingress node, and signaling message could use domain identifiers.
use of these new subobjects is illustrated in Appendix A. The use of these new subobjects is illustrated in Appendix A.
Further, the domain identifier may simply act as delimiter to specify Further, the domain identifier could simply act as delimiter to
where the domain boundary starts and ends. specify where the domain boundary starts and ends.
This is a companion document to Path Computation Element Protocol This is a companion document to Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) extensions for the domain sequence [PCE-DOMAIN]. (PCEP) extensions for the domain sequence [PCE-DOMAIN].
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Scope
The procedures described in this document are experimental. The
experiment is intended to enable research for the usage of Domain
subobjects for inter-domain path setup. For this purpose this
document specify new domain subobjects as well as how they
incorporate with existing subobjects.
This document does not change the procedures for handling subobjects
in RSVP-TE.
The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood
by legacy implementations. If one of the subobjects is received in a
RSVP-TE object that does not understand it, it will behave as
described in [RFC3209] and [RFC4874]. Therefore, it is assumed that
this experiment will be conducted only when all nodes processing the
new subobject form part of the experiment.
When the result of implementation and deployment are available, this
document will be updated and refined, and then be moved from
Experimental to Standard Track.
1.2. 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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document. The following terminology is used in this document.
AS: Autonomous System. AS: Autonomous System.
skipping to change at page 4, line 37 skipping to change at page 5, line 12
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path. TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
XRO: Exclude Route Object XRO: Exclude Route Object
3. Subobjects for Domains 3. Subobjects for Domains
3.1. Domains 3.1. Domains
[RFC4726] and [RFC4655] define domain as a separate administrative or [RFC4726] and [RFC4655] define domain as a separate administrative or
geographic environment within the network. A domain may be further geographic environment within the network. A domain could be further
defined as a zone of routing or computational ability. Under these defined as a zone of routing or computational ability. Under these
definitions a domain might be categorized as an AS or an IGP area. definitions a domain might be categorized as an AS or an IGP area.
As per [RFC3209], an abstract node is a group of nodes whose internal As per [RFC3209], an abstract node is a group of nodes whose internal
topology is opaque to the ingress node of the LSP. Using this topology is opaque to the ingress node of the LSP. Using this
concept of abstraction, an explicitly routed LSP can be specified as concept of abstraction, an explicitly routed LSP can be specified as
a sequence of IP prefixes or a sequence of Autonomous Systems. In a sequence of IP prefixes or a sequence of Autonomous Systems. In
this document we extend the notion to include IGP area and 4-Byte AS this document we extend the notion to include IGP area and 4-Byte AS
number. number.
The sub-objects MAY appear in RSVP-TE, notably in - These sub-objects appear in RSVP-TE, notably in -
o Explicit Route Object (ERO): As per [RFC3209], an explicit route o Explicit Route Object (ERO): As per [RFC3209], an explicit route
is a particular path in the network topology including abstract is a particular path in the network topology including abstract
nodes (domains). nodes (including domains).
o Exclude Route Object (XRO): As per [RFC4874], an exclude route o Exclude Route Object (XRO): As per [RFC4874], an exclude route
identifies a list of abstract nodes (domains) that should not be identifies a list of abstract nodes (including domains), that
traversed along the path of the LSP being established. should not be traversed along the path of the LSP being
established.
o Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS): As per [RFC4874], used o Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS): As per [RFC4874], used
to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific
pair of nodes. EXRS are a subobject carried inside the ERO. pair of nodes. EXRS are a subobject carried inside the ERO.
These subobjects are used to specify the domains that must be These subobjects can be used to specify the domains to be excluded
excluded between two abstract nodes. between two abstract nodes.
3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects 3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects
As stated in [RFC3209], an explicit route is a particular path in the As stated in [RFC3209], an explicit route is a particular path in the
network topology. In addition to the ability to identify specific network topology. In addition to the ability to identify specific
nodes along the path, an explicit route can identify a group of nodes nodes along the path, an explicit route can identify a group of nodes
(abstract nodes) that must be traversed along the path. (abstract nodes) to be traversed along the path.
Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477], Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC3477],
[RFC4874] and [RFC5553] but new subobjects related to domains are [RFC4874] and [RFC5553] but new subobjects related to domains are
needed. needed.
The following subobject types are used in ERO. This document extends the support for 4-Byte AS numbers and IGP
Areas.
Type Subobject
1 IPv4 prefix
2 IPv6 prefix
3 Label
4 Unnumbered Interface ID
32 Autonomous system number (2 Byte)
33 Explicit Exclusion (EXRS)
34 SRLG
64 IPv4 Path Key
65 IPv6 Path Key
This document extends the above list to support 4-Byte AS numbers and
IGP Areas.
Type Subobject Type Subobject
TBD Autonomous system number (4 Byte) TBD1 Autonomous system number (4 Byte)
TBD OSPF Area id TBD2 OSPF Area id
TBD ISIS Area id TBD3 ISIS Area id
3.2.1. Autonomous system 3.2.1. Autonomous system
[RFC3209] already defines 2-Byte AS number. [RFC3209] already defines 2-Byte AS number.
To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], the following To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], the following
subobject is defined: subobject is defined:
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 | |L| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AS-ID (4 bytes) | | AS-ID (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in
[RFC3209]. [RFC3209].
Type: (TBA by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte AS Number. Type: (TBD1 by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte AS Number.
Length: 8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes). Length: 8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes).
Reserved: Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt. Reserved: Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.
AS-ID: The 4-Byte AS Number. Note that if 2-Byte AS numbers are in AS-ID: The 4-Byte AS Number. Note that if 2-Byte AS numbers are in
use, the low order bits (16 through 31) should be used and the use, the low order bits (16 through 31) MUST be used and the high
high order bits (0 through 15) should be set to zero. order bits (0 through 15) MUST be set to zero.
3.2.2. IGP Area 3.2.2. IGP Area
Since the length and format of Area-id is different for OSPF and Since the length and format of Area-id is different for OSPF and
ISIS, the following two subobjects are defined: ISIS, the following two subobjects are defined:
For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number. The subobject is encoded For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number. The subobject is encoded
as follows: 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 | |L| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OSPF Area Id (4 bytes) | | OSPF Area Id (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in
[RFC3209]. [RFC3209].
Type: (TBA by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte OSPF Area ID. Type: (TBD2 by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte OSPF Area ID.
Length: 8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes). Length: 8 (Total length of the subobject in bytes).
Reserved: Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt. Reserved: Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.
OSPF Area Id: The 4-Byte OSPF Area ID. OSPF Area Id: The 4-Byte OSPF Area ID.
For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of For IS-IS, the area-id is of variable length and thus the length of
the subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by the subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by
ISO standard [ISO10589]. The subobject is encoded as follows: ISO standard [ISO10589]. The subobject is encoded as follows:
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 41
|L| Type | Length | Area-Len | Reserved | |L| Type | Length | Area-Len | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
// IS-IS Area ID // // IS-IS Area ID //
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in L: The L bit is an attribute of the subobject as defined in
[RFC3209]. [RFC3209].
Type: (TBA by IANA) indicating IS-IS Area ID. Type: (TBD3 by IANA) indicating IS-IS Area ID.
Length: Variable. As per [RFC3209], the total length of the Length: Variable. The Length MUST be at least 8, and MUST be a
subobject in bytes, including the L, Type and Length fields. The multiple of 4.
Length MUST be at least 4, and MUST be a multiple of 4.
Area-Len: Variable (Length of the actual (non-padded) IS-IS Area Area-Len: Variable (Length of the actual (non-padded) IS-IS Area
Identifier in octets; Valid values are from 2 to 11 inclusive). Identifier in octets; Valid values are from 2 to 11 inclusive).
Reserved: Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt. Reserved: Zero at transmission, ignored at receipt.
IS-IS Area Id: The variable-length IS-IS area identifier. Padded IS-IS Area Id: The variable-length IS-IS area identifier. Padded
with trailing zeroes to a four-byte boundary. with trailing zeroes to a four-byte boundary.
3.2.3. Mode of Operation 3.2.3. Mode of Operation
The new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area The new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area
MAY also be used in the ERO to specify an abstract node (a group of could also be used in the ERO to specify an abstract node (a group of
nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress node of the nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress node of the
LSP). LSP).
All the rules of processing (for example Next Hop Selection, L bit All the rules of processing (for example Next Hop Selection, L bit
processing, unrecognized subobjects etc) are as per the [RFC3209]. processing, unrecognized subobjects etc) are as per the [RFC3209].
Note that if a node is called upon to process subobject defined in
this document, and it does not recognize, it will behave as described
in [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
means that this node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing
Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the
EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the
offending subobject.
3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects 3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects
As stated in [RFC4874], the exclude route identifies a list of As stated in [RFC4874], the exclude route identifies a list of
abstract nodes that should not be traversed along the path of the LSP abstract nodes that to exclude (not be traversed) along the path of
being established. the LSP being established.
Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4874] and Some subobjects are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4874] and
[RFC6001] but new subobjects related to domains are needed. [RFC6001] but new subobjects related to domains are needed.
The following subobject types are used in XRO. This document extends the support for 4-Byte AS numbers and IGP
Areas.
Type Subobject
1 IPv4 prefix
2 IPv6 prefix
3 Label
4 Unnumbered Interface ID
32 Autonomous system number (2 Byte)
34 SRLG
This document extends the above list to support 4-Byte AS numbers and
IGP Areas.
Type Subobject Type Subobject
TBD Autonomous system number (4 Byte) TBD1 Autonomous system number (4 Byte)
TBD OSPF Area id TBD2 OSPF Area id
TBD ISIS Area id TBD3 ISIS Area id
3.3.1. Autonomous system 3.3.1. Autonomous system
[RFC3209] and [RFC4874] already define a 2-Byte AS number. [RFC3209] and [RFC4874] already define a 2-Byte AS number.
To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], a subobject is with To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], a subobject is with
the same format as defined in Section 3.2.1 with following the same format as defined in Section 3.2.1 with following
difference: difference:
The meaning of the L bit (similar to [RFC4874]). The meaning of the L bit (similar to [RFC4874]).
skipping to change at page 9, line 20 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
0: indicates that the abstract node (OSPF or IS-IS Area) specified 0: indicates that the abstract node (OSPF or IS-IS Area) specified
MUST be excluded. MUST be excluded.
1: indicates that the abstract node (OSPF or IS-IS Area) specified 1: indicates that the abstract node (OSPF or IS-IS Area) specified
SHOULD be avoided. SHOULD be avoided.
3.3.3. Mode of Operation 3.3.3. Mode of Operation
The new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area The new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area
MAY also be used in the XRO to specify exclusion of an abstract node could also be used in the XRO to specify exclusion of an abstract
(a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress node (a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the
node of the LSP). ingress node of the LSP).
All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874]. All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874].
Note that if a node is called upon to process a subobject defined in
this document, and it does not recognize, it will behave as described
in [RFC4874] when an unrecognized XRO subobject is encountered, i.e.
to ignore it. In this case the desired exclusion will not be carried
out.
3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject 3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject
As per [RFC4874], the Explicit Exclusion Route defines abstract nodes As per [RFC4874], the Explicit Exclusion Route is used to specify
or resources that must not or should not be used on the path between exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair of nodes
two inclusive abstract nodes or resources in the explicit route. or resources in the explicit route. EXRS is an ERO subobject that
EXRS is an ERO subobject that contains one or more subobjects of its contains one or more subobjects of its own, called EXRS subobjects.
own, called EXRS subobjects.
The EXRS subobject may carry any of the subobjects defined for XRO, The EXRS subobject could carry any of the subobjects defined for XRO,
thus the new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) thus the new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS)
Area MAY also be used in the EXRS. The meanings of the fields of the Area can also be used in the EXRS. The meanings of the fields of the
new XRO subobjects are unchanged when the subobjects are included in new XRO subobjects are unchanged when the subobjects are included in
an EXRS, except that scope of the exclusion is limited to the single an EXRS, except that scope of the exclusion is limited to the single
hop between the previous and subsequent elements in the ERO. hop between the previous and subsequent elements in the ERO.
All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874]. All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874].
4. Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE) 4. Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE)
The domain subobjects to be used in Path Computation Element Protocol The domain subobjects to be used in Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP) are referred to in [PCE-DOMAIN]. Note that the new domain (PCEP) are referred to in [PCE-DOMAIN]. Note that the new domain
subobjects follow the principle that subobjects used in PCEP subobjects follow the principle that subobjects used in PCEP
[RFC5440] are identical to the subobjects used in RSVP-TE and thus [RFC5440] are identical to the subobjects used in RSVP-TE and thus
are interchangeable between PCEP and RSVP-TE. are interchangeable between PCEP and RSVP-TE.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Subobjects 5.1. New Subobjects
IANA registry: RSVP PARAMETERS IANA maintains the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-
parameters.xhtml. Within this registry IANA maintains two sub-
registries:
Subsection: Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types o "EXPLICIT_ROUTE subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-25
IANA is requested to add further subobjects to the existing entry o "EXCLUDE_ROUTE subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
for: parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-95
20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical
232 EXCLUDE_ROUTE additions to these registries as follows:
Subobject Type Reference Subobject Type Reference
TBA 4-Byte AS number [This I.D.] TBD1 4-Byte AS number [This I.D.]
TBA OSPF Area ID [This I.D.] TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.]
TBA IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.] TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.]
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Security considerations for MPLS-TE and GMPLS signaling are covered Security considerations for MPLS-TE and GMPLS signaling are covered
in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. This document does not introduce any new in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. This document does not introduce any new
messages or any substantive new processing, and so those security messages or any substantive new processing, and so those security
considerations continue to apply. considerations continue to apply. Further, general considerations
for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks can be found in
[RFC5920].
The route exclusion security consideration are covered in [RFC4874] The route exclusion security consideration are covered in [RFC4874]
and continue to apply. and continue to apply.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, George Swallow, We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, George Swallow,
Chirag Shah, Reeja Paul Sandeep Boina and Avantika for their useful Chirag Shah, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina and Avantika for their useful
comments and suggestions. comments and suggestions.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. 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, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[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, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[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, January 2003.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[ISO10589]
ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 1992.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006. Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A Per-Domain [RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ayyangar, A., and R. Zhang, "A Per-Domain
Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC
5152, February 2008. 5152, February 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March
2009. 2009.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource [RFC5553] Farrel, A., 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, May 2009.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[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, October 2010.
[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, December
2012. 2012.
[PCE-DOMAIN] [PCE-DOMAIN]
Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Standard Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Standard
Representation Of Domain Sequence. (draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Representation Of Domain Sequence. (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
domain-sequence)", July 2014. domain-sequence)", April 2015.
[ISO10589]
ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 1992.
Appendix A. Examples Appendix A. Examples
These examples are for illustration purposes only, to show how the These examples are for illustration purposes only, to show how the
new subobjects may be encoded. new subobjects could be encoded. They are not meant to be an
exhaustive list of all possible usecases and combinations.
A.1. Inter-Area LSP Path Setup A.1. Inter-Area LSP Path Setup
In an inter-area LSP path setup where the ingress and the egress In an inter-area LSP path setup where the ingress and the egress
belong to different IGP areas within the same AS, the domain belong to different IGP areas within the same AS, the domain
subobjects MAY be represented using an ordered list of IGP area subobjects could be represented using an ordered list of IGP area
subobjects in an ERO. subobjects in an ERO.
D2 Area D D2 Area D
| |
| |
D1 D1
| |
| |
********BD1****** ********BD1******
* | * * | *
skipping to change at page 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 13, line 46
/ | / |
F2 E1 F2 E1
| |
Area F | Area F |
E2 Area E E2 Area E
* All IGP Area in one AS (AS 100) * All IGP Area in one AS (AS 100)
Figure 1: Domain Corresponding to IGP Area Figure 1: Domain Corresponding to IGP Area
As per Figure 1, the signaling at Ingress MAY be - As per Figure 1, the signaling at Ingress could be -
ERO:(A1, ABF1, Area B, Area C, Egress); or
ERO:(A1, ABF1, AS 100, Area B, AS 100, Area C, Egress).
The AS subobject is optional and it MAY be skipped. An RSVP-TE ERO:(A1, ABF1, Area B, Area C, Egress)
implementation should be able to understand both notations and there
is no change in the processing rules as mentioned in [RFC3209].
A.2. Inter-AS LSP Path Setup A.2. Inter-AS LSP Path Setup
A.2.1. Example 1 A.2.1. Example 1
In an inter-AS LSP path setup where the ingress and the egress belong In an inter-AS LSP path setup where the ingress and the egress belong
to different AS, the domain subobjects MAY be represented using an to different AS, the domain subobjects (AS) could be used in an ERO.
ordered list of AS subobjects in an ERO.
AS A AS E AS C AS A AS E AS C
<-------------> <----------> <-------------> <-------------> <----------> <------------->
A4----------E1---E2---E3---------C4 A4----------E1---E2---E3---------C4
/ / \ / / \
/ / \ / / \
/ / AS B \ / / AS B \
/ / <----------> \ / / <----------> \
Ingress------A1---A2------B1---B2---B3------C1---C2------Egress Ingress------A1---A2------B1---B2---B3------C1---C2------Egress
skipping to change at page 14, line 39 skipping to change at page 14, line 34
\ / / \ / /
A3----------D1---D2---D3---------C3 A3----------D1---D2---D3---------C3
<----------> <---------->
AS D AS D
* All AS have one area (area 0) * All AS have one area (area 0)
Figure 2: Domain Corresponding to AS Figure 2: Domain Corresponding to AS
As per Figure 2, the signaling at Ingress MAY be - As per Figure 2, the signaling at Ingress could be -
ERO:(A1, A2, AS B, AS C, Egress); or ERO:(A1, A2, AS B, AS C, Egress); or
ERO:(A1, A2, AS B, Area 0, AS C, Area 0, Egress). ERO:(A1, A2, AS B, Area 0, AS C, Area 0, Egress).
Each AS has a single IGP area (area 0), Area subobject is optional Each AS has a single IGP area (area 0), Area subobject is optional.
and it MAY be skipped as AS is enough to uniquely identify a domain.
An RSVP-TE implementation should be able to understand both notations
and there is no change in the processing rules as mentioned in
[RFC3209].
Note that to get a domain disjoint path, the ingress may also signal Note that to get a domain disjoint path, the ingress could also
the backup path with - signal the backup path with -
XRO:(AS B) XRO:(AS B)
A.2.2. Example 2 A.2.2. Example 2
As shown in Figure 3, where AS 200 is made up of multiple areas, the As shown in Figure 3, where AS 200 is made up of multiple areas, the
signaling MAY include both AS and Area subobject to uniquely identify signaling can include both AS and Area subobject to uniquely identify
a domain. a domain.
Ingress * Ingress *
| * | *
| * | *
X1 * | *
| \ * X1 *
| * \ \\ *
|* \ \ \ *
* | \ Inter-AS \ \* Inter-AS
AS 100 * | \ Link AS 100 \* \ Link
* | \ * \ \
* | \ * \ \
* | \ * \ \
| D2 Area D \ \ D2 Area D
AS 200 | | AS 200 \ \ |
| | \ \ |
Inter | D1 Inter \ \ D1
-AS | | -AS \ \ |
Link | | Link \ \|
A3 ********BD1****** \ ********BD1******
| * | * \ * | *
| * | * Area C \ * | * Area C
| Area A * | * Area A \ * | *
| * | * \* | *
A2------A1------AB1------B1------BC1------C1------Egress A2------A1------AB1------B1------BC1------C1------Egress
* | * * | *
* | * * | *
* | * * | *
* Area | B * * Area | B *
********BE1****** ********BE1******
| |
| |
E1 E1
| |
| |
E2 Area E E2 Area E
Figure 3: Domain Corresponding to AS and Area Figure 3: Domain Corresponding to AS and Area
As per Figure 3, the signaling at Ingress MAY be - As per Figure 3, the signaling at Ingress could be -
ERO:(X1, AS 200, Area D, Area B, Area C, Egress).
The combination of both an AS and an Area uniquely identifies a ERO:(X1, AS 200, Area B, Area C, Egress).
domain, note that an Area domain identifier always belongs to the
previous AS that appears before it or, if no AS subobjects are
present, it is assumed to be the current AS. Also note that there
are no changes in the processing rules as mentioned in [RFC3209] with
respect to subobjects.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
INDIA India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
INDIA India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Leela Palace Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 Bangalore, Karnataka 560037
INDIA India
EMail: venugopalreddyk@huawei.com EMail: venugopalreddyk@huawei.com
Ramon Casellas Ramon Casellas
CTTC CTTC
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7
Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860
SPAIN Spain
EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es EMail: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
 End of changes. 67 change blocks. 
175 lines changed or deleted 180 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/