draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-05.txt   rfc7898.txt 
TEAS Working Group D. Dhody Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle Request for Comments: 7898 U. Palle
Intended status: Experimental V. Kondreddy Category: Experimental V. Kondreddy
Expires: May 22, 2016 Huawei Technologies ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei Technologies
R. Casellas R. Casellas
CTTC CTTC
November 19, 2015 June 2016
Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Domain Subobjects
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-05
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 Route
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.
This document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude 4-Byte This document specifies new subobjects to include or exclude
Autonomous System (AS) and Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area Autonomous Systems (ASes), which are identified by a 4-byte AS
during path setup. number, and Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas during path setup.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
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 defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2016. 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/rfc7898.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 Provisions Relating to IETF
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents date of publication of this document. Please review these documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Subobjects for Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Subobjects for Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO) Subobjects . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. Autonomous System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO) Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.1. Autonomous System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . 10 4. Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Inter-Area LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A.1. Inter-Area LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. Inter-AS LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.2. Inter-AS LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
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
TE [RFC3473] allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly RSVP-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 Route 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, an 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 can be included in Explicit Route Object (ERO), These subobjects can be included in ERO, XRO, or EXRS.
Exclude Route Object (XRO) or Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject
(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 could use domain identifiers. ingress node, the signaling message could use domain identifiers.
The 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 could simply act as delimiter to Further, the domain identifier could simply act as a delimiter to
specify 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 [RFC7897].
1.1. Scope 1.1. Scope
The procedures described in this document are experimental. The The procedures described in this document are experimental. The
experiment is intended to enable research for the usage of Domain experiment is intended to enable research for the usage of domain
subobjects for inter-domain path setup. For this purpose this subobjects for inter-domain path setup. For this purpose, this
document specify new domain subobjects as well as how they document specifies new domain subobjects as well as how they
incorporate with existing subobjects. incorporate with existing subobjects.
The experiment will end two years after the RFC is published. At The experiment will end two years after the RFC is published. At
that point, the RFC authors will attempt to determine how widely this that point, the RFC authors will attempt to determine how widely this
has been implemented and deployed. has been implemented and deployed.
This document does not change the procedures for handling subobjects This document does not change the procedures for handling subobjects
in RSVP-TE. in RSVP-TE.
The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood
by legacy implementations. If a legacy implementation receives one by legacy implementations. If a legacy implementation receives one
of the subobjects that it does not understand in an RSVP-TE object, of the subobjects that it does not understand in an RSVP-TE object,
the legacy implementation will behave as described in [RFC3209] and the legacy implementation will behave as described in [RFC3209] and
[RFC4874]. Therefore, it is assumed that this experiment will be [RFC4874]. Therefore, it is assumed that this experiment will be
conducted only when all nodes processing the new subobject form part conducted only when all nodes processing the new subobject form part
of the experiment. of the experiment.
When the result of implementation and deployment are available, this When the result of implementation and deployment are available, this
document will be updated and refined, and then be moved from document will be updated and refined, and then it will be moved from
Experimental to Standard Track. Experimental to Standards Track.
It should be noted that there are other ways such as use of boundary It should be noted that there are other ways such as the use of a
node to identify the domain (instead of domain identifier), the boundary node to identify the domain (instead of a domain
mechanism defined in this document is just another tool in the identifier); the mechanism defined in this document is just another
toolkit for the operator. tool in the toolkit for the operator.
1.2. Requirements Language 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
Domain: As per [RFC4655], any collection of network elements within Domain: As per [RFC4655], any collection of network elements within
a common sphere of address management or path computational a common sphere of address management or path computational
responsibility. Examples of domains include Interior Gateway responsibility. Examples of domains include IGP areas and ASes.
Protocol (IGP) areas and Autonomous Systems (ASs).
ERO: Explicit Route Object ERO: Explicit Route Object
EXRS: Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject EXRS: Explicit Exclusion Route subobject
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. Either of the two routing IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. Either of the two routing
protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System protocols: Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System
to Intermediate System (IS-IS). to Intermediate System (IS-IS).
IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System. IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System
OSPF: Open Shortest Path First.
OSPF: Open Shortest Path First
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application, PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints. constraints.
PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol. PCEP: Path Computation Element Protocol
RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol
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 could 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 ASes. In this document,
this document we extend the notion to include IGP area and 4-Byte AS we extend the notion to include the IGP area and 4-byte AS number.
number.
These sub-objects appear in RSVP-TE, notably in - These subobjects 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 (including 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 (including domains), that identifies a list of abstract nodes (including domains) that
should not be traversed along the path of the LSP being should not be traversed along the path of the LSP being
established. 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 is a subobject carried inside the ERO. These
These subobjects can be used to specify the domains to be excluded subobjects can be used to specify the domains to be excluded
between two abstract nodes. between two abstract nodes.
3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects 3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO) 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) to 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.
This document extends the support for 4-Byte AS numbers and IGP This document extends the support for 4-byte AS numbers and IGP
Areas. areas.
Type Subobject Value Description
TBD1 Autonomous system number (4 Byte) ----- ---------
TBD2 OSPF Area id 5 4-byte AS number
TBD3 ISIS Area id 6 OSPF Area ID
7 IS-IS 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 numbers.
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 Number (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], i.e., set if the subobject represents a loose hop in [RFC3209], i.e., it's set if the subobject represents a loose hop
the explicit route. If the bit is not set, the subobject in the explicit route. If the bit is not set, the subobject
represents a strict hop in the explicit route. represents a strict hop in the explicit route.
Type: (TBD1 by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte AS Number. Type: 5 (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 Number: The 4-byte AS number. Note that if 2-byte AS numbers are
use, the low order bits (16 through 31) MUST be used and the high in use, the low-order bits (16 through 31) MUST be used, and the
order bits (0 through 15) MUST be set to zero. For the purpose of high-order bits (0 through 15) MUST be set to zero. For the
this experiment, it is advised to use 4-Byte AS number subobject purpose of this experiment, it is advised to use a 4-byte AS
as default. number subobject as the default.
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: IS-IS, 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: (TBD2 by IANA) indicating a 4-Byte OSPF Area ID. Type: 6 (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; thus, the length of the
the subobject is variable. The Area-id is as described in IS-IS by subobject is variable. The Area ID is as described in IS-IS by the
ISO standard [ISO10589]. The subobject is encoded as follows: ISO standard [ISO10589]. The subobject is encoded 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 | 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: (TBD3 by IANA) indicating IS-IS Area ID. Type: 7 (indicating the IS-IS Area ID).
Length: Variable. The Length MUST be at least 8, and MUST be a Length: Variable. The length MUST be at least 8 and MUST be a
multiple of 4. 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 1 to 13 inclusive). identifier in octets; valid values are from 1 to 13, 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 4-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 numbers and the IGP (OSPF /
could be used in the ERO to specify an abstract node (a group of IS-IS) area could be used in the ERO to specify an abstract node (a
nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress node of the group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress node
LSP). of the 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 Note that if a node is called upon to process subobjects defined in
this document, and it does not recognize, it will behave as described this document that it does not recognize, it will behave as described
in [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This in [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
means that this node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing means that this node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing
Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the
EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the
offending subobject. offending subobject.
3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects 3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO) 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 to exclude (not be traversed) along the path of abstract nodes to exclude (not be traversed) along the path of the
the LSP being established. 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.
This document extends the support for 4-Byte AS numbers and IGP This document extends the support for 4-byte AS numbers and IGP
Areas. areas.
Type Subobject Value Description
TBD1 Autonomous system number (4 Byte) ----- ---------
TBD2 OSPF Area id 5 4-byte AS number
TBD3 ISIS Area id 6 OSPF Area ID
7 IS-IS 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 has the
the same format as defined in Section 3.2.1 with following same format as defined in Section 3.2.1 with the following
difference: difference:
The meaning of the L bit is as per [RFC4874], where. The meaning of the L bit is as per [RFC4874], where:
0: indicates that the abstract node specified MUST be excluded. 0: indicates that the abstract node specified MUST be excluded.
1: indicates that the abstract node specified SHOULD be avoided. 1: indicates that the abstract node specified SHOULD be avoided.
3.3.2. IGP Area 3.3.2. 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 IS-
ISIS, the following two subobjects are defined: IS, the following two subobjects are defined:
For OSPF, the area-id is a 32 bit number. Subobjects for OSPF and For OSPF, the Area ID is a 32-bit number. Subobjects for OSPF and
IS-IS are of the same format as defined in Section 3.2.2 with IS-IS are of the same format as defined in Section 3.2.2 with the
following difference: following difference:
The meaning of the L bit is as per [RFC4874]. The meaning of the L bit is as per [RFC4874].
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 numbers and the IGP (OSPF /
could also be used in the XRO to specify exclusion of an abstract IS-IS) area could also be used in the XRO to specify exclusion of an
node (a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the abstract node (a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to
ingress node of the LSP). the ingress node of the LSP).
All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874]. All the rules of processing are as per [RFC4874].
Note that if a node is called upon to process a subobject defined in 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 this document that it does not recognize, it will behave as described
in [RFC4874] when an unrecognized XRO subobject is encountered, i.e. in [RFC4874] when an unrecognized XRO subobject is encountered, i.e.,
to ignore it. In this case the desired exclusion will not be carried ignore it. In this case, the desired exclusion will not be carried
out. out.
IGP Area subobjects in the XRO are local to the current AS. In case IGP area subobjects in the XRO are local to the current AS. In case
of multi-AS path computation to exclude an IGP area in a different of multi-AS path computation that excludes an IGP area in a different
AS, IGP Area subobject should be part of Explicit Exclusion Route AS, an IGP area subobject should be part of EXRS in the ERO to
Subobject (EXRS) in the ERO to specify the AS in which the IGP area specify the AS in which the IGP area is to be excluded. Further,
is to be excluded. Further policy may be applied to prune/ignore policy may be applied to prune/ignore area subobjects in XRO at the
Area subobjects in XRO at AS boundary. AS boundary.
3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject 3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject
As per [RFC4874], the Explicit Exclusion Route is used to specify As per [RFC4874], the Explicit Exclusion Route is used to specify
exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair of nodes exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair of nodes
or resources in the explicit route. EXRS is an ERO subobject that or resources in the explicit route. EXRS is an ERO subobject that
contains one or more subobjects of its own, called EXRS subobjects. contains one or more subobjects of its own, called EXRS subobjects.
The EXRS subobject could 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 numbers and the IGP
Area can also be used in the EXRS. The meanings of the fields of the (OSPF / IS-IS) area can also be used in the EXRS. The meanings of
new XRO subobjects are unchanged when the subobjects are included in the fields of the new XRO subobjects are unchanged when the
an EXRS, except that scope of the exclusion is limited to the single subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that the scope of the
hop between the previous and subsequent elements in the ERO. exclusion is limited to the single 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 [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 PCEP are referred to in
(PCEP) are referred to in [PCE-DOMAIN]. Note that the new domain [RFC7897]. Note that the new domain subobjects follow the principle
subobjects follow the principle that subobjects used in PCEP that subobjects used in PCEP [RFC5440] are identical to the
[RFC5440] are identical to the subobjects used in RSVP-TE and thus subobjects used in RSVP-TE and thus are interchangeable between PCEP
are interchangeable between PCEP and RSVP-TE. and RSVP-TE.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Subobjects 5.1. New Subobjects
IANA maintains the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" IANA maintains the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. Within this registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>.
registry IANA maintains two sub-registries: Within this registry, IANA maintains two sub-registries:
o EXPLICIT_ROUTE subobjects (see Sub-object type 20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE o EXPLICIT_ROUTE subobjects (see "Sub-object type - 20
Type 1 Explicit Route at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route")
parameters)
o EXCLUDE_ROUTE subobjects (see Sub-object types of Class Types or o EXCLUDE_ROUTE subobjects (see "Sub-object types of Class Types or
C-Types 232 EXCLUDE_ROUTE at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- C-Types - 232 EXCLUDE_ROUTE")
parameters)
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical IANA has made identical additions to these registries as follows, in
additions to these registries as follows, in sync with [PCE-DOMAIN]: sync with [RFC7897]:
Subobject Type Reference Value Description Reference
TBD1 4-Byte AS number [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN] ----- ---------------- -------------------
TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN] 5 4-byte AS number [RFC7897], RFC 7898
TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN] 6 OSPF Area ID [RFC7897], RFC 7898
7 IS-IS Area ID [RFC7897], RFC 7898
Further upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to add a Further, IANA has added a reference to this document to the new PCEP
reference to this document to the new PCEP numbers that are numbers that are registered by [RFC7897], as shown on
registered by [PCE-DOMAIN]. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Security considerations for RSVP-TE and GMPLS signaling RSVP-TE Security considerations for RSVP-TE and GMPLS signaling RSVP-TE
extensions are covered in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. This document extensions are covered in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. This document
does not introduce any new messages or any substantive new does not introduce any new messages or any substantive new
processing, and so those security considerations continue to apply. processing, so those security considerations continue to apply.
Further, general considerations for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and Further, general considerations for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and
GMPLS networks can be found in [RFC5920]. The section 8 of [RFC5920] GMPLS networks can be found in [RFC5920]. Section 8 of [RFC5920]
describes the inter-provider security considerations, which continue describes the inter-provider security considerations, which continue
to apply. to apply.
The route exclusion security consideration are covered in [RFC4874] The route exclusion security considerations are covered in [RFC4874]
and continue to apply. and continue to apply.
7. Acknowledgments 7. References
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, George Swallow,
Chirag Shah, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina and Avantika for their useful
comments and suggestions.
Thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for shepherding this document.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the Responsible AD.
Thanks to Amanda Baber for IANA Review.
Thanks to Brian Carpenter for Gen-ART Review.
Thanks to Liang Xia (Frank) for SecDir Review.
Thanks to Spencer Dawkins and Barry Leiba for comments during the
IESG Review.
8. References 7.1. Normative References
8.1. Normative References [ISO10589]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -- Intermediate
System to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network
service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition,
November 2002.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
skipping to change at page 12, line 21 skipping to change at page 12, line 45
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003, (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874, Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874,
April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>. April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.
[ISO10589] [RFC7897] Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects
ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with (PCEP)", RFC 7897, DOI 10.17487/RFC7897, June 2016,
the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7897>.
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 1992.
[PCE-DOMAIN]
Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects
for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP). (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence)", November
2015.
8.2. Informative References 7.2. 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, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC4726, November Engineering", RFC 4726, DOI 10.17487/RFC4726, November
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4726>. 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4726>.
skipping to change at page 14, line 7 skipping to change at page 14, line 7
MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010, MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.
[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, Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>.
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
new subobjects could be encoded. They are not meant to be an subobjects could be encoded. They are not meant to be an exhaustive
exhaustive list of all possible usecases and combinations. list of all possible use cases 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 could 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
| |
skipping to change at page 14, line 42 skipping to change at page 14, line 42
/ * Area | B * / * Area | B *
F1 * | * F1 * | *
/ ********BE1****** / ********BE1******
/ | / |
/ | / |
F2 E1 F2 E1
| |
Area F | Area F |
E2 Area E E2 Area E
* All IGP Area in one AS (AS 100) * All IGP areas 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 could be - As per Figure 1, the signaling at the ingress could be:
ERO:(A1, ABF1, Area B, Area C, Egress) ERO:(A1, ABF1, area B, area C, egress)
It should be noted that there are other ways to achieve the desired It should be noted that there are other ways to achieve the desired
signaling, the area subobject provides another tool in the toolkit signaling; the area subobject provides another tool in the toolkit
and can have operational benefits when - and can have operational benefits when:
o Use of PCEP like domain-sequence [PCE-DOMAIN] configurations in
explicit path such that area subobjects can be used to signal the
loose path.
o Alignment of subobjects and registries between PCEP and RSVP-TE, o Use of PCEP-like domain sequence [RFC7897] configurations in the
thus allowing easier interworking between path computation and explicit path is such that area subobjects can be used to signal
signaling i.e. to and fro of subobjects between signalling and the loose path.
path computation (if need be).
o Alignment of subobjects and registries is between PCEP and RSVP-
TE, thus allowing easier interworking between path computation and
signaling, i.e., subobjects are able to switch between signaling
and path computation (if need be).
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 (AS) could be used in an ERO. to a different AS, the domain subobjects (ASes) could be used 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
\ / / \ / /
\ / / \ / /
\ / / \ / /
\ / / \ / /
A3----------D1---D2---D3---------C3 A3----------D1---D2---D3---------C3
<----------> <---------->
AS D AS D
* All AS have one area (area 0) * All ASes 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 could be - As per Figure 2, the signaling at the 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); the area subobject is
optional.
Note that to get a domain disjoint path, the ingress could also Note that to get a domain disjoint path, the ingress could also
signal 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 can include both AS and Area subobject to uniquely identify signaling can include both an AS and area subobject to uniquely
a domain. identify 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 \ \|
\ ********BD1****** \ ********BD1******
\ * | * \ * | *
\ * | * Area C \ * | * Area C
Area A \ * | * Area A \ * | *
\* | * \* | *
A2------A1------AB1------B1------BC1------C1------Egress A2------A1------AB1------B1------BC1------C1------Egress
* | * * | *
* | * * | *
* | * * | *
skipping to change at page 17, line 43 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
********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 could be - As per Figure 3, the signaling at the ingress could be:
ERO:(X1, AS 200, Area B, Area C, Egress). ERO:(X1, AS 200, area B, area C, egress).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, George Swallow,
Chirag Shah, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina, and Avantika for their useful
comments and suggestions.
Thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for shepherding this document.
Thanks to Deborah Brungard for being the responsible AD.
Thanks to Amanda Baber for the IANA review.
Thanks to Brian Carpenter for the Gen-ART review.
Thanks to Liang Xia (Frank) for the SecDir review.
Thanks to Spencer Dawkins and Barry Leiba for comments during the
IESG review.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com Email: udayasree.palle@huawei.com
Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy Venugopal Reddy Kondreddy
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
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. 126 change blocks. 
269 lines changed or deleted 270 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/