draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-01.txt   draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-02.txt 
Network Working Group J. Dong Network Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: July 3, 2015 Z. Li Expires: July 13, 2015 Z. Li
China Mobile China Mobile
D. Ceccarelli D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
December 30, 2014 January 9, 2015
GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-01 draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-02
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol- This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and
Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These
mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane. Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 44 skipping to change at page 1, line 44
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 July 3, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 13, 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 50 skipping to change at page 3, line 50
- Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes - Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes
- Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No - Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No
- Attribute flag carried in RRO Attributes subobject: Yes - Attribute flag carried in RRO Attributes subobject: Yes
3. Operational Procedures 3. Operational Procedures
3.1. Lock Instruct 3.1. Lock Instruct
When an ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) intends to put an LSP When an ingress node intends to put an LSP into lock mode, it MUST
into lock mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Administratively send a Path message with the Administratively down (A) bit defined
down (A) bit defined above and the Reflect (R) bit in ADMIN_STATUS above and the Reflect (R) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set.
Object set.
On receipt of this Path message, the egress LSR SHOULD try to take On receipt of this Path message, the egress node SHOULD try to take
the LSP out of service. If the egress LSR locks the LSP the LSP out of service. If the egress node locks the LSP
successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in
ADMIN_STATUS object set. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr message ADMIN_STATUS object set. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr message
with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value
"Lock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent with the "Lock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent with the
A bit cleared. A bit cleared.
When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv
messages MUST keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. messages MUST keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set.
When the ingress LSR intends to take the LSP out of the lock mode, it When the ingress node intends to take the LSP out of the lock mode,
MUST send a Path message with the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object it MUST send a Path message with the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object
cleared. cleared.
On receipt of this Path message, the egress LSR SHOULD try to bring On receipt of this Path message, the egress node SHOULD try to bring
the LSP back to service. If the egress LSR unlocks the LSP the LSP back to service. If the egress node unlocks the LSP
successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in
ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr
message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error
Value "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent Value "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent
with the A bit set. with the A bit set.
When an LSP is taken out of lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv When an LSP is taken out of lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv
messages MUST keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. messages MUST keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared.
3.2. Loopback 3.2. Loopback
The loopback request can be sent either to the egress LSR or to a The loopback request can be sent either to the egress node or to a
particular intermediate node. The mechanism defined in particular intermediate node. The mechanism defined in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used for addressing the loopback [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used for addressing the loopback
request to a particular node on the LSP. The ingress LSR MUST ensure request to a particular node on the LSP. The ingress node MUST
that the LSP is in lock mode before it requests setting a particular ensure that the LSP is in lock mode before it requests setting a
node on the LSP into loopback mode. particular node on the LSP into loopback mode.
When a ingress LSR intends to put a particular node on the LSP into When a ingress node intends to put a particular node on the LSP into
loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback
Attribute Flag defined above in the Attribute Flags TLV set. The Attribute Flag defined above in the Attribute Flags TLV set. The
mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to
address the loopback request to the particular LSR. The address the loopback request to the particular node. The
Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set
to indicate that the LSP is still in lock mode. to indicate that the LSP is still in lock mode.
On receipt of this Path message, the target LSR of the loopback On receipt of this Path message, the target node of the loopback
request SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node request MUST check if the LSP is in lock mode by verifying that the
puts the LSP into loopback mode successfully, it MUST set the Administratively down (A) bit is set in the ADMIN_STATUS object. If
Loopback Attribute Flag in the Record Route Object (RRO) Attribute the bit is not set, the loopback request MUST be ignored. If the bit
subobject [RFC5420] and push this subobject onto the RRO object in is set, the node SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode. If
the corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down (A) bit in the node puts the LSP into loopback mode successfully, it MUST set
ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set in the Resv message. If the the Loopback Attribute Flag if it adds, per [RFC5420], an Attribute
node cannot put the LSP into loopback mode, it MUST send a PathErr subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO) of a Path or Resv message.
message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error The Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept
Value "Loopback Failure". set in the message. If the node cannot put the LSP into loopback
mode, it MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM
Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Loopback Failure".
When the ingress LSR intends to take the particular node out of When the ingress node intends to take the particular node out of
loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback
Attribute Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV cleared. The mechanism Attribute Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV cleared. The mechanism
defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that
the particular LSR SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The the particular node SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The
Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set
to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode. to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode.
On receipt of this Path message, the target LSR SHOULD try to take On receipt of this Path message, the target node SHOULD try to take
the LSP out of loopback mode. If the node takes the LSP out of the LSP out of loopback mode. If the node takes the LSP out of
loopback mode successfully, it MUST clear the Loopback Attribute Flag loopback mode successfully, it MUST clear the Loopback Attribute Flag
in the RRO Attribute subobject and push this subobject onto the RRO in the RRO Attribute subobject and push this subobject onto the RRO
object in the corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down object in the corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down
(A) Bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object MUST be kept set in the Resv message. (A) Bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object MUST be kept set in the Resv message.
Otherwise, the node MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code Otherwise, the node MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code
"OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Exit Loopback "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Exit Loopback
Failure". Failure".
After the loopback mode is cleared successfully, the ingress LSR MAY After the loopback mode is cleared successfully, the ingress node MAY
remove the Lock Instruct using the mechanism defined in section 3.1. remove the Lock Instruct using the mechanism defined in section 3.1.
The ingress node MUST NOT request to exit lock mode if the LSP is
still in loopback mode. The egress node MUST ignore such request
when the LSP is still in loopback mode.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined
in this document and summarized in this section. in this document and summarized in this section.
4.1. Attribute Flags 4.1. Attribute Flags
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol- IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" with a sub-registry called Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" with a sub-registry called
skipping to change at page 6, line 24 skipping to change at page 6, line 29
Value | Description | Reference Value | Description | Reference
-----------+-----------------------------+-------------- -----------+-----------------------------+--------------
TBA | Lock Failure | this document TBA | Lock Failure | this document
TBA | Unlock Failure | this document TBA | Unlock Failure | this document
TBA | Loopback Failure | this document TBA | Loopback Failure | this document
TBA | Exit Loopback Failure | this document TBA | Exit Loopback Failure | this document
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security issues above those This document does not introduce any new security issues above those
identified in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. For a more comprehensive identified in [RFC3209] [RFC3473] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro]. For a more comprehensive
discussion of GMPLS security and attack mitigation techniques, please discussion of GMPLS security and attack mitigation techniques, please
see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920]. see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920].
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Lou Berger and Francesco The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Lou Berger and Francesco
Fondelli for their comments and suggestions. Fondelli for their comments and suggestions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro]
Margaria, C., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. Wright, Margaria, C., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. Wright,
"LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute- "LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-
ro-05 (work in progress), October 2014. ro-01 (work in progress), December 2014.
[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.
[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.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
skipping to change at page 7, line 32 skipping to change at page 7, line 40
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext]
Bellagamba, E., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P., Bellagamba, E., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P.,
Ward, D., and A. Takacs, "Configuration of Pro-Active Ward, D., and A. Takacs, "Configuration of Pro-Active
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP- Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP-
TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-14 (work in TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-14 (work in
progress), December 2014. progress), December 2014.
[RFC4783] Berger, L., "GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information",
RFC 4783, December 2006.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May
2007.
[RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC
4974, August 2007.
[RFC5852] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and S.
Bardalai, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for LSP Handover
from the Management Plane to the Control Plane in a GMPLS-
Enabled Transport Network", RFC 5852, April 2010.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6371, September 2011. RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M., [RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M.,
and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and
Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011. Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011.
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
59 lines changed or deleted 47 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/