draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.txt   draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-05.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: August 30, 2015 Z. Li Expires: September 5, 2015 Z. Li
China Mobile China Mobile
D. Ceccarelli D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
February 26, 2015 March 4, 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-04 draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-05
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) for the control plane. Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) for the 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 August 30, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
skipping to change at page 5, line 16 skipping to change at page 5, line 16
loopback is intended to occur, is marked as a strict hop in the loopback is intended to occur, is marked as a strict hop in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO) subobject. The Administratively down (A) Explicit Route Object (ERO) subobject. The Administratively down (A)
bit in the ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set to indicate that the bit in the ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set to indicate that the
LSP is still in lock mode. LSP is still in lock mode.
On receipt of this Path message, the target node of the loopback On receipt of this Path message, the target node of the loopback
request MUST check if the LSP is in lock mode by verifying that the request MUST check if the LSP is in lock mode by verifying that the
Administratively down (A) bit is set in the ADMIN_STATUS object. If Administratively down (A) bit is set in the ADMIN_STATUS object. If
the bit is not set, the loopback request MUST be ignored. If the bit the bit is not set, the loopback request MUST be ignored. If the bit
is set, the node MUST check that the desired loopback entity is is set, the node MUST check that the desired loopback entity is
strictly identified by verifying that the L bit is set to 0 in the explicitly identified by the ERO subobject prior to the ERO Hop
ERO subobject prior to the ERO Hop Attributes subobject. The prior Attributes subobject. Currently, the type value MUST be verified to
subobject MUST also be checked to ensure that it provides strict be less than 32 (i.e., able to identify a specific entity where a
identification. Currently, the type value MUST be verified to be loopback can occur, see Section 4.3), and for type values 1 (IPv4
less than 32, and for type values 1 and 2, the prefix length MUST be prefix) and 2 (IPv6 prefix), the prefix length MUST be 32 and 128
32 and 128 respectively. If the desired loopback entity is not respectively. If the desired loopback entity is not explicitly
strictly identified, the request MUST be ignored and a "Bad identified, the request MUST be ignored and a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error SHOULD be generated. Otherwise, the object" error SHOULD be generated. Otherwise, the node SHOULD try to
node SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node puts put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node puts the LSP into
the LSP into loopback mode successfully, it MUST set the Loopback loopback mode successfully, it MUST set the Loopback Attribute Flag
Attribute Flag if it adds, per [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro], an if it adds, per [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro], an RRO Hop
RRO Hop Attributes subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO) of a Attributes subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO) of a Path or
Path or Resv message. The Administratively down (A) bit in the Resv message. The Administratively down (A) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS
ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set in the message. If the node object MUST be kept set in the message. If the node cannot put the
cannot put the LSP into loopback mode, it MUST send a PathErr message LSP into loopback mode, it MUST send a PathErr message with the Error
with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Loopback
"Loopback Failure". Failure".
When the ingress node 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-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that
the particular node SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The the particular node SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The
Administratively down (A) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept Administratively down (A) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept
set to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode. set to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode.
On receipt of this Path message, the target node SHOULD try to take On receipt of this Path message, the target node SHOULD try to take
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 7, line 33
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-teas-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-teas-lsp-attribute- "LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-
ro-02 (work in progress), February 2015. ro-03 (work in progress), March 2015.
[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,
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 22 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/