draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-01.txt   draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-02.txt 
TEAS Working Group H. Sitaraman, Ed. TEAS Working Group H. Sitaraman, Ed.
Internet-Draft V. Beeram Internet-Draft V. Beeram
Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks
Expires: December 30, 2017 I. Minei Expires: September 6, 2018 I. Minei
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
June 28, 2017 March 5, 2018
Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing LSP co-existence Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing LSP co-existence
draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-01.txt draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
Operators are looking to introduce services over Segment Routing (SR) Operators are looking to introduce services over Segment Routing (SR)
LSPs in networks running Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP-TE) LSPs in networks running Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP-TE)
LSPs. In some instances, operators are also migrating existing LSPs. In some instances, operators are also migrating existing
services from RSVP-TE to SR LSPs. For example, there might be services from RSVP-TE to SR LSPs. For example, there might be
certain services that are well suited for SR and need to co-exist certain services that are well suited for SR and need to co-exist
with RSVP-TE in the same network. In other cases, services running with RSVP-TE in the same network. In other cases, services running
on RSVP-TE might be migrated to run over SR. Such introduction or on RSVP-TE might be migrated to run over SR. Such introduction or
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
between SR and RSVP-TE. between SR and RSVP-TE.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 https://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 December 30, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
skipping to change at page 9, line 10 skipping to change at page 9, line 10
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
No new security issues are introduced in this document beyond is No new security issues are introduced in this document beyond is
already part of RSVP-TE and Segment routing architectures. already part of RSVP-TE and Segment routing architectures.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
spring-segment-routing-12 (work in progress), June 2017. Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018.
[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>. <https://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>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4124>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4124>.
[RFC4125] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth [RFC4125] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth
Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4125, DOI 10.17487/RFC4125, June 2005, Engineering", RFC 4125, DOI 10.17487/RFC4125, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4125>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4125>.
[RFC4127] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints [RFC4127] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints
Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 4127, DOI 10.17487/RFC4127, June 2005, RFC 4127, DOI 10.17487/RFC4127, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4127>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4127>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S. [RFC7471] Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015, Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and [RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and [RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016, RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
[RFC7823] Atlas, A., Drake, J., Giacalone, S., and S. Previdi, [RFC7823] Atlas, A., Drake, J., Giacalone, S., and S. Previdi,
"Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed "Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions", Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions",
RFC 7823, DOI 10.17487/RFC7823, May 2016, RFC 7823, DOI 10.17487/RFC7823, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7823>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7823>.
Appendix A. Multiplier value range Appendix A. Multiplier value range
The following is a suggestion for the range of values for M: The following is a suggestion for the range of values for M:
M is a per-node positive real number that ranges from 0 to 2 with a M is a per-node positive real number that ranges from 0 to 2 with a
default of 1 and may be expressed as a percentage. default of 1 and may be expressed as a percentage.
o If M < 1, then the SR traffic average is being understated, which o If M < 1, then the SR traffic average is being understated, which
can result in the link getting full even though Maximum- can result in the link getting full even though Maximum-
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
21 lines changed or deleted 22 lines changed or added

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