--- 1/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-08.txt 2014-08-10 00:14:33.349464363 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09.txt 2014-08-10 00:14:33.417466112 -0700 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force Georgios Karagiannis Internet-Draft University of Twente Intended status: Experimental Anurag Bhargava -Expires: August 14, 2014 Cisco Systems, Inc. - February 14, 2014 +Expires: February 11, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. + August 11, 2014 Generic Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 And IPv6 Reservations over PCN domains - draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-08 + draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-09 Abstract This document specifies extensions to Generic Aggregated RSVP RFC 4860 for support of the PCN Controlled Load (CL) and Single Marking (SM) edge behaviors over a Diffserv cloud using Pre- Congestion Notification. Status of this Memo @@ -23,21 +23,21 @@ 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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2014. + This Internet-Draft will expire on February 11, 2015. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -767,24 +767,24 @@ 3.4. Initiation of new Aggregate Path Message by Aggregating Router To comply with this specification, for the initiation of the new RSVP generic aggregated Path message by the Aggregator (also PCN-ingress- node in this document), the same methods MUST be used as the ones described in [RFC4860]. 3.5. Handling Of Aggregate Path Message By Interior Routers The Aggregate Path messages traverse zero or more PCN-interior-nodes. - The PCN-interior-nodes receive the E2E Path message on an interior - interface and forward it on another interior interface. + The PCN-interior-nodes receive the Aggregated Path message on an + interior interface and forward it on another interior interface. It is considered that, by configuration, the PCN-interior-nodes - ignore the E2E RSVP signaling messages [RFC2205]. Therefore, the + ignore the Aggregated Path signaling messages. Therefore, the Aggregated Path messages are simply forwarded as normal IP datagrams. 3.6. Handling Of Aggregate Path Message By Deaggregating Router When receiving the Aggregated Path message, the Deaggregator (also PCN-egress-node and Decision Point in this document) performs the regular [RFC4860] procedures, augmented with the following rules: o) When the received Aggregated Path message by the Deaggregator contains the RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response or @@ -1010,38 +1010,38 @@ messages specified in [RFC4860]. These objects are: o RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request, o RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request, o RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response, o RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response. o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request: PCN request object, when IPv4 addresses are used: - Class = (to be replaced by IANA) (PCN) - C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request (to be replaced by IANA) + Class = 248 (PCN) + C-Type = 1 (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | IPv4 PCN-ingress-node Address (4 bytes) | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | IPv4 PCN-egress-node Address (4 bytes) | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | IPv4 Decision Point Address (4 bytes) | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ |R| Reserved | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------| o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request: PCN object, when IPv6 addresses are used: - Class = (to be replaced by IANA) (PCN) - C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request (to be replaced by IANA) + Class = 248 (PCN) + C-Type = 2 (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | | + + | | + IPv6 PCN-ingress-node Address (16 bytes) + | | + + | | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ @@ -1059,37 +1059,37 @@ + Decision Point Address (16 bytes) + | | + + | | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ |R| Reserved | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response: PCN object, IPv4 addresses are used: - Class = (to be replaced by IANA) (PCN) - C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response (To be replaced by IANA) + Class = 248 (PCN) + C-Type = 3 (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response) +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | IPv4 PCN-ingress-node Address (4 bytes) | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | IPv4 PCN-egress-node Address (4 bytes) | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | IPv4 Decision Point Address (4 bytes) | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | PCN-sent-rate | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ o) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response: PCN object, IPv6 addresses are used: - Class = (to be replaced by IANA) (PCN) - C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response (to be replaced by IANA) + Class = 248 (PCN) + C-Type = 4 (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response) +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ | | + + | | + IPv6 PCN-ingress-node Address (16 bytes) + | | + + | | +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ @@ -1145,47 +1145,50 @@ is receiving PCN-traffic that is destined for the given ingress-egress-aggregate. 5. Security Considerations The same security considerations specified in [RFC2205], [RFC4230], [RFC4860], [RFC5559] and [RFC6411]. 6. IANA Considerations - This document makes the following requests to the IANA. - IANA needs to modify the RSVP parameters registry, 'Class Names, - Class Numbers, and Class Types' subregistry, and add a new - Class Number as well as assign 4 new C-Types under this new Class + IANA has modified the RSVP parameters registry, 'Class Names, + Class Numbers, and Class Types' subregistry, to add a new + Class Number and assign 4 new C-Types under this new Class Number, as described below, see Section 4.1: Class Number Class Name Reference - ------ ----------------------- --------- - (defined - by IANA) PCN this document + ------ ---------------------- --------- + 248 PCN this document Class Types or C-Types: -(defined by IANA) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request this document -(defined by IANA) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request this document -(defined by IANA) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response this document -(defined by IANA) RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response this document + 1 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-request this document + 2 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-request this document + 3 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-response this document + 4 RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-response this document + + When this draft is published as an RFC, IANA should update the + reference for the above 5 items to that published RFC (and the RFC + Editor should remove this sentence). + 7. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the authors of [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn- 01.txt], since some ideas used in this document are based on the work initiated in [draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-ecn-01.txt]. Moreover, we would like to thank Bob Briscoe, David Black, Ken Carlberg, Tom Taylor, - Philip Eardley, Michael Menth, Toby Moncaster, James Polk and - Lixia Zhang for the provided comments. In particular, we would like - to thank Francois Le Faucheur for contributing in addition to - comments also a significant amount of text. + Philip Eardley, Michael Menth, Toby Moncaster, James Polk, Scott + Bradner and Lixia Zhang for the provided comments. In particular, we + would like to thank Francois Le Faucheur for contributing in addition + to comments also to a significant amount of text. 8. Normative References [RFC6661] T. Taylor, A, Charny, F. Huang, G. Karagiannis, M. Menth, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour for the Controlled Load (CL) Mode of Operation", July 2012. [RFC6662] A. Charny, J. Zhang, G. Karagiannis, M. Menth, T. Taylor, "PCN Boundary Node Behaviour