draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt 
Network Working Group Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel Networks Corp.) Network Working Group Peter Ashwood-Smith (Nortel Networks Corp.)
Internet Draft Ayan Banerjee (Calient Networks) Internet Draft Ayan Banerjee (Calient Networks)
Expiration Date: November 2001 Lou Berger (Movaz Networks) Expiration Date: January 2002 Lou Berger (Movaz Networks)
Greg Bernstein (Ciena Corporation) Greg Bernstein (Ciena Corporation)
John Drake (Calient Networks) John Drake (Calient Networks)
Yanhe Fan (Axiowave Networks) Yanhe Fan (Axiowave Networks)
Kireeti Kompella (Juniper Networks, Inc.) Kireeti Kompella (Juniper Networks, Inc.)
Eric Mannie (EBONE)
Jonathan P. Lang (Calient Networks) Jonathan P. Lang (Calient Networks)
Fong Liaw (Zaffire Inc.)
Eric Mannie (EBONE)
Ping Pan (Juniper Networks, Inc.)
Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium, Inc.) Bala Rajagopalan (Tellium, Inc.)
Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks, Inc.) Yakov Rekhter (Juniper Networks, Inc.)
Debanjan Saha (Tellium, Inc.) Debanjan Saha (Tellium, Inc.)
Vishal Sharma (Jasmine Networks) Vishal Sharma (Jasmine Networks)
George Swallow (Cisco Systems) George Swallow (Cisco Systems)
Z. Bo Tang (Tellium, Inc.) Z. Bo Tang (Tellium, Inc.)
May 2001 July 2001
Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-03.txt draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes extensions to RSVP-TE signaling required to This document describes extensions to RSVP-TE signaling required to
support Generalized MPLS. Generalized MPLS extends MPLS to encompass support Generalized MPLS. Generalized MPLS extends MPLS to encompass
time-division (e.g. SONET ADMs), wavelength (optical lambdas) and time-division (e.g. SONET ADMs), wavelength (optical lambdas) and
spatial switching (e.g. incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or spatial switching (e.g. incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or
fiber). This document presents an RSVP-TE specific description of fiber). This document presents an RSVP-TE specific description of
the extensions. A CR-LDP specific description can be found in the extensions. A CR-LDP specific description can be found in
[GMPLS-LDP]. A generic functional description is presented in [GMPLS-LDP]. A generic functional description is presented in
[GMPLS-SIG]. [GMPLS-SIG].
Contents Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1 Introduction ................................................ 3
2 Label Related Formats .................................... 3 2 Label Related Formats ...................................... 3
2.1 Generalized Label Request ................................ 3 2.1 Generalized Label Request Object ............................ 4
2.1.1 Procedures ................................................ 4 2.2 Generalized Label Object .................................... 5
2.1.2 Bandwidth Encoding ........................................ 5 2.3 Waveband Switching .......................................... 6
2.2 Generalized Label ......................................... 5 2.4 Suggested Label ............................................. 7
2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 5 2.5 Label Set ................................................... 7
2.3 Waveband Switching ........................................ 6 3 Bidirectional LSPs .......................................... 9
2.3.1 Procedures ................................................ 6 3.1 Procedures .................................................. 9
2.4 Suggested Label ........................................... 7 3.2 Contention Resolution ....................................... 9
2.5 Label Set ................................................. 7 4 Notification ................................................ 10
2.5.1 Procedures ................................................ 8 4.1 Acceptable Label Set Object ................................. 10
3 Bidirectional LSPs ........................................ 9 4.2 Notify Request Objects ...................................... 11
3.1 Procedures ................................................ 9 4.3 Notify Message .............................................. 12
3.2 Contention Resolution ..................................... 9 4.4 Removing State with a PathErr message ....................... 14
4 Notification .............................................. 10 5 Explicit Label Control ...................................... 15
4.1 Acceptable Label Set Object ............................... 10 5.1 Procedures .................................................. 16
4.2 Notify Request Objects .................................... 11 6 Protection Object ........................................... 17
4.2.1 Required Information ...................................... 11 6.1 Procedures .................................................. 17
4.2.2 Procedures ................................................ 12 7 Administrative Status Information ........................... 17
4.3 Notify Message ............................................ 12 7.1 Admin Status Object ......................................... 17
4.3.1 Required Information ...................................... 13 7.2 Path and Resv Message Procedures ............................ 18
4.3.2 Procedures ................................................ 13 7.3 Notify Message Procedures ................................... 19
4.4 Removing State with a PathErr message ..................... 14 8 Control Channel Separation .................................. 20
5 Explicit Label Control .................................... 15 8.1 Interface Identification .................................... 20
5.1 Procedures ................................................ 16 9 Fault Handling .............................................. 22
6 Protection Object ......................................... 17 9.1 RESTART_CAP Object .......................................... 22
6.1 Procedures ................................................ 17 9.2 Processing of RESTART_CAP Object ............................ 23
7 RSVP Message Formats ...................................... 17 9.3 Modification to Hello Processing to Support State Recovery .. 23
8 Acknowledgments ........................................... 19 9.4 Control Channel Faults ...................................... 24
9 Security Considerations ................................... 20 9.5 Nodal Faults ................................................ 24
10 References ................................................ 20 10 RSVP Message Formats and Handling ........................... 27
11 Authors' Addresses ........................................ 21 10.1 RSVP Message Formats ........................................ 27
10.2 Addressing Path and PathTear Messages ...................... 29
11 Acknowledgments ............................................. 29
12 Security Considerations ..................................... 29
13 References .................................................. 30
14 Authors' Addresses .......................................... 31
Changes from previous version: Changes from previous version:
o Fixed Label Set format (for LDP) o Fixed Label Set format (for LDP)
o Added Switching type of LSP being requested
o Added Administrative Status Information (based on last call comments)
o Added section on Control Channel Separation
(based on last call comments)
Covers:
- Separation of control and data channels
- Restoration of state post control channel failures
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS extends MPLS from supporting packet (PSC) interfaces Generalized MPLS extends MPLS from supporting packet (PSC) interfaces
and switching to include support of three new classes of interfaces and switching to include support of three new classes of interfaces
and switching: Time-Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch (LSC) and and switching: Time-Division Multiplex (TDM), Lambda Switch (LSC) and
Fiber-Switch (FSC). A functional description of the extensions to Fiber-Switch (FSC). A functional description of the extensions to
MPLS signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and MPLS signaling needed to support the new classes of interfaces and
switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. This document presents RSVP-TE switching is provided in [GMPLS-SIG]. This document presents RSVP-TE
specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all four classes of specific formats and mechanisms needed to support all four classes of
skipping to change at page 3, line 36 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
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. Label Related Formats 2. Label Related Formats
This section defines formats for a generalized label request, a This section defines formats for a generalized label request, a
generalized label, support for waveband switching, suggested label generalized label, support for waveband switching, suggested label
and label sets. and label sets.
2.1. Generalized Label Request 2.1. Generalized Label Request Object
A Path message SHOULD contain as specific an LSP Encoding Type as A Path message SHOULD contain as specific an LSP Encoding Type as
possible to allow the maximum flexibility in switching by transit possible to allow the maximum flexibility in switching by transit
LSRs. A Generalized Label Request object is set by the ingress node, LSRs. A Generalized Label Request object is set by the ingress node,
transparently passed by transit nodes, and used by the egress node. transparently passed by transit nodes, and used by the egress node.
The format of a Generalized Label Request is: The format of a Generalized Label Request object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num (19)|C-Type (4)[TBA]| | Length | Class-Num (19)|C-Type (4)[TBA]|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP Enc. Type | Reserved | G-PID | | LSP Enc. Type |Switching Type | G-PID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters. See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters.
2.1.1. Procedures 2.1.1. Procedures
A node processing a Path message containing a Generalized Label A node processing a Path message containing a Generalized Label
Request must verify that the requested parameters can be satisfied by Request must verify that the requested parameters can be satisfied by
the interface on which the incoming label is to be allocated, the the interface on which the incoming label is to be allocated, the
node itself, and by the interface on which the traffic will be node itself, and by the interface on which the traffic will be
skipping to change at page 5, line 15 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
typically result in a Resv message being generated. typically result in a Resv message being generated.
2.1.2. Bandwidth Encoding 2.1.2. Bandwidth Encoding
Bandwidth encodings are carried in the SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC Bandwidth encodings are carried in the SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC
objects. See [GMPLS-SIG] for a definition of values to be used for objects. See [GMPLS-SIG] for a definition of values to be used for
specific signal types. These values are set in the Peak Data Rate specific signal types. These values are set in the Peak Data Rate
field of Int-Serv objects. Other bandwidth/service related field of Int-Serv objects. Other bandwidth/service related
parameters in the object are ignored and carried transparently. parameters in the object are ignored and carried transparently.
2.2. Generalized Label 2.2. Generalized Label Object
The format of a Generalized Label is: The format of a Generalized Label object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num (16)| C-Type (2) | | Length | Class-Num (16)| C-Type (2) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | | Label |
| ... | | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 47
problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication if any of the label problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication if any of the label
fields are unrecognized or unacceptable. fields are unrecognized or unacceptable.
Additionally, when a waveband is switched to another waveband, it is Additionally, when a waveband is switched to another waveband, it is
possible that the wavelengths within the waveband will be mirrored possible that the wavelengths within the waveband will be mirrored
about a center frequency. When this type of switching is employed, about a center frequency. When this type of switching is employed,
the start and end label in the waveband label object MUST be flipped the start and end label in the waveband label object MUST be flipped
before forwarding the label object with the new waveband Id. In this before forwarding the label object with the new waveband Id. In this
manner an egress/ingress LSR which receives a waveband label which manner an egress/ingress LSR which receives a waveband label which
has these values inverted, knows that it must also invert its egress has these values inverted, knows that it must also invert its egress
association to pick up the proper wavelengths. Without this association to pick up the proper wavelengths.
mechanism and with an odd number of mirrored switching operations,
the egress LSRs will not know that an input wavelength of say L1 will
emerge from the waveband tunnel as L100.
This operation MUST be performed in both directions when a This operation MUST be performed in both directions when a
bidirectional waveband tunnel is being established. bidirectional waveband tunnel is being established.
2.4. Suggested Label 2.4. Suggested Label
The format of a suggested label is identical to a generalized label. The format of a suggested label is identical to a generalized label.
It is used in Path messages. Suggested Label uses a new Class-Number It is used in Path messages. Suggested Label uses Class-Number TBA
(TBA of form 10bbbbbb) and the C-type of the label being suggested. (of form 10bbbbbb) and the C-type of the label being suggested.
Errors in received Suggested Labels MUST be ignored. This includes Errors in received Suggested Labels MUST be ignored. This includes
any received inconsistent or unacceptable values. any received inconsistent or unacceptable values.
2.5. Label Set 2.5. Label Set
The Label_Set object uses a Class-Number TBA (of form 0bbbbbbb) and The Label_Set object uses Class-Number TBA (of form 0bbbbbbb) and the
the C-type of 1. C-type of 1.
The format of a Label_Set is: The format of a Label_Set is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(TBA)| C-Type (1) | | Length | Class-Num(TBA)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action | Reserved | Label Type | | Action | Reserved | Label Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 10, line 16 skipping to change at page 10, line 16
4. Notification 4. Notification
This section covers several notification related extensions. The This section covers several notification related extensions. The
first extension defines the Acceptable Label Set object to support first extension defines the Acceptable Label Set object to support
Notification on Label Error, per [GMPLS-SIG]. The second and third Notification on Label Error, per [GMPLS-SIG]. The second and third
extensions enable expedited notification of failures and other events extensions enable expedited notification of failures and other events
to nodes responsible for restoring failed LSPs. (The second to nodes responsible for restoring failed LSPs. (The second
extension, the Notify Request object, identifies where event extension, the Notify Request object, identifies where event
notifications are to be sent. The third extension, the Notify notifications are to be sent. The third extension, the Notify
message, provides for general event notification.) The final message, provides for general event notification.) The final
extension allows for the removal of Path state on handling of PathErr notification related extension allows for the removal of Path state
messages. on handling of PathErr messages.
4.1. Acceptable Label Set Object 4.1. Acceptable Label Set Object
Acceptable_Label_Set objects use a Class-Number TBA (of form Acceptable_Label_Set objects use a Class-Number TBA (of form
11bbbbbb). The remaining contents of the object, including C-type, 10bbbbbb). The remaining contents of the object, including C-type,
have the identical format as the Label_Set object, see Section 2.5. have the identical format as the Label_Set object, see Section 2.5.
Acceptable_Label_Set objects may be carried in PathErr and ResvErr Acceptable_Label_Set objects may be carried in PathErr and ResvErr
messages. The procedures for defining an Acceptable Label Set follow messages. The procedures for defining an Acceptable Label Set follow
the procedures for defining a Label Set, see Section 2.5.1. the procedures for defining a Label Set, see Section 2.5.1.
Specifically, an Acceptable Label Set is defined via one or more Specifically, an Acceptable Label Set is defined via one or more
Acceptable_Label_Set objects. Specific labels/subchannels can be Acceptable_Label_Set objects. Specific labels/subchannels can be
added to or excluded from an Acceptable Label Set via Action zero added to or excluded from an Acceptable Label Set via Action zero
(0) and one (1) objects respectively. Ranges of labels/subchannels (0) and one (1) objects respectively. Ranges of labels/subchannels
can be added to or excluded from an Acceptable Label Set via Action can be added to or excluded from an Acceptable Label Set via Action
skipping to change at page 13, line 26 skipping to change at page 13, line 26
<Notify message> ::= <Common Header> [<INTEGRITY>] <Notify message> ::= <Common Header> [<INTEGRITY>]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ] [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<ERROR_SPEC> <notify session list> <ERROR_SPEC> <notify session list>
<notify session list> ::= [ <notify session list> ] <notify session list> ::= [ <notify session list> ]
<upstream notify session> | <upstream notify session> |
<downstream notify session> <downstream notify session>
<upstream notify session> ::= <SESSION> [<POLICY_DATA>...] <upstream notify session> ::= <SESSION> [ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[<POLICY_DATA>...]
<sender descriptor> <sender descriptor>
<downstream notify session> ::= <SESSION> [<POLICY_DATA>...] <downstream notify session> ::= <SESSION> [<POLICY_DATA>...]
<flow descriptor list descriptor> <flow descriptor list descriptor>
The ERROR_SPEC object specifies the error and includes the IP address The ERROR_SPEC object specifies the error and includes the IP address
of either the node that detected the error or the link that has of either the node that detected the error or the link that has
failed. See ERROR_SPEC definition in [RFC2205]. The MESSAGE_ID and failed. See ERROR_SPEC definition in [RFC2205]. The MESSAGE_ID and
related objects are defined in [RSVP-RR] and are used when refresh related objects are defined in [RSVP-RR] and are used when refresh
reductions is supported. reductions is supported.
skipping to change at page 16, line 23 skipping to change at page 16, line 23
- If the first label subobject is not preceded by a subobject - If the first label subobject is not preceded by a subobject
containing an IP address, or a interface identifier containing an IP address, or a interface identifier
[MPLS-UNNUM], associated with an output link. [MPLS-UNNUM], associated with an output link.
- For a label subobject to follow a subobject that has the L-bit - For a label subobject to follow a subobject that has the L-bit
set set
- On unidirectional LSP setup, for there to be a label subobject - On unidirectional LSP setup, for there to be a label subobject
with the U-bit set with the U-bit set
- For there to be two label subobjects with the same U-bit values - For there to be two label subobjects with the same U-bit values
To support the label subobject, a node must check to see if the To support the label subobject, a node must check to see if the
subobject following it's associate address/interface is a label subobject following its associate address/interface is a label
subobject. If it is, one subobject is examined for unidirectional subobject. If it is, one subobject is examined for unidirectional
LSPs and two subobjects for bidirectional LSPs. If the U-bit of the LSPs and two subobjects for bidirectional LSPs. If the U-bit of the
subobject being examined is clear (0), then value of the label is subobject being examined is clear (0), then value of the label is
copied into a new Label_Set object. This Label_Set object MUST be copied into a new Label_Set object. This Label_Set object MUST be
included on the corresponding outgoing Path message. included on the corresponding outgoing Path message.
If the U-bit of the subobject being examined is set (1), then value If the U-bit of the subobject being examined is set (1), then value
of the label is label to be used for upstream traffic associated with of the label is label to be used for upstream traffic associated with
the bidirectional LSP. If this label is not acceptable, a "Bad the bidirectional LSP. If this label is not acceptable, a "Bad
EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error SHOULD be generated. If the label is EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error SHOULD be generated. If the label is
skipping to change at page 17, line 9 skipping to change at page 17, line 9
received ERO, then it SHOULD be treated as a "Bad strict node" error. received ERO, then it SHOULD be treated as a "Bad strict node" error.
Procedures by which an LSR at the head-end of an LSP obtains the Procedures by which an LSR at the head-end of an LSP obtains the
information needed to construct the Label subobject are outside the information needed to construct the Label subobject are outside the
scope of this document. scope of this document.
6. Protection Object 6. Protection Object
The use of the Protection Object is optional. The object is included The use of the Protection Object is optional. The object is included
to indicate specific protection attributes of an LSP. The Protection to indicate specific protection attributes of an LSP. The Protection
Object uses a Class-Number TBA (of form 0bbbbbbb). Object uses Class-Number TBA (of form 0bbbbbbb).
The format of Protection Information Object is: The format of the Protection Object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(TBA)| C-Type (1) | | Length | Class-Num(TBA)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved | Link Flags| |S| Reserved | Link Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters. See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters.
6.1. Procedures 6.1. Procedures
Transit nodes processing a Path message containing a Protection Transit nodes processing a Path message containing a Protection
Object MUST verify that the requested protection can be satisfied by Object MUST verify that the requested protection can be satisfied by
the outgoing interface or tunnel (FA). If it cannot, the node MUST the outgoing interface or tunnel (FA). If it cannot, the node MUST
generate a PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Link generate a PathErr message, with a "Routing problem/Unsupported Link
Protection" indication. Protection" indication.
7. RSVP Message Formats 7. Administrative Status Information
Administrative Status Information is carried in the Admin Status
Object. The object provides information related to the
administrative state of a particular LSP. The information is used in
two ways. In the first, the object is carried in Path and Resv
messages to indicate the administrative state of an LSP. In the
second, the object is carried in a Notification message to request
that the ingress node change the administrative state of an LSP.
7.1. Admin Status Object
The use of the Admin Status Object is optional. It uses Class-Number
TBA (of form 11bbbbbb).
The format of the Admin Status Object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(TBA)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |T|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters.
7.2. Path and Resv Message Procedures
The Admin Status Object is used to notify each node along the path of
the status of the LSP. Status information is processed by each node
based on local policy and then propagated in the corresponding
outgoing messages. The object is inserted in Path messages at the
discretion of the ingress node.
Transit nodes receiving a non-refresh Path message containing an
Admin Status Object, update their local state, take any appropriate
local action based on the indicated status and then propagate the
received Admin Status Object in the outgoing Path message.
Egress nodes receiving a non-refresh Path message containing an Admin
Status Object, also update their local state and take any appropriate
local action based on the indicated status. If an egress node has
issued a Resv message corresponding to the Path message it MUST send
an updated Resv message containing an Admin Status Object with the
same values set as received in the corresponding Path message. The
egress node MUST also ensure that all subsequent Resv messages sent
by the node contain the same Admin Status Objects matching the
corresponding Path message.
Transit nodes receiving a non-refresh Resv message containing an
Admin Status Object, update their local state, take any appropriate
local action based on the indicated status and then propagate the
received Admin Status Object in the outgoing Resv message.
7.2.1. Deletion procedure
In some circumstances, particularly optical networks, it is useful to
set the administrative status of an LSP before tearing it down. In
such circumstances the procedure SHOULD be followed when deleting an
LSP:
1. The ingress node precedes an LSP deletion by inserting an Admin
Status Object in Path message and setting the Down (D) bit.
2. Transit and egress nodes process the Admin Status Object as
described above.
3. Upon receiving the Admin Status Object with the Down (D) bit set in
the Resv message, the ingress node sends a PathTear message
downstream to remove the LSP and normal RSVP processing takes place.
7.2.2. Compatibility
It is possible that some nodes along an LSP will not support the
Admin Status Object. In the case of a non-supporting transit node,
the object will pass through the node unmodified and normal
processing can continue. In the case of a non-supporting egress
node, the Admin Status Object will not be reflected back in the Resv
Message. In this case, the ingress SHOULD continue to set the
contents of the object normally but, when processing an LSP deletion,
it MUST NOT wait for an updated Admin Status Object in a Resv message
before issuing a PathTear message.
7.3. Notify Message Procedures
Intermediate and egress nodes may trigger the setting of
administrative status before a deletion via the use of Notify
messages. To accomplish this, an intermediate or egress node
generates a Notify message with the corresponding upstream notify
session information. The Admin Status Object MUST be included in the
session information, with the Down (D) bit set. The Notify message
may, but is not required to be, encapsulated, see Section 4.3.
An ingress node receiving a Notify message containing an Admin Status
Object with the Down (D) bit set, SHOULD initiate the deletion
procedure described in the previous section.
7.3.1. Compatibility and Error Procedures
Some special processing is required in order to cover the case of
nodes that do not support the Admin Status Object and other error
conditions. Specifically, a node that sends a Notify message
containing an Admin Status Object with the Down (D) bit set MUST
verify that it receives a corresponding Path message with the Down
(D) bit set within a configurable period of time. By default this
period of time SHOULD be 30 seconds. If the node does not receive
such a Path message, it SHOULD send a ResvTear message upstream and a
PathTear message downstream.
8. Control Channel Separation
This section provides the protocol specific formats and procedures to
required support a control channel not being in-band with a data
channel.
8.1. Interface Identification
The choice of the data interface to use is always made by the sender
of the Path message. The choice of the data interface is indicated by
the sender of the Path message by including the data channel's
interface identifier in the message using a new RSVP_HOP object sub-
type. For bidirectional LSPs, the sender chooses the data interface
in each direction. In all cases but bundling [MPLS-BUNDLE] the
upstream interface is implied by the downstream interface. For
bundling, the path sender explicitly identifies the component
interface used in each direction. The new RSVP_HOP object is used in
Resv message to indicate the downstream node's usage of the indicated
interface(s).
8.1.1. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Objects
The format of the IPv4 IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num (3) | C-Type (3)TBA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Next/Previous Hop Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical Interface Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The format of the IPv6 IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num (3) | C-Type (3)TBA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Next/Previous Hop Address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Logical Interface Handle |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ TLVs ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
See [RFC2205] for a description of hop address and handle fields.
See [GMPLS-SIG] for a description of parameters and encoding of
TLVs.
8.1.2. Procedures
An IF_ID RSVP_HOP object is used in place of previously defined
RSVP_HOP objects. It is used on links where there is not a one-to-
one association of a control channel to a data channel, see [GMPLS-
SIG]. The Hop Address and Logical Interface Handle fields are used
per standard RSVP [RFC2205].
TLVs are used to identify the data channel(s) associated with the
LSP. For a unidirectional LSP, a forward channel MUST be indicated.
For a bidirectional LSP that uses bundled links, a reverse channel
MUST be indicated. Data channels are specified from the view point
of the sender of the Path message. The IF_ID RSVP_HOP object SHOULD
NOT be used when no TLVs are needed.
A node receiving one or more TLVs in a Path message saves their
values and returns them in the HOP objects of subsequent Resv
messages sent to the node that originated the TLVs.
9. Fault Handling
The handling of two types of control communication faults are
described in this section. The first, referred to as nodal faults,
relates to the case where a node losses its control state (e.g.,
after a restart) but does not loose its data forwarding state. In
the second, referred to as control channel faults, relates to the
case where control communication is lost between two nodes. The
handling of both faults are supported by a the RESTART_CAP object
defined below and require the use of Hello messages.
Please note this section is derived from [PAN-RESTART].
9.1. RESTART_CAP Object
The RESTART_CAP Object is carried in Hello messages. The modified
Hello message format is:
<Hello Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] <HELLO>
[ <RESTART_CAP> ]
The format of the RESTART_CAP Object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(TBD)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Restart Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Recovery Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Restart Time: 32 bits
Restart Time is measured in milliseconds. Restart Time SHOULD
be set to the sum of the time it takes the sender of the object
to restart its RSVP-TE component (to the point where it can
exchange RSVP Hello with its neighbors) and the communication
channel that is used for RSVP communication.
Recovery Time: 32 bits
The period of time, in milliseconds, that the sender desires
for the recipient to resyncronize RSVP and MPLS forwarding
state with the sender after the re-establishment of Hello
synchronization. A value of zero (0) indicates that MPLS
forwarding state was not preserved across a particular reboot.
A value of 0xffffffff indicates that resynchronization may
occur at a rate selected by the receiver.
9.2. Processing of RESTART_CAP Object
Nodes supporting state recovery MUST advertise this capability by
carrying the RESTART_CAP object in the Hello messages it sends to the
neighbors. Usage of the special case Recovery Time values is
described in greater detail below.
When a node receives a Hello message with the RESTART_CAP object, it
SHOULD record the values of the parameters received. Note that the
RESTART_CAP Object will only be present when the Dst_Instance value
is set to zero (0).
9.3. Modification to Hello Processing to Support State Recovery
Nodes supporting state recovery MUST include the RESTART_CAP object
in all Hello messages which are sent with Dst_Instance value set to
zero (0).
When an LSR determines that RSVP communication with a neighbor has
been lost, and the LSR previously learned that the neighbor supports
state recovery, the LSR SHOULD wait at least the amount of time
indicated by the Restart Time indicated by the neighbor before
invoking procedures related to communication loss. An LSR MAY wait
longer based on local policy or configuration information.
During this waiting period, all Hello messages MUST be sent with a
Dst_Instance value set to zero (0), and Src_Instance should be
unchanged. While waiting, the LSR SHOULD also preserve the RSVP and
MPLS forwarding state for (already) established LSPs that traverse
the link(s) between the LSR and the neighbor. In a sense with
respect to established LSPs the LSR behaves as if it continues to
receive periodic RSVP refresh messages from the neighbor. The LSR
MAY clear RSVP and forwarding state for the LSPs that are in the
process of being established when their refresh timers expire.
Refreshing of Resv state SHOULD be suppressed during this waiting
period.
During this waiting period, the LSR MAY inform other nodes of the
communication loss via send a PathErr and/or upstream Notify message
with "Control Channel Degraded State" indication. If such
notification has been sent, then upon restoration of the control
channel the LSR MUST inform other nodes of the restoration via a
PathErr and/or upstream Notify message with "Control Channel Active
State" indication. (Specific error codes are to be assigned IANA.)
When a new Hello message is received from the neighbor, the LSR must
determine if the fault was limited to the control channel or was a
nodal fault. This determination is based on the Src_Instance
received from the neighbor. If the value is different than the value
that was received from the neighbor prior to the fault, then the
neighbor should be treated as if it has restarted. Otherwise, the
the fault was limited control channel. Procedures for handling each
case are described below.
9.4. Control Channel Faults
In the case of control channel faults, the LSR SHOULD refresh all
state shared with the neighbor. Summary Refreshes [RSVP-RR] with the
ACK_Desired flag set SHOULD be used, if supported. Note that if a
large number of messages are need, some pacing should be applied.
All state SHOULD be refreshed within the Recovery time advertised by
the neighbor.
9.5. Nodal Faults
Recovering from nodal faults primarily relies on existing protocol
messages and objects.
9.5.1. Procedures for the Restarting LSR
After an LSR restarts its control plane, an LSR that supports state
recovery SHOULD check whether it was able to preserve its MPLS
forwarding state. If no forwarding state from prior to the restart
was preserved, then the LSR MUST set the Recovery Time to 0 in the
Hello message the LSR sends to its neighbors.
If the forwarding state was preserved, then the LSR initiates the
state recovery process. The LSR MUST be prepared to support the
recovery process for at least the time it advertised in the Recovery
Time in the Hello messages used during initial Hello message
exchange, i.e., when the Dst_Instance that the LSR advertises to the
neighbor was 0. The period during which a node is prepared to
support the recovery process is referred to as the Recovery Period.
Note, a Recovery Time value of 0xffffffff indicates that the Recovery
Period is effectively infinite. State that is not resynchronized
during the Recovery Period SHOULD be removed at the end of the
Period. Note that if during Hello synchronization the restarting
LSR determines that a neighbor does not support state recovery, and
the restarting LSR maintains its MPLS forwarding state on a per
neighbor basis, the restarting LSR should immediately consider the
Recovery Period with that neighbor completed. Note forwarding state
can be considered to be maintained on a per neighbor basis when per
interface labels are used on point-to-point interfaces.
When an LSR receives a Path message during the Recovery Period, the
LSR first checks if it has an RSVP state associated with the message.
If the state is found, then the LSR handles this message according to
previously defined procedures.
If the RSVP state is not found, and the message does not carry a
SUGGESTED_LABEL object, the LSR treats this as a setup for a new LSP,
and handles it according to previously defined procedures.
If the RSVP state is not found, and the message carries the
SUGGESTED_LABEL object, the LSR searches its MPLS forwarding table
(the one that was preserved across the restart) for an entry whose
incoming interface matches the Path message and whose incoming label
is equal to the label carried in the SUGGESTED_LABEL object.
If the MPLS forwarding table entry is not found, the LSR treats this
as a setup for a new LSP, and handles it according to previously
defined procedures.
If the MPLS forwarding table entry is found, the appropriate RSVP
state is created, the entry is bound to the LSP associated with the
message, and related forwarding state should be considered as valid
and refreshed. Normal Path message processing should also be
conducted. When sending the corresponding outgoing Path message the
node SHOULD include a SUGGESTED_LABEL object with a label value
matching the outgoing label from the now restored forwarding entry.
The outgoing interface SHOULD also be selected based on the
forwarding entry.
Additionally, for bidirectional LSPs, the LSR extracts the label from
the UPSTREAM_LABEL object carried in the received Path message, and
searches its MPLS forwarding table for an entry whose outgoing label
is equal to the label carried in the object (in the case of link
bundling, this may also involved first identifying the appropriate
incoming component link).
If the MPLS forwarding table entry is not found, the LSR treats this
as a setup for a new LSP, and handles it according to previously
defined procedures.
If the MPLS forwarding table entry is found, the entry is bound to
the LSP associated with the Path message, and the entry is no longer
considered as stale. In addition, if the LSR is not the tail-end of
the LSP, the corresponding outgoing Path messages is sent with the
incoming label from that entry carried in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object.
During the Recovery Period, Resv messages are processed normally with
two exceptions. In the case that a forwarding entry is recovered, no
new label or resource allocation is required while processing the
Resv message. The second exception applies only if the Recovery Time
is not 0xffffffff. In this case, ResvErr messages SHOULD NOT be
generated when a Resv message with no matching Path state is
received. In this case the Resv message SHOULD just be sighlently
discarded.
9.5.2. Procedures for the Neighbor of a Restarting LSR
The following specifies the procedures that apply when the LSR
reestablishes communication with the neighbor's control plane within
the Restart Time, the LSR determines (using the procedures defined in
Section 5 of [RSVP-TE]) that the neighbor's control plane has
restarted, and the neighbor was able to preserve its forwarding state
across the restart (as was indicated by a non-zero Recovery Time
carried in the RESTART_CAP object of the RSVP Hello messages received
from the neighbor).
Upon detecting a restart with a neighbor that supports state
recovery, an LSR SHOULD refresh all Path state shared with that
neighbor. The outgoing Path messages MUST include the
SUGGESTED_LABEL object containing the label value received in the
most recently received corresponding Resv message. All Path state
SHOULD be refreshed within approximately 1/2 of the Recovery time
advertised by the restarted neighbor. If there are many LSP's going
through the restarting LSR, the neighbor LSR should avoid sending
Path messages in a short time interval, as to avoid unnecessary
stressing the restarting LSR's CPU. Instead, it should spread the
messages across 1/2 the Recovery Time interval.
During the recovery period, new Path state being advertised to the
restarted neighbor SHOULD not include the SUGGESTED_LABEL object in
the corresponding outgoing Path message. This will prevent the
restarting node from erroneously reusing a saved forwarding entry.
After detecting a restart of a neighbor that supports state recovery,
all Resv state shared with the restarting node MUST NOT be refreshed
until a corresponding Path message is received. This requires
suppression of normal Resv and Summary Refresh processing to the
neighbor during the Recovery Time advertised by the restarted
neighbor. As soon as a corresponding Path message is received a Resv
message SHOULD be generated and normal state processing may be re-
enabled.
10. RSVP Message Formats and Handling
This message summarizes RSVP message formats and handling as modified
by GMPLS.
10.1. RSVP Message Formats
This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by
this document. Where they differ, formats for unidirectional LSPs this document. Where they differ, formats for unidirectional LSPs
are presented separately from bidirectional LSPs. Unmodified formats are presented separately from bidirectional LSPs. Unmodified formats
are not listed. Again, MESSAGE_ID and related objects are defined in are not listed. Again, MESSAGE_ID and related objects are defined in
[RSVP-RR]. [RSVP-RR].
The format of a Path message is as follows: The format of a Path message is as follows:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] <Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ] [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES> <TIME_VALUES>
[ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ] [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
<LABEL_REQUEST> <LABEL_REQUEST>
[ <PROTECTION> ] [ <PROTECTION> ]
[ <LABEL_SET> ... ] [ <LABEL_SET> ... ]
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ] [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
[ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ] [ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<sender descriptor> <sender descriptor>
The format of the sender description for unidirectional LSPs is: The format of the sender description for unidirectional LSPs is:
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC> <sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ] [ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ] [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
The format of the sender description for bidirectional LSPs is: The format of the sender description for bidirectional LSPs is:
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC> <sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ] [ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ] [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
<UPSTREAM_LABEL> <UPSTREAM_LABEL>
The format of a PathErr message is as follows: The format of a PathErr message is as follows:
skipping to change at page 19, line 4 skipping to change at page 28, line 21
The format of a PathErr message is as follows: The format of a PathErr message is as follows:
<PathErr Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] <PathErr Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ] [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <ERROR_SPEC> <SESSION> <ERROR_SPEC>
[ <ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET> ... ] [ <ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET> ... ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<sender descriptor> <sender descriptor>
The format of a Resv message is as follows: The format of a Resv message is as follows:
<Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] <Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ] [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES> <TIME_VALUES>
[ <RESV_CONFIRM> ] [ <SCOPE> ] [ <RESV_CONFIRM> ] [ <SCOPE> ]
[ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ] [ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<STYLE> <flow descriptor list> <STYLE> <flow descriptor list>
<flow descriptor list> is not modified by this document. <flow descriptor list> is not modified by this document.
The format of a Resv message is as follows: The format of a ResvErr message is as follows:
<ResvErr Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] <ResvErr Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ] [ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ] [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<ERROR_SPEC> [ <SCOPE> ] <ERROR_SPEC> [ <SCOPE> ]
[ <ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET> ... ] [ <ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET> ... ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<STYLE> <error flow descriptor> <STYLE> <error flow descriptor>
8. Acknowledgments 10.2. Addressing Path and PathTear Messages
RSVP was designed to handle dynamic (non-explicit) path changes and
non RSVP hops along the path. To this end, the Path and PathTear
messages carry the destination address of the session in the IP
header. In generalized signaling, routes are usually explicitly
signaled. Further, hops that cannot allocate labels cannot exist in
the path of an LSP. A further difference with traditional RSVP is
that at times, an RSVP message may travel out of band with respect to
an LSP's data channel.
When a node is sending a Path or PathTear message to a node that it
knows to be adjacent at the data plane (i.e. along the path of the
LSP) it SHOULD address the message directly to that node. In this
case the router-alert option SHOULD not be included.
11. Acknowledgments
This draft is the work of numerous authors and consists of a This draft is the work of numerous authors and consists of a
composition of a number of previous drafts in this area. A list of composition of a number of previous drafts in this area. A list of
the drafts from which material and ideas were incorporated follows: the drafts from which material and ideas were incorporated follows:
draft-saha-rsvp-optical-signaling-00.txt draft-saha-rsvp-optical-signaling-00.txt
draft-lang-mpls-rsvp-oxc-00.txt draft-lang-mpls-rsvp-oxc-00.txt
draft-kompella-mpls-optical-00.txt draft-kompella-mpls-optical-00.txt
draft-fan-mpls-lambda-signaling-00.txt draft-fan-mpls-lambda-signaling-00.txt
draft-pan-rsvp-te-restart-01.txt
Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people, Valuable comments and input were received from a number of people,
including Igor Bryskin and Adrian Farrel. Portions of Section 4 are including Igor Bryskin, and Adrian Farrel. Portions of Section 4 are
based on suggestions and text proposed by Adrian Farrel. based on suggestions and text proposed by Adrian Farrel.
9. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
The transmission of notify messages using IP in IP, break RSVP's hop- The transmission of notify messages using IP in IP, breaks RSVP's
by-hop integrity and authentication model. Fortunately, such usage hop-by-hop integrity and authentication model. Fortunately, such
mirrors the IP end-to-end model. In the case where RSVP is usage mirrors the IP end-to-end model. In the case where RSVP is
generating end-to-end messages and integrity and/or authentication generating end-to-end messages and integrity and/or authentication
are desired, the standard IPSEC based integrity and authentication are desired, the standard IPSEC based integrity and authentication
methods SHOULD be used. methods SHOULD be used.
This draft introduces no other new security considerations to [RSVP- This draft introduces no other new security considerations to [RSVP-
TE]. TE].
10. References 13. References
[MPLS-HIERARCHY] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with [MPLS-HIERARCHY] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
MPLS TE", Internet Draft, MPLS TE", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-02.txt, Feb., 2001. draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-02.txt, Feb., 2001.
[MPLS-UNNUM] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered Links [MPLS-UNNUM] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in RSVP-TE", Internet Draft, in RSVP-TE", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-01.txt, February 2001 draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-01.txt, February 2001
[GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling - [GMPLS-LDP] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft, CR-LDP Extensions", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-01.txt, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-01.txt,
February 2001. February 2001.
[GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS - [GMPLS-SIG] Ashwood-Smith, P. et al, "Generalized MPLS -
Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft, Signaling Functional Description", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-02.txt, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-02.txt,
February 2001. February 2001.
[PAN-RESTART] Pan, et al, "Graceful Restart Mechanism for RSVP-TE",
Internet Draft, draft-pan-rsvp-te-restart-01.txt,
July 2001.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
[RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol [RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997. September 1997.
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D.O., Berger, L., Gan, D.-H., Li, T., Swallow, G., [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D.O., Berger, L., Gan, D.-H., Li, T., Swallow, G.,
and Srinivasan, V., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and Srinivasan, V., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels," Internet Draft, Tunnels," Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08.txt, February 2001. draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08.txt, February 2001.
[RSVP-RR] Berger L., Gan D., Swallow G., Pan P., Tommasi F., [RSVP-RR] Berger, L. et al, "RFC 2961: RSVP Refresh Overhead
Molendini S., "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions", Reduction Extensions", RFC2961.
draft-ietf-rsvp-refresh-reduct-05.txt, June 2000.
11. Authors' Addresses 14. Authors' Addresses
Peter Ashwood-Smith Peter Ashwood-Smith
Nortel Networks Corp. Nortel Networks Corp.
P.O. Box 3511 Station C, P.O. Box 3511 Station C,
Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7
Canada Canada
Phone: +1 613 763 4534 Phone: +1 613 763 4534
Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com Email: petera@nortelnetworks.com
Ayan Banerjee Ayan Banerjee
skipping to change at page 22, line 23 skipping to change at page 32, line 16
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Jonathan P. Lang Jonathan P. Lang
Calient Networks Calient Networks
25 Castilian 25 Castilian
Goleta, CA 93117 Goleta, CA 93117
Email: jplang@calient.net Email: jplang@calient.net
Fong Liaw
Zaffire Inc.
2630 Orchard Parkway,
San Jose, CA 95134
Email: fliaw@zaffire.com
Eric Mannie Eric Mannie
EBONE EBONE
Terhulpsesteenweg 6A Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium 1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
Phone: +32 2 658 56 52 Phone: +32 2 658 56 52
Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52 Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52
Fax: +32 2 658 51 18 Fax: +32 2 658 51 18
Email: eric.mannie@ebone.com Email: eric.mannie@ebone.com
Ping Pan
Juniper Networks
1194 N.Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: pingpan@juniper.net
Bala Rajagopalan Bala Rajagopalan
Tellium, Inc. Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place 2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901 P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 732 923 4237 Phone: +1 732 923 4237
Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Fax: +1 732 923 9804
Email: braja@tellium.com Email: braja@tellium.com
Yakov Rekhter Yakov Rekhter
skipping to change at line 979 skipping to change at line 1450
Z. Bo Tang Z. Bo Tang
Tellium, Inc. Tellium, Inc.
2 Crescent Place 2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901 P.O. Box 901
Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901 Oceanport, NJ 07757-0901
Phone: +1 732 923 4231 Phone: +1 732 923 4231
Fax: +1 732 923 9804 Fax: +1 732 923 9804
Email: btang@tellium.com Email: btang@tellium.com
Generated on: Tue May 1 16:25:28 EDT 2001 Generated on: Fri Jul 20 16:38:09 EDT 2001
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/