draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt 
MPLS Working Group Z. Ali MPLS Working Group Z. Ali
G. Swallow G. Swallow
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Aggarwal R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standard Track March 8, 2010 Intended status: Standard Track October 12, 2010
Expires: September 7, 2010 Expires: April 11, 2011
Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain
material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or
made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
in progress." in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2011.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
Copyright Copyright
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described document must include Simplified BSD License text as described
in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract Abstract
There are many deployment scenarios which require Egress Label There are many deployment scenarios which require Egress Label
Switching Router (LSR) to receive binding of the Resource ReserVation Switching Router (LSR) to receive binding of the Resource
Protocol Traffic Engineered (RSVP-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineered (RSVP-TE) Label Switched
to an application, and payload identification, using some "out- Path (LSP) to an application, and payload identification, using
of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document proposes protocol some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document proposes protocol
mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures described mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures described
in this document are equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) in this document are equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P)
and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................3 1. Introduction...............................................3
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...............................3 2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...............................3
2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior............................3 2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior............................3
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication......................5 2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication......................5
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags............6 2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags............6
2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding....................6 2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding....................6
3. Security Considerations....................................7
4. IANA Considerations........................................7 4. IANA Considerations........................................7
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.............7 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.............7
5. Acknowledgments............................................7 5. Acknowledgments............................................7
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
6. References.................................................8 6. References.................................................8
6.1. Normative References..................................8 6.1. Normative References..................................8
6.2. Informative References................................8 6.2. Informative References................................8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When RSVP-TE is used for applications like MVPN [MVPN] and VPLS When RSVP-TE is used for applications like MVPN [MVPN] and VPLS
[VPLS], an Egress LSR receives the binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to [VPLS], an Egress LSR receives the binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to
an application, and payload identification, using an "out-of- an application, and payload identification, using an "out-of-
skipping to change at page 3, line 43 skipping to change at page 3, line 42
This document defines two new flags in the Attributes Flags TLV This document defines two new flags in the Attributes Flags TLV
of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: one flag for of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: one flag for
communication of non-PHP behavior, and one flag to indicate that communication of non-PHP behavior, and one flag to indicate that
the binding of the LSP to an application and payload identifier the binding of the LSP to an application and payload identifier
(payload-Id) needs to be learned via an out-of-band mapping (payload-Id) needs to be learned via an out-of-band mapping
mechanism. The procedures described in this document are equally mechanism. The procedures described in this document are equally
applicable for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB applicable for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB
communication mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document. communication mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document.
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
This section describes the signaling extensions required to This section describes the signaling extensions required to
address the above-mentioned requirements. address the above-mentioned requirements.
2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior 2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior
In order to request non-PHP behavior for an RSVP-TE LSP, this In order to request non-PHP behavior for an RSVP-TE LSP, this
document defines a new flag in the Attributes Flags TLV of the document defines a new flag in the Attributes Flags TLV of the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]: LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]:
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
Bit Number 6 (TBD): non-PHP behavior flag. Bit Number 6 (TBD): non-PHP behavior flag.
An Ingress LSR sets the "non-PHP behavior flag" to signal the An Ingress LSR sets the "non-PHP behavior flag" to signal the
egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP being egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP being
signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in
the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this
flag. flag.
When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit
individual response to "non-PHP behavior flag" from the leaf individual response to "non-PHP behavior flag" from the leaf
nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may be nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may be
carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in this carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in this
situation a source node SHOULD use a separate Path message for situation a source node MUST use a separate Path message for
each leaf. each leaf.
If an egress LSR receiving the Path message, supports the If an egress LSR receiving the Path message, supports the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "non-PHP behavior flag", it MUST allocate a non- recognizes the "non-PHP behavior flag", it MUST allocate a non-
NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also include the NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also include the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with "non-PHP behavior flag" set in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with "non-PHP behavior flag" set in the
Resv message. For this purpose, as defined in RFC5420, the Resv message. For this purpose, as defined in RFC5420, the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow descriptor and is LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow descriptor and is
associated with the FILTER_SPEC object that precedes it. associated with the FILTER_SPEC object that precedes it.
If the egress LSR If the egress LSR
- supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the - supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the
Attributes Flags TLV; or Attributes Flags TLV; or
- supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and recognize the Attributes
Flags TLV, but does not recognize "non-PHP behavior flag"; Flags TLV, but does not recognize "non-PHP behavior flag";
then it SHOULD silently ignore this request. then it SHOULD silently ignore this request.
An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior SHOULD examine Resv An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior SHOULD examine Resv
message for presence of "Non-PHP behavior flag" in the message for presence of "Non-PHP behavior flag" in the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior
MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which has not included the MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which has not included the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Resv or which has included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Resv or which has included the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Resv but has not set the "Non-PHP LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in Resv but has not set the "Non-PHP
behavior flag" in it. An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior behavior flag" in it. An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior
MAY also examine the label value corresponding to the Egress MAY also examine the label value corresponding to the Egress
LSR(s) in the RRO, and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which LSR(s) in the RRO, and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which
assigns a Null label value. assigns a Null label value.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication 2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication
This document defines a single flag to indicate that the normal This document defines a single flag to indicate that the normal
binding mechanism of an RSVP session is overridden. The actual binding mechanism of an RSVP session is overridden. The actual
out of band mappings are beyond the scope of this document. The out of band mappings are beyond the scope of this document. The
flag is carried in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES flag is carried in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object defined in [RFC5420] and is defined as follows: object defined in [RFC5420] and is defined as follows:
Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping flag. Bit Number 7 (TBD): OOB mapping flag.
skipping to change at page 5, line 27 skipping to change at page 5, line 27
An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping flag to signal the Egress LSR An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping flag to signal the Egress LSR
that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and payload that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and payload
identification is being signaled out of band. This flag MUST NOT identification is being signaled out of band. This flag MUST NOT
be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs other than the be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs other than the
Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag. Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag.
When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit
individual response to "OOB mapping flag" from the leaf nodes. individual response to "OOB mapping flag" from the leaf nodes.
Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may be carried in Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may be carried in
Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in this situation a Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in this situation a
source node MUST use a separate Path message for each leaf.
If an egress LSR receiving the Path message, supports the If an egress LSR receiving the Path message, supports the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "OOB mapping flag", it MUST include the recognizes the "OOB mapping flag", it MUST include the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with "OOB mapping flag" set in the Resv LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with "OOB mapping flag" set in the Resv
message. For this purpose, as defined in RFC5420, the message. For this purpose, as defined in RFC5420, the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow descriptor and is LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow descriptor and is
associated with the FILTER_SPEC object that precedes it. associated with the FILTER_SPEC object that precedes it.
The rest of the RSVP signaling proceeds as normal. However, the The rest of the RSVP signaling proceeds as normal. However, the
LSR MUST have received the OOB mapping before accepting traffic LSR MUST have received the OOB mapping before accepting traffic
skipping to change at page 6, line 4 skipping to change at page 6, line 4
Note that the payload information SHOULD be supplied by the OOB Note that the payload information SHOULD be supplied by the OOB
mapping. If the egress LSR receives the payload information from mapping. If the egress LSR receives the payload information from
OOB mapping then the LSR MUST ignore L3PID in the Label Request OOB mapping then the LSR MUST ignore L3PID in the Label Request
Object [RFC3209]. Object [RFC3209].
If the egress LSR If the egress LSR
- supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the - supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the
Attributes Flags TLV; or Attributes Flags TLV; or
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
- supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and recognizes the - supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and recognizes the
Attributes Flags TLV, but does not recognize the "OOB mapping Attributes Flags TLV, but does not recognize the "OOB mapping
flag"; flag";
then it SHOULD silently ignore this request. then it SHOULD silently ignore this request.
An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping SHOULD examine Resv message An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping SHOULD examine Resv message
for presence of "OOB mapping flag" in in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES for presence of "OOB mapping flag" in in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object. An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY send a Path object. An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY send a Path
Tear to the Egress which has not included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Tear to the Egress which has not included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object in the Resv or which has included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Resv or which has included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object in Resv but has not set the " OOB mapping flag" in it. object in Resv but has not set the " OOB mapping flag" in it.
In deploying applications where Egress LSR receives the binding In deploying applications where Egress LSR receives the binding
of the RSVP-TE LSP to an application, and payload identification,
using OOB mechanism, it is important to recognize that OOB using OOB mechanism, it is important to recognize that OOB
mapping is sent asynchronously w.r.t. signaling of RSVP-TE LSP. mapping is sent asynchronously w.r.t. signaling of RSVP-TE LSP.
Egress LSR only installs forwarding state for the LSP after it Egress LSR only installs forwarding state for the LSP after it
receives the OOB mapping. In deploying applications using OOB receives the OOB mapping. In deploying applications using OOB
mechanism, ingress LSR may need to know when egress is properly mechanism, ingress LSR may need to know when egress is properly
setup for forwarding (i.e., has received OOB mapping). How setup for forwarding (i.e., has received OOB mapping). How
ingress LSR determines that LSR is properly setup for forwarding ingress LSR determines that LSR is properly setup for forwarding
at the Egress LSR is beyond the scope of this document. at the Egress LSR is beyond the scope of this document.
Nonetheless, if OOB mapping is not received by the egress LSR Nonetheless, if OOB mapping is not received by the egress LSR
within a reasonable time, a procedure to tear down the LSP is within a reasonable time, a procedure to tear down the LSP is
skipping to change at page 7, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 4
2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding 2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding
RSVP-TE signaling completion and the OOB mapping information RSVP-TE signaling completion and the OOB mapping information
reception happen asynchronously at the Egress. As mentioned in reception happen asynchronously at the Egress. As mentioned in
Section 2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting Section 2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting
traffic on the LSP. traffic on the LSP.
In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible
black-holing of traffic, an Egress LSR MAY send a Path Error black-holing of traffic, an Egress LSR MAY send a Path Error
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt
message if the OOB mapping information is not received within a message if the OOB mapping information is not received within a
reasonable time. This Path Error message will include the error reasonable time. This Path Error message will include the error
code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB mapping received" for all code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB mapping received" for all
affected LSPs. If notify request was included when the LSP was affected LSPs. If notify request was included when the LSP was
initially setup, Notify message (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY initially setup, Notify message (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY
also be used for delivery of this information to the Ingress LSR. also be used for delivery of this information to the Ingress LSR.
An Egress LSR MAY implement a cleanup timer for this purpose. The An Egress LSR MAY implement a cleanup timer for this purpose. The
time-out value is a local decision at the Egress, with a time-out value is a local decision at the Egress, with a
RECOMMENDED default value of 60 seconds.
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security issues above This document does not introduce any new security issues above
those identified in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC5420] those identified in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC5420]
and [RFC4875]. and [RFC4875].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
Sub-code Value Sub-code Value
-------- ----- -------- -----
No OOB mapping received 12 (TBD) No OOB mapping received 12 (TBD)
5. Acknowledgments 5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his suggestions The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter for his suggestions
on the draft. on the draft.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-04.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC 2119] 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.
[RFC5420] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, J. P. Vasseur and A. [RFC5420] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, J. P. Vasseur and A.
Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC 5420, February 2006. Establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC 5420, February 2006.
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 4
[VPLS] R. Aggarwal, et al, "Propagation of VPLS IP Multicast [VPLS] R. Aggarwal, et al, "Propagation of VPLS IP Multicast
Group Membership Information", draft-raggarwa-l2vpn- Group Membership Information", draft-raggarwa-l2vpn-
vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, work in progress. vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, work in progress.
[MPLS-TP-Framework] M. Bocci, S. Bryant, et al, "A Framework for [MPLS-TP-Framework] M. Bocci, S. Bryant, et al, "A Framework for
MPLS in Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp- MPLS in Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-
framework-06, work in progress. framework-06, work in progress.
Author's Addresses Author's Addresses
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-05.txt
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com Email: zali@cisco.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: swallow@cisco.com Email: swallow@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 31 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/