draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-06.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.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 April 12, 2011 Intended status: Standard Track April 13, 2011
Expires: October 11, 2011 Expires: October 12, 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-06.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.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 2, line 5 skipping to change at page 2, line 5
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 October 11, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2011.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-06.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.txt
Copyright Copyright
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
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 Switching Router (LSR) to receive binding of the Resource
ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineered (RSVP-TE) Label Switched ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineered (RSVP-TE) Label Switched
Path (LSP) to an application, and payload identification, using Path (LSP) to an application, and payload identification, using
some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document proposes protocol some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document proposes
mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures described protocol mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures
in this document are equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) described in this document are equally applicable for point-to-
and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. point (P2P) 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
RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. in [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 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-07.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-06.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-
band" (OOB) mechanism (e.g., using BGP). In such cases, the band" (OOB) mechanism (e.g., using BGP). In such cases, the
Egress LSR cannot make correct forwarding decision until such OOB Egress LSR cannot make correct forwarding decision until such OOB
mapping information is received. Furthermore, in order to apply mapping information is received. Furthermore, in order to apply
the binding information, the Egress LSR needs to identify the the binding information, the Egress LSR needs to identify the
incoming LSP on which traffic is coming. Therefore, non incoming LSP on which traffic is coming. Therefore, non
Penultimate Hop Popping (non-PHP) behavior is required to apply Penultimate Hop Popping (non-PHP) behavior is required to apply
OOB mapping. OOB mapping.
There are other applications that require non-PHP behavior. When There are other applications that require non-PHP behavior. When
RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs are used to carry IP multicast traffic non-PHP RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs are used to carry IP multicast traffic non-PHP
behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify the P2MP TE LSP, on which behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify the P2MP TE LSP, on which
traffic is received. Hence the egress LSR can determine whether traffic is received. Hence the egress LSR can determine whether
traffic is received on the expected P2MP LSP and discard traffic traffic is received on the expected P2MP LSP and discard traffic
that is not received on the expected P2MP LSP. Non-PHP behavior that is not received on the expected P2MP LSP. Non-PHP behavior
is also required to determine the context of upstream assigned is also required to determine the context of upstream assigned
labels when the context is a MPLS LSP. Non-PHP behavior may also labels when the context is a MPLS LSP. Non-PHP behavior may also
be required for MPLS-TP LSPs [MPLS-TP-Framework]. be required for MPLS-TP LSPs [RFC5921].
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 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-06.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.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
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
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-06.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.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.
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
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-07.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-06.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
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 6, line 33
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
defined in section 2.4. defined in section 2.4.
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags 2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags
"Non-PHP behavior desired" and "OOB mapping indication" flags can "Non-PHP behavior desired" and "OOB mapping indication" flags can
appear and be processed independently of each other. However, as appear and be processed independently of each other. However, as
mentioned earlier, in the context of applications discussed in mentioned earlier, in the context of applications discussed in
this document, OOB mapping require non-PHP behavior. An Ingress this document, OOB mapping require non-PHP behavior. An Ingress
LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY also set "non-PHP behavior flag" LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY also set "non-PHP behavior flag"
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message. in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message.
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-07.txt
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-06.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. 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
The following new flags are being defined for the Attributes The following new flags are being defined for the Attributes
Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are
to be assigned by IANA. to be assigned by IANA.
o Non-PHP behavior flag - Bit Number 6 (Suggested value). o Non-PHP behavior flag - Bit Number 6 (Suggested value).
o OOB mapping flag - Bit Number 7 (Suggested value). o OOB mapping flag - Bit Number 7 (Suggested value).
o These flags are to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV in both o These flags are to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV in both
Path and Resv messages. Path and Resv messages.
For Error Code = 25 "Notify Error" (see [RFC3209]) the following For Error Code = 25 "Notify Error" (see [RFC3209]) the following
sub-code is defined. sub-code is defined.
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-06.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.txt
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and
S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan, [RFC3209] D. Awduche, L. Berger, D. Gan, T. Li, V. Srinivasan,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4875] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa, et al, [RFC4875] R. Aggarwal, D. Papadimitriou, S. Yasukawa, et al,
"Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE
LSPs", RFC 4875. LSPs", RFC 4875.
[RFC3473] L. Berger, Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] L. Berger, Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
3473, January 2003. 3473, January 2003.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP [MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08.txt, work in VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10.txt, work in
progress. progress.
[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 [RFC5921] M. Bocci, S. Bryant, et al, "A Framework for
MPLS in Transport Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-tp- MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010.
framework-06, work in progress.
Author's Addresses
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-06.txt Author's Addresses
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.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
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
43 lines changed or deleted 43 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/