draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.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 13, 2011 Intended status: Standard Track June 26, 2011
Expires: October 12, 2011 Expires: December 25, 2011
Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs Non Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and out-of-band mapping for
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.txt RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.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 in full conformance with the
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or
made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s)
controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have
granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such
material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining
an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright
in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the
IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be
created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it
for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work
in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2011. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.txt This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2011.
Copyright Copyright Notice
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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
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 some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document defines
protocol mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures protocol mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures
described in this document are equally applicable for point-to- described in this document are equally applicable for point-to-
point (P2P) 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 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
in [RFC2119]. RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................3 Copyright Notice ..............................................1
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions...............................3 1. Introduction ...............................................3
2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior............................3 2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions ...............................4
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication......................5 2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior ............................4
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags............6 2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication ......................5
2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding....................6 2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags ............7
3. Security Considerations....................................7 2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding ....................7
4. IANA Considerations........................................7 3. Security Considerations ....................................8
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.............7 4. IANA Considerations ........................................8
5. Acknowledgments............................................7 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object .............8
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.txt
6. References.................................................8 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
6.1. Normative References..................................8
6.2. Informative References................................8
1. Introduction 4.2. New RSVP error sub-code ...............................9
5. Acknowledgments ............................................9
6. References .................................................9
6.1. Normative References ..................................9
6.2. Informative References ...............................10
When RSVP-TE is used for applications like MVPN [MVPN] and VPLS 1. Introduction
[VPLS], an Egress LSR receives the binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to
an application, and payload identification, using an "out-of- When Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineered (RSVP-TE)
band" (OOB) mechanism (e.g., using BGP). In such cases, the is used for applications like Multicast Virtual Private Network
(MVPN) [MVPN] and Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4761],
an Egress Label Switching Router (LSR) receives the binding of
the RSVP-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) to an application, and
payload identification, using an "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism
(e.g., using Border Gateway Protocol (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
skipping to change at page 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 3, line 44
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 [RFC5921]. 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. As there is one-to-one correspondence between bits in
applicable for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB the Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject,
communication mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document. corresponding flags to be carried in RRO Attributes subobject are
also defined.
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions The procedures described in this document are equally applicable
for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB communication
mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
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-07.txt Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA): non-PHP behavior requested
flag.
Bit Number 6 (TBD): non-PHP behavior flag. In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR
recognizes the "non-PHP behavior requested flag", the following
new bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
(RRO) Attributes subobject:
An Ingress LSR sets the "non-PHP behavior flag" to signal the Bit Number (same as bit number assigned for non-PHP behavior
egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP being requested flag): Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag.
signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in
the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this
flag.
When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit An Ingress LSR sets the "non-PHP behavior requested flag" to
individual response to "non-PHP behavior flag" from the leaf signal the egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP
nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may be being signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs
carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in this in the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore
situation a source node MUST use a separate Path message for this flag.
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 requested flag", it MUST
NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also include the allocate a non-NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also set the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with "non-PHP behavior flag" set in the "Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the
Resv message. For this purpose, as defined in RFC5420, the RRO Attribute subobject.
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow descriptor and is
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 - 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 requested
flag";
then it SHOULD silently ignore this request. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior SHOULD examine Resv then it silently ignores this request according to the processing
message for presence of "Non-PHP behavior flag" in the rules of [RFC5420].
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior
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 Resv but has not set the "Non-PHP
behavior flag" in it. An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior
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
assigns a Null label value.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.txt An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior SHOULD examine "Non-
PHP behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO
Attribute subobject and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which
has not set the "Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag". An
ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior 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 assigns a Null label
value.
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit
individual response to "non-PHP behavior requested flag" from the
leaf nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may
be carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in
this situation a source node MUST use a separate Path message for
each leaf in networks where [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] is not supported. In
networks with [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] deployed either separate Path
message for each leaf or multiple leafs per Path message MAY be
used by a source node.
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 (to be assigned by IANA): OOB mapping indication flag.
An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping flag to signal the Egress LSR In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR
that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and payload recognizes the "OOB mapping indication flag", the following new
identification is being signaled out of band. This flag MUST NOT bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs other than the (RRO) Attributes subobject:
Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag.
When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit Bit Number (same as bit number assigned for OOB mapping
individual response to "OOB mapping flag" from the leaf nodes. indication flag): OOB mapping acknowledgement flag.
Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may be carried in
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 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "OOB mapping flag", it MUST include the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object with "OOB mapping flag" set in the Resv
message. For this purpose, as defined in RFC5420, the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is placed in the flow descriptor and is
associated with the FILTER_SPEC object that precedes it.
The rest of the RSVP signaling proceeds as normal. However, the An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping indication flag to signal the
LSR MUST have received the OOB mapping before accepting traffic Egress LSR that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and
on the LSP. This implies that the egress LSR MUST NOT setup payload identification is being signaled out-of-band. This flag
forwarding state for the LSP before it receives the OOB mapping. MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs other
than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag.
When an Egress LSR which supports the "OOB mapping indication
flag", receives a Path message with that flag set, the Egress LSR
MUST set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag" in the Flags
field of the RRO Attribute subobject. The rest of the RSVP
signaling proceeds as normal. However, the LSR MUST have
received the OOB mapping before accepting traffic on the LSP.
This implies that the Egress LSR MUST NOT setup forwarding state
for the LSP before it receives the OOB mapping.
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
- 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"; indication flag";
then it SHOULD silently ignore this request. then it silently ignores this request according to the processing
rules of [RFC5420].
An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping SHOULD examine Resv message An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping SHOULD examine "OOB mapping
for presence of "OOB mapping flag" in in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute
object. An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping MAY send a Path subobject and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which has not
Tear to the Egress which has not included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag".
object in the Resv or which has included the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object in Resv but has not set the " OOB mapping flag" in it. When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit
individual response to "OOB mapping indication flag" from the
leaf nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may
be carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in
this situation a source node MUST use a separate Path message for
each leaf in networks where [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] is not supported. In
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
networks with [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] deployed either separate Path
message for each leaf or multiple leafs per Path message MAY be
used by a source node.
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, 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 defined in section 2.4 to
defined in section 2.4. tear down the LSP is followed.
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 requires 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
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message. requested flag" 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 2.2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting
traffic on the LSP. traffic on the LSP. Nonetheless, MPLS OAM mechanisms, e.g., LSP
Ping and Trace route as defined in [RFC4379], [P2MP-OAM], are
expected to work independent of OOB mapping learning process.
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
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.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
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 Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a variable of attacks on the
those identified in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473], [RFC5420] label assigned by the Egress node. As change in the value of the
and [RFC4875]. egress label reported in the RRO can cause the LSP to be torn
down, additional security considerations for protecting label
assigned by the Egress node are required. Security mechanisms as
identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
[RFC5420] and [RFC4875] can be used for this purpose. This
document does not introduce any additional security issues above
those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
[RFC5420] 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 defined for the Attributes Flags TLV
Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are to be
to be assigned by IANA. assigned by IANA.
o Non-PHP behavior flag - Bit Number 6 (Suggested value). o Non-PHP behavior flag:
o OOB mapping flag - Bit Number 7 (Suggested value). This flags is used in the Attributes Flags TLV in a Path message.
The flags have corresponding new flag to be used in the RRO
Attributes subobject. As per [RFC5420], the bit numbering in the
Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject is
identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated by the same
bit in both places. This flag is not allowed in the Attributes
Flags TLV in a Resv message. Specifically, Attributes of this
flag are as follows:
o These flags are to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV in both - Bit Number: To be assigned by IANA.
Path and Resv messages.
- Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes
- Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No
- Attribute flag carried in RRO message: Yes
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
o OOB mapping flag:
This flags is used in the Attributes Flags TLV in a Path message.
The flags have corresponding new flag to be used in the RRO
Attributes subobject. As per [RFC5420], the bit numbering in the
Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject is
identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated by the same
bit in both places. This flag is not allowed in the Attributes
Flags TLV in a Resv message. Specifically, Attributes of this
flag are as follows:
- Bit Number: To be assigned by IANA.
- Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes
- Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No
- Attribute flag carried in RRO message: Yes
4.2. New RSVP error sub-code
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 to be assigned by IANA.
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-07.txt 6. References
6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] 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.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
[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] Berger, L., Ed., "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 [RFC2205] R. Braden, Ed., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -
- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997.
[MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP [RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
6.2. Informative References
[MVPN] E. Rosen, R. Aggarwal et al, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10.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 [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual
Group Membership Information", draft-raggarwa-l2vpn- Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery
vpls-mcast-ctrl-00.txt, work in progress. and Signaling", RFC 4761, January 2007.
[RFC5921] M. Bocci, S. Bryant, et al, "A Framework for [RFC5921] M. Bocci, S. Bryant, et al, "A Framework for
MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, July 2010. MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, January 2007.
Author's Addresses [RFC4379] K. Kompella, and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-07.txt Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006..
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt
[P2MP-OAM] S. Saxena, Ed., G. Swallow, Z. Ali, A. Farrel, S.
Yasukawa, T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-
lsp-ping-17.txt, work in progress.
Author's Addresses
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. 70 change blocks. 
187 lines changed or deleted 272 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/