draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.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 June 26, 2011 Intended status: Standard Track August 17, 2011
Expires: December 25, 2011 Expires: February 16, 2012
Non Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and out-of-band mapping for Non Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and out-of-band mapping for
RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2012.
Copyright Notice 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 respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided 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 Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. 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 defines 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 in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Copyright Notice ..............................................1 Copyright Notice ..............................................1
1. Introduction ...............................................3 1. Introduction ...............................................3
2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions ...............................4 2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions ...............................4
2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior ............................4 2.1. Signaling non-PHP behavior ............................4
2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication ......................5 2.2. Signaling OOB Mapping Indication ......................5
2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags ............7 2.3. Relationship between OOB and non-PHP flags ............7
2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding ....................7 2.4. Egress Procedure for label binding ....................7
3. Security Considerations ....................................8 3. Security Considerations ....................................8
4. IANA Considerations ........................................8 4. IANA Considerations ........................................8
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object .............8 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object .............8
4.2. New RSVP error sub-code ...............................9
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
4.2. New RSVP error sub-code ...............................9
5. Acknowledgments ............................................9 5. Acknowledgments ............................................9
6. References .................................................9 6. References .................................................9
6.1. Normative References ..................................9 6.1. Normative References ..................................9
6.2. Informative References ...............................10 6.2. Informative References ...............................10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
When Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineered (RSVP-TE) When Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineered (RSVP-TE)
is used for applications like Multicast Virtual Private Network is used for applications like Multicast Virtual Private Network
(MVPN) [MVPN] and Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4761], (MVPN) [MVPN] and Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4761],
an Egress Label Switching Router (LSR) receives the binding of an Egress Label Switching Router (LSR) receives the binding of
the RSVP-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) to an application, and the RSVP-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) to an application, and
payload identification, using an "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism payload identification, using an "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism
(e.g., using Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)). In such cases, the (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. Non-PHP behavior requires the egress LSRs to assign
a non-NULL label for the LSP being signaled.
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 point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs are used to carry IP
behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify the P2MP TE LSP, on which multicast traffic non-PHP behavior enables a leaf LSR to identify
traffic is received. Hence the egress LSR can determine whether the P2MP TE LSP, on which traffic is received. Hence the egress
traffic is received on the expected P2MP LSP and discard traffic LSR can determine whether traffic is received on the expected P2MP
that is not received on the expected P2MP LSP. Non-PHP behavior LSP and discard traffic that is not received on the expected P2MP
is also required to determine the context of upstream assigned LSP. Non-PHP behavior is also required to determine the context of
labels when the context is a MPLS LSP. Non-PHP behavior may also upstream assigned labels when the context is a MPLS LSP. Non-PHP
be required for MPLS-TP LSPs [RFC5921]. behavior may also 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. As there is one-to-one correspondence between bits in mechanism. As there is one-to-one correspondence between bits in
the Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject, the Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject,
corresponding flags to be carried in RRO Attributes subobject are corresponding flags to be carried in RRO Attributes subobject are
also defined. also defined.
The procedures described in this document are equally applicable The procedures described in this document are equally applicable
for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB communication for P2P and P2MP LSPs. Specification of the OOB communication
mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document. mechanism(s) is beyond the scope of this document.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
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]:
Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA): non-PHP behavior requested Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA): non-PHP behavior requested flag.
flag.
In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR
recognizes the "non-PHP behavior requested flag", the following recognizes the "non-PHP behavior requested flag", the following
new bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object new bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
(RRO) Attributes subobject: (RRO) Attributes subobject:
Bit Number (same as bit number assigned for non-PHP behavior Bit Number (same as bit number assigned for non-PHP behavior
requested flag): Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag. requested flag): Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag.
An Ingress LSR sets the "non-PHP behavior requested flag" to An Ingress LSR sets the "non-PHP behavior requested flag" to
signal the egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP signal the egress LSRs SHOULD assign non-NULL label for the LSP
being signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs being signaled. This flag MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs
in the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore in the network. LSRs other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore
this flag. this flag.
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 requested flag", it MUST recognizes the "non-PHP behavior requested flag", it MUST
allocate a non-NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also set the allocate a non-NULL local label. The egress LSR MUST also set the
"Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the "Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the
RRO Attribute subobject. RRO Attribute subobject.
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 requested Flags TLV, but does not recognize the "non-PHP behavior requested
flag"; flag";
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
then it silently ignores this request according to the processing then it silently ignores this request according to the processing
rules of [RFC5420]. rules of [RFC5420].
An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior SHOULD examine "Non- An ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior SHOULD examine "Non-
PHP behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO PHP behavior acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO
Attribute subobject and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which Attribute subobject and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which
has not set the "Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag". An has not set the "Non-PHP behavior acknowledgement flag". An
ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior MAY also examine the ingress LSR requesting non-PHP behavior MAY also examine the
label value corresponding to the Egress LSR(s) in the RRO, and 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 MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which assigns a Null label
value. value.
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 requested flag" from the individual response to the "non-PHP behavior requested flag" from
leaf nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may the leaf nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may
be carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in be carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in
this situation a source node MUST use a separate Path message for this situation the source node MUST use a separate Path message for
each leaf in networks where [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] is not supported. In each leaf in networks where [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] is not supported. In
networks with [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] deployed either separate Path networks with [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] deployed either separate Path
message for each leaf or multiple leafs per Path message MAY be message for each leaf or multiple leafs per Path message MAY be
used by a source node. used by the source node.
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 (to be assigned by IANA): OOB mapping indication flag.
In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA): OOB mapping indication flag.
recognizes the "OOB mapping indication flag", the following new
bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
(RRO) Attributes subobject:
Bit Number (same as bit number assigned for OOB mapping In order to indicate to the Ingress LSR that the Egress LSR
indication flag): OOB mapping acknowledgement flag. recognizes the "OOB mapping indication flag", the following new
bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object
(RRO) Attributes subobject:
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt Bit Number (same as bit number assigned for OOB mapping
indication flag): OOB mapping acknowledgement flag.
An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping indication flag to signal the Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
Egress LSR that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and
payload identification is being signaled out-of-band. This flag
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 An Ingress LSR sets the OOB mapping indication flag to signal the
flag", receives a Path message with that flag set, the Egress LSR Egress LSR that binding of RSVP-TE LSP to an application and
MUST set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag" in the Flags payload identification is being signaled out-of-band. This flag
field of the RRO Attribute subobject. The rest of the RSVP MUST NOT be modified by any other LSRs in the network. LSRs
signaling proceeds as normal. However, the LSR MUST have other than the Egress LSRs SHOULD ignore this flag.
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 When an Egress LSR which supports the "OOB mapping indication
mapping. If the egress LSR receives the payload information from flag", receives a Path message with that flag set, the Egress LSR
OOB mapping then the LSR MUST ignore L3PID in the Label Request MUST set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag" in the Flags
Object [RFC3209]. 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.
If the egress LSR Note that the payload information SHOULD be supplied by the OOB
mapping. If the egress LSR receives the payload information from
OOB mapping then the LSR MUST ignore L3PID in the Label Request
Object [RFC3209].
- supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the If the egress LSR
Attributes Flags TLV; or
- supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and recognizes the - supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object but does not recognize the
Attributes Flags TLV, but does not recognize the "OOB mapping Attributes Flags TLV; or
indication flag";
then it silently ignores this request according to the processing - supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and recognizes the
rules of [RFC5420]. Attributes Flags TLV, but does not recognize the "OOB mapping
indication flag";
An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping SHOULD examine "OOB mapping then it silently ignores this request according to the processing
acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute rules of [RFC5420].
subobject and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which has not
set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag".
When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit An ingress LSR requesting OOB mapping SHOULD examine "OOB mapping
individual response to "OOB mapping indication flag" from the acknowledgement flag" in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute
leaf nodes. Given the constraints on how the LSP_ATTRIBUTES may subobject and MAY send a Path Tear to the Egress which has not
be carried in Path and Resv Messages according to RFC5420, in set the "OOB mapping acknowledgement flag".
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 When signaling a P2MP LSP, a source node may wish to solicit
individual response to the "OOB mapping indication flag" from the
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 the 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-09.txt
networks with [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] deployed either separate Path networks with [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] deployed either separate Path
message for each leaf or multiple leafs per Path message MAY be message for each leaf or multiple leafs per Path message MAY be
used by a source node. used by the 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 the OOB
mapping is sent asynchronously w.r.t. signaling of RSVP-TE LSP. mapping is sent asynchronously with respect to the signaling of
Egress LSR only installs forwarding state for the LSP after it RSVP-TE LSP. Egress LSR only installs forwarding state for the LSP
receives the OOB mapping. In deploying applications using OOB after it receives the OOB mapping. In deploying applications using
mechanism, Ingress LSR may need to know when Egress is properly OOB mechanism, an Ingress LSR may need to know when the Egress is
setup for forwarding (i.e., has received OOB mapping). How properly setup for forwarding (i.e., has received the OOB mapping).
Ingress LSR determines that LSR is properly setup for forwarding How the Ingress LSR determines that the LSR is properly setup for
at the Egress LSR is beyond the scope of this document. forwarding at the Egress LSR is beyond the scope of this document.
Nonetheless, if OOB mapping is not received by the Egress LSR Nonetheless, if the OOB mapping is not received by the Egress LSR
within a reasonable time, a procedure defined in section 2.4 to within a reasonable time, the procedure defined in section 2.4 to
tear down the LSP is followed. 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 the applications discussed in
this document, OOB mapping requires 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 LSR requesting the OOB mapping MAY also set the "non-PHP behavior
requested flag" 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 2.2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting Section 2.2, Egress waits for the OOB mapping before accepting
traffic on the LSP. Nonetheless, MPLS OAM mechanisms, e.g., LSP traffic on the LSP. Nonetheless, MPLS OAM mechanisms, e.g., LSP
Ping and Trace route as defined in [RFC4379], [P2MP-OAM], are Ping and Trace route as defined in [RFC4379], [P2MP-OAM], are
expected to work independent of OOB mapping learning process. expected to work independent of OOB mapping learning process.
In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible
black-holing of traffic, an Egress LSR MAY send a Path Error
message if the OOB mapping information is not received within a
reasonable time. This Path Error message will include the error
code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB mapping received" for all
affected LSPs. If notify request was included when the LSP was
initially setup, Notify message (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY
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 In order to avoid unnecessary use of the resources and possible
black-holing of traffic, an Egress LSR MAY send a Path Error
message if the OOB mapping information is not received within a
reasonable time. This Path Error message SHOULD include the error
code/sub-code "Notify Error/ no OOB mapping received" for all
affected LSPs. If notify request was included when the LSP was
initially setup, Notify message (as defined in [RFC3473]) MAY
also be used for delivery of this information to the Ingress LSR.
An Egress LSR MAY implement a cleanup timer for this purpose. The
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
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
Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a variable of attacks on the Addition of "non-PHP behavior" adds a variable of attacks on the
label assigned by the Egress node. As change in the value of the label assigned by the Egress node. As change in the value of the
egress label reported in the RRO can cause the LSP to be torn egress label reported in the RRO can cause the LSP to be torn
down, additional security considerations for protecting label down, additional security considerations for protecting label
assigned by the Egress node are required. Security mechanisms as assigned by the Egress node are required. Security mechanisms as
identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473], identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
[RFC5420] and [RFC4875] can be used for this purpose. This [RFC5420] and [RFC4875] can be used for this purpose. This
document does not introduce any additional security issues above document does not introduce any additional security issues above
those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473], those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
[RFC5420] and [RFC4875]. [RFC5420] and [RFC4875].
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object The following changes to the Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters registry are required.
The following new flags are defined for the Attributes Flags TLV
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are to be
assigned by IANA.
o Non-PHP behavior flag: 4.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
This flags is used in the Attributes Flags TLV in a Path message. The following new flags are defined for the Attributes Flags TLV
The flags have corresponding new flag to be used in the RRO in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric values are to be
Attributes subobject. As per [RFC5420], the bit numbering in the assigned by IANA.
Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject is o Non-PHP behavior flag:
identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated by the same This flags is used in the Attributes Flags TLV in a Path message.
bit in both places. This flag is not allowed in the Attributes The flags have corresponding new flag to be used in the RRO
Flags TLV in a Resv message. Specifically, Attributes of this Attributes subobject. As per [RFC5420], the bit numbering in the
flag are as follows: 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. - Bit Number: To be assigned by IANA.
- Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes - Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes
- Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No - Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No
- Attribute flag carried in RRO message: Yes - Attribute flag carried in RRO message: Yes
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
o OOB mapping flag: o OOB mapping flag:
This flags is used in the Attributes Flags TLV in a Path message. 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 The flags have corresponding new flag to be used in the RRO
Attributes subobject. As per [RFC5420], the bit numbering in the Attributes subobject. As per [RFC5420], the bit numbering in the
Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject is Attribute Flags TLV and the RRO Attributes subobject is
identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated by the same identical. That is, the same attribute is indicated by the same
bit in both places. This flag is not allowed in the Attributes bit in both places. This flag is not allowed in the Attributes
Flags TLV in a Resv message. Specifically, Attributes of this Flags TLV in a Resv message. Specifically, Attributes of this
flag are as follows: flag are as follows:
- Bit Number: To be assigned by IANA. - Bit Number: To be assigned by IANA.
- Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes - Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes
- Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No - Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No
- Attribute flag carried in RRO message: Yes - Attribute flag carried in RRO message: Yes
4.2. New RSVP error sub-code 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 to be assigned by IANA. 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.
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.
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.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.
[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] Berger, L., Ed., "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..
[RFC2205] R. Braden, Ed., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - [RFC2205] R. Braden, Ed., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -
- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, - Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997. September 1997.
[RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [ATTRIBUTE-BNF] Berger, L. and Swallow, G., "LSP Attributes Related
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Routing Backus-Naur Form", draft-ietf-ccamp-attribute-
bnf, work in progress.
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-10.txt, work in VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-10.txt, work in
progress. progress.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual
Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery
and Signaling", RFC 4761, January 2007. 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, January 2007. MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC 5921, January 2007.
[RFC4379] K. Kompella, and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol [RFC5920] L. Fang, Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
February 2006..
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-08.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-09.txt
[P2MP-OAM] S. Saxena, Ed., G. Swallow, Z. Ali, A. Farrel, S. [RFC4379] K. Kompella, and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Yasukawa, T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data Plane Failures in Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching February 2006.
(MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp- [P2MP-OAM] S. Saxena, Ed., G. Swallow, Z. Ali, A. Farrel, S.
lsp-ping-17.txt, work in progress. 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 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
 End of changes. 79 change blocks. 
277 lines changed or deleted 278 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/