draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-02.txt		draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt
	TEAS Working Group Mike Taillon		TEAS Working Group M. Taillon
	Internet-Draft Tarek Saad, Ed.		Internet-Draft T. Saad, Ed.
	Intended Status: Standards Track Rakesh Gandhi, Ed.		Intended Status: Standards Track R. Gandhi, Ed.
	Expires: July 30, 2015 Zafar Ali		Expires: January 29, 2016 Z. Ali
	(Cisco Systems, Inc.)		(Cisco Systems, Inc.)
	Manav Bhatia		M. Bhatia
	Lizhong Jin		L. Jin
	January 26, 2015		July 28, 2015
	Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of		Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of
	Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs		Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs
	draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-02		draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic		This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
	Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extensions to support Fast Reroute		Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extensions to support Fast Reroute
	(FRR) of Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Generalized Multi-Protocol		(FRR) of Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Generalized Multi-Protocol
	Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These signaling		Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These signaling
	extensions allow the coordination of bidirectional bypass tunnel		extensions allow the coordination of bidirectional bypass tunnel
	assignment protecting a common facility in both forward and reverse		assignment protecting a common facility in both forward and reverse
	directions of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. In addition, these		directions of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. In addition, these
	skipping to change at page 2, line 25		skipping to change at page 2, line 25
	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.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			2.1. Key Word Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Fast Reroute For Unidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Fast Reroute For Unidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . . . 5		4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . . . 5
	4.1. Merge Point Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.1. Merge Point Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.2. Merge Point Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.2. Merge Point Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.3. RRO IPv4/IPv6 Subobject Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.3. RRO IPv4/IPv6 Subobject Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . 6		4.4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . 6
	4.4.1. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure . . . . . 6		4.4.1. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure . . . . . 6
	4.4.2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4.4.2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4.4.3. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		4.4.3. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5. Link Protection Bypass Tunnels for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . 9		5. Link Protection Bypass Tunnels for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . 9
	5.1. Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.1. Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.2. Revertive Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR . . . . . . 10		5.2. Revertive Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR . . . . . . 10
	6. Node Protection Bypass Tunnels for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . 10		6. Node Protection Bypass Tunnels for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . 10
	6.1. Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.1. Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.2. Behavior Post Link Failure To Re-coroute . . . . . . . . . 11		6.2. Behavior Post Link Failure To Re-coroute . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.3. Revertive Behavior Post Link Failure . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.3. Revertive Behavior Post Link Failure . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	7. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	11. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnels are		Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnels are
	signaled using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)		signaled using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
	signaling procedures specified in [RFC3473] for both unidirectional		signaling procedures specified in [RFC3473] for both unidirectional
	and bidirectional LSPs. Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090] has been widely		and bidirectional LSPs. Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090] has been widely
	deployed in the packet TE networks today and is preferred for TE		deployed in the packet TE networks today and is preferred for TE
	GMPLS tunnels. Using FRR methods also allows to leverage existing		GMPLS tunnels. Using FRR methods also allows to leverage existing
	skipping to change at page 4, line 13		skipping to change at page 4, line 18
	bidirectional co-routed protected GMPLS LSPs and achieve symmetry in		bidirectional co-routed protected GMPLS LSPs and achieve symmetry in
	the paths followed by the traffic and signaling in the forward and		the paths followed by the traffic and signaling in the forward and
	reverse directions post FRR. The document further extends RSVP		reverse directions post FRR. The document further extends RSVP
	signaling so that the bidirectional bypass tunnel selected by the		signaling so that the bidirectional bypass tunnel selected by the
	upstream PLR matches the one selected by the downstream PLR node for		upstream PLR matches the one selected by the downstream PLR node for
	a bidirectional co-routed LSP.		a bidirectional co-routed LSP.
	Unless otherwise specified in this document, fast reroute procedures		Unless otherwise specified in this document, fast reroute procedures
	defined in [RFC4090] are not modified for GMPLS signaled tunnels.		defined in [RFC4090] are not modified for GMPLS signaled tunnels.
	2. Terminology		2. Conventions Used in This Document
			2.1. Key Word Definitions
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
			2.2. Terminology
	The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in		The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
	[RFC2205] and [RFC3209].		[RFC2205] and [RFC3209].
	LSR: An MPLS Label-Switch Router.		LSR: An MPLS Label-Switch Router.
	LSP: An MPLS Label-Switched Path.		LSP: An MPLS Label-Switched Path.
	Local Repair: Techniques used to repair LSP tunnels quickly when a		Local Repair: Techniques used to repair LSP tunnels quickly when a
	node or link along the LSP's path fails.		node or link along the LSP's path fails.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 22		skipping to change at page 5, line 31
	of traffic and signaling based on procedures described in this		of traffic and signaling based on procedures described in this
	document.		document.
	3. Fast Reroute For Unidirectional GMPLS LSPs		3. Fast Reroute For Unidirectional GMPLS LSPs
	FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] are applicable to unidirectional		FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] are applicable to unidirectional
	protected LSPs signaled using either RSVP-TE or GMPLS procedures and		protected LSPs signaled using either RSVP-TE or GMPLS procedures and
	are not modified by the extensions defined in this document. These		are not modified by the extensions defined in this document. These
	FRR procedures also apply to bidirectional associated GMPLS LSPs		FRR procedures also apply to bidirectional associated GMPLS LSPs
	where two unidirectional GMPLS LSPs are bound together by using		where two unidirectional GMPLS LSPs are bound together by using
	association signaling [BID-ASSOC].		association signaling [RFC7551].
	4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs		4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs
	This section describes signaling procedures for bidirectional bypass		This section describes signaling procedures for bidirectional bypass
	tunnel assignment for GMPLS signaled PSC bidirectional co-routed TE		tunnel assignment for GMPLS signaled PSC bidirectional co-routed TE
	LSPs.		LSPs.
	4.1. Merge Point Labels		4.1. Merge Point Labels
	To correctly reroute data traffic over a node protection bypass		To correctly reroute data traffic over a node protection bypass
	skipping to change at page 13, line 33		skipping to change at page 13, line 39
	judged to be a very minor security risk as this information is		judged to be a very minor security risk as this information is
	already available by other means.		already available by other means.
	Otherwise, this document introduces no additional security		Otherwise, this document introduces no additional security
	considerations. For general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related		considerations. For general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related
	security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].		security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
	9. IANA Considerations		9. IANA Considerations
	IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at		IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
	http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. IANA is requested		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. IANA is requested
	to assign a value for the new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the		to assign a value for the new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the
	"Class Type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record" registry.		"Class Type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record" registry.
	This document introduces a new RRO subobject:		This document introduces a new RECORD_ROUTE subobject:
	+--------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
	| Value | Description | Reference |
	+--------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
	| TBA By IANA | BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject | This document |
	+--------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
	10. Acknowledgements
	Authors would like to thank George Swallow for his detailed and
	useful comments and suggestions. Authors would also like to thank
	Nobo Akiya, Loa Andersson and Gregory Mirsky for reviewing this
	document.
	11. Contributing Authors
	Frederic Jounay		+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------------+
	Orange CH		| Value | Description | Carried | Carried | Reference |
			| | | in Path | in Resv | |
			+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------------+
			| TBA By | BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT | Yes | No | This document |
			| IANA | subobject | | | |
			+--------+-------------------+---------+---------+---------------+
	Email: frederic.jounay@orange.ch		10. References
	12. References		10.1. Normative References
	12.1. Normative References		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
			Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.		[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
	Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1		Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
	Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.		Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
	[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,		[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
	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.
	[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label		[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
	Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-		Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
	Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,		Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
	January 2003.		January 2003.
	[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast		[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
	Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,		Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
	May 2005.		May 2005.
	[BID-ASSOC] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and Gandhi, R., Ed., "RSVP-TE
	Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs", December
	2014.
	12.2. Informative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC4561] Vasseur, J.P., Ed., Ali, Z., and S. Sivabalan, "Definition		[RFC4561] Vasseur, J.P., Ed., Ali, Z., and S. Sivabalan, "Definition
	of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object", RFC		of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object", RFC
	4561, June 2006.		4561, June 2006.
			[RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and Gandhi, R., Ed., "RSVP-TE
			Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs", RFC 7551,
			May 2015.
			10.2. Informative References
	[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS		[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
	Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.		Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
	[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., and		[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., and
	A. Fulignoli, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear		A. Fulignoli, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear
	Protection", RFC 6378, October 2011.		Protection", RFC 6378, October 2011.
			Acknowledgements
			Authors would like to thank George Swallow for his detailed and
			useful comments and suggestions. Authors would also like to thank
			Nobo Akiya, Loa Andersson and Gregory Mirsky for reviewing this
			document.
			Contributors
			Frederic Jounay
			Orange CH
			EMail: frederic.jounay@orange.ch
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Mike Taillon		Mike Taillon
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Email: mtaillon@cisco.com		EMail: mtaillon@cisco.com
	Tarek Saad (editor)		Tarek Saad (editor)
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Email: tsaad@cisco.com		EMail: tsaad@cisco.com
	Rakesh Gandhi (editor)		Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Email: rgandhi@cisco.com		EMail: rgandhi@cisco.com
	Zafar Ali		Zafar Ali
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	Email: zali@cisco.com		EMail: zali@cisco.com
	Manav Bhatia		Manav Bhatia
	India		India
	Email: manav@ionosnetworks.com		EMail: manav@ionosnetworks.com
	Lizhong Jin		Lizhong Jin
	Shanghai, China		Shanghai, China
	Email: lizho.jin@gmail.com		EMail: lizho.jin@gmail.com
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	54 lines changed or deleted		62 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/