draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-01.txt   draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt 
TEAS Working Group Tarek Saad, Ed. TEAS Working Group Tarek Saad, Ed.
Internet-Draft Rakesh Gandhi, Ed. Internet-Draft Rakesh Gandhi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Zafar Ali Intended status: Standards Track Zafar Ali
Expires: September 2, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: September 10, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Robert H. Venator Robert H. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency Defense Information Systems Agency
Yuji Kamite Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
March 1, 2015 March 9, 2015
Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Re-optimization Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Re-optimization
of Loosely Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering LSPs of Loosely Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering LSPs
draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-01 draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-02
Abstract Abstract
For a Traffic Engineered (TE) point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label For a Traffic Engineered (TE) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Label
Switched Path (LSP), it is preferable in some cases to re-evaluate Switched Path (LSP), it is preferable in some cases to re-evaluate
and re-optimize the entire P2MP-TE LSP by re-signaling all its and re-optimize the entire P2MP-TE LSP by re-signaling all its
Source-to-Leaf (S2L) sub-LSP(s). Existing mechanisms, a mechanism Source-to-Leaf (S2L) sub-LSP(s). Existing mechanisms, a mechanism
for an ingress Label Switched Router (LSR) to trigger a new path re- for an ingress Label Switched Router (LSR) to trigger a new path re-
evaluation request and a mechanism for a mid-point LSR to notify an evaluation request and a mechanism for a mid-point LSR to notify an
availability of a preferred path, operate on an individual or a sub- availability of a preferred path, operate on an individual or a
group of S2L sub-LSP(s) basis only. sub-group of S2L sub-LSP(s) basis only.
This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow an This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow an
ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the
entire LSP tree containing one or more S2L sub-LSPs whose paths are entire LSP tree containing one or more S2L sub-LSPs whose paths are
loose (or abstract) hop expanded, and for a mid-point LSR to notify loose (or abstract) hop expanded, and for a mid-point LSR to notify
to the ingress node that a preferable tree exists for the entire to the ingress node that a preferable tree exists for the entire
P2MP-TE LSP. For re-optimizing a group of S2L sub-LSP(s) in a tree, P2MP-TE LSP. For re-optimizing a group of S2L sub-LSP(s) in a tree,
an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list can be used to signal one or more S2L an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list can be used to signal one or more S2L
sub-LSPs in an RSVP message. This document defines markers to sub-LSPs in an RSVP message. This document defines markers to
indicate beginning and end of an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list when the indicate beginning and end of an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list when the
RSVP message needs to be fragmented due to large number of S2L RSVP message needs to be fragmented due to large number of S2L
sub-LSPs in the message when performing sub-group based re- sub-LSPs in the message when performing sub-group based
optimization. re-optimization.
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/.
skipping to change at page 4, line 48 skipping to change at page 4, line 48
o An ingress node triggers a path re-evaluation request at all o An ingress node triggers a path re-evaluation request at all
mid-point LSR(s) that expands loose next-hop(s) by setting the "Path mid-point LSR(s) that expands loose next-hop(s) by setting the "Path
Re-evaluation Request" flag (0x20) in SESSION_ATTRIBUTES Object in Re-evaluation Request" flag (0x20) in SESSION_ATTRIBUTES Object in
the Path message. the Path message.
o The ingress node upon receiving this PathErr either solicited or o The ingress node upon receiving this PathErr either solicited or
unsolicited initiates re-optimization of the LSP with a different unsolicited initiates re-optimization of the LSP with a different
LSP-ID. LSP-ID.
Following Sections discuss the issues arising when using existing Following Sections discuss the issues that may arise when using
mechanism defined in [RFC4736] for re-optimizing loosely routed P2MP- existing mechanisms defined in [RFC4736] for re-optimizing loosely
TE LSPs. routed P2MP-TE LSPs.
1.1. Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree 1.1. Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree
An example of a loosely routed inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree is shown An example of a loosely routed inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree is shown
in Figure 1. In this example, the P2MP-TE LSP tree consists of 3 S2L in Figure 1. In this example, the P2MP-TE LSP tree consists of 3 S2L
sub-LSPs, to destinations (i.e. leafs) R10, R11 and R12 from the sub-LSPs, to destinations (i.e. leafs) R10, R11 and R12 from the
ingress node (i.e. source) R1. Nodes R2 and R5 are branch nodes and ingress node (i.e. source) R1. Nodes R2 and R5 are branch nodes and
nodes ABR3, ABR4, ABR7, ABR8 and ABR9 are area border routers. For nodes ABR3, ABR4, ABR7, ABR8 and ABR9 are area border routers. For
the S2L sub-LSP to destination R10, nodes ABR3, ABR7 and R10 are the S2L sub-LSP to destination R10, nodes ABR3, ABR7 and R10 are
defined as loose hops. For the S2L sub-LSP to destination R11, nodes defined as loose hops. For the S2L sub-LSP to destination R11, nodes
skipping to change at page 5, line 44 skipping to change at page 5, line 44
1.2. Existing Mechanism For Tree-Based P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization 1.2. Existing Mechanism For Tree-Based P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization
[RFC4736] does not define signaling extensions specific for [RFC4736] does not define signaling extensions specific for
re-optimizing entire P2MP-TE LSP tree. Mechanisms defined in re-optimizing entire P2MP-TE LSP tree. Mechanisms defined in
[RFC4736] can be used for signaling the re-optimization of individual [RFC4736] can be used for signaling the re-optimization of individual
or group of S2L sub-LSP(s). However, to use [RFC4736] mechanisms for or group of S2L sub-LSP(s). However, to use [RFC4736] mechanisms for
re-optimizing an entire P2MP-TE LSP tree, an ingress node needs to re-optimizing an entire P2MP-TE LSP tree, an ingress node needs to
send the path re-evaluation requests on all (typically 100s of) S2L send the path re-evaluation requests on all (typically 100s of) S2L
sub-LSPs and the mid-point LSR to notify PathErrs for all S2L sub-LSPs and the mid-point LSR to notify PathErrs for all S2L
sub-LSPs. Such procedures may lead to the following issues: sub-LSPs. Such mechanisms may lead to the following issues:
o A mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) may have to o A mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) may have to
accumulate the received path re-evaluation request(s) for all S2L accumulate the received path re-evaluation request(s) for all S2L
sub-LSPs (e.g, by using a wait timer) and interpret them as a sub-LSPs (e.g. by using a wait timer) and interpret them as a
re-optimization request for the whole P2MP-TE LSP tree. Otherwise, a re-optimization request for the whole P2MP-TE LSP tree. Otherwise, a
mid-point LSR may prematurely notify "Preferable Path Exists" for one mid-point LSR may prematurely notify "Preferable Path Exists" for one
or a sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs. or a sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs.
o Similarly, the ingress node may have to heuristically determine o Similarly, the ingress node may have to heuristically determine
when to perform entire P2MP-TE LSP tree re-optimization versus per when to perform entire P2MP-TE LSP tree re-optimization versus per
S2L sub-LSP re-optimization, for example, to delay re-optimization S2L sub-LSP re-optimization, for example, to delay re-optimization
long enough to allow all PathErr(s) to be received. Such procedures long enough to allow all PathErr(s) to be received. Such procedures
may produce undesired results due to timing related issues. may produce undesired results due to timing related issues.
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
re-optimizing the sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs. However, as mentioned in re-optimizing the sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs. However, as mentioned in
[RFC4875] Section 14.2, such sub-group based re-optimization [RFC4875] Section 14.2, such sub-group based re-optimization
procedure may result in data duplication that can be avoided if the procedure may result in data duplication that can be avoided if the
entire P2MP-TE LSP tree is re-optimized using a different LSP-ID, entire P2MP-TE LSP tree is re-optimized using a different LSP-ID,
especially if the ingress node eventually receives PathErr especially if the ingress node eventually receives PathErr
notifications for all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP tree. notifications for all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP tree.
In order to address above mentioned issues and to align re- In order to address above mentioned issues and to align re-
optimization of P2MP-TE LSP with P2P LSP [RFC4736], there is a need optimization of P2MP-TE LSP with P2P LSP [RFC4736], there is a need
for a mechanism to trigger re-optimization of the LSP tree by re- for a mechanism to trigger re-optimization of the LSP tree by re-
signaling all S2L sub-LSPs with a different LSP-ID. For this signaling all S2L sub-LSPs with a different LSP-ID. To meet this
requirement, this document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions for requirement, this document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions for
the ingress node to trigger the re-evaluation of the P2MP LSP tree on the ingress node to trigger the re-evaluation of the P2MP LSP tree on
every hop that has a next-hop defined as a loose or abstract hop for every hop that has a next-hop defined as a loose or abstract hop for
one or more S2L sub-LSP path, and a mid-point LSR to signal to the one or more S2L sub-LSP path, and a mid-point LSR to signal to the
ingress node that a preferable LSP tree exists (compared to the ingress node that a preferable LSP tree exists (compared to the
current path) or that the whole P2MP-TE LSP must be re-optimized current path) or that the whole P2MP-TE LSP must be re-optimized
(because of maintenance required on the TE LSP path). (because of maintenance required on the TE LSP path).
1.3. Existing Mechanism For Sub-Group-Based P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization 1.3. Existing Mechanism For Sub-Group-Based P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization
skipping to change at page 8, line 16 skipping to change at page 8, line 16
TE LSP ingress: Head-end/source of the TE LSP. TE LSP ingress: Head-end/source of the TE LSP.
TE LSP egress: Tail-end/destination of the TE LSP. TE LSP egress: Tail-end/destination of the TE LSP.
2.3. Nomenclatures 2.3. Nomenclatures
Domain: Routing or administrative domain such as an IGP area and an Domain: Routing or administrative domain such as an IGP area and an
autonomous system. autonomous system.
Interior Gateway Protocol Area (IGP Area): OSPF Area or IS-IS level. Interior Gateway Protocol Area (IGP Area): OSPF area or IS-IS level.
Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least two Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least two
different IGP areas. different IGP areas.
Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least
two different Autonomous Systems (ASes) or sub-ASes (BGP two different Autonomous Systems (ASes) or sub-ASes (BGP
confederations). confederations).
S2L sub-LSP: Source-to-leaf sub Label Switched Path. S2L sub-LSP: Source-to-leaf sub Label Switched Path.
skipping to change at page 8, line 49 skipping to change at page 8, line 49
A mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) for one or more S2L A mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) for one or more S2L
sub-LSP path(s), and that receives a Path message with the "P2MP-TE sub-LSP path(s), and that receives a Path message with the "P2MP-TE
Tree Re-evaluation Request" bit set: Tree Re-evaluation Request" bit set:
o The mid-point LSR SHOULD check for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree o The mid-point LSR SHOULD check for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree
by re-evaluating all S2L sub-LSP(s) that are expanded paths of the by re-evaluating all S2L sub-LSP(s) that are expanded paths of the
loose next-hops of the P2MP-TE LSP. loose next-hops of the P2MP-TE LSP.
o If a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, the mid-point LSR MAY o If a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, the mid-point LSR MAY
send an RSVP PathErr to the ingress node with Error code 25 (Notify send an RSVP PathErr to the ingress node with Error code 25 (Notify
defined in [RFC3209] and sub-code "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" defined in [RFC3209] and sub-code "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists"
defined in this document. The mid-point LSR, in turn, SHOULD NOT defined in this document. The mid-point LSR, in turn, SHOULD NOT
propagate the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" bit in subsequent propagate the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" bit in subsequent
RSVP Path messages sent downstream for the re-evaluated P2MP-TE LSP. RSVP Path messages sent downstream for the re-evaluated P2MP-TE LSP.
o If no preferable tree for P2MP-TE LSP can be found, the o If no preferable tree for P2MP-TE LSP can be found, the
recommended mode is that the mid-point LSR that expands loose next- recommended mode is that the mid-point LSR that expands loose next-
hop(s) for one or more S2L sub-LSP path(s) SHOULD propagate the hop(s) for one or more S2L sub-LSP path(s) SHOULD propagate the
request downstream by setting the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation request downstream by setting the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation
Request" bit in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object of RSVP Path message. Request" bit in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object of RSVP Path message.
A mid-point LSR MAY send an unsolicited PathErr message with A mid-point LSR MAY send an unsolicited PathErr message with
"Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" PathErr to the ingress node to "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" PathErr to the ingress node to
notify of a preferred P2MP-TE LSP tree when it determines it exists. notify of a preferred P2MP-TE LSP tree when it determines it exists.
In this case, the mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) for In this case, the mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) for
one or more S2L sub-LSP path(s) SHOULD select one of the S2L sub- one or more S2L sub-LSP path(s) SHOULD select one of the S2L sub-
LSP(s) of the P2MP-TE LSP tree to send this PathErr message to the LSP(s) of the P2MP-TE LSP tree to send this PathErr message to the
ingress node. ingress node.
The sending of an RSVP PathErr Notify message "Preferable P2MP-TE The sending of an RSVP PathErr Notify message "Preferable P2MP-TE
Tree Exists" to the ingress node SHALL notify the ingress node of the Tree Exists" to the ingress node SHALL notify the ingress node of the
existence of a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree and the ingress node MAY existence of a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree and upon receiving this
trigger re-optimization of the LSP using a different LSP-ID. PathErr, the ingress node MAY trigger re-optimization of the LSP
using a different LSP-ID.
3.2. Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Using Markers 3.2. Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Using Markers
It might be preferable, as per [RFC4875], to re-optimize the entire It might be preferable, as per [RFC4875], to re-optimize the entire
P2MP-TE LSP by re-signaling all of its S2L sub-LSP(s) (Section 14.1, P2MP-TE LSP by re-signaling all of its S2L sub-LSP(s) (Section 14.1,
"Make-before-Break") or to re-optimize individual or group of S2L "Make-before-Break") or to re-optimize individual or group of S2L
sub-LSP(s) i.e. individual or group of destination(s) (Section 14.2 sub-LSP(s) i.e. individual or group of destination(s) (Section 14.2
"Sub-Group-Based Re-Optimization" in [RFC4875]), both using the same "Sub-Group-Based Re-Optimization" in [RFC4875]), both using the same
LSP-ID. For loosely routed S2L sub-LSPs, this can be achieved by LSP-ID. For loosely routed S2L sub-LSPs, this can be achieved by
using the procedures defined in [RFC4736] to re-optimize one or more using the procedures defined in [RFC4736] to re-optimize one or more
skipping to change at page 12, line 9 skipping to change at page 12, line 10
forward it without modification. forward it without modification.
The S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_BEGIN and S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_END Objects have The S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_BEGIN and S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_END Objects have
been defined with class numbers in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures been defined with class numbers in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures
compatibility with non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not compatibility with non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not
supporting new S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_BEGIN and S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_END supporting new S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_BEGIN and S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_END
Objects will ignore them but forward it without modification. Objects will ignore them but forward it without modification.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document defines a mechanism for a mid-point LSR to notify the This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow an
ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP of the existence of a preferable tree. ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the
As per [RFC4736], in the case of a P2MP-TE LSP S2L sub-LSP spanning entire LSP tree, and for a mid-point LSR to notify the ingress node
multiple domains, it may be desirable for a mid-point LSR to modify of the existence of a preferable tree by sending a PathErr. As per
the RSVP PathErr message defined in this document to preserve [RFC4736], in the case of a P2MP-TE LSP S2L sub-LSP spanning multiple
confidentiality across domains. Furthermore, an ingress node may domains, it may be desirable for a mid-point LSR to modify the RSVP
decide to ignore this PathErr message coming from a mid-point LSR PathErr message defined in this document to preserve confidentiality
residing in another domain. Similarly, an mid-point LSR may decide across domains. Furthermore, an ingress node may decide to ignore
to ignore the tree re-evaluation request originating from another this PathErr message coming from a mid-point LSR residing in another
ingress domain. domain. Similarly, a mid-point LSR may decide to ignore the P2MP-TE
tree re-evaluation request originating from another ingress domain.
This document also defines markers to indicate beginning and end of
an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list when combining large number of S2L
sub-LSPs in an RSVP message and the message needs to be fragmented.
The introduction of these markers, by themselves, introduce no
additional information to signaling. For a general discussions on
MPLS and GMPLS related security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security
framework [RFC5920].
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section. namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
7.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag 7.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag
IANA maintains a name space for RSVP-TE TE parameters "Resource IANA maintains a name space for RSVP-TE TE parameters "Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" (see Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te- http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters). From the
parameters.xml). From the registries in this name space "Attribute registries in this name space "Attribute Flags", allocation of new
Flags", allocation of new flag is requested (Section 4.1). flag is requested (Section 4.1).
The following new flag is defined for the Attributes Flags TLV in the The following new flag is defined for the Attributes Flags TLV in the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]. The numeric value is to be assigned LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]. The numeric value is to be assigned
by IANA. by IANA.
o P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag: o P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag:
+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+ +--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| Bit No | Attribute | Carried | Carried | Carried | Reference | | Bit No | Attribute | Carried | Carried | Carried | Reference |
| | Flag Name | in Path | in Resv | in RRO | | | | Flag Name | in Path | in Resv | in RRO | |
+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+ +--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| TBA by | P2MP-TE Tree | Yes | No | No | This | | TBA by | P2MP-TE Tree | Yes | No | No | This |
| IANA | Re-evaluation | | | | document | | IANA | Re-evaluation | | | | document |
+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+ +--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
7.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code 7.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code
IANA maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters "Resource IANA maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml). http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the
From the sub-registry "Sub-Codes - 25 Notify Error" in registry sub-registry "Sub-Codes - 25 Notify Error" in registry "Error Codes
"Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes", allocation and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes", allocation of a new
of a new error code is requested (Section 4.2). error code is requested (Section 4.2).
As defined in [RFC3209], the Error Code 25 in the ERROR SPEC Object As defined in [RFC3209], the Error Code 25 in the ERROR SPEC Object
corresponds to a Notify Error PathErr. This document adds a new corresponds to a Notify Error PathErr. This document adds a new
sub-code for this PathErr as follows: sub-code for this PathErr as follows:
o Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists sub-code: o Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists sub-code:
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+ +----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Sub-code | Sub-code | PathErr | PathErr | Reference | | Sub-code | Sub-code | PathErr | PathErr | Reference |
| value | Description | Code | Name | | | value | Description | Code | Name | |
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+ +----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
| TBA by | Preferable P2MP-TE | 25 | Notify | This | | TBA by | Preferable P2MP-TE | 25 | Notify | This |
| IANA | Tree Exists | | Error | document | | IANA | Tree Exists | | Error | document |
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+ +----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
7.3. BEGIN and END Markers For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor 7.3. BEGIN and END Markers For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor
IANA maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters "Resource IANA maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml). http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the
From the sub-registry "Class Types or C-Types 50 S2L_SUB_LSP" in sub-registry "Class Types or C-Types 50 S2L_SUB_LSP" in registry
registry "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types", allocation of "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types", allocation of new
new C-Types is requested (Section 4.3). C-Types is requested (Section 4.3).
As defined in [RFC4875], S2L_SUB_LSP Object is defined with As defined in [RFC4875], S2L_SUB_LSP Object is defined with
Class-Number 50 to identify a particular S2L sub-LSP belonging to the Class-Number 50 to identify a particular S2L sub-LSP belonging to the
P2MP-TE LSP. This document adds two new object types for this object P2MP-TE LSP. This document adds two new object types for this object
as follows: as follows:
o S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_BEGIN and S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_END Object types: o S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_BEGIN and S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_END Object types:
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------------+ +---------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| C-Type value | Description | Reference | | C-Type value | Description | Reference |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------------+ +---------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| TBA by IANA | S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_BEGIN | This document | | TBA by IANA | S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_BEGIN | This document |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------------+ +---------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| TBA by IANA | S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_END | This document | | TBA by IANA | S2L_SUB_LSP_MARKER_END | This document |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------------+ +---------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Sriganesh Kini, Curtis The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Sriganesh Kini, Curtis
Villamizar, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Nobo Akiya for reviewing this Villamizar, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Nobo Akiya for reviewing this
document. document. The authors would also like to thank Ling Zeng for
implementing mechanisms defined in this document.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[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.,
skipping to change at page 16, line 5 skipping to change at page 15, line 41
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y. and Zhang, R, "Reoptimization of [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y. and Zhang, R, "Reoptimization of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)", RFC 4736,
November 2006. November 2006.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009. March 2009.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Author's Addresses Author's Addresses
Tarek Saad (editor) Tarek Saad (editor)
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: tsaad@cisco.com Email: tsaad@cisco.com
Rakesh Gandhi (editor) Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
40 lines changed or deleted 54 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/