draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt   draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-03.txt 
TEAS Working Group Tarek Saad, Ed. TEAS Working Group T. Saad, Ed.
Internet-Draft Rakesh Gandhi, Ed. Internet-Draft R. Gandhi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Zafar Ali Intended status: Standards Track Z. Ali
Expires: September 10, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: November 26, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Robert H. Venator R. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency Defense Information Systems Agency
Yuji Kamite Y. Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
March 9, 2015 May 25, 2015
Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Re-optimization RSVP Extensions For Re-optimization of Loosely Routed
of Loosely Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering LSPs Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-02 draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-03
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
evaluation request and a mechanism for a mid-point LSR to notify an re-evaluation request and a mechanism for a mid-point LSR to notify
availability of a preferred path, operate on an individual or a an availability of a preferred path, operate on an individual or a
sub-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 Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) signaling
ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the extensions to allow an ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the
entire LSP tree containing one or more S2L sub-LSPs whose paths are re-evaluation of the entire LSP tree containing one or more S2L
loose (or abstract) hop expanded, and for a mid-point LSR to notify sub-LSPs whose paths are loose (or abstract) hop expanded, and for a
to the ingress node that a preferable tree exists for the entire mid-point LSR to notify to the ingress node that a preferable tree
P2MP-TE LSP. For re-optimizing a group of S2L sub-LSP(s) in a tree, exists for the entire P2MP-TE LSP. For re-optimizing a group of S2L
an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list can be used to signal one or more S2L sub-LSP(s) in a tree, an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list can be used to
sub-LSPs in an RSVP message. This document defines markers to signal one or more S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP message. This document
indicate beginning and end of an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list when the defines markers to indicate beginning and end of an S2L sub-LSP
RSVP message needs to be fragmented due to large number of S2L descriptor list when the RSVP message needs to be fragmented due to
sub-LSPs in the message when performing sub-group based large number of S2L sub-LSPs in the message when performing sub-group
re-optimization. based 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 3, line 26 skipping to change at page 3, line 26
2.3. Nomenclatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Nomenclatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Signaling Procedure For Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP 3. Signaling Procedure For Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP
Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Tree-Based Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Tree-Based Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Using Markers . . . . . . 9 3.2. Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Using Markers . . . . . . 9
4. Message and Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Message and Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code . . . . 10 4.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code . . . . 10
4.3. Markers For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.3. Markers For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code . . . . 12
7.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code . . . . 13 6.3. BEGIN and END Markers For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor . . . . . 13
7.3. BEGIN and END Markers For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor . . . . . 13 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC2205] [RFC3209] signaling extensions for Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC2205] [RFC3209] signaling extensions for
re-optimizing loosely routed Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic re-optimizing loosely routed Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC4875] in an Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC4875] in an
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and/or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and/or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
networks. networks.
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 that may arise when using Following sections discuss the issues that may arise when using
existing mechanisms defined in [RFC4736] for re-optimizing loosely existing mechanisms defined in [RFC4736] for re-optimizing loosely
routed P2MP-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
skipping to change at page 6, line 22 skipping to change at page 6, line 22
o The ingress node that receives (un)solicited PathErr o The ingress node that receives (un)solicited PathErr
notification(s) for individual S2L sub-LSP(s), may prematurely start notification(s) for individual S2L sub-LSP(s), may prematurely start
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
optimization of P2MP-TE LSP with P2P LSP [RFC4736], there is a need re-optimization of P2MP-TE LSP with P2P LSP [RFC4736], there is a
for a mechanism to trigger re-optimization of the LSP tree by re- need for a mechanism to trigger re-optimization of the LSP tree by
signaling all S2L sub-LSPs with a different LSP-ID. To meet this re-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 7, line 38 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
of S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP message. of S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP message.
2. Conventions Used in This Document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Key Word Definitions 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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
[RFC4875] and [RFC4736].
2.2. Abbreviations 2.2. Abbreviations
ABR: Area Border Router. ABR: Area Border Router.
AS: Autonomous System. AS: Autonomous System.
ERO: Explicit Route Object. ERO: Explicit Route Object.
LSR: Label Switching Router. LSR: Label Switching Router.
skipping to change at page 8, line 27 skipping to change at page 8, line 25
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.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
[RFC4875] and [RFC4736].
3. Signaling Procedure For Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization 3. Signaling Procedure For Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization
3.1. Tree-Based Re-optimization 3.1. Tree-Based Re-optimization
To evaluate an entire P2MP-TE LSP tree on mid-point LSRs that expand To evaluate an entire P2MP-TE LSP tree on mid-point LSRs that expand
loose next-hop(s), an ingress node MAY send a Path message with loose next-hop(s), an ingress node MAY send a Path message with
"P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" defined in this document. The "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" defined in this document. The
ingress node SHOULD select one of the S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP ingress node SHOULD select one of the S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP
tree transiting a mid-point LSR to trigger the re-evaluation request. tree transiting a mid-point LSR to trigger the re-evaluation request.
The ingress node MAY send a re-evaluation request to each border LSR The ingress node MAY send a re-evaluation request to each border LSR
skipping to change at page 12, line 8 skipping to change at page 12, line 9
non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this
extension will ignore the new flag defined in this document but extension will ignore the new flag defined in this document but
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. IANA Considerations
This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow an
ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the
entire LSP tree, and for a mid-point LSR to notify the ingress node
of the existence of a preferable tree by sending a PathErr. As per
[RFC4736], in the case of a P2MP-TE LSP S2L sub-LSP spanning multiple
domains, it may be desirable for a mid-point LSR to modify the RSVP
PathErr message defined in this document to preserve confidentiality
across domains. Furthermore, an ingress node may decide to ignore
this PathErr message coming from a mid-point LSR residing in another
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
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 6.1. 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). From the http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters). From the
registries in this name space "Attribute Flags", allocation of new registries in this name space "Attribute 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.
skipping to change at page 13, line 13 skipping to change at page 12, line 36
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 6.2. 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). From the http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the
sub-registry "Sub-Codes - 25 Notify Error" in registry "Error Codes sub-registry "Sub-Codes - 25 Notify Error" in registry "Error Codes
and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes", allocation of a new and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes", allocation 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
skipping to change at page 13, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 15
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 6.3. 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). From the http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the
sub-registry "Class Types or C-Types 50 S2L_SUB_LSP" in registry sub-registry "Class Types or C-Types 50 S2L_SUB_LSP" in registry
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types", allocation of new "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types", allocation of 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
skipping to change at page 14, line 15 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
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 7. Security Considerations
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Sriganesh Kini, Curtis This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow an
Villamizar, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Nobo Akiya for reviewing this ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the
document. The authors would also like to thank Ling Zeng for entire LSP tree, and for a mid-point LSR to notify the ingress node
implementing mechanisms defined in this document. of the existence of a preferable tree by sending a PathErr. As per
[RFC4736], in the case of a P2MP-TE LSP S2L sub-LSP spanning multiple
domains, it may be desirable for a mid-point LSR to modify the RSVP
PathErr message defined in this document to preserve confidentiality
across domains. Furthermore, an ingress node may decide to ignore
this PathErr message coming from a mid-point LSR residing in another
domain. Similarly, a mid-point LSR may decide to ignore the P2MP-TE
tree re-evaluation request originating from another ingress domain.
9. References 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].
9.1. Normative References 8. References
8.1. 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.
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y. and Zhang, R, "Reoptimization of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)", RFC 4736,
November 2006.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
9.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y. and Zhang, R, "Reoptimization of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)", RFC 4736,
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 [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Sriganesh Kini, Curtis
Villamizar, Dimitri Papadimitriou and Nobo Akiya for reviewing this
document. The authors would also like to thank Ling Zeng for
implementing mechanisms defined in this document.
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
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com EMail: rgandhi@cisco.com
Zafar Ali Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: zali@cisco.com EMail: zali@cisco.com
Robert H. Venator Robert H. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency Defense Information Systems Agency
Email: robert.h.venator.civ@mail.mil EMail: robert.h.venator.civ@mail.mil
Yuji Kamite Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
88 lines changed or deleted 88 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/