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/