draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Takacs Network Working Group A. Takacs
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger Obsoletes: 5467 (if approved) L. Berger
Expires: June 4, 2011 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Intended status: Standards Track LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
D. Caviglia Expires: August 1, 2011 D. Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
D. Fedyk D. Fedyk
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
J. Meuric J. Meuric
France Telecom Orange France Telecom Orange
December 1, 2010 January 28, 2011
GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric
bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented
approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport
of traffic-related parameters. of traffic-related parameters. This document moves the experiment
documented in RFC 5467 to the standards track and obsoletes RFC 5467.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Approach Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Approach Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . 5 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . 6
2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching
technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing
(TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs (TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs
with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth
requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in
[RFC2205] and [RFC2210]. [RFC2205] and [RFC2210].
GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs are bidirectional LSPs GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs are bidirectional LSPs
that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction. that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction.
Support for bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth, was Support for bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth, was
previously discussed in the context of Ethernet, notably [GMPLS- previously discussed in the context of Ethernet, notably [RFC6060]
PBBTE] and [RFC6003]. In that context, asymmetric bandwidth support and [RFC6003]. In that context, asymmetric bandwidth support was
was considered to be a capability that was unlikely to be deployed, considered to be a capability that was unlikely to be deployed, and
and hence [RFC5467] was published as Experimental. The MPLS hence [RFC5467] was published as Experimental. The MPLS Transport
Transport Profile, MPLS-TP, requires that asymmetric bandwidth Profile, MPLS-TP, requires that asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional
bidirectional LSPs be supported, see [RFC5654], and therefore this LSPs be supported, see [RFC5654], and therefore this document is
document is being published on the Standards Track. This document being published on the Standards Track. This document has no
has no technical changes from the approach defined in [RFC5467]. technical changes from the approach defined in [RFC5467]. This
This document removes an alternate approach that is not part of the document moves the experiment documented in [RFC5467] to the
Standards Track solution. standards track and obsoletes [RFC5467]. This document also removes
the Ethernet technology specific alternative approach discussed in
the appendix of [RFC5467] and maintains only one approach that is
suitable for use with any technology.
1.1. Background 1.1. Background
Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210], Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210],
[RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to
RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model
for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP
session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model
of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209], of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209],
used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the
FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used
to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC
object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that
should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC
object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the
actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic. actual resources available for the associated data traffic.
With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473], the model With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473], the model
of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In
the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object
indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream
directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the
allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either
unmodified and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is unmodified and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is
implicitly or explicitly ([RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) irrelevant. implicitly or explicitly ([RFC4606] and [RFC6003]) irrelevant.
1.2. Approach Overview 1.2. Approach Overview
The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs
defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the
transport of traffic-related parameters and GMPLS's support for transport of traffic-related parameters and GMPLS's support for
bidirectional LSPs. bidirectional LSPs.
The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching
technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing
skipping to change at page 6, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
the form 0bbbbbbb). the form 0bbbbbbb).
2.3.1. Procedures 2.3.1. Procedures
The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that
corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the
C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents
of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and
procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object
that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC6003]. The
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the
ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes. ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes.
3. Packet Formats 3. Packet Formats
This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by
this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205], this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205],
[RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RFC5511] for the syntax used by RSVP. [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RFC5511] for the syntax used by RSVP.
Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in
this section: this section:
skipping to change at page 11, line 20 skipping to change at page 12, line 20
parallel the existing SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but parallel the existing SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but
are used in the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities are used in the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities
that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages
flowing in the reverse direction. flowing in the reverse direction.
From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new
signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are
adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no
additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations. additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations.
See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC- See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [RFC5920] for
FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security discussions.
discussions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S.,
and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997. September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. LSP 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 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003. RFC 3473, January 2003.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS Control of Ethernet", Work in [RFC6060] Fedyk, D., et al "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Progress, July 2008. Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider
Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)",
RFC 6060, 2011.
[RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters," [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
RFC 6003, October 2008. RFC 6003, October 2008.
[RFC5654] B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed., D. Brungard, Ed. and [RFC5654] B. Niven-Jenkins, Ed., D. Brungard, Ed. and
M. Betts, Ed., "Requirements of an MPLS Transport M. Betts, Ed., "Requirements of an MPLS Transport
Profile," RFC 5654, September 2009. Profile," RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- [RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August
2006. 2006.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for
G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
January 2006. January 2006.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A. "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax [RFC5511] Farrel, A. "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax
Used in Various Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511, Used in Various Protocol Specifications", RFC 5511,
April 2009. April 2009.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and
GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC5467] L. Berger, A. Takacs, D. Caviglia, D. Fedyk and [RFC5467] L. Berger, A. Takacs, D. Caviglia, D. Fedyk and
J. Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth J. Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)," Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs),"
RFC 5467, March 2009. RFC 5467, March 2009.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Attila Takacs Attila Takacs
Ericsson Ericsson
Laborc u. 1. Laborc u. 1.
Budapest, 1037 Budapest, 1037
Hungary Hungary
Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
 End of changes. 25 change blocks. 
83 lines changed or deleted 88 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/