draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-08.txt 
Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed. Network Working Group F. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires: February 27, 2015 Telefonica Global CTO Expires: April 26, 2015 Telefonica Global CTO
D. Li D. Li
Huawei Huawei
C. Margaria C. Margaria
M. Hartley M. Hartley
Z. Ali Z. Ali
Cisco Cisco
August 26, 2014 October 23, 2014
RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG Information
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-08
Abstract Abstract
This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support automatic
collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information for the TE collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE
link formed by a LSP. link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP).
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 February 27, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 26, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2. SRLG sub-object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be It is important to understand which TE links in the network might be
at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links may at risk from the same failures. In this sense, a set of links can
constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource constitute a 'shared risk link group' (SRLG) if they share a resource
whose failure may affect all links in the set [RFC4202]. whose failure can affect all links in the set [RFC4202].
On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP
(Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying (Hierarchical LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) can be used for carrying
one or more other LSPs. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be formed as one or more other LSPs. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be formed as
a TE link. In such cases, it is important to know the SRLG a TE link. In such cases, it is important to know the SRLG
information of the LSPs that will be used to carry further LSPs. information of the LSPs that will be used to carry further LSPs.
This document provides an automatic mechanism to collect the SRLG for This document provides a mechanism to collect the SRLGs used by a
the TE link formed by a LSP. Note that how to use the collected SRLG LSP, which can then be advertized as properties of the TE-link formed
information is out of scope of this document by that LSP. Note that specification of the the use of the collected
SRLGs is outside the scope of this document.
1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing
An interesting use case for the SRLG collection procedures defined in
this document is achieving LSP diversity in a dual homing scenario.
The use case is illustrated in Figure 1, when the overlay model is
applied as defined in RFC 4208 [RFC4208] . In this example, the
exchange of routing information over the User-Network Interface (UNI)
is prohibited by operator policy.
+---+ +---+
| P |....| P |
+---+ +---+
/ \
+-----+ +-----+
+---+ | PE1 | | PE3 | +---+
|CE1|----| | | |----|CE2|
+---+\ +-----+ +-----+ /+---+
\ | | /
\ +-----+ +-----+ /
\| PE2 | | PE4 |/
| | | |
+-----+ +-----+
\ /
+---+ +---+
| P |....| P |
+---+ +---+
Figure 1: Dual Homing Configuration
Single-homed customer edge (CE) devices are connected to a single
provider edge (PE) device via a single UNI link (which could be a
bundle of parallel links, typically using the same fiber cable).
This single UNI link can constitute a single point of failure. Such
a single point of failure can be avoided if the CE device is
connected to two PE devices via two UNI interfaces as depicted in
Figure 1 above for CE1 and CE2, respectively.
For the dual-homing case, it is possible to establish two connections
(LSPs) from the source CE device to the same destination CE device
where one connection is using one UNI link to PE1, for example, and
the other connection is using the UNI link to PE2. In order to avoid
single points of failure within the provider network, it is necessary
to also ensure path (LSP) diversity within the provider network in
order to achieve end-to-end diversity for the two LSPs between the
two CE devices CE1 and CE2. This use case describes how it is
possible to achieve path diversity within the provider network based
on collected SRLG information. As the two connections (LSPs) enter
the provider network at different PE devices, the PE device that
receives the connection request for the second connection needs to
know the additional path computation constraints such that the path
of the second LSP is disjoint with respect to the already established
first connection.
As SRLG information is normally not shared between the provider
network and the client network, i.e., between PE and CE devices, the
challenge is how to solve the diversity problem when a CE is dual-
homed. For example, CE1 in Figure 1 may have requested an LSP1 to
CE2 via PE1 that is routed via PE3 to CE2. CE1 can then subsequently
request an LSP2 to CE2 via PE2 with the constraint that it needs to
be maximally SRLG disjoint with respect to LSP1. PE2, however, does
not have any SRLG information associated with LSP1, which is needed
as input for its constrained-based path computation function. If CE1
is capable of retrieving the SRLG information associated with LSP1
from PE1, it can pass this information to PE2 as part of the LSP2
setup request (RSVP PATH message), and PE2 can now calculate a path
for LSP2 that is SRLG disjoint with respect to LSP1. The SRLG
information associated with LSP1 can already be retrieved when LSP1
is setup or at any time before LSP2 is setup.
The RSVP extensions for collecting SRLG information defined in this
document make it possible to retrieve SRLG information for an LSP and
hence solve the dual-homing LSP diversity problem. When CE1 sends
the setup request for LSP2 to PE2, it can also request the collection
of SRLG information for LSP2 and send that information to PE1. This
will ensure that the two paths for the two LSPs remain mutually
diverse, which is important, when the provider network is capable to
restore connections that failed due to a network failure (fiber cut)
in the provider network.
It shall be noted that the knowledge of SRLG information even for
multiple LSPs does not allow a CE devices to derive the provider
network topology based on the collected SRLG information.
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. RSVP-TE Requirements 3. RSVP-TE Requirements
3.1. SRLG Collection Indication 3.1. SRLG Collection Indication
The ingress nodes of the LSP must be capable of indicating whether The ingress node of the LSP SHOULD be capable of indicating whether
the SRLG information of the LSP should be collected during the the SRLG information of the LSP is to be collected during the
signaling procedure of setting up an LSP. SRLG information SHOULD signaling procedure of setting up an LSP. SRLG information SHOULD
NOT be collected without an explicit request for it being made by the NOT be collected without an explicit request for it being made by the
ingress node. ingress node.
3.2. SRLG Collection 3.2. SRLG Collection
If requested, the SRLG information should be collected during the If requested, the SRLG information SHOULD be collected during the
setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP may use the collected SRLG setup of an LSP. The endpoints of the LSP can use the collected SRLG
information and use it for routing, sharing and TE link configuration information, for example, for routing, sharing and TE link
purposes. configuration purposes.
3.3. SRLG Update 3.3. SRLG Update
When the SRLG information of an existing LSP for which SRLG When the SRLG information of an existing LSP for which SRLG
information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant
nodes of the LSP must be capable of updating the SRLG information of nodes of the LSP SHOULD be capable of updating the SRLG information
the LSP. This means that that the signaling procedure must be of the LSP. This means that that the signaling procedure SHOULD be
capable of updating the new SRLG information. capable of updating the new SRLG information.
4. Encodings 4. Encodings
4.1. SRLG Collection Flag 4.1. SRLG Collection Flag
In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this
document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV, which is document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV (see RFC 5420
carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_ATTRIBUTE Object: [RFC5420]), which MAY be carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object:
o Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA, early allocation requested, o Bit Number (temporarily 12, an early allocation has been made by
see Section 8.1 for more details): SRLG Collection flag IANA, see Section 8.1 for more details): SRLG Collection flag
The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the
SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information
should be reported to the ingress and egress node along the setup of SHOULD be reported to the ingress and egress node along the setup of
the LSP. the LSP.
The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not
changed. changed.
4.2. SRLG sub-object 4.2. SRLG sub-object
This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object) This document defines a new RRO sub-object (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object)
to record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on to record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on
the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]. the RRO sub-objects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].
skipping to change at page 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID 1 (4 bytes) | | SRLG ID 1 (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ...... ~ ~ ...... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID n (4 bytes) | | SRLG ID n (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type Type
The type of the sub-object. The value is to be assigned by IANA. An The type of the sub-object. The value is temporarily 34. An early
early allocation is requested (see Section 8.2 for more details). allocation has been made by IANA (see Section 8.2 for more details).
Length Length
The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object in The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on
the number of SRLG IDs. the number of SRLG IDs.
Reserved Reserved
This 2 byte field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on This 2 byte field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
SRLG ID SRLG ID
This 4 byte field contains one SRLG ID. There is one SRLG ID field This 4 byte field contains one SRLG ID. There is one SRLG ID field
per SRLG collected. per SRLG collected. There MAY be multiple SRLG ID fields in an SRLG
sub-object
As described in RFC 3209 [RFC3209], the RECORD_ROUTE object is As described in RFC 3209 [RFC3209], the RECORD_ROUTE object is
managed as a stack. The SRLG sub-object SHOULD be pushed by the node managed as a stack. The SRLG sub-object SHOULD be pushed by the node
before the node IP address or link identifier. The SRLG-sub-object before the node IP address or link identifier. The SRLG-sub-object
SHOULD be pushed after the Attribute subobject, if present, and after SHOULD be pushed after the Attribute subobject, if present, and after
the LABEL subobject, if requested. the LABEL subobject, if requested.
RFC 5553 [RFC5553] describes mechanisms to carry a PKS (Path Key Sub- RFC 5553 [RFC5553] describes mechanisms to carry a PKS (Path Key Sub-
object) in the RRO so as to facilitate confidentiality in the object) in the RRO so as to facilitate confidentiality in the
signaling of inter-domain TE LSPs, and allows the path segment that signaling of inter-domain TE LSPs, and allows the path segment that
skipping to change at page 5, line 43 skipping to change at page 7, line 34
Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which MAY be carried Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which MAY be carried
either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is either in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is mandatory, or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object when the collection is
desired, but not mandatory desired, but not mandatory
When a node receives a Path message which carries an When a node receives a Path message which carries an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if
local policy determines that the SRLG information is not to be local policy determines that the SRLG information is not to be
provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with
Error Code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected" Error Code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected"
(value to be assigned by IANA, early allocation of the value (value 31, an early allocation of the value has been done by IANA,
requested, see Section 8.3 for more details) to reject the Path see Section 8.3 for more details) to reject the Path message.
message.
When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if local policy determines Object and the SRLG Collection Flag set, if local policy determines
that the SRLG information is not to be provided to the endpoints, the that the SRLG information is not to be provided to the endpoints, the
Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to SRLG recording restriction Path message SHOULD NOT be rejected due to SRLG recording restriction
and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG sub- and the Path message SHOULD be forwarded without any SRLG sub-
object(s) in the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. object(s) in the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message.
If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the
processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined below, processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined below,
skipping to change at page 6, line 27 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
message which contains an RRO, an egress node initiates the RRO message which contains an RRO, an egress node initiates the RRO
process by adding an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The process by adding an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The
processing for RROs contained in Resv messages then mirrors that of processing for RROs contained in Resv messages then mirrors that of
the Path messages. the Path messages.
When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG
Collection is specified, if local policy determines that the SRLG Collection is specified, if local policy determines that the SRLG
information is not to be provided to the endpoints, if the SRLG- information is not to be provided to the endpoints, if the SRLG-
recording request was in a LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object, then a recording request was in a LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object, then a
ResvErr with Error code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording ResvErr with Error code 2 (policy) and Error subcode "SRLG Recording
Rejected" (value to be assigned by IANA, early allocation of the Rejected" (temporary value 21, an early allocation of the value has
value requested, see Section 8.3 for more details) MUST be sent. If been made by IANA, see Section 8.3 for more details) MUST be sent.
the request was in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, then a ResvErr SHOULD NOT If the request was in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, then a ResvErr SHOULD
be generated, but SRLG information MUST NOT be added in the RRO. NOT be generated, but SRLG information MUST NOT be added in the RRO.
When local policy allows recording SRLG information, the node SHOULD When local policy allows recording SRLG information, the node SHOULD
add SRLG information, as defined below, to the RRO of the add SRLG information, as defined below, to the RRO of the
corresponding outgoing Resv message. When the Resv message arrives corresponding outgoing Resv message. When the Resv message arrives
at the ingress node, the ingress node can get the SRLG information at the ingress node, the ingress node can get the SRLG information
from the RRO in the same way as the egress node. from the RRO in the same way as the egress node.
Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot
be assumed to be the same as that in the downstream. be assumed to be the same as that in the downstream.
o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
skipping to change at page 7, line 14 skipping to change at page 9, line 8
Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG
information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance
advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the
procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information
of the FA automatically. of the FA automatically.
5.2. SRLG Update 5.2. SRLG Update
When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the LSPs using that When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the LSPs using that
link should be aware of the changes. The procedures defined in link need to be aware of the changes. The procedures defined in
Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the SRLG Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the SRLG
information if the SRLG change is to be communicated to other nodes information if the SRLG change is to be communicated to other nodes
according to the local node's policy. If local policy is that the according to the local node's policy. If local policy is that the
SRLG change should be suppressed or would result in no change to the SRLG change SHOULD be suppressed or would result in no change to the
previously signaled SRLG-list, the node SHOULD NOT send an update. previously signaled SRLG-list, the node SHOULD NOT send an update.
5.3. Compatibility 5.3. Compatibility
A node that does not recognize the SRLG Collection Flag in the A node that does not recognize the SRLG Collection Flag in the
Attribute Flags TLV is expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420 Attribute Flags TLV is expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420
[RFC5420]. It is expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears [RFC5420]. It is expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears
in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the in a LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, or reject the Path message with the
appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object. LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
A node that does not recognize the SRLG RRO sub-object is expected to A node that does not recognize the SRLG RRO sub-object is expected to
behave as specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized subobjects behave as specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized subobjects
are to be ignored and passed on unchanged. are to be ignored and passed on unchanged.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
6.1. Policy Configuration 6.1. Policy Configuration
In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the In a border node of inter-domain or inter-layer network, the
following SRLG processing policy should be capable of being following SRLG processing policy SHOULD be capable of being
configured: configured:
o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can
be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
whether they should be summarized, mapped to values that are whether they SHOULD be summarized, mapped to values that are
comprehensible to nodes outside the domain or layer network, or comprehensible to nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
removed entirely. removed entirely.
A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS may apply the same policy. A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS MAY apply the same policy.
6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs 6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs
In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids may be configured by In a multi-layer multi-domain scenario, SRLG ids can be configured by
different management entities in each layer/domain. In such different management entities in each layer/domain. In such
scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key
requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly. requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly.
Thus, SRLG IDs must be unique. Note that current procedure is Thus, SRLG IDs SHOULD be unique. Note that current procedure is
targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains
belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative belong to the same operator, or to several coordinated administrative
groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond
the scope of this document. the scope of this document.
Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be
guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left guaranteed are out of the scope of the present document and are left
for further study. for further study.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
skipping to change at page 8, line 41 skipping to change at page 10, line 31
consideration and behave accordingly during LSP signaling. consideration and behave accordingly during LSP signaling.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags 8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags
IANA has created a registry and manages the space of the Attribute IANA has created a registry and manages the space of the Attribute
bit flags of the Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of bit flags of the Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section 11.3 of
RFC 5420 [RFC5420], in the "Attribute Flags" section of the "Resource RFC 5420 [RFC5420], in the "Attribute Flags" section of the "Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters"
registry located in https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- registry located in http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml. It is requested that IANA makes parameters". IANA has made an early allocation in the "Attribute
an early allocation in the "Attribute Flags" section of the mentioned Flags" section of the mentioned registry that expires on 2015-09-11.
registry.
This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag: This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag:
Bit No Name Attribute Attribute RRO Reference Bit No Name Attribute Attribute RRO Reference
Flags Path Flags Resv Flags Path Flags Resv
----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- --------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- ---------
TBD(early SRLG Yes Yes Yes This I-D 12 (tempo- SRLG Yes Yes Yes This I-D
allocation collection rary expires collection
requested) Flag 2015-09-11) Flag
8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object 8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We request IANA to http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. IANA has made an
make an early allocation in the Sub-object type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - early allocation in the Sub-object type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1
Type 1 Route Record registry Route Record registry. The early allocation expires on 2015-09-11.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object: This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------- ------------------- --------- --------------------- ------------------- ---------
TBD (early allocation SRLG sub-object This I-D 34 (temporary, SRLG sub-object This I-D
requested, suggested expires 2015-09-11)
value 34)
8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes 8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes
IANA manages the assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined IANA manages the assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined
Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry
located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. IANA has
request IANA to make an early allocation in the "Sub-Codes - 2 Policy made an early allocation in the "Sub-Codes - 2 Policy Control
Control Failure" subsection of the the "Error Codes and Globally- Failure" subsection of the the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined
Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry.
registry. The early allocation expires on 2015-09-11.
This document introduces a new Policy Control Failure Error sub-code: This document introduces a new Policy Control Failure Error sub-code:
Value Description Reference Value Description Reference
--------------------- ----------------------- --------- --------------------- ----------------------- ---------
TBD (early allocation SRLG Recording Rejected This I-D 21 (temporary, SRLG Recording Rejected This I-D
requested) expires 2015-09-11)
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Lou The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Lou
Berger, Alan Davey and Dhruv Dhody for their useful comments and Berger, Alan Davey, Dhruv Dhody and Dieter Beller for their useful
improvements to the document. comments and improvements to the document.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[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, 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 39 skipping to change at page 12, line 19
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[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.
[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically [RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107, Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107,
February 2011. February 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fatai Zhang (editor) Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129 Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China P.R.China
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor) Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Global CTO Telefonica Global CTO
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
91 lines changed or deleted 182 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/