draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-01.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-02.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 2205, 3209, 3473 Francois Le Faucheur (Cisco) Category: Informational
Category: Standards Track Ashok Narayanan (Cisco) Expiration Date: November 1, 2011
Expiration Date: September 14, 2011
March 14, 2011 May 1, 2011
Usage of The RSVP Association Object Usage of The RSVP Association Object
draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-01.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
The RSVP ASSOCIATION object was defined in the context of GMPLS The RSVP ASSOCIATION object was defined in the context of GMPLS
(Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label
switched paths (LSPs). In this context, the object is used to switched paths (LSPs). In this context, the object is used to
associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they are protecting. This associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they are protecting. This
object also has broader applicability as a mechanism to associate document reviews how association is to be provided in the context
RSVP state, and this document defines how the ASSOCIATION object of GMPLS recovery. No new procedures or mechanisms are
can be more generally applied. The document also reviews how the defined by this document and it is strictly informative in nature.
association is to be provided in the context of GMPLS recovery.
No new new procedures or mechanisms are defined with respect to
GMPLS recovery. This document also defines extended ASSOCIATION
objects which can be used in the context of Transport Profile of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP).
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2011 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 1, 2011
Copyright and License Notice Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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 Conventions Used In This Document ...................... 4 2 Background ............................................. 3
2 Background ............................................. 4 2.1 LSP Association ........................................ 3
2.1 LSP Association ........................................ 4 2.2 End-to-End Recovery LSP Association .................... 5
2.2 End-to-End Recovery LSP Association .................... 6
2.3 Segment Recovery LSP Association ....................... 8 2.3 Segment Recovery LSP Association ....................... 8
2.4 Resource Sharing LSP Association ....................... 9 2.4 Resource Sharing LSP Association ....................... 8
3 Association of GMPLS Recovery LSPs ..................... 10 3 Association of GMPLS Recovery LSPs ..................... 9
4 Non-GMPLS Recovery Usage ............................... 11 4 Security Considerations ................................ 10
4.1 Upstream Initiated Association ......................... 11 5 IANA Considerations .................................... 10
4.1.1 Path Message Format .................................... 12 6 Acknowledgments ........................................ 10
4.1.2 Path Message Processing ................................ 12 7 References ............................................. 10
4.2 Downstream Initiated Association ....................... 13 7.1 Normative References ................................... 10
4.2.1 Resv Message Format .................................... 14 7.2 Informative References ................................. 11
4.2.2 Resv Message Processing ................................ 14 8 Author's Addresses ..................................... 11
4.3 Association Types ...................................... 15
4.3.1 Resource Sharing Association Type ...................... 15
5 IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Objects ............. 16
5.1 IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Object Format ....... 17
5.2 Processing ............................................. 18
6 Security Considerations ................................ 20
7 IANA Considerations .................................... 20
7.1 IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Objects ............. 20
7.2 Resource Sharing Association Type ...................... 21
8 Acknowledgments ........................................ 21
9 References ............................................. 21
9.1 Normative References ................................... 21
9.2 Informative References ................................. 22
10 Authors' Addresses ..................................... 23
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
End-to-end and segment recovery are defined for GMPLS (Generalized End-to-end and segment recovery are defined for GMPLS (Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label switched paths Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label switched paths
(LSPs) in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] respectively. Both definitions use (LSPs) in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] respectively. Both definitions use
the ASSOCIATION object to associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they the ASSOCIATION object to associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they
are protecting. This document provides additional narrative on how are protecting. This document provides additional narrative on how
such associations are to be identified. In the context of GMPLS such associations are to be identified. This document does not
recovery, this document does not define any new procedures or define any new procedures or mechanisms and is strictly informative
mechanisms and is strictly informative in nature. in nature.
In addition to the narrative, this document also explicitly expands
the possible usage of the ASSOCIATION object in other contexts. In
Section 4, this document reviews how association should be made in
the case where the object is carried in a Path message and defines
usage with Resv messages. This section also discusses usage of the
ASSOCIATION object outside the context of GMPLS LSPs.
Some examples of non-LSP association in order to enable resource
sharing are:
o Voice Call-Waiting:
A bidirectional voice call between two endpoints A and B is
signaled using two separate unidirectional RSVP reservations for
the flows A->B and B->A. If endpoint A wishes to put the A-B call
on hold and join a separate A-C call, it is desirable that
network resources on common links be shared between the A-B and
A-C calls. The B->A and C->A subflows of the call can share
resources using existing RSVP sharing mechanisms, but only if
they use the same destination IP addresses and ports. However,
there is no way in RSVP today to share the resources between the
A->B and A->C subflows of the call since by definition the RSVP
reservations for these subflows must have different IP addresses
in the SESSION objects.
o Voice Shared Line:
A single number that rings multiple endpoints (which may be
geographically diverse), such as phone lines on a manager's desk
and their assistant. A VoIP system that models these calls as
multiple P2P unicast pre-ring reservations would result in
significantly over-counting bandwidth on shared links, since
today unicast reservations to different endpoints cannot share
bandwidth.
o Symmetric NAT:
RSVP permits sharing of resources between multiple flows
addressed to the same destination D, even from different senders
S1 and S2. However, if D is behind a NAT operating in symmetric
mode [RFC5389], it is possible that the destination port of the
flows S1->D and S2->D may be different outside the NAT. In this
case, these flows cannot share resources using RSVP today, since
the SESSION objects for these two flows outside the NAT would
have different ports.
Section 5 of this document defines the extended ASSOCIATION objects
which can be used in the context of Transport Profile of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP). Although, the scope of the
extended ASSOCIATION objects is not limited to MPLS-TP.
1.1. Conventions Used In This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", It may not be immediately obvious to the informed reader why this
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document is necessary, however questions were repeatedly raised in
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. the Common Control and Measurement Plane (CCAMP) working group on the
proper interpretation of the ASSOCIATION object in the context of
end-to-end and segment recovery, and the working group agreed that
this document should be produced in order to close the matter. This
document formalizes the explanation provided in an e-mail to the
working group authored by Adrian Farrel, see [AF-EMAIL]. This
document in no way modifies the normative definitions of end-to-end
and segment recovery, see [RFC4872] or [RFC4873].
2. Background 2. Background
This section reviews the definition of LSP association in the This section reviews the definition of LSP association in the
contexts of end-to-end and segment recovery as defined in [RFC4872] contexts of end-to-end and segment recovery as defined in [RFC4872]
and [RFC4873]. This section merely reiterates what has been defined, and [RFC4873]. This section merely reiterates what has been defined,
if differences exist between this text and [RFC4872] or [RFC4873], if differences exist between this text and [RFC4872] or [RFC4873],
the earlier RFCs provide the authoritative text. the earlier RFCs provide the authoritative text.
2.1. LSP Association 2.1. LSP Association
skipping to change at page 11, line 13 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
Association ID field with the LSP ID field of the other LSP. If Association ID field with the LSP ID field of the other LSP. If
the values are identical, then an end-to-end recovery association the values are identical, then an end-to-end recovery association
exists. As this behavior only applies to end-to-end recovery, exists. As this behavior only applies to end-to-end recovery,
this check need only be performed at the egress. this check need only be performed at the egress.
No additional behavior is needed in order to support changes in the No additional behavior is needed in order to support changes in the
set of ASSOCIATION objects included in an LSP, as long as the change set of ASSOCIATION objects included in an LSP, as long as the change
represents either a new association or a change in identifiers made represents either a new association or a change in identifiers made
as described in Section 2.2. as described in Section 2.2.
4. Non-GMPLS Recovery Usage 4. Security Considerations
While the ASSOCIATION object, [RFC4872], is defined in the context of
GMPLS Recovery, the object can have wider application. [RFC4872]
defines the object to be used to "associate LSPs with each other",
and then defines an Association Type field to identify the type of
association being identified. It also defines that the Association
Type field is to be considered when determining association, i.e.,
there may be type-specific association rules. As discussed above,
this is the case for Recovery type association objects. The text
above, notably the text related to resource sharing types, can also
be used as the foundation for a generic method for associating LSPs
when there is no type-specific association defined.
The remainder of this section defines the general rules to be
followed when processing ASSOCIATION objects. Object usage in both
Path and Resv messages is discussed. The usage applies equally to
GMPLS LSPs [RFC3473], MPLS LSPs [RFC3209] and non-LSP RSVP sessions
[RFC2205], [RFC2207], [RFC3175] and [RFC4860]. As described below,
association is always done based on matching either Path state or
Resv state, but not Path state to Resv State. This section applies
to the ASSOCIATION objects defined in [RFC4872].
4.1. Upstream Initiated Association
Upstream initiated association is represented in ASSOCIATION objects
carried in Path messages and can be used to associate RSVP Path state
across MPLS Tunnels / RSVP sessions. (Note, per [RFC3209] an MPLS
tunnel is represented by a RSVP SESSION object, and multiple LSPs may
be represented within a single tunnel.) Cross-session association
based on Path state is defined in [RFC4872]. This definition is
extended by this section, which defined generic association rules and
usage for non-LSP uses. This section does not modify processing
required to support [RFC4872] and [RFC4873], which is reviewed above
in Section 3.
4.1.1. Path Message Format
This section provides the Backus-Naur Form (BNF), see [RFC5511], for
Path messages containing ASSOCIATION objects. BNF is provided for
both MPLS and for non-LSP session usage. Unmodified RSVP message
formats and some optional objects are not listed.
The format for MPLS and GMPLS sessions is unmodified from [RFC4872],
and can be represented based on the BNF in [RFC3209] as:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
<LABEL_REQUEST>
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
[ <ASSOCIATION> ... ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<sender descriptor>
The format for non-LSP sessions as based on the BNF in [RFC2205] is:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <ASSOCIATION> ... ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
[ <sender descriptor> ]
In general, relative ordering of ASSOCIATION objects with respect to
each other as well as with respect to other objects is not
significant. Relative ordering of ASSOCIATION objects of the same
type SHOULD be preserved by transit nodes. Association type specific
ordering requirements MAY be defined in the future.
4.1.2. Path Message Processing
This section is based on the processing rules described in [RFC4872]
and [RFC4873], which is reviewed above. These procedures apply
equally to GMPLS LSPs, MPLS LSPs and non-LSP session state.
A node that wishes to allow downstream nodes to associate Path state
across RSVP sessions MUST include an ASSOCIATION object in the
outgoing Path messages corresponding to the RSVP sessions to be
associated. In the absence of Association Type-specific rules for
identifying association, the included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be
identical. When there is an Association Type-specific definition of
association rules, the definition SHOULD allow for association based
on identical ASSOCIATION objects. This document does not define any
Association Type-specific rules. (See Section 3 for a discussion of
an example of Association Type-specific rules which are derived from
[RFC4872].)
When creating an ASSOCIATION object, the originator MUST format the
object as defined in Section 16.1 of [RFC4872]. The originator MUST
set the Association Type field based on the type of association being
identified. The Association ID field MUST be set to a value that
uniquely identifies the sessions to be associated within the context
of the Association Source field. The Association Source field MUST
be set to a unique address assigned to the node originating the
association.
A downstream node can identify an upstream initiated association by
performing the following checks. When a node receives a Path message
it MUST check each ASSOCIATION object received in the Path message to
see if it contains an Association Type field value supported by the
node. For each ASSOCIATION object containing a supported association
type, the node MUST then check to see if the object matches an
ASSOCIATION object received in any other Path message. To perform
this matching, a node MUST examine the Path state of all other
sessions and compare the fields contained in the newly received
ASSOCIATION object with the fields contained in the Path state's
ASSOCIATION objects. An association is deemed to exist when the same
values are carried in all fields of the ASSOCIATION objects being
compared. Processing once an association is identified is type
specific and is outside the scope of this document.
Note that as more than one association may exist, all ASSOCIATION
objects carried in a received Path message which have supported
association types MUST be compared against all Path state.
Unless there are type-specific processing rules, downstream nodes
MUST forward all ASSOCIATION objects received in a Path message with
any corresponding outgoing Path messages.
4.2. Downstream Initiated Association
Downstream initiated association is represented in ASSOCIATION
objects carried in Resv messages and can be used to associate RSVP
Resv state across MPLS Tunnels / RSVP sessions. Cross-session
association based on Path state is defined in [RFC4872]. This section
defines cross-session association based on Resv state. This section
places no additional requirements on implementations supporting
[RFC4872] and [RFC4873].
4.2.1. Resv Message Format
This section provides the Backus-Naur Form (BNF), see [RFC5511], for
Resv messages containing ASSOCIATION objects. BNF is provided for
both MPLS and for non-LSP session usage. Unmodified RSVP message
formats and some optional objects are not listed.
The format for MPLS, GMPLS and non-LSP sessions are identical, and is
represented based on the BNF in [RFC2205] and [RFC3209]:
<Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <RESV_CONFIRM> ] [ <SCOPE> ]
[ <ASSOCIATION> ... ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<STYLE> <flow descriptor list>
Relative ordering of ASSOCIATION objects with respect to each other
as well as with respect to other objects is not currently
significant. Relative ordering of ASSOCIATION objects of the same
type MUST be preserved by transit nodes. Association type specific
ordering requirements MAY be defined in the future.
4.2.2. Resv Message Processing
This section apply equally to GMPLS LSPs, MPLS LSPs and non-LSP
session state.
A node that wishes to allow upstream nodes to associate Resv state
across RSVP sessions MUST include an ASSOCIATION object in the
outgoing Resv messages corresponding to the RSVP sessions to be
associated. In the absence of Association Type-specific rules for
identifying association, the included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be
identical. When there is an Association Type-specific definition of
association rules, the definition SHOULD allow for association based
on identical ASSOCIATION objects. This document does not define any
Association Type-specific rules.
When creating an ASSOCIATION object, the originator MUST format the
object as defined in Section 16.1 of [RFC4872]. The originator MUST
set the Association Type field based on the type of association being
identified. The Association ID field MUST be set to a value that
uniquely identifies the sessions to be associated within the context
of the Association Source field. The Association Source field MUST
be set to a unique address assigned to the node originating the
association.
An upstream node can identify a downstream initiated association by
performing the following checks. When a node receives a Resv message
it MUST check each ASSOCIATION object received in the Resv message to
see if it contains an Association Type field value supported by the
node. For each ASSOCIATION object containing a supported association
type, the node MUST then check to see if the object matches an
ASSOCIATION object received in any other Resv message. To perform
this matching, a node MUST examine the Resv state of all other
sessions and compare the fields contained in the newly received
ASSOCIATION object with the fields contained in the Resv state's
ASSOCIATION objects. An association is deemed to exist when the same
values are carried in all fields of the ASSOCIATION objects being
compared. Processing once an association is identified is type
specific and is outside the scope of this document.
Note that as more than one association may exist, all ASSOCIATION
objects with support Association Types carried in a received Resv
message MUST be compared against all Resv state.
Unless there are type-specific processing rules, upstream nodes MUST
forward all ASSOCIATION objects received in a Resv message with any
corresponding outgoing Resv messages.
4.3. Association Types
Two association types are currently defined: recovery and resource
sharing. Recovery type association is only applicable within the
context of recovery, [RFC4872] and [RFC4873]. Resource sharing is
generally useful and its general use is defined in this section.
4.3.1. Resource Sharing Association Type
The resource sharing association type was defined in [RFC4873] and
was defined within the context of GMPLS and upstream initiated
association. This section presents a definition of the resource
sharing association that allows for its use with any RSVP session
type and in both Path and Resv messages. This definition is
consistent with the definition of the resource sharing association
type in [RFC4873] and no changes are required by this section in
order to support [RFC4873]. The Resource Sharing Association Type
MUST be supported by any implementation compliant with this document.
The Resource Sharing Association Type is used to enable resource
sharing across RSVP sessions. Per [RFC4873], Resource Sharing uses
the Association Type field value of 2. ASSOCIATION objects with an
Association Type with the value Resource Sharing MAY be carried in
Path and Resv messages. Association for the Resource Sharing type
MUST follow the procedures defined in Section 4.1.2 for upstream
(Path message) initiated association and Section 4.2.1 for downstream
(Resv message) initiated association. There are no type-specific
association rules, processing rules, or ordering requirements. Note
that as is always the case with association as enabled by this
document, no associations are made across Path and Resv state.
Once an association is identified, resources SHOULD be shared across
the identified sessions. Resource sharing is discussed in general in
[RFC2205] and within the context of LSPs in [RFC3209].
5. IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Objects
[RFC4872] defines the IPv4 ASSOCIATION object and the IPv6
ASSOCIATION object. As defined, these objects each contain an
Association Source field and a 16-bit Association ID field. The
combination of the Association Source and the Association ID uniquely
identifies the association. Because the association-ID field is a
16-bit field, an association source can allocate up to 65536
different associations and no more. There are scenarios where this
number is insufficient. (For example where the association
identification is best known and identified by a fairly centralized
entity, which therefore may be involved in a large number of
associations.)
Furthermore, per [TP-IDENTIFIERS], MPLS-TP LSPs can be identified in
two forms that cannot be supported using the existing ASSOCIATION
objects. The first form is a global identifier and the second uses
an ITU Carrier Code (ICC). The [TP-IDENTIFIERS] defined "global
identifier", or Global_ID, is based on [RFC5003] and includes the
operator's Autonomous System Number (ASN). [TP-IDENTIFIERS]
identifies the ICC as "a string of one to six characters, each
character being either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9)
characters. Alphabetic characters in the ICC SHOULD be represented
with upper case letters."
This sections defines new ASSOCIATION objects to support extended
identification in order to address the limitations described above.
Specifically, the IPv4 Extended ASSOCIATION object and IPv6 Extended
ASSOCIATION object are defined below. Both new objects include the
fields necessary to enable identification of a larger number of
associations, as well as MPLS-TP required identification.
The IPv4 Extended ASSOCIATION object and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION
object SHOULD be supported by an implementation compliant with this
document. The processing rules for the IPv4 and IPv6 Extended
ASSOCIATION object are described below, and are based on the rules
for the IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects as described above.
5.1. IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Object Format
The IPv4 Extended ASSOCIATION object (Class-Num of the form 11bbbbbb
with value = 199, C-Type = TBA) has the format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(199)| C-Type (TBA) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Association Type | Association ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Association Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Association Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: . :
: Extended Association ID :
: . :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION object (Class-Num of the form 11bbbbbb
with value = 199, C-Type = TBA) has the format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(199)| C-Type (TBA) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Association Type | Association ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Association Source |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Global Association Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
: . :
: Extended Association ID :
: . :
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Association Type: 16 bits
Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].
Association ID: 16 bits
Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].
Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes
Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].
Global Association Source: 4 bytes
This field contains a value that is unique to the provider, i.e.,
a global identifier. This field MAY contain the 2-octet or
4-octet value of the provider's Autonomous System Number (ASN).
It is expected that the global identifier will be derived from the
globally unique ASN of the autonomous system hosting the
Association Source. The special value of zero (0) indicates that
no global identifier is present. Note that a Global Association
Source of zero SHOULD be limited to entities contained within a
single operator.
If the Global Association Source field value is derived from a
2-octet AS number, then the two high-order octets of this 4-octet
field MUST be set to zero.
Please note that, as stated in [TP-IDENTIFIERS], the use of the
provider's ASN as a global identifier DOES NOT have anything at
all to do with the use of the ASN in protocols such as BGP.
This field is based on the definition of Global_ID defined in
[RFC5003] and used by [TP-IDENTIFIERS].
Extended Association ID: variable, 4-byte aligned
This field contains data that is additional information to support
unique identification. The length and contents of this field is
determined by the Association Source. This field MAY be omitted,
i.e., have a zero length. This field MUST be padded with zeros
(0s) to ensure 32-bit alignment.
5.2. Processing
The processing of a IPv4 or IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION object MUST
identical to the processing of a IPv4 or IPv6 ASSOCIATION object as
described above in Section 4 except as extended by this section. This
section applies to both upstream-initiated (Path message) and
downstream-initiated (Resv message) association.
The following are the modified procedures for Extended ASSOCIATION
object processing:
o When creating an Extended ASSOCIATION object, the originator MUST
format the object as defined in this document.
o The originator MUST set the Association Type, Association ID and
Association Source fields as described in Section 4.
o When ASN-based global identification of the Association Source is
desired, the originator MUST set the Global Association Source
field. When ASN-based global identification is not desired, the
originator MUST set the Global Association Source field to zero
(0).
o The Extended ASSOCIATION object originator MAY include the
Extended Association ID field. The field is included based on
local policy. The field MUST be included when the Association ID
field is insufficient to uniquely identify association within the
scope of the source of the association. When included, this
field MUST be set to a value that, when taken together with the
other fields in the object, uniquely identifies the sessions to
be associated.
When used in support of ICC identified (MPLS-TP) LSPs, this field
MUST be at least eight (8) bytes long, and MAY be longer; the
first six (6) bytes MUST be set to the ICC as defined in Section
3.2 of [TP-IDENTIFIERS] and the next two bytes MUST be set to
zero (0). For non-ICC identified MPLS-TP LSPs, this field MUST
either be omitted, or MUST have the first 6 bytes set to all
zeros (0s).
o The object Length field is set based on the length of the
Extended Association ID field. When the Extended Association ID
field is omitted, the object Length field MUST be set to 16 or 28
for the IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, respectively. When the
Extended Association ID field is present, the object Length field
MUST be set to indicate the additional bytes carried in the
Extended Association ID field, including pad bytes.
Note: per [RFC2205], the object Length field is set to the total
object length in bytes, and is always a multiple of 4, and at
least 4.
Identification of association is not modified by this section. It is
important to note that Section 4 defines association identification
based on ASSOCIATION object matching, and that such matching is based
on the comparison of all fields in a ASSOCIATION object (unless type-
specific comparison rules are defined). This applies equally to
ASSOCIATION objects and Extended ASSOCIATION objects.
6. Security Considerations
A portion of this document reviews procedures defined in [RFC4872]
and [RFC4873] and does not define any new procedures. As such, no
new security considerations are introduced in this portion.
Section 4 defines broader usage of the ASSOCIATION object, but does
not fundamentally expand on the association function that was
previously defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873]. Section 5 increases
the number of bits that are carried in an ASSOCIATION object (by 32),
and similarly does not expand on the association function that was
previously defined. This broader definition does allow for
additional information to be conveyed, but this information is not
fundamentally different from the information that is already carried
in RSVP. Therefore there are no new risks or security considerations
introduced by this document.
For a general discussion 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
namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section.
7.1. IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Objects
Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment of two
new C-Types (which are defined in section 5.1) for the existing
ASSOCIATION object in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class
Types" section of the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
parameters:
199 ASSOCIATION [RFC4872]
Class Types or C-Types
3 Type 3 IPv4 Extended Association [this document]
4 Type 4 IPv6 Extended Association [this document]
7.2. Resource Sharing Association Type
This document also broadens the potential usage of the Resource
Sharing Association Type defined in [RFC4873]. As such, IANA is
requested to change the Reference of the Resource Sharing Association
Type included in the associate registry. This document also directs
IANA to correct the duplicate usage of '(R)' in this Registry. In
particular, the Association Type registry found at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/ should be
updated as follows:
OLD:
2 Resource Sharing (R) [RFC4873]
NEW
2 Resource Sharing (S) [RFC4873][this-document]
There are no other IANA considerations introduced by this document. This document reviews procedures defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873]
and does not define any new procedures. As such, no new security
considerations are introduced in this document..
8. Acknowledgments 5. IANA Considerations
Sections 2 and 3 of this document formalizes the explanation provided There are no new IANA considerations introduced by this document.
in an e-mail to the working group authored by Adrian Farrel, see [AF-
EMAIL]. This portion of the document was written in response to
questions raised in the CCAMP working group by Nic Neate
<nhn@dataconnection.com>. Valuable comments and input was also
received from Dimitri Papadimitriou.
We thank Subha Dhesikan for her contribution to the early work on 6. Acknowledgments
sharing of resources across RSVP reservations.
9. References This document formalizes the explanation provided in an e-mail to the
working group authored by Adrian Farrel, see [AF-EMAIL]. This
document was written in response to questions raised in the CCAMP
working group by Nic Neate <nhn@dataconnection.com>. Valuable
comments and input was also received from Dimitri Papadimitriou,
Francois Le Faucheur and Ashok Narayanan.
9.1. Normative References 7. References
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and 7.1. Normative References
S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
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.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and Papadimitriou, D., "RSVP-TE [RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and Papadimitriou, D., "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872,
May 2007. May 2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A., [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Farrel, A.,
skipping to change at page 22, line 17 skipping to change at page 11, line 22
[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 LSP V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January
2003. 2003.
[RFC5511] Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax 7.2. Informative References
Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009
9.2. Informative References
[AF-EMAIL] Farrel, A. "Re: Clearing up your misunderstanding of [AF-EMAIL] Farrel, A. "Re: Clearing up your misunderstanding of
the Association ID", CCAMP working group mailing list, the Association ID", CCAMP working group mailing list,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg00644.html, http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg00644.html,
November 18, 2008. November 18, 2008.
[RFC2207] Berger., L., O'Malley., T., "RSVP Extensions for IPSEC 8. Author's Addresses
RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows", RFC 2207, September
1997.
[RFC3175] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le, F., Davie, B., "Aggregation
of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations", RFC 3175,
September 2001.
[RFC4860] Le, F., Davie, B., Bose, P., Christou, C., Davenport, M.,
"Generic Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
Reservations", RFC 4860, May 2007.
[RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., Sugimoto, J.,
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007.
[RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., Wing, D., "Session
Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, October
2008.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., et al, "Security Framework for MPLS and
GMPLS Networks", work in progress, RFC 5920, July 2010.
[TP-IDENTIFIERS] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., Gray, E., "MPLS-TP
Identifiers", work in progress,
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers.
10. Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Phone: +1-301-468-9228 Phone: +1-301-468-9228
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Francois Le Faucheur Generated on: Mon, May 02, 2011 10:15:27 AM
Cisco Systems
Greenside, 400 Avenue de Roumanille
Sophia Antipolis 06410
France
Email: flefauch@cisco.com
Ashok Narayanan
Cisco Systems
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
United States
Email: ashokn@cisco.com
Generated on: Mon, Mar 14, 2011 7:36:53 AM
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
622 lines changed or deleted 50 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/