draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-04.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-05.txt 
Network Working Group A. Ayyangar, Ed. Network Working Group A. Ayyangar
Internet-Draft Nuova Systems Internet-Draft Nuova Systems
Intended status: Standards Track K. Kompella, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track K. Kompella
Expires: June 5, 2007 Juniper Networks Expires: September 2007 Juniper Networks
JP. Vasseur JP. Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
December 2, 2006 A. Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)
Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-05.txt
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
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 June 5, 2007. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 1, 2007.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007).
Abstract Abstract
In certain scenarios, there may be a need to combine together several In certain scenarios, there may be a need to combine together several
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) such that a single end-to-end (e2e) LSP is realized and Paths (LSPs) such that a single end-to-end (e2e) LSP is realized and
all traffic from one constituent LSP is switched onto the next LSP. all traffic from one constituent LSP is switched onto the next LSP.
We will refer to this as "LSP stitching", the key requirement being We will refer to this as "LSP stitching", the key requirement being
that a constituent LSP not be allocated to more than one e2e LSP. that a constituent LSP not be allocated to more than one e2e LSP.
The constituent LSPs will be referred to as "LSP segments" (S-LSPs). The constituent LSPs will be referred to as "LSP segments" (S-LSPs).
This document describes extensions to the existing GMPLS signaling
protocol (RSVP-TE) to establish e2e LSPs created from from S-LSPs,
and describes how the LSPs can be managed using the GMPLS signaling
and routing protocols.
It may be possible to configure a GMPLS node to switch the traffic It may be possible to configure a GMPLS node to switch the traffic
from an LSP for which it is the egress, to another LSP for which it from an LSP for which it is the egress, to another LSP for which it
is the ingress, without requiring any signaling or routing extensions is the ingress, without requiring any signaling or routing extensions
whatsoever, completely transparent to other nodes. This will also whatsoever, completely transparent to other nodes. This will also
result in LSP stitching in the data plane. However, this document result in LSP stitching in the data plane. However, this document
does not cover this scenario of LSP stitching. does not cover this scenario of LSP stitching.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Comparison with LSP Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Comparison with LSP Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Triggers for LSP segment setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Triggers for LSP Segment Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Routing aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Routing Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Signaling aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Signaling Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. RSVP-TE signaling extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1. RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Creating and preparing LSP segment for stitching . . . 9 5.1.1. Creating and Preparing an LSP Segment for Stitching . 8
5.1.2. Stitching the e2e LSP to the LSP segment . . . . . . . 11 5.1.2. Stitching the e2e LSP to the LSP Segment . . . . . . . 10
5.1.3. RRO Processing for e2e LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1.3. RRO Processing for e2e LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.4. Teardown of LSP segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1.4. Teardown of LSP Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.5. Teardown of e2e LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1.5. Teardown of e2e LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Summary of LSP Stitching procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2. Summary of LSP Stitching Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.1. Example topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.1. Example Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.2. LSP segment setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2.2. LSP Segment Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.3. Setup of e2e LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2.3. Setup of an e2e LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.4. Stitching of e2e LSP into an LSP segment . . . . . . . 15 5.2.4. Stitching of an e2e LSP into an LSP Segment . . . . . 14
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object . . . . . . . . 17 7.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. New Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.2. New Error Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 22 11. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes the mechanisms to accomplish LSP stitching in A stitched Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic
the control (routing and signaling) and data planes, contrasting Engineering (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) is built from a set of
stitching with LSP hierarchy ([2]) as is meaningful. With the different LSP segments (S-LSPs) that are connected together in the
mechanism described here, the node performing the stitching does not data plane in such a way that a single end-to-end LSP is realized in
require configuration of the pair of LSPs to be stitched together. the data plane. In this document, we define the concept of LSP
Also, LSP stitching as defined here results in an end-to-end LSP both stitching and detail the control plane mechanisms and procedures
in the control and data planes. (routing and signaling) to accomplish this. Where applicable,
similarities and differences between LSP hierarchy [2] and LSP
stitching are highlighted. Signaling extensions required for LSP
stitching are also described here.
It may be possible to configure a GMPLS node to switch the traffic
from an LSP for which it is the egress, to another LSP for which it
is the ingress, without requiring any signaling or routing extensions
whatsoever, and such that the operation is completely transparent to
other nodes. This results in LSP stitching in the data plane, but
requires management intervention at the node where the stitching is
performed. With the mechanism described in this document, the node
performing the stitching does not require configuration of the pair
of S-LSPs to be stitched together. Also, LSP stitching as defined
here results in an end-to-end LSP both in the control and data
planes.
1.1. Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
2. Comparison with LSP Hierarchy
LSP hierarchy ([2]) provides signaling and routing procedures so LSP hierarchy ([2]) provides signaling and routing procedures so
that: that:
a. A Hierarchical LSP (H-LSP) can be created. Such an LSP created a. A Hierarchical LSP (H-LSP) can be created. Such an LSP created
in one layer can appear as a data link to LSPs in higher layers. in one layer can appear as a data link to LSPs in higher layers.
As such, one or more LSPs in a higher layer can traverse this As such, one or more LSPs in a higher layer can traverse this
H-LSP as a single hop; we call this "nesting". H-LSP as a single hop; we call this "nesting".
b. An H-LSP may be managed and advertised (although this is not a b. An H-LSP may be managed and advertised (although this is not a
skipping to change at page 4, line 36 skipping to change at page 5, line 8
it is advertised to use this H-LSP in path computation. If the it is advertised to use this H-LSP in path computation. If the
H-LSP TE link is advertised in the same instance of control plane H-LSP TE link is advertised in the same instance of control plane
(TE domain) in which the H-LSP was provisioned, it is then (TE domain) in which the H-LSP was provisioned, it is then
defined as a forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-LSP) and GMPLS nodes defined as a forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-LSP) and GMPLS nodes
can form a forwarding adjacency (FA) over this FA-LSP. There is can form a forwarding adjacency (FA) over this FA-LSP. There is
usually no routing adjacency between end points of an FA. An usually no routing adjacency between end points of an FA. An
H-LSP may also be advertised as a TE link in a different TE H-LSP may also be advertised as a TE link in a different TE
domain. In this case, the end points of the H-LSP are required domain. In this case, the end points of the H-LSP are required
have a routing adjacency between them. have a routing adjacency between them.
c. RSVP signaling for LSP setup can occur between nodes that do not c. RSVP signaling ([4], [5]) for LSP setup can occur between nodes
have a routing adjacency. that do not have a routing adjacency.
A stitched TE LSP comprises of different LSP segments (S-LSPs) that
are connected together in the data plane in such a way that a single
end-to-end LSP is realized in the data plane. In this document, we
define the concept of LSP stitching and detail the control plane
mechanisms and procedures to accomplish this. Where applicable,
similarities and differences between LSP hierarchy and LSP stitching
are highlighted. Signaling extensions required for LSP stitching are
also described here.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].
2. Comparison with LSP Hierarchy
In case of LSP stitching, instead of an H-LSP, an "LSP segment" In case of LSP stitching, instead of an H-LSP, an "LSP segment"
(S-LSP) is created between two GMPLS nodes. An S-LSP for stitching (S-LSP) is created between two GMPLS nodes. An S-LSP for stitching
is considered to be the moral equivalent of an H-LSP for nesting. An is considered to be the moral equivalent of an H-LSP for nesting. An
S-LSP created in one layer, unlike an H-LSP, provides a data link to S-LSP created in one layer, unlike an H-LSP, provides a data link to
other LSPs in the same layer. Similar to an H-LSP, an S-LSP could be other LSPs in the same layer. Similar to an H-LSP, an S-LSP could be
managed and advertised, although it is not required, as a TE link, managed and advertised, although it is not required, as a TE link,
either in the same TE domain as it was provisioned or a different either in the same TE domain as it was provisioned or a different
one. If so advertised, other GMPLS nodes can use the corresponding one. If so advertised, other Generalized Multiprotocol Label
S-LSP TE link in path computation. While there is a forwarding Switching (GMPLS) nodes can use the corresponding S-LSP TE link in
adjacency between end points of an H-LSP TE link, there is no path computation. While there is a forwarding adjacency between end
forwarding adjacency between end points of an S-LSP TE link. In this points of an H-LSP TE link, there is no forwarding adjacency between
aspect, an H-LSP TE link more closely resembles a 'basic' TE link as end points of an S-LSP TE link. In this aspect, an H-LSP TE link
compared to an S-LSP TE link. more closely resembles a 'basic' TE link as compared to an S-LSP TE
link.
While LSP hierarchy allows more than one LSP to be mapped to an While LSP hierarchy allows more than one LSP to be mapped to an
H-LSP, in case of LSP stitching, at most one LSP may be associated H-LSP, in case of LSP stitching, at most one LSP may be associated
with an S-LSP. Thus, if LSP-AB is an H-LSP between nodes A and B, with an S-LSP. Thus, if LSP-AB is an H-LSP between nodes A and B,
then multiple LSPs, say LSP1, LSP2, and LSP3 can potentially be then multiple LSPs, say LSP1, LSP2, and LSP3 can potentially be
'nested into' LSP-AB. This is achieved by exchanging a unique label 'nested into' LSP-AB. This is achieved by exchanging a unique label
for each of LSP1..3 over the LSP-AB hop, thereby separating the data for each of LSP1..3 over the LSP-AB hop, thereby separating the data
corresponding to each of LSP1..3 while traversing the H-LSP LSP-AB. corresponding to each of LSP1..3 while traversing the H-LSP LSP-AB.
Each of LSP1..3 may reserve some bandwidth on LSP-AB. On the other Each of LSP1..3 may reserve some bandwidth on LSP-AB. On the other
hand, if LSP-AB is an S-LSP, then at most one LSP, say LSP1, may be hand, if LSP-AB is an S-LSP, then at most one LSP, say LSP1, may be
stitched to the S-LSP LSP-AB. LSP-AB is then dedicated to LSP1 and stitched to the S-LSP LSP-AB. LSP-AB is then dedicated to LSP1 and
no other LSPs can be associated with LSP-AB. The entire bandwith on no other LSPs can be associated with LSP-AB. The entire bandwith on
S-LSP LSP-AB is allocated to LSP1. However, similar to H-LSPs, S-LSP LSP-AB is allocated to LSP1. However, similar to H-LSPs,
several S-LSPs may be bundled into a TE link ([11]). several S-LSPs may be bundled into a TE link ([11]).
The LSPs LSP1..3 which are either nested or stitched into another LSP The LSPs LSP1..3 which are either nested or stitched into another LSP
are termed as end-to-end (e2e) LSPs in the rest of this document. are termed as e2e LSPs in the rest of this document. Routing
Routing procedures specific to LSP stitching are detailed in procedures specific to LSP stitching are detailed in Section 4.
Section 4.
Targetted (non-adjacent) RSVP signaling defined in [2] is required Targetted (non-adjacent) RSVP signaling defined in [2] is required
for LSP stitching of an e2e LSP to an S-LSP. Specific extensions for for LSP stitching of an e2e LSP to an S-LSP. Specific extensions for
LSP stitching are described later in Section 5.1. Therefore, in the LSP stitching are described later in Section 5.1. Therefore, in the
control plane, there is one RSVP session corresponding to the e2e LSP control plane, there is one RSVP session corresponding to the e2e LSP
as well as one for each S-LSP. The creation and termination of an as well as one for each S-LSP. The creation and termination of an
S-LSP may be dictated by administrative control (statically S-LSP may be dictated by administrative control (statically
provisioned) or due to another incoming LSP request (dynamic). provisioned) or due to another incoming LSP request (dynamic).
Triggers for dynamic creation of an S-LSP may be different from that Triggers for dynamic creation of an S-LSP may be different from that
of an H-LSP and will be described in detail later. of an H-LSP and will be described in detail later.
3. Usage 3. Usage
3.1. Triggers for LSP segment setup 3.1. Triggers for LSP Segment Setup
An S-LSP may be created either by administrative control An S-LSP may be created either by administrative control
(configuration trigger) or dynamically due to an incoming LSP (configuration trigger) or dynamically due to an incoming LSP
request. LSP Hierarchy ([2]) defines one possible trigger for request. LSP Hierarchy ([2]) defines one possible trigger for
dynamic creation of FA-LSP by introducing the notion of LSP regions dynamic creation of FA-LSP by introducing the notion of LSP regions
based on Interface Switching Capabilities. As per [2], dynamic FA- based on Interface Switching Capabilities. As per [2], dynamic FA-
LSP creation may be triggered on a node when an incoming LSP request LSP creation may be triggered on a node when an incoming LSP request
crosses region boundaries. However, this trigger MUST NOT be used crosses region boundaries. However, this trigger MUST NOT be used
for creation of S-LSP for LSP stitching as described in this for creation of S-LSP for LSP stitching as described in this
document. In case of LSP stitching, the switching capabilities of document. In case of LSP stitching, the switching capabilities of
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 37
LSP stitching procedures described in this document are applicable to LSP stitching procedures described in this document are applicable to
GMPLS nodes that need to associate an e2e LSP with another S-LSP of GMPLS nodes that need to associate an e2e LSP with another S-LSP of
the same switching type and LSP hierarchy procedures do not apply. the same switching type and LSP hierarchy procedures do not apply.
E.g., if an e2e lambda LSP traverses an LSP segment TE link which is E.g., if an e2e lambda LSP traverses an LSP segment TE link which is
also lambda switch capable, then LSP hierarchy is not possible; in also lambda switch capable, then LSP hierarchy is not possible; in
this case, LSP switching may be an option. this case, LSP switching may be an option.
LSP stitching procedures can be used for inter-domain TE LSP LSP stitching procedures can be used for inter-domain TE LSP
signaling to stitch an inter-domain e2e LSP to a local intra-domain signaling to stitch an inter-domain e2e LSP to a local intra-domain
TE S-LSP ([8]). TE S-LSP ([18] and [8]).
LSP stitching may also be useful in networks to bypass legacy nodes LSP stitching may also be useful in networks to bypass legacy nodes
which may not have certain new capabilities in the control plane which may not have certain new capabilities in the control plane
and/or data plane. E.g., one suggested usage in case of P2MP RSVP and/or data plane. E.g., one suggested usage in the case of
LSPs ([7]) is the use of LSP stitching to stitch a P2MP RSVP LSP to point-to-multipoint (P2MP) RSVP LSPs ([7]) is the use of LSP
an LSP segment between P2MP capable LSRs in the network. The LSP stitching to stitch a P2MP RSVP LSP to an LSP segment between P2MP
capable Label Switching Routers (LSRs) in the network. The LSP
segment would traverse legacy LSRs that may be incapable of acting as segment would traverse legacy LSRs that may be incapable of acting as
P2MP branch points, thereby shielding them from the P2MP control and P2MP branch points, thereby shielding them from the P2MP control and
data path. Note, however, that such configuration may limit the data path. Note, however, that such configuration may limit the
attractiveness of RSVP P2MP and should carefully be examined before attractiveness of RSVP P2MP and should carefully be examined before
deployment. deployment.
4. Routing aspects 4. Routing Aspects
An S-LSP is created between two GMPLS nodes and it may traverse zero An S-LSP is created between two GMPLS nodes and it may traverse zero
or more intermediate GMPLS nodes. There is no forwarding adjacency or more intermediate GMPLS nodes. There is no forwarding adjacency
between the end points of an S-LSP TE link. So, although in the TE between the end points of an S-LSP TE link. So, although in the TE
topology, the end points of an S-LSP TE link are adjacent, in the topology, the end points of an S-LSP TE link are adjacent, in the
data plane, these nodes do not have an adjacency. Hence any data data plane, these nodes do not have an adjacency. Hence any data
plane resource identifier between these nodes is also meaningless. plane resource identifier between these nodes is also meaningless.
The traffic that arrives at the head end of the S-LSP is switched The traffic that arrives at the head end of the S-LSP is switched
into the S-LSP contiguously with a label swap and no label is into the S-LSP contiguously with a label swap and no label is
associated directly between the end nodes of the S-LSP itself. associated directly between the end nodes of the S-LSP itself.
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
Multiple S-LSPs between the same pair of nodes MAY be bundled using Multiple S-LSPs between the same pair of nodes MAY be bundled using
the concept of Link Bundling ([11]) into a single TE link. In this the concept of Link Bundling ([11]) into a single TE link. In this
case, each component S-LSP may be allocated to at most one e2e LSP. case, each component S-LSP may be allocated to at most one e2e LSP.
When any component S-LSP is allocated for an e2e LSP, the component's When any component S-LSP is allocated for an e2e LSP, the component's
unreserved bandwidth SHOULD be set to zero and the Minimum and unreserved bandwidth SHOULD be set to zero and the Minimum and
Maximum LSP bandwidth of the TE link SHOULD be recalculated. This Maximum LSP bandwidth of the TE link SHOULD be recalculated. This
will prevent more than one LSP from being computed and admitted over will prevent more than one LSP from being computed and admitted over
an S-LSP. an S-LSP.
5. Signaling aspects 5. Signaling Aspects
The end nodes of an S-LSP may or may not have a routing adjacency. The end nodes of an S-LSP may or may not have a routing adjacency.
However, they SHOULD have a signaling adjacency (RSVP neighbor However, they SHOULD have a signaling adjacency (RSVP neighbor
relationship) and will exchange RSVP messages with each other. It relationship) and will exchange RSVP messages with each other. It
may, in fact, be desirable to exchange RSVP Hellos directly between may, in fact, be desirable to exchange RSVP Hellos directly between
the LSP segment end points to allow support for state recovery during the LSP segment end points to allow support for state recovery during
Graceful Restart procedures as described in [4]. Graceful Restart procedures as described in [4].
In order to signal an e2e LSP over an LSP segment, signaling In order to signal an e2e LSP over an LSP segment, signaling
procedures described in section 8.1.1 of [2] MUST be used. procedures described in section 8.1.1 of [2] MUST be used.
Additional signaling extensions for stitching are described in the Additional signaling extensions for stitching are described in the
next section. next section.
5.1. RSVP-TE signaling extensions 5.1. RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions
The signaling extensions described here MUST be used for stitching an The signaling extensions described here MUST be used for stitching an
e2e packet or non-packet GMPLS LSP ([4]), to an S-LSP. e2e packet or non-packet GMPLS LSP ([4]), to an S-LSP.
Stitching an e2e LSP to an LSP segment involves the following two Stitching an e2e LSP to an LSP segment involves the following two
step process: step process:
1. Creating and preparing the S-LSP for stitching by signaling the 1. Creating and preparing the S-LSP for stitching by signaling the
desire to stitch between end points of the S-LSP; and desire to stitch between end points of the S-LSP; and
2. stitching the e2e LSP to the S-LSP. 2. stitching the e2e LSP to the S-LSP.
5.1.1. Creating and preparing LSP segment for stitching 5.1.1. Creating and Preparing an LSP Segment for Stitching
If a GMPLS node desires to create an S-LSP, i.e., one to be used for If a GMPLS node desires to create an S-LSP, i.e., one to be used for
stitching, then it MUST indicate this in the Path message for the stitching, then it MUST indicate this in the Path message for the
S-LSP. This signaling explicitly informs the S-LSP egress node that S-LSP. This signaling explicitly informs the S-LSP egress node that
the ingress node is planning to perform stitching over the S-LSP. the ingress node is planning to perform stitching over the S-LSP.
Since an S-LSP is not conceptually different from any other LSP, Since an S-LSP is not conceptually different from any other LSP,
explicitly signaling 'LSP stitching desired' helps clarify the data explicitly signaling 'LSP stitching desired' helps clarify the data
plane actions to be carried out when the S-LSP is used by some other plane actions to be carried out when the S-LSP is used by some other
e2e LSP. Also, in case of packet LSPs, this is what allows the e2e LSP. Also, in case of packet LSPs, this is what allows the
egress of the S-LSP to carry out label allocation as explained below. egress of the S-LSP to carry out label allocation as explained below.
Also, so that the head-end node can ensure that correct stitching Also, so that the head-end node can ensure that correct stitching
actions will be carried out at the egress node, the egress node MUST actions will be carried out at the egress node, the egress node MUST
signal this information back to the head-end node in the Resv, as signal this information back to the head-end node in the Resv, as
explained below. explained below.
In order to request LSP stitching on the S-LSP, we define a new bit In order to request LSP stitching on the S-LSP, we define a new bit
in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in
[3]: [3]:
Bit Number 5 (TBD): LSP stitching desired bit - This bit SHOULD be LSP stitching desired bit - This bit SHOULD be set in the Attributes
set in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the Path message for the
Path message for the S-LSP by the head-end of the S-LSP, that desires S-LSP by the head-end of the S-LSP, that desires LSP stitching. This
LSP stitching. This bit MUST NOT be modified by any other nodes in bit MUST NOT be modified by any other nodes in the network. Nodes
the network. Nodes other than the egress of the S-LSP SHOULD ignore other than the egress of the S-LSP SHOULD ignore this bit. The bit
this bit. number for this flag is defined in Section 7.1.
An LSP segment can be used for stitching only if the egress node of An LSP segment can be used for stitching only if the egress node of
the S-LSP is also ready to participate in stitching. In order to the S-LSP is also ready to participate in stitching. In order to
indicate this to the head-end node of the S-LSP, the following new indicate this to the head-end node of the S-LSP, the following new
bit is defined in the Flags field of the RRO Attributes subobject: bit is defined in the Flags field of the Record Route object (RRO)
Bit Number 5 (TBD): LSP segment stitching ready. Attributes subobject: "LSP segment stitching ready". The bit number
for this flag is defined in Section 7.1.
If an egress node of the S-LSP receiving the Path message, supports If an egress node of the S-LSP receiving the Path message, supports
the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "LSP stitching desired" bit, but cannot support the recognizes the "LSP stitching desired" bit, but cannot support the
requested stitching behavior, then it MUST send back a PathErr requested stitching behavior, then it MUST send back a PathErr
message with an error code of "Routing Problem" and an error sub- message with an error code of "Routing Problem" and an error value
code="Stitching unsupported" (TBD) to the head-end node of the S-LSP. of "Stitching unsupported" to the head-end node of the S-LSP. The
new error value is defined in Section 7.2.
If an egress node receiving a Path message with the "LSP stitching If an egress node receiving a Path message with the "LSP stitching
desired" bit set in the Flags field of received LSP_ATTRIBUTES, desired" bit set in the Flags field of received LSP_ATTRIBUTES,
recognizes the object, the TLV and the bit and also supports the recognizes the object, the TLV and the bit and also supports the
desired stitching behavior, then it MUST allocate a non-NULL label desired stitching behavior, then it MUST allocate a non-NULL label
for that S-LSP in the corresponding Resv message. Also, so that the for that S-LSP in the corresponding Resv message. Also, so that the
head-end node can ensure that the correct label (forwarding) actions head-end node can ensure that the correct label (forwarding) actions
will be carried out by the egress node and that the S-LSP can be used will be carried out by the egress node and that the S-LSP can be used
for stitching, the egress node MUST set the "LSP segment stitching for stitching, the egress node MUST set the "LSP segment stitching
ready" bit defined in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute sub- ready" bit defined in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute sub-
skipping to change at page 10, line 45 skipping to change at page 9, line 45
object but does not recognize the Attributes Flags TLV, or supports object but does not recognize the Attributes Flags TLV, or supports
the TLV as well but does not recognize this particular bit, then it the TLV as well but does not recognize this particular bit, then it
SHOULD simply ignore the above request. SHOULD simply ignore the above request.
An ingress node requesting LSP stitching MUST examine the RRO An ingress node requesting LSP stitching MUST examine the RRO
Attributes sub-object Flags corresponding to the egress node for the Attributes sub-object Flags corresponding to the egress node for the
S-LSP, to make sure that stitching actions are carried out at the S-LSP, to make sure that stitching actions are carried out at the
egress node. It MUST NOT use the S-LSP for stitching if the "LSP egress node. It MUST NOT use the S-LSP for stitching if the "LSP
segment stitching ready" bit is cleared. segment stitching ready" bit is cleared.
5.1.1.1. Steps to support Penultimate Hop Popping 5.1.1.1. Steps to Support Penultimate Hop Popping
Note that this section is only applicable to packet LSPs that use Note that this section is only applicable to packet LSPs that use
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) at the last hop, where the egress node Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) at the last hop, where the egress node
distributes the Implicit NULL Label ([9]) in the Resv Label. These distributes the Implicit NULL Label ([9]) in the Resv Label. These
steps MUST NOT be used for a non-packet LSP and for packet LSPs where steps MUST NOT be used for a non-packet LSP and for packet LSPs where
PHP is not desired. PHP is not desired.
When the egress node of an S-LSP receives a Path message for an e2e When the egress node of an S-LSP receives a Path message for an e2e
LSP using this S-LSP and this is a packet LSP, it SHOULD first check LSP using this S-LSP and this is a packet LSP, it SHOULD first check
if it is also the egress for the e2e LSP. If the egress node is the if it is also the egress for the e2e LSP. If the egress node is the
skipping to change at page 11, line 28 skipping to change at page 10, line 28
an implicit or explicit NULL upstream label; and only then proceed an implicit or explicit NULL upstream label; and only then proceed
with the signaling of the e2e LSP. with the signaling of the e2e LSP.
5.1.2. Stitching the e2e LSP to the LSP segment 5.1.2. Stitching the e2e LSP to the LSP segment
When a GMPLS node receives an e2e LSP request, depending on the When a GMPLS node receives an e2e LSP request, depending on the
applicable trigger, it may either dynamically create an S-LSP based applicable trigger, it may either dynamically create an S-LSP based
on procedures described above or it may map an e2e LSP to an existing on procedures described above or it may map an e2e LSP to an existing
S-LSP. The switching type in the Generalized Label Request of the S-LSP. The switching type in the Generalized Label Request of the
e2e LSP MUST be equal to the switching type of the S-LSP. Other e2e LSP MUST be equal to the switching type of the S-LSP. Other
constraints like ERO, bandwidth, local TE policies MUST also be used constraints like the explicit path encoded in the Explicit Route
for S-LSP selection or signaling. In either case, once an S-LSP has object (ERO), bandwidth, local TE policies MUST also be used for
been selected for an e2e LSP, the following procedures MUST be S-LSP selection or signaling. In either case, once an S-LSP has been
followed in order to stitch an e2e LSP to an S-LSP. selected for an e2e LSP, the following procedures MUST be followed in
order to stitch an e2e LSP to an S-LSP.
The GMPLS node receiving the e2e LSP setup Path message MUST use the The GMPLS node receiving the e2e LSP setup Path message MUST use the
signaling procedures described in [2] to send the Path message to the signaling procedures described in [2] to send the Path message to the
end point of the S-LSP. In this Path message, the node MUST identify end point of the S-LSP. In this Path message, the node MUST identify
the S-LSP in the RSVP_HOP. An egress node receiving this RSVP_HOP the S-LSP in the RSVP_HOP. An egress node receiving this RSVP_HOP
should also be able to identify the S-LSP TE link based on the should also be able to identify the S-LSP TE link based on the
information signaled in the RSVP_HOP. If the S-LSP TE link is information signaled in the RSVP_HOP. If the S-LSP TE link is
numbered, then the addressing scheme as proposed in [2] SHOULD be numbered, then the addressing scheme as proposed in [2] SHOULD be
used to number the S-LSP TE link. If the S-LSP TE link is used to number the S-LSP TE link. If the S-LSP TE link is
unnumbered, then any of the schemes proposed in [10] SHOULD be used unnumbered, then any of the schemes proposed in [10] SHOULD be used
skipping to change at page 12, line 41 skipping to change at page 11, line 40
stitching the recepients of the Label/Upstream Label MUST NOT process stitching the recepients of the Label/Upstream Label MUST NOT process
these labels. Also, at most one e2e LSP is associated with one these labels. Also, at most one e2e LSP is associated with one
S-LSP. If a node at the head-end of an S-LSP receives a Path Msg for S-LSP. If a node at the head-end of an S-LSP receives a Path Msg for
an e2e LSP that identifies the S-LSP in the ERO and the S-LSP an e2e LSP that identifies the S-LSP in the ERO and the S-LSP
bandwidth has already been allocated to some other LSP, then regular bandwidth has already been allocated to some other LSP, then regular
rules of RSVP-TE pre-emption apply to resolve contention for S-LSP rules of RSVP-TE pre-emption apply to resolve contention for S-LSP
bandwidth. If the LSP request over the S-LSP cannot be satisfied, bandwidth. If the LSP request over the S-LSP cannot be satisfied,
then the node SHOULD send back a PathErr with the error codes as then the node SHOULD send back a PathErr with the error codes as
described in [5]. described in [5].
5.1.3. RRO Processing for e2e LSP 5.1.3. RRO Processing for e2e LSPs
RRO procedures for the S-LSP specific to LSP stitching are already RRO procedures for the S-LSP specific to LSP stitching are already
described in Section 5.1.1. In this section we will look at the RRO described in Section 5.1.1. In this section we will look at the RRO
processing for the e2e LSP over the S-LSP hop. processing for the e2e LSP over the S-LSP hop.
An e2e LSP traversing an S-LSP, SHOULD record in the RRO for that An e2e LSP traversing an S-LSP, SHOULD record in the RRO for that
hop, an identifier corresponding to the S-LSP TE link. This is hop, an identifier corresponding to the S-LSP TE link. This is
applicable to both Path and Resv messages over the S-LSP hop. If the applicable to both Path and Resv messages over the S-LSP hop. If the
S-LSP is numbered, then the IPv4 or IPv6 address subobject ([5]) S-LSP is numbered, then the IPv4 or IPv6 address subobject ([5])
SHOULD be used to record the S-LSP TE link address. If the S-LSP is SHOULD be used to record the S-LSP TE link address. If the S-LSP is
unnumbered, then the Unnumbered Interface ID subobject as described unnumbered, then the Unnumbered Interface ID subobject as described
in [10] SHOULD be used to record the node's Router ID and Interface in [10] SHOULD be used to record the node's Router ID and Interface
ID of the S-LSP TE link. In either case, the RRO subobject SHOULD ID of the S-LSP TE link. In either case, the RRO subobject SHOULD
identify the S-LSP TE link end point. Intermediate links or nodes identify the S-LSP TE link end point. Intermediate links or nodes
traversed by the S-LSP itself SHOULD NOT be recorded in the RRO for traversed by the S-LSP itself SHOULD NOT be recorded in the RRO for
the e2e LSP over the S-LSP hop. the e2e LSP over the S-LSP hop.
5.1.4. Teardown of LSP segment 5.1.4. Teardown of LSP Segments
S-LSP teardown follows the standard procedures defined in [5] and S-LSP teardown follows the standard procedures defined in [5] and
[4]. This includes procedures without and with setting the [4]. This includes procedures without and with setting the
administrative status. Teardown of S-LSP may be initiated by either administrative status. Teardown of S-LSP may be initiated by either
the ingress, egress or any other node along the S-LSP path. the ingress, egress or any other node along the S-LSP path.
Deletion/teardown of the S-LSP SHOULD be treated as a failure event Deletion/teardown of the S-LSP SHOULD be treated as a failure event
for the e2e LSP associated with it and corresponding teardown or for the e2e LSP associated with it and corresponding teardown or
recovery procedures SHOULD be triggered for the e2e LSP. In case of recovery procedures SHOULD be triggered for the e2e LSP. In case of
S-LSP teardown for maintenance purpose, the S-LSP ingress node MAY S-LSP teardown for maintenance purpose, the S-LSP ingress node MAY
treat this to be equivalent to administratively shutting down a TE treat this to be equivalent to administratively shutting down a TE
link along the e2e LSP path and take corresponding actions to notify link along the e2e LSP path and take corresponding actions to notify
the ingress of this event. The actual signaling procedures to handle the ingress of this event. The actual signaling procedures to handle
this event is out of the scope of this document. this event is out of the scope of this document.
5.1.5. Teardown of e2e LSP 5.1.5. Teardown of e2e LSPs
e2e LSP teardown also follows standard procedures defined in [5] and e2e LSP teardown also follows standard procedures defined in [5] and
[4] either without or with the administrative status. Note, however, [4] either without or with the administrative status. Note, however,
that teardown procedures of e2e LSP and of S-LSP are independent of that teardown procedures of e2e LSP and of S-LSP are independent of
each other. So, it is possible that while one LSP follows graceful each other. So, it is possible that while one LSP follows graceful
teardown with adminstrative status, the other LSP is torn down teardown with adminstrative status, the other LSP is torn down
without administrative status (using PathTear/ResvTear/PathErr with without administrative status (using PathTear/ResvTear/PathErr with
state removal). state removal).
When an e2e LSP teardown is initiated from the head-end, and a When an e2e LSP teardown is initiated from the head-end, and a
skipping to change at page 14, line 18 skipping to change at page 13, line 13
was dynamically setup due to the e2e LSP setup request, then was dynamically setup due to the e2e LSP setup request, then
depending on local policy, the S-LSP MAY be torn down if no e2e LSP depending on local policy, the S-LSP MAY be torn down if no e2e LSP
is utilizing the S-LSP. Although the S-LSP may be torn down while is utilizing the S-LSP. Although the S-LSP may be torn down while
the e2e LSP is being torn down, it is RECOMMENDED that a delay be the e2e LSP is being torn down, it is RECOMMENDED that a delay be
introduced in tearing down the S-LSP once the e2e LSP teardown is introduced in tearing down the S-LSP once the e2e LSP teardown is
complete, in order to reduce the simultaneous generation of RSVP complete, in order to reduce the simultaneous generation of RSVP
errors and teardown messages due to multiple events. The delay errors and teardown messages due to multiple events. The delay
interval may be set based on local implementation. The RECOMMENDED interval may be set based on local implementation. The RECOMMENDED
interval is 30 seconds. interval is 30 seconds.
5.2. Summary of LSP Stitching procedures 5.2. Summary of LSP Stitching Procedures
5.2.1. Example topology 5.2.1. Example Topology
The following topology will be used for the purpose of examples The following topology will be used for the purpose of examples
quoted in the following sections. quoted in the following sections.
e2e LSP e2e LSP
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> (LSP1-2) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> (LSP1-2)
LSP segment (S-LSP) LSP segment (S-LSP)
====================> (LSP-AB) ====================> (LSP-AB)
C --- E --- G C --- E --- G
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 44
RESV RESV
<==================== (LSP segment stitching ready) <==================== (LSP segment stitching ready)
PATH (Upstream Label) PATH (Upstream Label)
+++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++ ++++++> +++++++ ++++++>
<++++++ +++++++ <++++++ +++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++
RESV (Label) RESV (Label)
5.2.2. LSP segment setup 5.2.2. LSP Segment Setup
Let us consider an S-LSP LSP-AB being setup between two nodes A and B Let us consider an S-LSP LSP-AB being setup between two nodes A and B
which are more than one hop away. Node A sends a Path message for which are more than one hop away. Node A sends a Path message for
the LSP-AB with "LSP stitching desired" set in Flags field of the LSP-AB with "LSP stitching desired" set in Flags field of
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. If the egress node B is ready to carry out LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. If the egress node B is ready to carry out
stitching procedures, then B will respond with "LSP segment stitching stitching procedures, then B will respond with "LSP segment stitching
ready" set in the Flags field of the RRO Attributes subobject, in the ready" set in the Flags field of the RRO Attributes subobject, in the
RRO sent in the Resv for the S-LSP. Once A receives the Resv for RRO sent in the Resv for the S-LSP. Once A receives the Resv for
LSP-AB and sees this bit set in the RRO, it can then use LSP-AB for LSP-AB and sees this bit set in the RRO, it can then use LSP-AB for
stitching. A cannot use LSP-AB for stitching if the bit is cleared stitching. A cannot use LSP-AB for stitching if the bit is cleared
in the RRO. in the RRO.
5.2.3. Setup of e2e LSP 5.2.3. Setup of an e2e LSP
Let us consider an e2e LSP LSP1-2 starting one hop before A on R1 and Let us consider an e2e LSP LSP1-2 starting one hop before A on R1 and
ending on node R2, as shown above. If the S-LSP has been advertised ending on node R2, as shown above. If the S-LSP has been advertised
as a TE link in the TE domain, and R1 and A are in the same domain, as a TE link in the TE domain, and R1 and A are in the same domain,
then R1 may compute a path for LSP1-2 over the S-LSP LSP-AB and then R1 may compute a path for LSP1-2 over the S-LSP LSP-AB and
identify the LSP-AB hop in the ERO. If not, R1 may compute hops identify the LSP-AB hop in the ERO. If not, R1 may compute hops
between A and B and A may use these ERO hops for S-LSP selection or between A and B and A may use these ERO hops for S-LSP selection or
signaling a new S-LSP. If R1 and A are in different domains, then signaling a new S-LSP. If R1 and A are in different domains, then
LSP1-2 is an inter-domain LSP. In this case, S-LSP LSP-AB, similar LSP1-2 is an inter-domain LSP. In this case, S-LSP LSP-AB, similar
to any other basic TE link in the domain will not be advertised to any other basic TE link in the domain will not be advertised
outside the domain. R1 would use either per-domain path computation outside the domain. R1 would use either per-domain path computation
([14]) or PCE based computation ([15]) for LSP1-2. ([14]) or PCE based computation ([15]) for LSP1-2.
5.2.4. Stitching of e2e LSP into an LSP segment 5.2.4. Stitching of an e2e LSP into an LSP Segment
When the Path message for the e2e LSP LSP1-2 arrives at node A, A When the Path message for the e2e LSP LSP1-2 arrives at node A, A
matches the switching type of LSP1-2 with the S-LSP LSP-AB. If the matches the switching type of LSP1-2 with the S-LSP LSP-AB. If the
switching types are not equal, then LSP-AB cannot be used to stitch switching types are not equal, then LSP-AB cannot be used to stitch
LSP1-2. Once the S-LSP LSP-AB to which LSP1-2 will be stitched has LSP1-2. Once the S-LSP LSP-AB to which LSP1-2 will be stitched has
been determined, the Path message for LSP1-2 is sent (via IP routing, been determined, the Path message for LSP1-2 is sent (via IP routing,
if needed) to node B with the IF_ID RSVP_HOP identifying the S-LSP if needed) to node B with the IF_ID RSVP_HOP identifying the S-LSP
LSP-AB. When B receives this Path message for LSP1-2, if B is also LSP-AB. When B receives this Path message for LSP1-2, if B is also
the egress for LSP1-2, and if this is a packet LSP requiring PHP, the egress for LSP1-2, and if this is a packet LSP requiring PHP,
then B will send a Resv refresh for LSP-AB with the NULL Label. In then B will send a Resv refresh for LSP-AB with the NULL Label. In
skipping to change at page 16, line 7 skipping to change at page 14, line 46
Label sent to either G or H on the S-LSP with the Label received from Label sent to either G or H on the S-LSP with the Label received from
R2. Node A ignores the Label on receipt of the Resv message and then R2. Node A ignores the Label on receipt of the Resv message and then
propagates the Resv to R1. A also sets up its data plane to swap the propagates the Resv to R1. A also sets up its data plane to swap the
Label sent to R1 with the Label received on the S-LSP from C or D. Label sent to R1 with the Label received on the S-LSP from C or D.
This stitches the e2e LSP LSP1-2 to an S-LSP LSP-AB between nodes A This stitches the e2e LSP LSP1-2 to an S-LSP LSP-AB between nodes A
and B. In the data plane, this yields a series of label swaps from R1 and B. In the data plane, this yields a series of label swaps from R1
to R2 along e2e LSP LSP1-2. to R2 along e2e LSP LSP1-2.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Similar to [2], this document permits that the control interface over From a security point of view, the changes introduced in this
which RSVP messages are sent or received need not be the same as the document model the changes introduced by [2]. That is, the control
data interface which the message identifies for switching traffic. interface over which RSVP messages are sent or received need not be
Also, the 'sending interface' and 'receiving interface' may change as the same as the data interface which the message identifies for
routing changes. So, these cannot be used to establish security switching traffic. But the capability for this function was
association between neighbors. Mechanisms described in [6] should be introduced in [4] to support the concept of out-of-fiber control
re-examined and may need to be altered to define new security channels, so there is nothing new in this concept for signaling or
associations based on receiver's IP address instead of the sending security.
and receiving interfaces. Also, this document allows the IP
destination address of Path and PathTear messages to be the IP The application of this facility means that the "sending interface"
address of a nexthop node (receiver's address) instead of the RSVP or "receiving interface" may change as routing changes. So, these
session destination address. So, [6] should be revisited to check if interfaces cannot be used to establish security association between
IPSec AH is now a viable means of securing RSVP-TE messages. neighbors, and security associations MUST be bound to the
communicating neighbors themselves.
[6] provides a solution to this issue: in Section 2.1, under "Key
Identifier", an IP address is a valid identifier for the sending (and
by analogy, receiving) interface. Since RSVP messages for a given
LSP are sent to an IP address that identifies the next/previous hop
for the LSP, one can replace all occurrences of 'sending [receiving]
interface' with 'receiver's [sender's] IP address' (respectively).
For example, in Section 4, third paragraph, instead of:
"Each sender SHOULD have distinct security associations (and keys)
per secured sending interface (or LIH). ... At the sender,
security association selection is based on the interface through
which the message is sent."
it should read:
"Each sender SHOULD have distinct security associations (and keys)
per secured receiver's IP address. ... At the sender, security
association selection is based on the IP address to which the
message is sent."
Thus the mechanisms of [6] can be used unchanged to establish
security associations between control plane neighbors.
This document allows the IP destination address of Path and PathTear
messages to be the IP address of a nexthop node (receiver's address)
instead of the RSVP session destination address. This means that the
use of the IPsec Authentication Header (AH) (ruled out in [6] because
RSVP messages were encapsulated in IP packets addressed to the
ultimate destination of the Path or PathTear messages) is now
perfectly applicable, and standard IPsec procedures can be used to
secure the message exchanges.
An analysis of GMPLS security issues can be found in [16].
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
The following values have to be defined by IANA for this document. IANA is requested to make the following codepoint allocations for
The registry is http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. this document.
7.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object 7.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object
The following new bit is being defined for the Attributes Flags TLV The "RSVP TE Parameters" registry includes the "Attributes Flags"
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric value should be assigned sub-registry.
by IANA.
IANA is requested to make an allocation for the following new bit
defined for the Attributes Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
The numeric value should be assigned by IANA. The value 5 is
suggested.
LSP stitching desired bit - Bit Number 5 (Suggested value) LSP stitching desired bit - Bit Number 5 (Suggested value)
This bit is only to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV on a Path This bit is only to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV on a Path
message. message.
The 'LSP stitching desired bit' has a corresponding 'LSP segment The 'LSP stitching desired bit' has a corresponding 'LSP segment
stitching ready' bit (Bit Number 5) to be used in the RRO Attributes stitching ready' bit (Bit Number 5) to be used in the RRO Attributes
sub-object. sub-object.
The following text is suggested for inclusion in the registry:
Path Resv RRO
Bit Name message message sub-object Reference
--- --------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ----------
5 LSP stitching desired Yes No Yes [This doc]
7.2. New Error Codes 7.2. New Error Codes
The following new error sub-code is being defined under the RSVP The "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry
error-code "Routing Problem" (24). The numeric error sub-code value includes the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes"
should be assigned by IANA. sub-registry.
Stitching unsupported - sub-code 23 (Suggested value) IANA is requested to assign a new error sub-code under the RSVP
error-code "Routing Problem" (24). The numeric error sub-code value
should be assigned by IANA. A value of 23 is suggested.
This error code is to be used only in an RSVP PathErr. This error code is to be used only in an RSVP PathErr.
The following text is suggested for inclusion in the registry:
24 Routing Problem [RFC3209]
23 = Stitching unsupported [This doc]
8. Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for his comments and The authors would like to thank Dimitri Papadimitriou and Igor
suggestions. The authors would also like to thank Dimitri Bryskin for their thorough review of the document and discussions
Papadimitriou and Igor Bryskin for their thorough review of the regarding the same.
document and discussions regarding the same.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) [2] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
skipping to change at page 19, line 36 skipping to change at page 17, line 36
[5] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. [5] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G.
Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels",
RFC 3209, December 2001. RFC 3209, December 2001.
[6] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic [6] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000. Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[7] Aggarwal, R., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE [7] Aggarwal, R., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE
LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-06 (work in progress), LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp, work in progress.
August 2006.
[8] Ayyangar, A. and J. Vasseur, "Inter domain GMPLS Traffic [8] Ayyangar, A. and J. Vasseur, "Inter domain GMPLS Traffic
Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions", Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-03 (work in progress), draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te, work in progress.
March 2006.
[9] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, [9] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci,
D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding",
RFC 3032, January 2001. RFC 3032, January 2001.
[10] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in [10] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in
Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)",
RFC 3477, January 2003. RFC 3477, January 2003.
[11] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in [11] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in
skipping to change at page 20, line 18 skipping to change at page 18, line 17
October 2005. October 2005.
[13] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Intermediate System to [13] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205, Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205,
October 2005. October 2005.
[14] Vasseur, J., "A Per-domain path computation method for [14] Vasseur, J., "A Per-domain path computation method for
establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", Switched Paths (LSPs)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03 (work in draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp, work in progress.
progress), August 2006.
[15] Farrel, A., "A Path Computation Element (PCE) Based [15] Farrel, A., "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
Architecture", draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05 (work in Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
progress), April 2006.
Authors' Addresses [16] Fang, L., et al., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", draft-fang-mpls-gmpls-security-framework, work in
progress.
Arthi Ayyangar (editor) [17] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.P., and Ayyangar, Arthi, "A Framework
for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, November 2006.
10. Authors' Addresses
Arthi Ayyangar
Nuova Systems Nuova Systems
2600 San Tomas Expressway 2600 San Tomas Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95051 Santa Clara, CA 95051
US
Email: arthi@nuovasystems.com Email: arthi@nuovasystems.com
Kireeti Kompella (editor) Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Jean Philippe Vasseur Jean Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road 300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
US
Email: jpv@cisco.com Email: jpv@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property 12. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 End of changes. 57 change blocks. 
153 lines changed or deleted 226 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/