Network Working Group J. Dong Internet-Draft M. Chen Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Expires: May 14, 2015 Z. Li China Mobile D. Ceccarelli Ericsson November 10, 2014 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-06 Abstract This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane. Requirements Language 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 [RFC2119]. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on May 14, 2015. Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB November 2014 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Lock Instruct Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Extensions for Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Introduction The requirements for Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) in Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) are specified in [RFC5860], and the framework of LI and LB is specified in [RFC6371]. In general the LI and LB are useful Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) functions for technologies which use Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane, e.g. time- division multiplexing, wavelength-division multiplexing and packet switching. It is natural to use and extend the GMPLS control plane protocol to provide a unified approach for LI and LB provisioning in all these technologies. Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB November 2014 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] specifies the RSVP-TE extensions for the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM functions, such as Continuity Check (CC), Connectivity Verification (CV), Delay Measurement (DM) and Loss Measurement (LM). The provisioning of on- demand OAM functions such as LI and LB are not covered in that document. This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support lock instruct and loopback mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use GMPLS as control plane. For MPLS-TP network, the mechanisms defined in this document are complementary to [RFC6435]. 2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB 2.1. Lock Instruct Indication In order to indicate the lock/unlock of the LSP, the A (Administratively down) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object [RFC3471] [RFC3473] is used. The format of ADMIN_STATUS Object is as below: 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(196)| C-Type (1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |R| Reserved |M|O|H|L|I|C|T|A|D| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1. Admin_Status Object Reflect (R): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] OAM Flows Enabled (M): 1 bit - see [RFC7260] OAM Alarms Enabled (O): 1 bit - see [RFC7260] Handover (H): 1 bit - see [RFC5852] Lockout (L): 1 bit - see [RFC4872] Inhibit Alarm Indication (I): 1 bit - see [RFC4783] Call Control (C): 1 bit - see [RFC4974] Testing (T): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] Administratively down (A): 1 bit - see [RFC3471], reused for Lock Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 2.2. Extensions for Loopback In order to indicate the loopback mode of LSP, a new bit flag is defined in the Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420]. Loopback flag: Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB November 2014 This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is required to enter loopback mode. This can also be used for specifying the loopback state of the node. - Bit number: TBA - Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes - Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No - Attribute flag carried in RRO Attributes subobject: Yes 3. Operational Procedures 3.1. Lock Instruct When an ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) intends to put an LSP into lock mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Administratively down (A) bit defined above and the Reflect (R) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. On receipt of this Path message, the egress LSR SHOULD try to take the LSP out of service. If the egress LSR locks the LSP successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS object set. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Lock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent with the A bit cleared. When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv messages SHOULD keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. When the ingress LSR intends to take the LSP out of the lock mode, it MUST send a Path message with the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. On receipt of this Path message, the egress LSR SHOULD try to bring the LSP back to service. If the egress LSR unlocks the LSP successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent with the A bit set. When an LSP is taken out of lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv messages SHOULD keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB November 2014 3.2. Loopback The loopback request can be sent either to the egress LSR or to a particular intermediate node. The mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used for addressing the loopback request to a particular node on the LSP. The ingress LSR MUST ensure that the LSP is in lock mode before it requests setting a particular node on the LSP into loopback mode. When a ingress LSR intends to put a particular node on the LSP into loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback bit defined above in the Attribute Flags TLV set. The mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to address the loopback request to the particular LSR. The Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set to indicate that the LSP is still in lock mode. On receipt of this Path message, the target LSR of the loopback request SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node puts the LSP into loopback mode successfully, it MUST set the Loopback (B) bit in the Record Route Object (RRO) Attribute subobject [RFC5420] and push this subobject onto the RRO object in the corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set in the Resv message. If the node cannot put the LSP into loopback mode, it MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Loopback Failure". When the ingress LSR intends to take the particular node out of loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback (B) bit in the Attribute Flags TLV cleared. The mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that the particular LSR SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode. On receipt of this Path message, the target LSR SHOULD try to take the LSP out of loopback mode. If the node takes the LSP out of loopback mode successfully, it MUST clear the Loopback (B) Bit in the RRO Attribute subobject and push this subobject onto the RRO object in the corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down (A) Bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object MUST be kept set in the Resv message. Otherwise, the node MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Exit Loopback Failure". After the loopback mode is cleared successfully, the ingress LSR MAY remove the Lock Instruct using the mechanism defined in section 3.1. Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB November 2014 4. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined in this document and summarized in this section. 4.1. Attribute Flags IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Attribute Flags". IANA is requested to assign a new bit flag as follows: Bit | | Attribute | Attribute | | No. | Name | Flags Path | Flags Resv | RRO | Reference ----+--------------+------------+------------+-----+-------------- TBA | Loopback | Yes | No | Yes | this document 4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes". IANA is requested to assign four new Error Value sub-codes for the "OAM Problem" Error Code: Value | Description | Reference -----------+-----------------------------+-------------- TBA | Lock Failure | this document TBA | Unlock Failure | this document TBA | Loopback Failure | this document TBA | Exit Loopback Failure | this document 5. Security Considerations This document does not introduce any new security issues above those identified in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. For a more comprehensive discussion of GMPLS security and attack mitigation techniques, please see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920]. 6. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Lou Berger and Francesco Fondelli for their comments and suggestions. Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB November 2014 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] Margaria, C., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. Wright, "LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute- ro-05 (work in progress), October 2014. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. [RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P., Ward, D., and A. Takacs, "Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS- based Transport Networks using RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-ccamp- rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-12 (work in progress), June 2013. [RFC4783] Berger, L., "GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information", RFC 4783, December 2006. Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB November 2014 [RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007. [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC 4974, August 2007. [RFC5852] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and S. Bardalai, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for LSP Handover from the Management Plane to the Control Plane in a GMPLS- Enabled Transport Network", RFC 5852, April 2010. [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", RFC 6371, September 2011. [RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M., and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011. Authors' Addresses Jie Dong Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: jie.dong@huawei.com Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. Beijing 100095 China Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB November 2014 Zhenqiang Li China Mobile Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave. Beijing 100053 China Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Daniele Ceccarelli Ericsson Via A. Negrone 1/A Genova - Sestri Ponente Italy Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com Dong, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 9]