MPLS Working Group Mike Taillon INTERNET-DRAFT Tarek Saad Intended Status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Inc. Expires September 10, 2015 Nicholas Tan Arista Networks March 9, 2015 RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for LSP Tunnels draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-00 Abstract This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions that reduce the amount of RSVP signaling required for Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures and subsequently improve the scalability of the RSVP-TE signaling when undergoing FRR convergence post a link or node failure. Such extensions allow the RSVP message exchange between the Point of Local Repair (PLR) and the Merge Point (MP) to be independent of the number of protected LSPs traversing between them (eg. when bypass LSP FRR protection is used). The new signaling extensions are fully backwards compatible with nodes that do not support them. 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 September 9, 2015. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Summary FRR LSP Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RECORD_ROUTE subobject . . . 4 2.2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1. PLR Path Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.2. MP Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.3. PLR Resv Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Post FRR Trigger Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. PLR Summary FRR Path Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. MP Summary FRR Path Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4. MP Summary FRR Resv Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.5. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.6. Changing Summary FRR Active LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Compatibilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 1. Introduction Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures defined in [RSVP-TE-FRR] describe the mechanism for the Point of Local Repair (PLR) to reroute traffic and signaling of a protected RSVP-TE LSP onto the bypass tunnel in the event of a TE link or node failure. These signaling procedures are performed individually for each affected LSP and can lead to scalability and latency issues when the failure event affect a large number of protected LSPs between the same PLR and MP. In a scaled deployment, a single P node acting as a PLR may host tens of thousands of protected RSVP-TE LSPs egressing the same link, and likewise, act as a Merge Point (MP) for similar number of LSPs ingressing the same link. In the event of the failure of the link or neighbor node, the RSVP-TE control plane of PLR and MP becomes busy rerouting protected LSPs signaling over the bypass tunnel(s) in one direction, and merging signaling of received messages over bypass tunnels in the other direction, respectively. At the same time, head- end PE nodes that are notified of the local repair, attempt to (re)converge affected RSVP-TE LSPs over newly computed paths, possibly traversing the same P node. As a result, the RSVP-TE control plane at the PLR and MP becomes overwhelmed by the FRR processing overhead following link or node failure while also competing for CPU processing power with other control plane protocol(s) (e.g. IGP) also undergoing convergence. The extensions defined in this document enable a MP to become aware of the PLR's bypass assignment and allow FRR procedures between PLR and MP to be signaled and processed on groups of LSPs. 1.1. Summary FRR LSP Groups The PLR creates and manages Summary FRR LSP groups (Bypass_Group_Identifiers) and shares them with the MP via signaling. Protected LSPs sharing the same egress link and bypass assignment are grouped together and are assigned the same group. The MP maintains the PLR group assignments learned via signaling, and acknowledges the group assignments via signaling. Once the PLR receives the acknowledgement, FRR signaling can now be group based. 1.2. Terminology In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Coordination This document defines a new subobject in RSVP RECORD_ROUTE object, SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT, to extend RSVP-TE for summary fast- reroute signaling. This object is backward compatible with LSRs that do not recognize it (see section 4.4.5 in [RSVP-TE]). 2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RECORD_ROUTE subobject When used within an RSVP Path message, the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is used to inform the MP of the bypass tunnel being used by the PLR and the assigned Summary FRR Bypass_Group_Identifier for the protected LSP. When used within a RSVP Resv message, the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is used by the MP to acknowledge the PLR's bypass tunnel assignment, and indicate support for this extension. The IPv4 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Bypass_Tunnel_ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Group_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Summary_FRR_PLR_Generation_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 8 bits (TBD-1) IPv4 Summary FRR Bypass Assignment Length: 8 bits The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, including the Type and Length fields. Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits The bypass tunnel identifier. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address: 32 bits The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address. Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address: 32 bits The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address. Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits The bypass tunnel group identifier. Summary_FRR_PLR_Generation_Identifier The PLR generation identifier. The IPv6 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Bypass_Tunnel_ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Group_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Summary_FRR_PLR_Generation_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 Type: 8 bits (TBD-2) IPv6 Summary FRR Bypass Assignment Length: 8 bits The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, including the Type and Length fields. Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits The bypass tunnel identifier. Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address: 128 bits The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address. Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address: 128 bits The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address. Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits The bypass tunnel group identifier. Summary_FRR_PLR_Generation_Identifier The PLR generation identifier. 2.2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure Before Summary FRR procedures can be used, a handshake MUST be completed between the PLR and MP. This handshake is performed using RECORD_ROUTE subobject SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT within both the RSVP Path and Resv messages. The PLR assigns a bypass tunnel and Bypass_Group_Identifier for each protected LSP. The same Bypass_Group_Identifier is used for the set of protected LSPs that share the same bypass tunnel and traverse the same egress link and are not already rerouted. The PLR also generates a generation identifier (per LSP) that is used by the PLR to later match the last sent subobject and eliminate timing issues. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 The PLR MUST generate a new generation identifier (per LSP) each time the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject contents change; for example, when PLR changes the bypass tunnel assignment. The PLR notifies the MP of the bypass tunnel assignment via adding a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject to the RSVP Path message RECORD_ROUTE object for the protected LSP using procedure described in section 2.2.1. The MP acknowledges the PLR's assignment by echoing back the received SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the RSVP Resv messsage RECORD_ROUTE object. The PLR considers the protected LSP as Summary FRR capable only if the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects within the sent RSVP Path message RECORD_ROUTE and the received RSVP Resv message RECORD_ROUTE match exactly. If a matching subobject does not exist, or is later absent in a subsequent refresh, the PLR MUST consider the protected LSP as not Summary FRR capable. 2.2.1. PLR Path Signaling Procedure The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added to the RECORD_ROUTE object by each PLR in the RSVP Path message of the protected LSP to record the bypass tunnel assignment. This subobject is updated every time the PLR updates the bypass tunnel assignment (which triggers an RSVP Path change message). The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address. A node MUST NOT add a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject without also adding the node's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 2.2.2. MP Signaling Procedure Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with RECORD_ROUTE object, the MP processes all (there may be multiple PLRs for a single MP) SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASSS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching Bypass Destination address. The MP first ensures the existence of the bypass tunnel and that the Bypass_Group_Identifier is not already active. That is, an LSP cannot join a group that is already active. The MP builds a mirrored Summary FRR Group database per PLR, which is determined using the Bypass_Source_Address field. For each SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASSS_ASSIGNMENT subobject that is successfully processed, the MP mirrors the received SUMMARY_FFR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the RSVP Resv message RECORD_ROUTE object. Each SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address. A node MUST NOT add a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject without also adding an IPv4 or IPv6 subobject. When forwarding an RSVP Path message downstream, the MP MAY remove any/all SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching Bypass_Destination_Address. 2.2.3. PLR Resv Signaling Procedure Upon receiving an RSVP Resv message with RECORD_ROUTE object, the PLR checks if the expected SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is present. If present, and matches the last SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject sent within the RSVP Path message RECORD_ROUTE, then the MP has acknowledged the bypass assignment and the LSP is now ready for Summary FRR. If a matching SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is not present, the LSP remains not ready for Summary FRR. When forwarding an RSVP Resv message upstream, the PLR MAY remove any/all SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching Bypass_Source_Address. 3. Post FRR Trigger Signaling Upon detection of the fault (egress link or node failure) the PLR first performs the object modification procedures described by section 6.4.3 of [RSVP-TE-FRR] for all affected protected LSPs. For Summary FRR LSPs assigned to the same bypass tunnel a common RSVP_HOP and SENDER_TEMPLATE MUST be used. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 The PLR MUST first signal non-Summary FRR LSPs over the bypass tunnel before signaling the Summary FRR LSPs. This is needed to allow for the case when the PLR has recently changed a bypass assignment which the MP may not have processed the change yet. A new object SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE is defined and sent within the RSVP Path and Resv messages of the bypass tunnel for reroute signaling of Summary FRR LSPs. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 3.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object When sent within an RSVP Path message, the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is used to inform the MP (bypass tunnel destination) that one or more groups of protected LSPs that are being protected by the bypass tunnel are being rerouted and refreshed. When sent within an RSVP Resv message, the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is used to refresh one or more groups of LSPs that have been rerouted through the bypass tunnel. The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object has the following format: SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class = TBD (of the form 11bbbbbb) Class = SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class, C_Type = 1 (TBD) 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RSVP_HOP_Object | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Group_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | : | // : // | : | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Group_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ RSVP_HOP_Object: Class 3, as defined by [RSVP] Replacement HOP object to be applied to all LSPs associated with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits Bypass_Group_Identifier field from the RECORD_ROUTE object SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject(s) corresponding to all LSPs that the bypass headend (PLR) advertised this specific Bypass_Group_Identifier for. One or more Bypass_Group_Identifiers may be included. 3.2. PLR Summary FRR Path Signaling Procedure An individual RSVP Path message for each Summary FRR LSP is not signaled. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 To reroute Summary FRR LSPs via the bypass tunnel, the PLR adds the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object in the RSVP Path message of the bypass tunnel. The RSVP_HOP_Object field of the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is set to the common RSVP_HOP that was used during section 3. For each affected Summary FRR group, its group identifier is added to the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object. 3.3. MP Summary FRR Path Signaling Procedure Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object, the MP performs normal merging processing for each LSP associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier, as if it received individual RSVP Path messages for each Summary FRR LSP. For each Summary FRR LSP being merged, the MP first modifies the Path state as follows: 1. The RSVP_HOP object is copied from the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE RSVP_HOP_Object field. 2. The SENDER_TEMPLATE object SrcAddress field is copied from the bypass tunnel SENDER_TEMPLATE object. For the case where PLR is also the headend, and SENDER_TEMPLATE SrcAddress of the protected LSP and bypass tunnel are the same, the MP MUST use the modified HOP Hop Address field instead. 3. The ERO object is modified as per section 6.4.4. of [RSVP-TE- FRR] 4. The TIME_VALUES object is copied from the bypass tunnel RSVP Path message. Once the above modifications are completed, the MP then performs the merge processing as per [RSVP-TE-FRR]. A failure during merge processing of any individual rerouted LSP MUST result in an RSVP Path Error message and the LSP MUST not be removed from the Bypass_Group -- this is to cover the case where the RSVP Path Error message doesn't reach the PLR and the RSVP Path Error message may need to be resignaled. 3.4. MP Summary FRR Resv Signaling Procedure An individual RSVP Resv message for each successfully merged Summary FRR LSP is not signaled. Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object from the bypass tunnel RSVP Path message is copied into the RSVP Resv message of the bypass tunnel and signaled. 3.5. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs Refreshing of Summary FRR active LSPs is performed while refreshing the bypass tunnel itself. Upon recieving the bypass tunnel RSVP Resv refresh (either normal full refresh message, or using [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH] mechanism), the PLR MUST consider all Summary FRR LSPs associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier listed in the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object to have their Resv state also refreshed. The TIMES_VALUE of the bypass tunnel RSVP Resv message is used to calculate the lifetimes. Upon receiving the bypass tunnel RSVP Path refresh (either normal full refresh message, or using [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH] mechanism), the MP MUST consider all Summary FRR LSPs associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier listed in the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object to have their Path state also refreshed. The TIMES_VALUE of the bypass tunnel RSVP Path message is used to calculate the lifetimes. If a merge was previously unsuccessful and the Summary FRR LSP is being refreshed, the MP MUST re-signal the RSVP Path Error message. 3.6. Changing Summary FRR Active LSPs When a change to a Summary FRR active LSP is required, the protected LSP association with the currently FRR active Bypass_Group_Identifier MUST be withdrawn. This is accomplished by removing the appropriate SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject from the RECORD_ROUTE object and signaling this in the RSVP Path or Resv change message. Once disassociated from the Bypass_Group_Identifier, the protected rerouted LSP is no longer refreshed as per section 3.5, and MUST be refreshed independently (either normal full refresh message, or using [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH] mechanism). Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 12] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 4. Compatibilty The new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is to be defined with a class number in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non- supporting nodes. Per [RSVP], nodes not supporting this extension will ignore the object but forward it, unexamined and unmodified, in all messages. The new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RECORD_ROUTE subobject, as per section 4.4.5. of [RSVP-TE], if not recognized SHOULD be ignored and forwarded. 5. Security Considerations This document introduces new RSVP subobjects. Thus in the event of the interception of a signaling message, slightly more could be deduced about the state of the network than was previously the case. 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for the namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section. IANA maintains a name space for RSVP-TE TE parameters "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the registries in this namespace "Route Record" types, allocation of two new RECORD_ROUTE object sub-types (IPv4 and IPv6) for the new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject are required. A new RSVP Class (of the form 11bbbbbb) and C-type for the new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is required. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RSVP] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. [RSVP-TE] Steinberger, R. and O. Nicklass, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Frame Relay Service Level Definitions", RFC 3202, January 2002. [RSVP-TE-FRR]Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 13] INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 9, 2015 May 2005. [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH]Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F., and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions", RFC 2961, April 2001. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 7.2. Informative References Authors' Addresses Mike Taillon Cisco Systems, Inc. EMail: mtaillon@cisco.com Tarek Saad Cisco Systems, Inc. EMail: tsaad@cisco.com Nicholas Tan Arista Networks Email: ntan@arista.com Taillon, et al. Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 14]