MPLS Working Group M. Taillon Internet-Draft T. Saad Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Inc Expires: March 15, 2016 N. Tan Arista Networks A. Deshmukh M. Jork V. Beeram Juniper Networks September 12, 2015 RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for LSP Tunnels draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-02 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 March 15, 2016. Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Summary FRR Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject . . . . . . . 4 2.1.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Signaling Procedures Post Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Compatibilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] describe the mechanisms for the 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. Such signaling procedures are performed individually for each affected protected LSP. This may eventually lead to control plane scalability and latency issues under limited (memory and processing) resources after failure that affects a large number of protected LSPs traversing the same PLR and MP. In a large RSVP-TE LSPs scale deployment, a single P node acting as a PLR may host tens of thousands of protected RSVP-TE LSPs egressing Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 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 the node acting as PLR becomes busy rerouting protected LSPs signaling over the bypass tunnel(s) in one direction. In addition, its control plane acting as MP becomes busy merging RSVP states signaling received over bypass tunnels in the opposite direction. At the same time, the head-end PE nodes that are notified of the local repair at downstream P nodes, will attempt to (re)converge affected RSVP-TE LSPs onto newly computed paths - possibly traversing the same previously affected P node(s). As a result, the RSVP-TE control plane at the PLR and MP becomes overwhelmed by the amount of FRR RSVP-TE processing overhead following the link or node failure, and the competing other control plane protocol(s) (e.g. the IGP) that undergo their convergence at the same time. The extensions defined in this document enable an 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. Further, MESSAGE_ID objects for the rerouted PATH and RESV states are exchanged a-priori to the fault such that Summary Refresh procedures defined in [RFC2961] can continue to be used to refresh the rerouted state(s) after FRR has occurred. 1.1. 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]. 2. Summary FRR Signaling Procedures This document defines two new subobjects (IPv4 and IPv6 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects) in RSVP RECORD_ROUTE object to coordinate bypass tunnel assignment between the PLR and MP. These new subobjects are backward compatible with LSRs that do not recognize them (see section 4.4.5 in [RFC3209]). The document also defines a new RSVP SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object that is sent within an RSVP Path message to inform the MP that one or more groups of protected LSPs that are being protected by the bypass tunnel are being rerouted. 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 Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 group assignments via signaling. Once the PLR receives the acknowledgment, FRR signaling can proceed as group based. The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RRO subobject is used to inform the MP of the bypass tunnel being used by the PLR, the assigned Summary FRR Bypass_Group_Identifier for the protected LSP, and the MESSAGE_ID object that the PLR will use to refresh the protected LSP PATH state post FRR trigger. 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 provide the MESSAGE_ID object that the MP will use to refresh the protected LSP RESV state post FRR trigger (and also indicates support for this extension). 2.1. Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure Before Summary FRR procedures can be used, a handshake MUST be completed between the PLR and MP. This handshake is performed using RECORD_ROUTE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within both the RSVP Path and Resv messages. 2.1.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject The IPv4 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following format: Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 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_MESSAGE_ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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. 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_MESSAGE_ID A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by {{RFC2961}}. Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 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_MESSAGE_ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 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. Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address: 128 bits The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address. Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits The bypass tunnel group identifier. Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by {{RFC2961}}. 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 MESSAGE_ID object (flags SHOULD be clear, Epoch and Message_Identifier MUST be set according to [RFC2961]) that is used by the PLR to later match the last sent subobject and eliminate timing issues. The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier 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 signalling a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the RSVP Resv messsage RECORD_ROUTE object. With exception of the MESSAGE_ID object, all other fields of the received SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject are copied into the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT of the Resv message. The MESSAGE_ID object is set according to [RFC2961] with the Flags being clear. A new Message_Identifier MUST be used to acknowledge an updated PLR assignment. 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 (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID object). 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. Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 2.1.2. PLR Summary FRR 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). Upon updating the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject, the PLR MUST consider the protected LSP as not Summary FRR capable until a new handshake has completed. The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address. An implementation may choose to also add the interface IPv4/IPv6 address sub-object after 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. 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, the PLR determines if the MP has acknowledged the current PLR assignment. To be a valid acknowledgement, the received SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the Resv message MUST match the latest SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject sent with the Path message (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID) and the received Message_Identifier MUST be different (to prevent race condition during bypass assignment flip-flop). If the MP has acknowledged the bypass assignment then the LSP is now 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. 2.1.3. MP Summary FRR 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. The MESSAGE_ID is Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 extracted and recorded for the protected LSP PATH state. To acknowledge each PLR bypass assignment, a matching SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is prepared as per 2.2. Note, an MP may received more than a Path message with the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject from different upstream PLRs. In this case, the MP is expected to save all the received MESSAGE_IDs from the different PLRs. Post failure, the MP determines and activates the associated Sumamry Refresh ID to use once it receives and processes the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE from the PLR. Each SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address. An implementation may choose to also add the interface IPv4/IPv6 address sub-object after 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. Signaling Procedures Post Failure 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 [RFC4090] 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. The PLR MUST 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 message of the bypass tunnel for reroute signaling of Summary FRR LSPs. 2.2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is sent within an RSVP Path message 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. The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object has the following format: Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class = (TBD-3) (of the form 11bbbbbb) Class = SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class, C_Type = (TBD-4) 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 {{RFC2205}}] 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. 2.2.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure Post a failure event, when using the Summary FRR path signalling procedures, an individual RSVP Path message for each Summary FRR LSP is not signaled. Instead, 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 RSVP session 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 by the PLR in Section 2.2. The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the MP is activated. As a result, the MP may refresh the protected rerouted RESV state using Summary Refresh procedures. For each affected Summary FRR group, its group identifier is added to the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object. Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 2.2.3. MP Summary FRR 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 [RFC4090]. Once the above modifications are completed, the MP then performs the merge processing as per [RFC4090]. 4. The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the PLR is activated, meaning that the PLR may now refresh the protected rerouted PATH state using Summary Refresh procedures. 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. An individual RSVP Resv message for each successfully merged Summary FRR LSP is not signaled. The MP SHOULD immediately use Summary Refresh to refresh the protected LSP RESV state. 2.3. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs Refreshing of Summary FRR active LSPs is performed using Summary Refresh as defined by [RFC2961]. 3. 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 [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 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 [RFC3209], if not recognized SHOULD be ignored and forwarded. 4. Security Considerations This document introduces new RSVP subobjects, and one new RSVP object. 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. 5. 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 and assigns the values for RSVP-TE protocol parameters "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the registries in this namespace for "Route Record" types, IANA is requested to allocate two new RECORD_ROUTE object sub-types (IPv4 and IPv6) for the new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects. From the same registry, a new RSVP Class and C-type (of the form 11bbbbbb) is requested for the new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object defined in this document. 6. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997, . [RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F., and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions", RFC 2961, DOI 10.17487/RFC2961, April 2001, . Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, . [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005, . 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 Abhishek Deshmukh Juniper Networks Email: adeshmukh@juniper.net Markus Jork Juniper Networks Email: mjork@juniper.net Vishnu Pavan Beeram Juniper Networks Email: vbeeram@juniper.net Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 13]