idnits 2.17.1 draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 13 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC3473]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 119: '...label value that MUST be used for tran...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 130: '...d in forwarding, SHOULD result in the ...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 2004) is 7400 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Lou Berger (Movaz Networks) 2 Internet Draft 3 Expiration Date: July 2004 5 January 2004 7 GMPLS Signaling Procedure For Egress Control 9 draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-01.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 14 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working 15 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 16 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 17 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 25 "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow 26 Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 28 Abstract 30 This note clarifies the procedures for the control of a label used on 31 an egress output/downstream interface. Such control is also known as 32 "Egress Control". Support for Egress Control is implicit in 33 Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling. This 34 note does not modify GMPLS signaling mechanisms and procedures and 35 should be viewed as an informative clarification of GMPLS Signaling 36 - Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) 37 Extensions, [RFC3473]. 39 1. Background 41 The ability to control a label used on an egress output/downstream 42 interface was one of the early requirements for GMPLS. In the 43 initial GMPLS drafts, this was called "Egress Control". As the GMPLS 44 drafts progressed, the ability to control a label on an egress 45 interface was generalized to support control of a label on any 46 interface. This generalization is seen in Section 6 of [RFC3471] and 47 Section 5.1 of [RFC3473]. In generalizing this functionality, the 48 procedures to support control of a label at the egress were also 49 generalized. While the result was intended to cover egress control, 50 this intention is not clear to all. This note reiterates the 51 procedures to cover control of a label used on an egress 52 output/downstream interface. 54 For context, the following is the text from the GMPLS signaling draft 55 dated June 2000: 57 6. Egress Control 59 The LSR at the head-end of an LSP can control the termination of the 60 LSP by using the ERO. To terminate an LSP on a particular outgoing 61 interface of the egress LSR, the head-end may specify the IP address 62 of that interface as the last element in the ERO, provided that that 63 interface has an associated IP address. 65 There are cases where the use of IP address doesn't provide enough 66 information to uniquely identify the egress termination. One case is 67 when the outgoing interface on the egress LSR is a component link of 68 a link bundle. Another case is when it is desirable to "splice" two 69 LSPs together, i.e., where the tail of the first LSP would be 70 "spliced" into the head of the second LSP. This last case is more 71 likely to be used in the non-PSC classes of links. 73 and 75 6.2. Procedures 77 The Egress Label subobject may appear only as the last subobject in 78 the ERO/ER. Appearance of this subobject anywhere else in the ERO/ER 79 is treated as a "Bad strict node" error. 81 During an LSP setup, when a node processing the ERO/RR performs Next 82 Hop selection finds that the second subobject is an Egress Label 83 Subobject, the node uses the information carried in this subobject to 84 determine the handling of the data received over that LSP. 85 Specifically, if the Link ID field of the subobject is non zero, then 86 this field identifies a specific (outgoing) link of the node that 87 should be used for sending all the data received over the LSP. If 88 the Label field of the subobject is not Implicit NULL label, this 89 field specifies the label that should be used as an outgoing label on 90 the data received over the LSP. 92 Procedures by which an LSR at the head-end of an LSP obtains the 93 information needed to construct the Egress Label subobject are 94 outside the scope of this document. 96 2. Egress Control Procedures 98 This section is intended to complement Section 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 of 99 [RFC3473]. The procedures described in those sections are not 100 modified. This section clarifies procedures related to the label 101 used on an egress output/downstream interface. 103 2.1. ERO Procedures 105 Egress Control occurs when the node processing an ERO is the egress 106 and the ERO contains one or more label subobjects. In this case, the 107 outgoing/downstream interface is indicated in the ERO as the last 108 listed local interface. Note that an interface may be numbered or 109 unnumbered. 111 To support Egress Control, an egress checks to see if the received 112 ERO contains an outgoing/downstream interface. If it does, the type 113 of the subobject or subobjects following the interface are examined. 114 If the associated LSP is unidirectional, one subobject is examined. 115 Two subobjects are examined for bidirectional LSPs. If the U-bit of 116 the subobject being examined is clear (0), then the value of the 117 label is copied into a new Label_Set object. Note, this Label_Set 118 object is for internal use only. This Label_Set object indicates the 119 label value that MUST be used for transmitting traffic associated 120 with the LSP on the indicated outgoing/downstream interface. 122 If the U-bit of the subobject being examined is set (1), then the 123 value of the label is used for upstream traffic associated with the 124 bidirectional LSP. Specifically, the label value will be used for 125 the traffic associated with the LSP that will be received on the 126 indicated outgoing/downstream interface. 128 Per [RFC3473], any errors encountered while processing the ERO, 129 including if the listed label(s) are not acceptable or cannot be 130 supported in forwarding, SHOULD result in the generation of a PathErr 131 message containing a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error. 133 2.2. RRO Procedures 135 In the case where an ERO is used to specify outgoing interface 136 information at the egress, the egress should include the specified 137 interface information and the specified label or labels, in the 138 corresponding RRO. 140 3. Security Considerations 142 This note clarifies procedures defined in [RFC3473]. As such, no new 143 security considerations are introduced. 145 4. IANA Considerations 147 None. 149 5. References 151 [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol 152 Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional 153 Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. 155 [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 156 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation 157 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", 158 RFC 3473, January 2003. 160 6. Contact Address 162 Lou Berger 163 Movaz Networks, Inc. 164 7926 Jones Branch Drive 165 Suite 615 166 McLean VA, 22102 167 Phone: +1 703 847-1801 168 Email: lberger@movaz.com 170 7. Intellectual Property Consideration 172 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 173 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 174 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 175 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 176 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 177 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 178 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 179 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 180 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 181 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 182 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 183 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 184 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 186 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 187 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 188 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 189 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 190 Director. 192 8. Full Copyright Statement 194 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 196 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 197 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 198 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 199 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 200 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 201 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 202 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 203 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 204 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 205 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 206 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 207 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 208 English. 210 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 211 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This 212 document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS 213 IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK 214 FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT 215 LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL 216 NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY 217 OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 219 Generated on: Thu Jan 22 16:09:40 2004