idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 7 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 1, 2010) is 4894 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) == Missing Reference: 'MEF-TRAFFIC' is mentioned on line 261, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'SEC-FRAMEWORK' is mentioned on line 381, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC5920' is defined on line 436, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5467 (Obsoleted by RFC 6387) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Takacs 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Standards Track L. Berger 5 Expires: June 4, 2011 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 6 D. Caviglia 7 Ericsson 8 D. Fedyk 9 Alcatel-Lucent 10 J. Meuric 11 France Telecom Orange 12 December 1, 2010 14 GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) 15 draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-00.txt 17 Abstract 19 This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric 20 bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented 21 approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the 22 original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport 23 of traffic-related parameters. 25 Status of this Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2011. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 1.2. Approach Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . 5 64 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 2.1.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 2.2.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 2.3.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 3. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 71 4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 1. Introduction 84 GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label 85 Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching 86 technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing 87 (TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs 88 with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth 89 requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in 90 [RFC2205] and [RFC2210]. 92 GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs are bidirectional LSPs 93 that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction. 94 Support for bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth, was 95 previously discussed in the context of Ethernet, notably [GMPLS- 96 PBBTE] and [RFC6003]. In that context, asymmetric bandwidth support 97 was considered to be a capability that was unlikely to be deployed, 98 and hence [RFC5467] was published as Experimental. The MPLS 99 Transport Profile, MPLS-TP, requires that asymmetric bandwidth 100 bidirectional LSPs be supported, see [RFC5654], and therefore this 101 document is being published on the Standards Track. This document 102 has no technical changes from the approach defined in [RFC5467]. 103 This document removes an alternate approach that is not part of the 104 Standards Track solution. 106 1.1. Background 108 Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210], 109 [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to 110 RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model 111 for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP 112 session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model 113 of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209], 114 used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the 115 FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used 116 to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC 117 object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that 118 should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC 119 object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the 120 actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic. 122 With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473], the model 123 of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In 124 the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object 125 indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream 126 directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the 127 allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either 128 unmodified and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is 129 implicitly or explicitly ([RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) irrelevant. 131 1.2. Approach Overview 133 The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs 134 defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the 135 transport of traffic-related parameters and GMPLS's support for 136 bidirectional LSPs. 138 The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching 139 technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing 140 SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the 141 addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and 142 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. The existing objects are used in the 143 original fashion defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only 144 to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream 145 direction. The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as 146 the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 147 shows the bandwidth-related objects used for asymmetric bandwidth 148 bidirectional LSPs. 150 |---| Path |---| 151 | I |------------------->| E | 152 | n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g | 153 | g | -ADSPEC | r | 154 | r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e | 155 | e | | s | 156 | s | Resv | s | 157 | s |<-------------------| | 158 | | -FLOWSPEC | | 159 | | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | | 160 | | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | | 161 |---| |---| 163 Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs 165 The extensions defined in this document are limited to Point-to-Point 166 (P2P) LSPs. Support for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) bidirectional 167 LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this 168 document. 170 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document 172 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 173 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 174 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 176 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs 178 The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled 179 using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with 180 the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC, and 181 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects. 183 The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in 184 the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in 185 that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while 186 the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream 187 direction. The new objects also differ in that they are carried on 188 messages traveling in the opposite direction. 190 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object 192 The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC 193 object. This includes the definition of class types and their 194 formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is 120 (of 195 the form 0bbbbbbb). 197 2.1.1. Procedures 199 The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST 200 contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional 201 LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The C-Type of the 202 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC 203 object used in the Path message. The contents of the 204 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and 205 procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC 206 object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328]. 208 Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC 209 object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object in the 210 upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in 211 Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is 212 unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the 213 contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message 214 with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication. 216 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object 218 The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC 219 object. This includes the definition of class types and their 220 formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is 121 (of 221 the form 0bbbbbbb). 223 2.2.1. Procedures 225 The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates 226 at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any 227 Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an 228 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object 229 MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. 230 The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be constructed using a 231 format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the 232 FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or 233 [RFC4328]. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MAY differ from 234 contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data 235 transmission requirements. 237 When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress 238 MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to 239 satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path 240 message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the 241 resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification 242 might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might 243 result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not 244 available. 246 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object 248 The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC 249 object. This includes the definition of class types and their 250 formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is 122 (of 251 the form 0bbbbbbb). 253 2.3.1. Procedures 255 The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that 256 corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. 257 The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the 258 C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents 259 of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and 260 procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object 261 that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The 262 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the 263 ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes. 265 3. Packet Formats 267 This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by 268 this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205], 269 [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RFC5511] for the syntax used by RSVP. 270 Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in 271 this section: 273 Object name Applicable RSVP messages 274 --------------- ------------------------ 275 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify 276 (via sender descriptor) 277 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and 278 Notify (via flow descriptor list) 279 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and 280 Notify (via flow descriptor list) 282 The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric 283 LSPs is: 285 ::= 286 [ ] 287 [ ] 288 [ ] 289 [ ] 290 291 293 The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric 294 LSPs is: 296 ::= 297 | 299 ::= 300 [ ] 301 302