idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 1478. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 1455. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 1462. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 1468. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust 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 2007) is 6310 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2402 (Obsoleted by RFC 4302, RFC 4305) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2406 (Obsoleted by RFC 4303, RFC 4305) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4139 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4306 (Obsoleted by RFC 5996) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CCAMP Working Group D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel) 2 Internet Draft A. Farrel (Old Dog Consulting) 3 Updates RFC 3473 4 Proposed Category: Standard Track 5 Expiration Date: July 2007 January 2007 7 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions 8 in support of Calls 10 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-02.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 21 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 Abstract 36 In certain networking topologies, it may be advantageous to maintain 37 associations between endpoints and key transit points to support an 38 instance of a service. Such associations are known as Calls. 40 A Call does not provide the actual connectivity for transmitting user 41 traffic, but only builds a relationship by which subsequent 42 Connections may be made. In Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) such Connections 43 are known as Label Switched Paths (LSPs). 45 This document specifies how GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling may be used and 46 extended to support Calls. These mechanisms provide full and logical 47 Call/Connection separation. 49 The mechanisms proposed in this document are applicable to any 50 environment (including multi-area), and for any type of interface: 51 packet, layer-2, time-division multiplexed, lambda, or fiber 52 switching. 54 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 56 Table of Content 58 1. Conventions used in this document ............................. 3 59 2. Introduction .................................................. 3 60 2.1 Applicability to ASON ........................................ 4 61 3. Requirements .................................................. 4 62 3.1 Basic Call Function .......................................... 4 63 3.2 Call/Connection Separation ................................... 4 64 3.3 Call Segments ................................................ 5 65 4. Concepts and Terms ............................................ 5 66 4.1 What is a Call? .............................................. 5 67 4.2 A Hierarchy of Calls, Connections, Tunnels and LSPs .......... 5 68 4.3 Exchanging Access Link Capabilities .......................... 6 69 4.3.1 Network-initiated Calls .................................... 7 70 4.3.2 User-initiated Calls ....................................... 7 71 4.3.3 Utilizing Call Setup ....................................... 7 72 5. Protocol Extensions for Calls and Connections ................. 8 73 5.1 Call Setup and Teardown ...................................... 8 74 5.2 Call Identification .......................................... 8 75 5.2.1 Long Form Call Identification .............................. 9 76 5.2.2 Short Form Call Identification ............................. 9 77 5.2.3 Short Form Call ID Encoding ................................ 9 78 5.3 LINK_CAPABILITY object ...................................... 10 79 5.4 Revised Message Formats ..................................... 11 80 5.4.1 Notify Message ............................................ 21 81 5.5 ADMIN_STATUS Object ......................................... 21 82 6. Procedures in Support of Calls and Connections ............... 32 83 6.1 Call/Connection Setup Procedures ............................ 32 84 6.2 Call Setup .................................................. 32 85 6.2.1 Accepting Call Setup ...................................... 54 86 6.2.2 Call Setup Failure and Rejection .......................... 65 87 6.3 Adding a Connections to a Call .............................. 65 88 6.3.1 Adding a Reverse Direction LSP to a Call .................. 76 89 6.4 Call-Free Connection Setup .................................. 76 90 6.5 Call Collision .............................................. 76 91 6.6 Call/Connection Teardown .................................... 87 92 6.6.1 Removal of a Connection from a Call ....................... 98 93 6.6.2 Removal of the Last Connection from a Call ................ 98 94 6.6.3 Teardown of an "Empty" Call ............................... 98 95 6.6.4 Attempted Teardown of a Call with Existing Connections .... 98 96 6.6.5 Teardown of a Call from the Egress ........................ 20 97 6.7 Control Plane Survivability ................................. 20 98 7. Applicability of Call and Connection Procedures .............. 21 99 7.1 Network-initiated Calls ..................................... 21 100 7.2 User-initiated Calls ........................................ 21 101 7.3 External Call Managers ...................................... 22 102 7.3.1 Call Segments ............................................. 22 103 8. Non-support of Call ID ....................................... 22 104 8.1 Non-Support by External Call Managers ....................... 23 105 8.2 Non-Support by Transit Node ................................. 23 107 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 109 8.3 Non-Support by Egress Node .................................. 24 110 9. Security Considerations ...................................... 24 111 9.1 Call and Connection Security Considerations ................. 24 112 10. IANA Considerations ......................................... 25 113 10.1 RSVP Objects ............................................... 25 114 10.2 RSVP Error Codes and Error Values .......................... 25 115 10.3 RSVP ADMIN_STATUS object Bits .............................. 25 116 11. Acknowledgements ............................................ 26 117 12. References .................................................. 26 118 12.1 Normative References ....................................... 26 119 12.2 Informative References ..................................... 27 120 13. Contact Addresses ........................................... 28 121 14. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 28 123 1. Conventions used in this document 125 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 126 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 127 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 129 In addition, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the 130 terminology used in [RFC3471], [RFC3473], [RFC3477] and [RFC3945]. 132 2. Introduction 134 This document defines protocol procedures and extensions to support 135 Calls within Generalized MPLS (GMPLS). 137 A Call is an association between endpoints and possibly between key 138 transit points (such as network boundaries) in support of an instance 139 of a service. The end-to-end association is termed a "Call," and the 140 association between two transit points or between an endpoint and a 141 transit point is termed a "Call Segment." An entity that processes a 142 Call or Call Segment is called a "Call Manager." 144 A Call does not provide the actual connectivity for transmitting user 145 traffic, but only builds a relationship by which subsequent 146 Connections may be made. In GMPLS such Connections are known as Label 147 Switched Paths (LSPs). 149 A Call may be associated with zero, one, or more than one Connection, 150 and a Connection may be associated with zero or one Call. Thus full 151 and logical Call/Connection separation is needed. 153 An example of the requirement for Calls can be found in the ITU-T's 154 Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) architecture [G.8080] 155 and specific requirements for support of Calls in this context can be 156 found in [RFC4139]. Note, however, that while the mechanisms 157 described in this document meet the requirements stated in [RFC4139], 158 they have wider applicability. 160 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 162 The mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable to any 163 packet (PSC) interface, layer-2 interfaces (L2SC), TDM capable 164 interfaces, LSC interfaces, or FSC interfaces. The mechanisms and 165 protocol extensions are backward compatible, and can be used for Call 166 management where only the Call Managers need to be aware of the 167 protocol extensions. 169 2.1 Applicability to ASON 171 [RFC4139] details the requirements on GMPLS signaling to satisfy the 172 ASON architecture described in [G.8080]. The mechanisms described in 173 this document meet the requirements for Calls as described in 174 Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of [RFC4139] and the additional Call-related 175 requirements in Sections 4.4, 4.7, 5 and 6 of [RFC4139]. 177 [ASON-APPL] describes the applicability of GMPLS protocols to the 178 ASON architecture. 180 3. Requirements 182 3.1 Basic Call Function 184 The Call concept is used to deliver the following capabilities. 186 - Verification and identification of the Call initiator (prior to 187 LSP setup). 189 - Support of virtual concatenation with diverse path component LSPs. 191 - Association of multiple LSPs with a single Call (note aspects 192 related to recovery are detailed in [RFC4426] and [GMPLS-E2E]). 194 - Facilitation of control plane operations by allowing operational 195 status change of the associated LSP. 197 Procedures and protocol extensions to support Call setup, and the 198 association of Calls with Connections are described in Section 5 and 199 onwards of this document. 201 3.2 Call/Connection Separation 203 Full and logical Call and Connection separation is required. That is: 205 - It MUST be possible to establish a Connection without dependence 206 on a Call. 208 - It MUST be possible to establish a Call without any associated 209 Connections. 211 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 213 - It MUST be possible to associate more than one Connection with a 214 Call. 216 - Removal of the last Connection associated with a Call SHOULD NOT 217 result in the automatic removal of the Call except as a matter of 218 local policy at the ingress of the Call. 220 - Signaling of a Connection associated with a Call MUST NOT require 221 the distribution or retention of Call-related information (state) 222 within the network. 224 3.3 Call Segments 226 Call Segment capabilities MUST be supported. 228 Procedures and (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling protocol extensions to 229 support Call Segments are described in Section 7.3.1 of this 230 document. 232 4. Concepts and Terms 234 The concept of a Call and a Connection are also discussed in the ASON 235 architecture [G.8080] and [RFC4139]. This section is not intended as 236 a substitute for those documents, but is a brief summary of the key 237 terms and concepts. 239 4.1 What is a Call? 241 A Call is an agreement between endpoints possibly in cooperation with 242 the nodes that provide access to the network. Call setup may include 243 capability exchange, policy, authorization and security. 245 A Call is used to facilitate and manage a set of Connections that 246 provide end to end data services. While Connections require state to 247 be maintained at nodes along the data path within the network, Calls 248 do not involve the participation of transit nodes except to forward 249 the Call management requests as transparent messages. 251 A Call may be established and maintained independently of the 252 Connections that it supports. 254 4.2 A Hierarchy of Calls, Connections, Tunnels and LSPs 256 Clearly there is a hierarchical relationship between Calls and 257 Connections. One or more Connections may be associated with a Call. A 258 Connection may not be part of more than one Call. A Connection may, 259 however, exist without a Call. 261 In GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC3473], a Connection is identified with a GMPLS 262 TE Tunnel. Commonly a Tunnel is identified with a single LSP, but it 264 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 266 should be noted that for protection, load balancing and many other 267 functions, a Tunnel may be supported by multiple parallel LSPs. The 268 following identification reproduces this hierarchy. 270 - Call IDs are unique within the context of the pair of addresses 271 that are the source and destination of the Call. 273 - Tunnel IDs are unique within the context of the Session (that is 274 the destination of the Tunnel). Applications may also find it 275 convenient to keep the Tunnel ID unique within the context of a 276 Call. 278 - LSP IDs are unique within the context of a Tunnel. 280 Note that the Call_ID value of zero is reserved and MUST NOT be used 281 during LSP-independent Call establishment. 283 Throughout the remainder of this document, the terms LSP and Tunnel 284 are used interchangeably with the term Connection. The case of a 285 Tunnel that is supported by more than one LSP is covered implicitly. 287 4.3 Exchanging Access Link Capabilities 289 In an overlay model, it is useful for the ingress node of an LSP to 290 know the link capabilities of the link between the network and the 291 remote overlay network. In the language of [RFC4208], the ingress 292 node can make use of information about the link between the egress 293 network node (NN) and the remote edge node (EN). We call this link 294 the egress network link. This information may allow the ingress node 295 to tailor its LSP request to fit those capabilities and to better 296 utilize network resources with regard to those capabilities. 298 For example, this might be used in transparent optical networks to 299 supply information on lambda availability on egress network links, 300 or, where the egress NN is capable of signal regeneration, it might 301 provide a mechanism for negotiating signal quality attributes (such 302 as bit error rate). Similarly, in multi-domain routing environments 303 it could be used to provide end-to-end selection of component links 304 (i.e., spatial attribute negotiation) where TE links have been 305 bundled based on technology specific attributes. 307 In some circumstances, the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) may 308 contain sufficient information for decisions to be made about which 309 egress network link to use. In other circumstances, the TED might not 310 contain this information and Call setup may provide a suitable 311 mechanism to exchange information for this purpose. The 312 Call-responder may use the Call parameters to select a subset of the 313 available egress network links between the egress NN and the remote 314 EN, and may report these links and their capabilities on the Call 315 response so that the Call-initiator may select a suitable link. 317 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 319 The sections that follow indicate the cases where the TED may be 320 used, and those where Call parameter exchange may be appropriate. 322 4.3.1 Network-initiated Calls 324 Network-initiated Calls arise when the ingress (and correspondingly 325 the egress) lie within the network and there may be no need to 326 distribute additional link capability information over and above the 327 information distributed by the TE and GMPLS extensions to the IGP. 328 Further, it is possible that future extensions to these IGPs will 329 allow the distribution of more detailed information including optical 330 impairments. 332 4.3.2 User-initiated Calls 334 User-initiated Calls arise when the ingress (and correspondingly the 335 egress) lie outside the network. Edge link information may not be 336 visible within the core network, nor (and specifically) at other edge 337 nodes. This may prevent an ingress from requesting suitable LSP 338 characteristics to ensure successful LSP setup. 340 Various solutions to this problem exist, including the definition of 341 static TE links (that is, not advertised by a routing protocol) 342 between the NNs and ENs. Nevertheless, special procedures may be 343 necessary to advertise to the edge nodes outside of the network 344 information about egress network links without also advertising the 345 information specific to the contents of the network. 347 In the future, when the requirements on the information that needs to 348 be supported are better understood, TE extensions to EGPs may be 349 defined that provide this function, and new rules for leaking TE 350 information between routing instances may be used. 352 4.3.3 Utilizing Call Setup 354 When IGP and EGP solutions are not available at the User-to-Network 355 Interface (UNI), there is still a requirement to have, at the local 356 edge nodes, the knowledge of the remote edge link capabilities. 358 The Call setup procedure provides an opportunity to discover edge 359 link capabilities of remote edge nodes before LSP setup is attempted. 361 - The Call-responder can return information on one or more egress 362 network links. The Call-reponder could return a full list of the 363 available links with information about the link capabilities, or it 364 could filter the list to return information about only those links 365 which might be appropriate to support the Connections needed by the 366 Call. To do this second option, the Call-responder must determine 367 such appropriate links from information carried in the Call request 368 including destination of the Call, and the level of service 370 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 372 (bandwidth, protection, etc.) required. 374 - On receiving a Call response, the Call-initiator must determine 375 paths for the Connections (LSPs) that it will set up. The way that 376 it does this is out of scope for this document since it is an 377 implementation-specific, algorithmic process. However, it can take 378 as input the information about the available egress network links 379 as supplied in the Call response. 381 The LINK_CAPABILITY object is defined to allow this information to be 382 exchanged. The information that is included in this object is similar 383 to that distributed by GMPLS-capable IGPs (see [RFC4202]). 385 5. Protocol Extensions for Calls and Connections 387 This section describes the protocol extensions needed in support of 388 Call identification and management of Calls and Connections. 389 Procedures for the use of these protocol extensions are described in 390 Section 6. 392 5.1 Call Setup and Teardown 394 Calls are established independently of Connections through the use of 395 the Notify message. The Notify message is a targeted message and does 396 not need to follow the path of LSPs through the network. 398 Simultaneous Call and Connection establishment (sometimes referred to 399 as piggybacking) is not supported. 401 5.2 Call Identification 403 As soon as the concept of a Call is introduced, it is necessary to 404 support some means of identifying the Call. This becomes particularly 405 important when Calls and Connections are separated and Connections 406 must contain some reference to the Call. 408 A Call may be identified by a sequence of bytes that may have 409 considerable (but not arbitrary) length. A Call ID of 40 bytes would 410 not be unreasonable. It is not the place of this document to supply 411 rules for encoding or parsing Call IDs, but it must provide a 412 suitable means to communicate Call IDs within the protocol. The full 413 Call identification is referred to as the long Call ID. 415 The Call_ID is only relevant at the sender and receiver nodes. 416 Maintenance of this information in the signaling state is not 417 mandated at any intermediate node. Thus no change in [RFC3473] 418 transit implementations is required and there are no backward 419 compatibility issues. Forward compatibility is maintained by using 420 the existing default values to indicate that no Call processing is 421 required. 423 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 425 Further, the long Call ID is not required as part of the Connection 426 (LSP) state even at the sender and receiver nodes so long as some 427 form of correlation is available. This correlation is provided 428 through the short Call ID. 430 5.2.1 Long Form Call Identification 432 The long Call ID is only required on the Notify message used to 433 establish the Call. It is carried in the "Session Name" field of the 434 SESSION_ATTRIBUTE Object on the Notify message. 436 A unique value per Call is inserted in the "Session Name" field by 437 the initiator of the Call. Subsequent network nodes MAY inspect this 438 object and MUST forward this object transparently across network 439 interfaces until reaching the egress node. Note that the structure of 440 this field MAY be the object of further formatting depending on the 441 naming convention(s). However, [RFC3209] defines the "Session Name" 442 field as a Null padded display string, and that any formatting 443 conventions for the Call ID must be limited to this scope. 445 5.2.2 Short Form Call Identification 447 The Connections (LSPs) associated with a Call need to carry a 448 reference to the Call - the short Call ID. A new field is added to 449 the signaling protocol to identify an individual LSP with the Call to 450 which it belongs. 452 The new field is a 16-bit identifier (unique within the context of 453 the address pairing provided by the Tunnel_End_Point_Address and the 454 Sender_Address of the SENDER TEMPLATE object) that MUST be exchanged 455 on the Notify message during Call initialization and is used on all 456 subsequent LSP messages that are associated with the Call. This 457 identifier is known as the short Call ID and is encoded as described 458 in Section 5.2.3. The Call ID MUST NOT be used as part of the 459 processing to determine the session to which an RSVP signaling 460 message applies. This does not generate any backward compatibility 461 issue since the reserved field of the SESSION object defined in 462 [RFC3209] MUST NOT be examined on receipt. 464 In the unlikely case of short Call_ID exhaustion, local node policy 465 decides upon specific actions to be taken, but might include the use 466 of second Sender_Address. Local policy details are outside of the 467 scope of this document. 469 5.2.3 Short Form Call ID Encoding 471 The short Call ID is carried in a 16-bit field in the SESSION object 472 carried on the Notify message used during Call setup, and on all 473 messages during LSP setup and management. The field used was 474 previously reserved (MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored 476 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 478 on receipt). This ensures backward compatibility with nodes that do 479 not utilize Calls. 481 The figure below shows the new version of the object. 483 Class = SESSION, Class-Num = 1, C-Type = 7(IPv4)/8(IPv6) 485 0 1 2 3 486 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 1 487 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 488 ~ IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel end point address ~ 489 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 490 | Call_ID | Tunnel ID | 491 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 492 | Extended Tunnel ID | 493 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 495 IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel End Point Address: 32 bits/128 bits (see [RFC3209]) 497 Call_ID: 16 bits 499 A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains 500 constant over the life of the Call. The Call_ID value MUST be 501 set to zero when there is no corresponding Call. 503 Tunnel ID: 16 bits (see [RFC3209]) 505 Extended Tunnel ID: 32 bits/128 bits (see [RFC3209]) 507 5.3 LINK_CAPABILITY object 509 The LINK_CAPABILITY object is introduced to support link capability 510 exchange during Call setup and MAY be included in a Notify message 511 used for Call setup. This optional object includes the link local 512 capabilities of a link joining the Call-initiating node (or 513 Call-terminating node) to the network. The specific node is indicated 514 by the source address of the Notify message. 516 The link reported can be a single link or can be a bundled link 517 [RFC4201]. 519 The Class Number is selected so that the nodes that do not recognize 520 this object drop it silently. That is, the top bit is set and the 521 next bit is clear. 523 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 525 This object has the following format: 527 Class-Num = TBA (form 10bbbbbb), C_Type = 1 529 0 1 2 3 530 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 1 531 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 532 | | 533 // (Subobjects) // 534 | | 535 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 537 The contents of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is defined as series of 538 variable-length data items called subobjects. The subobject format is 539 defined in [RFC3209]. 541 The following subobjects are currently defined. 542 - Type 1: the link local IPv4 address of a link or a numbered bundle 543 using the format defined in [RFC3209] 544 - Type 2: the link local IPv6 address of a link or a numbered bundle 545 using the format defined in [RFC3209] 546 - Type 4: the link local identifier of an unnumbered link or bundle 547 using the format defined in [RFC3477] 548 - Type 64: the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth corresponding to this 549 link or bundle (see [RFC4201]) 550 - Type 65: the interface switching capability descriptor (see 551 [RFC4202]) corresponding to this link or bundle (see also 552 [RFC4201]). 554 Note: future revisions of this document may extend the above list. 556 A single instance of this object MAY be used to exchange capablity 557 information relating to more than one link or bundled link. In this 558 case, the following ordering MUST be used: 559 - each link MUST be identified by an identifier subobject (Type 1, 2 560 or 4) 561 - capability subobjects (Type 64 or 65, and future subobjects) MUST 562 be placed after the identifier subobject for the link or bundle to 563 which they refer. 565 Mulitple instances of the LINK_CAPABILITY object within the same 566 Notify message are not supported by this specification. In the event 567 that a Notify message contains multiple LINK_CAPABILITY objects, the 568 receiver SHOULD process the first one as normal and SHOULD ignore 569 subsequent instances of the object. 571 5.4 Revised Message Formats 573 The Notify message is enhanced to support Call establishment and 574 teardown of Calls. See Section 6 for a description of the procedures. 576 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 578 5.4.1 Notify Message 580 The Notify message is modified in support of Call establishment by 581 the optional addition of the LINK CAPABILTY object. Further, the 582 SESSION ATTRIBUTE object is added to the sequence to 583 carry the long Call ID. The presence of the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object 584 MAY be used to distinguish a Notify message used for Call management, 585 but see Section 5.5 for another mechanism. The 586 MAY be used to simultaneously set up multiple Calls. 588 The format of the Notify Message is as follows: 590 ::= [ ] 591 [[ | ]...] 592 [ ] 593 594 596 ::= [ ] 598 ::= [ ] 599 [ ...] 600 [ ] 601 [ ] 602 [ | ] 604 ::= see [RFC3473] 606 ::= see [RFC3473] 608 5.5 ADMIN_STATUS Object 610 Notify messages exchanged for Call control and management purposes 611 carry a specific new bit (the Call Management or C bit) in the ADMIN 612 STATUS object. 614 [RFC3473] indicates that the format and contents of the ADMIN_STATUS 615 object are as defined in [RFC3471]. The new "C" bit is added for Call 616 control as shown below. 618 0 1 2 3 619 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 1 620 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 621 |R| Reserved |C|T|A|D| 622 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 624 Reflect (R): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 625 Testing (T): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 626 Administratively down (A): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 627 Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 629 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 631 Call Management (C): 1 bit 633 This bit is set when the message is being used to control 634 and manage a Call. 636 The procedures for the use of the C bit are described in Section 6. 638 6. Procedures in Support of Calls and Connections 640 6.1 Call/Connection Setup Procedures 642 This section describes the processing steps for Call and Connection 643 setup. 645 There are three cases considered: 647 - A Call is set up without any associated 648 Connection. It is assumed that Connections will be added to the 649 Call at a later time, but this is neither a requirement nor 650 a constraint. 652 - A Connection may be added to an existing Call. This may happen if 653 the Call was set up without any associated Connections, or if 654 another Connection is added to a Call that already has one or more 655 associated Connections. 657 - A Connection may be established without any reference to a Call 658 (see Section 6.4). This encompasses the previous LSP setup 659 procedure. 661 Note that a Call MUST NOT be imposed upon a Connection that is 662 already established. To do so would require changing the short Call 663 ID in the SESSION OBJECT of the existing LSPs and this would 664 constitute a change in the Session Identifier. This is not allowed by 665 existing protocol specifications. 667 Call and Connection teardown procedures are described later in 668 Section 6.6. 670 6.2 Call Setup 672 A Call is set up before, and independent of, LSP (i.e. Connection) 673 setup. 675 Call setup MAY necessitate verification of the link status and link 676 capability negotiation between the Call ingress node and the Call 677 egress node. The procedure described below is applied only once for a 678 Call and hence only once for the set of LSPs associated with a Call. 680 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 682 The Notify message (see [RFC3473]) is used to signal the Call setup 683 request and response. The new Call Management (C) bit in the 684 ADMIN_STATUS object is used to indicate that this Notify is managing 685 a Call. The Notify message is sent with source and destination 686 IPv4/IPv6 addresses set to any of the routable ingress/egress node 687 addresses respectively. 689 At least one session MUST be listed in the of 690 the Notify message. In order to allow for long identification of the 691 Call, the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object is added as part of the . Note that the ERROR SPEC object is not relevant in 693 Call setup and MUST carry the Error Code zero ("Confirmation") to 694 indicate that there is no error. 696 During Call setup, the ADMIN STATUS object is sent with the following 697 bits set. Bits not listed MUST be set to zero. 699 R - to cause the egress to respond 700 C - to indicate that the Notify message is managing a Call. 702 The SESSION, SESSION ATTRIBUTE, SENDER_TEMPLATE, SENDER_TSPEC objects 703 included in the of the Notify message are built as 704 follows. 706 - The SESSION object includes as Tunnel_End_Point_Address any of the 707 Call-terminating (egress) node's IPv4/IPv6 routable addresses. The 708 Call_ID is set to a non-zero value unique within the context of 709 the address pairing provided by the Tunnel_End_Point_Address and 710 the Sender_Address from the SENDER TEMPLATE object (see below). 711 This value will be used as the short Call ID carried on all 712 messages for LSPs associated with this Call. 714 Note that the Call_ID value of zero is reserved and MUST NOT be 715 used since it will be present in SESSION objects of LSPs 716 that are not associated with Calls. The Tunnel_ID of 717 the SESSION object is not relevant for this procedure and SHOULD 718 be set to zero. The Extended_Tunnel_ID of the SESSION object is 719 not relevant for this procedure and MAY be set to zero or to an 720 address of the ingress node. 722 - The SESSION ATTRIBUTE object contains priority flags. Currently no 723 use of these flags is envisioned, however, future work may 724 identify value in assigning priorities to Calls; accordingly the 725 Priority fields MAY be set to non-zero values. None of the Flags 726 in the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object is relevant to this process and 727 this field SHOULD be set to zero. The Session Name field is used 728 to carry the long Call Id as described in Section 5. 730 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 732 - The SENDER_TEMPLATE object includes as Sender Address any of the 733 Call-initiating (ingress) node's IPv4/IPv6 routable addresses. The 734 LSP_ID is not relevant and SHOULD be set to zero. 736 - The bandwidth value inserted in the SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC 737 objects MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD be set to zero 738 when sent. 740 Additionally, ingress/egress nodes that need to communicate their 741 respective link local capabilities may include a LINK_CAPABILITY 742 object in the Notify message. 744 The receiver of a Notify message may identify whether it is part of 745 Call management or reporting an error by the presence or absence of 746 the SESSION ATTRIUBTE object in the . Full 747 clarity, however, may be achieved by inspection of the new Call 748 Management (C) bit in the ADMIN STATUS object. 750 Note that the POLICY_DATA object may be included in the and MAY be used to identify requestor credentials, 752 account numbers, limits, quotas, etc. This object is opaque to RSVP, 753 which simply passes it to policy control when required. 755 Message IDs MUST be used during Call setup. 757 6.2.1 Accepting Call Setup 759 A node that receives a Notify message carrying the ADMIN STATUS 760 object with the R and C bits set is being requested to set up a Call. 761 The receiver MAY perform authorization and policy according to local 762 requirements. 764 If the Call is acceptable, the receiver responds with a Notify 765 message reflecting the information from the Call request with two 766 exceptions. 768 - The responder removes any LINK CAPABLITY object that was received 769 and MAY insert a LINK_CAPABILITY object that describes its own 770 access link. 772 - The ADMIN STATUS object is sent with only the C bit set. All other 773 bits MUST be set to zero. 775 The responder MUST use the Message ID object to ensure reliable 776 delivery of the response. If no Message ID Acknowledgement is 777 received after the configured number of retries, the responder SHOULD 778 continue to assume that the Call was successfully established. Call 779 liveliness procedures are covered in Section 6.7. 781 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 783 6.2.2 Call Setup Failure and Rejection 785 Call setup may fail or be rejected. 787 If the Notify message can not be delivered, no Message ID 788 acknowledgement will be received by the sender. In the event that the 789 sender has retransmitted the Notify message a configurable number of 790 times without receiving a Message ID Acknowledgement (as described in 791 [RFC2961]), the initiator SHOULD declare the Call failed and SHOULD 792 send a Call teardown request (see Section 6.6). 794 It is also possible that a Message ID Acknowledgement is received but 795 no Call response Notify message is received. In this case, the 796 initiator MAY re-send the Call setup request a configurable number of 797 times (see Section 6.7) before declaring that the Call has failed. At 798 this point the initiator MUST send a Call teardown request (see 799 Section 6.6). 801 If the Notify message cannot be parsed or is in error it MAY be 802 responded to with a Notify message carrying the error code 13 803 ("Unknown object class") or 14 ("Unknown object C-Type") if 804 appropriate to the error detected. 806 The Call setup MAY be rejected by the receiver because of security, 807 authorization or policy reasons. Suitable error codes already exist 808 [RFC2205] and can be used in the ERROR SPEC object included in the 809 Notify message sent in response. 811 Error response Notify messages SHOULD also use the Message ID object 812 to achieve reliable delivery. No action should be taken on the 813 failure to receive a Message ID Acknowledgement after the configured 814 number of retries. 816 6.3 Adding a Connections to a Call 818 Once a Call has been established, LSPs can be added to the Call. 819 Since the short Call ID is part of the SESSION Object, any LSP that 820 has the same Call ID value in the SESSION Object belongs to the same 821 Call, and the Notify message used to establish the Call carried the 822 same Call ID in its SESSION object. 824 There will be no confusion between LSPs that are associated with a 825 Call and those which are not, since the Call ID value MUST be equal 826 to zero for LSPs which are not associated with a Call, and MUST NOT 827 be equal to zero for a valid Call ID. 829 LSPs for different Calls can be distinguished because the Call ID is 830 unique within the context of the source address (in the SENDER 831 TEMPLATE object) and the destination address (in the SESSION object). 833 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 835 Ingress and egress nodes MAY group together LSPs associated with the 836 same Call and process them as a group according to implementation 837 requirements. Transit nodes need not be aware of the association of 838 multiple LSPs with the same Call. 840 The ingress node MAY choose to set the "Session Name" of an LSP to 841 match the long Call ID of the associated Call. 843 The C bit of the ADMIN STATUS object MUST NOT be set on LSP messages 844 including on Notify messages that pertain to the LSP and MUST be 845 ignored. 847 6.3.1 Adding a Reverse Direction LSP to a Call 849 Note that once a Call has been established it is symmetric. That is, 850 either end of the Call may add LSPs to the Call. 852 Special care is needed when managing LSPs in the reverse direction 853 since the addresses in the SESSION and SENDER TEMPLATE are reversed. 854 However, since the short Call ID is unique in the context of a given 855 ingress-egress address pair it may safely be used to associate the 856 LSP with the Call. 858 Note that since Calls are defined here to be symmetrical, the issue 859 of potential Call ID collision arises. This is discussed in Section 860 6.5. 862 6.4 Call-Free Connection Setup 864 It continues to be possible to set up LSPs as per [RFC3473] without 865 associating them with a Call. If the short Call ID in the SESSION 866 Object is set to zero, there is no associated Call and the Session 867 Name field in the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object MUST be interpreted simply 868 as the name of the session (see [RFC3209]). 870 The C bit of the ADMIN STATUS object MUST NOT be set on messages for 871 LSP control, including on Notify messages that pertain to LSPs, and 872 MUST be ignored when received on such messages. 874 6.5 Call Collision 876 Since Calls are symmetrical, it is possible that both ends of a Call 877 will attempt to establish Calls with the same long Call IDs at the 878 same time. This is only an issue if the source and destination 879 address pairs match. This situation can be avoided by applying some 880 rules to the contents of the long Call ID, but such mechanisms are 881 outside the scope of this document. 883 If a node that has sent a Call setup request and has not yet received 884 a response, itself receives a Call setup request with the same long 886 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 888 Call ID and matching source/destination addresses, it SHOULD process 889 as follows. 891 - If its source address is numerically greater than the remote 892 source address, it MUST discard the received message and continue 893 to wait for a response to its setup request. 895 - If its source address is numerically smaller than the remote 896 source address, it MUST discard state associated with the Call 897 setup that it initiated, and MUST respond to the received Call 898 setup. 900 If a node receives a Call setup request carrying an address pair and 901 long Call ID that match an existing Call, the node MUST return an 902 error message (Notify message) with the new Error Code "Call 903 Management" and the new Error Value "Duplicate Call" in response to 904 the new Call request, and MUST NOT make any changes to the existing 905 Call. 907 A further possibility for contention arises when short Call IDs are 908 assigned by a pair of nodes for two distinct Calls that are set up 909 simultaneously using different long Call IDs. In this event a node 910 receives a Call setup request carrying a short Call ID that matches 911 one that it previously sent for the same address pair. The following 912 processing MUST be followed. 914 - If the receiver's source address is numerically greater than the 915 remote source address, the receiver returns an error (Notify 916 message) with the new Error Code "Call Management" and the new 917 Error Value "Call ID Contention". 919 - If the receiver's source address is numerically less than the 920 remote source address, the receiver accepts and processes the Call 921 request. It will receive an error message sent as described above, 922 and at that point it selects a new short Call ID and re-sends the 923 Call setup request. 925 6.6 Call/Connection Teardown 927 As with Call/Connection setup, there are several cases to consider. 929 - Removal of a Connection from a Call 930 - Removal of the last Connection from a Call 931 - Teardown of an "empty" Call 933 The case of tearing down an LSP that is not associated with a Call 934 does not need to be examined as it follows exactly the procedures 935 described in [RFC3473]. 937 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 939 6.6.1 Removal of a Connection from a Call 941 An LSP that is associated with a Call may be deleted using the 942 standard procedures described in [RFC3473]. No special procedures are 943 required. 945 Note that it is not possible to remove an LSP from a Call without 946 deleting the LSP. It is not valid to change the short Call ID from 947 non-zero to zero since this involves a change to the SESSION object, 948 which is not allowed. 950 6.6.2 Removal of the Last Connection from a Call 952 When the last LSP associated with a Call is deleted, the question 953 arises as to what happens to the Call. Since a Call may exist 954 independently of Connections, it is not always acceptable to say that 955 the removal of the last LSP from a Call removes the Call. 957 The removal of the last LSP does not remove the Call and the 958 procedures described in the next Section MUST be used to delete the 959 Call. 961 6.6.3 Teardown of an "Empty" Call 963 When all LSPs have been removed from a Call, the Call may be torn 964 down or left for use by future LSPs. 966 Deletion of Calls is achieved by sending a Notify message just as for 967 Call setup, but the ADMIN STATUS object carries the R, D and C bits 968 on the teardown request and the D and C bits on the teardown 969 response. Other bits MUST be set to zero. 971 When a Notify message is sent for deleting a Call and the initiator 972 does not receive the corresponding reflected Notify message (or 973 possibly even the Message ID Ack), the initiator MAY retry the 974 deletion request using the same retry procedures as used during Call 975 establishment. If no response is received after full retry, the node 976 deleting the Call MAY declare the Call deleted, but under such 977 circumstances the node SHOULD avoid re-using the long or short Call 978 IDs for at least five times the Notify refresh period. 980 6.6.4 Attempted Teardown of a Call with Existing Connections 982 If a Notify request with the D bit of the ADMIN STATUS object set is 983 received for a Call for which LSPs still exist, the request MUST be 984 rejected with the Error Code "Call Management" and Error Value 985 "Connections Still Exist". The state of the Call MUST NOT be changed. 987 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 989 6.6.5 Teardown of a Call from the Egress 991 Since Calls are symmetric they may be torn down from the ingress or 992 egress. 994 When the Call is "empty" (has no associated LSPs) it may be deleted 995 by the egress sending a Notify message just as described above. 997 Note that there is a possibility that both ends of a Call initiate 998 Call deletion at the same time. In this case, the Notify message 999 acting as teardown request MAY be interpreted by its recipient as a 1000 teardown response. But since the Notify messages acting as teardown 1001 requests carry the R bit in the ADMIN STATUS object, they MUST be 1002 responded to anyway. If a teardown request Notify message is received 1003 for an unknown Call ID, it is, nevertheless, responded to in the 1004 affirmative. 1006 6.7 Control Plane Survivability 1008 Delivery of Notify messages is secured using message ID 1009 acknowledgements as described in previous sections. 1011 Notify messages provide end-to-end communication that does not rely 1012 on constant paths through the network. Notify messages are routed 1013 according to IGP routing information. No consideration is, therefore, 1014 required for network resilience (for example, make-before-break, 1015 protection, fast re-route), although end-to-end resilience is of 1016 interest for node restart and completely disjoint networks. 1018 Periodic Notify messages SHOULD be sent by the initiator and 1019 terminator of the Call to keep the Call alive and to handle ingress 1020 or egress node restart. The time period for these retransmissions is 1021 a local matter, but it is RECOMMENDED that this period should be 1022 twice the shortest refresh period of any LSP associated with the 1023 Call. When there are no LSPs associated with a Call, an LSR is 1024 RECOMMENDED to use a refresh period of no less than one minute. The 1025 Notify messages are identical to those sent as if establishing the 1026 Call for the first time, except for the LINK_CAPABILITY object, which 1027 may have changed since the Call was first established, due to, e.g., 1028 the establishment of Connections, link failures, or the addition of 1029 new component links. The current link information is useful for the 1030 establishment of subsequent Connections. A node that receives a 1031 refresh Notify message carrying the R bit in the ADMIN STATUS object 1032 MUST respond with a Notify response. A node that receives a refresh 1033 Notify message (response or request) MAY reset its timer - thus, in 1034 normal processing, Notify refreshes involve a single exchange once 1035 per time period. 1037 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1039 A node (sender or receiver) that is unsure of the status of a Call 1040 MAY immediately send a Notify message as if establishing the Call for 1041 the first time. 1043 Failure to receive a refresh Notify request has no specific meaning. 1044 A node that fails to receive a refresh Notify request MAY send its 1045 own refresh Notify request to establish the status of the Call. If a 1046 node receives no response to a refresh Notify request (including no 1047 Message ID Acknowledgement) a node MAY assume that the remote node is 1048 unreachable or unavailable. It is a local policy matter whether this 1049 causes the local node to teardown associated LSPs and delete the 1050 Call. 1052 In the event that an edge node restarts without preserved state, it 1053 MAY relearn LSP state from adjacent nodes and Call state from remote 1054 nodes. If a Path or Resv message is received with a non-zero Call ID 1055 but without the C bit in the ADMIN STATUS, and for a Call ID that is 1056 not recognized, the receiver is RECOMMENDED to assume that the Call 1057 establishment is delayed and ignore the received message. If the Call 1058 setup never materializes, the failure by the restarting node to 1059 refresh state will cause the LSPs to be torn down. Optionally, the 1060 receiver of such an LSP message for an unknown Call ID may return an 1061 error (PathErr or ResvErr message) with the error code "Call 1062 Management" and Error Value "Unknown Call ID". 1064 7. Applicability of Call and Connection Procedures 1066 This section considers the applicability of the different Call 1067 establishment procedures at the NNI and UNI reference points. This 1068 section is informative and is not intended to prescribe or prevent 1069 other options. 1071 7.1 Network-initiated Calls 1073 Since the link properties and other traffic-engineering attributes 1074 are likely known through the IGP, the LINK_CAPABILITY object is not 1075 usually required. 1077 In multi-domain networks, it is possible that access link properties 1078 and other traffic-engineering attributes are not known since the 1079 domains do not share this sort of information. In this case, the Call 1080 setup mechanism may include the LINK_CAPABILITY object. 1082 7.2 User-initiated Calls 1084 It is possible that the access link properties and other traffic- 1085 engineering attributes are not shared across the core network. In 1086 this case, the Call setup mechanism may include the LINK_CAPABILITY 1087 object. 1089 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1091 Further, the first node within the network may be responsible for 1092 managing the Call. In this case, the Notify message that is used to 1093 set up the Call is addressed by the user network edge node to the 1094 first node of the core network. Moreover, neither the long Call ID 1095 nor the short Call ID is supplied (the Session Name Length is set to 1096 zero and the Call ID value is set to zero). The Notify message is 1097 passed to the first network node which is responsible for generating 1098 the long and short Call IDs before dispatching the message to the 1099 remote Call end point (which is known from the SESSION object). 1101 Further, when used in an overlay context, the first core node is 1102 allowed (see [RFC4208]) to replace the Session Name assigned by the 1103 ingress node and passed in the Path message. In the case of Call 1104 management, the first network node: 1105 1) MAY insert a long Call ID in the Session Name of a Path message 1106 2) MUST replace the Session Name with that originally issued by the 1107 user edge node when it returns the Resv message to the ingress node. 1109 7.3 External Call Managers 1111 Third party Call management agents may be used to apply policy and 1112 authorization at a point that is neither the initiator nor terminator 1113 of the Call. The previous example is a particular case of this, but 1114 the process and procedures are identical. 1116 7.3.1 Call Segments 1118 Call Segments exist between a set of default and configured External 1119 Call Managers along a path between the ingress and egress nodes, and 1120 use the protocols described in this document. 1122 The techniques that are used by a given service provider to identify 1123 which External Call Managers within its network should process a 1124 given Call are beyond the scope of this document. 1126 An External Call Manager uses normal IP routing to route the Notify 1127 message to the next External Call Manager. Notify messages (requests 1128 and responses) are therefore encapsulated in IP packets that identify 1129 the sending and receiving External Call Managers, but the addresses 1130 used to identify the Call (the Sender Address in the SENDER TEMPLATE 1131 object and the Tunnel Endpoint Address in the SESSION object) 1132 continue to identify the endpoints of the Call. 1134 8. Non-support of Call ID 1136 It is important that the procedures described above operate as 1137 seamlessly as possible with legacy nodes that do not support the 1138 extensions described. 1140 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1142 Clearly, there is no need to consider the case where the Call 1143 initiator does not support Call setup initiation. 1145 8.1 Non-Support by External Call Managers 1147 It is unlikely that a Call initiator will be configured to send Call 1148 establishment Notify requests to an external Call manager, including 1149 the first network node, if that node does not support Call setup. 1151 A node that receives an unexpected Call setup request will fall into 1152 one of the following categories. 1154 - Node does not support RSVP. The message will fail to be delivered 1155 or responded. No Message ID Acknowledgement will be sent. The 1156 initiator will retry and then give up. 1158 - Node supports RSVP or RSVP-TE but not GMPLS. The message will be 1159 delivered but not understood. It will be discarded. No Message ID 1160 Acknowledgement will be sent. The initiator will retry and then 1161 give up. 1163 - Node supports GMPLS but not Call management. The message will be 1164 delivered, but parsing will fail because of the presence of the 1165 SESSION ATTRIBUTE object. A Message ID Acknowledgement may be sent 1166 before the parse fails. When the parse fails the Notify message 1167 may be discarded in which case the initiator will retry and then 1168 give up, alternatively a parse error may be generated and returned 1169 in a Notify message which will indicate to the initiator that Call 1170 management is not supported. 1172 8.2 Non-Support by Transit Node 1174 Transit nodes SHOULD NOT examine Notify messages that are not 1175 addressed to them. However, they will see short Call IDs in all 1176 messages for all LSPs associated with Calls. 1178 Previous specifications state that these fields SHOULD be ignored on 1179 receipt and MUST be transmitted as zero. This might interpreted by 1180 some implementations as meaning that the fields should be zeroed 1181 before the objects are forwarded. If this happens, LSP setup will not 1182 be possible. If either of the fields is zeroed either on the Path or 1183 the Resv message, the Resv message will reach the initiator with the 1184 field set to zero - this is indication to the initiator that some 1185 node in the network is preventing Call management. Use of Explicit 1186 Routes may help to mitigate this issue by avoiding such nodes. 1187 Ultimately, however, it may be necessary to upgrade the offending 1188 nodes to handle these protocol extensions. 1190 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1192 8.3 Non-Support by Egress Node 1194 It is unlikely that an attempt will be made to set up a Call to 1195 remote node that does not support Calls. 1197 If the egress node does not support Call management through the 1198 Notify message it will react (as described in Section 8.1) in the 1199 same way as an External Call Manager. 1201 9. Security Considerations 1203 Please refer to each of the documents referenced in the following 1204 sections for a description of the security considerations applicable 1205 to the features that they provide. 1207 9.1 Call and Connection Security Considerations 1209 Call setup is vulnerable to attacks both of spoofing and denial of 1210 service. Since Call setup uses Notify messages, the process can be 1211 protected by the use of the Integrity object to secure those messages 1212 as described in [RFC2205] and [RFC3473]. Deployments where 1213 security is a concern SHOULD use this mechanism. 1215 Implementations and deployments MAY additionally protect the 1216 Call setup exchange using end-to-end security mechanisms such as 1217 those provided by IPsec (see [RFC2402] and [RFC2406]), or using RSVP 1218 security [RFC2747]. 1220 Note, additionally, that the process of independent Call 1221 establishment, where the Call is set up separately from the LSPs, may 1222 be used to apply an extra level of authentication and policy for the 1223 end-to-end LSPs above that which is available with Call-less, 1224 hop-by-hop LSP setup. 1226 The frequency of Call establishment is application dependent and hard 1227 to generalize. Key exchange for Call-related message exchanges is 1228 therefore something that should be configured or arranged dynamically 1229 in different deployments according to the advice in [RFC4107]. Note 1230 that the remote RSVP-TE signaling relationship between Call endpoints 1231 is no different from the signaling relationship between LSRs that 1232 establish an LSP. That is, the LSRs are not necessarily IP-adjacent 1233 in the control plane in either case. Thus key exchange should be 1234 regarded as a remote procedure, not a single hop procedure. There are 1235 several procedures for automatic remote exchange of keys, and IKEv2 1236 [RFC4306] is particularly suggested in [RFC3473]. 1238 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1240 10. IANA Considerations 1242 10.1 RSVP Objects 1244 A new RSVP object is introduced. IANA is requested to make an 1245 assignment from the "RSVP Parameters" registry using the sub-registry 1246 "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types". 1248 o LINK_CAPABILITY object 1250 Class-Num = TBA (form 10bbbbbb - suggested value 132) 1252 The Class Number is selected so that nodes not recognizing 1253 this object drop it silently. That is, the top bit is set 1254 and the next bit is cleared. 1256 C-Type = 1 (TE Link Capabilities) 1258 The LINK_CAPABILITY object is only defined for inclusion on Notify 1259 messages. 1261 Refer to Section 5.3 of this document. 1263 10.2 RSVP Error Codes and Error Values 1265 A new RSVP Error Code and new Error Values are introduced. IANA is 1266 requested to make assignments from the "RSVP Parameters" registry 1267 using the sub-registry "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error 1268 Value Sub-Codes". 1270 o Error Codes: 1272 - Call Management (value TBA - suggested value 32) 1274 o Error Values: 1276 - Call Management/Call ID Contention (value TBA- suggested 1) 1277 - Call Management/Connections still Exist (value TBA- suggested 2) 1278 - Call Management/Unknown Call ID (value TBA- suggested 3) 1279 - Call Management/Duplicate Call (value TBA- suggested 4) 1281 10.3 RSVP ADMIN_STATUS object Bits 1283 [GMPLS-E2E] requests IANA to manage the bits of the RSVP ADMIN_STATUS 1284 object. A new "Administrative Status Information Flags" sub-registry 1285 of the "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry is created. 1287 This document defines one new bit, the C bit, to be tracked in that 1288 sub-registry. Bit number 28 is suggested. See Section 5.5 of this 1289 document. 1291 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1293 11. Acknowledgements 1295 The authors would like to thank George Swallow, Yakov Rekhter, 1296 Lou Berger, Jerry Ash and Kireeti Kompella for their very useful 1297 input to, and comments on, an earlier revision of this document. 1299 Thanks to Lyndon Ong and Ben Mack-Crane for lengthy discussions 1300 during and after working group last call, and to Deborah Brungard for 1301 a final, detailed review. 1303 Thanks to Suresh Krishnan for the GenArt review, and to Magnus 1304 Nystrom for discussions about security. 1306 12. References 1308 12.1 Normative References 1310 [GMPLS-E2E] Lang, J.P., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP- 1311 TE Extensions in support of End-to-End Generalized 1312 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery," 1313 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling, work in 1314 progress. 1316 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1317 Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1319 [RFC2205] R. Braden et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol 1320 (RSVP)- Version 1 Functional Specification," 1321 RFC 2205, September 1997. 1323 [RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header," 1324 RFC 2402, November 1998. 1326 [RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Payload 1327 (ESP)," RFC 2406, November 1998. 1329 [RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B. and M. Talwar, "RSVP 1330 Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 2747, January 1331 2000. 1333 [RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, 1334 F. and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead 1335 Reduction Extensions", RFC 2961, April 2001. 1337 [RFC3209] D. Awduche et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for 1338 LSP Tunnels," RFC 3209, December 2001. 1340 [RFC3471] L. Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized MPLS - 1341 Signaling Functional Description," RFC 3471, January 1342 2003. 1344 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1346 [RFC3473] L. Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling 1347 - RSVP-TE Extensions," RFC 3473, January 2003. 1349 [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered 1350 Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic 1351 Engineering (RSVP-TE)," RFC 3477, January 2003. 1353 [RFC3945] E. Mannie, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 1354 Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 1355 2004. 1357 [RFC4139] D. Papadimitriou, et al., "Requirements for Generalized 1358 MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Usage and Extensions for 1359 Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," RFC 1360 4139, July 2005. 1362 [RFC4201] Kompella K., Rekhter Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling 1363 in MPLS Traffic Engineering," RFC 4201, October 2005. 1365 [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter (Editors) et al., "Routing 1366 Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC 4202, 1367 October 2005. 1369 [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Rekhter, Y. 1370 "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 1371 User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation 1372 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the 1373 Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005. 1375 [RFC4306] Kaufman, C., Ed., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) 1376 Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005. 1378 [RFC4426] Lang, J.P., and B. Rajagopalan (Editors) et al., 1379 "Generalized MPLS Recovery Functional 1380 Specification," RFC 4426, March 2006. 1382 12.2 Informative References 1384 [ASON-APPL] D. Papadimitriou et. al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) 1385 RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically 1386 Switched Optical Network (ASON)," 1387 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason, work in progress. 1389 [RFC4107] S. Bellovin and R. Housley, "Guidelines for 1390 Cryptographic Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 1391 2005. 1393 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1395 For information on the availability of the following document, 1396 please see http://www.itu.int. 1398 [G.8080] ITU-T, "Architecture for the Automatically Switched 1399 Optical Network (ASON)," Recommendation G.8080/ 1400 Y.1304, November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003). 1402 13. Contact Addresses 1404 Dimitri Papadimitriou 1405 Alcatel-Lucent, 1406 Fr. Wellesplein 1, 1407 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 1408 Phone: +32 3 240-8491 1409 EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be 1411 Adrian Farrel 1412 Old Dog Consulting 1413 Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944 1414 EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk 1416 14. Authors' Addresses 1418 John Drake 1419 Boeing Satellite Systems 1420 2300 East Imperial Highway 1421 El Segundo, CA 90245 1422 EMail: John.E.Drake2@boeing.com 1424 Deborah Brungard (AT&T) 1425 Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave. 1426 Middletown, NJ 07748, USA 1427 EMail: dbrungard@att.com 1429 Zafar Ali (Cisco) 1430 100 South Main St. #200 1431 Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA 1432 EMail: zali@cisco.com 1434 Arthi Ayyangar (Nuova Systems) 1435 2600 San Tomas Expressway 1436 Santa Clara, CA 95051 1437 EMail: arthi@nuovasystems.com 1439 Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks) 1440 600 Technology Park Drive 1441 Billerica, MA, 01821, USA 1442 Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com 1444 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires February 2007 January 2007 1446 Intellectual Property Statement 1448 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 1449 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 1450 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 1451 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 1452 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 1453 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 1454 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 1455 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 1457 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 1458 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 1459 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 1460 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 1461 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 1462 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 1464 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1465 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1466 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 1467 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 1468 ipr@ietf.org. 1470 Disclaimer of Validity 1472 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1473 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1474 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 1475 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 1476 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 1477 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1478 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1480 Copyright Statement 1482 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 1484 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 1485 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 1486 retain all their rights.