idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 133 has weird spacing: '... Type x TBD...' == Line 149 has weird spacing: '...es TLVs as de...' -- The document date (February 24, 2013) is 4071 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-05 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CCAMP C. Margaria, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks 4 Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli 5 Expires: August 28, 2013 Cisco 6 S. Balls 7 B. Wright 8 Metaswitch 9 February 24, 2013 11 LSP Attribute in ERO 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-01 14 Abstract 16 LSP attributes can be specified or recorded for whole path, but they 17 cannot be targeted to a specific hop. This document proposes 18 alternative ways to extend the semantic for RSVP ERO object to target 19 LSP attributes to a specific hop. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2013. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 1.1. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 3. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.1. ERO LSP_ATTRIBUTE subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 68 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 1. Introduction 72 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched 73 Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit 74 Route (ERO) object and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209], 75 [RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. 76 Those route constraints are extended by a number of documents, 77 including element defined in [RFC6163], 78 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], 79 [I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb] or 80 [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]. 82 RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP attributes in 83 [RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint 84 extensions this document defines a mechanism to target LSP attributes 85 at a specific hop. 87 1.1. Contributing Authors 89 1.2. Requirements Language 91 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 92 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 93 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 95 2. Requirements 97 The requirement is to provide a generic mechanism to carry 98 information related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This 99 document does not restrict what that information can be used for. 100 LSP attribute defined [RFC5420] should be expressed in ERO and SERO 101 objects. 103 3. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject 105 The ERO LSP Attributes subobject may be carried in the ERO or SERO 106 object if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format 107 of an ERO subobject. 109 3.1. ERO LSP_ATTRIBUTE subobject 111 The length is variable and content MUST be the same as for the 112 LSP_ATTRIBUTE object with Attributes TLVs. The size of the ERO sub- 113 object limits the size of the LSP Attribute TLV to 250 bytes. The 114 typical size of currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs 115 applicable to a specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, OF and Metric) is not 116 foreseen to exceed this limit. 118 The ERO LSP attribute subobject is defined as follows: 120 0 1 2 3 121 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 1 122 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 |L| Type | Length | Reserved |R| 124 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 125 | | 126 // Attributes TLVs // 127 | | 128 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 130 See [RFC3209] for a description of L parameters. The attributes TLV 131 are encoded as defined in [RFC5420] section 3. 133 Type x TBD by IANA. 135 Length The Length contains the total length of the subobject in 136 bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be 137 always divisible by 4. 139 Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted 140 in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the ERO and 141 must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO 142 subobjects. 144 R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE 145 semantic. When set indicates required LSP attributes to be 146 processed by the node, when cleared the LSP attributes are not 147 required as described in Section 3.2. 149 Attributes TLVs as defined in [RFC5420] section 3. 151 3.2. Procedures 153 As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list 154 where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an 155 abstract node or link. The LSP attribute subobject must be appended 156 after the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], 157 [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. Several 158 LSP attribute subobject MAY be present, for each hop. 160 If a node is processing an LSP attribute subobject and does not 161 support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in 162 [RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This 163 node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error 164 value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object 165 included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized 166 subobject. 168 When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present 169 in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] section 170 5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV 171 present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] 172 section 4.2. 174 A node processing an LSP attribute subobject with an LSP_ATTRIBUTE 175 TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr with error 176 code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with 177 the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the left) to the 178 offending malformed subobject. The processing of the LSP_ATTRIBUTE 179 TLVs should be described in the documents defining them. 181 4. IANA Considerations 183 TBD once a final approach has been chosen. 185 5. Security Considerations 187 None. 189 6. Acknowledgments 191 The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and 192 Attila Takacs for inspiring this 193 [I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]. The authors also thanks Dirk 194 Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the 195 documents (version -00 up to -02). 197 7. References 199 7.1. Normative References 201 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 202 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 204 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 205 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 206 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 208 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 209 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 210 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 212 [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links 213 in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering 214 (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. 216 [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel, 217 "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. 219 [RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes - 220 Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 221 Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007. 223 [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. 224 Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP 225 Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic 226 Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. 228 [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving 229 Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation 230 Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009. 232 [RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource 233 Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key 234 Support", RFC 5553, May 2009. 236 7.2. Informative References 238 [I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound] 239 Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K., 240 and R. Kunze, "Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 241 Engineering (RSVP-TE) extension for signaling Objective 242 Function and Metric Bound", 243 draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-02 244 (work in progress), July 2012. 246 [I-D.dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb] 247 Dong, J., Chen, M., and Z. Li, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions 248 for Lock Instruct and Loopback", 249 draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb-05 (work in 250 progress), December 2012. 252 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling] 253 Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H. 254 Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched 255 Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-05 256 (work in progress), February 2013. 258 [I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes] 259 Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP 260 intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", 261 draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00 (work in 262 progress), October 2009. 264 [RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for 265 GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of 266 Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163, 267 April 2011. 269 Authors' Addresses 271 Cyril Margaria (editor) 272 Nokia Siemens Networks 273 St Martin Strasse 76 274 Munich, 81541 275 Germany 277 Phone: +49 89 5159 16934 278 Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com 280 Giovanni Martinelli 281 Cisco 282 via Philips 12 283 Monza 20900 284 IT 286 Phone: +39 039 209 2044 287 Email: giomarti@cisco.com 289 Steve Balls 290 Metaswitch 291 100 Church Street 292 Enfield EN2 6BQ 293 UJ 295 Phone: +44 208 366 1177 296 Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com 298 Ben Wright 299 Metaswitch 300 100 Church Street 301 Enfield EN2 6BQ 302 UJ 304 Phone: +44 208 366 1177 305 Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com