idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04.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 is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character 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 (October 20, 2014) is 3476 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: 'RFC5852' is mentioned on line 112, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC4872' is mentioned on line 113, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC4783' is mentioned on line 114, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC4974' is mentioned on line 115, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 258, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext' is defined on line 280, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro-04 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6371 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-12 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 9 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Dong 3 Internet-Draft M. Chen 4 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies 5 Expires: April 23, 2015 Z. Li 6 China Mobile 7 D. Ceccarelli 8 Ericsson 9 October 20, 2014 11 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-04 14 Abstract 16 This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - 17 Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and 18 Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These 19 mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized 20 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane. 22 Requirements Language 24 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 25 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 26 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 23, 2015. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 52 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 53 publication of this document. Please review these documents 54 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 55 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 56 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 57 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 58 described in the Simplified BSD License. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 2. Extensions to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 3. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3.1. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3.2. Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 1. Introduction 77 The requirements for Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) in 78 Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) are 79 specified in [RFC5860], and the framework of LI and LB is specified 80 in [RFC6371]. 82 In general the LI and LB are useful Operations, Administration and 83 Maintenance (OAM) functions for technologies which use Generalized 84 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane, e.g. time- 85 division multiplexing, wavelength-division multiplexing and packet 86 switching. It is natural to use and extend the GMPLS control plane 87 protocol to provide a unified approach for LI and LB provisioning in 88 all these technologies. 90 This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - 91 Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support lock instruct and loopback 92 mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The mechanisms are 93 applicable to technologies which use GMPLS as control plane. For 94 MPLS-TP network, the mechanisms defined in this document are 95 complementary to [RFC6435]. 97 2. Extensions to RSVP-TE 99 The A (Administratively down) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object [RFC3471] 100 [RFC3473] is used to indicate the lock/unlock of the LSP. Format of 101 ADMIN_STATUS Object is as below: 103 0 1 2 3 104 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 1 105 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 106 | Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) | 107 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 108 |R| Reserved |H|L|I|C|T|A|D| 109 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 Reflect (R): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 112 Handover (H): 1 bit - see [RFC5852] 113 Lockout (L): 1 bit - see [RFC4872] 114 Inhibit Alarm Indication (I): 1 bit - see [RFC4783] 115 Call Control (C): 1 bit - see [RFC4974] 116 Testing (T): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 117 Administratively down (A): 1 bit - see [RFC3471], reused for Lock 118 Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 120 A new bit is defined in Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420] to indicate the 121 loopback mode. The bit number is TBA. 123 Bit Number Name and Usage 124 TBA Loopback mode desired. 125 This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is required 126 to enter loopback mode. 127 This MAY also be used for specifying the loopback state 128 of the node. 130 3. Operations 132 3.1. Lock Instruct 134 When an ingress LSR intends to put an LSP into lock mode, it MUST 135 send a Path message with the Administratively down (A) bit and the 136 Reflect (R) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. The intermediate nodes 137 SHOULD forward the message with the A bit unchanged to the downstream 138 . 140 On receipt of this Path message, the egress LSR SHOULD try to take 141 the LSP out of service. If the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) 142 locks the LSP successfully, it SHOULD send a Resv message with the A 143 bit in ADMIN_STATUS object set. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a PathErr 144 message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error 145 Value "Lock Failure", and the following Resv messages SHOULD be sent 146 with the A bit cleared. With this procedure, the intermediate nodes 147 would also be aware of whether the LSP is in Lock mode or not. 149 When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv 150 messages SHOULD keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. 152 When the ingress LSR intends to take the LSP out of the lock mode, it 153 MUST send a Path message with the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object 154 cleared. The intermediate nodes SHOULD forward this message with the 155 A bit unchanged to the downstream. 157 On receipt of this Path message, the egress LSR SHOULD try to bring 158 the LSP back to service. If the egress LSR unlocks the LSP 159 successfully, it SHOULD send a Resv message with the A bit in 160 ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a PathErr 161 message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error 162 Value "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv messages SHOULD be 163 sent with the A bit set. 165 When an LSP is taken out of lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv 166 messages SHOULD keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. 168 3.2. Loopback 170 The loopback request can be sent either to the egress LSR or to a 171 particular intermediate node. The mechanism defined in 172 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used for addressing the loopback 173 request to a particular node on the LSP. The loopback request is 174 acceptable only when the LSP is in lock mode. 176 When a ingress LSR intends to put a particular LSR on the LSP into 177 loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback bit in 178 the Attribute Flags TLV set. The mechanism defined in 179 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to address the loopback 180 request to the particular LSR. The Administratively down (A) bit in 181 ADMIN_STATUS object SHOULD be set to keep the LSP in lock mode. 183 On receipt of this Path message, the target LSR of the loopback 184 request SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node 185 puts the LSP into loopback mode successfully, it SHOULD set the 186 Loopback (B) bit in the Record Route Object (RRO) Attribute subobject 187 [RFC5420] and push this subobject onto the RRO object in the 188 corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down (A) bit in 189 ADMIN_STATUS object SHOULD also be set in the Resv message. If the 190 node cannot put the LSP into loopback mode, it SHOULD send a PathErr 191 message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error 192 Value "Loopback Failure". 194 When the ingress LSR intends to take the LSP out of loopback mode, it 195 MUST send a Path message with the Loopback (B) bit in the Attribute 196 Flags TLV cleared. The mechanism defined in 197 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that the 198 particular LSR SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The 199 Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object SHOULD be set. 201 On receipt of this Path message, the target LSR SHOULD try to take 202 the LSP out of loopback mode. If the node takes the LSP out of 203 loopback mode successfully, it SHOULD clear the Loopback (B) Bit in 204 the RRO Attribute subobject and push this subobject onto the RRO 205 object in the corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down 206 (A) Bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object SHOULD be set. Otherwise, the node 207 SHOULD send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" 208 [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Exit Loopback Failure". 210 4. IANA Considerations 212 One bit number "Loopback" needs to be assigned in the Attribute Flags 213 registry. 215 Four new Error Values need to be allocated for "OAM Problem" Error 216 Code: 218 Value Error 219 TBA Lock Failure 220 TBA Unlock Failure 221 TBA Loopback Failure 222 TBA Exit Loopback Failure 224 5. Security Considerations 226 This document does not introduce any new security issues above those 227 identified in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. 229 6. Acknowledgements 231 The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Lou Berger and Francesco 232 Fondelli for their comments and suggestions. 234 7. References 236 7.1. Normative References 238 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] 239 Margaria, C., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. Wright, 240 "LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute- 241 ro-04 (work in progress), July 2014. 243 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 244 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 246 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 247 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 248 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 250 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 251 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 252 January 2003. 254 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 255 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 256 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 258 [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 259 (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 261 [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. 262 Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP 263 Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic 264 Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. 266 [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for 267 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS 268 Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. 270 [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and 271 Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", 272 RFC 6371, September 2011. 274 [RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE 275 Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance 276 (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014. 278 7.2. Informative References 280 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] 281 Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P., Ward, D., 282 and A. Takacs, "Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, 283 Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS- 284 based Transport Networks using RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-ccamp- 285 rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-12 (work in progress), June 2013. 287 [RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M., 288 and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and 289 Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011. 291 Authors' Addresses 293 Jie Dong 294 Huawei Technologies 295 Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. 296 Beijing 100095 297 China 299 Email: jie.dong@huawei.com 301 Mach(Guoyi) Chen 302 Huawei Technologies 303 Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. 304 Beijing 100095 305 China 307 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 309 Zhenqiang Li 310 China Mobile 311 Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave. 312 Beijing 100053 313 China 315 Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com 316 Daniele Ceccarelli 317 Ericsson 318 Via A. Negrone 1/A 319 Genova - Sestri Ponente 320 Italy 322 Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com