idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-06.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 -- The document date (November 10, 2014) is 3417 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-12 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: May 14, 2015 Z. Li 6 China Mobile 7 D. Ceccarelli 8 Ericsson 9 November 10, 2014 11 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-li-lb-06 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 May 14, 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. Flag Definitions for LI and LB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2.1. Lock Instruct Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.2. Extensions for Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3. Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 3.1. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 3.2. Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 4.1. Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 79 1. Introduction 81 The requirements for Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) in 82 Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) are 83 specified in [RFC5860], and the framework of LI and LB is specified 84 in [RFC6371]. 86 In general the LI and LB are useful Operations, Administration and 87 Maintenance (OAM) functions for technologies which use Generalized 88 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) as control plane, e.g. time- 89 division multiplexing, wavelength-division multiplexing and packet 90 switching. It is natural to use and extend the GMPLS control plane 91 protocol to provide a unified approach for LI and LB provisioning in 92 all these technologies. 94 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] specifies the RSVP-TE 95 extensions for the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM functions, 96 such as Continuity Check (CC), Connectivity Verification (CV), Delay 97 Measurement (DM) and Loss Measurement (LM). The provisioning of on- 98 demand OAM functions such as LI and LB are not covered in that 99 document. 101 This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol- 102 Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support lock instruct and loopback 103 mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The mechanisms are 104 applicable to technologies which use GMPLS as control plane. For 105 MPLS-TP network, the mechanisms defined in this document are 106 complementary to [RFC6435]. 108 2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB 110 2.1. Lock Instruct Indication 112 In order to indicate the lock/unlock of the LSP, the A 113 (Administratively down) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object [RFC3471] 114 [RFC3473] is used. The format of ADMIN_STATUS Object is as below: 116 0 1 2 3 117 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 1 118 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 119 | Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) | 120 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 121 |R| Reserved |M|O|H|L|I|C|T|A|D| 122 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 Figure 1. Admin_Status Object 125 Reflect (R): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 126 OAM Flows Enabled (M): 1 bit - see [RFC7260] 127 OAM Alarms Enabled (O): 1 bit - see [RFC7260] 128 Handover (H): 1 bit - see [RFC5852] 129 Lockout (L): 1 bit - see [RFC4872] 130 Inhibit Alarm Indication (I): 1 bit - see [RFC4783] 131 Call Control (C): 1 bit - see [RFC4974] 132 Testing (T): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 133 Administratively down (A): 1 bit - see [RFC3471], reused for Lock 134 Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 136 2.2. Extensions for Loopback 138 In order to indicate the loopback mode of LSP, a new bit flag is 139 defined in the Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420]. 141 Loopback flag: 143 This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is required to 144 enter loopback mode. This can also be used for specifying the 145 loopback state of the node. 147 - Bit number: TBA 149 - Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes 151 - Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No 153 - Attribute flag carried in RRO Attributes subobject: Yes 155 3. Operational Procedures 157 3.1. Lock Instruct 159 When an ingress Label Switching Router (LSR) intends to put an LSP 160 into lock mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Administratively 161 down (A) bit defined above and the Reflect (R) bit in ADMIN_STATUS 162 Object set. 164 On receipt of this Path message, the egress LSR SHOULD try to take 165 the LSP out of service. If the egress LSR locks the LSP 166 successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in 167 ADMIN_STATUS object set. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr message 168 with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value 169 "Lock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent with the 170 A bit cleared. 172 When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv 173 messages SHOULD keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. 175 When the ingress LSR intends to take the LSP out of the lock mode, it 176 MUST send a Path message with the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object 177 cleared. 179 On receipt of this Path message, the egress LSR SHOULD try to bring 180 the LSP back to service. If the egress LSR unlocks the LSP 181 successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in 182 ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr 183 message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error 184 Value "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent 185 with the A bit set. 187 When an LSP is taken out of lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv 188 messages SHOULD keep the A bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. 190 3.2. Loopback 192 The loopback request can be sent either to the egress LSR or to a 193 particular intermediate node. The mechanism defined in 194 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used for addressing the loopback 195 request to a particular node on the LSP. The ingress LSR MUST ensure 196 that the LSP is in lock mode before it requests setting a particular 197 node on the LSP into loopback mode. 199 When a ingress LSR intends to put a particular node on the LSP into 200 loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback bit 201 defined above in the Attribute Flags TLV set. The mechanism defined 202 in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to address the loopback 203 request to the particular LSR. The Administratively down (A) bit in 204 ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set to indicate that the LSP is 205 still in lock mode. 207 On receipt of this Path message, the target LSR of the loopback 208 request SHOULD try to put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node 209 puts the LSP into loopback mode successfully, it MUST set the 210 Loopback (B) bit in the Record Route Object (RRO) Attribute subobject 211 [RFC5420] and push this subobject onto the RRO object in the 212 corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down (A) bit in 213 ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set in the Resv message. If the 214 node cannot put the LSP into loopback mode, it MUST send a PathErr 215 message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error 216 Value "Loopback Failure". 218 When the ingress LSR intends to take the particular node out of 219 loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback (B) bit 220 in the Attribute Flags TLV cleared. The mechanism defined in 221 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that the 222 particular LSR SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The 223 Administratively down (A) bit in ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set 224 to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode. 226 On receipt of this Path message, the target LSR SHOULD try to take 227 the LSP out of loopback mode. If the node takes the LSP out of 228 loopback mode successfully, it MUST clear the Loopback (B) Bit in the 229 RRO Attribute subobject and push this subobject onto the RRO object 230 in the corresponding Resv message. The Administratively down (A) Bit 231 in ADMIN_STATUS Object MUST be kept set in the Resv message. 232 Otherwise, the node MUST send a PathErr message with the Error Code 233 "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Exit Loopback 234 Failure". 236 After the loopback mode is cleared successfully, the ingress LSR MAY 237 remove the Lock Instruct using the mechanism defined in section 3.1. 239 4. IANA Considerations 241 IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined 242 in this document and summarized in this section. 244 4.1. Attribute Flags 246 IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol- 247 Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" with a sub-registry called 248 "Attribute Flags". 250 IANA is requested to assign a new bit flag as follows: 252 Bit | | Attribute | Attribute | | 253 No. | Name | Flags Path | Flags Resv | RRO | Reference 254 ----+--------------+------------+------------+-----+-------------- 255 TBA | Loopback | Yes | No | Yes | this document 257 4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes 259 IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol 260 (RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Error Codes and 261 Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes". 263 IANA is requested to assign four new Error Value sub-codes for the 264 "OAM Problem" Error Code: 266 Value | Description | Reference 267 -----------+-----------------------------+-------------- 268 TBA | Lock Failure | this document 269 TBA | Unlock Failure | this document 270 TBA | Loopback Failure | this document 271 TBA | Exit Loopback Failure | this document 273 5. Security Considerations 275 This document does not introduce any new security issues above those 276 identified in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. For a more comprehensive 277 discussion of GMPLS security and attack mitigation techniques, please 278 see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920]. 280 6. Acknowledgements 282 The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Lou Berger and Francesco 283 Fondelli for their comments and suggestions. 285 7. References 287 7.1. Normative References 289 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro] 290 Margaria, C., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. Wright, 291 "LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute- 292 ro-05 (work in progress), October 2014. 294 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 295 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 297 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 298 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 299 Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 301 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 302 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 303 January 2003. 305 [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 306 (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 307 Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 309 [RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A. 310 Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP 311 Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic 312 Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. 314 [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for 315 Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS 316 Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. 318 [RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE 319 Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance 320 (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014. 322 7.2. Informative References 324 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] 325 Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P., Ward, D., 326 and A. Takacs, "Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, 327 Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS- 328 based Transport Networks using RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-ccamp- 329 rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-12 (work in progress), June 2013. 331 [RFC4783] Berger, L., "GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information", 332 RFC 4783, December 2006. 334 [RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE 335 Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- 336 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 337 2007. 339 [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) 340 RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC 341 4974, August 2007. 343 [RFC5852] Caviglia, D., Ceccarelli, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and S. 344 Bardalai, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for LSP Handover 345 from the Management Plane to the Control Plane in a GMPLS- 346 Enabled Transport Network", RFC 5852, April 2010. 348 [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 349 Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. 351 [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and 352 Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", 353 RFC 6371, September 2011. 355 [RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M., 356 and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and 357 Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011. 359 Authors' Addresses 361 Jie Dong 362 Huawei Technologies 363 Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. 364 Beijing 100095 365 China 367 Email: jie.dong@huawei.com 369 Mach(Guoyi) Chen 370 Huawei Technologies 371 Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd. 372 Beijing 100095 373 China 375 Email: mach.chen@huawei.com 376 Zhenqiang Li 377 China Mobile 378 Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave. 379 Beijing 100053 380 China 382 Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com 384 Daniele Ceccarelli 385 Ericsson 386 Via A. Negrone 1/A 387 Genova - Sestri Ponente 388 Italy 390 Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com