idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13.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 seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: The backup ingress may be off-path or on-path of an LSP. If a backup ingress is not any node of the LSP, we call it is off-path. If a backup ingress is a next-hop of the primary ingress of the LSP, we call it is on-path. When a backup ingress for protecting the primary ingress is configured or computed, the backup ingress MUST not be on the LSP except for it is the next hop of the primary ingress. If it is on-path, the primary forwarding state associated with the primary LSP SHOULD be clearly separated from the backup LSP(s) state. -- The document date (February 13, 2018) is 2262 days in the past. Is this intentional? -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with '' and '' lines. Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'Ib' is mentioned on line 180, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'L3' is mentioned on line 180, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 1070, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3031' is defined on line 1075, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3209' is defined on line 1080, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4875' is defined on line 1090, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6378' is defined on line 1099, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force H. Chen, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies 4 Intended status: Experimental R. Torvi, Ed. 5 Expires: August 17, 2018 Juniper Networks 6 February 13, 2018 8 Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress FRR Protection 9 draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-13.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - 14 Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node 15 of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic 16 Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP). The procedures described 17 in this document are experimental. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2018. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 1.1. Ingress Local Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 2. Ingress Failure Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 2.1. Source Detects Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 2.2. Backup and Source Detect Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 3. Backup Forwarding State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 3.1. Forwarding State for Backup LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 4.1. INGRESS_PROTECTION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4.1.1. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4 Address . . . . . . . . 8 63 4.1.2. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . 9 64 4.1.3. Subobject: Ingress IPv4 Address . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 4.1.4. Subobject: Ingress IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 4.1.5. Subobject: Traffic Descriptor . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 4.1.6. Subobject: Label-Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 5. Behavior of Ingress Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 5.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 70 5.1.1. Relay-Message Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 5.1.2. Proxy-Ingress Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 5.2. Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 5.2.1. Relay-Message Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 74 5.2.2. Proxy-Ingress Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 75 5.3. Backup Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 76 5.3.1. Backup Ingress Behavior in Off-path Case . . . . . . . 16 77 5.3.2. Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case . . . . . . . 18 78 5.3.3. Failure Detection and Refresh PATH Messages . . . . . 19 79 5.4. Revertive Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 80 5.4.1. Revert to Primary Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 81 5.4.2. Global Repair by Backup Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . 20 82 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 83 7. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 84 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 85 9. Co-authors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 86 10. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 87 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 88 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 89 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 90 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 92 1. Introduction 94 For a MPLS TE LSP, protecting the failures of its transit nodes using 95 fast-reroute (FRR) is covered in RFC 4090 for P2P LSP and RFC 4875 96 for P2MP LSP. However, protecting the failure of its ingress node 97 using FRR is not covered in either RFC 4090 or RFC 4875. The MPLS 98 Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection described in RFC 6378 99 can provide a protection against the failure of any transit node of a 100 LSP between the ingress node and the egress node of the LSP, but 101 cannot protect against the failure of the ingress node. 103 To protect against the failure of the (primary) ingress node of a 104 primary end to end P2MP (or P2P) TE LSP, a typical existing solution 105 is to set up a secondary backup end to end P2MP (or P2P) TE LSP from 106 a backup ingress node, which is different from the primary ingress 107 node, to the backup egress nodes (or node), which are (or is) 108 different from the primary egress nodes (or node) of the primary LSP. 109 For a P2MP TE LSP, on each of the primary (and backup) egress nodes, 110 a P2P LSP is created from the egress node to its primary (backup) 111 ingress node and configured with BFD. This is used to detect the 112 failure of the primary (backup) ingress node for the receiver to 113 switch to the backup (or primary) egress node to receive the traffic 114 after the primary (or backup) ingress node fails when both the 115 primary LSP and the secondary LSP carry the traffic. In addition, 116 FRR may be used to provide protections against the failures of the 117 transit nodes and the links of the primary and secondary end to end 118 TE LSPs. 120 There are a number of issues in this solution, which are briefed as 121 follows: 123 o It consumes lots of network resources. Double states need to be 124 maintained in the network since two end to end TE LSPs are 125 created. Double link bandwidth is reserved and used when both the 126 primary and the secondary end to end TE LSPs carry the traffic at 127 the same time. 129 o More operations are needed, which include the configurations of 130 two end to end TE LSPs and BFDs from each of the egress nodes to 131 its corresponding ingress node. 133 o The detection of the failure of the ingress node may not be 134 reliable. Any failure on the path of the BFD from an egress node 135 to an ingress node may cause the BFD down to indicate the failure 136 of the ingress node. 138 o The speed of protection against the failure of the ingress node 139 may be slow. 141 This specification defines a simple extension to RSVP-TE for local 142 protection (FRR) of the ingress node of a P2MP or P2P LSP to resolve 143 these issues. Ingress local protection and ingress FRR protection 144 will be used exchangeably. 146 Note that this document is experimental. Two different approaches 147 are proposed to transfer the information for ingress protection. 148 They both use the same new INGRESS_PROTECTION object, which is sent 149 in both PATH and RESV messages between a primary ingress and a backup 150 ingress. One approach is Relay-Message Method (refer to section 151 5.1.1 and 5.2.1), the other is Proxy-Ingress Method (refer to section 152 5.1.2 and 5.2.2). Each of them has its advantages and disadvantages. 153 It is hard to decide which one is used as a standard approach now. 154 After one approach is selected, the document SHOULD become proposed 155 standard. 157 1.1. Ingress Local Protection 159 Figure 1 shows an example of using a backup P2MP LSP to locally 160 protect the ingress of a primary P2MP LSP, which is from ingress Ia 161 to three egresses: L1, L2 and L3. The backup LSP is from backup 162 ingress Ib to the next hops R2 and R4 of ingress Ia. 164 ******* ******* S Source 165 [R2]-----[R3]-----[L1] Ix Ingress 166 */ & Rx Transit 167 */ & Lx Egress 168 */ & *** Primary LSP 169 */ & &&& Backup LSP across 170 */ & logical hop 171 */ & 172 */ ******** ******** ******* 173 [S]---[Ia]--------[R4]------[R5]-----[L2] 174 \ | & & *\ 175 \ | & & *\ 176 \ | & & *\ 177 \ | & & *\ 178 \ | & & *\ 179 \ |& & *\ 180 [Ib]&&& [L3] 182 Figure 1: Ingress Local Protection 184 In normal operations, source S sends the traffic to primary ingress 185 Ia. Ia imports the traffic into the primary LSP. 187 When source S detects the failure of Ia, it switches the traffic to 188 backup ingress Ib, which imports the traffic from S into the backup 189 LSP to Ia's next hops R2 and R4, where the traffic is merged into the 190 primary LSP, and then sent to egresses L1, L2 and L3. 192 Note that the backup ingress is one logical hop away from the 193 ingress. A logical hop is a direct link or a tunnel such as a GRE 194 tunnel, over which RSVP-TE messages may be exchanged. 196 2. Ingress Failure Detection 198 Exactly how to detect the failure of the ingress is out of scope. 199 However, it is necessary to discuss different modes for detecting the 200 failure because they determine what is the required behavior for the 201 source and backup ingress. 203 2.1. Source Detects Failure 205 Source Detects Failure or Source-Detect for short means that the 206 source is responsible for fast detecting the failure of the primary 207 ingress of an LSP. The backup ingress is ready to import the traffic 208 from the source into the backup LSP(s) after the backup LSP(s) is up. 210 In normal operations, the source sends the traffic to the primary 211 ingress. When the source detects the failure of the primary ingress, 212 it switches the traffic to the backup ingress, which delivers the 213 traffic to the next hops of the primary ingress through the backup 214 LSP(s), where the traffic is merged into the primary LSP. 216 For an LSP, after the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress MUST 217 use a method to reliably detect the failure of the primary ingress 218 before the PATH message for the LSP expires at the next hop of the 219 primary ingress. After reliably detecting the failure, the backup 220 ingress sends/refreshes the PATH message to the next hop through the 221 backup LSP as needed. The method may detect the failure of the 222 primary ingress slowly such as in seconds. 224 After the primary ingress fails, it will not be reachable after 225 routing convergence. Thus checking whether the primary ingress 226 (address) is reachable is a possible method. 228 2.2. Backup and Source Detect Failure 230 Backup and Source Detect Failure or Backup-Source-Detect for short 231 means that both the backup ingress and the source are concurrently 232 responsible for fast detecting the failure of the primary ingress. 234 In normal operations, the source sends the traffic to the primary 235 ingress. It switches the traffic to the backup ingress when it 236 detects the failure of the primary ingress. 238 The backup ingress does not import any traffic from the source into 239 the backup LSP in normal operations. When it detects the failure of 240 the primary ingress, it imports the traffic from the source into the 241 backup LSP to the next hops of the primary ingress, where the traffic 242 is merged into the primary LSP. 244 The source-detect is preferred. It is simpler than the backup- 245 source-detect, which needs both the source and the backup ingress 246 detect the ingress failure quickly. 248 3. Backup Forwarding State 250 Before the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress is responsible 251 for creating the necessary backup LSPs. These LSPs might be multiple 252 bypass P2P LSPs that avoid the ingress. Alternately, the backup 253 ingress could choose to use a single backup P2MP LSP as a bypass or 254 detour to protect the primary ingress of a primary P2MP LSP. 256 The backup ingress may be off-path or on-path of an LSP. If a backup 257 ingress is not any node of the LSP, we call it is off-path. If a 258 backup ingress is a next-hop of the primary ingress of the LSP, we 259 call it is on-path. When a backup ingress for protecting the primary 260 ingress is configured or computed, the backup ingress MUST not be on 261 the LSP except for it is the next hop of the primary ingress. If it 262 is on-path, the primary forwarding state associated with the primary 263 LSP SHOULD be clearly separated from the backup LSP(s) state. 265 3.1. Forwarding State for Backup LSP 267 A forwarding entry for a backup LSP is created on the backup ingress 268 after the LSP is set up. Depending on the failure-detection mode 269 (e.g., source-detect), it may be used to forward received traffic or 270 simply be inactive (e.g., backup-source-detect) until required. In 271 either case, when the primary ingress fails, this entry is used to 272 import the traffic into the backup LSP to the next hops of the 273 primary ingress, where the traffic is merged into the primary LSP. 275 The forwarding entry for a backup LSP is a local implementation 276 issue. In one device, it may have an inactive flag. This inactive 277 forwarding entry is not used to forward any traffic normally. When 278 the primary ingress fails, it is changed to active, and thus the 279 traffic from the source is imported into the backup LSP. 281 4. Protocol Extensions 283 A new object INGRESS_PROTECTION is defined for signaling ingress 284 local protection. It is backward compatible. 286 4.1. INGRESS_PROTECTION Object 288 The INGRESS_PROTECTION object with the FAST_REROUTE object in a PATH 289 message is used to control the backup for protecting the primary 290 ingress of a primary LSP. The primary ingress MUST insert this 291 object into the PATH message to be sent to the backup ingress for 292 protecting the primary ingress. It has the following format: 294 Class-Num = TBD C-Type = 1 for INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv4 295 C-Type = 2 for INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv6 296 0 1 2 3 297 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 1 298 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 299 | Length (bytes) | Class-Num | C-Type | 300 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 301 | Reserved (zero) | NUB | Flags | Options | 302 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 303 ~ (Subobjects) ~ 304 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 305 NUB Number of Unprotected Branches 306 Flags 307 0x01 Ingress local protection available 308 0x02 Ingress local protection in use 309 0x04 Bandwidth protection 311 Options 312 0x01 Revert to Ingress 313 0x02 P2MP Backup 315 For protecting the ingress of a P2MP LSP, if the backup ingress 316 doesn't have a backup LSP to each of the next hops of the primary 317 ingress, it SHOULD clear "Ingress local protection available" and set 318 NUB to the number of the next hops to which there is no backup LSP. 320 The flags are used to communicate status information from the backup 321 ingress to the primary ingress. 323 o Ingress local protection available: The backup ingress MUST set 324 this flag after backup LSPs are up and ready for locally 325 protecting the primary ingress. The backup ingress sends this to 326 the primary ingress to indicate that the primary ingress is 327 locally protected. 329 o Ingress local protection in use: The backup ingress MUST set this 330 flag when it detects a failure in the primary ingress and actively 331 redirects the traffic into the backup LSPs. The backup ingress 332 keeps it and does not send it to the primary ingress since the 333 primary ingress is down. 335 o Bandwidth protection: The backup ingress MUST set this flag if the 336 backup LSPs guarantee to provide desired bandwidth for the 337 protected LSP against the primary ingress failure. 339 The options are used by the primary ingress to specify the desired 340 behavior to the backup ingress. 342 o Revert to Ingress: The primary ingress sets this option indicating 343 that the traffic for the primary LSP successfully re-signaled will 344 be switched back to the primary ingress from the backup ingress 345 when the primary ingress is restored. 347 o P2MP Backup: This option is set to ask for the backup ingress to 348 use P2MP backup LSP to protect the primary ingress. 350 The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may contain some sub objects of 351 following format: 353 0 1 2 3 354 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 1 355 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 356 | Type | Length |Reserved (zero)| 357 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 358 | Contents/Body of subobject | 359 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 361 where Type is the type of a sub object, Length is the total size of 362 the sub object in bytes, including Type, Length and Contents fields. 364 4.1.1. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4 Address 366 When the primary ingress of a protected LSP sends a PATH message with 367 an INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the backup ingress, the object MUST 368 have a Backup Ingress IPv4 Address sub object containing an IPv4 369 address belonging to the backup ingress if IPv4 is used. The Type of 370 the sub object is TBD1 (the exact number to be assigned by IANA), and 371 the body of the sub object is given below: 373 0 1 2 3 374 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 1 375 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 376 | Backup ingress IPv4 address (4 bytes) | 377 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 379 Backup ingress IPv4 address: An IPv4 host address of backup ingress 381 4.1.2. Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv6 Address 383 When the primary ingress of a protected LSP sends a PATH message with 384 an INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the backup ingress, the object MUST 385 have a Backup Ingress IPv6 Address sub object containing an IPv6 386 address belonging to the backup ingress if IPv6 is used. The Type of 387 the sub object is TBD2, the body of the sub object is given below: 389 0 1 2 3 390 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 1 391 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 392 | Backup ingress IPv6 address (16 bytes) | 393 ~ ~ 394 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 396 Backup ingress IPv6 address: An IPv6 host address of backup ingress 398 4.1.3. Subobject: Ingress IPv4 Address 400 The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have an Ingress IPv4 Address sub 401 object containing an IPv4 address belonging to the primary ingress if 402 IPv4 is used. The Type of the sub object is TBD3. The sub object 403 has the following body: 405 0 1 2 3 406 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 1 407 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 408 | Ingress IPv4 address (4 bytes) | 409 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 411 Ingress IPv4 address: An IPv4 host address of ingress 413 4.1.4. Subobject: Ingress IPv6 Address 415 The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have an Ingress IPv6 Address sub 416 object containing an IPv6 address belonging to the primary ingress if 417 IPv6 is used. The Type of the sub object is TBD4. The sub object 418 has the following body: 420 0 1 2 3 421 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 1 422 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 423 | Ingress IPv6 address (16 bytes) | 424 ~ ~ 425 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 427 Ingress IPv6 address: An IPv6 host address of ingress 429 4.1.5. Subobject: Traffic Descriptor 431 The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have a Traffic Descriptor sub 432 object describing the traffic to be mapped to the backup LSP on the 433 backup ingress for locally protecting the primary ingress. The Type 434 of the sub object is TBD5, TBD6, TBD7 or TBD8 for Interface, IPv4 435 Prefix, IPv6 Prefix or Application Identifier respectively. The sub 436 object has the following body: 438 0 1 2 3 439 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 1 440 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 441 | Traffic Element 1 | 442 ~ ~ 443 | Traffic Element n | 444 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 446 The Traffic Descriptor sub object may contain multiple Traffic 447 Elements of same type as follows: 449 o Interface Traffic (Type TBD5): Each of the Traffic Elements is a 450 32 bit index of an interface, from which the traffic is imported 451 into the backup LSP. 453 o IPv4 Prefix Traffic (Type TBD6): Each of the Traffic Elements is 454 an IPv4 prefix, containing an 8-bit prefix length followed by an 455 IPv4 address prefix, whose length, in bits, is specified by the 456 prefix length, padded to a byte boundary. 458 o IPv6 Prefix Traffic (Type TBD7): Each of the Traffic Elements is 459 an IPv6 prefix, containing an 8-bit prefix length followed by an 460 IPv6 address prefix, whose length, in bits, is specified by the 461 prefix length, padded to a byte boundary. 463 o Application Traffic (Type TBD8): Each of the Traffic Elements is a 464 32 bit identifier of an application, from which the traffic is 465 imported into the backup LSP. 467 4.1.6. Subobject: Label-Routes 469 The INGRESS_PROTECTION object in a PATH message from the primary 470 ingress to the backup ingress will have a Label-Routes sub object 471 containing the labels and routes that the next hops of the ingress 472 use. The Type of the sub object is TBD9. The sub object has the 473 following body: 475 0 1 2 3 476 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 1 477 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 478 ~ Subobjects ~ 479 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 481 The Subobjects in the Label-Routes are copied from those in the 482 RECORD_ROUTE objects in the RESV messages that the primary ingress 483 receives from its next hops for the primary LSP. They MUST contain 484 the first hops of the LSP, each of which is paired with its label. 486 5. Behavior of Ingress Protection 488 5.1. Overview 490 There are four parts of ingress protection: 1) setting up the 491 necessary backup LSP forwarding state based on the information for 492 ingress protection; 2) identifying the failure and providing the fast 493 repair (as discussed in Sections 3 and 4); 3) maintaining the RSVP-TE 494 control plane state until a global repair is done; and 4) performing 495 the global repair(see Section 6.4). 497 There are two different proposed signaling approaches to transfer the 498 information for ingress protection. They both use the same new 499 INGRESS_PROTECTION object. The object is sent in both PATH and RESV 500 messages. 502 5.1.1. Relay-Message Method 504 The primary ingress relays the information for ingress protection of 505 an LSP to the backup ingress via PATH messages. Once the LSP is 506 created, the ingress of the LSP sends the backup ingress a PATH 507 message with an INGRESS_PROTECTION object with Label-Routes 508 subobject, which is populated with the next-hops and labels. This 509 provides sufficient information for the backup ingress to create the 510 appropriate forwarding state and backup LSP(s). 512 The ingress also sends the backup ingress all the other PATH messages 513 for the LSP with an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object. An 514 INGRESS_PROTECTION object without any Traffic-Descriptor sub-object 515 is called an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object. Thus, the backup 516 ingress has access to all the PATH messages needed for modification 517 to refresh control-plane state after a failure. 519 The empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object is for efficient process of 520 ingress protection for a P2MP LSP. For a P2MP LSP, its primary 521 ingress may have more than one PATH messages, each of which is sent 522 to a next hop along a branch of the P2MP LSP. The PATH message along 523 a branch will be selected and sent to the backup ingress with an 524 INGRESS_PROTECTION object containing the Traffic-Descriptor sub- 525 object; all the PATH messages along the other branches will be sent 526 to the backup ingress containing an INGRESS_PROTECTION object without 527 any Traffic-Descriptor sub-object (empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object). 528 For a P2MP LSP, the backup ingress only needs one Traffic-Descriptor. 530 The advantages of this method include: 1) the primary LSP is 531 independent of the backup ingress; 2) simple; 3) less configuration; 532 and 4) less control traffic. 534 5.1.2. Proxy-Ingress Method 536 Conceptually, a proxy ingress is created that starts the RSVP 537 signaling. The explicit path of the LSP goes from the proxy ingress 538 to the backup ingress and then to the real ingress. The behavior and 539 signaling for the proxy ingress is done by the real ingress; the use 540 of a proxy ingress address avoids problems with loop detection. Note 541 that the proxy ingress MUST reside within the same router as the real 542 ingress. 544 [ traffic source ] *** Primary LSP 545 $ $ --- Backup LSP 546 $ $ $$ Link 547 $ $ 548 [ proxy ingress ] [ backup ] 549 [ & ingress ] | 550 * | 551 *****[ MP ]----| 553 Figure 2: Example Protected LSP with Proxy Ingress Node 555 The backup ingress MUST know the merge points or next-hops and their 556 associated labels. This is accomplished by having the RSVP PATH and 557 RESV messages go through the backup ingress, although the forwarding 558 path need not go through the backup ingress. If the backup ingress 559 fails, the ingress simply removes the INGRESS_PROTECTION object and 560 forwards the PATH messages to the LSP's next-hop(s). If the ingress 561 has its LSP configured for ingress protection, then the ingress can 562 add the backup ingress and itself to the ERO and start forwarding the 563 PATH messages to the backup ingress. 565 Slightly different behavior can apply for the on-path and off-path 566 cases. In the on-path case, the backup ingress is a next hop node 567 after the ingress for the LSP. In the off-path, the backup ingress 568 is not any next-hop node after the ingress for all associated sub- 569 LSPs. 571 The key advantage of this approach is that it minimizes the special 572 handling code requires. Because the backup ingress is on the 573 signaling path, it can receive various notifications. It easily has 574 access to all the PATH messages needed for modification to be sent to 575 refresh control-plane state after a failure. 577 5.2. Ingress Behavior 579 The primary ingress MUST be configured with a couple of pieces of 580 information for ingress protection. 582 o Backup Ingress Address: The primary ingress MUST know an IP 583 address for it to be included in the INGRESS_PROTECTION object. 585 o Proxy-Ingress-Id (only needed for Proxy-Ingress Method): The 586 Proxy-Ingress-Id is only used in the Record Route Object for 587 recording the proxy-ingress. If no proxy-ingress-id is specified, 588 then a local interface address that will not otherwise be included 589 in the Record Route Object can be used. A similar technique is 590 used in [RFC4090 Sec 6.1.1]. 592 o Application Traffic Identifier: The primary ingress and backup 593 ingress MUST both know what application traffic should be directed 594 into the LSP. If a list of prefixes in the Traffic Descriptor 595 sub-object will not suffice, then a commonly understood 596 Application Traffic Identifier can be sent between the primary 597 ingress and backup ingress. The exact meaning of the identifier 598 should be configured similarly at both the primary ingress and 599 backup ingress. The Application Traffic Identifier is understood 600 within the unique context of the primary ingress and backup 601 ingress. 603 o A connection between backup ingress and primary ingress: If there 604 is not any direct link between the primary ingress and the backup 605 ingress, a tunnel MUST be configured between them. 607 With this additional information, the primary ingress can create and 608 signal the necessary RSVP extensions to support ingress protection. 610 5.2.1. Relay-Message Method 612 To protect the primary ingress of an LSP, the primary ingress MUST do 613 the following after the LSP is up. 615 1. Select a PATH message P0 for the LSP. 617 2. If the backup ingress is off-path (the backup ingress is not the 618 next hop of the primary ingress for P0), then send it a PATH 619 message P0' with the content from P0 and an INGRESS_PROTECTION 620 object; else (the backup ingress is a next hop, i.e., on-path 621 case) add an INGRESS_PROTECTION object into the existing PATH 622 message to the backup ingress (i.e., the next hop). The object 623 contains the Traffic-Descriptor sub-object, the Backup Ingress 624 Address sub-object and the Label-Routes sub-object. The options 625 is set to indicate whether a Backup P2MP LSP is desired. The 626 Label-Routes sub-object contains the next-hops of the primary 627 ingress and their labels. Note that for on-path case, there is 628 an existing PATH message to the backup ingress (i.e., the next 629 hop), and we just add an INGRESS_PROTECTION object into the 630 existing PATH message to be sent to the backup ingress. We do 631 not send a separate PATH message to the backup ingress for this 632 existing PATH message. 634 3. For each Pi of the other PATH messages for the LSP, send the 635 backup ingress a PATH message Pi' with the content copied from Pi 636 and an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object. 638 For every PATH message Pj' (i.e., P0'/Pi') to be sent to the backup 639 ingress, it has the same SESSION as Pj (i.e., P0/Pi). If the backup 640 ingress is off-path, the primary ingress updates Pj' according to the 641 backup ingress as its next hop before sending it. It adds the backup 642 ingress to the beginning of the ERO, and sets RSVP_HOP based on the 643 interface to the backup ingress. The primary ingress MUST NOT set up 644 any forwarding state to the backup ingress if the backup ingress is 645 off-path. 647 5.2.2. Proxy-Ingress Method 649 The primary ingress is responsible for starting the RSVP signaling 650 for the proxy-ingress node. To do this, the following MUST be done 651 for the RSVP PATH message. 653 1. Compute the EROs for the LSP as normal for the ingress. 655 2. If the selected backup ingress node is not the first node on the 656 path (for all sub-LSPs), then insert at the beginning of the ERO 657 first the backup ingress node and then the ingress node. 659 3. In the PATH RRO, instead of recording the ingress node's address, 660 replace it with the Proxy-Ingress-Id. 662 4. Leave the HOP object populated as usual with information for the 663 ingress-node. 665 5. Add the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the PATH message. Include 666 the Backup Ingress Address (IPv4 or IPv6) sub-object and the 667 Traffic-Descriptor sub-object. Set or clear the options 668 indicating that a Backup P2MP LSP is desired. 670 6. Optionally, add the FAST-REROUTE object [RFC4090] to the Path 671 message. Indicate whether one-to-one backup is desired. 672 Indicate whether facility backup is desired. 674 7. The RSVP PATH message is sent to the backup node as normal. 676 If the ingress detects that it can't communicate with the backup 677 ingress, then the ingress SHOULD instead send the PATH message to the 678 next-hop indicated in the ERO computed in step 1. Once the ingress 679 detects that it can communicate with the backup ingress, the ingress 680 SHOULD follow the steps 1-7 to obtain ingress failure protection. 682 When the ingress node receives an RSVP PATH message with an 683 INGRESS_PROTECTION object and the object specifies that node as the 684 ingress node and the PHOP as the backup ingress node, the ingress 685 node SHOULD remove the INGRESS_PROTECTION object from the PATH 686 message before sending it out. Additionally, the ingress node MUST 687 store that it will install ingress forwarding state for the LSP 688 rather than midpoint forwarding. 690 When an RSVP RESV message is received by the ingress, it uses the 691 NHOP to determine whether the message is received from the backup 692 ingress or from a different node. The stored associated PATH message 693 contains an INGRESS_PROTECTION object that identifies the backup 694 ingress node. If the RESV message is not from the backup node, then 695 ingress forwarding state SHOULD be set up, and the INGRESS_PROTECTION 696 object MUST be added to the RESV before it is sent to the NHOP, which 697 SHOULD be the backup node. If the RESV message is from the backup 698 node, then the LSP SHOULD be considered available for use. 700 If the backup ingress node is on the forwarding path, then a RESV is 701 received with an INGRESS_PROTECTION object and an NHOP that matches 702 the backup ingress. In this case, the ingress node's address will 703 not appear after the backup ingress in the RRO. The ingress node 704 SHOULD set up ingress forwarding state, just as is done if the LSP 705 weren't ingress-node protected. 707 5.3. Backup Ingress Behavior 709 An LER determines that the ingress local protection is requested for 710 an LSP if the INGRESS_PROTECTION object is included in the PATH 711 message it receives for the LSP. The LER can further determine that 712 it is the backup ingress if one of its addresses is in the Backup 713 Ingress Address sub-object of the INGRESS_PROTECTION object. The LER 714 as the backup ingress will assume full responsibility of the ingress 715 after the primary ingress fails. In addition, the LER determines 716 that it is off-path if it is not any node of the LSP. The LER 717 determines whether it uses Relay-Message Method or Proxy-Ingress 718 Method according to configurations. 720 5.3.1. Backup Ingress Behavior in Off-path Case 722 The backup ingress considers itself as a PLR and the primary ingress 723 as its next hop and provides a local protection for the primary 724 ingress. It behaves very similarly to a PLR providing fast-reroute 725 where the primary ingress is considered as the failure-point to 726 protect. Where not otherwise specified, the behavior given in 727 [RFC4090] for a PLR applies. 729 The backup ingress MUST follow the control-options specified in the 730 INGRESS_PROTECTION object and the flags and specifications in the 731 FAST-REROUTE object. This applies to providing a P2MP backup if the 732 "P2MP backup" is set, a one-to-one backup if "one-to-one desired" is 733 set, facility backup if the "facility backup desired" is set, and 734 backup paths that support the desired bandwidth, and administrative- 735 colors that are requested. 737 If multiple non empty INGRESS_PROTECTION objects have been received 738 via multiple PATH messages for the same LSP, then the most recent one 739 MUST be the one used. 741 The backup ingress creates the appropriate forwarding state for the 742 backup LSP tunnel(s) to the merge point(s). 744 When the backup ingress sends a RESV message to the primary ingress, 745 it MUST add an INGRESS_PROTECTION object into the message. It MUST 746 set or clear the flags in the object to report "Ingress local 747 protection available", "Ingress local protection in use", and 748 "bandwidth protection". 750 If the backup ingress doesn't have a backup LSP tunnel to each of the 751 merge points, it SHOULD clear "Ingress local protection available" 752 and set NUB to the number of the merge points to which there is no 753 backup LSP. 755 When the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress redirects the 756 traffic from a source into the backup P2P LSPs or the backup P2MP LSP 757 transmitting the traffic to the next hops of the primary ingress, 758 where the traffic is merged into the protected LSP. 760 In this case, the backup ingress MUST keep the PATH message with the 761 INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the primary ingress and the 762 RESV message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to be sent to the 763 primary ingress. The backup ingress MUST set the "local protection 764 in use" flag in the RESV message, indicating that the backup ingress 765 is actively redirecting the traffic into the backup P2P LSPs or the 766 backup P2MP LSP for locally protecting the primary ingress failure. 768 Note that the RESV message with this piece of information will not be 769 sent to the primary ingress because the primary ingress has failed. 771 If the backup ingress has not received any PATH message from the 772 primary ingress for an extended period of time (e.g., a cleanup 773 timeout interval) and a confirmed primary ingress failure did not 774 occur, then the standard RSVP soft-state removal SHOULD occur. The 775 backup ingress SHALL remove the state for the PATH message from the 776 primary ingress, and tear down the one-to-one backup LSPs for 777 protecting the primary ingress if one-to-one backup is used or unbind 778 the facility backup LSPs if facility backup is used. 780 When the backup ingress receives a PATH message from the primary 781 ingress for locally protecting the primary ingress of a protected 782 LSP, it MUST check to see if any critical information has been 783 changed. If the next hops of the primary ingress are changed, the 784 backup ingress SHALL update its backup LSP(s) accordingly. 786 5.3.1.1. Relay-Message Method 788 When the backup ingress receives a PATH message with an non empty 789 INGRESS_PROTECTION object, it examines the object to learn what 790 traffic associated with the LSP. It determines the next-hops to be 791 merged to by examining the Label-Routes sub-object in the object. 793 The backup ingress MUST store the PATH message received from the 794 primary ingress, but NOT forward it. 796 The backup ingress responds with a RESV message to the PATH message 797 received from the primary ingress. If the backup ingress is off- 798 path, the LABEL object in the RESV message contains IMPLICIT-NULL. 799 If the INGRESS_PROTECTION object is not "empty", the backup ingress 800 SHALL send the RESV message with the state indicating protection is 801 available after the backup LSP(s) are successfully established. 803 5.3.1.2. Proxy-Ingress Method 805 The backup ingress determines the next-hops to be merged to by 806 collecting the set of the pair of (IPv4/IPv6 sub-object, Label sub- 807 object) from the Record Route Object of each RESV that are closest to 808 the top and not the Ingress router; this should be the second to the 809 top pair. If a Label-Routes sub-object is included in the 810 INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the included IPv4/IPv6 sub-objects are 811 used to filter the set down to the specific next-hops where 812 protection is desired. A RESV message MUST have been received before 813 the Backup Ingress can create or select the appropriate backup LSP. 815 When the backup ingress receives a PATH message with the 816 INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the backup ingress examines the object to 817 learn what traffic associated with the LSP. The backup ingress 818 forwards the PATH message to the ingress node with the normal RSVP 819 changes. 821 When the backup ingress receives a RESV message with the 822 INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the backup ingress records an IMPLICIT- 823 NULL label in the RRO. Then the backup ingress forwards the RESV 824 message to the ingress node, which is acting for the proxy ingress. 826 5.3.2. Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case 828 An LER as the backup ingress determines that it is on-path if one of 829 its addresses is a next hop of the primary ingress (and for Proxy- 830 Ingress Method the primary ingress is not its next hop via checking 831 the PATH message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the 832 primary ingress). The LER on-path MUST send the corresponding PATH 833 messages without any INGRESS_PROTECTION object to its next hops. It 834 creates a number of backup P2P LSPs or a backup P2MP LSP from itself 835 to the other next hops (i.e., the next hops other than the backup 836 ingress) of the primary ingress. The other next hops are from the 837 Label-Routes sub object. 839 It also creates a forwarding entry, which sends/multicasts the 840 traffic from the source to the next hops of the backup ingress along 841 the protected LSP when the primary ingress fails. The traffic is 842 described by the Traffic-Descriptor. 844 After the forwarding entry is created, all the backup P2P LSPs or the 845 backup P2MP LSP is up and associated with the protected LSP, the 846 backup ingress MUST send the primary ingress the RESV message with 847 the INGRESS_PROTECTION object containing the state of the local 848 protection such as "local protection available" flag set to one, 849 which indicates that the primary ingress is locally protected. 851 When the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress sends/multicasts 852 the traffic from the source to its next hops along the protected LSP 853 and imports the traffic into each of the backup P2P LSPs or the 854 backup P2MP LSP transmitting the traffic to the other next hops of 855 the primary ingress, where the traffic is merged into protected LSP. 857 During the local repair, the backup ingress MUST continue to send the 858 PATH messages to its next hops as before, keep the PATH message with 859 the INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the primary ingress and 860 the RESV message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to be sent to the 861 primary ingress. It MUST set the "local protection in use" flag in 862 the RESV message. 864 5.3.3. Failure Detection and Refresh PATH Messages 866 As described in [RFC4090], it is necessary to refresh the PATH 867 messages via the backup LSP(s). The Backup Ingress MUST wait to 868 refresh the PATH messages until it can accurately detect that the 869 ingress node has failed. An example of such an accurate detection 870 would be that the IGP has no bi-directional links to the ingress node 871 or a BFD session to the primary ingress' loopback address has failed 872 and stayed failed after the network has reconverged. 874 As described in [RFC4090 Section 6.4.3], the backup ingress, acting 875 as PLR, MUST modify and send any saved PATH messages associated with 876 the primary LSP to the corresponding next hops through backup LSP(s). 877 Any PATH message sent will not contain any INGRESS_PROTECTION object. 878 The RSVP_HOP object in the message contains an IP source address 879 belonging to the backup ingress. The sender template object has the 880 backup ingress address as its tunnel sender address. 882 5.4. Revertive Behavior 884 Upon a failure event in the (primary) ingress of a protected LSP, the 885 protected LSP is locally repaired by the backup ingress. There are a 886 couple of basic strategies for restoring the LSP to a full working 887 path. 889 - Revert to Primary Ingress: When the primary ingress is restored, 890 it re-signals each of the LSPs that start from the primary 891 ingress. The traffic for every LSP successfully re-signaled is 892 switched back to the primary ingress from the backup ingress. 894 - Global Repair by Backup Ingress: After determining that the 895 primary ingress of an LSP has failed, the backup ingress computes 896 a new optimal path, signals a new LSP along the new path, and 897 switches the traffic to the new LSP. 899 5.4.1. Revert to Primary Ingress 901 If "Revert to Primary Ingress" is desired for a protected LSP, the 902 (primary) ingress of the LSP SHOULD re-signal the LSP that starts 903 from the primary ingress after the primary ingress restores. After 904 the LSP is re-signaled successfully, the traffic SHOULD be switched 905 back to the primary ingress from the backup ingress on the source 906 node and redirected into the LSP starting from the primary ingress. 908 The primary ingress can specify the "Revert to Ingress" control- 909 option in the INGRESS_PROTECTION object in the PATH messages to the 910 backup ingress. After receiving the "Revert to Ingress" control- 911 option, the backup ingress MUST stop sending/refreshing PATH messages 912 for the protected LSP. 914 5.4.2. Global Repair by Backup Ingress 916 When the backup ingress has determined that the primary ingress of 917 the protected LSP has failed (e.g., via the IGP), it can compute a 918 new path and signal a new LSP along the new path so that it no longer 919 relies upon local repair. To do this, the backup ingress MUST use 920 the same tunnel sender address in the Sender Template Object and 921 allocate a LSP ID different from the one of the old LSP as the LSP-ID 922 of the new LSP. This allows the new LSP to share resources with the 923 old LSP. Alternately, the Backup Ingress can create a new LSP with 924 no bandwidth reservation that duplicates the path(s) of the protected 925 LSP, move traffic to the new LSP, delete the protected LSP, and then 926 resignal the new LSP with bandwidth. 928 6. Security Considerations 930 In principle this document does not introduce new security issues. 931 The security considerations pertaining to RFC 4090, RFC 4875 and 932 other RSVP protocols remain relevant. 934 7. Compatibility 936 This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in 937 RFC 2205, RFC 3209, RFC 4090 and RFC 4875 to support ingress 938 protection. One new object is defined to indicate ingress protection 939 with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per RFC 2205, a node not 940 supporting this extension will not recognize the new class number and 941 should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The error 942 message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take action to 943 avoid the incompatible node as a backup ingress or may simply 944 terminate the session. 946 8. IANA Considerations 948 IANA maintains a registry called "Class Names, Class Numbers, and 949 Class Types" under "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering 950 (RSVP-TE) Parameters". Upon approval of this document, IANA is 951 requested to assign a new Class Number of form 0bbbbbbb for new 952 object INGRESS_PROTECTION located at , as follows: 955 +====================+===============+============================+ 956 | Class Names | Class Numbers | Class Types | 957 +====================+===============+============================+ 958 | INGRESS_PROTECTION | TBD | 1: INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv4 | 959 | |(124 suggested)+----------------------------+ 960 | | | 2: INGRESS_PROTECTION_IPv6 | 961 +--------------------+---------------+----------------------------+ 963 When this document moves to standards track, IANA is requested to 964 create and maintain a new registry under INGRESS_PROTECTION located 965 at . 968 o Sub-object type - TBD INGRESS_PROTECTION 970 Initial values for the registry are given below. The future 971 assignments are to be made through IETF Review. 973 Value Name Definition 974 1 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS Section 4.1.1 975 2 BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS Section 4.1.2 976 3 INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS Section 4.1.3 977 4 INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS Section 4.1.4 978 5 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_INTERFACE Section 4.1.5 979 6 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv4_PREFIX Section 4.1.5 980 7 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv6_PREFIX Section 4.1.5 981 8 TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_APPLICATION Section 4.1.5 982 9 LABEL_ROUTES Section 4.1.6 984 9. Co-authors and Contributors 986 1. Co-authors 988 Autumn Liu 989 Ciena 990 USA 991 Email: hliu@ciena.com 993 Zhenbin Li 994 Huawei Technologies 995 Email: zhenbin.li@huawei.com 997 Yimin Shen 998 Juniper Networks 999 10 Technology Park Drive 1000 Westford, MA 01886 1001 USA 1002 Email: yshen@juniper.net 1004 Tarek Saad 1005 Cisco Systems 1006 Email: tsaad@cisco.com 1007 Fengman Xu 1008 Verizon 1009 2400 N. Glenville Dr 1010 Richardson, TX 75082 1011 USA 1012 Email: fengman.xu@verizon.com 1014 2. Contributors 1016 Ning So 1017 Tata Communications 1018 2613 Fairbourne Cir. 1019 Plano, TX 75082 1020 USA 1021 Email: ningso01@gmail.com 1023 Mehmet Toy 1024 Verizon 1025 USA 1026 Email: mehmet.toy@verizon.com 1028 Lei Liu 1029 USA 1030 Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com 1032 Renwei Li 1033 Huawei Technologies 1034 2330 Central Expressway 1035 Santa Clara, CA 95050 1036 USA 1037 Email: renwei.li@huawei.com 1039 Quintin Zhao 1040 Huawei Technologies 1041 Boston, MA 1042 USA 1043 Email: quintin.zhao@huawei.com 1044 Boris Zhang 1045 Telus Communications 1046 200 Consilium Pl Floor 15 1047 Toronto, ON M1H 3J3 1048 Canada 1049 Email: Boris.Zhang@telus.com 1051 Markus Jork 1052 Juniper Networks 1053 10 Technology Park Drive 1054 Westford, MA 01886 1055 USA 1056 Email: mjork@juniper.net 1058 10. Acknowledgement 1060 The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya, Rahul Aggarwal, Eric 1061 Osborne, Ross Callon, Loa Andersson, Daniel King, Michael Yue, Alia 1062 Atlas, Olufemi Komolafe, Rob Rennison, Neil Harrison, Kannan Sampath, 1063 Gregory Mirsky, and Ronhazli Adam for their valuable comments and 1064 suggestions on this draft. 1066 11. References 1068 11.1. Normative References 1070 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1071 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ 1072 RFC2119, March 1997, 1073 . 1075 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol 1076 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/ 1077 RFC3031, January 2001, 1078 . 1080 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., 1081 and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 1082 Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, 1083 . 1085 [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast 1086 Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, 1087 DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005, 1088 . 1090 [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S. 1091 Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation 1092 Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- 1093 Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, 1094 DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, 1095 . 1097 11.2. Informative References 1099 [RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, 1100 N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile 1101 (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/ 1102 RFC6378, October 2011, 1103 . 1105 Authors' Addresses 1107 Huaimo Chen (editor) 1108 Huawei Technologies 1109 Boston, MA 1110 USA 1112 Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com 1114 Raveendra Torvi (editor) 1115 Juniper Networks 1116 10 Technology Park Drive 1117 Westford, MA 01886 1118 USA 1120 Email: rtorvi@juniper.net