idnits 2.17.1 draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 1377. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 1354. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 1361. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 1367. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. 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 RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The exact meaning of the all-uppercase expression 'MAY NOT' is not defined in RFC 2119. If it is intended as a requirements expression, it should be rewritten using one of the combinations defined in RFC 2119; otherwise it should not be all-uppercase. == The expression 'MAY NOT', while looking like RFC 2119 requirements text, is not defined in RFC 2119, and should not be used. Consider using 'MUST NOT' instead (if that is what you mean). Found 'MAY NOT' in this paragraph: Note that a Call MAY NOT be imposed upon a Connection that is already established. To do so would require changing the short Call ID in the SESSION OBJECT of the existing LSPs and this would constitute a change in the Session Identifier. This is not allowed by existing protocol specifications. == 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 'SHOULD not' in this paragraph: Transit nodes SHOULD not examine Notify messages that are not addressed to them. However, they will see short Call IDs in all LSPs associated with Calls. -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 2005) is 6729 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: 'RFC3743' is mentioned on line 888, but not defined -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'GMPLS-FUNCT' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2402 (Obsoleted by RFC 4302, RFC 4305) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2406 (Obsoleted by RFC 4303, RFC 4305) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4139 Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 CCAMP Working Group Editors 2 Internet Draft D. Papadimitriou (Alcatel) 3 Updates RFC 3473 A. Farrel (Old Dog Consulting) 4 Proposed Category: Standard Track 5 Expiration Date: May 2006 November 2005 7 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions 8 in support of Calls 10 draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-00.txt 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 21 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 Abstract 36 In certain networking topologies it may be advantageous to maintain 37 associations between endpoints and key transit points to support an 38 instance of a service. Such associations are known as Calls. 40 A Call does not provide the actual connectivity for transmitting user 41 traffic, but only builds a relationship by which subsequent 42 connections may be made. In Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) such connections 43 are known as Label Switched Paths (LSPs). 45 This document specifies how GMPLS RSVP-TE signaling may be used and 46 extended to support Calls. These mechanisms provide full and logical 47 Call/Connection separation. 49 The mechanisms proposed in this document are applicable to any 50 environment (including multi-area), and for any type of interface: 51 packet, layer-2, time-division multiplexed, lambda or fiber 52 switching. 54 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 56 Table of Content 58 1. Conventions used in this document ............................. 3 59 2. Introduction .................................................. 3 60 2.1 Applicability to ASON ........................................ 4 61 3. Requirements .................................................. 4 62 3.1 Basic Call Function .......................................... 4 63 3.2 Call/Connection Separation ................................... 4 64 3.3 Call Segments ................................................ 5 65 4. Concepts and Terms ............................................ 5 66 4.1 What is a Call? .............................................. 5 67 4.2 A Hierarchy of Calls, Connections, Tunnels and LSPs .......... 5 68 4.3 Exchanging Access Link Capabilities .......................... 6 69 4.3.1 Network-initiated Calls .................................... 6 70 4.3.2 User-initiated Calls ....................................... 7 71 4.3.3 Utilizing Call Setup ....................................... 7 72 5. Protocol Extensions for Calls and Connections ................. 7 73 5.1 Call Setup and Teardown ...................................... 7 74 5.2 Call Identification .......................................... 8 75 5.2.1 Long Form Call Identification .............................. 8 76 5.2.2 Short Form Call Identification ............................. 8 77 5.2.3 Short Form Call ID Encoding ................................ 9 78 5.3 LINK_CAPABILITY object ...................................... 10 79 5.4 Revised Message Formats ..................................... 11 80 5.4.1 Notify Message ............................................ 11 81 5.5 ADMIN_STATUS Object ......................................... 11 82 6. Procedures in Support of Calls and Connections ............... 12 83 6.1 Call/Connection Setup Procedures ............................ 12 84 6.2 Call Setup .................................................. 12 85 6.2.1 Accepting Call Setup ...................................... 14 86 6.2.2 Call Setup Failure and Rejection .......................... 15 87 6.3 Adding a Connections to a Call .............................. 15 88 6.3.1 Adding a Reverse Direction LSP to a Call .................. 16 89 6.4 Call-Free Connection Setup .................................. 16 90 6.5 Call Collision .............................................. 16 91 6.6 Call/Connection Teardown .................................... 17 92 6.6.1 Removal of a Connection from a Call ....................... 18 93 6.6.2 Removal of the Last Connection from a Call ................ 18 94 6.6.3 Teardown of an "Empty" Call ............................... 18 95 6.6.4 Attempted Teardown of a Call with Existing Connections .... 18 96 6.6.5 Teardown of a Call from the Egress ........................ 19 97 6.7 Control Plane Survivability ................................. 19 98 7. Applicability of Call and Connection Procedures .............. 20 99 7.1 Network-initiated Calls ..................................... 20 100 7.2 User-initiated Calls ........................................ 20 101 7.3 External Call Managers ...................................... 21 102 7.3.1 Call Segments ............................................. 21 103 8. Non-support of Call ID ....................................... 21 104 8.1 Non-Support by External Call Managers ....................... 22 105 8.2 Non-Support by Transit Node ................................. 22 107 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 109 8.3 Non-Support by Egress Node .................................. 23 110 9. Security Considerations ...................................... 23 111 9.1 Call and Connection Security Considerations ................. 23 112 10. IANA Considerations ......................................... 23 113 10.1 RSVP Objects ............................................... 23 114 10.2 RSVP Error Codes and Error Values .......................... 24 115 10.3 RSVP ADMIN_STATUS object Bits .............................. 24 116 11. Acknowledgements ............................................ 24 117 12. References .................................................. 24 118 12.1 Normative References ....................................... 24 119 12.2 Informative References ..................................... 26 120 13. Authors' Addresses .......................................... 26 122 1. Conventions used in this document 124 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 125 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 126 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 128 In addition, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the 129 terminology used in [RFC3471], [RFC3473], [RFC3477] and [RFC3945]. 131 2. Introduction 133 This document defines protocol procedures and extensions to support 134 Calls within Generalized MPLS (GMPLS). 136 A Call is an association between endpoints and possibly between key 137 transit points (such as network boundaries) in support of an instance 138 of a service. The end-to-end association is termed a "Call," and the 139 association between two transit points or between an endpoint and a 140 transit point is termed a "Call Segment." An entity that processes a 141 Call or Call Segment is called a "Call Manager." 143 A Call does not provide the actual connectivity for transmitting user 144 traffic, but only builds a relationship by which subsequent 145 connections may be made. In GMPLS such connections are known as Label 146 Switched Paths (LSPs). 148 A Call may be associated with zero, one or more connections, and a 149 connection may be associated with zero or one Call. Thus full and 150 logical Call/Connection separation is needed. 152 An example of the requirement for Calls can be found in the ITU-T's 153 Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) architecture [G.8080] 154 and specific requirements for support of Calls in this context can be 155 found in [RFC4139]. Note, however, that while the mechanisms 156 described in this document meet the requirements stated in [RFC4139] 157 they have wider applicability. 159 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 161 The mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable to any 162 packet (PSC) interface, layer-2 interfaces (L2SC), TDM capable 163 interfaces, LSC interfaces or FSC interfaces. The mechanisms and 164 protocol extensions are backward compatible, and can be used for Call 165 management where only the Call Managers need to be aware of the 166 protocol extensions. 168 2.1 Applicability to ASON 170 [RFC4139] details the requirements on GMPLS signaling to satisfy the 171 ASON architecture described in [G.8080]. The mechanisms described in 172 this document meet the requirements for Calls as described in 173 Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of [RFC4139] and the additional Call-related 174 requirements in Sections 4.4, 4.7, 5 and 6 of [RFC4139]. 176 [ASON-APPL] describes the applicability of GMPLS protocols to the 177 ASON architecture. 179 3. Requirements 181 3.1 Basic Call Function 183 The Call concept is used to deliver the following capabilities. 185 - Verification and identification of the Call initiator (prior to 186 LSP setup). 188 - Support of virtual concatenation with diverse path component LSPs. 190 - Association of multiple LSPs with a single Call (note aspects 191 related to recovery are detailed in [GMPLS-FUNCT] and [GMPLS-E2E]). 193 - Facilitation of control plane operations by allowing operational 194 status change of the associated LSP. 196 Procedures and protocol extensions to support Call setup, and the 197 association of Calls with Connections are described in Section 5 and 198 onwards of this document. 200 3.2 Call/Connection Separation 202 Full and logical Call and Connection separation is required. That is: 204 - It MUST be possible to establish a Connection without dependence 205 on a Call. 207 - It MUST be possible to establish a Call without any associated 208 Connections. 210 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 212 - It MUST be possible to associate more than one Connection with a 213 Call. 215 - Removal of the last Connection associated with a Call SHOULD NOT 216 result in the automatic removal of the Call except as a matter of 217 local policy at the ingress of the Call. 219 - Signaling of a Connection associated with a Call MUST NOT require 220 the distribution or retention of Call-related information (state) 221 within the network. 223 3.3 Call Segments 225 Call Segments capabilities MUST be supported. 227 Procedures and (GMPLS) RSVP-TE signaling protocol extensions to 228 support Call Segments are described in Section 7.3.1 of this 229 document. 231 4. Concepts and Terms 233 The concept of a Call and a Connection are also discussed in the ASON 234 architecture [G.8080] and [RFC4139]. This section is not intended as 235 a substitute for those documents, but is a brief summary of the key 236 terms and concepts. 238 4.1 What is a Call? 240 A Call is an agreement between endpoints possibly in cooperation with 241 the nodes that provide access to the network. Call setup may include 242 capability exchange, policy, authorization and security. 244 A Call is used to facilitate and manage a set of Connections that 245 provide end to end data services. While Connections require state to 246 be maintained at nodes along the data path within the network, Calls 247 do not involve the participation of transit nodes except to forward 248 the Call management requests as transparent messages. 250 A Call may be established and maintained independently of the 251 Connections that it supports. 253 4.2 A Hierarchy of Calls, Connections, Tunnels and LSPs 255 Clearly there is a hierarchical relationship between Calls and 256 Connections. One or more Connections may be associated with a Call. A 257 Connection may not be part of more than one Call. A Connection may, 258 however, exist without a Call. 260 In GMPLS RSVP-TE [RFC3473], a Connection is identified with a GMPLS 261 TE Tunnel. Commonly a Tunnel is identified with a single LSP, but it 263 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 265 should be noted that for protection, load balancing and many other 266 functions, a Tunnel may be supported by multiple parallel LSPs. The 267 following identification reproduces this hierarchy: 269 - Call IDs are unique within the context of the pair of addresses 270 that are the source and destination of the Call. 272 - Tunnel IDs are unique within the context of the Session (that is 273 the destination of the Tunnel). Applications may also find it 274 convenient to keep the Tunnel ID unique within the context of a 275 Call. 277 - LSP IDs are unique within the context of a Tunnel. 279 Note that the Call_ID value of zero is reserved and MUST NOT be used 280 during LSP-independent Call establishment. 282 Throughout the remainder of this document, the terms LSP and Tunnel 283 are used interchangeably with the term Connection. The case of a 284 Tunnel that is supported by more than one LSP is covered implicitly. 286 4.3 Exchanging Access Link Capabilities 288 It is useful for the ingress node of an LSP to know the link 289 capabilities of the link between the network and the egress node. 290 This information may allow the ingress node to tailor its LSP request 291 to fit those capabilities and to better utilize network resources 292 with regard to those capabilities. 294 In particular, this may be used to achieve end-to-end spectral 295 routing attribute negotiation for signal quality negotiation (such as 296 BER) in photonic environments where network edges are signal 297 regeneration capable. Similarly, it may be used to provide end-to-end 298 spatial routing attribute negotiation in multi-area routing 299 environments, in particular, when TE links have been bundled based on 300 technology specific attributes. 302 Call setup may provide a suitable mechanism to exchange information 303 for this purpose, although several other possibilities exist. 305 4.3.1 Network-initiated Calls 307 In this case, there may be no need to distribute additional link 308 capability information over and above the information distributed by 309 the TE and GMPLS extensions to the IGP. Further, it is possible that 310 future extensions to these IGPs will allow the distribution of more 311 detailed information including optical impairments. 313 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 315 4.3.2 User-initiated Calls 317 In this case, edge link information may not be visible within the 318 core network, nor (and specifically) at other edge nodes. This may 319 prevent an ingress from requesting suitable LSP characteristics to 320 ensure successful LSP setup. 322 Various solutions to this problem exist including the definition of 323 static TE links (that is, not advertised by a routing protocol) 324 between the core network and the edge nodes. Nevertheless, special 325 procedures may be necessary to advertise edge TE link information to 326 the edge nodes outside of the network without advertising the 327 information specific to the contents of the network. 329 In the future, when the requirements are understood on the 330 information that needs to be supported, TE extensions to EGPs may be 331 defined that provide this function. 333 4.3.3 Utilizing Call Setup 335 When IGP and EGP solutions are not available at the UNI, there is 336 still a requirement to have, at the local edge nodes, the knowledge 337 of the remote edge link capabilities. 339 The Call setup procedure provides an opportunity to discover edge 340 link capabilities of remote edge nodes before LSP setup is attempted. 341 The LINK CAPABILITY object is defined to allow this information to be 342 exchanged. The information that is included in this object is similar 343 to that distributed by GMPLS-capable IGPs (see [RFC4202]). 345 5. Protocol Extensions for Calls and Connections 347 This section describes the protocol extensions needed in support of 348 Call identification and management of Calls and Connections. 349 Procedures for the use of these protocol extensions are described in 350 Section 6. 352 5.1 Call Setup and Teardown 354 Calls are established independently of connections through the use of 355 the Notify message. The Notify message is a targeted message and does 356 not follow the path of LSPs through the network. 358 Simultaneous Call and connection establishment (sometimes referred to 359 as piggybacking) is not supported. 361 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 363 5.2 Call Identification 365 As soon as the concept of a Call is introduced, it is necessary to 366 support some means of identifying the Call. This becomes particularly 367 important when Calls and connections are separated and connections 368 must contain some reference to the Call. 370 A Call may be identified by a sequence of bytes that may have 371 considerable (but not arbitrary) length. A Call ID of 40 bytes would 372 not be unreasonable. It is not the place of this document to supply 373 rules for encoding or parsing Call IDs, but it must provide a 374 suitable means to communicate Call IDs within the protocol. The full 375 Call identification is referred to as the long Call ID. 377 The Call_ID is only relevant at the sender and receiver nodes. 378 Maintenance of this information in the signaling state is not 379 mandated at any intermediate node. Thus no change in [RFC3473] 380 transit implementations is required and there are no backward 381 compatibility issues. Forward compatibility is maintained by using 382 the existing default values to indicate that no Call processing is 383 required. 385 Further, the long Call ID is not required as part of the connection 386 (LSP) state even at the sender and receiver nodes so long as some 387 form of correlation is available. This correlation is provided 388 through the short Call ID. 390 5.2.1 Long Form Call Identification 392 The long Call ID is only required on the Notify message used to 393 establish the Call. It is carried in the "Session Name" field of the 394 SESSION_ATTRIBUTE Object on the Notify message. 396 A unique value per Call is inserted in the "Session Name" field by 397 the initiator of the Call. Subsequent network nodes MAY inspect this 398 object and MUST forward this object transparently across network 399 interfaces until reaching the egress node. Note that the structure of 400 this field MAY be the object of further formatting depending on the 401 naming convention(s). However, [RFC3209] defines the "Session Name" 402 field as a Null padded display string, and that any formatting 403 conventions for the Call ID must be limited to this scope. 405 5.2.2 Short Form Call Identification 407 The connections (LSPs) associated with a Call need to carry a 408 reference to the Call - the short Call ID. A new field is added to 409 the signaling protocol to identify an individual LSP with the Call to 410 which it belongs. 412 The new field is a 16-bit identifier (unique within the context of 414 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 416 the address pairing provided by the Tunnel_End_Point_Address and the 417 Sender_Address of the SENDER TEMPLATE object) that MUST be exchanged 418 on the Notify message during Call initialization and is used on all 419 subsequent LSP messages that are associated with the Call. This 420 identifier is known as the short Call ID and is encoded as described 421 in Section 5.2.3. The Call ID MUST NOT be used as part of the 422 processing to determine the session to which an RSVP signaling 423 message applies. This does not generate any backward compatibility 424 issue since the reserved field of the SESSION object defined in 425 [RFC3209] MUST NOT be examined on receipt. 427 In the unlikely case of short Call_ID exhaustion, local node policy 428 decides upon specific actions to be taken, but might include the use 429 of second Sender Address. Local policy details are outside of the 430 scope of this document. 432 5.2.3 Short Form Call ID Encoding 434 The short Call ID is carried in a 16-bit field in the SESSION object 435 carried on the Notify message used during Call setup, and on all 436 messages during LSP setup and management. The field used was 437 previously reserved (MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored 438 on receipt). This ensures backward compatibility with nodes that do 439 not utilize Calls. 441 The figure below shows the new version of the object. 443 Class = SESSION, Class-Num = 1, C-Type = 7(IPv4)/8(IPv6) 445 0 1 2 3 446 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 1 447 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 448 ~ IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel end point address ~ 449 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 450 | Call_ID | Tunnel ID | 451 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 452 | Extended Tunnel ID | 453 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 455 IPv4/IPv6 Tunnel End Point Address: 32 bits/128 bits (see [RFC3209]) 457 Call_ID: 16 bits 459 A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains 460 constant over the life of the Call. The Call_ID value MUST be 461 set to zero when there is no corresponding Call. 463 Tunnel ID: 16 bits (see [RFC3209]) 465 Extended Tunnel ID: 32 bits/128 bits (see [RFC3209]) 467 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 469 5.3 LINK_CAPABILITY object 471 The LINK CAPABILITY object is introduced to support link capability 472 exchange during Call setup and MAY be included in a Notify message 473 used for Call setup. This optional object includes the bundled link 474 local capabilities of the Call initiating node (or terminating node) 475 indicated by the source address of the Notify message. 477 The Class Number is selected so that the nodes that do not recognize 478 this object drop it silently. That is, the top bit is set and the 479 next bit is clear. 481 This object has the following format: 483 Class-Num = TBA (form 10bbbbbb), C_Type = 1 485 0 1 2 3 486 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 487 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 488 | | 489 // (Subobjects) // 490 | | 491 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 493 The contents of the LINK_CAPABILITY object is defined as series of 494 variable-length data items called subobjects. The subobject format is 495 defined in [RFC3209]. 497 The following subobjects are currently defined: 498 - Type 1: the link local IPv4 address (numbered bundle) using the 499 format defined in [RFC3209] 500 - Type 2: the link local IPv6 address (numbered bundle) using the 501 format defined in [RFC3209] 502 - Type 4: the link local identifier (unnumbered links and bundles) 503 using the format defined in [RFC3477] 504 - Type 64: the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth corresponding to this 505 bundle (see [RFC4201]) 506 - Type 65: the interface switching capability descriptor (see 507 [RFC4202]) corresponding to this bundle (see also [RFC4201]). 509 Note: future revisions of this document may extend the above list. 511 This object MAY also be used to exchange more than one bundled link 512 capability. In this case, the following ordering MUST be followed: 513 one identifier subobject (Type 1, 2 or 4) MUST be inserted before any 514 capability subobject (Type 64 or 65) to which it refers. 516 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 518 5.4 Revised Message Formats 520 The Notify message is enhanced to support Call establishment and 521 teardown of Calls. See Section 6 for a description of the procedures. 523 5.4.1 Notify Message 525 The Notify message is modified in support of Call establishment by 526 the optional addition of the LINK CAPABILTY object. Further, the 527 SESSION ATTRIBUTE object is added to the sequence to 528 carry the long Call ID. The presence of the SESSION ATTIBUTE object 529 MAY be used to distinguish a Notify message used for Call management, 530 but see Section 5.5 for another mechanism. The 531 MAY be used to simultaneously set up multiple Calls. 533 The format of the Notify Message is as follows: 535 ::= [ ] 536 [[ | ]...] 537 [ ] 538 539 541 ::= [ ] 543 ::= [ ] 544 [ ...] 545 [ ] 546 [ ] 547 [ | ] 549 ::= see [RFC3473] 551 ::= see [RFC3473] 553 5.5 ADMIN_STATUS Object 555 Notify messages exchanged for Call control and management purposes 556 carry a specific new bit (the Call Management or C bit) in the ADMIN 557 STATUS object. 559 The format and the contents of the ADMIN_STATUS object are both 560 dictated by [RFC3473] in favor of [RFC3471]. The new "C" bit is added 561 as shown below. 563 0 1 2 3 564 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 1 565 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 566 |R| Reserved |C|T|A|D| 567 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 569 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 571 Reflect (R): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 572 Testing (T): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 573 Administratively down (A): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 574 Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 576 Call Management (C): 1 bit 578 This bit is set when the message is being used to control 579 and manage a Call. 581 The procedures for the use of the C bit are described in Section 6. 583 6. Procedures in Support of Calls and Connections 585 6.1 Call/Connection Setup Procedures 587 This section describes the processing steps for Call and connection 588 setup. 590 There are three cases considered: 592 - A Call is set up without any associated 593 Connection. It is assumed that Connections will be added to the 594 Call at a later time, but this is neither a requirement nor 595 a constraint. 597 - A Connection may be added to an existing Call. This may happen if 598 the Call was set up without any associated Connections, or if a 599 further Connection is added to a Call that already has one or more 600 associated Connections. 602 - A Connection may be established without any reference to a Call 603 (see Section 6.4). This encompasses the previous LSP setup 604 procedure. 606 Note that a Call MAY NOT be imposed upon a Connection that is already 607 established. To do so would require changing the short Call ID in the 608 SESSION OBJECT of the existing LSPs and this would constitute a 609 change in the Session Identifier. This is not allowed by existing 610 protocol specifications. 612 Call and Connection teardown procedures are described later in 613 Section 6.6. 615 6.2 Call Setup 617 A Call is set up before, and independent of, LSP (i.e. Connection) 618 setup. 620 Call setup MAY necessitate verification of the link status and link 622 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 624 capability negotiation between the Call ingress node and the Call 625 egress node. The procedure described below is applied only once for a 626 Call and hence only once for the set of LSPs associated with a Call. 628 The Notify message (see [RFC3473]) is used to signal the Call setup 629 request and response. The new Call Management (C) bit in the 630 ADMIN_STATUS object is used to indicate that this Notify is managing 631 a Call. The Notify message is sent with source and destination 632 IPv4/IPv6 addresses set to any of the routable ingress/egress node 633 addresses respectively. 635 At least one session MUST be listed in the of 636 the Notify message. In order to allow for long identification of the 637 Call the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object is added as part of the . Note that the ERROR SPEC object is not relevant in 639 Call setup and MUST carry the Error Code zero ("Confirmation") to 640 indicate that there is no error. 642 During Call setup, the ADMIN STATUS object is sent with the following 643 bits set. Bits not listed MUST be set to zero. 645 R - to cause the egress to respond 646 C - to indicate that the Notify message is managing a Call. 648 The SESSION, SESSION ATTRIBUTE, SENDER_TEMPLATE, SENDER_TSPEC objects 649 included in the of the Notify message are built as 650 follows: 652 - The SESSION object includes as Tunnel_End_Point_Address any of the 653 call terminating (egress) node's IPv4/IPv6 routable addresses. The 654 Call_ID is set to a non-zero value unique within the context of 655 the address pairing provided by the Tunnel_End_Point_Address and 656 the Sender_Address from the SENDER TEMPLATE object (see below). 657 This value will be used as the short Call ID carried on all 658 messages for LSPs associated with this Call. 660 Note that the Call_ID value of zero is reserved and MUST NOT be 661 used since it will be present in SESSION objects of LSPs 662 that are not associated with Calls. The Tunnel_ID of 663 the SESSION object is not relevant for this procedure and SHOULD 664 be set to zero. The Extended_Tunnel_ID of the SESSION object is 665 not relevant for this procedure and MAY be set to zero or to an 666 address of the ingress node. 668 - The SESSION ATTRIBUTE object contains priority flags. Currently no 669 use of these flags is envisioned, however, future work may 670 identify value is assigning priorities to Calls; accordingly the 671 Priority fields MAY be set to non-zero values. None of the Flags 672 in the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object is relevant to this process and 673 this field SHOULD be set to zero. The Session Name field is used 675 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 677 to carry the long Call Id as described in Section 5. 679 - The SENDER_TEMPLATE object includes as Sender Address any of the 680 call initiating (ingress) node's IPv4/IPv6 routable addresses. The 681 LSP_ID is not relevant and SHOULD be set to zero. 683 - The bandwidth value inserted in the SENDER_TSPEC and FLOWSPEC 684 objects MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD be set to zero 685 when sent. 687 Additionally, ingress/egress nodes that need to communicate their 688 respective link local capabilities may include a LINK_CAPABILITY 689 object in the Notify message. 691 The receiver of a Notify message may identify whether it is part of 692 Call management or reporting an error by the presence or absence of 693 the SESSION ATTRIUBTE object in the . Full 694 clarity, however, may be achieved by inspection of the new Call 695 Management (C) bit in the ADMIN STATUS object. 697 Note that the POLICY_DATA object may be included in the and MAY be used to identify requestor credentials, 699 account numbers, limits, quotas, etc. This object is opaque to RSVP, 700 which simply passes it to policy control when required. 702 Message IDs MUST be used during Call setup. 704 6.2.1 Accepting Call Setup 706 A node that receives a Notify message carrying the ADMIN STATUS 707 object with the R and C bits set is being requested to set up a Call. 708 The receiver MAY perform authorization and policy according to local 709 requirements. 711 If the Call is acceptable, the receiver responds with a Notify 712 message reflecting the information from the Call request with two 713 exceptions. 715 - The responder removes any LINK CAPABLITY object that was received 716 and MAY insert a LINK CAPABILITY object that describes its own 717 access link. 719 - The ADMIN STATUS object is sent with only the C bit set. All other 720 bits MUST be set to zero. 722 The responder MUST use the Message ID object to ensure reliable 723 delivery of the response. If no Message ID Acknowledgement is 724 received after the configured number of retries, the responder SHOULD 725 continue to assume that the Call was successfully established. Call 726 liveliness procedures are covered in Section 6.7. 728 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 730 6.2.2 Call Setup Failure and Rejection 732 Call setup may fail or be rejected. 734 If the Notify message can not be delivered, no Message ID 735 acknowledgement will be received by the sender. In the event that the 736 sender has retransmitted the Notify message a configurable number of 737 times without receiving a Message ID Acknowledgement (as described in 738 [RFC2961]), the initiator SHOULD declare the Call failed and SHOULD 739 send a Call teardown request (see Section 6.6). 741 It is also possible that a Message ID Acknowledgement is received but 742 no Call response Notify message is received. In this case, the 743 initiator MAY re-send the Call setup request a configurable number of 744 times (see Section 6.7) before declaring that the Call has failed. At 745 this point the initiator MUST send a Call teardown request (see 746 Section 6.6). 748 If the Notify message cannot be parsed or is in error it MAY be 749 responded to with a Notify message carrying the error code 13 750 ("Unknown object class") or 14 ("Unknown object C-Type") if 751 appropriate to the error detected. 753 The Call setup MAY be rejected by the receiver because of security, 754 authorization or policy reasons. Suitable error codes already exist 755 [RFC2205] and can be used in the ERROR SPEC object included in the 756 Notify message sent in response. 758 Error response Notify messages SHOULD also use the Message ID object 759 to achieve reliable delivery. No action should be taken on the 760 failure to receive a Message ID Acknowledgement after the configured 761 number of retries. 763 6.3 Adding a Connections to a Call 765 Once a Call has been established, LSPs can be added to the Call. 766 Since the short Call ID is part of the SESSION Object, any LSP that 767 has the same Call ID value in the SESSION Object belongs to the same 768 Call, and the Notify message used to establish the Call carried the 769 same Call ID in its SESSION object. 771 There will be no confusion between LSPs that are associated with a 772 Call and those which are not since the Call ID value MUST be equal to 773 zero for LSPs which are not associated with a Call, and MUST NOT be 774 equal to zero for a valid Call ID. 776 LSPs for different Calls can be distinguished because the Call ID is 777 unique within the context of the source address (in the SENDER 778 TEMPLATE object) and the destination address (in the SESSION object). 780 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 782 Ingress and egress nodes MAY group together LSPs associated with the 783 same Call and process them as a group according to implementation 784 requirements. Transit nodes need not be aware of the association of 785 multiple LSPs with the same Call. 787 The ingress node MAY choose to set the "Session Name" of an LSP to 788 match the long Call ID of the associated Call. 790 The C bit of the ADMIN STATUS object MUST NOT be set on LSP messages 791 including on Notify messages that pertain to the LSP and MUST be 792 ignored. 794 6.3.1 Adding a Reverse Direction LSP to a Call 796 Note that once a Call has been established it is symmetric. That is, 797 either end of the Call may add LSPs to the Call. 799 Special care is needed when managing LSPs in the reverse direction 800 since the addresses in the SESSION and SENDER TEMPLATE are reversed. 801 However, since the short Call ID is unique in the context of a given 802 ingress-egress address pair it may safely be used to associate the 803 LSP with the Call. 805 Note that since Calls are defined here to be symmetrical the issue of 806 potential Call ID collision arises. This is discussed in Section 6.5. 808 6.4 Call-Free Connection Setup 810 It continues to be possible to set up LSPs as per [RFC3473] without 811 associating them with a Call. If the short Call ID in the SESSION 812 Object is set to zero, there is no associated Call and the Session 813 Name field in the SESSION ATTRIBUTE object MUST be interpreted simply 814 as the name of the session (see [RFC3209]). 816 The C bit of the ADMIN STATUS object MUST NOT be set on messages for 817 LSP control, including on Notify messages that pertain to LSPs, and 818 MUST be ignored when received on such messages. 820 6.5 Call Collision 822 Since Calls are symmetrical, it is possible that both ends of a Call 823 will attempt to establish Calls with the same long Call IDs at the 824 same time. This is only an issue if the source and destination 825 address pairs match. This situation can be avoided by applying some 826 rules to the contents of the long Call ID, but such mechanisms are 827 outside the scope of this document. 829 If a node that has sent a Call setup request and has not yet received 830 a response, itself receives a Call setup request with the same long 831 Call ID and matching source/destination addresses it SHOULD process 833 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 835 as follows. 837 - If its source address is numerically greater than the remote 838 source address, it MUST discard the received message and continue 839 to wait for a response to its setup request. 841 - If its source address is numerically smaller than the remote 842 source address, it MUST discard state associated with the Call 843 setup that it initiated, and MUST respond to the received Call 844 setup. 846 If a node receives a Call setup request carrying an address pair and 847 long Call ID that match an existing Call, the node MUST return an 848 error message (Notify message) with the new Error Code "Call 849 Management" and the new Error Value "Duplicate Call" in response to 850 the new Call request, and MUST NOT make any changes to the existing 851 Call. 853 A further possibility for contention arises when short Call IDs are 854 assigned by a pair of nodes for two distinct Calls that are set up 855 simultaneously using different long Call IDs. In this event a node 856 receives a Call setup request carrying a short Call ID that matches 857 one that it previously sent for the same address pair. The following 858 processing MUST be followed. 860 - If the receiver's source address is numerically greater than the 861 remote source address, the receiver returns an error (Notify 862 message) with the new Error Code "Call Management" and the new 863 Error Value "Call ID Contention". 865 - If the receiver's source address is numerically less than the 866 remote source address, the receiver accepts and processes the Call 867 request. It will receive an error message sent as described above, 868 and at that point it selects a new short Call ID and re-sends the 869 Call setup request. 871 6.6 Call/Connection Teardown 873 As with Call/Connection setup, there are several cases to consider. 875 - Removal of a Connection from a Call 876 - Removal of the last Connection from a Call 877 - Teardown of an "empty" Call 879 The case of tearing down an LSP that is not associated with a Call 880 does not need to be examined as it follows exactly the procedures 881 described in [RFC3473]. 883 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 885 6.6.1 Removal of a Connection from a Call 887 An LSP that is associated with a Call may be deleted using the 888 standard procedures described in [RFC3743]. No special procedures are 889 required. 891 Note that it is not possible to remove an LSP from a Call without 892 deleting the LSP. It is not valid to change the short Call ID from 893 non-zero to zero since this involves a change to the SESSION object, 894 which is not allowed. 896 6.6.2 Removal of the Last Connection from a Call 898 When the last LSP associated with a Call is deleted the question 899 arises as to what happens to the Call. Since a Call may exist 900 independently of Connections, it is not always acceptable to say that 901 the removal of the last LSP from a Call removes the Call. 903 The removal of the last LSP does not remove the Call and the 904 procedures described in the next Section MUST be used to delete the 905 Call. 907 6.6.3 Teardown of an "Empty" Call 909 When all LSPs have been removed from a Call, the Call may be torn 910 down or left for use by future LSPs. 912 Deletion of Calls is achieved by sending a Notify message just as for 913 Call setup, but the ADMIN STATUS object carries the R, D and C bits 914 on the teardown request and the D and C bits on the teardown 915 response. Other bits MUST be set to zero. 917 When a Notify message is sent for deleting a Call and the initiator 918 does not receive the corresponding reflected Notify message (or 919 possibly even the Message ID Ack), the initiator MAY retry the 920 deletion request using the same retry procedures as used during Call 921 establishment. If no response is received after full retry, the node 922 deleting the Call MAY declare the Call deleted, but under such 923 circumstances the node SHOULD avoid re-using the long or short Call 924 IDs for at least the five times the Notify refresh period. 926 6.6.4 Attempted Teardown of a Call with Existing Connections 928 If a Notify request with the D bit of the ADMIN STATUS object set is 929 received for a Call for which LSPs still exist, the request MUST be 930 rejected with the Error Code "Call Management" and Error Value 931 "Connections Still Exist". The state of the Call MUST NOT be changed. 933 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 935 6.6.5 Teardown of a Call from the Egress 937 Since Calls are symmetric they may be torn down from the ingress or 938 egress. 940 When the Call is "empty" (has no associated LSPs) it may be deleted 941 by the egress sending a Notify message just as described above. 943 Note that there is a possibility that both ends of a Call initiate 944 Call deletion at the same time. In this case, the Notify message 945 acting as teardown request MAY be interpreted by its recipient as a 946 teardown response. But since the Notify messages acting as teardown 947 requests carry the R bit in the ADMIN STATUS object, they MUST be 948 responded to anyway. If a teardown request Notify message is received 949 for an unknown Call ID it is, nevertheless, responded to in the 950 affirmative. 952 6.7 Control Plane Survivability 954 Delivery of Notify messages is secured using message ID 955 acknowledgements as described in previous sections. 957 Notify messages provide end-to-end communication that does not rely 958 on constant paths through the network. Notify messages are routed 959 according to IGP routing information. No consideration is, therefore, 960 required for network resilience (for example, make-before-break, 961 protection, fast re-route), although end-to-end resilience is of 962 interest for node restart and completely disjoint networks. 964 Periodic Notify messages SHOULD be sent by the initiator and 965 terminator of the Call to keep the Call alive and to handle ingress 966 or egress node restart. The time period for these retransmissions is 967 a local matter, but it is RECOMMENDED that this period should be 968 twice the shortest refresh period of any LSP associated with the 969 Call. When there are no LSPs associated with a Call, an LSR is 970 RECOMMENDED to use a refresh period of no less than one minute. The 971 Notify messages are identical to those sent as if establishing the 972 Call for the first time, except for the LINK CAPABILITY object, which 973 may have changed since the Call was first established, due to, e.g., 974 the establishment of connections, link failures, and the addition of 975 new component links. The current link information is useful for the 976 establishment of subsequent connections. A node that receives a 977 refresh Notify message carrying the R bit in the ADMIN STATUS object 978 MUST respond with a Notify response. A node that receives a refresh 979 Notify message (response or request) MAY reset its timer - thus, in 980 normal processing, Notify refreshes involve a single exchange once 981 per time period. 983 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 985 A node (sender or receiver) that is unsure of the status of a Call 986 MAY immediately send a Notify message as if establishing the Call for 987 the first time. 989 Failure to receive a refresh Notify request has no specific meaning. 990 A node that fails to receive a refresh Notify request MAY send its 991 own refresh Notify request to establish the status of the call. If an 992 LSR receives no response to a refresh Notify request (including no 993 Message ID Acknowledgement) a node MAY assume that the remote node is 994 unreachable or unavailable. It is a local policy matter whether this 995 causes the local node to teardown associated LSPs and delete the 996 Call. 998 In the event that an edge node restarts without preserved state, it 999 MAY relearn LSP state from adjacent nodes and Call state from remote 1000 nodes. If a Path or Resv message is received with a non-zero Call ID 1001 but without the C bit in the ADMIN STATUS, and for a Call ID that is 1002 not recognized, the receiver is RECOMMENDED to assume that the Call 1003 establishment is delayed and ignore the received message. If the Call 1004 setup never materializes the failure by the restarting node to 1005 refresh state will cause the LSPs to be torn down. Optionally, the 1006 receiver of such an LSP message for an unknown Call ID may return an 1007 error (PathErr or ResvErr message) with the error code "Call 1008 Management" and Error Value "Unknown Call ID". 1010 7. Applicability of Call and Connection Procedures 1012 This section considers the applicability of the different Call 1013 establishment procedures at the NNI and UNI reference points. This 1014 section is informative and is not intended to prescribe or prevent 1015 other options. 1017 7.1 Network-initiated Calls 1019 Since the link properties and other traffic-engineering attributes 1020 are likely known through the IGP, the LINK CAPABILITY object is not 1021 usually required. 1023 In multi-domain networks it is possible that access link properties 1024 and other traffic-engineering attributes are not known since the 1025 domains do not share this sort of information. In this case, the Call 1026 setup mechanism may include the LINK CAPABILITY object. 1028 7.2 User-initiated Calls 1030 It is possible that the access link properties and other traffic- 1031 engineering attributes are not shared across the core network. In 1032 this case, the Call setup mechanism may include the LINK CAPABILITY 1033 object. 1035 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 1037 Further, the first node within the network may be responsible for 1038 managing the Call. In this case, the Notify message that is used to 1039 set up the Call is addressed by the user network edge node to the 1040 first node of the core network. Moreover, neither the long Call ID 1041 nor the short Call ID is supplied (the Session Name Length is set to 1042 zero and the Call ID value is set to zero). The Notify message is 1043 passed to the first network node which is responsible for generating 1044 the long and short Call IDs before dispatching the message to the 1045 remote Call end point (which is known from the SESSION object). 1047 Further, when used in an overlay context, the first core node is 1048 allowed (see [RFC4208]) to replace the Session Name assigned by the 1049 ingress node and passed in the Path message. In the case of Call 1050 management, the first network node: 1051 1) MAY insert a long Call ID in the Session Name of a Path message 1052 2) MUST replace the Session Name with that originally issued by the 1053 user edge node when it returns the Resv message to the ingress node. 1055 7.3 External Call Managers 1057 Third party Call management agents may be used to apply policy and 1058 authorization at a point that is neither the initiator nor terminator 1059 of the Call. The previous example is a particular case of this, but 1060 the process and procedures are identical. 1062 7.3.1 Call Segments 1064 Call Segments exist between a set of default and configured External 1065 Call Managers along a path between the ingress and egress nodes, and 1066 use the protocols described in this document. 1068 The techniques that are used by a given service provider to identify 1069 which External Call Managers within its network should process a 1070 given call are beyond the scope of this document. 1072 An External Call Manager uses normal IP routing to route the Notify 1073 message to the next External Call Manager. Notify messages (requests 1074 and responses) are therefore encapsulated in IP packets that identify 1075 the sending and receiving External Call Managers, but the addresses 1076 used to identify the Call (the Sender Address in the SENDER TEMPLATE 1077 object and the Tunnel Endpoint Address in the SESSION object) 1078 continue to identify the endpoints of the Call. 1080 8. Non-support of Call ID 1082 It is important that the procedures described above operate as 1083 seamlessly as possible with legacy nodes that do not support the 1084 extensions described. 1086 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 1088 Clearly there is no need to consider the case where the Call 1089 initiator does not support Call setup initiation. 1091 8.1 Non-Support by External Call Managers 1093 It is unlikely that a Call initiator will be configured to send Call 1094 establishment Notify requests to an external Call manager including 1095 the first network node, if that node does not support Call setup. 1097 A node that receives an unexpected Call setup request will fall into 1098 one of the following categories. 1100 - Node does not support RSVP. The message will fail to be delivered 1101 or responded. No Message ID Acknowledgement will be sent. The 1102 initiator will retry and then give up. 1104 - Node supports RSVP or RSVP-TE but not GMPLS. The message will be 1105 delivered but not understood. It will be discarded. No Message ID 1106 Acknowledgement will be sent. The initiator will retry and then 1107 give up. 1109 - Node supports GMPLS but not Call management. The message will be 1110 delivered, but parsing will fail because of the presence of the 1111 SESSION ATTRIBUTE object. A Message ID Acknowledgement may be sent 1112 before the parse fails. When the parse fails the Notify message 1113 may be discarded in which case the initiator will retry and then 1114 give up, alternatively a parse error may be generated and returned 1115 in a Notify message which will indicate to the initiator that Call 1116 management is not supported. 1118 8.2 Non-Support by Transit Node 1120 Transit nodes SHOULD not examine Notify messages that are not 1121 addressed to them. However, they will see short Call IDs in all LSPs 1122 associated with Calls. 1124 Previous specifications state that these fields SHOULD be ignored on 1125 receipt and MUST be transmitted as zero. This is interpreted by some 1126 implementations as meaning that the fields should be zeroed before 1127 the objects are forwarded. If this happens, LSP setup will not be 1128 possible. If either of the fields is zeroed either on the Path or the 1129 Resv message, the Resv message will reach the initiator with the 1130 field set to zero - this is indication to the initiator that some 1131 node in the network is preventing Call management. Use of Explicit 1132 Routes may help to mitigate this issue by avoiding such nodes. 1133 Ultimately, however, it may be necessary to upgrade the offending 1134 nodes to handle these protocol extensions. 1136 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 1138 8.3 Non-Support by Egress Node 1140 It is unlikely that an attempt will be made to set up a Call to 1141 remote node that does not support Calls. 1143 If the egress node does not support Call management through the 1144 Notify message it will react (as described in Section 8.1) in the 1145 same way as an External Call Manager. 1147 9. Security Considerations 1149 Please refer to each of the referenced documents for a description of 1150 the security considerations applicable to the features that they 1151 provide. 1153 9.1 Call and Connection Security Considerations 1155 Call setup is vulnerable to attacks both of spoofing and denial of 1156 service. Since Call setup uses Notify messages, the process can be 1157 protected by the measures applicable to securing those messages as 1158 described in [RFC3473]. 1160 Note, additionally, that the process of Call establishment 1161 independent of LSP setup may be used to apply an extra level of 1162 authentication and policy to hop-by-hop LSP setup. It may be possible 1163 to protect the Call setup exchange using end-to-end security 1164 mechanisms such as those provided by Insect (see [RFC2402] and 1165 [RFC2406]). 1167 10. IANA Considerations 1169 10.1 RSVP Objects 1171 A new RSVP object is introduced: 1173 o LINK CAPABILITY object 1175 Class-Num = TBA (form 10bbbbbb) 1177 The Class Number is selected so that nodes not recognizing 1178 this object drop it silently. That is, the top bit is set 1179 and the next bit is cleared. 1181 C-Type = 1 (TE Link Capabilities) 1183 The LINK CAPABILITY object is only defined for inclusion on Notify 1184 messages. 1186 Refer to Section 5.3 of this document. 1188 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 1190 10.2 RSVP Error Codes and Error Values 1192 New RSVP Error Codes and Error Values are introduced 1194 o Error Codes: 1196 - Call Management (value TBA) 1198 o Error Values: 1200 - Call Management/Call ID Contention (value TBA) 1201 - Call Management/Connections still Exist (value TBA) 1202 - Call Management/Unknown Call ID (value TBA) 1203 - Call Management/Duplicate Call (value TBA) 1205 10.3 RSVP ADMIN_STATUS object Bits 1207 [GMPLS-E2E] requests IANA to manage the bits of the RSVP ADMIN_STATUS 1208 object. 1210 One new bit, the C bit, is defined in this document. Bit number 28 is 1211 suggested. 1213 See Section 5.5 of this document. 1215 11. Acknowledgements 1217 The authors would like to thank George Swallow, Yakov Rekhter, Lou 1218 Berger, Jerry Ash and Kireeti Kompella for their very useful input to 1219 and comments on an earlier revision of this document. 1221 12. References 1223 12.1 Normative References 1225 [GMPLS-E2E] Lang, J.P., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP- 1226 TE Extensions in support of End-to-End Generalized 1227 Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery," 1228 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling, work in 1229 progress. 1231 [GMPLS-FUNCT] Lang, J.P., and B. Rajagopalan (Editors) et al., 1232 "Generalized MPLS Recovery Functional 1233 Specification," work in progress. 1235 [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1236 Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1238 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 1240 [RFC2205] R. Braden et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol 1241 (RSVP)- Version 1 Functional Specification," 1242 RFC 2205, September 1997. 1244 [RFC2402] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header," 1245 RFC 2402, November 1998. 1247 [RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Payload 1248 (ESP)," RFC 2406, November 1998. 1250 [RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, 1251 F. and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead 1252 Reduction Extensions", RFC 2961, April 2001. 1254 [RFC3209] D. Awduche et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for 1255 LSP Tunnels," RFC 3209, December 2001. 1257 [RFC3471] L. Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized MPLS - 1258 Signaling Functional Description," RFC 3471, January 1259 2003. 1261 [RFC3473] L. Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized MPLS 1262 Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions," RFC 3473, January 1263 2003. 1265 [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered 1266 Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic 1267 Engineering (RSVP-TE)," RFC 3477, January 2003. 1269 [RFC3945] E. Mannie, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 1270 Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 1271 2004. 1273 [RFC4139] D. Papadimitriou, et al., "Requirements for 1274 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Signaling Usage and 1275 Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical 1276 Network (ASON)," RFC 4139, July 2005. 1278 [RFC4201] Kompella K., Rekhter Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling 1279 in MPLS Traffic Engineering," RFC 4201, October 2005. 1281 [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter (Editors) et al., "Routing 1282 Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS," RFC 4202, 1283 October 2005. 1285 [RFC4208] G. Swallow et al., "GMPLS RSVP Support for the Overlay 1286 Model," RFC 4208, October 2005. 1288 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 1290 12.2 Informative References 1292 [ASON-APPL] D. Papadimitriou et. al., "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) 1293 RSVP-TE signaling usage in support of Automatically 1294 Switched Optical Network (ASON)," 1295 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason, work in progress. 1297 For information on the availability of the following document, 1298 please see http://www.itu.int. 1300 [G.8080] ITU-T, "Architecture for the Automatically Switched 1301 Optical Network (ASON)," Recommendation G.8080/ 1302 Y.1304, November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003). 1304 13. Authors' Addresses 1306 Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel) 1307 Fr. Wellesplein 1, 1308 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium 1309 Phone: +32 3 240-8491 1310 EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be 1312 John Drake 1313 Boeing Satellite Systems 1314 2300 East Imperial Highway 1315 El Segundo, CA 90245 1316 EMail: John.E.Drake2@boeing.com 1318 Adrian Farrel 1319 Old Dog Consulting 1320 Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944 1321 EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk 1323 Deborah Brungard (AT&T) 1324 Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave. 1325 Middletown, NJ 07748, USA 1326 EMail: dbrungard@att.com 1328 Zafar Ali (Cisco) 1329 100 South Main St. #200 1330 Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA 1331 EMail: zali@cisco.com 1333 Arthi Ayyangar (Juniper) 1334 1194 N.Mathilda Ave 1335 Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA 1336 EMail: arthi@juniper.net 1338 Papadimitriou and Farrel - Expires May 2006 November 2005 1340 Don Fedyk (Nortel Networks) 1341 600 Technology Park Drive 1342 Billerica, MA, 01821, USA 1343 Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com 1345 Intellectual Property Statement 1347 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 1348 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 1349 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 1350 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 1351 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 1352 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 1353 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 1354 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 1356 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 1357 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 1358 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 1359 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 1360 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 1361 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 1363 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 1364 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 1365 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 1366 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 1367 ipr@ietf.org. 1369 Disclaimer of Validity 1371 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 1372 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 1373 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 1374 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 1375 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 1376 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 1377 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1379 Copyright Statement 1381 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 1382 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 1383 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.