idnits 2.17.1 draft-takacs-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 7 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 18, 2010) is 4938 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: 'MEF-TRAFFIC' is mentioned on line 260, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'SEC-FRAMEWORK' is mentioned on line 380, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC5920' is defined on line 435, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5467 (Obsoleted by RFC 6387) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group L. Berger 3 Internet-Draft LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 4 Intended status: Standards Track A. Takacs 5 Expires: April 21, 2011 D. Caviglia 6 Ericsson 7 D. Fedyk 8 Alcatel-Lucent 9 J. Meuric 10 France Telecom Orange 11 October 18, 2010 13 GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) 14 draft-takacs-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-00.txt 16 Abstract 18 This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric 19 bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented 20 approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the 21 original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport 22 of traffic-related parameters. 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2011. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1.2. Approach Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . 5 63 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 2.1.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 2.2.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 2.3.1. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 3. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 70 4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 77 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 1. Introduction 83 GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label 84 Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching 85 technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing 86 (TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs 87 with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth 88 requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in 89 [RFC2205] and [RFC2210]. 91 GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs are bidirectional LSPs 92 that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction. 93 Support for bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth, was 94 previously discussed in the context of Ethernet, notably [GMPLS- 95 PBBTE] and [RFC6003]. In that context, asymmetric bandwidth support 96 was considered to be a capability that was unlikely to be deployed, 97 and hence [RFC5467] was published as Experimental. The MPLS 98 Transport Profile, MPLS-TP, requires that asymmetric bandwidth 99 bidirectional LSPs be supported, see [RFC5654], and therefore this 100 document is being published on the Standards Track. This document 101 has no technical changes from the approach defined in [RFC5467]. 102 This document removes an alternate approach that is not part of the 103 Standards Track solution. 105 1.1. Background 107 Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210], 108 [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to 109 RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model 110 for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP 111 session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model 112 of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209], 113 used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the 114 FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used 115 to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC 116 object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that 117 should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC 118 object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the 119 actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic. 121 With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473], the model 122 of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In 123 the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object 124 indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream 125 directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the 126 allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either 127 unmodified and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is 128 implicitly or explicitly ([RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) irrelevant. 130 1.2. Approach Overview 132 The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs 133 defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the 134 transport of traffic-related parameters and GMPLS's support for 135 bidirectional LSPs. 137 The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching 138 technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing 139 SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the 140 addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and 141 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. The existing objects are used in the 142 original fashion defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only 143 to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream 144 direction. The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as 145 the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 146 shows the bandwidth-related objects used for asymmetric bandwidth 147 bidirectional LSPs. 149 |---| Path |---| 150 | I |------------------->| E | 151 | n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g | 152 | g | -ADSPEC | r | 153 | r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e | 154 | e | | s | 155 | s | Resv | s | 156 | s |<-------------------| | 157 | | -FLOWSPEC | | 158 | | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | | 159 | | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | | 160 |---| |---| 162 Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs 164 The extensions defined in this document are limited to Point-to-Point 165 (P2P) LSPs. Support for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) bidirectional 166 LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this 167 document. 169 1.3. Conventions Used in This Document 171 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 172 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 173 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 175 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs 177 The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled 178 using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with 179 the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC, and 180 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects. 182 The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in 183 the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in 184 that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while 185 the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream 186 direction. The new objects also differ in that they are carried on 187 messages traveling in the opposite direction. 189 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object 191 The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC 192 object. This includes the definition of class types and their 193 formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is 120 (of 194 the form 0bbbbbbb). 196 2.1.1. Procedures 198 The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST 199 contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional 200 LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The C-Type of the 201 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC 202 object used in the Path message. The contents of the 203 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and 204 procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC 205 object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328]. 207 Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC 208 object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object in the 209 upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in 210 Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is 211 unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the 212 contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message 213 with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication. 215 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object 217 The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC 218 object. This includes the definition of class types and their 219 formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is 121 (of 220 the form 0bbbbbbb). 222 2.2.1. Procedures 224 The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates 225 at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any 226 Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an 227 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object 228 MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. 229 The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be constructed using a 230 format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the 231 FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or 232 [RFC4328]. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MAY differ from 233 contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data 234 transmission requirements. 236 When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress 237 MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to 238 satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path 239 message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the 240 resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification 241 might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might 242 result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not 243 available. 245 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object 247 The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC 248 object. This includes the definition of class types and their 249 formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is 122 (of 250 the form 0bbbbbbb). 252 2.3.1. Procedures 254 The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that 255 corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. 256 The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the 257 C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents 258 of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and 259 procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object 260 that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The 261 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the 262 ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes. 264 3. Packet Formats 266 This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by 267 this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205], 268 [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RFC5511] for the syntax used by RSVP. 269 Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in 270 this section: 272 Object name Applicable RSVP messages 273 --------------- ------------------------ 274 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify 275 (via sender descriptor) 276 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and 277 Notify (via flow descriptor list) 278 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and 279 Notify (via flow descriptor list) 281 The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric 282 LSPs is: 284 ::= 285 [ ] 286 [ ] 287 [ ] 288 [ ] 289 290 292 The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric 293 LSPs is: 295 ::= 296 | 298 ::= 299 [ ] 300 301