Internet DRAFT - draft-dong-mpls-frr-resource-class

draft-dong-mpls-frr-resource-class






Network Working Group                                            J. Dong
Internet-Draft                                                   M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: May 3, 2012                                       C. Villamizar
                                                              OCCNC, LLC
                                                        October 31, 2011


              MPLS-TE Fast Reroute Resource Classification
                 draft-dong-mpls-frr-resource-class-01

Abstract

   This document describes simple and backward compatible extensions to
   Fast-Reroute (FRR) MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE).  The purpose of
   these extensions include the following.  These extensions provide a
   classification of SRLG to support LSP with differing protection
   requirements.  These extensions allow highly reliable nodes or links,
   typically resources with redundancy at a lower layer, to be
   identified to allow LSP to optionally not consider these resources as
   potential points of failure.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  TE FRR Resource Class Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Setting Default Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Backwards Compatibility with Legacy PLR  . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.3.  Backwards Compatibility with Legacy Ingress  . . . . . . .  5
   4.  TE FRR Resource Class Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  IGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.1.  OSPF Node Reliability sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.2.  OSPF Link Reliability sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.3.  IS-IS Node Reliability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.4.  IS-IS Link Reliability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.5.  Shared Risk Node Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.6.  Extended Shared Risk Link Group  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     6.1.  Resource Attribute Bit Mask  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  Protocol Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  To Be Completed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.1.  OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.2.  IS-IS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     9.3.  RSVP-TE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   12. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13










Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


1.  Introduction

   MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090] is widely
   used for protecting MPLS-TE LSPs from local failures.  TE FRR
   implementations today can consistently achieve redirection of traffic
   from a single resource failure to other local resources in 10s of
   milliseconds.  TE FRR can therefore provide high availability for
   service carried on the TE LSP.

   The existing TE FRR defines several protection and switching modes
   which are designed to apply to all protected LSPs regardless of what
   kind of availability is required by the service.  Protection must
   accomodate the most strict protection requirements of any service
   carried, even though protection of low probability failures are not
   appropriate for other services.  Where this occurs, the result can be
   greater requirements for network resources and higher network costs.

   This document first describes the flexibility limitations in existing
   TE FRR that are addressed and then proposes a flexible TE FRR
   mechanism to address them.


2.  Problem Statement

   MPLS-TE LSPs may be used to carry services which require different
   levels of availability.  MPLS-TE FRR mechanism defined in [RFC4090]
   can only provide the same local protection level for LSPs regardless
   of the availability requirement of the services.

   In some cases network nodes with sufficient internal redundancy
   mechanisms could be considered sufficiently immune to node failures
   for most services.  Similarly, some links could also be considered
   sufficiently redundant for most services.  Examples of reliable links
   are link bundle and multipath links that do not use common media,
   such as parallel physical links deployed within a provider facility.
   Thus for most services such nodes and links could be considered
   sufficiently reliable that they do not need be protected at LSP
   level.

   A subset of LSP may require extremely high availability.  Commonly
   cited examples include communications among emergency first
   responders (police, fire, etc) and application for which loss of
   connectivity may result in large financial losses (financial
   services, e-commerce, trading).  These services may require
   protection against Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) which would be
   expected to cause failure in extremely rare circumstances.  This same
   high level of protection is unnecessary for most services.




Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   In order to provide different levels of local protection for
   different kinds of services, a more flexible TE FRR mechanism is
   required.  Resource classes and resource class affinity are proposed
   to address this.


3.  TE FRR Resource Class Overview

   To support different levels of local protection, a classification of
   node and link reliability is defined.  This information is carried in
   the TE link state database (TED).  A classification may be associated
   with a node, a link, or an SRLG.  Extensions are defined for OSPF-TE
   and ISIS-TE.

   To support a decision at the point of local repair (PLR), an
   extension is defined for RSVP-TE.  The requirements of a specific LSP
   is defined in the RSVP-TE PATH message.  The requirements are
   expressed as changes from a default behavior.

3.1.  Setting Default Behavior

   Signaling can be reduced by configuring a default behavior at
   potential PLR.  If the majority of services do not require protection
   from relatively reliable nodes and/or links, setting configured
   defaults to this behavior allows a small reduction in the size of
   RSVP-TE PATH messages.

   Using a new TLV to define SRLG which are disabled by default can
   improve backward compatibility with respect to legacy PLR in cases
   where it is preferred that these legacy PLR ignore these low
   probability SRLG for all LSP.  Using the SRLG extensions understood
   by the legacy PLR allows these PLR to consider low probability SRLG
   for all LSP, with extension affecting only the PLR implementing this
   specification.

3.2.  Backwards Compatibility with Legacy PLR

   Legacy PLR will ignore distinctions between relatively reliable nodes
   or links and low probability SRLG and those which are relatively
   unreliable.  These PLRs may choose protection paths which error on
   the side of providing more protection for some services than is
   required.  At worst, this has an impact on network cost, but still
   would represent a lower cost than if the extensions were unavailable
   at all nodes.

   SRLG can be defined such that legacy PLR either always consider the
   SRLG or always ignore the SRLG.  Only the PLR implementing this
   specification will be able to selectively apply classes of SRLG on a



Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   per LSP basis.

3.3.  Backwards Compatibility with Legacy Ingress

   Legacy Ingress will not provide any extensions which allow LSP to be
   treated differently from the default.  In a brownfield installation
   the defaults can be set to provide the level of protection that had
   been available.  Extensions can then be used by LSR implementing this
   specification to indicate LSP which require some protection, but less
   than this default, or more protection than this default.


4.  TE FRR Resource Class Protocol Extensions

   This document defines the following extensions.

   1.  new TLVs in OSPF and IS-IS to provide a means of host or link
       reliability classification.

   2.  new TLVs in OSPF and IS-IS to provide SRLG classification.

   3.  a new alternate SRLG TLV for OSPF and IS-IS to allow definition
       of SRLG that will be ignored by legacy PLR.

   4.  an extension to RSVP-TE to allow per LSP deviations from default
       protection to be specified.


5.  IGP Extensions

5.1.  OSPF Node Reliability sub-TLV

   The reliability of a node is specified using a Node Reliability sub-
   TLV of the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786].  Length of this sub-TLV is
   variable.  The format is as follows:


        0                   1                   2                   3
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              TBD              |             Length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Flags      |          Node Classification Bit Map          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       Zero or more SRNG                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The type code is TBA for Node Reliability sub-TLV.



Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   The length field is set to four plus the number of SRNG included time
   the size of an SRNG.

   The Flags field is reserved for future use.

   The 3-octet Node Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
   used by operator to specify inclusion of the node in a set of
   operator defined classifications.

   The format of SRNG is common to OSPF and ISIS and is defined in
   Section 5.5

5.2.  OSPF Link Reliability sub-TLV

   The reliability of link is specified using a Link Reliability sub-TLV
   of the Link TLV [RFC3630].  Length of this sub-TLV is variable.  The
   format is as follow:


        0                   1                   2                   3
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Flags      |          Link Classification Bit Map          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                  Zero or more Extended SRLG                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Flags field is reserved for future use.

   The 3 octet Link Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
   used by operator to specify inclusion of the link in a set of
   operator defined classifications.

   The format of Extended SRLG is common to OSPF and ISIS and is defined
   in Section 5.5

5.3.  IS-IS Node Reliability TLV

   The reliability of node is specified using a Node Reliability TLV
   with TLV Type TBA.  Length of this TLV is variable.  The format is as
   follows:










Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


        0                   1                   2                   3
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              TBD              |             Length            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Flags      |          Node Classification Bit Map          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                       Zero or more SRNG                       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Flags field is reserved for future use.

   The 3 octet Node Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
   used by operator to specify inclusion of the node in a set of
   operator defined classifications.

   The format of SRNG is common to OSPF and ISIS and is defined in
   Section 5.5

5.4.  IS-IS Link Reliability TLV

   The reliability of link is specified using a Link Reliability sub-TLV
   of the TLV 22 [RFC5305].  Length of this sub-TLV is variable.  The
   format is as follow:


        0                   1                   2                   3
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Flags      |          Link Classification Bit Map          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                  Zero or more Extended SRLG                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Flags field is reserved for future use.

   The 3 octet Link Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
   used by operator to specify inclusion of the link in a set of
   operator defined classifications.

   The format of Extended SRLG is common to OSPF and ISIS and is defined
   in Section 5.5

5.5.  Shared Risk Node Group

   The Shared Risk Node Group (SRNG) is carried within either the OSPF
   Node Reliability sub-TLV (see Section 5.1) or the IS-IS Node
   Reliability TLV (see Section 5.3).  The SRNG is 8 bytes.  The format



Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   is as follow:


        0                   1                   2                   3
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |               Shared Risk Node Group Number                   |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Flags      |         SRNG Classification Bit Map           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Shared Risk Node Group Number (SRLG) is a 32 bit number used to
   specify the inclusion of the node within a set of nodes which share a
   common resource that therefore can be expected to fail simultaneously
   if that resource becomes unavailable.  The SRLG is a operator
   assigned number which identified the resource.

   The Flags field is reserved for future use.

   The 3-octet SRNG Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be
   used by operator to specify inclusion of the SRNG in a set of
   operator defined classifications.

5.6.  Extended Shared Risk Link Group

   The Extended Shared Risk Link Group (ESRLG) is carried within either
   the OSPF Link Reliability sub-TLV (see Section 5.2) or the IS-IS Link
   Reliability TLV (see Section 5.4).  The ESRLG is 8 bytes.  The format
   is as follow:


        0                   1                   2                   3
        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |           Extended Shared Risk Link Group Number              |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Flags      |         SRLG Classification Bit Map           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Extended Shared Risk Link Group Number (ESRLG) is a 32 bit number
   used to specify the inclusion of the link within a set of links which
   share a common resource that therefore can be expected to fail
   simultaneously if that resource becomes unavailable.  The SRLG is a
   operator assigned number which identified the resource.

   The Flags field is reserved for future use.

   The 3-octet SRLG Classification Bit Map is a bit map which may be



Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   used by operator to specify inclusion of the SRLG in a set of
   operator defined classifications.

   The Extended Shared Risk Link Group Number (ESRLG) may be given the
   same number as an advertised SRLG when the desired behavior for
   legacy PLR is to have the legacy PLR always protect against failure
   of the ESRLG.  If the desired behavior for legacy PLR is to have the
   legacy PLR never protect against failure of the ESRLG, then the ESRLG
   number must not conflict with an SRLG number.


6.  RSVP-TE Extensions

6.1.  Resource Attribute Bit Mask

   The Resource Attribute Bit Mask is defined in LSP_ATRTRIBUTE Object.
   The LSP_ATRTRIBUTE is defined in [RFC5420].  The format of the
   Resource Attribute Bit Mask is as follows:


       0                   1                   2                   3
       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              TBD              |             Length            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | OP| Ap| Resv  |         Resource Attribute Bit Mask           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The 2 bit Operation field (OP) specifies one of the following
   operations.  The following values are defined for the Operation
   field.

   00  Include if any set

   01  Include if all set

   10  Exclude if any set

   11  Exclude if all set

   The 2 bit Apply field (Ap) is a bit map which indicates which context
   the bit mask is applied to.  The following values are defined for the
   Apply field.

   00  Apply the mask to Node Reliability values






Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   01  Apply the mask to Link Reliability values

   10  Apply the mask to SRNG Reliability values

   11  Apply the mask to ESRLG Reliability values

   The 3-octet Resource Attribute Bit Mask is a bit mask applied to the
   3-octet resource classifications specified for nodes, links, SRNG, or
   ESRLG.  The Apply field indicates which type of resource
   classification to apply the mask to.  The Operation field indicates
   what action to take as a result of the mask operation.


7.  Protocol Actions

   The Node Reliability and Link Reliability are assigned to nodes and
   links according to configuration on the LSR advertising the
   containing TLV.  The Resource Attribute Bit Mask is assigned
   according to configuration on the ingress LSR for a given LSP.

   The action taken at a PLR for a given LSP are as follows.

   If no protection is required, as indicated by the "protection
   desired" bit in the RSVP-TE Flags SESSION_ATTRIBUTE [RFC3209] not
   being set, then no protection path is created at a potential PLR.
   This behavior is unchanged.

   If link disjoint protection if required, as indicated by the
   "protection desired" bit set and the "Node protection desired" bit
   not set [RFC4090], then protection path SHOULD NOT be established for
   links which are included as a result of applying the Resource
   Attribute Bit Masks for the LSP to the Link Classification Bit Map of
   the link, then for links which need local protection, the protection
   paths must be disjoint with respect to all SRLGs and ESRLGs included,
   except SRLGs excluded as a result of applying the Resource Attribute
   Bit Masks for the LSP to the SRLG Classification Bit Map.

   If node disjoint protection if required, as indicated by the
   "protection desired" bit set and the "Node protection desired" bit
   set, then protection path SHOULD not be established for nodes or
   links which are included as a result of applying the corresponding
   Resource Attribute Bit Masks for the LSP to the Node Classification
   Bit Map of the node or Link Classification Bit Map of the link.  Then
   for nodes and links which need local protection, the protection paths
   must be disjoint with respect to all SRLG, SRNG and ESRLG included,
   except SRNG and SRLG excluded as a result of applying the
   corresponding Resource Attribute Bit Masks for the LSP to the SRNG
   Classification Bit Map and the SRLG Classification Bit Map



Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   respectively.

   The action taken in the absence of any Resource Attribute Bit Masks
   in all cases is identical to the action that would be taken by a
   legacy PLR.  Inclusion of one or more Resource Attribute Bit Mask
   modifies this behavior.


8.  To Be Completed

   An LSP may have many Resource Attribute Bit Masks.  It may be more
   efficient to define a container for the Resource Attribute Bit Masks
   and include that container in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES.  Whether to use
   such a container rather than include multiple Resource Attribute Bit
   Masks directly in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES is up for discussion.


9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  OSPF

   The registry for the Node Attribute TLV is defined in [RFC5786].
   IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV codepoint for the Node
   Reliability sub-TLV carried in the Node Attribute TLV.

   Value     Sub-TLV                    Reference
   -----     -------                    ---------
    TBA      Node Reliability sub-TLV   this document

   The registry for the Link TLV is defined in [RFC3630].  IANA is
   requested to assign a new sub-TLV codepoint for the Link Reliability
   sub-TLV carried in the Link TLV.

   Value     Sub-TLV                    Reference
   -----     -------                    ---------
    TBA      Link Reliability sub-TLV   this document

9.2.  IS-IS

   IANA is requested to assign a new TLV codepoint for Node Reliability
   TLV.

   Type     TLV                         Reference
   -----    -------                     ---------
    TBA     Node Reliability sub-TLV    this document

   The registry for TLV 22 is defined in [RFC5305].  IANA is requested
   to assign a new sub-TLV codepoint for the Link Reliability sub-TLV



Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   which is carried in TLV 22.

   Value     Sub-TLV                    Reference
   -----     -------                    ---------
    TBA      Link Reliability sub-TLV   this document

9.3.  RSVP-TE

   IANA is requested to assign a new type codepoint for the "Resource
   Attribute Bit Mask" TLV in the Attribute TLV Space.  It is carried in
   the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object (class = 197, C-Type = 1).

       Type:  TBA
       Name:  Resource Attribute Bit Mask
       Allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES:  Yes
       Allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES:  No


10.  Security Considerations

   The function described in this document does not create any new
   security issues for the OSPF and IS-IS protocols and does not
   introduce any new security issues above those identified in [RFC3209]
   and [RFC4090].


11.  Acknowledgements

   TBD


12.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
              September 2003.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              May 2005.




Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     MPLS TE FRR Resource Classification      October 2011


   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

   [RFC5420]  Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
              Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
              Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.

   [RFC5786]  Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
              Local Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE)
              Extensions", RFC 5786, March 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Jie Dong
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com


   Mach Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com


   Curtis Villamizar
   OCCNC, LLC

   Email: curtis@occnc.com














Dong, et al.               Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 13]