Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Category: Experimental Attila Takacs (Ericsson) Expiration Date: October 29, 2008 Diego Caviglia (Ericsson) Don Fedyk (Nortel) Julien Meuric (France Telecom) April 29, 2008 GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the original RSVP model for the transport of traffic related parameters. The procedures described in this document are experimental. Berger, et. al. Experimental [Page 1] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt April 29, 2008 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1.1 Background ................................................ 3 1.2 Approach Overview ......................................... 4 1.3 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5 2 Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs ....... 5 2.1 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object .................................. 5 2.1.1 Procedures ................................................ 5 2.2 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ..................................... 6 2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 6 2.3 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .................................... 6 2.3.1 Procedures ................................................ 6 3 Packet Formats ............................................ 7 4 Compatibility ............................................. 8 5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 8 5.1 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object .................................. 8 5.2 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ..................................... 9 5.3 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .................................... 9 6 Security Considerations ................................... 9 7 References ................................................ 9 7.1 Normative References ...................................... 9 7.2 Informative References .................................... 10 8 Authors' Addresses ........................................ 10 A. Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object ........ 11 A.1. Applicability ............................................. 11 A.2. Overview .................................................. 12 A.3. Procedures ................................................ 13 A.4. Compatibility ............................................. 13 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 14 Intellectual Property ..................................... 14 Berger, et. al. Experimental [Page 2] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt April 29, 2008 1. Introduction GMPLS, see [RFC3473], introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) and lambdas, and specifically only supported bidirectional LSPs with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210]. Recent work, see [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC], has looked at extending GMPLS to control Ethernet switching. In this context there has been discussion of the support of bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth. (That is, bidirectional LSPs that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction.) This discussion motivated the extensions defined in this document, which may be used with any switching technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs. The procedures described in this document are experimental. 1.1. Background Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP (see [RFC2210], [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model of communication defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209] used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic. With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473] the model of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either unmodified, and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is implicitly or explicitly (see [RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) irrelevant. Berger, et. al. Experimental [Page 3] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt April 29, 2008 1.2. Approach Overview The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the transport of traffic related parameters and GMPLS' support for bidirectional LSPs. An alternative approach was considered and rejected in favor of the more generic approach presented below. For reference purposes only, the rejected approach is summarized in Appendix A. The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. The existing objects are used in the original fashion defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream direction. The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 shows the bandwidth related objects used for Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs. |---| Path |---| | I |------------------->| E | | n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g | | g | -ADSPEC | r | | r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e | | e | | s | | s | Resv | s | | s |<-------------------| | | | -FLOWSPEC | | | | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | | | | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | | |---| |---| Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs This extensions defined in this document are limited to P2P LSPs. Support for P2MP bidirectional LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this document. Berger, et. al. Experimental [Page 4] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt April 29, 2008 1.3. Conventions used in this document 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]. 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC and UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects. The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream direction. The new objects also differ in that they are used on messages in the opposite directions. 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC object. This includes the definition of class types and their formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object object is TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). 2.1.1. Procedures The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC object used in the Path message. The contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a consistent format and procedures used to construct the FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328]. Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object in the upstream label and resource allocation procedure defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object, MUST issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication. Berger, et. al. Experimental [Page 5] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt April 29, 2008 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC object. This includes the definition of class types and their formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object object is TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). 2.2.1. Procedures The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a consistent format and procedures used to construct the FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328]. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MAY differ from contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data transmission requirements. When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not available. 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC object. This includes the definition of class types and their formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). 2.3.1. Procedures The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a consistent format and procedures used to construct the ADSPEC object that will Berger, et. al. Experimental [Page 6] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt April 29, 2008 be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the ADSPEC object and as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes. 3. Packet Formats This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by this section. Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in this section: Object name Applicable RSVP messages --------------- ------------------------ UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr and Notify (via sender descriptor) UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr and Notify (via flow descriptor list) UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr and Notify (via flow descriptor list) The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric LSPs is: ::= [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric LSPs is: ::= | ::= [ ]