CCAMP Working Group F. Zhang Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation Intended status: Standards Track M. Venkatesan Expires: December 08, 2012 Dell Inc. Y. Xu CATR June 08, 2012 RSVP-TE Extensions to Exchange MPLS-TP LSP Tunnnel Numbers draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03 Abstract The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370] specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned Z9-Tunnel_Num, which can be used to form Maintenance Entity Point Identifier (MEP_ID). As to some Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) functions, such as Connectivity Verification (CV) [RFC6428], source MEP_ID must be inserted in the OAM packets, so that the peer endpoint can compare the received and expected MEP_IDs to judge whether there is a mis-connnectivity defect [RFC6371], which means that the two MEP nodes need to pre-store each other's MEP_IDs. This document defines the signaling extensions to communicate the local assigned Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. 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 December 08, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num June 2012 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370] specifies a initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned Z9-Tunnel_Num, which can be used to form Maintenance Entity Point Identifier (MEP_ID). The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num, and in situations where global uniqueness is required, this becomes: Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num. In order to realize some Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) functions, such as Connectivity Verification (CV) [RFC6428], source MEP-ID MUST be inserted in the OAM packets, in this way the peer endpoint can compare the received and expected MEP-IDs to judge whether there is a mis-connnectivity defect [RFC6371]. Hence, the two MEP nodes must pre-store each other's MEP-IDs before sending the CV packets. When the LSPs are set up by control plane, Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engnieering (RSVP-TE) messages can be used to communicate the Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. Since the LSP identifiers can be carried in an ASSOCIATION object, which may also be used in a single session [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext], it is naturally to define the signaling extensions based on the ASSOCIATION object. 2. 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]. Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num June 2012 3. Operation Consider that LSP1 is initialized at A1 node with an ASSOCIATION object inserted in Path message. Association Type is set to "LSP Identifers", Association ID set to A1-Tunnel_Num, Association Source set to A1-Node_ID. Upon receipt of the Association Object, the egress node Z9 checks the Association Type field. If it is "LSP Identifiers" and an Upstream_Label exists in Path message, the ASSOCIATION object must be carried in the Resv message also. Similarly, Association Type is set to "LSP Identifiers", Association ID set to Z9-Tunnel_Num, Association Source set to Z9-Node_ID. In this way, the ingress LSR can get the Z9-Tunnel_Num, which may be used for identifying a mis-connnectivity defect of the proactive CV OAM function. 4. RSVP-TE Extensions 4.1. Association Type Within the current document, a new Association Type is defined in the ASSOCIATION object, which MAY be used with any ASSOCIATION object type. For example, the Extended ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D .ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] can be used when Global ID based identification is desired. Value Type ----- ----- 6 (TBD) LSP Identifiers (L) See [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] for the definition of other fields and values. The rules associated with the processing of the Extended ASSOCIATION objects in RSVP message are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]. It said that in the absence of Association Type-specific rules for identifying association, the included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be identical. Since the Association Type "LSP Identifiers" used here is to carry LSP identifier, there is no need to associate Path state to Path state or Resv state to Resv state, one specific rule is added: when the Association Type is "LSP Identifiers", the ASSOCIATION object can appear in Path or Resv message across sessions or in a single session, and the values can be different. 5. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section. One bit ("LSP Identifers") needs to be allocated in the Association Type Registry. Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num June 2012 6. Security Considerations A new Association Type is defined in this document, and except this, there are no security issues about the Extended ASSOCIATION object are introduced here. For Association object related security issues, see the documents [RFC4872], [RFC4873], and [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc- ext]. For a more comprehensive discussion on GMPLS security please see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920]. 7. Acknowledgement This document was prepared based on the discussion with George Swallow, valuable comments and input were also received from Lou Berger, John E Drake, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman, Muliu Tao and Wenjuan He. 8. References 8.1. Normative references [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] Berger, L., Faucheur, F. and A. Narayanan, "RSVP Association Object Extensions", Internet-Draft draft-ietf- ccamp-assoc-ext-03, March 2012. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 8.2. Informative References [RFC4872] Lang, J.P., Rekhter, Y. and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May 2007. [RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007. [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G. and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011. [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", RFC 6371, September 2011. Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num June 2012 [RFC6428] Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G. and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 6428, November 2011. Authors' Addresses Fei Zhang ZTE Corporation Email: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Venkatesan Mahalingam Dell Inc. Email: venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com Yunbin Xu CATR Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn Xiao Bao ZTE Corporation Email: bao.xiao1@zte.com.cn Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012 [Page 5]