Network Working Group Fatai Zhang Internet-Draft Dan Li Intended status: Standards Track Huawei O. Gonzalez de Dios Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo C. Margaria. C Nokia Siemens Networks Expires: September 11, 2011 March 11, 2011 RSVP-TE Extensions for Configuration SRLG of an FA draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 11, 2011. Zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 1] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 Abstract This memo provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the support of the automatic discovery of SRLG of an LSP. Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................2 2. RSVP-TE Requirements.........................................4 2.1. SRLG Collection Indication..............................4 2.2. SRLG Collecting.........................................4 2.3. SRLG Update.............................................4 3. RSVP-TE Extensions...........................................4 3.1. SRLG Collection Flag....................................4 3.2. SRLG sub-object.........................................5 3.3. Signaling Procedures....................................6 4. Manageability Considerations.................................6 5. IANA Considerations..........................................7 5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags................................7 5.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object.....................................7 6. Security Considerations......................................7 7. References...................................................7 1. Introduction As described in [RFC4206], H-LSP (Hierarchical LSP) can be used for carrying one or more other LSPs. [RFC6107] further mentions the implementation of H-LSP. In packet networks, e.g. MPLS networks, H- LSP mechanism can be implemented by MPLS label stack. In non-packet networks where the label is implicit, label stacks are not possible, and H-LSPs rely on the ability to nest switching technologies. Thus, for example, a lambda switch capable (LSC) LSP can carry a time division multiplexing (TDM) LSP, but cannot carry another LSC LSP. S-LSP (LSP Stitching), which is defined in [RFC5150], is an LSP that represents a segment of another LSP, i.e., the S-LSP is viewed as one hop by another LSP. As described in [RFC6107], in the data plane the LSPs are stitched so that there is no label stacking or nesting. Thus, an S-LSP must be of the same switching technology as the end-to-end LSP that it facilitates. zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 2] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 Therefore, H-LSP mechanism can be used in both multi-domain and multi-layer scenarios and S-LSP mechanism can only be used in multi- domain scenario. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be advertised as a TE link in a GMPLS routing instance for path computation purpose. As described in [RFC6107], if the LSP (H-LSP or S-LSP) is advertised in the same instance of the control plane that advertises the TE links from which the LSP is constructed, the LSP is called an FA. In multi-domain or multi-layer context, the path information of an LSP may not be provided to the ingress node for confidential reasons and the ingress node may not run the same routing instance with the intermediate nodes traversed by the path. In such scenarios, the ingress node can not get the SRLG information of the path information which the LSP traverse. Even if the ingress node has the same routing instance with the intermediate nodes traversed by the path, the path information of the H-LSP or S-LSP may not be provided to the ingress node. Hence the ingress node may also not know the SRLG of the path the LSP traverses. In the case that the ingress node does not get the SRLG of the path the LSP traverses(i.e. H-LSP or S-LSP), there are disadvantages as follows: o SRLG-disjoint path, for instance in case of end-to-end path protection, cannot be calculated o Intermediate nodes of a pre-planned shared restoration LSP cannot correctly decide on the SRLG-disjointness between two PPRO (PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE Object) o In case that an LSP is advertised as a TE-Link, the ingress node cannot provide the correct SRLG for the TE-Link automatically In case that an LSP is advertised as a TE-Link, the SRLG information of the TE link needs to be configured manually or automatically. However, for manually configuration, there are some disadvantages (e.g., require configuration coordination and additional management; manual errors may be introduced) mentioned in Section 1.3.4 of [RFC6107]. In addition, Section 1.2 of [RFC6107] describes it is desirable to have a kind of automatic mechanism to advertise the FA (i.e., to signal an LSP and automatically coordinate its use and zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 3] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 advertisement in any of the ways with minimum involvement from an operator). Thus, in order to provide the SRLG information to the TE link automatically when an LSP (H-LSP or S-LSP) is advertised as a TE link, allow disjoint path calculation at ingress and allow correct pre- planned shared LSP to correctly share resource, this document provides an automatic mechanism to collect the SRLG used by a LSP automatically. 2. RSVP-TE Requirements 2.1. SRLG Collection Indication The head nodes of the LSP must be capable of indicating whether the SRLG information of the LSP should be collected during the signaling procedure of setting up an LSP. 2.2. SRLG Collecting The SRLG information can be collected during the setup of an LSP. Then the endpoints of the LSP can get the SRLG information and use it for routing, sharing and TE link configuration purposes. 2.3. SRLG Update When the SRLG information changes, the endpoints of the LSP need to be capable of updating the SRLG information of the path. It means that the signaling needs to be capable of updating the newly SRLG information to the endpoints. 3. RSVP-TE Extensions 3.1. SRLG Collection Flag In order to indicate nodes that SRLG collection is desired, a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object is needed: SRLG Collection flag (to be assigned by IANA, recommended bit zero) The SRLG Collection flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the SRLG Collection flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information should be reported to the head and tail node along the setup of the LSP. zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 4] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 The rules of the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not changed. 3.2. SRLG sub-object A new SRLG sub-object is defined for RRO(ROUTE_RECORD Object) to record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on the RRO sub-objects defined in [RFC3209]. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SRLG ID 1 (4 bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ...... ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SRLG ID n (4 bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type The type of the sub-object, to be assigned by IANA, which is recommended 34. Length The Length contains the total length of the sub-object in bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on the number of SRLG IDs. SRLG Id The 32-bit identifier of the SRLG. Reserved This field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. The rules of the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and ROUTE_RECORD Object are not changed. zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 5] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 3.3. Signaling Procedures Typically, the head node gets the route information of an LSP by adding a RRO which contains the sender's IP addresses in the Path message. If a head node also desires SRLG recording, it sets the SRLG Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV which can be carried in an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object. When a node receives a Path message which carries an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object and the SRLG Collection Flag is set, if local policy determines that the SRLG information should not be provided to the endpoints, it must return a PathErr message to reject the Path message. Otherwise, it must add an SRLG sub-object to the RRO to carry the local SRLG information. Then it forwards the Path message to the next node in the downstream direction. Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the forwarding of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the tail node, the tail node can get the SRLG information from the RRO. Before the Resv message is sent to the upstream node, the tail node adds an SRLG sub-object to the RRO. The collected SRLG information can be carried in the SRLG sub-object. Therefore, during the forwarding of the Resv message in the upstream direction, the SRLG information is not needed to be collected hop by hop. Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG information automatically. Then the endpoints can for instance advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information of the FA automatically. It is noted that a node (e.g. the edge node of a domain) may edit the RRO to remove the route information (e.g. node, interface identifier information) before forwarding it due to some reasons (e.g. confidentiality or reduce the size of RRO), but the SRLG information should be retained if it is desirable for the endpoints of the LSP. 4. Manageability Considerations TBD. zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 6] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 5. IANA Considerations 5.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags The IANA has created a registry and manages the space of attributes bit flags of Attribute Flags TLV as described in section 11.3 of [RFC5420]. It is requested that the IANA makes assignments from the Attribute Bit Flags. This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag: - Bit number: TBD (0) - Defining RFC: this I-D - Name of bit: SRLG Collection Flag - The meaning of the Attribute Flags TLV on a Path is defined in this I-D 5.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object IANA has made the following assignments in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. We request that IANA make assignments from the ROUTE_RECORD [RFC3209] portions of this registry. This document introduces a new RRO sub-object: Type Name Reference --------- ---------------------- --------- TBD (34) SRLG sub-object This I-D 6. Security Considerations TBD. 7. References [RFC3477] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, " Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP- TE) ", rfc3477, January 2003. zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 7] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 [RFC4206] K. Kompella, Y. Rekhter, " Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) ", rfc4206, October 2005. [RFC4208] G. Swallow, J. Drake, Boeing, H. Ishimatsu, and Y. Rekhter, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User- Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model", RFC 4208, October 2005. [RFC4874] CY. Lee, A. Farrel, S. De Cnodder, " Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ", rfc4874, April 2007. [RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, J.P, and Farrel, A., "Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008. [RFC5420] A. Farrel, D. Papadimitriou, J.P, and A. Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP- TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009. [RFC6107] K. Shiomoto, A. Farrel, " Procedures for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths ", draft-ietf- ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08, August 2010. Authors' Addresses zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 8] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 Fatai Zhang Huawei Technologies F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Phone: +86-755-28972912 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Dan Li Huawei Technologies F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Phone: +86-755-28970230 Email: danli@huawei.com Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo Emilio Vargas 6 Madrid, 28045 Spain Phone: +34 913374013 Email: ogondio@tid.es Cyril Margaria Nokia Siemens Networks St Martin Strasse 76 Munich, 81541 Germany Phone: +49 89 5159 16934 Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com Xiaobing Zi Huawei Technologies F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 9] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 Phone: +86-755-28973229 Email: zixiaobing@huawei.com Intellectual Property The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties, including those that are translated into other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including those that are translated into other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 10] draft-zhang-ccamp-srlg-fa-configuration-02.txt March 2011 Disclaimer of Validity All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 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. zhang Expires September 2011 [Page 11]