Internet DRAFT - draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route

draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route



      
     TEAS Working Group                                        Zafar Ali 
     Internet Draft                                       George Swallow 
     Intended status: Standard Track                   Clarence Filsfils 
     Expires: January 5, 2016                               Matt Hartley  
                                                             Ori Gerstel 
                                                           Cisco Systems 
                                                            Kenji Kumaki 
                                                        KDDI Corporation 
                                                          Ruediger Kunze 
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG 
                                                            July 6, 2015 
      
                                         
                         Include Routes - Extension to  
          Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) 
                  draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt 
                                         
     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 January 5, 2016. 
         
     Copyright Notice 
         

     Copyright (c) 2015 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. 
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016     [Page 1] 
      






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

     Abstract 

     There are scenarios that require two or more LSPs or segments of 
     LSPs to follow same route in the network. This document specifies 
     methods to communicate route inclusions along the loose hops during 
     path setup using the Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic 
     Engineering (RSVP-TE) protocol.  
         
     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 RFC 2119 
     [RFC2119]. 

     Table of Contents 

     Copyright Notice.................................................1 
     1. Introduction..................................................2 
     2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions..................................4 
           2.1. IPv4 Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject................4 
           2.2. IPv6 Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject................5 
           2.3. Processing rules for Path ERO subobjects..............7 
     3. Security Considerations.......................................8 
     4. IANA Considerations...........................................8 
           4.1. New ERO subobject types...............................8 
           4.2. New RSVP error sub-codes..............................9 
     5. Acknowledgments...............................................9 
     6. References...................................................10 
           6.1. Normative References.................................10 
           6.2. Informative References...............................10 
      
     1. Introduction 

        There are scenarios that require two or more Label Switched 
        Paths (LSPs) to follow same route in the network. E.g., many 
        deployments require member LSPs of a bundle/ aggregated link (or 
        Forwarding Adjacency (FA))) follow the same route. Possible 
        reasons for two or more LSPs to follow the same end-to-end or 
        partial route include, but are not limited to:  

        .  Fate sharing: an application may require that two or more 
          LSPs fail together. In the example of bundle link this would 
      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 2] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

          mean that if one component goes down, the entire bundle goes 
          down. 

        .  Homogeneous Attributes: it is often required that two or more 
          LSPs have the same TE metrics like latency, latency variation, 
          etc. In the example of a bundle/ aggregated link this would 
          meet the requirement that all component links (FAs) of a 
          bundle should have same latency and latency variation. As 
          noted in [OSPF-TE-METRIC] and [ISIS-TE-METRIC], in certain 
          networks, such as financial information networks, network 
          performance (e.g. latency and latency variation) is becoming 
          critical and hence having bundles with component links (FAs) 
          with homogeneous latency and latency variation is important.  

        The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and GMPLS extensions to 
        RSVP-TE [RFC3473] allow abstract nodes and resources to be 
        explicitly included in a path setup, e.g., using IPv4 prefix ERO 
        subobject [RFC3209], IPv6 prefix ERO subobject [RFC3209] and 
        Unnumbered Interface ID ERO subobject [RFC3477], etc. When a 
        source node has full topological knowledge and is permitted to 
        signal an Explicit Route Object, these methods can be used to 
        satisfy the inclusion requirements mentioned above. However, 
        there are scenarios when path computations are performed by 
        remote nodes, thus there is a need for relevant inclusion 
        requirements to be communicated to those nodes. These include 
        (but are not limited to): 

       .  LSPs with loose hops in the Explicit Route Object (ERO), e.g. 
          inter-domain LSPs;   

       .  Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
          Network Interface (UNI) where path computation may be 
          performed by the (server layer) core node [RFC4208]. 

       These use-cases require the relevant path-inclusion information 
       to be communicated to the route expanding nodes. This document 
       defines the necessary extensions to RSVP-TE protocol.  

       This document assumes that node expanding the route is normally a 
       hop of the included LSP. Therefore, the node calculating or 
       expanding the route of the signaled LSP has the knowledge of the 
       inclusion route.  

       However, there is a race condition in which included LSP is yet 
       to be signaled. This draft addresses this race condition, as 
       detailed in Section 2.2.  

      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 3] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

     2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions 

        New IPv4 and IPv6 Point-to-Point (P2P) Path ERO subobject types 
        are defined in this document. These ERO subobjects are used to 
        communicate path inclusion requirements to the ERO expanding 
        node(s). For this purpose, the subobjects carry RSVP-TE 
        Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) of the reference LSP who's 
        Path is be used to expand the loose hop of the LSP being 
        signaled.  

     2.1. IPv4 Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject 

        The IPv4 Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject is defined 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  
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |L|    Type     |     Length    |M|                Reserved     | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                 IPv4 tunnel end point address                 | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |   Reserved (MUST be zero)     |     Tunnel ID                 | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                   IPv4 tunnel sender address                  | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |   Reserved (MUST be zero)     |            LSP ID             | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
         

          L 
               The L bit is an attribute of the subobject.  The L bit is 
               set if the subobject represents a loose hop in the ERO. 
               If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict 
               hop in the explicit route.  

               This document only defines the use of the subobject in 
               loose hopes in the ERO, i.e., L bit MUST of set to 1.  

          Type  
           
               IPv4 Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject 
               (to be assigned by IANA; suggested value: 38). 
           
      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 4] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

          Length 

              The length contains the total length of the subobject in 
              bytes, including the type and length fields. The length is 
              always 24. 

          M bit: When "mandatory inclusion" bit is set, the route of the 
          LSP being signaled MUST follow the path specified by the Path 
          ERO subobject. When mandatory inclusion is not set, the route 
          of the LSP being signaled SHOULD follow the path specified by 
          the Path ERO subobject.  

                
          The remaining fields are used to specify RSVP-TE FEC of the 
          reference LSP who's Path is be used to expand the route of the 
          LSP being signaled. Specifically,   

          Tunnel ID  
                
               Tunnel ID of the reference LSP who's Path is be used to 
               expand the route of the LSP being signaled. 

          Extended Tunnel ID  
                
               Extended Tunnel ID of the reference LSP who's Path is be 
               used to expand the route of the LSP being signaled. 

          IPv4 tunnel sender address  
                
               IPv4 tunnel sender address of the reference LSP who's 
               path is be used to expand the route of the LSP being 
               signaled. 

          LSP ID  
                
               LSP ID of the reference LSP who's Path is be used to 
               expand the route of the LSP being signaled. 

         

     2.2. IPv6 Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject 

        The IPv6 Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject is defined as 
        follows:  


      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 5] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

          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  
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
         |L|    Type     |     Length    |M|                Reserved     | 
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                 IPv6 tunnel end point address                 | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |             IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.)             | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |             IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.)             | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |             IPv6 tunnel end point address (cont.)             | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |          Must Be Zero         |     Tunnel ID                 | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                   Extended Tunnel ID (cont.)                  | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                   Extended Tunnel ID (cont.)                  | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                   Extended Tunnel ID (cont.)                  | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |                   IPv4 tunnel sender address                  | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |               IPv4 tunnel sender address (cont.)              | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |               IPv4 tunnel sender address (cont.)              | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        |               IPv4 tunnel sender address (cont.)              | 
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
         |   Reserved (MUST be zero)     |            LSP ID             | 
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      
          L 
               The L bit is an attribute of the subobject.  The L bit is 
               set if the subobject represents a loose hop in the ERO. 
               If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict 
               hop in the explicit route.  

               This document only defines the use of the subobject in 
               loose hopes in the ERO, i.e., L bit MUST of set to 1.  

          Type  
           
               IPv6 Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject 
      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 6] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

               (to be assigned by IANA; suggested value: 39). 
           

          Length 

              The length contains the total length of the subobject in 
              bytes, including the type and length fields. The length is 
              always 48. 

          M bit: The M bit usage is as defined for the M bit of IPv4 
          Point-to-Point Path ERO subobject.  
           
          The remaining fields are used to specific RSVP-TE FEC of the 
          reference LSP who's Path is be used to expand the route of the 
          LSP being signaled, as detailed in Section 2.1.  

     2.3. Processing rules for Path ERO subobjects 

        The basic processing rules of an ERO are not altered.  Please 
        refer to [RFC3209] for details.  

        If an LSR strips all local subobjects from an ERO carried in a 
        Path message (according to the procedures in [RFC3209]) and 
        finds that the next subobject is an IPv4 P2P Path ERO subobject 
        or IPv6 P2P LSP subject, it MUST attempt to resolve the Path ERO 
        subobject as described in the following.  

        If the L bit of the Path ERO subobject is not set, i.e., the 
        subobject represents a strict hop in the explicit route, the 
        processing node MUST respond with a PathErr message with the 
        error code "Routing Problem" (24) and the error value "Bad 
        initial subobject" (4). 

        If the M bit is set, the processing node follows the following 
        procedure: 

        -  If the path taken by the LSP referenced in the Path ERO 
          subobject is known to the processing node and the path 
          contains the loose abstract node in the ERO hop, the 
          processing node MUST ensure that loose hop expansion to the 
          next abstract node follows the referenced path.  

        -  If the path taken by the LSP referenced in the Path ERO 
          subobject does not contain the loose abstract node in the ERO 
          hop, the processing node MUST sent a PathErr message with the 
          error code "Routing Problem" (24) and the new error value 
      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 7] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

          "unknown or inconsistent LSP suboject" (value to be assigned 
          by IANA) for the signaled LSP.  

        -  If the path referenced in the LSP subobject is unknown to the 
          processing node, the processing node SHOULD ignore the Path 
          ERO subobject and SHOULD proceed with the signaling request. 
          After sending the Resv for the signaled LSP, the processing 
          node SHOULD return a PathErr with the error code "Notify 
          Error" (25) and error sub-code "TBD" (value to be assigned by 
          IANA, suggested value: TBD) for the signaled LSP. 

        If the M bit is not set, the processing node follows the 
        following procedure: 

        -  If the path taken by the LSP referenced in the Path ERO 
          subobject is known to the processing node and the path 
          contains the loose abstract node in the ERO hop, the 
          processing node SHOULD ensure that loose hop expansion to the 
          next abstract node follows the referenced path.  

        -  If the path taken by the LSP referenced in the Path ERO 
          subobject is unknown to the processing node and/ or the 
          referenced path does not contain the loose abstract node in 
          the ERO hop, the processing node SHOULD ignore the route 
          inclusion specified in the Path ERO subobject and SHOULD 
          compute a suitable path to the loose abstract node in the ERO 
          hop and proceed with the signaling request. After sending the 
          Resv for the signaled LSP, the processing node SHOULD return a 
          PathErr with the error code "Notify Error" (25) and error sub-
          code " unknown or inconsistent LSP suboject" (value to be 
          assigned by IANA) for the signaled LSP. 

     3. Security Considerations 

        This document does not introduce any additional security issues 
        above those identified in [RFC5920], [RFC2205], [RFC3209], and 
        [RFC3473] and [RFC4874].  

     4. IANA Considerations 

     4.1. New ERO subobject types 

        This document adds the following new subobject of the existing 
        entry for ERO (20, EXPLICIT_ROUTE):  

        Value                      Description 

      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 8] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

        -----                      ------------ 

        TBA                        IPv4 Point-to-Point Path ERO 
        subobject 

        TBA                        IPv6 Point-to-Point Path ERO 
        subobject 

        These subobject may be present in the Explicit Route Object, but 
        not in the Route Record Object.  

         
     4.2. New RSVP error sub-codes  

        IANA registry: RSVP PARAMETERS 
        Subsection: Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-
        Codes  
         
        For Error Code "Routing Problem" (24) (see [RFC3209]) the 
        following sub-codes are defined. 
         
        Sub-code                               Value 
        --------                               ----- 
      
        Unknown or inconsistent LSP suboject   To be assigned by IANA. 
         
        For Error Code "Notify Error" (25) (see [RFC3209]) the following 
        sub-codes are defined. 
         
         
        Sub-code                               Value 
        --------                               ----- 
      
        Unknown or inconsistent LSP suboject   To be assigned by IANA. 
         

     5. Acknowledgments 

        Authors would like to thank Gabriele Maria Galimberti, Luyuan 
        Fang and Walid Wakim for their review comments.  
      






      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 9] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

     6. References 

     6.1. 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. 

        [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
                  Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation 
                  Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", 
                  RFC 3473, January 2003.  

      
     6.2. Informative References 

        [RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., 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. 

        [RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., 
                  Brungard, D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS 
                  (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-
                  Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010. 

        [RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered 
                  Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic 
                  Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003. 

        [RFC2209] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation 
                  Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing 
                  Rules", RFC 2209, September 1997. 

        [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 
                  Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. 

     Authors' Addresses 





      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 10] 
         






     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-teas-rsvp-te-include-route-00.txt       
         

        Zafar Ali 
        Cisco Systems, Inc. 
        Email: zali@cisco.com 
      
        George Swallow 
        Cisco Systems, Inc. 
        swallow@cisco.com 
         
        Clarence Filsfils  
        Cisco Systems, Inc. 
        cfilsfil@cisco.com 
         
        Matt Hartley 
        Cisco Systems 
        Email: mhartley@cisco.com  
      
        Ori Gerstel 
        Cisco Systems 
        ogerstel@cisco.com 
         
        Kenji Kumaki 
        KDDI Corporation 
        Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com  
         
        Rudiger Kunze 
        Deutsche Telekom AG 
        Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de  
         
      

















      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires Januray 2016       [Page 11]