Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control
Internet Draft Lou Berger (Movaz Networks)
Updates: 3473
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: February 2005
August 2004
GMPLS Signaling Procedure For Egress Control
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-03.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668.
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 a "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
Abstract
This note clarifies the procedures for the control of the label used
on a output/downstream interface of the egress node of a Label
Switched Path (LSP). Such control is also known as "Egress Control".
Support for Egress Control is implicit in Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling. This note is a clarification to
the specification of GMPLS Signaling and does not modify GMPLS
signaling mechanisms and procedures.
Berger [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-03.txt August 2004
1. Background
The ability to control the label used on the output/downstream
interface of an egress node was one of the early requirements for
GMPLS. In the initial GMPLS drafts, this was called "Egress
Control". As the GMPLS drafts progressed, the ability to control a
label on an egress interface was generalized to support control of a
label on any interface. This generalization is seen in Section 6 of
[RFC3471] and Section 5.1 of [RFC3473]. In generalizing this
functionality, the procedures to support control of a label at the
egress were also generalized. While the result was intended to cover
egress control, this intention is not clear to all. This note
reiterates the procedures to cover control of a label used on an
egress output/downstream interface.
For context, the following is the text from the GMPLS signaling draft
dated June 2000:
6. Egress Control
The LSR at the head-end of an LSP can control the termination of
the LSP by using the ERO. To terminate an LSP on a particular
outgoing interface of the egress LSR, the head-end may specify the
IP address of that interface as the last element in the ERO,
provided that that interface has an associated IP address.
There are cases where the use of IP address doesn't provide enough
information to uniquely identify the egress termination. One case
is when the outgoing interface on the egress LSR is a component
link of a link bundle. Another case is when it is desirable to
"splice" two LSPs together, i.e., where the tail of the first LSP
would be "spliced" into the head of the second LSP. This last
case is more likely to be used in the non-PSC classes of links.
and
6.2. Procedures
The Egress Label subobject may appear only as the last subobject
in the ERO/ER. Appearance of this subobject anywhere else in the
ERO/ER is treated as a "Bad strict node" error.
During an LSP setup, when a node processing the ERO/RR performs
Next Hop selection finds that the second subobject is an Egress
Label Subobject, the node uses the information carried in this
subobject to determine the handling of the data received over that
LSP. Specifically, if the Link ID field of the subobject is non
zero, then this field identifies a specific (outgoing) link of the
Berger [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-03.txt August 2004
node that should be used for sending all the data received over
the LSP. If the Label field of the subobject is not Implicit NULL
label, this field specifies the label that should be used as an
outgoing label on the data received over the LSP.
Procedures by which an LSR at the head-end of an LSP obtains the
information needed to construct the Egress Label subobject are
outside the scope of this document.
2. Egress Control Procedures
This section is intended to complement Section 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 of
[RFC3473]. The procedures described in those sections are not
modified. This section clarifies procedures related to the label
used on an egress output/downstream interface.
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].
2.1. ERO Procedures
Egress Control occurs when the node processing an ERO is the egress
and the ERO contains one or more subobjects related to the
output/downstream interface. In this case, the outgoing/downstream
interface is indicated in the ERO as the last listed local interface.
Note that an interface may be numbered or unnumbered.
To support Egress Control, an egress checks to see if the received
ERO contains an outgoing/downstream interface. If it does, the type
of the subobject or subobjects following the interface are examined.
If the associated LSP is unidirectional, one subobject is examined.
Two subobjects are examined for bidirectional LSPs. If the U-bit of
the subobject being examined is clear (0), then the value of the
label MUST be used for transmitting traffic associated with the LSP
on the indicated outgoing/downstream interface.
If the U-bit of the subobject being examined is set (1), then the
value of the label is used for upstream traffic associated with the
bidirectional LSP. Specifically, the label value will be used for
the traffic associated with the LSP that will be received on the
indicated outgoing/downstream interface.
Per [RFC3473], any errors encountered while processing the ERO,
including if the listed label(s) are not acceptable or cannot be
supported in forwarding, SHOULD result in the generation of a PathErr
Berger [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-03.txt August 2004
message with the error code "Routing Error" and error value of "Bad
Explicit Route Object" toward the sender.
2.2. RRO Procedures
In the case where an ERO is used to specify outgoing interface
information at the egress and label recording is indicated for the
LSP, the egress should include the specified interface information
and the specified label or labels in the corresponding RRO.
3. Security Considerations
This note clarifies procedures defined in [RFC3473], but does not
define any new procedures. As such, no new security considerations
are introduced.
4. IANA Considerations
None.
5. Acknowledgments
Valuable comments and input were received from Adrian Farrel, Alan
Kullberg, and Dimitri Papadimitriou.
Berger [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-03.txt August 2004
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[BCP78] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", RFC 3667,
February 2004.
[BCP79] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", RFC 3668, February 2004.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional
Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
6.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
7. Author's Address
Lou Berger
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean VA, 22102
Phone: +1 703 847-1801
Email: lberger@movaz.com
Berger [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-03.txt August 2004
8. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
9. Intellectual Property
The IETF 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
this 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. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR 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
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Berger [Page 6]
Generated on: Mon Aug 30 16:16:32 2004
