Internet DRAFT - draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num
CCAMP Working Group F. Zhang
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track M. Venkatesan
Expires: April 15, 2013 Dell Inc.
Y. Xu
CATR
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems
October 12, 2012
RSVP-TE Identification of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-05
Abstract
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
Z9-Tunnel_Num for co-routed bidirectional LSP, which is not covered
by the current specifications, like [RFC3209], [RFC3473]. This
document defines Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engnieering
(RSVP-TE) identification of MPLS-TP 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 April 15, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Zhang, et al. Expires April 15, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE ID of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bi LSP October 2012
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identification . . . . . . 3
3.1. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Association Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Zhang, et al. Expires April 15, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE ID of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bi LSP October 2012
1. Introduction
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
specifies a initial set of identifiers, such as the LSP_ID of of the
MPLS-TP co-routed bidirectional LSP, which is A1-
{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num. The mapping
from an MPLS-TP LSP_ID to Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic
Engnieering (RSVP-TE) is also descirbed in [RFC6370], except the
local assigned Z9-Tunnel_Num, which is not covered by the current
specifications, like [RFC3209], [RFC3473]. However, the Z9-
Tunnel_Num is a part of the Maintenance Entity Point Identifier
(MEP_ID), and the two MEP nodes must pre-store each other's MEP-IDs
before sending some Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM)
packets, such as Connectivity Verification (CV) [RFC6428]. In this
way the peer endpoint can compare the received and expected MEP-IDs
to judge whether there is a mis-connectivity defect [RFC6371]. In
other words, A1/Z9 nodes need to know each other's Tunnel_Num.
This document defines Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic
Engnieering (RSVP-TE) identification of MPLS-TP co-routed
bidirectional LSP. Since the LSP identifiers can be carried in an
ASSOCIATION object [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].
3. MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Identification
3.1. Signaling Procedures
Consider that LSP1 is initialized at A1 node with an ASSOCIATION
object inserted in Path message. Association Type is set to "LSP
Identifiers", 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", 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-connectivity
defect of the proactive CV OAM function.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 15, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE ID of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bi LSP October 2012
If LSP1 is across different domains, A1 and Z9 nodes MAY need to know
each other's Global_ID also. When an Extended ASSOCIATION object
with Association Type "LSP Identifiers" in inserted in the
initialized LSP Path message, Global Association Source is set to A1-
Global_ID. Similarly, this field will be set to Z9-Global_ID in the
Resv message.
3.2. Association Object
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)
Association ID: 16 bits
For Path message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node
sending out the Path message, and can be ignored by the receiver.
For Resv message, Association ID is the Tunnel_Num of the node
sending out the Resv message.
Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes
Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].
For Path message, Association Source is the IP address of the node
sending out the Path message, and can be ignored by the receiver.
For Resv message, Association Source is the IP address of the node
sending out the Resv message, and can be ignored by the receiver.
Global Association Source: 4 bytes
Same as defined in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] if Extended
ASSOCIATION object is used.
For Path message, Global Association Source is filled with the
Global_ID of the node sending out the Path message.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 15, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE ID of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bi LSP October 2012
For Resv message, Global Association Source is the Global_ID of
the node sending out the Resv message.
Extended Association ID:
Extended Association ID is not added in the Extended ASSOCIATION
object when association type signaled is "LSP Identifiers".
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.
3.3. Compatibility
Per [RFC4872], the ASSOCIATION object uses an object class number of
the form 11bbbbbb to ensure compatibility with non-supporting nodes.
Per [RFC2205], such nodes will ignore the object but forward it
without modification. This is also described in
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].
Per [RFC4872], transit nodes that support the ASSOCIATION object, but
not the Extended Association C-Types, will "transmit, without
modification, any received ASSOCIATION object in the corresponding
outgoing Path message." Per [RFC2205], an egress node that supports
the ASSOCIATION object, but not the Extended Association C-Types may
generate an "Unknown object C-Type" error. This error will propagate
to the ingress node for standard error processing.
Operators wishing to use a function supported by the association type
"LSP Identifiers" should ensure that the type is supported on any
node which is expected to act on the association.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
One value ("LSP Identifiers") needs to be allocated in the
Association Type Registry.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 15, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE ID of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bi LSP October 2012
5. Security Considerations
A new Association Type is defined in this document, and except this,
there are no security issues about the ASSOCIATION object and
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].
6. 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.
7. References
7.1. Normative references
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]
Berger, L., Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
Association Object Extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-06 (work in progress),
September 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 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.
Zhang, et al. Expires April 15, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE ID of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bi LSP October 2012
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4872] Lang, J., 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.
[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
Zhang, et al. Expires April 15, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE ID of MPLS-TP Co-Routed Bi LSP October 2012
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Xiao Bao
ZTE Corporation
Email: bao.xiao1@zte.com.cn
Zhang, et al. Expires April 15, 2013 [Page 8]
