< draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03.txt | draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-04.txt > | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
TEAS Working Group D. Dhody | TEAS Working Group D. Dhody | |||
Internet-Draft U. Palle | Internet-Draft U. Palle | |||
Intended status: Experimental V. Kondreddy | Intended status: Experimental V. Kondreddy | |||
Expires: March 24, 2016 Huawei Technologies | Expires: May 16, 2016 Huawei Technologies | |||
R. Casellas | R. Casellas | |||
CTTC | CTTC | |||
September 21, 2015 | November 13, 2015 | |||
Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic | Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic | |||
Engineering (RSVP-TE) | Engineering (RSVP-TE) | |||
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03 | draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-04 | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
The Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) | The Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) | |||
specification and the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching | specification and the Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching | |||
(GMPLS) extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to | (GMPLS) extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to | |||
be explicitly included in a path setup. Further Exclude Routes | be explicitly included in a path setup. Further Exclude Routes | |||
extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be | extensions to RSVP-TE allow abstract nodes and resources to be | |||
explicitly excluded in a path setup. | explicitly excluded in a path setup. | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 | skipping to change at page 1, line 43 | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2016. | This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2016. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 | skipping to change at page 2, line 25 | |||
Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
3. Subobjects for Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3. Subobjects for Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.2. Explicit Route Object (ERO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
3.2.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.2.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
3.2.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.2.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
3.2.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.2.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.3. Exclude Route Object (XRO)'s Subobjects . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
3.3.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.3.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
3.3.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.3.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
3.3.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.3.3. Mode of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
4. Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . 9 | 4. Interaction with Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
5.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 5.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
A.1. Inter-Area LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | A.1. Inter-Area LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
A.2. Inter-AS LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | A.2. Inter-AS LSP Path Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
A.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | A.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
A.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | A.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | |||
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and the GMPLS extensions to RSVP- | The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and the GMPLS extensions to RSVP- | |||
TE [RFC3473] allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly | TE [RFC3473] allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly | |||
included in a path setup using the Explicit Route Object (ERO). | included in a path setup using the Explicit Route Object (ERO). | |||
Further Exclude Routes extensions [RFC4874] allow abstract nodes or | Further Exclude Routes extensions [RFC4874] allow abstract nodes or | |||
resources to be excluded from the whole path using the Exclude Route | resources to be excluded from the whole path using the Exclude Route | |||
object (XRO). To exclude certain abstract nodes or resources between | object (XRO). To exclude certain abstract nodes or resources between | |||
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 | skipping to change at page 3, line 41 | |||
(PCEP) extensions for the domain sequence [PCE-DOMAIN]. | (PCEP) extensions for the domain sequence [PCE-DOMAIN]. | |||
1.1. Scope | 1.1. Scope | |||
The procedures described in this document are experimental. The | The procedures described in this document are experimental. The | |||
experiment is intended to enable research for the usage of Domain | experiment is intended to enable research for the usage of Domain | |||
subobjects for inter-domain path setup. For this purpose this | subobjects for inter-domain path setup. For this purpose this | |||
document specify new domain subobjects as well as how they | document specify new domain subobjects as well as how they | |||
incorporate with existing subobjects. | incorporate with existing subobjects. | |||
The experiment will end two years after the RFC is published. At | ||||
that point, the RFC authors will attempt to determine how widely this | ||||
has been implemented and deployed. | ||||
This document does not change the procedures for handling subobjects | This document does not change the procedures for handling subobjects | |||
in RSVP-TE. | in RSVP-TE. | |||
The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood | The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood | |||
by legacy implementations. If one of the subobjects is received in a | by legacy implementations. If one of the subobjects is received in a | |||
RSVP-TE object that does not understand it, it will behave as | RSVP-TE object that does not understand it, it will behave as | |||
described in [RFC3209] and [RFC4874]. Therefore, it is assumed that | described in [RFC3209] and [RFC4874]. Therefore, it is assumed that | |||
this experiment will be conducted only when all nodes processing the | this experiment will be conducted only when all nodes processing the | |||
new subobject form part of the experiment. | new subobject form part of the experiment. | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 31 | skipping to change at page 9, line 41 | |||
ingress node of the LSP). | ingress node of the LSP). | |||
All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874]. | All the rules of processing are as per the [RFC4874]. | |||
Note that if a node is called upon to process a subobject defined in | Note that if a node is called upon to process a subobject defined in | |||
this document, and it does not recognize, it will behave as described | this document, and it does not recognize, it will behave as described | |||
in [RFC4874] when an unrecognized XRO subobject is encountered, i.e. | in [RFC4874] when an unrecognized XRO subobject is encountered, i.e. | |||
to ignore it. In this case the desired exclusion will not be carried | to ignore it. In this case the desired exclusion will not be carried | |||
out. | out. | |||
IGP Area subobjects in the XRO are local to the current AS. In case | ||||
of multi-AS path computation to exclude an IGP area in a different | ||||
AS, IGP Area subobject should be part of Explicit Exclusion Route | ||||
Subobject (EXRS) in the ERO to specify the AS in which the IGP area | ||||
is to be excluded. Further policy may be applied to prune/ignore | ||||
Area subobjects in XRO at AS boundary. | ||||
3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject | 3.4. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject | |||
As per [RFC4874], the Explicit Exclusion Route is used to specify | As per [RFC4874], the Explicit Exclusion Route is used to specify | |||
exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair of nodes | exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair of nodes | |||
or resources in the explicit route. EXRS is an ERO subobject that | or resources in the explicit route. EXRS is an ERO subobject that | |||
contains one or more subobjects of its own, called EXRS subobjects. | contains one or more subobjects of its own, called EXRS subobjects. | |||
The EXRS subobject could carry any of the subobjects defined for XRO, | The EXRS subobject could carry any of the subobjects defined for XRO, | |||
thus the new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) | thus the new subobjects to support 4-Byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) | |||
Area can also be used in the EXRS. The meanings of the fields of the | Area can also be used in the EXRS. The meanings of the fields of the | |||
skipping to change at page 10, line 27 | skipping to change at page 10, line 43 | |||
o "EXPLICIT_ROUTE subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- | o "EXPLICIT_ROUTE subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- | |||
parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-25 | parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-25 | |||
o "EXCLUDE_ROUTE subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- | o "EXCLUDE_ROUTE subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- | |||
parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-95 | parameters/rsvp-parameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-95 | |||
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical | Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical | |||
additions to these registries as follows, in sync with [PCE-DOMAIN]: | additions to these registries as follows, in sync with [PCE-DOMAIN]: | |||
Subobject Type Reference | Subobject Type Reference | |||
TBD1 4-Byte AS number [This I.D.] | TBD1 4-Byte AS number [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN] | |||
TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.] | TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN] | |||
TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.] | TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.][PCE-DOMAIN] | |||
Further upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to add a | ||||
reference to this document to the new PCEP numbers that are | ||||
registered by [PCE-DOMAIN]. | ||||
6. Security Considerations | 6. Security Considerations | |||
Security considerations for MPLS-TE and GMPLS signaling are covered | Security considerations for RSVP-TE and GMPLS signaling RSVP-TE | |||
in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. This document does not introduce any new | extensions are covered in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. This document | |||
messages or any substantive new processing, and so those security | does not introduce any new messages or any substantive new | |||
considerations continue to apply. Further, general considerations | processing, and so those security considerations continue to apply. | |||
for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and GMPLS networks can be found in | Further, general considerations for securing RSVP-TE in MPLS-TE and | |||
[RFC5920]. | GMPLS networks can be found in [RFC5920]. The section 8 of [RFC5920] | |||
describes the inter-provider security considerations, which continue | ||||
to apply. | ||||
The route exclusion security consideration are covered in [RFC4874] | The route exclusion security consideration are covered in [RFC4874] | |||
and continue to apply. | and continue to apply. | |||
7. Acknowledgments | 7. Acknowledgments | |||
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, George Swallow, | We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Lou Berger, George Swallow, | |||
Chirag Shah, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina and Avantika for their useful | Chirag Shah, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina and Avantika for their useful | |||
comments and suggestions. | comments and suggestions. | |||
Thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for shperding this document. | ||||
Thanks to Brian Carpenter for Gen-ART Review. | ||||
Thanks to Liang Xia (Frank) for SecDir Review. | ||||
8. References | 8. References | |||
8.1. Normative References | 8.1. Normative References | |||
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., | [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 42 | skipping to change at page 12, line 22 | |||
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874, | Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874, | |||
April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>. | April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>. | |||
[ISO10589] | [ISO10589] | |||
ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing | ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routing | |||
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with | information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with | |||
the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network | the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network | |||
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 1992. | Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 1992. | |||
[PCE-DOMAIN] | [PCE-DOMAIN] | |||
Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Standard | Dhody, D., Palle, U., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects | |||
Representation Of Domain Sequence. (draft-ietf-pce-pcep- | for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol | |||
domain-sequence)", September 2015. | (PCEP). (draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence)", November | |||
2015. | ||||
8.2. Informative References | 8.2. Informative References | |||
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation | [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation | |||
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, | |||
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, | |||
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. | |||
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for | [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for | |||
Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic | Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic | |||
End of changes. 14 change blocks. | ||||
27 lines changed or deleted | 51 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |