datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Include Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-06

Document type: Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Document stream: No stream defined
Last updated: 2014-02-14
Intended RFC status: Unknown
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

Stream State:No stream defined
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: I-D Exists
Responsible AD: (None)
Send notices to: No addresses provided

CCAMP Working Group                                       Zafar Ali 
     Internet Draft                                       George Swallow 
     Intended status: Standard Track                   Clarence Filsfils 
     Expires: August 13, 2014                               Matt Hartley  
                                                             Ori Gerstel 
                                                           Cisco Systems 
                                                            Kenji Kumaki 
                                                        KDDI Corporation 
                                                          Ruediger Kunze 
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG 
                                                       February 14, 2014 
      
                                         
                         Include Routes - Extension to  
          Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) 
                  draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-06.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 August 13, 2014. 
         
     Copyright Notice 
         

     Copyright (c) 2013 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 
      
      
      
     Ali, Swallow, Filsfils, et al   Expires April 2014     [Page 1] 
      


     Internet-Draft       draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-te-include-route-05.txt       
         

     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. 

     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:  

[include full document text]