datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.6.3.p2, 2014-09-29
Report a bug

RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery
RFC 4872

Approval Announcement

Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    ccamp mailing list <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, 
    ccamp chair <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'RSVP-TE Extensions in support of 
         End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 
         Recovery' to Proposed Standard 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol 
   Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery '
   <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane 
Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and David Ward.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-05.txt
Technical Summary
 
   This document describes protocol specific procedures and extensions 
   for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Resource 
   ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling to 
   support end-to-end Label Switched Path (LSP) recovery that denotes 
   protection and restoration. A generic functional description of 
   GMPLS recovery can be found in a companion document, RFC 4426. 
 
Working Group Summary
 
   no dissent reported. Many vendors have implemented and many 
   networks have deployed some versions of this. 
 
Protocol Quality
 
   Ross Callon reviewed this for the IESG. There are multiple 
   interoperable implementations and deployment. 

Note to RFC Editor
 
   Note, this document and one other document 
   (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03.txt) should be 
   progressed together. This document references the other document.
   Progressing together will ensure the RFC Ed can sort out details.

   Also, please see significant IANA note. 

   The WG co-chair (Adrian Farrel, who has been working out IANA 
   considerations) reports that the IANA considerations section 
   (pages 38 and 39 of the draft) should be updated as follows:

Below is the change I suggest. Can you add this as an RFC Ed note?


Thanks,
Adrian


===
OLD
   5) Registration of the ADMIN_STATUS object bits


   The ADMIN_STATUS object (Class-Num = 196, C-Type = 1) is defined in
   [RFC3473].


   IANA is also requested to track the ADMIN_STATUS bits extended by
   this document. For this purpose, the following new registry entries
   are requested in the registry entry:


   http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters


   - ADMIN_STATUS bits:


        Name: ADMIN_STATUS bits
        Format: 32-bit vector of bits
        Position:
           [0]          Reflect (R) bit defined in [RFC3471]
           [1..25]      To be assigned by IANA via IETF Standards
                        Track RFC Action.
           [26]         Lockout (L) bit is defined in Section 13
           [27]         Inhibit alarm communication (I) in [ALARM]
           [28]         Call control (C) bit is defined in [GMPLS-
                        CALL]
           [29]         Testing (T) bit is defined in [RFC3471]
           [30]         Administratively down (A) bit is defined in
                        [RFC3471]
           [31]         Deletion in progress (D) bit is defined in
                        [RFC3471]


NEW
   5) ADMIN_STATUS object bits


   The ADMIN_STATUS object (Class-Num = 196, C-Type = 1) is defined in
   [RFC3473] and the bit flags used in it are tracked in the
   "Administrative Status Information Flags" sub-regisrty of the
   "GMPLS Signaling Parameters" registry.


   IANA is requested to make a new allocation from this subregistry
   as follows.


       Lockout (L) bit (see Section 13 of this document)
       Suggested bit number 26
===



IANA Note

   There are significant IANA considerations, which have been cleared 
   up by Adrian Farrel's email to the IANA on Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:52:16.

   His explanation of IANA considerations are (cut and pasted from the 
   attachment to Adrian's email):

IANA requests for

[e2e]     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-04.txt
[seg]     draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03.txt


All other references are provided for information and context.


====================================================


Registry: RSVP
          Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types

  20  EXPLICIT_ROUTE                          [RFC3209]

        Class Types or C-Types:
          1   Type 1 Explicit Route           [RFC3209]

              Sub-object type
                1   IPv4 prefix               [RFC3209]
                2   IPv6 prefix               [RFC3209]
                3   Label                     [RFC3473]
                4   Unnumbered Interface ID   [RFC3477]
               32   Autonomous system number  [RFC3209]
               37   Reserved                  [seg]

  21  ROUTE_RECORD                            [RFC3209]
      (also known as RECORD_ROUTE)

      Class Types or C-Types:
          1   Type 1 Route Record             [RFC3209]

              Sub-object type
                1   IPv4 address              [RFC3209]
                2   IPv6 address              [RFC3209]
                3   Label                     [RFC3473]
                4   Unnumbered Interface ID   [RFC3477]
                5   RRO Attributes            [RFC4420]
               37   Reserved                  [seg]

  37  PROTECTION                              [RFC3473]

      Class Types or C-Types:
        1   Type 1 Protection                 [RFC3473]
        2   Type 2                            [e2e]

  38  PRIMARY PATH ROUTE                      [e2e]

      Class Types or C-Types:
        1   Type 1 Primary Path Route         [e2e]

 198  ALARM_SPEC                              [RFC4783]

      Class Types or C-Types:
        1   Type 1  RESERVED                  [RFC4783]
        2   Type 2  RESERVED                  [RFC4783]
        3   IPv4 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC             [RFC4783]
        4   IPv6 IF_ID ALARM_SPEC             [RFC4783]

 199  ASSOCIATION                             [e2e]

      Class Types or C-Types:
        1   Type 1 IPv4 Association           [e2e]
        2   Type 2 IPv6 Association           [e2e]

 200  SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE                [seg]

      Same C-Type values as EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
      (C-Num 20) with the following additions:

        For Class 1, C-Type 1, the following additional
        Sub-object type is defined:

           Sub-object type
            37   Protection                   [seg]

 201  SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE                  [seg]

      Same C-Type values as EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
      (C-Num 20) with the following additions:

        For Class 1, C-Type 1, the following additional
        Sub-object type is defined:

           Sub-object type
            37   Protection                   [seg]

============================================================

Registry: GMPLS Signaling Parameters
          Interface_ID Types

  Type  Length  Format      Description                 Reference
  ----  ------  ----------  --------------------------  ---------
   512       8  See below   REFERENCE_COUNT             [RFC4783]
   513       8  See below   SEVERITY                    [RFC4783]
   514       8  See below   GLOBAL_TIMESTAMP            [RFC4783]
   515       8  See below   LOCAL_TIMESTAMP             [RFC4783]
   516  varies  See below   ERROR_STRING                [RFC4783]

============================================================

Registry: GMPLS Signaling Parameters
          Administrative Status Information Flags

  Value       Name                             Reference
  ----------- -------------------------------- ---------
  0x80000000  Reflect (R)                      [RFC3473][RFC3471]
  0x00000020  Lockout (L)                      [e2e]
  0x00000010  Inhibit Alarm Communication (I)  [RFC4783]
  0x00000004  Testing (T)                      [RFC3473][RFC3471]
  0x00000002  Administratively down (A)        [RFC3473][RFC3471]
  0x00000001  Deletion in progress (D)         [RFC3473][RFC3471]


============================================================

Registry: RSVP
          Error Codes and Values

Error Code Meaning

  01 Admission Control Failure                [RFC2205]

      The sixteen bits of the Error Value field are
        ssur cccc cccc cccc
      as defined in [RFC2205]

        The following globally-defined sub-codes may appear in the low-
        order 12 bits when ssur = 0000:

        Sub-code  Meaning                         Reference
        --------  ------------------------------  ---------
               1  Delay bound cannot be met       [RFC2205]
               2  Requested bandwidth unavailable [RFC2205]
               3  MTU in flowspec larger than     [RFC2205]
                  interface MTU
               4  LSP Admission Failure           [e2e]
               5  Bad Association Type            [e2e]

  02 Policy Control Failure                   [RFC2205]

      This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
      Value sub-codes:

        0 = Information reporting                 [RFC2750]
        1 = Warning                               [RFC2750]
        2 = Reason unknown                        [RFC2750]
        3 = Generic Policy Rejection              [RFC2750]
        4 = Quota or Accounting violation         [RFC2750]
        5 = Flow was preempted                    [RFC2750]
        6 = Previously installed policy expired   [RFC2750]
            (not refreshed)
        7 = Previous policy data was replaced &   [RFC2750]
            caused rejection
        8 = Policies could not be merged          [RFC2750]
            (multicast)
        9 = PDP down or non functioning           [RFC2750]
       10 = Third Party Server (e.g., Kerberos)   [RFC2750]
            unavailable
       11 = POLICY_DATA object has bad syntax     [RFC2750]
       12 = POLICY_DATA object failed Integrity   [RFC2750]
            Check
       13 = POLICY_ELEMENT object has bad syntax  [RFC2750]
       14 = Mandatory PE Missing (Empty PE is in  [RFC2750]
            the PD object)
       15 = PEP Out of resources to handle        [RFC2750]
            policies.
       16 = PDP encountered bad RSVP objects or   [RFC2750]
            syntax
       17 = Service type was rejected             [RFC2750]
       18 = Reservation Style was rejected        [RFC2750]
       19 = FlowSpec was rejected (too large)     [RFC2750]
       20 = Hard Pre-empted                       [e2e]

  24 Routing Problem                          [RFC3209]

      This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
      Value sub-codes:

        1 = Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object         [RFC3209]
        : (snip)
       16 = Unknown Interface Index           [RFC3477]
       17 = Unsupported LSP Protection        [e2e]
       18 = PROTECTION object not applicable  [e2e]
       19 = Bad PRIMARY PATH_ROUTE object     [e2e]
       20 = PRIMARY PATH_ROUTE object not     [e2e]
            applicable
       21 = LSP Segment Protection Failed     [seg]

  25 Notify Error                             [RFC3209]

      This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
      Value sub-codes:

        1 = RRO too large for MTU             [RFC3209]
        2 = RRO Notification                  [RFC3209]
        3 = Tunnel locally repaired           [RFC3209]
        4 = Control Channel Active State      [RFC3473]
        5 = Control Channel Degraded State    [RFC3473]
        6 = Preferable path exists            [RFC4736]
        7 = Local link maintenance required   [RFC4736]
        8 = Local node maintenance required   [RFC4736]
        9 = LSP Failure                       [e2e]
       10 = LSP Recovered                     [e2e]
       11 = LSP Locally Failed                [e2e]

  31 Alarms                                   [RFC4783]

      The Error Value sub-codes for this Error Code
      have values and meanings identical to the values
      and meanings defined in the IANAItuProbableCause
      Textual Convention of IANA-ITU-ALARM-TC-MIB
      in the Alarm MIB [RFC3877].

============================================================

Registry: GMPLS Signaling Parameters
          Association Type
(This is a new registry)

   Assignment by IANA are subject to IETF expert review
   process i.e. IETF Standards Track RFC Action.

   Value   Type                 Reference
   -----   -----------------    ---------
       0   Reserved             [e2e]
       1   Recovery (R)         [e2e]
       2   Resource Sharing (R) [seg]