RSVP Association Object Extensions
draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ccamp WG)
Last updated 2012-08-08 (latest revision 2012-03-09)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Deborah Brungard
IESG IESG state AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Adrian Farrel
IESG note Deborah Brungard (db3546@att.com) is the Document Shepherd
Send notices to ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext@tools.ietf.org
Internet Draft                                         Lou Berger (LabN)
Updates: 2205, 3209, 3473, 4872             Francois Le Faucheur (Cisco)
Category: Standards Track                        Ashok Narayanan (Cisco)
Expiration Date: September 9, 2012

                                                           March 9, 2012

                   RSVP Association Object Extensions

                   draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt

Abstract

   The RSVP ASSOCIATION object was defined in the context of GMPLS
   (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label
   switched paths (LSPs).  In this context, the object is used to
   associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they are protecting.  This
   object also has broader applicability as a mechanism to associate
   RSVP state, and this document defines how the ASSOCIATION object
   can be more generally applied.  This document also defines
   extended ASSOCIATION objects which, in particular, can be used in
   the context of Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching
   (MPLS-TP).  This document updates RFC 2205, RFC 3209, and RFC
   3473. It also modifies the definition of the Association ID field
   defined in RFC 4872.

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), 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 as "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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 9, 2012

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

Copyright and License 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
   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
    1.1    Conventions Used In This Document  ......................   4
    2      Modified Association ID Field Definition  ...............   4
    3      Non-GMPLS Recovery Usage  ...............................   5
    3.1    Upstream Initiated Association  .........................   5
    3.1.1  Path Message Format  ....................................   5
    3.1.2  Path Message Processing  ................................   6
    3.2    Downstream Initiated Association  .......................   7
    3.2.1  Resv Message Format  ....................................   7
    3.2.2  Resv Message Processing  ................................   8
    3.3    Association Types  ......................................   9
    3.3.1  Resource Sharing Association Type  ......................   9
    4      IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Objects  .............  10
    4.1    IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Object Format  .......  10
    4.2    Processing  .............................................  12
    5      Security Considerations  ................................  13
    6      IANA Considerations  ....................................  14
    6.1    IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Objects  .............  14
    6.2    Resource Sharing Association Type  ......................  14
    7      Acknowledgments  ........................................  14
    8      References  .............................................  15
    8.1    Normative References  ...................................  15
    8.2    Informative References  .................................  15
    9      Authors' Addresses  .....................................  16

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

1. Introduction

   End-to-end and segment recovery are defined for GMPLS (Generalized
   Multi-Protocol Label Switching) controlled label switched paths
   (LSPs) in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873] respectively.  Both definitions use
   the ASSOCIATION object to associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they
   are protecting.  Additional narrative on how such associations are to
   be identified is also provided in [ASSOC-INFO].

   This document expands the possible usage of the ASSOCIATION object to
   non-GMPLS recovery contexts.  This document reviews how association
   should be made in the case where the object is carried in a Path
   message and defines usage with Resv messages.  This section also
   discusses usage of the ASSOCIATION object outside the context of
   GMPLS LSPs.

   Some examples of non-LSP association in order to enable resource
   sharing are:

     o Voice Call-Waiting:
       A bidirectional voice call between two endpoints A and B is
       signaled using two separate unidirectional RSVP reservations for
       the flows A->B and B->A. If endpoint A wishes to put the A-B call
       on hold and join a separate A-C call, it is desirable that
       network resources on common links be shared between the A-B and
       A-C calls.  The B->A and C->A subflows of the call can share
       resources using existing RSVP sharing mechanisms, but only if
       they use the same destination IP addresses and ports.  However,
       there is no way in RSVP today to share the resources between the
       A->B and A->C subflows of the call since by definition the RSVP
       reservations for these subflows must have different IP addresses
       in the SESSION objects.

     o Voice Shared Line:
       A single number that rings multiple endpoints (which may be
       geographically diverse), such as phone lines on a manager's desk
       and their assistant.  A VoIP system that models these calls as
       multiple P2P unicast pre-ring reservations would result in
       significantly over-counting bandwidth on shared links, since
       today unicast reservations to different endpoints cannot share
       bandwidth.

     o Symmetric NAT:
       RSVP permits sharing of resources between multiple flows
       addressed to the same destination D, even from different senders
       S1 and S2.  However, if D is behind a NAT operating in symmetric
       mode [RFC5389], it is possible that the destination port of the
       flows S1->D and S2->D may be different outside the NAT.  In this
       case, these flows cannot share resources using RSVP today, since
       the SESSION objects for these two flows outside the NAT would
       have different ports.

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

   In order to support the more general usage of the ASSOCIATION object,
   this document modifies the definition of the Association ID field
   defined in RFC 4872.  This modification has no impact on existing
   implementations.

   This document also defines the extended ASSOCIATION objects which can
   be used in the context of Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label
   Switching (MPLS-TP).  Although, the scope of the extended ASSOCIATION
   objects is not limited to MPLS-TP.

1.1. 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].

2. Modified Association ID Field Definition

   The Association ID field is carried in the IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION
   objects defined in [RFC4872].  The [RFC4872] definition of the field
   reads:

      A value assigned by the LSP head-end.  When combined with the
      Association Type and Association Source, this value uniquely
      identifies an association.

   This document allows for the origination of ASSOCIATION objects by
   nodes other than "the LSP head-end".  As such, the definition of the
   Association ID field needs to be modified to accommodate such usage.
   This document defines the Association ID field of the IPv4 and IPv6
   ASSOCIATION objects as:

      A value assigned by the the node that originated the association.
      When combined with the other fields carried in the object, this
      value uniquely identifies an association.

   This change in definition does not impact [RFC4872] or [RFC4873]
   defined procedures or mechanisms, nor does it impact existing
   implementations of [RFC4872] or [RFC4873].

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

3. Non-GMPLS Recovery Usage

   While the ASSOCIATION object, [RFC4872], is defined in the context of
   GMPLS Recovery, the object can have wider application.  [RFC4872]
   defines the object to be used to "associate LSPs with each other",
   and then defines an Association Type field to identify the type of
   association being identified.  It also defines that the Association
   Type field is to be considered when determining association, i.e.,
   there may be type-specific association rules.  As defined by
   [RFC4872] and reviewed in [ASSOC-INFO], this is the case for Recovery
   type association objects.  [ASSOC-INFO], notably the text related to
   resource sharing types, can also be used as the foundation for a
   generic method for associating LSPs when there is no type-specific
   association defined.

   The remainder of this section defines the general rules to be
   followed when processing ASSOCIATION objects.  Object usage in both
   Path and Resv messages is discussed.  The usage applies equally to
   GMPLS LSPs [RFC3473], MPLS LSPs [RFC3209] and non-LSP RSVP sessions
   [RFC2205], [RFC2207], [RFC3175] and [RFC4860].  As described below,
   association is always done based on matching either Path state to
   Path state, or Resv state to Resv state, but not Path state to Resv
   State.  Note that there are times when no matching state is found,
   e.g., when processing an initial LSP or when the ASSOCIATION object
   contains otherwise useful information, and such cases do not alter
   the processing defined below.  This section applies to the
   ASSOCIATION objects defined in [RFC4872].

3.1. Upstream Initiated Association

   Upstream initiated association is represented in ASSOCIATION objects
   carried in Path messages and can be used to associate RSVP Path state
   across MPLS Tunnels / RSVP sessions.  (Note, per [RFC3209], an MPLS
   tunnel is represented by a RSVP SESSION object, and multiple LSPs may
   be represented within a single tunnel.)  Cross-session association
   based on Path state is defined in [RFC4872]. This definition is
   extended by this section, which defined generic association rules and
   usage for non-LSP uses.  This section does not modify processing
   required to support [RFC4872] and [RFC4873], and which is reviewed in
   Section 3 of [ASSOC-INFO].  The use of an ASSOCIATION object in a
   single session is not precluded.

3.1.1. Path Message Format

   This section provides the Backus-Naur Form (BNF), see [RFC5511], for
   Path messages containing ASSOCIATION objects.  BNF is provided for
   both MPLS and for non-LSP session usage.  Unmodified RSVP message
   formats and some optional objects are not listed.

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

   The format for MPLS and GMPLS sessions is unmodified from [RFC4872],
   and can be represented based on the BNF in [RFC3209] as:

      <Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                         <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                         <TIME_VALUES>
                         [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
                         <LABEL_REQUEST>
                         [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
                         [ <ASSOCIATION> ... ]
                         [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                         <sender descriptor>

   The format for non-LSP sessions as based on the BNF in [RFC2205] is:

      <Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                         <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                         <TIME_VALUES>
                        [ <ASSOCIATION> ... ]
                        [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                        [ <sender descriptor> ]

   In general, relative ordering of ASSOCIATION objects with respect to
   each other as well as with respect to other objects is not
   significant.  Relative ordering of ASSOCIATION objects of the same
   type SHOULD be preserved by transit nodes.

3.1.2. Path Message Processing

   This section is based on the processing rules described in [RFC4872]
   and [RFC4873], and which is reviewed in [ASSOC-INFO].  These
   procedures apply equally to GMPLS LSPs, MPLS LSPs and non-LSP session
   state.

   A node sending a Path message chooses when an ASSOCIATION object is
   to be included in the outgoing Path message.  A node that wishes to
   allow downstream nodes to associate Path state across RSVP sessions
   MUST include an ASSOCIATION object in the outgoing Path messages
   corresponding to the RSVP sessions to be associated.  In the absence
   of Association Type-specific rules for identifying association, the
   included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be identical across all associated
   sessions.  When there is an Association Type-specific definition of
   association rules, the definition SHOULD allow for association based
   on identical ASSOCIATION objects.  This document does not define any
   Association Type-specific rules.  (See Section 3 of [ASSOC-INFO] for
   a review of Association Type-specific rules derived from [RFC4872].)

   When creating an ASSOCIATION object, the originator MUST format the
   object as defined in Section 16.1 of [RFC4872].  The originator MUST
   set the Association Type field based on the type of association being

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 6]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

   identified.  The Association ID field MUST be set to a value that
   uniquely identifies the sessions to be associated within the context
   of the Association Source field.  The Association Source field MUST
   be set to a unique address assigned to the node originating the
   association.

   A downstream node can identify an upstream initiated association by
   performing the following checks.  When a node receives a Path message
   it MUST check each ASSOCIATION object received in the Path message to
   see if it contains an Association Type field value supported by the
   node.  For each ASSOCIATION object containing a supported association
   type, the node MUST then check to see if the object matches an
   ASSOCIATION object received in any other Path message.  To perform
   this matching, a node MUST examine the Path state of all other
   sessions and compare the fields contained in the newly received
   ASSOCIATION object with the fields contained in the Path state's
   ASSOCIATION objects.  An association is deemed to exist when the same
   values are carried in all fields of the ASSOCIATION objects being
   compared.  Type-specific processing of ASSOCIATION objects is outside
   the scope of this document.

   Note that as more than one association may exist, the described
   matching MUST continue after a match is identified, and MUST be
   performed against all local Path state.  It is also possible for
   there to be no match identified.

   Unless there are type-specific processing rules, downstream nodes
   MUST forward all ASSOCIATION objects received in a Path message in
   any corresponding outgoing Path messages.

3.2. Downstream Initiated Association

   Downstream initiated association is represented in ASSOCIATION
   objects carried in Resv messages and can be used to associate RSVP
   Resv state across MPLS Tunnels / RSVP sessions.  Cross-session
   association based on Path state is defined in [RFC4872]. This section
   defines cross-session association based on Resv state.  This section
   places no additional requirements on implementations supporting
   [RFC4872] and [RFC4873].  Note, the use of an ASSOCIATION object in a
   single session is not precluded.

3.2.1. Resv Message Format

   This section provides the Backus-Naur Form (BNF), see [RFC5511], for
   Resv messages containing ASSOCIATION objects.  BNF is provided for
   both MPLS and for non-LSP session usage.  Unmodified RSVP message
   formats and some optional objects are not listed.

   The format for MPLS, GMPLS and non-LSP sessions are identical, and is

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 7]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

   represented based on the BNF in [RFC2205] and [RFC3209]:

      <Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                         <SESSION>  <RSVP_HOP>
                         <TIME_VALUES>
                         [ <RESV_CONFIRM> ]  [ <SCOPE> ]
                         [ <ASSOCIATION> ... ]
                         [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                         <STYLE> <flow descriptor list>

   Relative ordering of ASSOCIATION objects with respect to each other
   as well as with respect to other objects is not currently
   significant.  Relative ordering of ASSOCIATION objects of the same
   type MUST be preserved by transit nodes.  Association type specific
   ordering requirements MAY be defined in the future.

3.2.2. Resv Message Processing

   This section apply equally to GMPLS LSPs, MPLS LSPs and non-LSP
   session state.

   A node sending a Resv message chooses when an ASSOCIATION object is
   to be included in the outgoing Resv message.  A node that wishes to
   allow upstream nodes to associate Resv state across RSVP sessions
   MUST include an ASSOCIATION object in the outgoing Resv messages
   corresponding to the RSVP sessions to be associated.  In the absence
   of Association Type-specific rules for identifying association, the
   included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be identical.  When there is an
   Association Type-specific definition of association rules, the
   definition SHOULD allow for association based on identical
   ASSOCIATION objects.  This document does not define any Association
   Type-specific rules.

   When creating an ASSOCIATION object, the originator MUST format the
   object as defined in Section 16.1 of [RFC4872].  The originator MUST
   set the Association Type field based on the type of association being
   identified.  The Association ID field MUST be set to a value that
   uniquely identifies the sessions to be associated within the context
   of the Association Source field.  The Association Source field MUST
   be set to a unique address assigned to the node originating the
   association.

   An upstream node can identify a downstream initiated association by
   performing the following checks.  When a node receives a Resv message
   it MUST check each ASSOCIATION object received in the Resv message to
   see if it contains an Association Type field value supported by the
   node.  For each ASSOCIATION object containing a supported association
   type, the node MUST then check to see if the object matches an
   ASSOCIATION object received in any other Resv message.  To perform
   this matching, a node MUST examine the Resv state of all other

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 8]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

   sessions and compare the fields contained in the newly received
   ASSOCIATION object with the fields contained in the Resv state's
   ASSOCIATION objects.  An association is deemed to exist when the same
   values are carried in all fields of the ASSOCIATION objects being
   compared.  Type-specific processing of ASSOCIATION objects is outside
   the scope of this document.

   Note that as more than one association may exist, the described
   matching MUST continue after a match is identified, and MUST be
   performed against all local Resv state. It is also possible for there
   to be no match identified.

   Unless there are type-specific processing rules, upstream nodes MUST
   forward all ASSOCIATION objects received in a Resv message in any
   corresponding outgoing Resv messages.

3.3. Association Types

   Two association types are currently defined: recovery and resource
   sharing.  Recovery type association is only applicable within the
   context of recovery, [RFC4872] and [RFC4873].  Resource sharing is
   generally useful and its general use is defined in this section.

3.3.1. Resource Sharing Association Type

   The resource sharing association type was defined in [RFC4873] and
   was defined within the context of GMPLS and upstream initiated
   association.  This section presents a definition of the resource
   sharing association that allows for its use with any RSVP session
   type and in both Path and Resv messages.  This definition is
   consistent with the definition of the resource sharing association
   type in [RFC4873] and no changes are required by this section in
   order to support [RFC4873].  The Resource Sharing Association Type
   MUST be supported by any implementation compliant with this document.

   The Resource Sharing Association Type is used to enable resource
   sharing across RSVP sessions.  Per [RFC4873], Resource Sharing uses
   the Association Type field value of 2.  ASSOCIATION objects with an
   Association Type with the value Resource Sharing MAY be carried in
   Path and Resv messages.  Association for the Resource Sharing type
   MUST follow the procedures defined in Section 4.1.2 for upstream
   (Path message) initiated association and Section 4.2.1 for downstream
   (Resv message) initiated association.  There are no type-specific
   association rules, processing rules, or ordering requirements.  Note
   that as is always the case with association as enabled by this
   document, no associations are made across Path and Resv state.

   Once an association is identified, resources SHOULD be shared across
   the identified sessions.  Resource sharing is discussed in general in

Berger, et al                Standards Track                    [Page 9]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

   [RFC2205] and within the context of LSPs in [RFC3209].

4. IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Objects

   [RFC4872] defines the IPv4 ASSOCIATION object and the IPv6
   ASSOCIATION object.  As defined, these objects each contain an
   Association Source field and a 16-bit Association ID field. The
   combination of the Association Source and the Association ID uniquely
   identifies the association.  Because the association-ID field is a
   16-bit field, an association source can allocate up to 65536
   different associations and no more.  There are scenarios where this
   number is insufficient.  (For example where the association
   identification is best known and identified by a fairly centralized
   entity, which therefore may be involved in a large number of
   associations.)

   An additional case that cannot be supported using the existing
   ASSOCIATION objects is presented by MPLS-TP LSPs.  Per [RFC6370],
   MPLS-TP LSPs can be identified based on an operator unique global
   identifier.  The [RFC6370] defined "global identifier", or Global_ID,
   is based on [RFC5003] and includes the operator's Autonomous System
   Number (ASN).

   This sections defines new ASSOCIATION objects to support extended
   identification in order to address the limitations described above.
   Specifically, the IPv4 Extended ASSOCIATION object and IPv6 Extended
   ASSOCIATION object are defined below. Both new objects include the
   fields necessary to enable identification of a larger number of
   associations, as well as MPLS-TP required identification.

   The IPv4 Extended ASSOCIATION object and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION
   object SHOULD be supported by an implementation compliant with this
   document.  The processing rules for the IPv4 and IPv6 Extended
   ASSOCIATION object are described below, and are based on the rules
   for the IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects as described above.

4.1. IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Object Format

   The IPv4 Extended ASSOCIATION object (Class-Num of the form 11bbbbbb
   with value = 199, C-Type = TBA) has the format:

Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 10]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Length             | Class-Num(199)|  C-Type (TBA) |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Association Type        |       Association ID          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    IPv4 Association Source                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Global Association Source                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                               .                               :
      :                    Extended Association ID                    :
      :                               .                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION object (Class-Num of the form 11bbbbbb
   with value = 199, C-Type = TBA) has the format:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Length             | Class-Num(199)|  C-Type (TBA) |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Association Type        |       Association ID          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                    IPv6 Association Source                    |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Global Association Source                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      :                               .                               :
      :                    Extended Association ID                    :
      :                               .                               :
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Association Type: 16 bits

      Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].

   Association ID: 16 bits

      Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see Section 2.

   Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes

      Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].

Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 11]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

   Global Association Source: 4 bytes

      This field contains a value that is a unique global identifier.
      This field MAY contain the 2-octet or 4-octet value of the
      provider's Autonomous System Number (ASN).  It is expected that
      the global identifier will be derived from the globally unique ASN
      of the autonomous system hosting the Association Source.  The
      special value of zero (0) indicates that no global identifier is
      present. Note that a Global Association Source of zero SHOULD be
      limited to entities contained within a single operator.

      If the Global Association Source field value is derived from a
      2-octet AS number, then the two high-order octets of this 4-octet
      field MUST be set to zero.

      Note, as stated in [RFC6370], "the use of the Global_ID is not
      related to the use of the ASN in protocols such as BGP."

      This field is based on the definition of Global_ID defined in
      [RFC5003] and used by [RFC6370].

   Extended Association ID: variable, 4-byte aligned

      This field contains data that is additional information to support
      unique identification.  The length and contents of this field is
      determined by the Association Source.  This field MAY be omitted,
      i.e., have a zero length.  This field MUST be padded with zeros
      (0s) to ensure 32-bit alignment.

4.2. Processing

   The processing of a IPv4 or IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION object MUST be
   identical to the processing of a IPv4 or IPv6 ASSOCIATION object as
   described above except as extended by this section. This section
   applies to ASSOCIATION objects included in both Path and Resv
   messages.

   The following are the modified procedures for Extended ASSOCIATION
   object processing:

     o When creating an Extended ASSOCIATION object, the originator MUST
       format the object as defined in this document.

     o The originator MUST set the Association Type, Association ID and
       Association Source fields as described in Section 4.

     o When ASN-based global identification of the Association Source is
       desired, the originator MUST set the Global Association Source
       field.  When ASN-based global identification is not desired, the
       originator MUST set the Global Association Source field to zero

Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 12]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

       (0).

     o The Extended ASSOCIATION object originator MAY include the
       Extended Association ID field.  The field is included based on
       local policy.  The field MUST be included when the Association ID
       field is insufficient to uniquely identify association within the
       scope of the source of the association.  When included, this
       field MUST be set to a value that, when taken together with the
       other fields in the object, uniquely identifies the sessions to
       be associated.

     o The object Length field is set based on the length of the
       Extended Association ID field.  When the Extended Association ID
       field is omitted, the object Length field MUST be set to 16 or 28
       for the IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, respectively. When the
       Extended Association ID field is present, the object Length field
       MUST be set to indicate the additional bytes carried in the
       Extended Association ID field, including pad bytes.

       Note: per [RFC2205], the object Length field is set to the total
       object length in bytes, and is always a multiple of 4, and at
       least 4.

   Identification of association is not modified by this section.  It is
   important to note that Section 4 defines association identification
   based on ASSOCIATION object matching, and that such matching is based
   on the comparison of all fields in a ASSOCIATION object (unless type-
   specific comparison rules are defined).  This applies equally to
   ASSOCIATION objects and Extended ASSOCIATION objects.

5. Security Considerations

   A portion of this document reviews procedures defined in [RFC4872]
   and [RFC4873] and does not define any new procedures.  As such, no
   new security considerations are introduced in this portion.

   Section 2 defines broader usage of the ASSOCIATION object, but does
   not fundamentally expand on the association function that was
   previously defined in [RFC4872] and [RFC4873].  Section 3 increases
   the number of bits that are carried in an ASSOCIATION object (by 32),
   and similarly does not expand on the association function that was
   previously defined.  This broader definition does allow for
   additional information to be conveyed, but this information is not
   fundamentally different from the information that is already carried
   in RSVP.  Therefore there are no new risks or security considerations
   introduced by this document.

   For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related security issues,
   see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].

Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 13]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

6. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
   namespaces defined in this document and summarized in this section.

6.1. IPv4 and IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION Objects

   Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the assignment of two
   new C-Types (which are defined in section 3.1) for the existing
   ASSOCIATION object in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class
   Types" section of the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
   Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
   parameters:

   199  ASSOCIATION                           [RFC4872]

        Class Types or C-Types

           3   Type 3 IPv4 Extended Association   [this document]
           4   Type 4 IPv6 Extended Association   [this document]

6.2. Resource Sharing Association Type

   This document also broadens the potential usage of the Resource
   Sharing Association Type defined in [RFC4873].  As such, IANA is
   requested to change the Reference of the Resource Sharing Association
   Type included in the associate registry.  This document also directs
   IANA to correct the duplicate usage of '(R)' in this Registry.  In
   particular, the Association Type registry found at
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/ should be
   updated as follows:

      OLD:
        2         Resource Sharing (R)      [RFC4873]
      NEW
        2         Resource Sharing (S)      [RFC4873][this-document]

   There are no other IANA considerations introduced by this document.

7. Acknowledgments

   Valuable comments and input was received from Dimitri Papadimitriou
   and Fei Zhang.  We thank Subha Dhesikan for her contribution to the
   early work on sharing of resources across RSVP reservations.

Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 14]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and
              S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
              Version 1, Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
              September 1997.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 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.

   [RFC4872]  Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and Papadimitriou, D., "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., Farrel, A.,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.

   [RFC5511]  Farrel, A., "Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax
              Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol
              Specifications", RFC 5511, April 2009

8.2. Informative References

   [ASSOC-INFO] Berger, L.., "Usage of The RSVP Association Object",
                work in progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info.

   [RFC2207] Berger., L., O'Malley., T., "RSVP Extensions for IPSEC
             RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows", RFC 2207, September
             1997.

   [RFC3175] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le, F., Davie, B., "Aggregation
             of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations", RFC 3175,
             September 2001.

   [RFC4860] Le, F., Davie, B., Bose, P., Christou, C., Davenport, M.,
             "Generic Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
             Reservations", RFC 4860, May 2007.

Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 15]
Internet-Draft      draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext-03.txt       March 9, 2012

   [RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., Sugimoto, J.,
             "Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
             Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007.

   [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., Wing, D., "Session
             Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, October
             2008.

   [RFC5920] Fang, L., et al, "Security Framework for MPLS and
             GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

   [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., Gray, E., "MPLS-TP Identifiers",
             RFC 6370, June 2011.

9. Authors' Addresses

   Lou Berger
   LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
   Phone: +1-301-468-9228
   Email: lberger@labn.net

   Francois Le Faucheur
   Cisco Systems
   Greenside, 400 Avenue de Roumanille
   Sophia Antipolis  06410
   France
   Email: flefauch@cisco.com

   Ashok Narayanan
   Cisco Systems
   300 Beaver Brook Road
   Boxborough, MA  01719
   United States
   Email: ashokn@cisco.com

Berger, et al                Standards Track                   [Page 16]
Generated on: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 10:30:59 AM