Refresh Interval Independent FRR Facility Protection

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2018-04-04 (latest revision 2018-02-10)
Replaces draft-chandra-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Document shepherd Nicolai Leymann
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to Nicolai Leymann <>
Network Working Group                              Chandra Ramachandran 
 Internet Draft                                         Juniper Networks 
 Intended status: Standards Track                              Ina Minei 
                                                             Google, Inc 
                                                           Dante Pacella 
                                                              Tarek Saad 
                                                      Cisco Systems Inc. 
 Expires: August 9, 2018                               February 10, 2018 
            Refresh Interval Independent FRR Facility Protection 

 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-
    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 
    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
    This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2018. 
 Copyright Notice 

    Copyright (c) 2018 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  

 Chandra, et al          Expires August 9, 2018                 [Page 1] 

 Internet-Draft            RI-RSVP FRR Bypass              February 2018 

    ( 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. 

    RSVP-TE relies on periodic refresh of RSVP messages to synchronize 
    and maintain the LSP related states along the reserved path. In the 
    absence of refresh messages, the LSP related states are 
    automatically deleted. Reliance on periodic refreshes and refresh 
    timeouts are problematic from the scalability point of view. The 
    number of RSVP-TE LSPs that a router needs to maintain has been 
    growing in service provider networks and the implementations should 
    be capable of handling increase in LSP scale. 

    RFC 2961 specifies mechanisms to eliminate the reliance on periodic 
    refresh and refresh timeout of RSVP messages, and enables a router 
    to increase the message refresh interval to values much longer than 
    the default 30 seconds defined in RFC 2205. However, the protocol 
    extensions defined in RFC 4090 for supporting fast reroute (FRR) 
    using bypass tunnels implicitly rely on short refresh timeouts to 
    cleanup stale states. 

    In order to eliminate the reliance on refresh timeouts, the routers 
    should unambiguously determine when a particular LSP state should be 
    deleted. Coupling LSP state with the corresponding RSVP-TE signaling 
    adjacencies as recommended in RSVP-TE Scaling Recommendations 
    (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec) will apply in scenarios other 
    than RFC 4090 FRR using bypass tunnels. In scenarios involving RFC 
    4090 FRR using bypass tunnels, additional explicit tear down 
    messages are necessary. Refresh-interval Independent RSVP FRR (RI-
    RSVP-FRR) extensions specified in this document consists of 
    procedures to enable LSP state cleanup that are essential in 
    scenarios not covered by procedures defined in RSVP-TE Scaling 
    Recommendations. Hence, this document updates the semantics of 
    Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) capability specified in 
    RSVP-TE Scaling Recommendations (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-

 Requirements Language 

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
Show full document text