Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Route
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-06

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (teas WG)
Last updated 2016-10-18
Replaces draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead Jul 2015
Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
Document shepherd Lou Berger
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2016-07-10)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
TEAS Working Group                                    Zafar Ali, Ed. 
   Internet Draft                                   George Swallow, Ed. 
   Intended status: Standard Track                        Cisco Systems 
   Updates RFC4874                                        F. Zhang, Ed. 
   Expires: April 21, 2017                                       Huawei 
                                                         D. Beller, Ed. 
                                                                  Nokia 
                                                       October 18, 2016 
    
      Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path 
                       Diversity using Exclude Route 

                    draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-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 April 21, 2017. 
       
   Copyright Notice 

   Copyright (c) 2016 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. 

   
    
   Ali, Swallow, Zhang, Beller, et al. Expires April 2017       [Page 1] 

   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-06.txt 

   Abstract 

   Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering provides support 
   for the communication of exclusion information during labeled switch 
   path setup. This document specifies three new route exclusion types.  
   The new types include exclusions based on LSP, PCE, and network 
   assigned identifiers. 
    
   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 

   1. Introduction..................................................2 
      1.1. Client-Initiated Identifier..............................5 
      1.2. PCE-allocated Identifier.................................6 
      1.3. Network-Assigned Identifier..............................7 
   2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions..................................9 
      2.1. Diversity XRO Subobject..................................9 
      2.2. Diversity EXRS Subobject................................15 
      2.3. Processing rules for the Diversity XRO and EXRS 
           subobjects..............................................16 
   3. Security Considerations......................................20 
   4. IANA Considerations..........................................20 
      4.1. New XRO subobject types.................................20 
      4.2. New EXRS subobject types................................21 
      4.3. New RSVP error sub-codes................................21 
   5. Acknowledgements.............................................22 
   6. References...................................................22 
      6.1. Normative References....................................22 
      6.2. Informative References..................................23 
    

   1. Introduction 

      Path diversity for multiple connections is a well-known Service 
      Provider requirement. Diversity constraints ensure that Label-
      Switched Paths (LSPs) can be established without sharing network 
      resources, thus greatly reducing the probability of simultaneous 
      connection failures. 

      The source node can compute diverse paths for LSPs when it has 
      full knowledge of the network topology and is permitted to signal 
      an Explicit Route Object. However, there are scenarios where 
    
    
                             Expires April 2017                [Page 2] 
       
Show full document text