Implementation Recommendations to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE Deployments
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (teas WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-08-10
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-beeram-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
|
Reviews |
|
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
Submitted to IESG for Publication
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
Lou Berger
|
|
Shepherd write-up |
|
Show
(last changed 2017-07-09)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
Publication Requested
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Yes
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
Deborah Brungard
|
|
Send notices to |
|
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
TEAS Working Group V. Beeram, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei
Expires: February 11, 2018 R. Shakir
Google, Inc
D. Pacella
Verizon
T. Saad
Cisco Systems
August 10, 2017
Implementation Recommendations to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE
Deployments
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec-06
Abstract
The scale at which RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) get deployed
is growing continually and the onus is on RSVP-TE implementations
across the board to keep up with this increasing demand.
This document introduces a couple of techniques - "Refresh-Interval
Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP)" and "Per-Peer Flow-Control" - to help
RSVP-TE deployments push the envelope on scaling.
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 February 11, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Beeram, et al. Expires February 11, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Scaling - Impl. Rec August 2017
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. "RFC2961 Specific" Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. Basic Prerequisites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2. Making Acknowledgements Mandatory . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.3. Clarifications On Reaching Rapid Retry Limit (Rl) . . 4
2.2. Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Per-Peer RSVP Flow-Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1. Capability Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Capability Object Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Recommended Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The scale at which RSVP-TE [RFC3209] Label Switched Paths (LSPs) get
deployed is growing continually and there is considerable onus on
RSVP-TE implementations across the board to keep up with this
Show full document text