Skip to main content

Support for Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) in Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (L3VPNs)
draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 6882.
Authors Kenji Kumaki , Tomoki Murai , Dean Cheng , Satoru Matsushima , PENG JIANG
Last updated 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2012-12-20)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Experimental
Formats
Reviews
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 6882 (Experimental)
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Stewart Bryant
Send notices to (None)
draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09
Network Working Group                                     K. Kumaki, Ed.
Internet Draft                                          KDDI Corporation
Intended Status: Experimental                                   T. Murai
Expires: June 20, 2013                  Furukawa Network Solutions Corp.
                                                                D. Cheng
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           S. Matsushima
                                                        Softbank Telecom
                                                                P. Jiang
                                                        KDDI Corporation
                                                       December 21, 2012

                       Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs
                  draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09.txt

Abstract

   IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) provide connectivity between sites
   across an IP/MPLS backbone. These VPNs can be operated using BGP/MPLS
   and a single provider edge (PE) node may provide access to multiple
   customer sites belonging to different VPNs.

   The VPNs may support a number of customer services including RSVP and
   RSVP-TE traffic. This document describes how to support RSVP-TE
   between customer sites when a single PE supports multiple VPNs and
   labels are not used to identify VPNs between PEs.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2013.

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 1]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

Copyright 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
   2. Motivation....................................................3
      2.1 Network Example...........................................4
   3. Protocol Extensions and Procedures............................5
      3.1 Object Definitions........................................5
      3.1.1 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION Object
      ..............................................................5
      3.1.2 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE
      Objects.......................................................7
      3.1.3 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC
      Objects.......................................................8
      3.1.4 VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP Objects..................9
      3.2 Handling..................................................9
      3.2.1 Path Message Processing at Ingress PE...................9
      3.2.2 Path Message Processing at Egress PE....................10
      3.2.3 Resv Processing at Egress PE............................10
      3.2.4 Resv Processing at Ingress PE...........................10
      3.2.5 Other RSVP Messages.....................................10
   4. Management Considerations.....................................11
      4.1 Impact on Network Operation...............................11
   5. Security Considerations.......................................11
   6. IANA Considerations...........................................12
   7. References....................................................12
      7.1 Normative References......................................13
      7.2 Informative References....................................13
   8. Acknowledgments...............................................13
   9. Author's Addresses............................................14
   10. Contributors' Addresses......................................14

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 2]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

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].

1. Introduction

   Service Providers would like to use BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs [RFC4364] to
   support connections between Customer Edge (CE) sites. As described in
   [RFC5824], these connections can be MPLS Traffic Engineered (TE)
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) established using extensions to RSVP
   [RFC3209] for a number of different deployment scenarios. The
   requirements for supporting MPLS-TE LSP connections across BGP/MPLS
   IP-VPNs are documented in [RFC5824].

   In order to establish a customer MPLS-TE LSP over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN,
   it is necessary for the RSVP-TE control messages, including Path
   messages and Resv messages described in [RFC3209], to be
   appropriately handled by the Provider Edge (PE) routers.
   [RFC4364] allows RSVP messages sent within a VPN's context to be
   handled just like any other VPN data.  In such a solution, the
   RSVP-TE component at a PE that sends messages toward a remote PE
   must process the messages in the context of the VPN and must
   ensure that the messages are correctly labelled. Similarly, when
   a message is received by a PE having been sent across the core,
   both labels to indicate the correct VPN context.

   Implementation of the standards-based solution described in the
   previous paragraph is possible, but requires proper support on
   the PE. In particular, a PE must be able to process RSVP messages
   within the context of the appropriate VPN VRF. This may be
   achieved easily in some implementations, in others it is not so
   easy to achieved.

   This document defines experimental formats and mechanisms that
   follows a different approach.  The documented approach enables the
   VPN identifier to be carried in the RSVP-TE protocol message so
   that there is no requirement for label based VRF identification
   on the PE.

   The experiment proposed by this document does not negate the
   label based approach supported by [RFC4364]. The experiment is
   intended to enable research into alternate methods of supporting
   RSVP-TE within VPNs.

2. Motivation

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 3]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

   If multiple BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs are supported at the same PE, new 
   RSVP-TE extensions are required so that RSVP-TE control messages
   from the CEs can be appropriately handled by the PE. 
  
2.1 Network Example

   Figure 1 (Customer MPLS TE LSPs in the context of BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs) 
   shows two VPNs supported by a core IP/MPLS network. Both VPNs have
   customer sites supported by the two PEs shown in the figure. The
   customer sites operate MPLS-TE LSPs.

   Here, we make the following set of assumptions.

   1. VPN1 and VPN2 are for different customers.
   2. CE1 and CE3 are head-end routers.
   3. CE2 and CE4 are tail-end routers.
   4. The same address (e.g., 192.0.2.1) is assigned at CE2 and CE4.

     <--------A customer MPLS TE LSP for VPN1-------->

   .......                                        .......
   . --- .    ---      ---       ---      ---     . --- .
   .|CE1|----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2|.
   . --- .    ---      ---       ---      ---     . --- .
   .......     |                           |      .......
   (VPN1)      |                           |      (VPN1)
               |                           |
   .......     |                           |      .......
   . --- .     |                           |      . --- .
   .|CE3|------+                           +-------|CE4|.
   . --- .                                        . --- .
   .......                                        .......
   (VPN2)                                         (VPN2)

     <--------A customer MPLS TE LSP for VPN2-------->
               ^                           ^
               |                           |
          VRF instance                VRF instance

   <-Customer->    <---BGP/MPLS IP-VPN--->   <-Customer->
      network                                   network

     Figure 1: Customer MPLS TE LSPs in the context of BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs

   Consider that customers in VPN1 and VPN2 would like to establish a
   customer MPLS TE LSPs between their sites (i.e., between CE1 and CE2,
   and between CE3 and CE4). In this situation the following RSVP-TE
   Path messages would be sent:

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 4]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

      1. CE1 would send a Path message to PE1 to establish
         the MPLS TE LSP (VPN1) between CE1 and CE2.

      2. CE3 would also send a Path message to PE1 to establish
         the MPLS TE LSP (VPN2) between CE1 and CE2.

   After receiving each Path messages, PE1 can identify the customer 
   context for each Path message from the incoming interface over which
   the message was received. PE1 forwards the messages to PE2 using the
   routing mechanisms described in [RFC4364] and [RFC4659]. 

   When the Path messages are received at PE2, that node needs to 
   distinguish the messages and determine which applies to VPN1 and 
   which to VPN2 so that the right forwarding state can be established
   and so that the messages can be passed on to the correct CE. Although
   the messages will arrive at PE2 with an MPLS label that identifies 
   the VPN, the messages will be delivered to the RSVP-TE component on 
   PE2 and the context of the core VPN LSP (i.e., the label) will be 
   lost. Some RSVP-TE protocol mechanism is therefore needed to embed
   the VPN identifier within the RSVP-TE message.

   Similarly, Resv messages sent from PE2 to PE1 need an RSVP-TE 
   mechanisms to assign them to the correct VPN.
   

3. Protocol Extensions and Procedures

   This section provides the additional RSVP-TE objects to meet the
   requirements described in Section 2.   These are new variants of the
   SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTERSPEC objects. These new objects
   will act as identifiers and allow PEs to The new object types are
   defined in Section 3.1, and the specific procedure is described in
   Section 3.2.
    
3.1 Object Definitions

3.1.1 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION Object

   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) SESSION object appears in 
   RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a SESSION object and are 
   sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction. The object
   MUST NOT be included in any RSVP-TE message that is sent outside of 
   the provider's backbone.

   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is analogous to the
   LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 SESSION object, using a VPN-IPv6 address
   ([RFC4659]) instead of a VPN-IPv4 address ([RFC4364]).
   
   This experimentation will be carried out using private Class Types. 
   These can be identified in this document as C-Type=EXPn:

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 5]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP1
   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP2
   Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP3
   Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP4
   Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP5
   Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP6

   Experimenters MUST ensure that there is no conflict between the
   private Class Types used for this experiment and other Class
   Types used by the PEs.

   The formats of the objects are as follows:

   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP1

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |            VPN-IPv4 tunnel end point address (12 bytes)       |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MUST be zero                 |      Tunnel ID                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 6]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP2

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |            VPN-IPv6 tunnel end point address                  |
   +                                                               +
   |                            (24 bytes)                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MUST be zero                 |      Tunnel ID                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
   +                                                               +
   |                            (16 bytes)                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The VPN-IPv4 tunnel end point address (respectively, VPN-IPv6 tunnel
   end point address) field contains an address of 
   the VPN-IPv4 (respectively, VPN-IPv6) address family encoded as 
   specified in [RFC4364](respectively, [RFC4659]).

   The Tunnel ID and Extended Tunnel ID are identical to the same fields
   in the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SESSION objects 
   as per [RFC3209].

3.1.2 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE
Objects

   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) SENDER_TEMPLATE object appears
   in RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a SENDER_TEMPLATE object
   and are sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction 
   (such as Path, PathError, and PathTear).  The object MUST NOT be 
   included in any RSVP-TE messages that are sent outside of the 
   provider's backbone. The format of the object is as follows:

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 7]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

     Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP3

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |            VPN-IPv4 tunnel sender address (12 bytes)          |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MUST be zero                 |            LSP ID             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP4

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |            VPN-IPv6 tunnel sender address                     |
   +                                                               +
   |                            (24 bytes)                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  MUST be zero                 |            LSP ID             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The VPN-IPv4 tunnel sender address (respectively, VPN-IPv6 tunnel
   sender address) field contains an address of the VPN-IPv4
   (respectively, VPN-IPv6) address family encoded as specified 
   in [RFC4364] (respectively, [RFC4659]).

   The LSP ID is identical to the LSP ID field in the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4
   and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE objects as 
   per [RFC3209].
   
3.1.3 LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC Objects

   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) FILTER_SPEC object appears in
   RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a FILTER_SPEC object and are
   sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction (such as
   Resv, ResvError, and ResvTear).  The object MUST NOT be included in
   any RSVP-TE messages that are sent outside of the provider's 
   backbone.

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 8]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

      Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP5

   The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is identical
   to the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.

      Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP6

   The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is identical
   to the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.

3.1.4 VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP Objects

   The format of the VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP objects are
   identical to objects described in [RFC6016].

3.2 Handling

   It assumes that ingress PEs and egress PEs in the context of BGP/MPLS
   IP-VPNs have RSVP-TE capabilities.

3.2.1 Path Message Processing at Ingress PE

   When a Path message arrives at the ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1), the
   PE needs to establish suitable Path state and forward the Path
   message on to the egress PE (PE2 in Figure 1). In this section
   we described the message handling process at the ingress PE.

      1. CE1 would send a Path message to PE1 to establish the MPLS TE
         LSP (VPN1) between CE1 and CE2. The Path message
         is addressed to the eventual destination (the receiver at the
         remote customer site) and carries the IP Router Alert option,
         in accordance with [RFC2205].  The ingress PE must recognize
         the router alert, intercept these messages and process them
         as RSVP-TE signalling messages.

      2. When the ingress PE receives a Path message from a CE that is
         addressed to the receiver, the VRF that is associated with the
         incoming interface can be identified (this step does not
         deviate from current behavior).

      3. The tunnel end point address of the receiver is looked up in
         the appropriate VRF, and the BGP Next-Hop for that tunnel end
         point address is identified. The next-hop is the egress PE.
         
      4. A new LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is
         constructed, containing the Route Distinguisher (RD) that is
         part of the VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 route prefix for this tunnel end
         point address, and the IPv4/IPv6 tunnel end point address from
         the original SESSION object.

K.Kumaki, et al.                                              [Page 9]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

      5. A new LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object is
         constructed, with the original IPv4/IPv6 tunnel sender address
         from the incoming SENDER_TEMPLATE plus the RD that is used by
         the PE to advertise the prefix for the customers VPN.

      6. A new Path message is sent containing all the objects from the
         original Path message, replacing the original SESSION and
         SENDER_TEMPLATE objects with the new
         LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 type objects. This Path message is
         sent directly to the egress PE (the next hop as being looked up
         in step 3 above) without IP Router Alert.

3.2.2 Path Message Processing at Egress PE

   In this section we described the message handling process at the
   egress PE.

       1. When a Path message arrives at the egress PE (PE2 in 
          Figure 1) , it is addressed to the PE itself, and is handed 
          to RSVP for processing.

       2. The router extracts the RD and IPv4/IPv6 address from the
          LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object, and determines
          the local VRF context by finding a matching VPN-IPv4 prefix
          with the specified RD that has been advertised by this router
          into BGP.

       3. The entire incoming RSVP message, including the VRF
          information, is stored as part of the Path state.

       4. The egress PE can now construct a Path message which differs
          from the Path message it received in the following ways:

            a.  Its tunnel end point address is the IP address extracted
                from the SESSION object;

            b.  The SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE objects are converted
                back to IPv4-type/IPv6-type by discarding the attached
                RD;

            c. The RSVP_HOP object contains the IP address of the
               outgoing interface of the egress PE and an Logical 
               Interface Handle (LIH), as per normal RSVP processing.
               
        5. The egress PE then sends the Path message on towards its
           tunnel end point address over the interface identified above.
           This Path message carries the IP Router-Alert option as
           required by [RFC2205].

3.2.3 Resv Processing at Egress PE

K.Kumaki, et al.                                            [Page 10]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

   When a receiver at the customer site originates a Resv message for
   the session, normal RSVP procedures apply until the Resv, making its
   way back towards the sender, arrives at the "egress" PE (it is
   "egress" with respect to the direction of data flow, i.e.  PE2 in
   figure 1).  On arriving at PE2, the SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects
   in the Resv, and the VRF in which the Resv was received, are used to
   find the matching Path state stored previously.

   The PE constructs a Resv message to send to the RSVP HOP stored in
   the Path state, i.e., the ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1).  The LSP
   TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 SESSION object is replaced with the same
   LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object received in the Path. The
   LSP TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is replaced with a
   LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object, which copies the
   VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 address from the LSP TUNNEL SENDER_TEMPLATE
   received in the matching Path message.

   The Resv message MUST be addressed to the IP address contained within
   the RSVP_HOP object in the Path message.

3.2.4 Resv Processing at Ingress PE

   Upon receiving a Resv message at the ingress PE (with respect to data
   flow, i.e.  PE1 in Figure 1), the PE determines the local VRF context
   and associated Path state for this Resv by decoding the received
   SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects.  It is now possible to generate a
   Resv message to send to the appropriate CE.  The Resv message sent to
   the ingress CE will contain LSP TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 SESSION and LSP
   TUNNEL FILTER_SPEC objects, derived from the appropriate Path state.

3.2.5 Other RSVP Messages

   Processing of other RSVP messages, i.e., PathError, PathTear, 
   ResvError, ResvTear, and ResvConf message in general follows the 
   rules defined in [RFC2205], with additional rules that MUST be 
   observed for messages transmitted within the VPN, i.e., between the
   PEs as follows:

   o The SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE, and FILTER_SPEC objects MUST be 
     converted from LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 [RFC3209] to 
     LSP_TUNNEL_VPN_IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_VPN_IPv6 form, respectively, and
     back in the same manner as described above for Path and Resv 
     messages.
     
   o The appropriate type of RSVP_HOP object (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6) MUST
     be used as described in Section 8.4 of [RFC6016].

   o Depending on the type of RSVP_HOP object received from the 
     neighbor, the message MUST be MPLS encapsulated or IP encapsulated.

K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 11]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

   o The matching state and VRF MUST be determined by decoding the 
     corresponding RD and IPv4 (respectively, IPv6) address in the 
     SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects.

   o The message MUST be directly addressed to the appropriate PE, 
     without using the Router Alert Option.

4. Management Considerations

   MPLS-TE based BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs are based on a peer model. If an 
   operator would like to configure a new site to an existing VPN 
   configuration of both the CE router and the attached PE router is 
   required. The operator is not required to modify the configuration
   of PE routers connected to other sites or modify the configuration
   of other VPNs.

4.1 Impact on Network Operation

   It is expected that the use of the extensions specified in this
   document will not significantly increase the level of operational
   traffic.    
   
   Furthermore, the additional extensions described in this document 
   will have no impact on the operation of existing resiliency 
   mechanisms available within MPLS-TE.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document defines RSVP-TE extensions for BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. The 
   general security issues for RSVP-TE are described in [RFC3209],   
   [RFC4364] addresses the specific security considerations of BGP/MPLS
   VPNs. General security considerations for MPLS are described in 
   [RFC5920]. 
   
   In order to secure the control plane, techniques such as TCP 
   Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] MAY be used authenticate BGP 
   messages.  
   
   To ensure the integrity of an RSVP request, the RSVP Authentication  
   mechanisms defined in [RFC2747], update by [RFC3097], SHOULD be used.

   
6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request for IANA actions.

7.  References

K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 12]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

7.1 Normative References

   [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 Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
                 LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

7.2 Informative References

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

   [RFC2747]     Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP
                 Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.

   [RFC3097]     Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic
                 Authentication -- Updated Message Type Value",
                 RFC 3097, April 2001.

   [RFC4364]     Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
                 Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

   [RFC4659]     De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and
                 F. Le Faucheur, "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network
                 (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659,
                 September 2006.

   [RFC5824]     Kumaki, K., Zhang, R. and Kamite, Y., "Requirements for
                 supporting Customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS
                 IP-VPN", RFC 5824, April 2010.
                 
   [RFC5920]     Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
                 Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

   [RFC5925]     J. Touch, et. al., "The TCP Authentication Option",
                 RFC5925, June 2010.

   [RFC6016]     Davie, B., Faucheur, F. and Narayanan, A., "Support for
                 the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) in Layer 3
                 VPNs",  RFC 6016, October 2010.

8. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to express thanks to Makoto Nakamura and 
   Daniel King for their helpful and useful comments and feedback.

K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 13]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012

9. Author's Addresses

   Kenji Kumaki
   KDDI Corporation
   Garden Air Tower
   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
   Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
   Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com

   Tomoki Murai
   Furukawa Network Solutions Corp.
   5-1-9, Higashi-Yawata, Hiratsuka
   Kanagawa 254-0016, JAPAN
   Email: murai@fnsc.co.jp

   Dean Cheng
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara CA 95050, U.S.A.
   Email: dean.cheng@huawei.com

   Satoru Matsushima
   Softbank Telecom
   1-9-1,Higashi-Shimbashi,Minato-Ku
   Tokyo 105-7322, JAPAN
   Email: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp

   Peng Jiang
   KDDI Corporation
   Garden Air Tower
   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
   Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
   Email: pe-jiang@kddi.com

10. Contributors' Addresses

   Chikara Sasaki
   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
   2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino
   Saitama 356-8502, JAPAN
   Email: ch-sasaki@kddilabs.jp

   Daisuke Tatsumi
   KDDI Corporation
   Garden Air Tower
   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
   Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
   Email: da-tatsumi@kddi.com

   
K.Kumaki, et al.                                             [Page 14]

draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09                     December 2012