IP RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for P2P IP-TE LSP Tunnels
draft-saad-teas-rsvpte-ip-tunnels-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-07-08
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
TEAS Working Group                                               T. Saad
Internet-Draft                                                 V. Beeram
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: January 9, 2020                                   July 08, 2019

        IP RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for P2P IP-TE LSP Tunnels
                  draft-saad-teas-rsvpte-ip-tunnels-00

Abstract

   This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation
   Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish
   Point-to-Point (P2P) Traffic Engineered IP (IP-TE) Label Switched
   Path (LSP) tunnel(s) for use in native IP forwarding networks.

   This document proposes specific extensions to the RSVP protocol to
   allow the establishment of explicitly routed IP paths using RSVP as
   the signaling protocol.  The result is the instantiation of an IP
   Path which can be automatically routed away from network failures,
   congestion, and bottlenecks.

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 https://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 January 9, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Saad & Beeram            Expires January 9, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       RSVP for P2P IP-TE LSP Tunnels            July 2019

   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
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Overview of IP LSP Tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Creation and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Path Maintenance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Signaling Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.3.1.  RSVP Path message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  RSVP Resv Label Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.5.  EAB address Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.5.1.  Egress Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.5.2.  Ingress and Transit Router  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.6.  Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.7.  Shared Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.8.  Error Conditions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   In native IP networks, each router runs a routing protocol to
   determine the best next-hop(s) to a specific destination.  The best
   next-hop(s) are usually determined by favoring those that run along
   the shortest path to the destination.  When data flows across the
   network, it is routed hop-by-hop and follows the selected path by
   each hop towards that destination on each hop.

   It is sometimes desirable for an ingress router to be able to steer
   traffic towards a destination along a pre-determined or pre-computed
   path that may follow a path other than the default shortest path.
   For example, some flows mayrequire to be forwarded along the least
   latency path.  Others, may desire to be routed with bandwidth
Show full document text