RSVP-TE Extensions to Exchange MPLS-TP LSP Tunnnel Numbers
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03

CCAMP Working Group                                             F. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                           ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track                           M. Venkatesan
Expires: December 08, 2012                                     Dell Inc.
                                                                   Y. Xu
                                                                    CATR
                                                           June 08, 2012

       RSVP-TE Extensions to Exchange MPLS-TP LSP Tunnnel Numbers
           draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-03

Abstract

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
   specifies an initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
   Z9-Tunnel_Num, which can be used to form Maintenance Entity Point
   Identifier (MEP_ID).  As to some Operation, Administration and
   Maintenance (OAM) functions, such as Connectivity Verification (CV)
   [RFC6428], source MEP_ID must be inserted in the OAM packets, so that
   the peer endpoint can compare the received and expected MEP_IDs to
   judge whether there is a mis-connnectivity defect [RFC6371], which
   means that the two MEP nodes need to pre-store each other's MEP_IDs.

   This document defines the signaling extensions to communicate the
   local assigned Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching
   Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP.

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 December 08, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft     RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num           June 2012

   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
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   3.  Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  RSVP-TE Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     4.1.  Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   7.  Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     8.1.  Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

1.  Introduction

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) identifiers document [RFC6370]
   specifies a initial set of identifiers, including the local assigned
   Z9-Tunnel_Num, which can be used to form Maintenance Entity Point
   Identifier (MEP_ID).  The MPLS-TP LSP_MEP_ID is
   Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num, and in situations where global
   uniqueness is required, this becomes:
   Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num.  In order to realize some
   Operation, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) functions, such as
   Connectivity Verification (CV) [RFC6428], source MEP-ID MUST be
   inserted in the OAM packets, in this way the peer endpoint can
   compare the received and expected MEP-IDs to judge whether there is a
   mis-connnectivity defect [RFC6371].  Hence, the two MEP nodes must
   pre-store each other's MEP-IDs before sending the CV packets.

   When the LSPs are set up by control plane, Resource ReserVation
   Protocol Traffic Engnieering (RSVP-TE) messages can be used to
   communicate the Z9-Tunnel_Num to the ingress LSR (Label Switching
   Router) of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. Since the LSP identifiers
   can be carried in an ASSOCIATION object, which may also be used in a
   single session [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext], it is naturally to define
   the signaling extensions based on the ASSOCIATION object.

2.  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].

Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft     RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num           June 2012

3.  Operation

   Consider that LSP1 is initialized at A1 node with an ASSOCIATION
   object inserted in Path message.  Association Type is set to "LSP
   Identifers", Association ID set to A1-Tunnel_Num, Association Source
   set to A1-Node_ID. Upon receipt of the Association Object, the egress
   node Z9 checks the Association Type field.  If it is "LSP
   Identifiers" and an Upstream_Label exists in Path message, the
   ASSOCIATION object must be carried in the Resv message also.
   Similarly, Association Type is set to "LSP Identifiers", Association
   ID set to Z9-Tunnel_Num, Association Source set to Z9-Node_ID. In
   this way, the ingress LSR can get the Z9-Tunnel_Num, which may be
   used for identifying a mis-connnectivity defect of the proactive CV
   OAM function.

4.  RSVP-TE Extensions

4.1.  Association Type

   Within the current document, a new Association Type is defined in the
   ASSOCIATION object, which MAY be used with any ASSOCIATION object
   type.  For example, the Extended ASSOCIATION object defined in [I-D
   .ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] can be used when Global ID based
   identification is desired.

   
   Value      Type
   -----      -----
   6 (TBD)    LSP Identifiers (L)
   

   See [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext] for the definition of other fields and
   values.

   The rules associated with the processing of the Extended ASSOCIATION
   objects in RSVP message are discussed in [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext].
   It said that in the absence of Association Type-specific rules for
   identifying association, the included ASSOCIATION objects MUST be
   identical.  Since the Association Type "LSP Identifiers" used here is
   to carry LSP identifier, there is no need to associate Path state to
   Path state or Resv state to Resv state, one specific rule is added:
   when the Association Type is "LSP Identifiers", the ASSOCIATION
   object can appear in Path or Resv message across sessions or in a
   single session, and the values can be different.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
   namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.

   One bit ("LSP Identifers") needs to be allocated in the Association
   Type Registry.

Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft     RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num           June 2012

6.  Security Considerations

   A new Association Type is defined in this document, and except this,
   there are no security issues about the Extended ASSOCIATION object
   are introduced here.  For Association object related security issues,
   see the documents [RFC4872], [RFC4873], and [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-
   ext].

   For a more comprehensive discussion on GMPLS security please see the
   Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920].

7.  Acknowledgement

   This document was prepared based on the discussion with George
   Swallow, valuable comments and input were also received from Lou
   Berger, John E Drake, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman, Muliu Tao and Wenjuan
   He.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative references

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext]
              Berger, L., Faucheur, F. and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
              Association Object Extensions", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-
              ccamp-assoc-ext-03, March 2012.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4872]  Lang, J.P., Rekhter, Y. and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
              Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May
              2007.

   [RFC4873]  Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel,
              "GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

   [RFC6370]  Bocci, M., Swallow, G. and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
              Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.

   [RFC6371]  Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
              Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
              RFC 6371, September 2011.

Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft     RSVP-TE Extensions for Tunnel Num           June 2012

   [RFC6428]  Allan, D., Swallow Ed.  , G. and J. Drake Ed.  ,
              "Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check,
              and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport
              Profile", RFC 6428, November 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Fei Zhang
   ZTE Corporation
   
   Email: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn

   Venkatesan Mahalingam
   Dell Inc.
   
   Email: venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com

   Yunbin Xu
   CATR
   
   Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn

   Xiao Bao
   ZTE Corporation

   Email: bao.xiao1@zte.com.cn

Zhang, Venkatesan & Xu Expires December 08, 2012                [Page 5]