Network Working Group X. Fu
Internet-Draft Q. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Bao
Expires: January 9, 2012 ZTE Corporation
R. Jing
X. Huo
China Telecom
July 8, 2011
RSVP-TE Extension for MRN/MLN Application
draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-03
Abstract
[RFC5212] defines a Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN).
[RFC4206] introduces a region boundary determination algorithm and a
Hierarchy LSP (H-LSP) creation method. However, in some scenarios,
there must be some additional information to facilitate hierarchy LSP
creation. This document extends RSVP-TE to meet this requirement.
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 January 9, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
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
1.1. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirement Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Indication of Server Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Requirement in OTN Multi-Layer Network . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1. Indication of ODUk Signal Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.2. Indication of Multi Stages Multiplexing Hierarchy . . 4
3. Mechanism and Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Controlling FA-LSPs Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Boundaries Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.2. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Explicit Route Boundary Object (ERBO) . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Switching Capability subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2. Encoding Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. Signal Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.5. Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. Exclude Route Object(XRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1. Encoding Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2. Signal Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3.3. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
1. Introduction
This document describes some requirements of explicitly control
Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Network. It extends mechanisms and
protocols defined in [RFC4206] and [RFC6001] to meet these
requirement.
1.1. 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].
2. Requirement Identification
2.1. Indication of Server Layer
[RFC4206] describes a region boundary determination algorithm and a
hierarchical LSP creation method. It is well applied to multi-region
network. However it isn't fully applied to multi-layer network
within the same switching capability.
In the following figure, three LSPs belong to the same TDM region and
different latyers, but boundary node (e.g., B) could not determine
that STM-N FA-LSP should be triggered according to the region
boundary determination algorithm defined in [RFC4206]. The solution
MUST support to explicitly indicate which server layer must be
triggered.
A B C D E F
+---+ STM-N +---+ STM-N +----+ OTUk +----+ STM-N +---+ STM-N +---+
|VC4|-------|VC4|-------|ODUk|------|ODUk|-------|VC4|-------|VC4|
+---+ +---+ +----+ +----+ +---+ +---+
|<-------------------------- VC4 LSP ------------------------->|
|<------------- STM-N LSP ------------>|
|<--ODUk LSP-->|
Figure 1: Example of Server Layer Indication
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
2.2. Requirement in OTN Multi-Layer Network
2.2.1. Indication of ODUk Signal Type
In Figure 2, node B and C in the OTN network are connected to 2.5G TS
network by two OTU3 links. They can support flexible multi stages
multiplexing hierarchies. There are two multi stages multiplexing
hierarchies for ODU0 being mapped into OTU3 link in B and C (i.e.,
ODU0-ODU1-ODU3 and ODU0-ODU2-ODU3). But boundary node (e.g., B)
could not determine which kind of ODUk FA-LSP (ODU1, ODU2 or ODU3)
should be triggered during one e2e ODU0 connection signaling
according to the region boundary determination algorithm defined in
[RFC4206].
If path computation entity select the ODU0-ODU2-ODU3 multi stages
multiplexing hierarch in Node B and C for one end-to-end ODU0 service
from A to Z, there has to be an ODU2 or ODU3 FA-LSP between B and C.
The solution MUST support to explicitly indicate which type of ODUk
FA-LSP must be triggered for ODUj (k>j).
3/1/0
2/0 3/2/0
| _______ |
___ _|_____ / \ _|_____ ___
| A | | | B | | 40G | | | C | | Z |
| o-|-----------|-o o-|----| Network |----|-o o-|-----------|-o |
|___| OTU2 Link |_____|_|OTU3|(2.5G TS)|OTU3|_____|_| OTU2 Link |___|
(1.25G TS) | \_______/ | (1.25G TS)
| |
0/1/3 0/2
0/2/3
Figure 2 Example of ODUk Signal Type Indication
2.2.2. Indication of Multi Stages Multiplexing Hierarchy
In figure 2, if ODU3 FA-LSP will be triggered between B and C to
directly support one end-to-end ODU0 service from A to Z, B should be
informed which multi stages multiplexing hierarchy should be used for
ODU0 mapping into ODU3. So the solution MUST support to explicitly
indicate which multi stages multiplexing hierarchy must be applied to
a special interface.
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
3. Mechanism and Protocol Extensions
This section defines protocol mechanisms and extensions to achieve
the requirement described in the previous section.
o A generic boundaries determination mechanism is introduced first.
Path computation entity or interim LSR along one end-to-end LSP
which traverses multi-layer can rely on this mechnism to determine
the boundary nodes of FA-LSP.
o Path computation entity can determine regions' boundaries. After
PCE compute an end-to-end paths across multi-layer, the boundary
nodes and some limitation about how to create FA-LSP must be
inform to interim nodes during signaling.
A new object, Explicit Route Boundary Object(ERBO), is introduced
to explicitly indicate a pair of FA-LSP boundary nodes and some
attributes which indicates how to create FA-LSPs.
This document also introduces some new subobjects as part of the
XRO that explicitly indicate which Signal Type, Multiplexing
Hierarchy and Encoding Type have to be excluded before initiating
FA-LSP creation.
3.1. Controlling FA-LSPs Boundaries
The boundary determination mechanism in [RFC4206] depends on the
comparing of interface switching capabilities. For multi-layer
network within the same TDM switching capability, the comparing of
interface switching capabilities relies on the max LSP bandwidth of
interface. But one interface in OTN netowrk could support several
ODUk signal type, the max LSP bandwidth makes no any sense to path
computation entity. The mechanism in [RFC4206] isn't well applied to
OTN multi-layer network. The solution MUST support the boundaries
determination of ODUk FA-LSP.
This document introduces a generic mechanism to determine the
boundaries of FA-LSPs by using termination and switching capability
from IGP database. It can be applied to multi-layer network within
same switching capability (e.g, OTN network) and multi-region
network. So this mechanism is compatible with the one in [RFC4206].
The switching and termination capability could be induced by IACD
[RFC6001] in multi-regin network. In OTN multi-layer network, the
switching and termiantion Capability [OTNv3-OSPF] is advertised by
using SCSI (Switch Capability Specific Information) within ISCD.
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
3.1.1. Boundaries Determination
Suppose an LSP's path is as follows: node-0, link-1, node-1, link-2,
node-2, ..., link-n, node-n. Moreover, for link-i denote by [link-i,
node-(i-1)] the interface that connects link-i to node-(i-1), and by
[link-i, node-i] the interface that connects link-i to node-i.
Suppose interface [link-(i+1), node-i] supports switching capability
of one signal type ST-x and termination capability of one signal type
ST-y. Interface [link-(i+1), node-(i+1)] supports switiching
capability of ST-y. Switching capability of ST-y (e.g., LSC) is
larger than ST-x (e.g., TDM/G.709) or ST-x (e.g., ODUj) could be
mapped into ST-y (e.g., ODUk (k>j)). So we say that the LSP has
crossed a region boundary at node-i. The 'other edge' of the region
with respect to the LSP path is node-k, where k is the smallest
number greater than i such that interface [link-k, node-(k-1)]
supports switching capability of ST-y and interface [link-k, node-k]
suuports switching capability of ST-x and termination capability of
ST-y.
3.1.2. Example
A multi-layer OTN network is illustrated in figure 3. Node B and D
support ODUj being mapping into ODUk (k>j). Interface IF-B and IF-D
support ODUj switching capability (ODUj(S)) and ODUk termination
capability (ODUk(T)). Interface within C only supports ODUk
switching capability. So Node B and D could be boundaries of ODUk
FA-LSP for ODUj LSP.
ODUj(S) ODUj(S) ODUk(S) ODUk(S) ODUj(S)
| | | | | |
__|_ _|___ _|_|_ ___|_ _|___
| A| | | |B | | | | | | D| | | |E |
...---|o o-|----|-o o-|----|-o o-|----|-o o-|----|-o o-|---...
|____| |___|_| |__C__| |_|___| |_____|
| |
|IF-B IF-D |
| |
ODUj(S)-- --ODUj(S)
\ /
| |
ODUk(T)<-/ \->ODUk(T)
Figure 3 Example of Controlling ODUk FA-LSPs Boundaries
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
A multi-region network is illustrated in figure 4. Node B and D
which are hybrid nodes support PSC being mapping into ODUk (e.g., by
GFP-F). Interface IF-B and IF-D support PSC switching capability
(PSC(S)) and ODUk termination capability (ODUk(T)). Interface within
C only supports ODUk switching capability. So Node B and D could be
boundaries of ODUk FA-LSP for PSC LSP.
PSC(S) PSC(S) ODUk(S) PSC(S) PSC(S)
| | | | | |
__|_ _|___ | | ___|_ _|___
| A| | | |B | _|_|_ | | | | |
...---|o o-|----|-o | | | | | | o-|----|-o o-|---...
|____| | o-|----|-o o-|----|-o | |_____|
|___|_| |_____| |_|___|
| |
|IF-B IF-D|
| |
PSC-ODUk IACD PSC-ODUK IACD
Figure 4 Example of Controlling ODUk FA-LSPs Boundaries
3.2. Explicit Route Boundary Object (ERBO)
In order to explicitly control hierarchy LSP creation, this document
introduce a new object (ERBO-Explicit Route Boundary Object) carried
in Path message. The format of ERBO object is the same as ERO. It
looks more like the SERO defined in [RFC4873].
One or more ERBOs may be carried in Path message. Multiple ERBOs
could support cascading of FA easy. An ERBO must contain at least
two subobjects. The first and final one indicate the source and sink
node of a FA-LSP or Composite Link [CL-REQ] which will be passed by
one e2e LSP. Other subobjects may be inserted into ERBO between
source and sink node to indicates how to select the FA/Component Link
or create them.
The purpose is not to extend ERO and to limit the modifications to
existing RSVP-TE procedures. ERBO is a top object and parsed easy.
Many attributes could be inserted into ERBO in the future for other
requirements.
This document defines four subobjects (i.e., Switching Cap, Encoding
Type, Signal Type and Multiplexing Hierarchy) in ERBO. These
subobjects may be inserted into ERBO between source and sink node to
indicates how to select the FA/Component Link or create them. It is
very convenient to use these subobects independently or combine them.
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
For example, Signal Type and Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject are
enough for OTN multi-layer network application.
3.2.1. Switching Capability subobject
A new subobject, called the switching capability subobject, is
defined for use in the ERBO. The format of the switching capability
subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | Switching Cap |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 Switching Capability subobject in ERBO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Switching Capability (SC): Indicates which corresponding server
layer should be triggered by the boundary node. The value of
switching capability is the same as the one in [RFC3471].
3.2.2. Encoding Type subobject
A new subobject, called the encoding type subobject, is defined for
use in the ERBO. The format of the encoding type subobject is
defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | Encoding Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 Encoding Type subobject in ERBO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included.
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Encoding Type: It may need to further indicate which encoding type
(e.g., SDH/SONET or G.709 in TDM) should be triggered. It is the
same as the one in [RFC3471].
3.2.3. Signal Type subobject
A new subobject, called the signal type subobject, is defined for use
in the ERBO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined as
follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | Signal Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 Signal Type subobject in ERBO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Signal Type: If there are several sub-layers within one server
layer, it can further indicates which sub-layer should be
triggered by the boundary node. Following is the signal type in
OTN.
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
Value Type
----- ----
0 Not significant
1 ODU1
2 ODU2
3 ODU3
4 ODU4
5 ODU0
6 ODUflex
7 ODUflex(G.hao)
8 ODU2e
9 STM-1
10 STM-4
11 STM-16
12 STM-64
13-255 Reserved (for future use)
3.2.4. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject
A new subobject, called the Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH) subobject, is
defined for use in the ERBO. The format of the multiplexing
hierarchy subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | MH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8 Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject in ERBO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH): It explicitly indicates the
multiplexing hierarchy used for boundary node to configure it to
the data plane and trigger one specific corresponding tunnel
creation. Following is the multiplexing hierarchy in current OTN.
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
Value Type
----- ------
0 ODU1-ODU0
1 ODU2-ODU0
2 ODU2-ODU1
3 ODU2-ODU1-ODU0
4 ODU2-ODUflex
5 ODU3-ODU0
6 ODU3-ODU1
7 ODU3-ODU1-ODU0
8 ODU3-ODU2
9 ODU3-ODU2-ODU0
10 ODU3-ODU2-ODU1
11 ODU3-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0
12 ODU3-ODU2-ODUflex
13 ODU3-ODUflex
14 ODU3-ODU2e
15 ODU4-ODU0
16 ODU4-ODU1
17 ODU4-ODU1-ODU0
18 ODU4-ODU2
19 ODU4-ODU2-ODU0
20 ODU4-ODU2-ODU1
21 ODU4-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0
22 ODU4-ODU2-ODUflex
23 ODU4-ODU3
24 ODU4-ODU3-ODU0
25 ODU4-ODU3-ODU1
26 ODU4-ODU3-ODU1-ODU0
27 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2
28 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU0
29 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU1
30 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0
31 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODUflex
32 ODU4-ODU3-ODUflex
33 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2e
34 ODU4-ODUflex
35 ODU4-ODU2e
3.2.5. Signaling Procedure
In order to signal an end-to-end LSP across multi layer, the LSP
source node sends the RSVP-TE PATH message with ERO which indicates
LSP route and ERBO which indicates the LSP route boundary If. if
there are cascading FAs need to be created, there must be multiple
associated ERBOs. There must be nesting routing informatoin in ERO.
The first and final address of node in ERBO SHOULD also be listed in
the ERO. This ensures that they are along the LSP path. When a
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
interim node receives a PATH message, it will check ERBO to see if it
is the layer boundary node. If a interim node isn't a layer
boundary, it will process the PATH message as the normal one of
single layer LSP. If a interim node finds its address is in ERBO, it
is a layer boundary node. So it will directly extract another
boundary egress node from ERBO. If it is necessary, it must also
extract the server layer/sub-layer routing information from ERO based
on a pair of boundary node. Then the layer boundary node holds the
PATH message and selects or creates a server layer/sub-layer LSP
based on the detailed information of subobject carried in ERBO.
3.3. Exclude Route Object(XRO)
[RFC6001] introduce SC (Switching Capability) subobjects into XRO
[RFC4874] which enables (when desired) the explicit identification of
at least one switching capability to be excluded from the resource
selection process described multi-region signaling. This document
adds more subobjects into the XRO to make multi-region and multi-
layer signaling more flexible.
o Encoding Type: explicitly indicates the encoding type should be
excluded (e.g., SONET/SDH or G.709 in TDM).
o Signal Type (ST) : explicitly indicates at least one ODUk signal
type have to be excluded from the resource selection.
o Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH): explicitly indicates at least one MH
have to be excluded from the resource selection.
L bit and Attribute is the same as the Switching Capability (SC)
subobject defined in [RFC6001].
3.3.1. Encoding Type subobject
A new subobject, called the encoding type subobject, is defined for
use in the XRO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined
as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Attribute | Encoding Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9 Encoding Type subobject in XRO
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified
encoding type SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect to the
preceding numbered or unnumbered interface subobject.
o Encoding Type: It indicates which Encoding Type has to excluded.
It is the same as the one in [RFC3471].
3.3.2. Signal Type subobject
A new subobject, called the signal type subobject, is defined for use
in the XRO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined as
follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Attribute | Signal Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10 Signal Type subobject in XRO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified signal
type SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect to the preceding
numbered or unnumbered interface subobject.
o Signal Type: It indicates which Signal Type has to be excluded.
The value of ST is the same as the one in ERBO.
3.3.3. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject
A new subobject, called the Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH) subobject, is
defined for use in the XRO. The format of the multiplexing hierarchy
subobject is defined as follows:
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Attribute | MH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11 Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject in XRO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified
multiplexing hierarchy SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect
to the preceding numbered or unnumbered interface subobject.
o Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH): It explicitly indicates which MH has
to be excluded over a specified TE link, The value of multiplexing
hierarchy is the same as the one in ERBO.
4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations from
the ones already detailed in [RFC5920] that describes the MPLS and
GMPLS security threats, the related defensive techniques, and the
mechanisms for detection and reporting.
5. IANA Considerations
TBD
6. References
6.1. 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 G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
July 2008.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
6.2. Informative References
[CL-REQ] C. Villamizar, "Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite
Link", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-04 .
[OTNv3-OSPF]
D. Ceccarelli, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Control of Evolving G.709 OTN
Networks", draft-ceccarelli-ccamp-gmpls-ospf-g709-06 .
Authors' Addresses
Xihua Fu
ZTE Corporation
Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for Hierarchy LSP Control July 2011
Qilei Wang
ZTE Corporation
Email: wang.qilei@zte.com.cn
Yuanlin Bao
ZTE Corporation
Email: bao.yuanlin@zte.com.cn
Ruiquan Jing
China Telecom
Email: jingrq@ctbri.com.cn
Xiaoli Huo
China Telecom
Email: huoxl@ctbri.com.cn
Fu, et al. Expires January 9, 2012 [Page 16]