Network Working Group                             Dimitri Papadimitriou
     Internet Draft                                         Martin Vigoureux
     Intended Status: Proposed Standard                       Alcatel-Lucent
     Expiration Date: September 21, 2009                      Kohei Shiomoto
     Creation Date: March 22, 2009                                       NTT
                                                            Deborah Brungard
                                                                         ATT
                                                          Jean-Louis Le Roux
                                                              France Telecom
     
     
           Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol
          Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)
     
                   draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-04.txt
     
     
     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.
     
     Abstract
     
        There are specific requirements for the support of networks
        comprising Label Switching Routers (LSR) participating in different
        data plane switching layers controlled by a single Generalized Multi
        Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control plane instance, referred to
        as GMPLS Multi-Layer Networks/Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN).
     
        This document defines extensions to GMPLS routing and signaling
        protocols so as to support the operation of GMPLS Multi-Layer/Multi-
        Region Networks. It covers the elements of a single GMPLS control
        plane instance controlling multiple LSP regions or layers within a
        single TE domain.
     
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 1]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
     Table of Content
     
        1. Introduction................................................ 2
        2. Summary of the Requirements and Evaluation.................. 3
        3. Interface adjustment capability descriptor (IACD)........... 3
        4. Multi-Region Signaling...................................... 6
        5. Virtual TE link............................................. 8
        6. Backward Compatibility...................................... 13
        7. Security Considerations..................................... 13
        8. IANA Considerations Sections................................ 13
        9. References.................................................. 14
     
     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].
     
        In addition the reader is assumed to be familiar with [RFC3945],
        [RFC3471], [RFC4201], [RFC4202], [RFC4203], [RFC4205], and [RFC4206].
     
     1. Introduction
     
        Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945]
        extends MPLS to handle multiple switching technologies: packet
        switching (PSC), layer-two switching (L2SC), TDM switching (TDM),
        wavelength switching (LSC) and fiber switching (FSC). A GMPLS
        switching type (PSC, TDM, etc.) describes the ability of a node to
        forward data of a particular data plane technology, and uniquely
        identifies a control plane Label Switched Path (LSP) region. LSP
        Regions are defined in [RFC4206]. A network comprised of multiple
        switching types (e.g. PSC and TDM) controlled by a single GMPLS
        control plane instance is called a Multi-Region Network (MRN).
     
        A data plane layer is a collection of network resources capable of
        terminating and/or switching data traffic of a particular format.
        For example, LSC, TDM VC-11 and TDM VC-4-64c represent three
        different layers. A network comprising transport nodes participating
        in different data plane switching layers controlled by a single GMPLS
        control plane instance is called a Multi-Layer Network (MLN).
     
        The applicability of GMPLS to multiple switching technologies
        provides the unified control and operations for both LSP provisioning
        and recovery. This document covers the elements of a single GMPLS
        control plane instance controlling multiple layers within a given TE
        domain. A TE domain is defined as group of Label Switching Routers
        (LSR) that enforces a common TE policy. A Control Plane (CP) instance
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 2]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        can serve one, two or more layers. Other possible approaches such as
        having multiple CP instances serving disjoint sets of layers are
        outside the scope of this document.
     
        The next sections provide the procedural aspects in terms of routing
        and signaling for such environments as well as the extensions
        required to instrument GMPLS to provide the capabilities for MLM/MRN
        unified control. The rationales and requirements for Multi-Layer/
        Region networks are set forth in [MLN-REQ]. These requirements
        are evaluated against GMPLS protocols in [MLN-EVAL] and several
        areas where GMPLS protocol extensions are required are identified.
     
        This document defines GMPLS routing and signaling extensions so as
        to cover GMPLS MLN/MRN requirements.
     
     2. Summary of the Requirements and Evaluation
     
        As identified in [MLN-EVAL], most MLN/MRN requirements rely on
        mechanisms and procedures (such as local procedures and policies, or
        specific TE mechanisms and algorithms) that are outside the scope of
        the GMPLS protocols, and thus do not require any GMPLS protocol
        extensions.
     
        Four areas for extensions of GMPLS protocols and procedures have been
        identified in [MLN-EVAL]:
     
        o GMPLS routing extensions for the advertisement of the internal
          adjustment capability of hybrid nodes. See Section 3.2.2 of [MLN-
          EVAL].
     
        o GMPLS signaling extensions for constrained multi-region signaling
          (Switching Capability inclusion/exclusion). See Section 3.2.1 of
          [MLN-EVAL].
     
        o GMPLS signaling extensions for the setup/deletion of Virtual TE-
          links (as well as exact trigger for its actual provisioning). See
          Section 3.1.1.2 of [MLN-EVAL].
     
        o GMPLS routing and signaling extensions for graceful TE-link
          deletion (covered in [GR-TELINK]). See Section 3.1.1.3 of [MLN-
          EVAL].
     
        The first three requirements are addressed in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of
        this document, respectively. The fourth requirement is addressed in
        [GR-TELINK]. Companion documents address GMPLS OAM (see [GMPLS OAM])
        aspects that have been identified in [MLN-EVAL].
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 3]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
     3. Interface adjustment capability descriptor (IACD)
     
        In the MRN context, nodes that have at least one interface that
        supports more than one switching capability are called Hybrid nodes
        [MLN-REQ]. The logical composition of a hybrid node contains at least
        two distinct switching elements that are interconnected by "internal
        links" to provide adjustment between the supported switching
        capabilities. These internal links have finite capacities that must
        be taken into account when computing the path of a multi-region
        TE-LSP.
     
        The advertisement of the internal adjustment capability is required
        as it provides critical information when performing multi-region path
        computation.
     
     3.1 Overview
     
        In an MRN environment, some LSRs could contain multiple switching
        capabilities such as PSC and TDM, or PSC and LSC, all under the
        control of a single GMPLS instance,
     
        These nodes, hosting multiple Interface Switching Capabilities (ISC)
        [RFC4202], are required to hold and advertise resource information on
        link states and topology, just like other nodes (hosting a single
        ISC). They may also have to consider some portions of internal node
        resources use to terminate hierarchical LSPs, since in circuit-
        switching technologies (such as TDM, LSC, and FSC) LSPs require the
        use of resources allocated in a discrete manner (as pre-determined by
        the switching type). For example, a node with PSC+LSC hierarchical
        switching capability can switch a lambda LSP, but cannot terminate
        the Lambda LSP if there is no available (i.e., not already in use)
        adjustment capability between the LSC and the PSC switching
        components. Another example occurs when L2SC (Ethernet) switching can
        be adapted in LAPS X.86 and GFP for instance before reaching the TDM
        switching matrix. Similar circumstances can occur, if a switching
        fabric that supports both PSC and L2SC functionalities is assembled
        with LSC interfaces enabling "lambda" encoding. In the switching
        fabric, some interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs and perform frame
        (or cell) switching whilst other interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs
        and perform packet switching.
     
        Therefore, within multi-region networks, the advertisement of the
        so-called adjustment capability to terminate LSPs (not the interface
        capability since the latter can be inferred from the bandwidth
        available for each switching capability) provides critical
        information to take into account when performing multi-region path
        computation. This concept enables a node to discriminate the remote
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 4]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        nodes (and thus allows their selection during path computation) with
        respect to their adjustment capability e.g. to terminate LSPs at the
        PSC or LSC level.
     
        Hence, we introduce the idea of discriminating the (internal)
        adjustment capability from the (interface) switching capability by
        considering an Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD).
     
        A more detailed problem statement can be found in [MLN-EVAL].
     
     3.2 Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD)
     
        The interface adjustment capability descriptor (IACD) provides the
        information for the forwarding/switching) only capability.
     
        Note that the addition of the IACD as a TE link attribute does not
        modify the format of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
        (ISCD) defined in [RFC4202], and does not change how the ISCD sub-
        TLV is carried in the routing protocols or how it is processed
        when it is received [RFC4203], [RFC4205].
     
     3.2.1 OSPF
     
        In OSPF, the IACD sub-TLV is defined as an optional sub-TLV of the TE
        Link TLV (Type 2, see [RFC3630]), with Type 24 (to be assigned by
        IANA) and variable length.
     
        The IACD sub-TLV format 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
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Lower SC      |Lower Encoding | Upper SC      |Upper Encoding |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6              |
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 5]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |        Adjustment Capability-specific information             |
         |                  (variable)                                   |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
           Lower Switching Capability (SC) field (byte 1) - 8 bits
     
              Indicates the lower switching capability for the lower
              Encoding field (byte 2) as defined for the ISCD sub-TLV.
     
           Lower Encoding (byte 2) - 8 bits
     
              Contains one of the values specified in Section 3.1.1 of
              [RFC3473] and updates.
     
           Upper Switching Capability (SC) field (byte 3) - 8 bits
     
              Indicates the upper switching capability.
     
           Upper Encoding (byte 4) - 8 bits
     
              Set to the encoding of the available adjustment capacity and to
              0xFF when the corresponding SC value has no access to the wire,
              i.e., there is no ISC sub-TLV for this upper switching
              capability. The adjustment capacity is the set of resources
              associated to the upper switching capability.
     
           The Adjustment Capability-specific information - variable
     
              This field is defined so as to leave the possibility for
              future addition of technology-specific information associated
              to the adjustment capability.
     
           Other fields MUST be processed as specified in [RFC4202] and
           [RFC4203].
     
        Multiple IACD sub-TLVs MAY be present within a given TE Link TLV
        and the bandwidth simply provides an indication of resources still
        available to perform insertion/ extraction for a given adjustment
        (pool concept).
     
        The presence of the IACD sub-TLV as part of the TE Link TLV does not
        modify format/messaging and processing associated to the ISCD defined
        in [RFC4203].
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 6]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
     
     3.2.2 IS-IS
     
        In IS-IS, the IACD sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the Extended IS
        Reachability TLV (see [RFC3784]) with Type 24 (to be assigned by
        IANA).
     
        The IACD sub-TLV format 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
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Switching Cap |   Encoding    | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |        Adjustment Capability-specific information             |
         |                  (variable)                                   |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
        Where the fields have the same processing and interpretation rules as
        for Section 3.2.1.
     
        Multiple IACD sub-TLVs MAY be present within a given extended IS
        reachability TLV and the bandwidth simply provides an indication of
        resources still available to perform insertion/ extraction for a
        given adjustment (pool concept).
     
        The presence of the IACD sub-TLV as part of the extended IS
        reachability TLV does not modify format/messaging and processing
        associated to the ISCD defined in [RFC4205].
     
     4. Multi-Region Signaling
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 7]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
     
        Section 6.2 of [RFC4206] specifies that when a region boundary node
        receives a Path message, the node determines whether or not it is at
        the edge of an LSP region with respect to the ERO carried in the
        message. If the node is at the edge of a region, it must then
        determine the other edge of the region with respect to the ERO,
        using the IGP database. The node then extracts from the ERO the
        sub-sequence of hops from itself to the other end of the region.
     
        The node then compares the sub-sequence of hops with all existing FA-
        LSPs originated by the node:
     
        o If a match is found, that FA-LSP has enough unreserved bandwidth
          for the LSP being signaled, and the G-PID of the FA-LSP is
          compatible with the G-PID of the LSP being signaled, the node uses
          that FA-LSP as follows. The Path message for the original LSP is
          sent to the egress of the FA-LSP. The PHOP in the message is the
          address of the node at the head-end of the FA-LSP. Before sending
          the Path message, the ERO in that message is adjusted by removing
          the subsequence of the ERO that lies in the FA-LSP, and replacing
          it with just the end point of the FA-LSP.
     
        o If no existing FA-LSP is found, the node sets up a new FA-LSP.
          That is, it initiates a new LSP setup just for the FA-LSP.
     
          Note: compatible G-PID implies that traffic can be processed by
          both ends of the FA-LSP without dropping traffic after its
          establishment.
     
        Applying the procedure of [RFC4206], in a MRN environment MAY lead to
        setup single-hop FA-LSPs between each pair of nodes. Therefore,
        considering that the path computation is able to take into account
        richness of information with regard to the SC available on given
        nodes belonging to the path, it is consistent to provide enough
        signaling information to indicate the SC to be used and over which
        link. Particularly, in case a TE link has multiple SCs advertised as
        part of its ISCD sub-TLVs, an ERO does not provide a mechanism to
        select a particular SC.
     
        In order to limit the modifications to existing RSVP-TE procedures
        ([RFC3473] and referenced), this document defines a new sub-object of
        the eXclude Route Object (XRO), see [RFC4874], called the Switching
        Capability sub-object. This sub-object enables (when desired) the
        explicit identification of at least one switching capability to be
        excluded from the resource selection process described above.
     
        Including this sub-object as part of the XRO that explicitly
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 8]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        indicates which SCs have to be excluded (before initiating the
        procedure described here above) over a specified TE link, solves the
        ambiguous choice among SCs that are potentially used along a given
        path and give the possibility to optimize resource usage on a multi-
        region basis. Note that implicit SC inclusion is easily supported by
        explicitly excluding other SCs (e.g. to include LSC, it is required
        to exclude PSC, L2SC, TDM and FSC).
     
        The approach followed here is to concentrate exclusions in XRO and
        inclusions in ERO. Indeed, the ERO specifies the topological
        characteristics of the path to be signaled. Usage of EXRS subobjects
        would also lead in the exclusion over certain portions of the LSP
        during the FA-LSP setup. Thus, it is more suited to extend generality
        of the elements to the excluded in the XRO but also prevent complex
        consistency checks but also transpositions between EXRS and XRO at
        FA-LSP head-ends.
     
     4.1 SC Subobject Encoding
     
        The contents of an EXCLUDE_ROUTE object defined in [RFC4874] are a
        series of variable-length data items called subobjects. This document
        defines the Switching Capability (SC) subobject of the XRO (Type 35),
        its encoding and processing.
     
        Subobject Type TBD: Switching Capability
     
           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   | Switching Cap |
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
           L
              0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded
              1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided
     
           Attribute
     
              0 reserved value
     
              1 indicates that the specified SC should be excluded or
                avoided with respect to the preceding numbered (Type 1 or
                Type 2) or unnumbered interface (Type) subobject
     
           Switching Cap (8-bits)
     
              Switching Capability value to be excluded.
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009               [Page 9]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
     
        This sub-object must follow the set of one or more numbered or
        unnumbered interface sub-objects to which this sub-object refers. In
        case, of loose hop ERO subobject, the XRO sub-object must precede the
        loose-hop sub-object identifying the tail-end node/interface of the
        traversed region(s).
     
        Furthermore, it is expected, when label sub-object are following
        numbered or unnumbered interface sub-objects, that the label value is
        compliant with the SC capability to be explicitly excluded.
     
     5. Virtual TE link
     
        A virtual TE link is defined as a TE link between two upper layer
        nodes that is not associated with a fully provisioned FA-LSP in a
        lower layer [MLN-REQ]. A virtual TE link is advertised as any TE
        link, following the rules in [RFC4206] defined for fully provisioned
        TE links. A virtual TE link represents thus the potentiality to setup
        an FA-LSP in the lower layer to support the TE link that has been
        advertised. In particular, the flooding scope of a virtual TE link is
        within an IGP area, as is the case for any TE link.
     
        Two techniques can be used for the setup, operation, and maintenance
        of virtual TE links. The corresponding GMPLS protocols extensions are
        described in this section. The procedures described in this section
        complement those defined in [RFC4206] and [HIER-BIS].
     
     5.1 Edge-to-edge Association
     
        This approach, that does not require state maintenance on transit
        LSRs, relies on extensions to the GMPLS RSVP-TE Call procedure (see
        [RFC4974]).
     
        This technique consists of exchanging identification and TE
        attributes information directly between TE link end points through
        the establishment of a call between terminating LSRs. These TE link
        end-points correspond to the LSP head-end and tail-end points of the
        LSPs that will be established. The end-points MUST belong to the same
        (LSP) region.
     
        Once the call is established the resulting association populates the
        local Traffic Engineering DataBase (TEDB) and the resulting virtual
        TE link is advertised as any other TE link. The latter can then be
        used to attract traffic. When an upper layer/region LSP tries to make
        use of this virtual TE link, one or more FA LSPs MUST be established
        using procedures defined in [RFC4206] to make the virtual TE link
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 10]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        "real" and allow it to carry traffic by nesting the upper
        layer/region LSP.
     
        In order to distinguish usage of such call from the call and
        associated procedures defined in [RFC4974], a CALL ATTRIBUTES object
        is introduced.
     
     5.1.1 CALL_ATTRIBUTES Object
     
        The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object is used to signal attributes required in
        support of a call, or to indicate the nature or use of a call. It is
        modeled on the LSP-ATTRIBUTES object defined in [RFC5420]. The
        CALL_ATTRIBUTES object may also be used to report call operational
        state on a Notify message.
     
        The CALL_ATTRIBUTES object class is 201 (TBD by IANA) of the form
        11bbbbbb. This C-Num value (see [RFC2205], Section 3.10) ensures that
        LSRs that do not recognize the object pass it on transparently.
     
        One C-Type is defined, C-Type = 1 for CALL Attributes. This object is
        OPTIONAL and MAY be placed on Notify messages to convey additional
        information about the desired attributes of the call.
     
        CALL_ATTRIBUTES class = 201, C-Type = 1
     
           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
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |                                                               |
          //                       Attributes TLVs                       //
          |                                                               |
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
        The Attributes TLVs are encoded as described in Section 5.1.3.
     
     5.1.2 Processing
     
        If an egress (or intermediate) LSR does not support the object, it
        forwards it unexamined and unchanged. This facilitates the exchange
        of attributes across legacy networks that do not support this new
        object.
     
     5.1.3 Attributes TLVs
     
        Attributes carried by the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object are encoded within
        TLVs. One or more TLVs MAY be present in each object.
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 11]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and no interpretation should be
        placed on the order in which TLVs are received.
     
        Each TLV is encoded 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
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |             Type              |           Length              |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         |                                                               |
         //                            Value                            //
         |                                                               |
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     
           Type
     
              The identifier of the TLV.
     
           Length
     
              Indicates the total length of the TLV in octets.  That is, the
              combined length of the Type, Length, and Value fields, i.e.,
              four plus the length of the Value field in octets.
     
              The entire TLV MUST be padded with between zero and three
              trailing zeros to make it four-octet aligned.  The Length field
              does not count any padding.
     
           Value
     
              The data field for the TLV padded as described above.
     
     5.1.4 Attributes Flags TLV
     
        The TLV Type 1 indicates the Attributes Flags TLV. Other TLV types
        MAY be defined in the future with type values assigned by IANA (see
        Section 8). The Attributes Flags TLV may be present in a
        CALL_ATTRIBUTES object.
     
        The Attribute Flags TLV value field is an array of units of 32 flags
        numbered from the most significant bit as bit zero. The Length field
        for this TLV is therefore always a multiple of 4 bytes, regardless of
        the number of bits carried and no padding is required.
     
        Unassigned bits are considered as reserved and MUST be set to zero on
        transmission by the originator of the object. Bits not contained in
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 12]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        the TLV MUST be assumed to be set to zero. If the TLV is absent
        either because it is not contained in the CALL_ATTRIBUTES object or
        because this object is itself absent, all processing MUST be
        performed as though the bits were present and set to zero. That is to
        say, assigned bits that are not present either because the TLV is
        deliberately foreshortened or because the TLV is not included MUST be
        treated as though they are present and are set to zero.
     
     5.1.5 Call Inheritance Flag
     
        This document introduces a specific flag (most significant bit (msb)
        position bit 0) of the Attributes Flags TLV, to indicate that the
        association initiated between the end-points belonging to a call
        results into a (virtual) TE link advertisement.
     
        The Call Inheritance Flag MUST be set to 1 in order to indicate that
        the established association is to be translated into a TE link
        advertisement. The value of this flag SHALL by default be set to 1.
        Setting this flag to 0 results in a hidden TE link or in deleting the
        corresponding TE link advertisement (by setting the corresponding
        Opaque LSA Age to MaxAge) if the association had been established
        with this flag set to 1. In the latter case, the corresponding FA-LSP
        SHOULD also be torn down to prevent unused resources.
     
        The Notify message used for establishing the association is defined
        as per [RFC4974]. Additionally, the Notify message must carry an
        LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object, that allows identifying unnumbered
        FA-LSPs ([RFC3477], [RFC4206]) and numbered FA-LSPs ([RFC4206]).
     
     5.2. Soft Forwarding Adjacency (Soft FA)
     
        The Soft Forwarding Adjacency (Soft FA) approach consists of setting
        up the FA LSP at the control plane level without actually committing
        resources in the data plane. This means that the corresponding LSP
        exists only in the control plane domain. Once such FA is established
        the corresponding TE link can be advertised following the procedures
        described in [RFC4206].
     
        There are two techniques to setup Soft FAs:
     
        o The first one consists in setting up the FA LSP by precluding
          resource commitment during its establishment. These are known as
          pre-planned LSPs.
     
        o The second technique consists in making use of path provisioned
          LSPs only. In this case, there is no associated resource demand
          during the LSP establishment. This can be considered as the RSVP-TE
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 13]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
          equivalent of the Null service type specified in [RFC2997].
     
     5.2.1 Pre-Planned LSP Flag
     
        The LSP ATTRIBUTES object and Attributes Flags TLV are defined in
        [RFC5420]. The present document defines a new flag, the Pre-Planned
        LSP flag, in the existing Attributes Flags TLV (numbered as Type 1).
     
        The position of this flag is TBD in accordance with IANA assignment.
        This flag, part of the Attributes Flags TLV, follows general
        processing of [RFC5420] for LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE object. That is,
        LSRs that do not recognize the object reject the LSP setup
        effectively saying that they do not support the attributes requested.
        Indeed, the newly defined attribute requires examination at all
        transit LSRs along the LSP being established.
     
        The Pre-Planned LSP flag can take one of the following values:
     
        o When set to 0 this means that the LSP MUST be fully provisioned.
          Absence of this flag (hence corresponding TLV) is therefore
          compliant with the signaling message processing per [RFC3473])
     
        o When set to 1 this means that the LSP MUST be provisioned in the
          control plane only.
     
        If an LSP is established with the Pre-Planned flag set to 1, no
        resources are committed at the data plane level.
     
        The operation of committing data plane resources occurs by re-
        signaling the same LSP with the Pre-Planned flag set to 0. It is
        RECOMMENDED that no other modifications are made to other RSVP
        objects during this operation. That is each intermediate node,
        processing a flag transiting from 1 to 0 shall only be concerned with
        the commitment of data plane resources and no other modification of
        the LSP properties and/or attributes.
     
        If an LSP is established with the Pre-Planned flag set to 0, it MAY
        be re-signaled by setting the flag to 1.
     
     5.2.2 Path Provisioned LSPs
     
        There is a difference in between an LSP that is established with 0
        bandwidth (path provisioning) and an LSP that is established with a
        certain bandwidth value not committed at the data plane level (i.e.
        pre-planned LSP).
     
        Mechanisms for provisioning (pre-planned or not) LSP with 0 bandwidth
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 14]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        is straightforward for PSC the SENDER_TSPEC/FLOWSPEC, the Peak Data
        Rate field of Int-Serv objects, see [RFC2210], is set to 0. For L2SC
        LSP, the CIR, EIR, CBS, and EBS must be set of 0 in the Type 2 sub-
        TLV of the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV. In these cases, upon LSP
        resource commitment, actual traffic parameter values are used to
        perform corresponding resource reservation.
     
        However, mechanisms for provisioning (pre-planned or not) TDM or LSC
        LSP with 0 bandwidth is currently not possible because the exchanged
        label value is tightly coupled with resource allocation during LSP
        signaling (see e.g. [RFC4606] for SDH/SONET LSP). For TDM and LSC
        LSP, a NULL Label value is used to prevent resource allocation at the
        data plane level. In these cases, upon LSP resource commitment,
        actual label value exchange is performed to commit allocation of
        timeslots/wavelengths.
     
     6. Backward Compatibility
     
        New objects and procedures defined in this document are running
        within a given TE domain, defined as group of LSRs that enforces a
        common TE policy. Thus, the extensions defined in this document are
        expected to run in the context of a consistent TE policy.
        Specification of a consistent TE policy is outside the scope of this
        document.
     
        In such TE domains, we distinguish between edge LSRs and intermediate
        LSRs. Edge LSRs must be able to process Call Attribute as defined in
        Section 5.1 if this is the method selected for creating edge-to-edge
        associations. In that domain, intermediate LSRs are by definition
        transparent to the Call processing.
     
        In case the Soft FA method is used for the creation of virtual TE
        links, edge and intermediate LSRs must support processing of the LSP
        ATTRIBUTE object per Section 5.2.
     
     7. Security Considerations
     
        This document does not introduce any new security consideration from
        the ones already detailed in [MPLS-SEC] that describes the MPLS and
        GMPLS security threats, the related defensive techniques, and the
        mechanisms for detection and reporting. Indeed, the applicability of
        the proposed GMPLS extensions is limited to single TE domain. Such a
        domain is under the authority of a single administrative entity. In
        this context, multiple switching layers comprised within such TE
        domain are under the control of a single GMPLS control plane
        instance.
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 15]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        Nevertheless, Call initiation, as depicted in section 5.1, MUST
        strictly remain under control of the TE domain administrator. To
        prevent any abuse of Call setup, edge nodes MUST ensure isolation of
        their call controller (i.e. the latter is not reachable via external
        TE domains). To further prevent man-in-the-middle attack, security
        associations MUST be established between edge nodes initiating and
        terminating calls. For this purpose, IKE [RFC4306] MUST be used for
        performing mutual authentication and establishing and maintaining
        these security associations.
     
     8. IANA Considerations
     
     8.1 RSVP
     
        IANA has made the following assignments in the "Class Names, Class
        Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry
        located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
     
        This document introduces a new class named CALL_ATTRIBUTES has been
        created in the 11bbbbbb range (201) with the following definition:
     
        Class Number  Class Name                            Reference
        ------------  -----------------------               ---------
        201           CALL ATTRIBUTES                       [This I-D]
     
                      Class Type (C-Type):
     
                      1   Call Attributes                   [This.I-D]
     
        This document introduces a new subobject for the EXCLUDE_ROUTE object
        [RFC4874], C-Type 1.
     
        Subobject Type   Subobject Description
        --------------   ---------------------
        35               Switching Capability (SC)
     
     8.2 OSPF
     
        IANA maintains Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering
        TLVs Registries included below for Top level Types in TE LSAs and
        Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2).
     
        This document defines the following sub-TLV of TE Link TLV (Value 2)
     
        Value  Sub-TLV
        -----  -------------------------------------------------
        24     Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD)
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 16]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
     
     8.3 IS-IS
     
        This document defines the following new sub-TLV type of top-level TLV
        22 that need to be reflected in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 22:
     
        Type   Description                                        Length
        ----   -------------------------------------------------  ------
        24     Interface Adjustment Capability Descriptor (IACD)  Variable
     
     9. References
     
     9.1 Normative References
     
        [HIER-BIS] Shiomoto, K., and Farrel, A., "Procedures for Dynamically
                   Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf
                   ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis, Work in progress.
     
        [RFC2205]  Braden, R., et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
                   (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification",
                   RFC2205, September 1997.
     
        [RFC2210]  Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF
                   Integrated Services", RFC2210, September 1997.
     
        [RFC3471]  Berger, L., et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                   Switching (GMPLS) - Signaling Functional Description",
                   RFC3471, January 2003.
     
        [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                   Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
                   Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
                   RFC3473, January 2003.
     
        [RFC3630]  Katz, D., et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to
                   OSPF Version 2," RFC3630, September 2003.
     
        [RFC3784]  Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to
                   Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic
                   Engineering (TE)", RFC3784, June 2004.
     
        [RFC3945]  Mannie, E. and al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
                   Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC3945, October 2004.
     
        [RFC4201]  Kompella, K., et al., "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic
                   Engineering", RFC4201, October 2005.
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 17]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        [RFC4202]  Kompella, K., Ed., and Rekhter, Y. Ed., "Routing
                   Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", RFC4202,
                   October 2005.
     
        [RFC4203]  Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
                   in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
                   (GMPLS)", RFC4203, October 2005.
     
        [RFC4205]  Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate
                   System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in
                   Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
                   (GMPLS)", RFC4205, October 2005.
     
        [RFC4206]  Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
                   Generalized MPLS TE", RFC4206, October 2005.
     
        [RFC5420]  Farrel, A., et al., "Encoding of Attributes for
                   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path
                   (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-
                   Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
     
        [RFC4428]  Papadimitriou, D., et al. "Analysis of Generalized Multi-
                   Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery
                   Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)",
                   RFC4428, March 2006.
     
        [RFC4874]  Lee, C.Y., et al. "Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE,"
                   RFC4874, April 2007.
     
        [RFC4974]  Papadimitriou, D., and Farrel, A., "Generalized MPLS
                   (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls,"
                   RFC4974, August 2007.
     
     9.2 Informative References
     
        [GR-TELINK] Ali, Z., et al., "Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and
                    Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering Networks", draft-
                    ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown, Work in progress.
     
        [MLN-EVAL]  Leroux, J.-L., et al., "Evaluation of existing GMPLS
                    Protocols against Multi Region and Multi Layer Networks
                    (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5339, September 2008.
     
        [MLN-REQ]   Shiomoto, K., et al., "Requirements for GMPLS-based
                    multi-region and multi-layer networks (MRN/MLN)",
                    RFC5212, July 2008.
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 18]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        [MPLS-SEC] Fang, L. Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
                   Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-
                   framework-03.txt, Work in progress.
     
        [MLRT]     Imajuku, W., et al., "Multilayer routing using multilayer
                   switch capable LSRs", draft-imajuku-ml-routing-02.txt,
                   Work in Progress.
     
     Acknowledgments
     
        The authors would like to thank Mr. Wataru Imajuku for the
        discussions on adjustment between regions [MLRT].
     
     Author's Addresses
     
        Dimitri Papadimitriou
        Alcatel-Lucent Bell
        Copernicuslaan 50
        B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
        Phone: +32 3 2408491
        E-mail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be
     
        Martin Vigoureux
        Alcatel-Lucent
        Route de Villejust
        91620 Nozay, France
        Tel : +33 1 30 77 26 69
        Email: martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.fr
     
        Kohei Shiomoto
        NTT
        3-9-11 Midori-cho
        Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
        Phone: +81 422 59 4402
        Email: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp
     
        Deborah Brungard
        ATT
        Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
        Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
        Phone: +1 732 420 1573
        Email: dbrungard@att.com
     
        Jean-Louis Le Roux
        France Telecom
        Avenue Pierre Marzin
        22300 Lannion, France
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 19]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        Phone: +33 (0)2 96 05 30 20
        Email: jean-louis.leroux@rd.francetelecom.com
     
     Contributors
     
        Eiji Oki
        NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
        3-9-11 Midori-cho
        Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
        Phone : +81 422 59 3441
        Email: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp
     
        Ichiro Inoue
        NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
        3-9-11 Midori-cho
        Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
        Phone : +81 422 59 6076
        Email: ichiro.inoue@lab.ntt.co.jp
     
        Emmanuel Dotaro
        Alcatel-Lucent France
        Route de Villejust
        91620 Nozay, France
        Phone : +33 1 6963 4723
        Email: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel-lucent.fr
     
        Gert Grammel
        Alcatel-Lucent SEL
        Lorenzstrasse, 10
        70435 Stuttgart, Germany
        Email: gert.grammel@alcatel-lucent.de
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 20]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
        Copyright Notice
     
           Copyright (c) 2009 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.
     
           This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
           Contributions published or made publicly available before November
           10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
           material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
           modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
           Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
           controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
           be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
           works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
           except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
           into languages other than English.
     
        Intellectual Property Statement
     
           The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope
           of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
           claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
           described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
           under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
           represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
           such rights.
     
           Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
           Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available,
           or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
           permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers
           or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-
           line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
     
           The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
           any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
           proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
           to implement any standard or specification contained in an IETF
           Document. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
           ipr@ietf.org.
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 21]


     Internet-Draft                                           March 22, 2009
     
     
     
        Disclaimer of Validity
     
           All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are
           provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION
           HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET
           SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE
           DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
           LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN
           WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
           MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     D. Papadimitriou      Expires September 21, 2009              [Page 22]