Network Working Group Dan Li (Huawei)
Internet Draft Jianhua Gao (Huawei)
Arun Satyanarayana (Cisco)
Snigdho C. Bardalai (Fujitsu)
Intended Status: Informational
Expires: July 21, 2009 January 21, 2009
Description of the RSVP-TE Graceful Restart Procedures
draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-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
The Hello message for the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) has
been defined to establish and maintain basic signaling node
adjacencies for Label Switching Routers (LSRs) participating in a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered (TE)
network. The Hello message has been extended for use in Generalized
MPLS (GMPLS) network for state recovery of control channel or nodal
faults.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
GMPLS protocol definitions for RSVP also allow a restarting node to
learn the label that it previously allocated for use on a Label
Switching Path (LSP).
Further RSVP protocol extensions have been defined to enable a
restarting node to recover full control plane state by exchanging
RSVP messages with its upstream and downstream neighbors.
This document provides an informational clarification of the
control plane procedures for a GMPLS network when there are
multiple node failures, and describes how full control plane state
can be recovered in different scenarios where the order in which
the nodes restart is different.
This document does not define any new processes or procedures. All
protocol mechanisms are already defined in the referenced documents.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................3
2. Existing Procedures for Single Node Restart..................4
2.1. Procedures Defined in [RFC3473]............................4
2.2. Procedures Defined in [RFC5063]............................5
3. Multiple Node Restart Scenarios..............................5
4. RSVP State...................................................7
5. Procedures for Multiple Node Restart.........................7
5.1. Procedures for the Normal Node.............................7
5.2. Procedures for the Restarting Node.........................7
5.2.1. Procedures for Scenario 1................................8
5.2.2. Procedures for Scenario 2................................9
5.2.3. Procedures for Scenario 3...............................10
5.2.4. Procedures for Scenario 4...............................11
5.2.5. Procedures for Scenario 5...............................12
5.3. Consideration of Re-Use of Data Plane Resources...........12
5.4. Consideration of Management Plane Intervention............12
6. Clarification of Restarting Node Procedure..................13
7. Security Considerations.....................................14
8. IANA Considerations.........................................16
9. Acknowledgments.............................................16
10. References.................................................16
10.1. Normative References.....................................16
10.2. Informative References...................................16
11. Author's Addresses.........................................17
12. Full Copyright Statement...................................18
13. Intellectual Property Statement............................18
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
1. Introduction
The Hello message for the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) has
been defined to establish and maintain basic signaling node
adjacencies for Label Switching Routers (LSRs) participating in a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traffic engineered (TE)
network [RFC3209]. The Hello message has been extended for use in
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network for state recovery of control
channel or nodal faults through the exchange of the Restart
Capabilities object [RFC3473].
GMPLS protocol definitions for RSVP [RFC3473] also allow a
restarting node to learn the label that it previously allocated for
use on a Label Switching Path (LSP) through the RECOVERY_LABEL
object carried on a Path message sent to a restarting node from its
upstream neighbor.
Further RSVP protocol extensions have been defined [RFC5063] to
perform graceful restart and to enable a restarting node to recover
full control plane state by exchanging RSVP messages with its
upstream and downstream neighbors. State previously transmitted to
the upstream neighbor (principally the downstream label) is
recovered from the upstream neighbor on a Path message (using the
RECOVERY_LABEL object as described in [RFC3473]). State previously
transmitted to the downstream neighbor (including the upstream
label, interface identifiers, and the explicit route) is recovered
from the downstream neighbor using a RecoveryPath message.
[RFC5063] also extends the Hello message to exchange information
about the ability to support the RecoveryPath message.
The examples and procedures in [RFC3473] and [RFC5063] focus on the
description of a single node restart when adjacent network nodes
are operative. Although the procedures are equally applicable to
multi-node restarts, no detailed explanation is provided.
This document provides an informational clarification of the
control plane procedures for a GMPLS network when there are
multiple node failures, and describes how full control plane state
can be recovered in different scenarios where the order in which
the nodes restart is different.
This document does not define any new processes or procedures. All
protocol mechanisms already defined in [RFC3473] and [RFC5063] are
definitive.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
2. Existing Procedures for Single Node Restart
This section documents for information the existing procedures
defined in [RFC3473] and [RFC5063]. Those documents are definitive,
and the description here is non-normative. It is provided for
informational clarification only.
2.1. Procedures Defined in [RFC3473]
In the case of nodal faults, the procedures for the restarting node
and the procedures for the neighbor of a restarting node are
applied to the corresponding nodes. These procedures described in
[RFC3473] are summarized as follows:
For the Restarting Node:
1) Tells its neighbors that state recovery is supported using the
Hello message;
2) Recover its RSVP state with the help of a Path message received
from its upstream neighbor carrying the RECOVERY_LABEL object;
3) For bidirectional LSPs, the UPSTREAM_LABEL object on the received
Path message is used to recover the corresponding RSVP state;
4) If the corresponding forwarding state in the data plane does not
exist, the node treats this as a setup for a new LSP. If the
forwarding state in the data plane exists, the forwarding state is
bound to the LSP associated with the message, and related forwarding
state should be considered as valid and refreshed. In addition, if
the node is not the tail-end of the LSP, the incoming label on the
downstream interface is retrieved from the forwarding state on the
restarting node and set in the UPSTREAM_LABEL object in the Path
message sent to the downstream neighbor.
For the Neighbor of a restarting node:
1) Sends a Path message with RECOVERY_LABEL object containing a label
value corresponding to the label value received in the most recently
received corresponding Resv message;
2) Resumes refreshing Path state with the restarting node;
3) Resumes refreshing Resv state with the restarting node.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
2.2. Procedures Defined in [RFC5063]
A new message is introduced in [RFC5063] called the RecoveryPath
message. The message is sent by the downstream neighbor of a
restarting node to convey the contents of the last received Path
message back to the restarting node.
The restarting node will receive the Path message with the
RECOVERY_LABEL object from its upstream neighbor, and/or the
RecoveryPath message from its downstream neighbor. The full RSVP
state of the restarting node can be recovered from these two
messages.
The following state can be recovered from the received Path message:
o Upstream data interface (from RSVP_HOP object)
o Label on the upstream data interface (from RECOVERY_LABEL object)
o Upstream label for bidirectional LSP (from UPSTREAM_LABEL object)
The following state can be recovered from the received RecoveryPath
message:
o Downstream data interface (from RSVP_HOP object)
o Label on the downstream data interface (from RECOVERY_LABEL object)
o Upstream direction label for bidirectional LSP (from
UPSTREAM_LABEL object)
The other objects also can be recovered either from the regular
Path and Resv messages, or from the RecoveryPath message.
3. Multiple Node Restart Scenarios
We define the following terms for the different node types:
Restarting - The node has restarted; communication with its
neighbor nodes is restored, its RSVP state is under recovery.
Delayed Restarting - The node has restarted, but the communication
with a neighbor node is interrupted (for example, the neighbor node
needs to restart).
Normal - The normal node is the fully operational neighbor of a
restarting or delayed restarting node.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
There are five scenarios for multi-node restart. We will focus on
the different positions of a restarting node. As shown in Figure 1,
an LSP starts from Node A, traverses Nodes B and C, and ends at
Node D.
+-----+ Path +-----+ Path +-----+ Path +-----+
| PSB |------->| PSB |------->| PSB |------->| PSB |
| | | | | | | |
| RSB |<-------| RSB |<-------| RSB |<-------| RSB |
+-----+ Resv +-----+ Resv +-----+ Resv +-----+
Node A Node B Node C Node D
Figure 1 Two neighbor nodes restart
1) A Restarting node with downstream Delayed Restarting node. For
example, in Figure 1, Nodes A and D are Normal nodes, Node B is a
Restarting node, and Node C is a Delayed Restarting node.
2) A Restarting node with upstream Delayed Restarting node. For
example, in Figure 1, Nodes A and D are Normal nodes, Node B is a
Delayed Restarting node, and Node C is a Restarting node.
3) A Restarting node with downstream and upstream Delayed Restarting
nodes. For example, in Figure 1, Node A is a Normal node, Nodes B and
D are Delayed Restarting nodes, and Node C is a Restarting node.
4) A Restarting Ingress node with downstream Delayed Restarting node.
For example, in Figure 1, Node A is a Restarting node, and Node B is
a Delayed Restarting node. Nodes C and D are Normal nodes.
5) A Restarting Egress node with upstream Delayed Restarting node.
For example, in Figure 1, Nodes A and B are Normal nodes, Node C is a
Delayed Restarting node, and Node D is a Restarting node.
If the communication between two nodes is interrupted, the upstream
node may think the downstream node is a Delayed Restarting node, or
vice versa.
Note that if multiple nodes which are not neighbors are restarted,
the restart Procedures could be applied as multiple separated
restart procedures which are exactly the same as the procedures
described in [RFC3473] and [RFC5063]. Therefore, these scenarios
are not described in this document. For example, in Figure 1, Node
A and Node C are normal nodes, and Node B and Node D are restarting
nodes, so Node B could be restarted through Node A and Node C,
meanwhile, Node D could be restarted through Node C separately.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
4. RSVP State
For each scenario, the RSVP state needs to be recovered at the
restarting nodes are Path State Block (PSB) and Resv State Block
(RSB), which are created when the node receives the corresponding
Path message and Resv message.
According to [RFC2209], how to construct the PSB and RSB is really
an implementation issue. In fact, there is no requirement to
maintain separate PSB and RSB data structures. And in GMPLS, there
is a much closer tie between Path and Resv state so it is possible
to combine the information into a single state block (the LSP state
block). On the other hand, if point to multi-point is supported, it
may be convenient to maintain separate upstream and downstream
state. Note that the PSB and RSB are not upstream and downstream
state since the PSB is responsible for receiving a Path from
upstream and sending a Path to downstream.
Regardless of how the RSVP state is implemented, on recovery there
are two logical pieces of state to be recovered and these
correspond to the PSB and RSB.
5. Procedures for Multiple Node Restart
In this document, all the nodes are assumed to have the graceful
restart capabilities which are described in [RFC3473] and [RFC5063].
5.1. Procedures for the Normal Node
When the downstream Normal node detects its neighbor restarting, it
must send a RecoveryPath message for each LSP associated with the
restarting node for which it has previously sent a Resv message and
which has not been torn down.
When the upstream Normal node detects its neighbor restarting, it
must send a Path message with RECOVERY_LABEL object containing a
label value corresponding to the label value received in the most
recently received corresponding Resv message.
This document does not modify the procedures for the Normal node
which are described in [RFC3473] and [RFC5063].
5.2. Procedures for the Restarting Node
This document does not modify the procedures for the Restarting
node which are described in [RFC3473] and [RFC5063].
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
5.2.1. Procedures for Scenario 1
After the Restarting node restarts, it starts a Recovery Timer. Any
RSVP state that has not been resynchronized when the Recovery Timer
expires, should be cleared.
At the Restarting node (Node B in the example), full
resynchronization with the upstream neighbor (Node A) is possible
because Node A is a Normal node. The upstream Path information is
recovered from the Path message received from Node A. Node B also
recovers the upstream Resv information (that it had previously sent
to Node A) from the RECOVERY_LABEL object carried in the Path
message received from Node A, but, obviously, some information
(like the Recorded Route Object) will be missing from the new Resv
message generated by Node B, and can not be supplied until the
downstream Delayed Restarting node (Node C) restarts and sends a
Resv.
After the upstream Path information and upstream Resv information
has been recovered by Node B, the normal refresh procedure with the
upstream Node A should be started.
As per [RFC5063], the Restarting node (Node B) would normally
expect to receive a RecoveryPath message from its downstream
neighbor (Node C). It would use this to recover the downstream Path
information, and would subsequently send a Path message to its
downstream neighbor and receive a Resv message. But in this
scenario, because the downstream neighbor has not restarted yet,
Node B detects the communication with Node C is interrupted and
must wait before resynchronizing with its downstream neighbor.
In this case, the Restarting node (Node B) follows the procedures
in section 9.3 of [RFC3473] and may run a Restart Timer to wait for
the downstream neighbor (Node C) to restart. If its downstream
neighbor (Node C) has not restarted before the timer expires the
corresponding LSPs may be torn down according to local policy
[RFC3473]. Note, however, that the Restart Time value suggested in
[RFC3473] is based on the previous Hello message exchanged with the
node that has not restarted yet (Node C). Since this time value is
unlikely to be available to the restarting node (Node B), a
configured time value must be used if the timer is operated.
The RSVP state must be reconciled with the retained data plane
state if the cross-connect information can be retrieved from the
data plane. In the event of any mismatches, local policy will
dictate the action that must be taken which could include:
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
- reprogramming the data plane
- sending an alert to the management plane
- tearing down the control plane state for the LSP.
In the case that the Delayed Restarting node never comes back, and
where a Restart Timer is not used to automatically tear down LSPs,
the LSPs can be tidied up through the control plane using a
PathTear from the upstream node (Node A). Note that if Node C
restarts after this operation, the RecoveryPath message that it
sends to Node B will not be matched with any state on Node B and
will receive a PathTear as its response resulting in the teardown
of the LSP at all downstream nodes.
5.2.2. Procedures for Scenario 2
In this case, the Restarting node (Node C) can recover full
downstream state from its downstream neighbor (Node D) which is a
Normal node. The downstream Path state can be recovered from the
RecoveryPath message which is sent by Node D. This allows Node C to
send a Path refresh message to Node D, and Node D will respond with
a Resv message from which Node C can reconstruct the downstream
Resv state.
After the downstream Path information and downstream Resv
information has been recovered in Node C, the normal refresh
procedure with downstream Node D should be started.
The Restarting node would normally expect to resynchronize with its
upstream neighbor to re-learn the upstream Path and Resv state, but
in this scenario, because the upstream neighbor (Node B) has not
restarted yet, the Restarting node (Node C) detects that the
communication with upstream neighbor (Node B) is interrupted. The
Restarting node (Node C) follows the procedures in section 9.3 of
[RFC3473] and may run a Restart Timer to wait the upstream neighbor
(Node B) to restart. If its upstream neighbor (Node B) has not
restarted before the Restart Timer expires, the corresponding LSPs
may be torn down according to local policy [RFC3473]. Note, however,
that the Restart Time value suggested in [RFC3473] is based on the
previous Hello message exchanged with the node that has not
restarted yet (Node B). Since this time value is unlikely to be
available to the restarting node (Node C), a configured time value
must be used if the timer is operated.
Note that no Resv message is sent to the upstream neighbor (Node B)
because it has not restarted.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
The RSVP state must be reconciled with the retained data plane
state if the cross-connect information can be retrieved from the
data plane.
In the event of any mismatches, local policy will dictate the
action that must be taken which could include:
- reprogramming the data plane
- sending an alert to the management plane
- tearing down the control plane state for the LSP.
In the case that the Delayed Restarting node never comes back, and
where a Restart Timer is not used to automatically tear down LSPs,
the LSPs cannot be tidied up through the control plane using a
PathTear from the upstream node (Node A), because there is no
control plane connectivity to Node C from the upstream direction.
There are two possibilities in [RFC3473]:
- Management action may be taken at the Restarting node to tear the
LSP. This will result in the LSP being removed from Node C, and a
PathTear being sent downstream to Node D.
- Management action may be taken at any downstream node (for
example, Node D) resulting in a PathErr message with the
Path_State_Removed flag set being sent to Node C to tear the LSP
state.
Note that if Node B restarts after this operation, the Path message
that it sends to Node C will not be matched with any state on Node
C and will be treated as a new Path message resulting in LSP setup.
Node C should use the labels carried in the Path message (in the
UPSTREAM_LABEL object and in the RECOVERY_LABEL object) to drive
its label allocation, but may use other labels according to normal
LSP setup rules.
5.2.3. Procedures for Scenario 3
In this example, the Restarting node (Node C) is isolated. It's
upstream and downstream neighbors have not restarted.
The Restarting node (Node C) follows the procedures in section 9.3
of [RFC3473] and may run a Restart Timer for each of its neighbors
(Nodes B and D). If a neighbor has not restarted before its Restart
Timer expires, the corresponding LSPs may be torn down according to
local policy [RFC3473]. Note, however, that the Restart Time values
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
suggested in [RFC3473] are based on the previous Hello message
exchanged with the nodes that have not restarted yet. Since these
time values are unlikely to be available to the restarting node
(Node C), a configured time value must be used if the timer is
operated.
During the Recovery Time, if the upstream Delayed Restarting node
has restarted, the procedure for scenario 1 can be applied.
During the Recovery Time, if the downstream Delayed Restarting node
has restarted, the procedure for scenario 2 can be applied.
In the case that neither Delayed Restarting node ever comes back,
and where a Restart Timer is not used to automatically tear down
LSPs, management intervention is required to tidy up the control
plane and the data plane on the node that is waiting for the failed
device to restart.
If the downstream Delayed Restarting node restarts after the
cleanup of LSPs at Node C, the RecoveryPath message from Node D
will be responded with a PathTear message. If the upstream Delayed
Restarting node restarts after the cleanup of LSPs at Node C, the
Path message from Node B will be treated as a new LSP setup request,
but the setup will fail because Node D cannot be reached - Node C
will respond with a PathErr message. Since this happens to Node B
during its restart processing, it should follow the rules of
[RFC5063] and tear down the LSP.
5.2.4. Procedures for Scenario 4
When the Ingress node (Node A) restarts, it does not know which
LSPs it caused to be created. Usually, however, this information is
retrieved from the management plane or from the configuration
requests stored in non-volatile form in the node in order to
recover the LSP state.
Furthermore, if the downstream node (Node B) is a Normal node,
according to the procedures in [RFC5063], the ingress will receive
a RecoveryPath message and will understand that it was the ingress
of the LSP.
However, in this scenario, the downstream node is a Delayed
Restarting node, so Node A must rely on the information from the
management plane or stored configuration, or it must wait for Node
B to restart.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
In the event that Node B never restarts, management plane
intervention is needed at Node A to clean up any LSP control plane
state restored from the management plane or from local
configuration, and to release any data plane resources.
5.2.5. Procedures for Scenario 5
In this scenario the Egress node (Node D) restarts, and its
upstream neighbor (Node C) has not restarted. In this case, the
Egress node may have no control plane state relating to the LSPs.
It has no downstream neighbor to help it, and no management plane
or configuration information, although there will be data plane
state for the LSP. The Egress node must simply wait until its
upstream neighbor restarts and gives it the information as Path
messages carrying RECOVERY_LABEL objects.
5.3. Consideration of Re-Use of Data Plane Resources
Fundamental to the processes described above is an understanding
that data plane resources may remain in use (allocated and cross-
connected) when control plane state has not been fully
resynchronized because some control plane nodes have not restarted.
It is assumed that these data plane resources might be carrying
traffic and should not be reconfigured except through application
of operator-configured policy, or as a direct result of operator
action.
In particular, new LSP setup requests from the control plane or the
management plane should not be allowed to use data plane resources
that are still in use. Specific action must first be taken to
release the resources.
5.4. Consideration of Management Plane Intervention
The management plane must always retain the ability to control data
plane resources and to over-ride the control plane. In this context,
the management plane must always be able to release data plane
resources that were previously in place for use by control-plane
established LSPs. Further, the management plane must always be able
to instruct any control plane node to tear down any LSP.
Operators should be aware of the risks of misconnection that could
be caused by careless manipulation from the management plane of in-
use data plane resources.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
6. Clarification of Restarting Node Procedure
According to the current graceful restart procedure [RFC3473],
after a node restarts its control plane, it needs its upstream node
to send PATH message with recovery label to synchronize its RSVP
state. If the restarted control plane becomes operational quickly,
the upstream node may not detect the restarting of downstream node
and therefore, may send a PATH message without recovery label
causing errors and unwanted connection deletion.
N1 N2
| |
| X (Restart start)
| HELLO |
|--------------->|
| |
| SRefresh |
|--------------->|
| |
| HELLO |
|--------------->|
| |
| X (Restart complete)
| SRefresh |
|--------------->|
| NACK |
|<---------------|
| Path without |
| recovery label |
|--------------->|
| X (resource allocation failed because the
| | resources are in use)
| PathErr |
|<---------------|
| PathTear |
|--------------->|
X(LSP deletion) X (LSP deletion)
| |
Figure 2 Message flow for accidental LSP deletion
The sequence diagram above depicts one scenario where the LSP may
get deleted.
In this sequence N1 did not detect Hello failure and continues
sending SRefreshes which may get NACK'ed by N2 once restart
completes because there is no Path state corresponding to the
SRefresh message. This NACK causes a Path refresh message to be
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
generated but there is no RECOVERY_LABEL because N1 did not yet
detect that N2 has restarted as Hello exchanges have not yet
started. The Path message is treated as "new" and fails to allocate
the resources because they are still in use. This causes a PathErr
message to be generated which may lead to the tear down of the LSP.
To resolve the aforementioned problem, the following procedures
which are implicit in [RFC3473] and [RFC5063] should be followed.
These procedures work together with the recovery procedures
documented in [RFC3473]. Here, it is assumed that the restarting
node and the neighboring node(s) support Hello extension as
documented in [RFC3209] and recovery procedures documented in
[RFC3473].
After a node restarts its control plane, it should ignore and
silently drop all RSVP-TE messages, except Hello messages, it
receives from any neighbor to which, no HELLO session has been
established.
The restarting node should follow [RFC3209] to establish Hello
sessions with its neighbors, after its control plane becomes
operational.
The restarting node resumes processing of RSVP-TE messages sent
from each neighbor to which the Hello session has been established.
7. Security Considerations
This document clarifies the procedures defined in [RFC3473] and
[RFC5063] to be performed on RSVP agents that neighbor one or more
restarting RSVP agents. It does not introduce any new procedures
and, therefore, does not introduce any new security risks or issues.
In the case of the control plane in general, and the RSVP agent in
particular, where one or more nodes carrying one or more LSPs are
restarted due to external attacks, the procedures defined in
[RFC5063] and described in this document provide the ability for
the restarting RSVP agents to recover the RSVP state in each
restarting node corresponding to the LSPs, with the least possible
perturbation to the rest of the network. These procedures can be
considered to provide mechanisms by which the GMPLS network can
recover from physical attacks or from attacks on remotely
controlled power supplies.
The procedures described are such that, only the neighboring RSVP
agents should notice the restart of a node, and hence only they
need to perform additional processing. This allows for a network
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
with active LSPs to recover LSP state gracefully from an external
attack, without perturbing the data/forwarding plane state, and
without propagating the error condition in the control or data
plane. In other words, the effect of the restart (which might be
the result of an attack) does not spread into the network.
Note that concern has been expressed about the vulnerability of a
restarting node to false messages received from its neighbors. For
example, a restarting node might receive a false Path message with
a Recovery Label object from an upstream neighbor, or a false
RecoveryPath message from its downstream neighbor. This situation
might arise in one of four cases:
- The message is spoofed and does not come from the neighbor at all.
- The message has been modified as it was traveling from the
neighbor.
- The neighbor is defective and has generated a message in error.
- The neighbor has been subverted and has a "rogue" RSVP agent.
The first two cases may be handled using standard RSVP
authentication and integrity procedures [RFC3209], [RFC3473]. If
the operator is particularly worried, the control plane may be
operated using IPsec [RFC4301], [RFC4302], [RFC4835], [RFC4306],
and [RFC2411].
Protection against defective or rogue RSVP implementations is
generally hard to impossible. Neighbor-to-neighbor authentication
and integrity validation is, by definition, ineffective in these
situations. For example, if a neighbor node sends a Resv during
normal LSP setup, and if that message carries a GENERALIZED_LABEL
object carrying an incorrect label value, then the receiving LSR
will use the supplied value and the LSP will be set up incorrectly.
Alternatively, if a Path message is modified by an upstream LSR to
change the destination and explicit route, there is no way for the
downstream LSR to detect this, and the LSP may be set up to the
wrong destination. Furthermore, the upstream LSR could disguise
this fact by modifying the recorded route reported in the Resv
message. Thus, these issues are in no way specific to the restart
case, do not cause any greater or different problems from the
normal case, and do not warrant specific security measure
applicable to restart scenarios.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
Note that the RSVP POLICY_DATA object [RFC2205] provides a scope by
which secure end-to-end checks could be applied. However, very
little definition of the use of this object has been made to date.
See [MPLS-SEC] for a wider discussion of security in MPLS and GMPLS
networks.
8. IANA Considerations
This document defines no new protocols or extensions and makes no
requests to IANA for registry management.
9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Dimitri Papadimitriou, and
Lou Berger for their useful comments.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2209] R. Braden, L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
-- Version 1 Message Processing Rules", RFC 2209, September
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.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC5063] A. Satyanarayana, R. Rahman, "Extensions to GMPLS RSVP
Graceful Restart", RFC 5063, September 2007.
10.2. Informative References
[MPLS-SEC] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework, work in
progress.
[RFC2205] Braden, R. (Ed.), Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReserVation Protocol -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
[RFC2411] R. Thayer, N. Doraswamy, R. Glenn, "IP Security Document
Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998.
[RFC4301] S. Kent, K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4302] S. Kent, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December
2005.
[RFC4306] C. Kaufman, "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC
4306, December 2005.
[RFC4835] V. Manral, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.
11. Authors' Addresses
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Shenzhen 518129, China
Phone: +86 755 28970230
Email: danli@huawei.com
Jianhua Gao
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Shenzhen 518129, China
Phone: +86 755 28972902
Email: gjhhit@huawei.com
Arun Satyanarayana
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Dr
San Jose, CA 95134, USA
Phone: +1 408 853-3206
Email: asatyana@cisco.com
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
Snigdho C. Bardalai
Fujitsu Network Communications
2801 Telecom Parkway
Richardson, Texas 75082, USA
Phone: +1 972 479 2951
Email: snigdho.bardalai@us.fujitsu.com
12. Full Copyright Statement
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.
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.
13. 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
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-04.txt January 21, 2009
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.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Li, et. al. Expires July 21, 2009 [Page 19]
