CCAMP Working Group F. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft ZTE
Intended status: Standards Track R. Jing
Expires: March 20, 2014 China Telecom
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems
September 16, 2013
RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-07
Abstract
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document [RFC5654],
describes that MPLS-TP MUST support associated bidirectional point-
to-point LSPs.
This document provides a method to bind two unidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP. The
association is achieved by defining the new Association Types in the
[Extended] ASSOCIATION object.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Provisioning Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Single Sided Provisioning Model . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Double Sided Provisioning Model . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.3. Asymmetric Bandwidth LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.4. Recovery Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.5. Associated Bidirectional LSPs and LSP Recovery . . . . 6
3.2.6. Associated Bidirectional LSPs and TE Mesh-Groups . . . 7
3.2.7. MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers . . . 7
3.2.8. Teardown of Associated Bidirectional LSPs . . . . . . 7
4. Association of LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. ASSOCIATION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1 Signaling of the ASSOCIATION Object . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2 Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. REVERSE_LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. LSP Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Updated RSVP Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. REVERSE_LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
1. Introduction
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document [RFC5654]
describes that MPLS-TP MUST support associated bidirectional point-
to-point LSPs. Furthermore, an associated bidirectional LSP is
useful for protection switching, for Operations, Administrations and
Maintenance (OAM) messages that require a reply path.
The requirements described in [RFC5654] are specifically mentioned in
Section 2.1. (General Requirements), and are repeated below:
7. MPLS-TP MUST support associated bidirectional point-to-point
LSPs.
11. The end points of an associated bidirectional LSP MUST be aware
of the pairing relationship of the forward and reverse LSPs used to
support the bidirectional service.
12. Nodes on the LSP of an associated bidirectional LSP where both
the forward and backward directions transit the same node in the same
(sub)layer as the LSP SHOULD be aware of the pairing relationship of
the forward and the backward directions of the LSP.
14. MPLS-TP MUST support bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric
bandwidth requirements, i.e., the amount of reserved bandwidth
differs between the forward and backward directions.
50. The MPLS-TP control plane MUST support establishing associated
bidirectional P2P LSP including configuration of protection functions
and any associated maintenance functions.
The above requirements are also repeated in [RFC6373].
The notion of association, as well as the corresponding Resource
reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) ASSOCIATION object, is defined in
[RFC4872], [RFC4873] and [RFC6689]. In that context, the object is
used to associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they are protecting.
This object also has broader applicability as a mechanism to
associate RSVP state, and [RFC6780] defines the Extended ASSOCIATION
object that can be more generally applied.
This document provides a method to bind two reverse unidirectional
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP. The
association is achieved by defining the new Association Types in the
[Extended] ASSOCIATION object.
2. Conventions used in this document
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
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].
3. Overview
3.1. Provisioning Model
The associated bidirectional LSP's forward and backward directions
are set up, monitored, and protected independently as required by
[RFC5654]. Configuration information regarding the LSPs can be sent
to one end or both ends of the LSP. Depending on the method chosen,
there are two models of signaling associated bidirectional LSP. The
first model is the single sided provisioning, the second model is the
double sided provisioning.
For the single sided provisioning, the configurations are sent to one
end. Firstly, a unidirectional tunnel is configured on this end,
then a LSP under this tunnel is initiated with the [Extended]
ASSOCIATION object carried in the Path message to trigger the peer
end to set up the corresponding reverse TE tunnel and LSP.
For the double sided provisioning, the two unidirectional TE tunnels
are configured independently, then the LSPs under the tunnels are
signaled with the [Extended] ASSOCIATION objects carried in the Path
message to indicate each other to associate the two LSPs together to
be an associated bidirectional LSP.
A number of scenarios exist for binding LSPs together to be an
associated bidirectional LSP. These include: (1) both of them do not
exist; (2) both of them exist; (3) one LSP exists, but the other one
need to be established. In all scenarios described, the provisioning
models discussed above are applicable.
3.2. Signaling Procedure
This section describes the signaling procedures for associating
bidirectional LSPs.
Consider the topology described in Figure 1. (An example of
associated bidirectional LSP). The LSP1 [via nodes A,D,B] (from A to
B) and LSP2 [via nodes B,D,C,A] (from B to A) are being established
or have been established, which can form an associated bidirectional
LSP between node A and node B.
LSP1 and LSP2 are referenced at the data plane level by the
identifiers: A-Node_ID::A-Tunnel_Num::A-LSP_Num::B-Node_ID and
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
B-Node_ID::B-Tunnel_Num::B-LSP_Num::A-Node_ID, respectively
[RFC6370].
A-------D-------B
\ /
\ /
\ /
C
Figure 1: An example of associated bidirectional LSP
3.2.1. Single Sided Provisioning Model
For the single sided provisioning model, LSP1 is triggered by LSP2 or
LSP2 is triggered by LSP1. When LSP2 is triggered by LSP1, LSP1 is
initialized or refreshed (if LSP1 already exists) at node A with the
[Extended] ASSOCIATION object inserted in the Path message, the
Association Type must be set to "Single Sided Associated
Bidirectional LSPs". Terminating node B is triggered to set up LSP2
by the received [Extended] ASSOCIATION object with the Association
Type set to the value "Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs",
the [Extended] ASSOCIATION object inserted in LSP2's Path message is
the same as in LSP1's Path message.
When LSP1 is triggered by LSP2, the same rules are applicable. Based
on the same values of the [Extended] ASSOCIATION objects in the two
LSPs' Path messages, the two LSPs can be bound together to be an
associated bidirectional LSP.
3.2.2. Double Sided Provisioning Model
For the double sided provisioning model, the Association Type must be
set to "Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs".
Identification of the LSPs as being Associated Bidirectional LSPs
occurs based on the identical contents in the LSPs' [Extended]
ASSOCIATION objects.
3.2.3. Asymmetric Bandwidth LSPs
A variety of applications, such as Internet services and the return
paths of OAM messages, exist and which MAY have different bandwidth
requirements for each direction. Additional [RFC5654] also specifies
an asymmetric bandwidth requirement. This requirement is specifically
mentioned in Section 2.1. (General Requirements), and is repeated
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
below:
14. MPLS-TP MUST support bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric
bandwidth requirements, i.e., the amount of reserved bandwidth
differs between the forward and backward directions.
The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth co-routed
bidirectional LSPs is defined in [RFC6387]. As to the asymmetric
bandwidth associated bidirectional LSPs, the existing SENDER_TSPEC
object must be carried in the REVERSE_LSP object [defined in Section
4.2 of this document] as a subobject in the initialized LSP's Path
message to specify the reverse LSP's traffic parameters in case where
single sided provisioning model is adopted. Consider the topology
described in Figure 1 in the context of asymmetric bandwidth
associated bidirectional LSPs, and take LSP2 triggered by LSP1 as an
example. Node B is triggered to set up the reverse LSP2 with the
corresponding asymmetric bandwidth by the [Extended] ASSOCIATION
object with Association Type "Single Sided Associated Bidirectional
LSPs" and the SENDER_TSPEC subobject in REVERSE_LSP object in LSP1's
Path message.
When double sided provisioning model is used, the two opposite LSPs
with asymmetric bandwidths are concurrently initialized, and this
requirement will be satisfied simultaneously.
3.2.4. Recovery Considerations
Consider the topology described in Figure 1, LSP1 and LSP2 form the
associated bidirectional LSP. Under the scenario of recovery, a
third LSP (LSP3) may be used to protect LSP1. LSP3 can be established
before or after the failure occurs, it can share the same TE tunnel
with LSP1.
When node A detects that LSP1 is broken or needs to be reoptimized,
LSP3 will be initialized or refreshed with the [Extended] ASSOCIATION
object inherited from LSP1's Path message. Furthermore, if LSP3 is
the protecting LSP [RFC4872], the [Extended] ASSOCIATION object and
PROTECTION object [RFC4872] need to be inherited from the LSP1 also.
In this way, based on the same [Extended] ASSOCIATION object, LSP2
and LSP3 will compose the new associated bidirectional LSPs.
3.2.5. Associated Bidirectional LSPs and LSP Recovery
LSP recovery as defined in [RFC4872], [RFC4873] and [RFC4090] is not
impacted by this document. The recovery mechanisms defined in
[RFC4872] and [RFC4873] rely on the use of ASSOCIATION objects, but
use a different Association Type field value than defined in this
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
document so it is not be impacted. The mechanisms defined in
[RFC4090] does not rely on the use of ASSOCIATION objects and is
therefore also not impacted by the mechanisms defined in this
document.
3.2.6. Associated Bidirectional LSPs and TE Mesh-Groups
TE mesh-groups is defined in [RFC4972]. A node supporting both
Associated Bidirectional LSPs and TE mesh-groups, MAY include an
[Extended] ASSOCIATION object as defined in this document in Path
messages of LSPs used for the mesh-group. To enable unambiguous
identification of the mesh-group's associated bidirectional LSPs, the
information carried in the [Extended] ASSOCIATION object, including
the contents of the Association Source and Identifier fields MUST be
provisioned.
3.2.7. MPLS-TP Associated Bidirectional LSP Identifiers
[RFC6370] defines the MPLS-TP associated LSP identifiers based on the
signaling parameters of each unidirectional LSP. Using the mechanisms
defined in this document, any node that is along the path of both
unidirectional LSPs can identify which pair of unidirectional LSPs
support an Associated Bidirectional LSP as well as the signaling
parameters required by [RFC6370]. Note that the LSP end-points will
always be the path of both unidirectional LSPs.
3.2.8. Teardown of Associated Bidirectional LSPs
Associated bidirectional LSPs teardown also follows standard
procedures defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] either without or with
the administrative status. Note that teardown procedures of the
associated bidirectional LSPs are independent of each other, so it is
possible that while one LSP1 follows graceful teardown with
administrative status, the other LSP2 is torn down without
administrative status (using PathTear/ResvTear/PathErr with state
removal). However, for the double sided associated bidirectional
LSPs, the teardown of LSP1 does not mean that LSP2 must be deleted,
which depends on the local policy. While for the single sided
associated bidirectional LSPs, the teardown of the initialized LSP
SHOULD induce the teardown of the trigger-established LSP, but the
teardown of the trigger-established LSP (using PathErr with state
removal) MAY not induce the teardown of the initialized LSP (which
depends on the local policy).
4. Association of LSPs
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
4.1. ASSOCIATION Object
The Extended ASSOCIATION object is defined in [RFC6780], which
enables MPLS-TP required LSP identification. The [Extended]
ASSOCIATION object is used as follows for associated bidirectional
LSPs.
Association Types:
In order to bind two reverse unidirectional LSPs to be an
associated bidirectional LSP, new Association Types are defined in
this document:
Value Type
----- -----
4 (TBD) Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs (D)
5 (TBD) Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs (A)
Association ID: 16 bits
For both double sided and single sided provisioning, Association
ID is a value assigned by the node that originates the
association.
Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes
Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 ASSOCIATION objects, see [RFC4872].
For double sided provisioning, Association Source is set to an
address selected by the node that originates the association
(which may be a management entity.)
For single sided provisioning, Association Source is set to an
address assigned to the node that originates the LSP.
Global Association Source: 4 bytes
Same as for IPv4 and IPv6 [Extended] ASSOCIATION objects defined
in [RFC6780].
For both double sided and single sided provisioning, Global
Association Source, when used, is set to the Global_ID [RFC6370]
of the node that originates association.
Extended Association ID: 4 or 16 bytes
This field contains data that is additional information to support
unique identification.
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
For both double sided and single sided provisioning, Extended
Association ID, when used, is selected by the node that originates
the association.
If either Global Association Source or Extended Association
Address is required, an Extended ASSOCIATION object [RFC6780] is
used. Otherwise an ASSOCIATION object [RFC4872] is used.
4.1.1 Signaling of the ASSOCIATION Object
As described in [RFC6780], association is always done based on
matching Path state or Resv state. Upstream initialized association
is represented in [Extended] ASSOCIATION objects carried in Path
message and downstream initialized association is represented in
[Extended] ASSOCIATION objects carried in Resv messages. The new
Association Types defined in this document are only used in upstream
initialized association. Thus they can only appear in [Extended]
ASSOCIATION objects signaled in Path message.
The rules associated with the processing of the [Extended]
ASSOCIATION objects in RSVP message are discussed in [RFC6780]. It
said that in the absence of Association Type-specific rules for
identifying association, the included [Extended] ASSOCIATION objects
MUST be identical. This document adds no specific rules, the
association will always operate based on the same [Extended]
ASSOCIATION objects.
4.1.2 Compatibility
The [Extended] ASSOCIATION object has been defined in [RFC6780] with
class numbers in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with
non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this
extension will ignore the object but forward it, unexamined and
unmodified, in all messages resulting from this message. Especially,
this object received in PathTear, or PathErr messages should be
forwarded immediately in the same message, but should be saved with
the corresponding state and forwarded in any refresh message
resulting from that state when received in Path message.
4.2. REVERSE_LSP Object
Path Computation Element (PCE)-based approaches, see [RFC4655], may
be used for path computation of a GMPLS LSP, and consequently an
associated bidirectional LSP, across domains and in a single domain.
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
The ingress Label Switching Router (LSR), maybe serve as a PCE or
Path Computation Client (PCC), has more information about the reverse
LSP.
When the forward LSP is signaled, the reverse LSP's traffic
parameters, explicit route, LSP attributes, etc, can be carried in
the REVERSE_LSP object of the forward LSP's Path message. The egress
LSR can be triggered to establish the reverse LSP according to the
received control information.
4.2.1. Format
The information of the reverse LSP is specified via the REVERSE_LSP
object, which is optional with class numbers in the form 11bbbbbb has
the following format:
Class = TBD (of the form 11bbbbbb), C_Type = 1 (TBD)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Subobjects) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This object MUST NOT be used when the [Extended] ASSOCIATION object
do not exist or exist but the Association Type is not "Single Sided
Associated Bidirectional LSPs".
4.2.1.1. Subobjects
The contents of a REVERSE_LSP object are a series of variable-length
data items called subobjects, which can be SENDER_TSPEC,
EXPLICIT_ROUTE object (ERO), Session Attribute object, Admin Status
object, LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object,
PROTECTION object, ASSOCIATION object, Extended ASSOCIATION object,
etc.
4.2.2. LSP Control
The signaling procedure without the REVERSE_LSP object carried in the
LSP1's Path message is described in section 3.2.1, which is the
default option. A node includes a REVERSE_LSP object and [Extended]
ASSOCIATION object with an "Single Sided Associated Bidirectional
LSPs" Association Type in an outgoing Path message when it wishes to
control the reverse LSP, and the receiver node B MUST convert the
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
subobjects of the REVERSE_LSP object into the corresponding objects
that carried in LSP2's Path message. The case of a non-supporting
egress node is outside of this document. If node A want to tear down
the associated bidirectional LSP, a PathTear message will be sent out
and Node B is triggered to tear down LSP2.
4.2.3. Updated RSVP Message Formats
This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by
this document. Unmodified RSVP message formats are not listed.
The format of a Path message is as follows:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
<LABEL_REQUEST>
[ <PROTECTION> ]
[ <LABEL_SET> ... ]
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
[ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ... ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <EXTENDED_ASSOCIATION> ... ]
[ <REVERSE_LSP]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<sender descriptor>
The format of the <sender descriptor> is not modified by the present
document.
4.2.4. Compatibility
The REVERSE_LSP object is defined with class numbers in the form
11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non-supporting nodes. Per
[RFC2205], nodes not supporting this extension will ignore the object
but forward it, unexamined and unmodified, in all messages resulting
from this message. Especially, this object received in PathTear, or
PathErr messages should be forwarded immediately in the same message,
but should be saved with the corresponding state and forwarded in any
refresh message resulting from that state when received in Path
message.
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
5.1. Association Type
Within the current document, two new Association Types are defined in
the [Extended] ASSOCIATION object.
Value Type
----- -----
4 (TBD) Double Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs (D)
5 (TBD) Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSPs (A)
5.2. REVERSE_LSP Object
A new class named REVERSE_LSP has been created in the 11bbbbbb range
(TBD) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-types (1, TBD):
There are no other IANA considerations introduced by this document.
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces two new Association Types, and except this,
there are no security issues about the [Extended] ASSOCIATION object
are introduced here.
The procedures defined in this document result in an increase in the
amount of state information carried in signaling messages since the
presence of the REVERSE_LSP object necessarily means that there is
more information about associated bidirectional LSPs. Thus, in the
event of the interception of a signaling message, slightly more could
be deduced about the state of the network than was previously the
case, but this is judged to be a very minor security risk as this
information is already available via routing.
Otherwise, this document introduces no additional security
considerations. For a general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related
security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
7. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Lou Berger for his great guidance in
this work, George Swallow and Jie Dong for the discussion of
recovery, Lamberto Sterling for his valuable comments on the section
of asymmetric bandwidths, Daniel King for the review of the document,
Attila Takacs for the discussion of the provisioning model. At the
same time, the authors would also like to acknowledge the
contributions of Bo Wu, Xihua Fu, Lizhong Jin for the initial
discussions, and Wenjuan He for the prototype implementation. The
authors would also like to thank Siva Sivabalan, Eric Osborne and
Robert Sawaya for the discussion on the ASSOCIATION object.
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
8. References
8.1. Normative references
[RFC6780] Berger, L., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
Association Object Extensions", RFC 6780, October 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, 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.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., Atlas, A., "Fast Reroute Extensions
to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Rekhter, Y., and D. Papadimitriou, "RSVP-TE
Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, May
2007.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4972] Vasseur, JP., Leroux, JL., Yasukawa, S., Previdi, S.,
Psenak, P., Mabbey, P., "Routing Extensions for Discovery
of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic
Engineering (TE) Mesh Membership", RFC 4972, July 2007.
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
RFC 5654, September 2009.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.
[RFC6373] Andersson, L., Berger, L., Fang, L., Bitar, N., and E.
Gray, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Control Plane
Framework", RFC 6373, September 2011.
[RFC6387] Takacs, A., Berger, L., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 6387, September 2011.
[RFC6689] Berger, L., "Usage of The RSVP Association Object", RFC
6689, July 2012.
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated LSPsSeptember 16, 2013
Authors' Addresses
Fei Zhang (editor)
ZTE
Email: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Ruiquan Jing
China Telecom
Email: jingrq@ctbri.com.cn
Fan Yang
ZTE
Email: james-yang81@sohu.com
Weilian Jiang
ZTE
Email: jiang.weilian@gmail.com
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Zhang & Jing Expires March 20, 2014 [Page 16]
