Network Working Group
Internet Draft Diego Caviglia
(Ericsson)
Dino Bramanti
(Ericsson)
Dan Li (Huawei)
Snigdho Bardalai
(Fujitsu)
Shan Zhu (Fujitsu)
Igor Bryskin
(ADVA Optical
Networking)
Intended Status: Updates RFC 3473
Expires: Septembers 2008 March 28, 2008
RSVP-TE Signaling Extension For The Conversion Between Permanent
Connections And Soft Permanent Connections In A GMPLS enabled
Transport Network
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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.
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
In a transport network scenario, where Data Plane connections
controlled either by GMPLS (Soft Permanent Connections - SPC) or by
Management System (Permanent Connections - PC) may independently
coexist, the ability of transforming an existing PC into a SPC and
vice versa - without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being
carried over it - is a valuable option. This applies especially when
a GMPLS based Control Plane is first introduced into an existing
network and there may be the need, from a Carrier point of view, to
pass under GMPLS control existing connections already set up over
Data Plane. In other terms, such operation could be seen as a way of
transferring the ownership and control of an existing and in-use Data
Plane connection between the Management Plane and the Control Plane,
leaving its Data Plane state untouched.
This memo provides a minor extension to RSVP-TE signaling protocol,
within GMPLS architecture, to enable such connection ownership
transfer and describes the proposed procedures.
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 [1].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Motivation.....................................................3
3. Overview Of Proposed RSVP-TE Based Solution...................3
4. LSP Control Handover Procedure Between Management And Control
Planes.........................................................5
4.1 MP to CP handover: LSP Ownership Transfer From Management
Plane To Control Plane............. ......................5
4.2 CP to MP handover - LSP Ownership Transfer From Control Plane
To Management Plane.....................................9
4.3 CP to MP Handover Procedure Failure Handling.......... ....10
5. Discovery Phase.............................................10
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
6. Alternative Way Of Retrieving Information Needed For MP To CP
Handover......................................................11
7. RSVP Message Formats..........................................12
8. Objects Modification..........................................12
8.1 Administrative Status Object..............................12
8.2 Error Spec Object.........................................13
9. Security Considerations.......................................13
10. IANA Consideration...........................................14
11. References...................................................14
12. Acknowledgments..............................................14
13. Author's Addresses...........................................14
1. Introduction
In a typical, traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane
connections between two endpoints are controlled basically by means
of a Network Management System (NMS) operating within Management
Plane (MP). NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being
responsible of their set up, tear down and maintenance. The adoption
of a GMPLS Control Plane over networks that are already in service -
controlled by NMS at Management Plane level - introduces the need for
a procedure able to coordinate a control handover of a generic data
plane connection from MP to CP. In addition, the control handover in
the opposite direction, from CP to MP should be possible as well.
The procedures described in this memo have been thought having in
mind SDH/SONET LSPs [2] supported by GMPLS but can be applied to any
kind of LSPs.
2. Motivation
The main motivation behind this work is the definition of a simple
and very low impacting procedure that satisfies the requirements
defined in [3]. Such procedure is aimed at giving the transport
network operators the chance to convert existing LSP provisioned as
PC by NMS to SPC without disrupting user traffic flowing on it.
Conversion from PC to SPC (i.e. when existing data plane connection
ownership and control is passed from MP to CP) has been proposed as
mandatory requirement, while the opposite operation, SPC to SC
conversion, has been considered as a nice-to-have feature that can be
seen as a back-out option.
For more details on requirements and motivations please refer to [3].
3. Overview Of Proposed RSVP-TE Based Solution
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
The whole process comprises of the discovery and conversion phases.
The discovery phase being described in this document is an OPTIONAL
procedure and not mandatory for the conversion phase to proceed.
The discovery phase is typically initiated by the operator and is
performed hop-by-hop in order to discover the route. The route
discovered SHOULD be consistent with the network topology. For
example, for a multi-layer network the hops discovered should be
contained within the same layer.
Prior to initiating the discovery process it is assumed that the
control-plane domains have been established. The operator at the
originating node can optionally specify the terminating end-point at
the time of initiating the discovery request or it could be
automatically discovered. For example, at a network layer boundary
the discovery process can be terminated generating a response back to
the originator. Another possibility is to terminate the request at
the control-plane domain boundary.
For conversion to SC or SPC the conversion phase will create an RSVP-
TE session along the discovered or user-specified route and bind with
the existing management-plane owned cross-connect resources and at
the same time transfer the ownership to the control-plane. For
conversion to PC the conversion phase will delete the existing RSVP-
TE session without deleting the cross-connect resources and transfer
the ownership to the management-plane.
Proposed procedure relies on the utilization of a newly introduced
flag, here named Handover flag, in the Administrative Status Object
(RFC 3471[4] and RFC 3473 [5]).
The point is that standard RSVP-TE signaling flow can be used to
inform nodes about the ownership handover request regarding one LSP
that is already in place on their data plane, where such flow has to
be flagged in order to discriminate it from normal, data plane
affecting, LSP setup/release procedure. When a LSP owned by
Management Plane (i.e. a PC) has to be handed over to Control Plane
(i.e. converted into a SPC), a signaling set-up with HANDOVER flag
set has to be sent from ingress node.
For the opposite procedure (when a LSP owned and controlled by
Control Plane has to be handed over to Management Plane, i.e. SPC to
PC conversion - or back out procedure for previous case) a signaling
tear-down with HANDOVER flag set has to be sent from ingress or
egress node, following the same procedure of a normal tear-down, from
which is recognizable again by reading flag value.
So, basically the HANDOVER flag is introduced and exploited to tell
apart a normal set-up (or tear-down) procedure - that has to trigger
an action on data plane state at each addressed node along the path
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
as usual - from the LSP ownership handover procedure that MUST leave
untouched data plane state.
This is in some way similar as an approach to the Restart Procedure,
(Section 4.3 RFC 3473 [5]), in the sense that the status of the
physical resources at Data Plane has to stay unmodified but the
associated information allowing its control has to be transferred.
The modification proposed in this document refers only to
Administrative Status object, that is, the message flow is left
unmodified for both set-up and deletion. Moreover a new Error Value
is defined to identify the failure of an Handover procedure.
It is worth stressing that, when the LSP over data plane is adopted
either by CP or MP, i.e. at the end of signaling with Handover flag
set, normal CP procedures or MP procedures have to take their place
as usual when needed. This means that a LSP formerly owned by MP,
signalled within CP with Handover flag set (i.e. handed over to CP)
can be controlled by usual relevant Control Plane signaling flows
(i.e. with Handover flag not set). The same applies when considering
the handover of a LSP from CP to MP when, at the end of procedure,
the LSP belongs to Management Plane and can be fully controlled by
NMS. In other words, after the LSP handover procedures have taken
place, the LSP is not different from the other LSP owned by handover
destination entity and it has to be treated with usual rules for that
entity.
Following paragraphs give detailed description of proposed "MP to CP
handover" and "CP to MP handover" procedure, based on Handover flag
usage. Handover of a bidirectional LSP is assumed. The case of
unidirectional LSP can be easily derived from that.
4. LSP Control Handover Procedure Between Management And Control Planes
The procedure described below describes how to move the ownership of
an LSP from the Management Plane to Control Plane.
4.1 MP to CP handover: LSP Ownership Transfer From Management Plane To
Control Plane
Let's consider the case of a Data Plane connection created by NMS.
The Management Plane has the ownership and control of the LSP and
wants to hand it over to Control Plane.
At the ingress node NMS initiates the transfer of LSP related
information residing within Management Plane to RSVP-TE records
within Control Plane. We assume that this happens under operator or
management application control and in particular that:
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
- Control requests are sent to the ingress LSR by the MP
- The MP has some way of knowing when the CP has completed its task
or has failed.
Ingress node collects from MP all the LSP related information needed
at Control Plane level. The way this operation is done and where
such information is collected within MP is outside the scope of this
document one possible (optional) way to collect it is explained in
Section 5.
A relevant part of such information is represented by the LSP path,
which has to be handed over to CP to be used by .ignalling entity to
fill the Explicit Route Object (ERO) during setup.
In order to support the MP to CP handover of LSP, the ERO object in
the Path message MUST be filled with all the LSP relevant information
down to the Label level. That can be done by means of the object and
procedures defined in [5].
The precise filling of the ERO object is needed as we are assuming
that the LSP already exists in data plane and that every .ignalling
relevant info about it is available and accessible to MP in terms of
required LSP parameters to build a RSVP-TE PATH message. After the
collection of all the LSP related information, the ingress node
issues a RSVP-TE PATH message including the Administrative Status
Object with both HANDOVER and REFLECT flags set. The R flag set
assures that also the Resv message will set the H flag.
Upon reception of such RSVP-TE PATH, a node MUST be able to
understand that a MP to CP handover procedure is in progress by
reading the Handover flag.
Either the ingress node of the LSP (upon request from MP) and
intermediate and egress nodes (when receiving a Path message
containing an Administrative Status object with the Handover flag
set) is informed about the fact that a LSP handover procedure is
requested or ongoing. The node assumes that a Data Plane resource
related to the info carried in Path Message is already allocated and
in place. At the receipt of the Path Message the node SHOULD check
the consistence of the actual Data Plane status of such resource:
- If the check goes OK, then a RSVP-TE record for the LSP is created
associating it to the corresponding Data Plane state. The node
accepts all the LSP information carried in PATH (if the node is not
ingress of the LSP, otherwise the information is sent from relevant
MP entity) and stores it in Path State Block. After that, the
procedure goes on as described below.
- If the check goes NOT OK, that is actual Data Plane state for the
indicated resource is different from the one indicated in the Path
message, then:
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
* A PathErr with Path State Removed flag and an error value
indicating 'handover procedure failure' set must be generated
* GMPLS Control Plane state information about it is not accepted
by the handover destination entity
In both cases, no operation is done over Data Plane. In case of
positive check, no change is required at that level since the
connection is already set up and in service. In case of negative
check, a mismatch or some other error has occurred and no LSP control
handover is possible but no operation MUST be performed at the Data
Plane that is the already present cross-connection MUST not be
deleted. The procedure rolls back and information transfer process
from MP to CP at ingress node of the LSP has to be fixed and
reinitiated.
A node participating in a MP to CP handover procedure MUST in fact
keep track of the special 'handover' condition of the LSP involved,
by retaining information that an handover procedure is ongoing.
This is important because during handover procedure no other Data
Plane, Control Plane or Management Plane action has to be taken on
the LSP outside the control of the procedure itself. Such special
state regarding the involved LSP has to be retained until the
procedure itself has correctly ended.
After propagating handover Path, a node MUST wait for a Resv message
including Administrative Status Object with Handover flag set. After
receiving it, the actual migration of LSP information is complete,
the LSP is left completely under control of RSVP- TE within Control
Plane. This means that any memory about the former MP ownership of
the LSP is lost. If a Confirmation message was requested that it is
generated. The handover procedure does not modify the Confirmation
procedure.
In case of failures during the processing of the Resv message the
node that generates the failure sends:
- A PathErr with Path State Removed flag and an error value
indicating 'handover procedure failure' set should be towards
Ingress node. This case is similar to a failure during the Path
processing
- A ResvErr message, with the indication (a special Flag) that an
error occurred during the Resv processing, towards Egress Node.
Nodes processing this RescErr with special flag and Error Value
will delete the Control Plane information associated with the
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
cross-connection and move its ownership under the Management Plane
domain.
Let's consider a LSP over the network, connecting an Ingress node say
I with an Egress node say E. Let's call timeslot A and B the Data
Plane resources referred by control information involved in Handover
in a given node traversed by the LSP. This means that Handover
flagged signaling refers to A-B cross-connection over Data Plane.
The ingress node initiates the procedure upon request from Management
Plane. The way LSP related information is passed from MP to ingress
node is outside the scope of this procedure description.
Intermediates nodes and egress node receive the request for LSP
adoption and the information needed for the operation from Handover
flagged RSVP-TE signaling.
The symbol <----> in table below indicates that the two Timeslots
involved in Data Plane cross-connection are actually cross-connected
over Data Plane, hence Data Plane state corresponds to the indication
provided by LSP data held by MP and in the process of being handed
over to CP.
Case 1| A<---->B |No info yet |MP expects A-B |OK to MP to CP
| | | |LSP handover
----------------------------------------------------------------
Case 2| A<---->C |No info yet |MP expects A-B |NOT OK for MP to
| | | |CP LSP handover
----------------------------------------------------------------
Case 3| No state |No info yet |MP expects A-B |Depends on
| | |locally
| | |configured policy
|---------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:
- LSP info from MP to be used for LSP control handover to RSVP-TE
matches Data Plane state in terms of involved resources
- LSP data record is not owned yet by Control Plane, hence LSP
control is still up to MP
- Checks are OK, so RSVP-TE state (related to involved LSP) is
associated to Data Plane state after Handover flagged signaling
flow (Path/Resv with Handover flag set) has ended.
- At the end of signaling the LSP is completely under CP control.
- No actions are taken in the Data Plane.
Case 2:
- LSP info from MP to be used for LSP control handover to RSVP-TE
doesn't match Data Plane state in terms of involved resources.
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 8]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
- Control Plane does not own LSP data record yet; hence LSP control
is still up to MP.
- Checks are NOT OK. A-B connection is not actually present over
Data Plane and indicated resources are used within other context
(A is x-connected to C).
- RSVP-TE state (related to involved LSP) is not associated to the
cross connection after Handover flagged Path message.
- A PathErr with Path State Removed flag set MUST be sent Upstream.
- LSP ownership remains completely under MP control. Handover has
failed.
- No actions are taken in the Data Plane.
Case 3:
- LSP info from MP to be used for LSP control handover to RSVP-TE
does not exist in the Data Plane in terms of involved resources.
- LSP data record is not owned yet by Control Plane, hence LSP
control is still up to MP
- decision about if the procedure is OK or KO is a local policy.
4.2 CP to MP handover - LSP Ownership Transfer From Control Plane To
Management Plane
Let's now consider the case of LSP Ownership Transfer From Control
Plane To Management Plane. The scenario is still a Data Plane
connection between two nodes acting as ingress and egress for a LSP.
But let's assume in this case that Control Plane has the ownership
and control of the LSP and that we want to hand it over to Management
Plane. This means that at the end of such procedure, the Data Plane
state related to that connection is still untouched, but the LSP
related information record is no more owned by RSVP-TE over Control
Plane.
In other words, after LSP ownership transfer from CP to MP, the LSP
is no more under control of RSVP-TE, which is no more able to "see"
the LSP itself. This Section covers the procedure needed to manage
this procedure as a dual, opposite procedure respect to the one
described in previous section.
The procedure is performed at a signaling level as described in
Section 7.2.1 of the RFC 3473 [5].
At LSP ingress node, relevant MP entity requests the ownership of the
LSP, How this is done is outside the scope of memo. Ingress node and
MP exchange the relevant information for this task and then
propagates it over Control Plane by means of RSVP-TE tear down
signaling flow as detailed below.
Ingress node MUST send out a Path message, with Handover and Reflect
bits in Admin Status set. No action is taken over Data Plane and
Control Plane keeps track of special handover state the LSP is in.
Transit and Egress nodes, upon reception of such handover Path,
propagate it without any Data Plane action, retaining the handover
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 9]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
state information associated to the LSP. After that, every node waits
until the Handover bit is received back in the Resv. Then a PathTear
is issued and the whole LSP information record is cleared from RSVP-
TE data structures. In other words, a normal LSP tear down signaling
is exchanged between nodes traversed by the LSP, but handover flag
set in Path message indicates that no Data Plane action has to
correspond to Control Plane signaling. At the end of handover tear
down signaling flow, the LSP is released from Control Plane point of
view, but its Data Plane state is still unmodified and it is now
owned and controllable by MP.
4.3 CP to MP Handover Procedure Failure Handling
Failures during CP to MP handover procedure MUST be managed at
signaling level as in normal LSP tear down procedure. The only
difference is the handover flag set in Administrative Status Object
inside Path message which MUST be read by receiving node and imposes
that no action has to be made over Data Plane resource whose
corresponding Control Plane record is involved in handover procedure.
5. Discovery Phase
The discovery process starts by the orignating end-point transmitting
a discovery request Notify message out a link as specified by the
cross-connection identified to be part of the converted LSP in the
originating node. The Notify message is forwarded hop-by-hop by
tracing the cross-connect information and identifying the next-hop.
The assumption being made here is that information regarding
individual neighbors is already available.
In case the destination address is not known the RSVP-TE session
destination address MAY not be specified (i.e. set to 0.0.0.0) in the
discovery request Notify message.
Any node that decides to terminate the discovery process will not
forward the Notify message and generate a discovery response Notify
message.
In case of any errors detected which prevent the discovery process to
complete the ERROR_SPEC object in the response Notify message will be
filled in with a failure code else it MUST be set to the success
code. The discovery response message SHOULD be sent hop-by-hop back
to the requestor.
In case the destination address in the request message is 0.0.0.0
then it MUST be filled in by the terminating entity in the response
message SESSION object.
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 10]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
The format of the Notify Message is as follows:
<Notify message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[[ <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>]...]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<ERROR_SPEC>
<discovery info>
<discovery info> ::= <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> <RECOVERY_LABEL>
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY DATA> ]
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTES>]
[ <UPSTREAM_LABEL> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
6. Alternative Way Of Retrieving Information Needed For MP To CP
Handover
An alternative way of getting the LSP related information required
for the MP to CP handover is also proposed in this draft. The
rationale behind this way is that only a minimal set of information
is handed over from MP to CP at LSPs Ingress node. Instead of
collecting within MP all the LSP relevant information down to the
Label level, formatting it to an ERO and passing it to CP, as in
previously described solution, it is possible to start with a minimum
amount of information. At the ingress node, the information needed to
specify the LSP is the outgoing interface ID, upstream label and
downstream label of this interface and the incoming interface ID of
egress node. The remaining information about an existing LSP can then
be collected hop by hop, as the signalling is going on, by looking up
the cross-connection table in data plane at each node along the LSP
path.
Starting from the information available at ingress TNE about the
outgoing interface ID of that ingress node, the incoming interface ID
of next hop can be found by looking up the link resource
table/database in TNE itself. Following the similarity existing
between the MP to CP handover procedure and the Restart Procedure,
the Recovery Label Object MUST be used to carry the downstream label
and the Upstream Label Object MUST be used to carry the upstream
label to the next node.
The Path message is hence built with the Recovery Label Object (RFC
3473[5]) and the Upstream Label Object (RFC 3473[5]), where the
upstream label and downstream label of ingress outgoing interface of
the LSP are included in these two objects. In addition to above
mentioned objects, the Path message MUST include the Administrative
Status Object with HANDOVER flag set, as already defined in previous
chapter for the detailed ERO based way of proceeding. Such handover
Path is sent to the incoming interface of next hop. When this Path
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 11]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
message reaches the second node along the LSP path, the information
about incoming interface ID and the upstream and downstream labels of
this interface is extracted from it and it is used to find next hop
outgoing interface ID and the upstream/ downstream labels by looking
up the data plane cross-connection table. After having determined in
this way the parameters describing the LSPs next hop, the outgoing
Path message to be sent is built replacing the Recovery Label Object
and Upstream Label Object content with the looked-up values of
upstream and downstream labels. Re-iterating this procedure for each
transit node along the LSP path, it is possible to make the handover
Path message reach the egress node, exactly following the LSP that is
in place over data plane. The ERO MAY in this case be included in the
Path message as an optional object, and MAY be filled with the LSP
relevant information down to either the port level with interface ID
or the Label level with upstream and downstream labels. The ERO can
be used to check the consistence of resource in data plane down to
the port level or label level at each intermediate node along the LSP
path.
7. RSVP Message Formats
This memo does not introduce any modification in RSVP messages object
composition.
8. Objects Modification
8.1 Administrative Status Object
This memo introduces a new flag into the Administrative Status
object.
The Admin_Status Object is defined in RFC 3473 [5].
This document uses the H-bit of the Admin_Status object. The bit is
bit number (TBD by IANA).
The format of the Admin_Status Object is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R| Reserved |H|L|I|C|T|A|D|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Handover signaling (H): 1 bit
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 12]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
When set, indicates that a Handover procedure for the transfer of LSP
ownership between Management and Control Planes is ongoing.
The H bit must be used in conjunction with the R flag when is set in
the Path message. This will assures that the Resv message will
maintain the H flag set.
8.2 Error Spec Object
This memo introduces and a new flag and new Error Code/Value into
Error_Spec Object that is defined in RFC 2205 [6].
ERROR_SPEC class = 6.
o IPv4 ERROR_SPEC object: Class = 6, C-Type = 1
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Error Node Address (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Flags | Error Code | Error Value |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Flags assigned values
0x01 = InPlace
0x02 = NotGuilty
Proposed new value
(TBD) = HandOverFailure
The new flag is 'handover procedure failurei' the actual value is (TBD
by IANA). When this flag is set the receiver must delete the control
plane status associated with the LPS and move the ownership of the
cross-connections to the Management Plane.
9. Security Considerations
The procedures described in this document rely completely on RSVP-TE
messages and mechanism. The use of Handover Flag set in Admin Status
Object basically informs the receiving entity that no operations are
to be done over Data Plane as consequence of such special signaling
flow. Using specially flagged signaling messages we want to limit the
function of setup and tear down messages to Control Plane, making
them not effective over related Data Plane resource usage. So, no
additional or special issues are arisen by adopting this procedure,
that aren't already brought up by the use of the same messages,
without handover flag setting, for LSP control. For RSVP-TE Security
please refer to [5].
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 13]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
10. IANA Consideration
IANA has been asked to manage the bit allocations for the
Administrative Status object [5].
This document requires the allocation of the Handover bit: the H-bit.
IANA is requested to allocate a bit for this purpose.
11. References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[2] Mannie, E, 'Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control', RFC4606, August 2006
[3] D. Caviglia, et ali. "GMPLS Requirements for the Conversion
Between Permanent Connections and Switched Connections in a
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Network", draft-
ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-02.txt, February 2008
[4] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003
[5] L. Berger (Ed.) "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003
[6] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin,
"Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1, Functional
Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
12. Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Adrian Farrel for his editorial assistance and
precious advices to prepare this draft for publication. We also wish
to thank Nicola Ciulli that contributed to initial stage of this
draft.
13. Author's Addresses
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 14]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
Phone: +390106003738
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Dino Bramanti
Ericsson
Via Moruzzi 1
C/O Area Ricerca CNR
Pisa, Italy
Email: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Email: danli@huawei.com
Tel: +86-755-28972910
Snigdho Bardalai
Fujitsu Network Communications Inc
2801 Telecom Parkway,
Richardson, Texas 75082
USA
Email: Snigdho.Bardalai@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1-972-479-2951
Shan Zhu
Fujitsu Network Communications Inc.
2801 Telecom Parkway,
Richardson, Texas 75082
USA
Email: Shan.Zhu@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1-972-479-2041
Igor Bryskin
ADVA Optical Networking Inc
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean, VA - 22102
Email: ibryskin@advaoptical.com
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 15]
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-spc-rsvpte-ext-00 February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein 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 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF 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
this 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. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR 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
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Caviglia et al. Expires - September 2008 [Page 16]
