TEAS Working Group Mike Taillon
Internet-Draft Tarek Saad, Ed.
Intended Status: Standards Track Rakesh Gandhi, Ed.
Expires: July 29, 2015 (Cisco Systems, Inc.)
Manav Bhatia
Lizhong Jin
January 25, 2015
Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of
Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs
draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute-01
Abstract
This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extensions to support Fast Reroute
(FRR) of Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These signaling
extensions allow the coordination of bidirectional bypass tunnel
assignment protecting a common facility in both forward and reverse
directions of a co-routed bidirectional LSP. In addition, these
extensions enable the re-direction of bidirectional traffic and
signaling onto bypass tunnels that ensure co-routedness of data and
signaling paths in the forward and reverse directions after FRR to
avoid RSVP soft-state timeout.
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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. 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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Fast Reroute For Unidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . . . . 5
4.1. Merge Point Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Merge Point Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. RRO IPv4/IPv6 Subobject Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Co-ordination . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.4.1. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure . . . . . 6
4.4.2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4.3. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Link Protection Bypass Tunnels for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . 9
5.1. Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Node Protection Bypass Tunnels for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs . . 10
6.1. Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Behavior Post Link Failure To Re-coroute . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
1. Introduction
Packet Switched Capable (PSC) Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnels are
signaled using Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
signaling procedures specified in [RFC3473] for both unidirectional
and bidirectional LSPs. Fast Reroute (FRR) [RFC4090] has been widely
deployed in the packet TE networks today and is preferred for TE
GMPLS tunnels. Using FRR methods also allows to leverage existing
mechanisms for failure detection and restoration in the deployed
networks.
FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] describe the behavior of the
Point of Local Repair (PLR) to reroute traffic and signaling onto the
bypass tunnel in the event of a failure for unidirectional LSPs.
These procedures are applicable to unidirectional protected LSPs
signaled using either RSVP-TE [RFC3209] or GMPLS procedures
[RFC3473], however don't address issues that arise when employing FRR
for bidirectional co-routed GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
When bidirectional bypass tunnels are used to locally protect
bidirectional co-routed GMPLS LSPs, the upstream and downstream PLRs
may independently assign different bidirectional bypass tunnels in
the forward and reverse directions. There is no mechanism in FRR
procedures defined in [RFC4090] to coordinate the bidirectional
bypass tunnel selection between the downstream and upstream PLRs.
When using FRR procedures with bidirectional co-routed GMPLS LSPs, it
is possible in some cases (e.g. when using node protection bypass
tunnels post a link failure event and when RSVP signaling is sent
in-fiber and in-band with data), the RSVP signaling refreshes may
stop reaching some nodes along the primary bidirectional LSP path
after the PLRs complete rerouting traffic and signaling onto the
bypass tunnels. This is caused by the asymmetry of paths that may be
taken by the bidirectional LSP's signaling in the forward and reverse
directions after FRR reroute. In such cases, the RSVP soft-state
timeout eventually causes the protected bidirectional LSP to be
destroyed, and consequently impacts protected traffic flow after FRR.
Protection State Coordination (PSC) Protocol [RFC6378] is applicable
to FRR [RFC4090] for local protection of bidirectional co-routed LSPs
in order to minimize traffic disruptions in both directions.
However, this does not address the above mentioned problem of RSVP
soft-state timeout in control plane.
This document proposes solutions to the above mentioned problems by
providing mechanisms in the control plane to complement FRR
procedures of [RFC4090] in order to maintain the RSVP soft-state for
bidirectional co-routed protected GMPLS LSPs and achieve symmetry in
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
the paths followed by the traffic and signaling in the forward and
reverse directions post FRR. The document further extends RSVP
signaling so that the bidirectional bypass tunnel selected by the
upstream PLR matches the one selected by the downstream PLR node for
a bidirectional co-routed LSP.
Unless otherwise specified in this document, fast reroute procedures
defined in [RFC4090] are not modified for GMPLS signaled tunnels.
2. Terminology
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
[RFC2205] and [RFC3209].
LSR: An MPLS Label-Switch Router.
LSP: An MPLS Label-Switched Path.
Local Repair: Techniques used to repair LSP tunnels quickly when a
node or link along the LSP's path fails.
PLR: Point of Local Repair. The head-end LSR of a bypass tunnel or a
detour LSP.
Protected LSP: An LSP is said to be protected at a given hop if it
has one or multiple associated bypass tunnels originating at that
hop.
Bypass Tunnel: An LSP that is used to protect a set of LSPs passing
over a common facility.
NHOP Bypass Tunnel: Next-Hop Bypass Tunnel. A bypass tunnel that
bypasses a single link of the protected LSP.
NNHOP Bypass Tunnel: Next-Next-Hop Bypass Tunnel. A bypass tunnel
that bypasses a single node of the protected LSP.
MP: Merge Point. The LSR where one or more bypass tunnels rejoin the
path of the protected LSP downstream of the potential failure. The
same LSR may be both an MP and a PLR simultaneously.
Downstream PLR: A PLR that locally detects a fault and reroutes
traffic in the same direction of the protected bidirectional LSP RSVP
Path signaling. A downstream PLR has a corresponding downstream MP.
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
Upstream PLR: A PLR that locally detects a fault and reroutes traffic
in the opposite direction of the protected bidirectional LSP RSVP
Path signaling. An upstream PLR has a corresponding upstream MP.
Point of Remote Repair (PRR): An upstream PLR that triggers reroute
of traffic and signaling based on procedures described in this
document.
3. Fast Reroute For Unidirectional GMPLS LSPs
FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] are applicable to unidirectional
protected LSPs signaled using either RSVP-TE or GMPLS procedures and
are not modified by the extensions proposed in this document. These
FRR procedures also apply to bidirectional associated GMPLS LSPs
where two unidirectional GMPLS LSPs are bound together by using
association signaling [BID-ASSOC].
4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs
This section describes signaling procedures for bidirectional bypass
tunnel assignment for GMPLS signaled PSC bidirectional co-routed TE
LSPs.
4.1. Merge Point Labels
To correctly reroute data traffic over a node protection bypass
tunnel, the downstream and upstream PLRs have to know, in advance,
the downstream and upstream Merge Point (MP) labels so that data in
the forward and reverse directions can be tunneled through the bypass
tunnel post FRR respectively.
[RFC4090] defines procedures for the downstream PLR to obtain the
protected LSP's downstream MP label from recorded labels in the RRO
of the RSVP Resv message received at the downstream PLR.
To obtain the upstream MP label, existing methods [RFC4090] to record
upstream MP label are used in the RRO of the RSVP Path message. The
upstream PLR can obtain the upstream MP label from the recorded label
in the RRO of the received RSVP Path message.
4.2. Merge Point Addresses
To correctly assign a bidirectional bypass tunnel, the downstream and
upstream PLRs have to know, in advance, the downstream and upstream
Merge Point (MP) addresses. [RFC4561] defines procedures for the PLR
to obtain the protected LSP's merge point address in multi-domain
routing networks where a domain is defined as an Interior Gateway
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS).
[RFC4561] defines procedures for the downstream PLR to obtain the
protected LSP's downstream merge point address from the recorded
node-IDs in the RRO of the RSVP Resv message received at the
downstream PLR.
To obtain the upstream MP address, existing methods [RFC4561] to
record upstream MP node-ID are used in the RRO of the RSVP Path
message. The upstream PLR can obtain the upstream MP address from
the recorded node-IDs in the RRO of the received RSVP Path message.
4.3. RRO IPv4/IPv6 Subobject Flags
RRO IPv4/IPv6 subobject flags are defined in [RFC4090], Section 4.4
and are applicable to the FRR procedure for the bidirectional
tunnels.
[RFC4090] defined procedure is used by the downstream PLR
independently to signal the Ipv4/IPv6 subobject flags in the RRO of
the RSVP Path message. Similarly, this procedure is used by the
upstream PLR independently to signal the IPv4/IPv6 subobject flags in
the RRO of the RSVP Resv message.
4.4. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Co-ordination
This document defines signaling procedure and a new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT
subobject in RSVP RECORD_ROUTE object used to co-ordinate the
bidirectional bypass tunnel selection between the downstream and
upstream PLRs.
4.4.1. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure
It is desirable to coordinate the bidirectional bypass tunnel
selected at the downstream and upstream PLRs so that rerouted traffic
and signaling flow on co-routed paths post FRR. To achieve this, a
new RSVP subobject is defined for RECORD_ROUTE object (RRO) that
identifies a bidirectional bypass tunnel that is assigned at a
downstream PLR to protect a bidirectional LSP.
The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added by each downstream PLR in
the RSVP Path RECORD_ROUTE message of the GMPLS signaled
bidirectional primary LSP to record the downstream bidirectional
bypass tunnel assignment. This subobject is sent in the RSVP Path
RECORD_ROUTE message every time the downstream PLR assigns or updates
the bypass tunnel assignment so the upstream PLR may reflect the
assignment too.
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
When the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the RECORD_ROUTE
object:
o The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject MUST be added prior to the node-
ID subobject containing the node's address.
o The Node-ID subobject MUST also be added.
o The IPv4 or IPv6 subobject MUST also be added.
In the absence of BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject, the upstream PLR
SHOULD not assign a bypass tunnel in the reverse direction. This
allows the downstream PLR to always initiate the bypass assignment
and upstream PLR to simply reflect the bypass assignment.
The upstream PLR (downstream MP) that detects a BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT
subobject, whose bypass tunnel and the node-ID subobject when used as
a "bypass tunnel source" terminates locally, assigns the matching
bidirectional bypass tunnel in the reverse direction, and forwards
the RSVP Path message downstream. Otherwise, the bypass tunnel
assignment subobject is simply forwarded downstream along in the RSVP
Path message.
Bypass assignment co-ordination procedure described above can be used
for both one-to-one backup described in Section 3.1 of [RFC4090] and
facility backup described in Section 3.2 of [RFC4090].
4.4.2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Policy
In the case of upstream PLR receiving multiple BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT
subobjects from multiple downstream PLRs, the decision of selecting a
bypass tunnel in the reverse direction can be based on a local
policy, for example, prefer link protection versus node protection
bypass tunnel, or prefer the most upstream versus least upstream node
protection bypass tunnel. However, it is recommended that nodes
along the LSP path employ identical policy for bypass tunnel
assignment.
When different policies are used for bypass tunnel assignment on the
LSP path, it may be possible that some links in the reverse direction
are not assigned bypass protection as shown in examples below.
As shown in Example 1, node A assigns a node protection bypass tunnel
in the forward direction but node C does not assign a node protection
bypass tunnel in the reverse direction for a protected bidirectional
GMPLS LSP. Both nodes B and C assign a link protection bypass
tunnel. As a result, there is no fast reroute protection available
in the reverse direction for link A-B for this LSP.
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
+--->>----+
/ +-+ \
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
A ----- B ----- C
\ /
\ /
+-+
Example 1: An example of different bypass assignment policy
As shown in Example 2, nodes A and C assign a node protection bypass
tunnel for a protected bidirectional GMPLS LSP. Node B assigns a
link protection bypass tunnel but node C does not assign a reverse
link protection bypass tunnel. As a result, there is no fast reroute
protection available in the reverse direction for link A-B for this
LSP.
+--->>----+
/ +-+ \
/ / \ \
/ / \ \
A ----- B ----- C
\ /
\ /
\ /
+---<<----+
Example 2: An example of different bypass assignment policy
4.4.3. BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT Subobject
The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is used to inform the MP of the
bypass tunnel being assigned by the PLR. This can be used to
coordinate the bypass tunnel assignment for the protected LSP by the
downstream and upstream PLRs in the forward and reverse directions
respectively prior or post the failure occurrence. This subobject
SHOULD only be inserted into the RSVP Path message by the downstream
PLR and MUST NOT be changed by downstream LSRs.
The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in RRO has the following format:
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Bypass Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
Downstream Bypass Assignment.
Length
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
Bypass Tunnel ID
The bypass tunnel identifier (16 bits).
5. Link Protection Bypass Tunnels for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs
When a bidirectional link protection bypass tunnel is used, after a
link failure, downstream PLR reroutes RSVP Path and traffic over
bypass tunnel using procedures defined in [RFC4090]. Upstream PLR
may reroute traffic and RSVP Resv upon detecting the link failure or
upon receiving RSVP Path message over a bidirectional bypass tunnel.
This allows both traffic and RSVP signaling to flow on symmetric
paths in the forward and reverse directions of a bidirectional
tunnel.
<-RESV
[R1]---[R2]----[R3]------x-----[R4]-----[R5]
-> PATH \ /
+<<-------->>+
T3
-> PATH
RESV <-
Protected LSP: {R1-R2-R3-R4-R5}
R3's Bypass T3: {R3-R4}
Figure 1: Flow of RSVP signaling post FRR after link failure
Consider the Traffic Engineered (TE) network shown in Figure 1.
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
Assume every link in the network is protected with a link protection
bypass tunnel (e.g. bypass tunnel T3). For the protected
bidirectional co-routed LSP whose (active) head-end is on router R1
and (passive) tail-end is on router R5, each traversed router (a
potential PLR) assigns a link protection bidirectional co-routed
bypass tunnel. Consider a link R3-R4 on the protected LSP path
fails.
5.1. Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR
The downstream PLR R3 and upstream PLR R4 independently trigger fast
reroute procedures to redirect traffic onto bypass tunnels T3 in the
forward and reverse directions. The downstream PLR R3 also reroutes
RSVP Path state onto the bypass tunnel T3 using procedures described
in [RFC4090]. The upstream PLR R4 reroutes RSVP Resv onto the
reverse bypass tunnel T3 upon receiving RSVP Path message over bypass
tunnel T3.
6. Node Protection Bypass Tunnels for Bidirectional GMPLS LSPs
T1
+<<--------->>+
/ \ <-RESV
[R1]---[R2]----[R3]--x--[R4]---[R5]---[R6]
-> PATH \ /
+<<--------->>+
T2
Protected LSP: {R1-R2-R3-R4-R5-R6}
R3's Bypass T2: {R3-R5}
R4's Bypass T1: {R4-R2}
Figure 2: Flow of RSVP signaling post FRR after link failure
Consider the Traffic Engineered (TE) network shown in Figure 2.
Assume every link in the network is protected with a node protection
bypass tunnel. For the protected bidirectional co-routed LSP whose
(active) head-end is on router R1 and (passive) tail-end is on router
R6, each traversed router (a potential PLR) assigns a node protection
bidirectional co-routed bypass tunnel. Consider a link R3-R4 on the
protected LSP path fails.
The proposed solution introduces two phases to invoking FRR
procedures by the PLR post the link failure. The first phase
comprises of FRR procedures to fast reroute data traffic onto bypass
tunnels in the forward and reverse directions. The second phase
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
re-coroutes the data and signaling in the forward and reverse
directions after the first phase.
6.1. Behavior Post Link Failure After FRR
The downstream PLR R3 and upstream PLR R4 independently trigger fast
reroute procedures to redirect traffic onto respective bypass tunnels
T2 and T1 in the forward and reverse directions. The downstream PLR
R3 also reroutes RSVP Path state onto the bypass tunnel T2 using
procedures described in [RFC4090]. Note, at this point, router R4
stops receiving RSVP Path refreshes for the protected bidirectional
LSP while primary protected traffic continues to flow over bypass
tunnels.
6.2. Behavior Post Link Failure To Re-coroute
The downstream Merge Point (MP) R5 that receives rerouted protected
LSP RSVP Path message through the bypass tunnel, in addition to the
regular MP processing defined in [RFC4090], gets promoted to a Point
of Remote Repair (PRR role) and performs the following actions to
re-coroute signaling and data traffic over the same path in both
directions:
o Finds the bypass tunnel in the reverse direction
that terminates on the Downstream PLR R3. Note: the Downstream
PLR R3's address is extracted from the "IPV4 tunnel sender
address" in the SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
o If reverse bypass tunnel is found and the primary LSP traffic
and signaling are not already rerouted over the found bypass
tunnel, the PRR R5 activates FRR reroute procedures to direct
traffic and RSVP Resv over the found bypass tunnel T2 in the
reverse direction.
o If reverse bypass tunnel is not found, the PRR R5 signals a new
reverse bypass tunnel that terminates on the downstream PLR R3
and activates FRR reroute procedures over the new bypass tunnel
to direct traffic and RSVP Resv in the reverse direction.
o If reverse bypass tunnel can not be successfully signaled,
the PRR R5 immediately tears down the primary LSP.
If downstream MP R5 receives multiple RSVP Path messages through
multiple bypass tunnels (e.g. as a result of multiple failures), the
PRR SHOULD identify a bypass tunnel that terminates on the farthest
downstream PLR along the protected LSP path (closest to the primary
bidirectional tunnel head-end) and activate the reroute procedures
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
mentioned above.
<- RESV
[R1]---[R2]----[R3]--X--[R4]---[R5]---[R6]
PATH -> \ /
+<<------->>+
Bypass Tunnel T2
traffic + signaling
Protected LSP: {R1-R2-R3-R4-R5-R6}
R3's Bypass T2: {R3-R5}
Figure 3: Flow of RSVP signaling post FRR after re-corouted
Figure 3 describes the path taken by the traffic and signaling after
completing re-coroute of data and signaling in the forward and
reverse paths described earlier.
The downstream MP MAY optionally support re-corouting in data plane
as follows. If the downstream MP is pre-configured with
bidirectional bypass tunnel, as soon as the MP node receives the
primary tunnel packets on this bypass tunnel, it MAY switch the
upstream traffic on to this bypass tunnel. In order to identify the
primary tunnel packets through this bypass tunnel, Penultimate Hop
Popping (PHP) of the bypass tunnel MUST be disabled. The signaling
procedure described above in this Section will still apply, and MP
checks whether the primary tunnel traffic and signaling is already
rerouted over the found bypass tunnel, if not, perform the above
signaling procedure.
7. Compatibility
New RSVP subobject BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT is defined for RECORD_ROUTE in
this document. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this subobject
will ignore the subobject but forward it without modification.
8. Security Considerations
This document introduces one new RSVP subobject that is carried in a
signaling message. Thus in the event of the interception of a
signaling message, slightly more information about the state of the
network could be deduced than was previously the case. This is
judged to be a very minor security risk as this information is
already available by other means.
Otherwise, this document introduces no additional security
considerations. For general discussion on MPLS and GMPLS related
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920].
9. IANA Considerations
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters. IANA is requested
to assign a value for the new BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the
"Class Type 21 ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record" registry.
This document introduces a new RRO subobject:
+--------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| TBA By IANA | BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject | This document |
+--------------+-----------------------------+---------------+
10. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank George Swallow for his detailed and
useful comments and suggestions. Authors would also like to thank
Nobo Akiya, Loa Andersson and Gregory Mirsky for reviewing this
document.
11. Contributing Authors
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: zali@cisco.com
Frederic Jounay
Orange CH
Email: frederic.jounay@orange.ch
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., 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., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[BID-ASSOC] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and Gandhi, R., Ed., "RSVP-TE
Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs", December
2014.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4561] Vasseur, J.P., Ed., Ali, Z., and S. Sivabalan, "Definition
of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object", RFC
4561, June 2006.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6378] Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., and
A. Fulignoli, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear
Protection", RFC 6378, October 2011.
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft FRR for TE GMPLS LSPs January 25, 2015
Authors' Addresses
Mike Taillon
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: mtaillon@cisco.com
Tarek Saad (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: tsaad@cisco.com
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: rgandhi@cisco.com
Manav Bhatia
India
Email: manav@ionosnetworks.com
Lizhong Jin
Shanghai, China
Email: lizho.jin@gmail.com
Taillon et al. Expires July 29, 2015 [Page 15]