TEAS C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli
Expires: July 3, 2015 Cisco
S. Balls
B. Wright
Metaswitch
December 30, 2014
LSP Attribute in ERO
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-01
Abstract
RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which
apply to the whole of the path of an LSP. This document proposes an
extension to the RSVP ERO and RRO objects to allow it to specify or
record generic attributes which apply to a given hop.
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 July 3, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Subobject presence rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 6
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit
Route object (ERO) and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be
targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163],
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] or
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]. This document
provides a generic mechanism for use by these other documents.
RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP Attributes in
[RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint
extensions this document defines a mechanism to define per-Hop
attributes.
The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information
related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This document does
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
not restrict what that information can be used for. The defined
approach builds on LSP Attributes defined in [RFC5420], and enables
attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route object
(SERO) objects. A new ERO sub-object is defined, containing a list
of generic per-Hop attributes.
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject may be carried in the ERO or SERO
object if they are present. The subobject uses the standard format
of an ERO subobject.
2.1. Encoding
The length is variable and content is a list of HOP Attributes TLVs
defined in Section 2.2. The size of the ERO sub-object limits the
size of the attribute TLV to 250 bytes. The typical size of
currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs applicable to a
specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, Objective Function (OF) and Metric) is
not foreseen to exceed this limit.
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The L, Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] section
4.3.3. The L bit MUST be set to 0. The Type for the ERO Hop
Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA. The attributes TLV are encoded
as defined in section Section 2.2.
Reserved Reserved, MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO and
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO
subobjects.
R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE
semantic defined in [RFC5420]. When set it indicates required hop
attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it
indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in
Section Section 2.3.
Attributes TLVs as defined in Section 2.2 .
2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs
ERO Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document
are encoded within TLVs. One or more TLVs MAY be present in each
object. There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation
SHOULD NOT be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The
TLV format is defined in [RFC5420] section 3.
2.3. Procedures
As described in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] the ERO is managed as a list
where each hop information starts with a subobject identifying an
abstract node or link. The ERO Hop Attributes subobject MUST be
appended after the existing subobjects defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several ERO Hop Attributes subobject MAY be present, for each hop.
If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not
support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in
[RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error
value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
subobject.
When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present
in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420] section
5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV
present in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420]
section 4.2.
A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with an HOP
Attributes TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr
with error code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the
left) to the offending malformed subobject. A processing node MUST
NOT originates a HOP Attributes TLV longer than the ERO HOP
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
Attributes Subobject. The processing of the Hop attribute TLVs
SHOULD be described in the documents defining them.
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject
In some cases it is important to determine if an optional Hop
attribute has been processed by a node.
3.1. Encoding
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject may be carried in the RECORD_ROUTE
object if it is present. The subobject uses the standard format of
an RRO subobject.
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209] section
4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is TBA by IANA.
The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in section Section 2.2.
Reserved Reserved, must be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the RRO and
must be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO
subobjects.
Attributes TLVs The processed or addition HOP Attributes, using the
format defined in Section 2.2 .
3.2. Procedures
3.2.1. Subobject presence rule
The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes
subobject (if present) defined in in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
identifying Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. All such
subobjects MUST be forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs.
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes
To report that an ERO Hop attribute has been considered, or to report
an additional attribute, an LSR MAY add a RRO Hop Attributes
subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to
be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified
in the document that defines the usage of an Hop attribute.
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO
Attributes subobject defined in [RFC5420] section 7.2 by allowing the
node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in this
document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using the
following procedures.
For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
subobject to report processing of those attributes.
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop
Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject.
Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will
drop the information, as described in [RFC3209] section 4.4.5.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. ERO LSP Attribute Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 20
EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry.
This document introduces a new ERO sub-object:
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 2
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 21
ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA Hop Attributes This document, Section 3
4.3. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs
IANA manages the "RSVP-TE PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-
parameters.xml. The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manage the
following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]:
o TLV Type (T-field value)
o TLV Name
o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
We request IANA to add the following information for each TLV in the
RSVP TLV type identifier registry.
o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject
The existing registry is modified for existing TLVs as follows: The
following abbreviation are used in the table:
LSP_A Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
LSP_RA Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
HOP_A Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes No [RFC5420]
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
5. Security Considerations
This document adds new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the
ROUTE_RECORD object carried in RSVP message used in MPLS and GMPLS
signaling. It builds on mechanism defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420]
and does not introduce any new security. The existing security
considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and
[RFC5420] do apply.
As any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this
document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences
on specific node. This may reveal information about the LSP request
and status to anyone with unauthorized access. The mechanism
described in this document do not contribute to this issue, which can
be only resolved by encrypting the content of the whole signaling
message.
In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO may reveal
details about the node that the operator wishes to remains
confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO
subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is recommended that
domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes
into consideration.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and
Attila Takacs for inspiring this
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]. The authors also thanks Dirk
Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the
documents (version -00 up to -02).
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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.
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control
of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-
TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]
Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric
Bound", draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-
bound-05 (work in progress), February 2014.
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling]
Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-09
(work in progress), September 2014.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb]
Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft-
ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-01 (work in progress), December
2014.
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]
Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-
hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
April 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor)
Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
USA
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Giovanni Martinelli
Cisco
via Philips 12
Monza 20900
IT
Phone: +39 039 209 2044
Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters December 2014
Steve Balls
Metaswitch
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
GB
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com
Ben Wright
Metaswitch
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
GB
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com
Margaria, et al. Expires July 3, 2015 [Page 11]