TEAS Working Group T. Saad, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Gandhi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Z. Ali
Expires: March 8, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency
Y. Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
September 4, 2016
RSVP Extensions For Re-optimization of Loosely Routed
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-06
Abstract
Re-optimization of a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered
(TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) may be triggered based on the need to
re-optimize an individual source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSP or a set of
S2L sub-LSPs, both using Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization method, or
the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree using the Make-Before-Break (MBB) method.
Mechanisms that facilitate path re-optimization of loosely routed
Point-to-Point (P2P) TE LSPs include a method for the ingress node to
trigger a new path re-evaluation request and a method for the mid-
point node to notify availability of a preferred path. This document
discusses the application of these mechanisms to the re-optimization
of loosely routed P2MP-TE LSPs, identifies issues in doing so and
proposes procedures to address them.
This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) signaling
extensions to allow the ingress node of a loosely routed P2MP-TE LSP
to request the re-evaluation of the entire LSP tree, and a mid-point
node to notify to the ingress node that a preferable tree exists for
the entire P2MP-TE LSP. For re-optimizing a group of S2L sub-LSPs in
a tree using the Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization method, an S2L sub-
LSP descriptor list can be used to signal one or more S2L sub-LSPs in
an RSVP message. This RSVP message may need to be fragmented when
large number of S2L sub-LSPs are added to the descriptor list. This
document introduces the notion of a fragment identifier to help
recipient nodes unambiguously reconstruct the fragmented S2L sub-LSP
descriptor list.
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
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."
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Existing Mechanism For Tree-Based P2MP-TE LSP
Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Existing Mechanism For Sub-Group-Based P2MP-TE LSP
Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Key Word Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Signaling Procedure For Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP
Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Tree-Based Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Using Fragment
Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Message and Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code . . . . 10
4.3. Fragment Identifier For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor . . . . . . 11
5. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code . . . . 13
6.3. Fragment Identifier For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
1. Introduction
This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC2205] [RFC3209] signaling extensions for
re-optimizing loosely routed Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC4875] in a
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
network.
A P2MP-TE LSP is comprised of one or more source-to-leaf (S2L)
sub-LSPs. A loosely routed P2MP-TE S2L sub-LSP is defined as one
whose path does not contain the full explicit route identifying each
node along the path to the egress node at the time of its signaling
by the ingress node. Such an S2L sub-LSP is signaled with no
Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC3209], or with an ERO that contains
at least one loose hop, or with an ERO that contains an abstract node
which identifies more than one node. This is often the case with
inter-domain P2MP-TE LSPs where Path Computation Element (PCE) is not
used [RFC5440].
As per [RFC4875], an ingress node may re-optimize the entire P2MP-TE
LSP by re-signaling all its S2L sub-LSP(s) or may re-optimize
individual or group of S2L sub-LSP(s) i.e. individual or group of
destination(s).
[RFC4736] defines RSVP signaling extensions for re-optimizing loosely
routed Point-to-Point (P2P) TE LSP(s) as follows:
o A mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) sends a solicited
or unsolicited PathErr with the Notify error code (25 as defined in
[RFC3209]) with sub-code 6 to indicate "Preferable Path Exists" to
the ingress node.
o An ingress node triggers a path re-evaluation request at all
mid-point LSR(s) that expands loose next-hop(s) by setting the "Path
Re-evaluation Request" flag (0x20) in SESSION_ATTRIBUTES Object in
the Path message.
o The ingress node upon receiving this PathErr either solicited or
unsolicited initiates re-optimization of the LSP with a different
LSP-ID.
The following sections discuss the issues that may arise when
applying the mechanisms defined in [RFC4736] for re-optimizing
loosely routed P2MP-TE LSPs.
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
1.1. Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree
An example of a loosely routed inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree is shown
in Figure 1. In this example, the P2MP-TE LSP tree consists of 3 S2L
sub-LSPs, to destinations (i.e. leafs) R10, R11 and R12 from the
ingress node (i.e. source) R1. Nodes R2 and R5 are branch nodes and
nodes ABR3, ABR4, ABR7, ABR8 and ABR9 are area border routers. For
the S2L sub-LSP to destination R10, nodes ABR3, ABR7 and R10 are
defined as loose hops. For the S2L sub-LSP to destination R11, nodes
ABR3, ABR8 and R11 are defined as loose hops. For the S2L sub-LSP to
destination R12, nodes ABR4, ABR9 and R12 are defined as loose hops.
<--area1--><--area0--><-area2->
ABR7---R10
/
/
ABR3---R5
/ \
/ \
R1---R2 ABR8---R11
\
\
ABR4---R6
\
\
ABR9---R12
Figure 1: An Example of Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree
1.2. Existing Mechanism For Tree-Based P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization
Mechanisms defined in [RFC4736] can be easily applied to trigger the
re-optimization of individual or group of S2L sub-LSP(s). However,
to apply these [RFC4736] mechanisms for triggering the
re-optimization of an entire P2MP-TE LSP tree, an ingress node needs
to send path re-evaluation requests on all (typically 100s of) S2L
sub-LSPs and the mid-point LSR needs to send notify PathErrs for all
S2L sub-LSPs. Such mechanisms may lead to the following issues:
o A mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) may have to
accumulate the received path re-evaluation request(s) for all S2L
sub-LSPs (e.g. by using a wait timer) and interpret them as a
re-optimization request for the whole P2MP-TE LSP tree. Otherwise, a
mid-point LSR may prematurely notify "Preferable Path Exists" for one
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
or a sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs.
o Similarly, the ingress node may have to heuristically determine
when to perform entire P2MP-TE LSP tree re-optimization and when to
perform S2L sub-LSP re-optimization. For example, an implementation
may choose to delay re-optimization long enough to allow all
PathErr(s) to be received. Such timer-based procedures may produce
undesired results.
o The ingress node that receives (un)solicited PathErr
notification(s) for individual S2L sub-LSP(s), may prematurely start
re-optimizing the sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs. However, as mentioned in
[RFC4875] Section 14.2, such sub-group based re-optimization
procedure may result in data duplication that can be avoided if the
entire P2MP-TE LSP tree is re-optimized using a different LSP-ID,
especially if the ingress node eventually receives PathErr
notifications for all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP tree.
In order to address above mentioned issues and to align
re-optimization of P2MP-TE LSP with P2P LSP [RFC4736], there is a
need for a mechanism to trigger re-optimization of the LSP tree by
re-signaling all S2L sub-LSPs with a different LSP-ID. To meet this
requirement, this document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions for
the ingress node to trigger the re-evaluation of the P2MP LSP tree on
every hop that has a next-hop defined as a loose or abstract hop for
one or more S2L sub-LSP path, and a mid-point LSR to signal to the
ingress node that a preferable LSP tree exists (compared to the
current path) or that the whole P2MP-TE LSP must be re-optimized
(because of maintenance required on the TE LSP path).
1.3. Existing Mechanism For Sub-Group-Based P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization
Applying the procedures discussed in RFC4736 in conjunction with the
Sub-Group-Based Re-Optimization procedures ([RFC4875], Section 14.2),
an ingress node MAY trigger path re-evaluation requests for a set of
S2L sub-LSPs in a single Path message using S2L sub-LSP descriptor
list. Similarly, a mid-point LSR may send a PathErr message (with
Error code 25, sub-code 6) containing a list of S2L sub-LSPs
transiting through the LSR using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list to
notify the ingress node. This method can be used for re-optimizing a
sub-group of S2L sub-LSPs within an LSP tree using the same LSP-ID.
This method can alleviate the scale issue associated with sending
RSVP messages for individual S2L sub-LSPs. However, this procedure
can lead to the following issues when used to re-optimize the LSP
tree:
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
o Path message that is intended to carry the path re-evaluation
request as defined in [RFC4736] with a full list of S2L sub-LSPs in
S2L sub-LSPs descriptor list will be decomposed at branching LSRs,
and only a subset of the S2L sub-LSPs that are routed over the same
next-hop will be added in the descriptor list of the Path message
propagated to downstream mid-point LSRs. Consequently, when a
preferable path exists at such mid-point LSRs, the PathErr can only
include the sub-set of S2L sub-LSPs traversing the LSR. In this
case, at the ingress node there is no way to distinguish which mode
of re-optimization to invoke, i.e. sub-group based re-optimization
using the same LSP-ID or tree based re-optimization using a different
LSP-ID.
o An LSR may fragment a large RSVP message (when a combined message
may not be large enough to fit all S2L sub-LSPs). In this case, the
ingress node may receive multiple PathErrs with sub-sets of S2L sub-
LSPs in each (due to either the combined Path message getting
fragmented or the combined PathErr message getting fragmented) and
would require additional logic to determine how to re-optimize the
LSP tree (for example, waiting for some time to aggregate all
possible PathErr messages before taking an action). When fragmented,
RSVP messages may arrive out of order, and the receiver has no way of
knowing the beginning and end of the S2L sub-LSP list.
In order to address the above mentioned issues caused by RSVP message
fragmentation, this document proposes the use of fragment identifier
for the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list when combining large number of
S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP message.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Key Word Definitions
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].
2.2. Abbreviations
ABR: Area Border Router.
AS: Autonomous System.
ERO: Explicit Route Object.
LSR: Label Switching Router.
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
TE LSP ingress: Head-end/source of the TE LSP.
TE LSP egress: Tail-end/destination of the TE LSP.
2.3. Terminology
Domain: Routing or administrative domain such as an IGP area and an
autonomous system.
Interior Gateway Protocol Area (IGP Area): OSPF area or IS-IS level.
Inter-area TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least two
different IGP areas.
Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose path transits across at least
two different Autonomous Systems (ASes) or sub-ASes (BGP
confederations).
S2L sub-LSP: Source-to-leaf sub Label Switched Path.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in
[RFC4875] and [RFC4736].
3. Signaling Procedure For Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization
3.1. Tree-Based Re-optimization
To evaluate an entire P2MP-TE LSP tree on mid-point LSRs that expand
loose next-hop(s), an ingress node MAY send a Path message with
"P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" defined in this document. The
ingress node SHOULD select one of the S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP
tree transiting a mid-point LSR to trigger the re-evaluation request.
The ingress node MAY send a re-evaluation request to each border LSR
on the path of the LSP tree.
A mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) for one or more S2L
sub-LSP path(s) SHOULD do the following upon receiving a Path message
with the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" bit set:
o The mid-point LSR SHOULD check for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree
by re-evaluating all S2L sub-LSP(s) that are expanded paths of the
loose next-hops of the P2MP-TE LSP.
o If a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, the mid-point LSR MAY
send an RSVP PathErr to the ingress node with Error code 25 (Notify
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
Error) defined in [RFC3209] and sub-code "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree
Exists" defined in this document. The mid-point LSR, in turn, SHOULD
NOT propagate the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" bit in
subsequent RSVP Path messages sent downstream for the re-evaluated
P2MP-TE LSP.
o If no preferable tree for P2MP-TE LSP can be found, the
recommended mode is that the mid-point LSR that expands loose next-
hop(s) for one or more S2L sub-LSP path(s) SHOULD propagate the
request downstream by setting the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation
Request" bit in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object of RSVP Path message.
A mid-point LSR MAY send an unsolicited PathErr message with
"Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" PathErr to the ingress node to
notify of a preferred P2MP-TE LSP tree when it determines it exists.
In this case, the mid-point LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) for
one or more S2L sub-LSP path(s) SHOULD select one of the S2L sub-
LSP(s) of the P2MP-TE LSP tree to send this PathErr message to the
ingress node.
The sending of an RSVP PathErr Notify message "Preferable P2MP-TE
Tree Exists" to the ingress node SHALL notify the ingress node of the
existence of a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree and upon receiving this
PathErr, the ingress node MAY trigger re-optimization of the LSP
using a different LSP-ID.
3.2. Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Using Fragment Identifier
It might be preferable, as per [RFC4875], to re-optimize the entire
P2MP-TE LSP by re-signaling all of its S2L sub-LSP(s) (Section 14.1,
"Make-before-Break") or to re-optimize individual or group of S2L
sub-LSP(s) i.e. individual or group of destination(s) (Section 14.2
"Sub-Group-Based Re-Optimization" in [RFC4875]), both using the same
LSP-ID. For loosely routed S2L sub-LSPs, this can be achieved by
using the procedures defined in [RFC4736] to re-optimize one or more
S2L sub-LSP(s) of the P2MP-TE LSP.
An ingress node may trigger path re-evaluation requests using the
procedures defined in [RFC4736] for a set of S2L sub-LSPs by
combining multiple Path messages using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list
[RFC4875]. An S2L sub-LSP descriptor list is created using a series
of S2L_SUB_LSP Objects as defined in [RFC4875]. Similarly, a mid-
point LSR may send a PathErr message (with Error code 25, sub-code 6,
Preferable Path Exists) containing a list of S2L sub-LSPs transiting
through the LSR using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list to notify the
ingress node of preferable paths available.
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
As per [RFC4875] (Section 5.2.3, "Transit Fragmentation of Path State
Information"), when a Path message is not large enough to fit all S2L
sub-LSPs in the descriptor list, an LSR may fragment the message. In
this case, the LSR MAY add S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object defined in this
document in the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list to be able to rebuild the
list from the received fragments that may arrive out of order.
The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object defined in this document is optional.
However, a node MUST add the S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object for each
fragment in S2L sub-LSP descriptor list when the RSVP message needs
to be fragmented.
A mid-point LSR SHOULD wait to accumulate all S2L sub-LSPs before
attempting to re-evaluate preferable path when a Path message for
"Path Re-evaluation Request" is received with S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG
Object. If a mid-point LSR does not receive all fragments of the
Path message (for example, when fragments are lost), it SHOULD
trigger re-evaluation of all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP
transiting on the node. An ingress node SHOULD wait to accumulate
all S2L sub-LSPs before attempting to trigger re-optimization when a
PathErr message with "Preferable Path Exists" is received with a
S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object. If an ingress node does not receive all
fragments of the PathErr message (for example, when fragments are
lost), it SHOULD trigger re-optimization of all S2L sub-LSPs of the
P2MP-TE LSP transiting on the mid-point node that had sent the
PathErr message.
The new object S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG defined in this document has a wider
applicability other than the P2MP-TE LSP re-optimization but it is
outside the scope of this document.
4. Message and Object Definitions
4.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag
In order to trigger a tree re-evaluation request, a new flag is
defined in Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object
[RFC5420] as follows:
Bit Number (to be assigned by IANA): P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation
Request flag
The "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag is meaningful in a Path
message of a P2MP-TE S2L sub-LSP and is inserted by the ingress node.
4.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
In order to indicate to an ingress node that a preferable P2MP-TE LSP
tree exists, the following new sub-code for PathErr code 25 (Notify
Error) [RFC3209] is defined:
Sub-code (to be assigned by IANA): Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists
sub-code
When a preferable path for P2MP-TE LSP tree exists, the mid-point LSR
sends a solicited or unsolicited "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists"
PathErr notification to the ingress node of the P2MP-TE LSP.
4.3. Fragment Identifier For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor
An S2L_SUB_LSP Object [RFC4875] identifies a particular S2L sub-LSP
belonging to the P2MP-TE LSP. An S2L sub-LSP descriptor list is
created using a series of S2L_SUB_LSP Objects as defined in
[RFC4875]. The RSVP message may need to be fragmented due to large
number of S2L sub-LSPs added in the descriptor list, and such
fragments may be received our of order. To be able to rebuild the
fragmented S2L sub-LSP descriptor list correctly, the following new
type is defined for the S2L_SUB_LSP Object [RFC4875] to identify the
fragments.
S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG: Class-Num 50, C-Type TBA3 by IANA
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Length (12 bytes) | Class-Num 50 | C-Type TBA3 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Reserved | Fragment ID |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Fragments Total | Fragment Number |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Fragment ID: 16-bit integer in the range of 1 to 65535. This value
is incremented for each new RSVP message that needs to be
fragmented. The scope of the fragment ID is limited to the RSVP
message type (e.g. Path) carrying the fragment. In other words,
fragment IDs do not have any correlation between different RSVP
message types (e.g. Path and PathErr).
Fragments Total: 16-bit integer in the range of 1 to 65535. This
value indicates the number of fragments sent for the given RSVP
message.
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
Fragment Number: 16-bit integer in the range of 1 to 65535. This
value indicates the position of this fragment in the given RSVP
message.
The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object is added before adding the
S2L_SUB_LSP_IPv4 or S2L_SUB_LSP_IPv6 Object in the fragmented RSVP
message.
5. Compatibility
The LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object has been defined in [RFC5420] with class
numbers in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with
non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this
extension will ignore the new flag defined in this document but
forward it without modification.
The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object has been defined with class numbers in
the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non-supporting
nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting new S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG
Object will ignore them but forward it without modification.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
6.1. P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag
IANA maintains a name space for RSVP-TE TE parameters "Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters). From the
registries in this name space "Attribute Flags", allocation of new
flag is requested (Section 4.1).
The following new flag is defined for the Attributes Flags TLV in the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]. The numeric value is to be assigned
by IANA.
o P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag:
+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| Bit No | Attribute | Carried | Carried | Carried | Reference |
| | Flag Name | in Path | in Resv | in RRO | |
+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
| TBA1 by| P2MP-TE Tree | Yes | No | No | This |
| IANA | Re-evaluation | | | | document |
+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+------------+
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
6.2. Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Path Error Sub-code
IANA maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the
sub-registry "Sub-Codes - 25 Notify Error" in registry "Error Codes
and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes", allocation of a new
error code is requested (Section 4.2).
As defined in [RFC3209], the Error Code 25 in the ERROR SPEC Object
corresponds to a Notify Error PathErr. This document adds a new
sub-code for this PathErr as follows:
o Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists sub-code:
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Sub-code | Sub-code | PathErr | PathErr | Reference |
| value | Description | Code | Name | |
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
| TBA2 by | Preferable P2MP-TE | 25 | Notify | This |
| IANA | Tree Exists | | Error | document |
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
6.3. Fragment Identifier For S2L sub-LSP Descriptor
IANA maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the
sub-registry "Class Types or C-Types 50 S2L_SUB_LSP" in registry
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types", allocation of new
C-Types is requested (Section 4.3).
As defined in [RFC4875], S2L_SUB_LSP Object is defined with
Class-Number 50 to identify a particular S2L sub-LSP belonging to the
P2MP-TE LSP. This document adds one new object type for this object
as follows:
o S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object type:
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| C-Type value | Description | Reference |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| TBA3 by IANA | S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG | This document |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
7. Security Considerations
This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow an
ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the
entire LSP tree, and for a mid-point LSR to notify the ingress node
of the existence of a preferable tree by sending a PathErr. As per
[RFC4736], in the case of a P2MP-TE LSP S2L sub-LSP spanning multiple
domains, it may be desirable for a mid-point LSR to modify the RSVP
PathErr message defined in this document to preserve confidentiality
across domains. Furthermore, an ingress node may decide to ignore
this PathErr message coming from a mid-point LSR residing in another
domain. Similarly, a mid-point LSR may decide to ignore the P2MP-TE
tree re-evaluation request originating from another ingress domain.
This document also defines fragment identifier for the S2L sub-LSP
descriptor list when combining large number of S2L sub-LSPs in an
RSVP message and the message needs to be fragmented. The
introduction of the fragment identifier, by itself, introduce no
additional information to signaling. For a general discussions on
MPLS and GMPLS related security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security
framework [RFC5920].
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y. and Zhang, R, "Reoptimization of
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)", RFC 4736,
November 2006.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and Ayyangar,
A., "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment
Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
March 2009.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs September 4, 2016
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Sriganesh Kini, Curtis
Villamizar, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Nobo Akiya and Vishnu Pavan Beeram
for reviewing this document and providing many useful comments and
suggestions. The authors would also like to thank Ling Zeng with
Cisco Systems for implementing mechanisms defined in this document.
Author's Addresses
Tarek Saad (editor)
Cisco Systems
EMail: tsaad@cisco.com
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems
EMail: rgandhi@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems
EMail: zali@cisco.com
Robert H. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency
EMail: robert.h.venator.civ@mail.mil
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com
Saad, et al. Expires March 8, 2017 [Page 16]
