[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 rfc4124                            
                                            Francois Le Faucheur, Editor
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.



IETF Internet Draft
Expires: March, 2004
Document: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-05.txt         September, 2003



                   Protocol extensions for support of
                Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering


Status of this Memo

  This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
  all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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.


Abstract

  This document specifies the IGP and RSVP-TE signaling extensions
  (beyond those already specified for existing MPLS Traffic
  Engineering) for support of Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
  (DS-TE). These extensions address the Requirements for DS-TE spelt
  out in [DSTE-REQ].


Summary for Sub-IP related Internet Drafts

  RELATED DOCUMENTS:
  draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-07.txt

  WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE SUB-IP WORK
  This ID is a Working Group document of the TE Working Group.

  WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG(s)


Le Faucheur, et. al                                                  1










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  TEWG is responsible for specifying protocol extensions for support of
  Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering.

  JUSTIFICATION
  The TEWG charter states that "This will entail verification and
  review of the Diffserv requirements in the WG Framework document and
  initial specification of how these requirements can be met through
  use and potentially expansion of existing protocols."
  In line with this, the TEWG is progressing this Working Group
  document specifying protocol extensions for Diff-Serv-aware MPLS
  Traffic Engineering.


Specification of Requirements

  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.      Introduction

  [DSTE-REQ] presents the Service Providers requirements for support of
  Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE). This includes the
  fundamental requirement to be able to enforce different bandwidth
  constraints for different classes of traffic.

  This document specifies the IGP and RSVP-TE signaling extensions
  (beyond those already specified for existing MPLS Traffic Engineering
  [OSPF-TE][ISIS-TE][RSVP-TE]) for support of the DS-TE requirements
  spelt out in [DSTE-REQ] including environments relying on distributed
  Constraint Based Routing (e.g. path computation involving Head-end
  LSRs).

  [DSTE-REQ] provides a definition and examples of Bandwidth Constraint
  Models. The present document does not specify nor assume a particular
  Bandwidth Constraints model. Specific Bandwidth Constraints model are
  outside the scope of this document. While the extensions for DS-TE
  specified in this document may not be sufficient to support all the
  conceivable Bandwidth Constraints models, they do support the
  "Russian Dolls" Model specified in [DSTE-RDM] and the "Maximum
  Allocation" Model specified in [DSTE-MAM].


2.      Contributing Authors

  This document was the collective work of several. The text and
  content of this document was contributed by the editor and the co-
  authors listed below. (The contact information for the editor appears
  in Section 17, and is not repeated below.)


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  2










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  Jim Boyle                            Kireeti Kompella
  Protocol Driven Networks, Inc.       Juniper Networks, Inc.
  1381 Kildaire Farm Road #288         1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
  Cary, NC 27511, USA                  Sunnyvale, CA 94099
  Phone: (919) 852-5160                Email: kireeti@juniper.net
  Email: jboyle@pdnets.com

  William Townsend                     Thomas D. Nadeau
  Tenor Networks                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
  100 Nagog Park                       250 Apollo Drive
  Acton, MA 01720                      Chelmsford, MA 01824
  Phone: +1-978-264-4900               Phone: +1-978-244-3051
  Email:                               Email: tnadeau@cisco.com
  btownsend@tenornetworks.com

  Darek Skalecki
  Nortel Networks
  3500 Carling Ave,
  Nepean K2H 8E9
  Phone: +1-613-765-2252
  Email: dareks@nortelnetworks.com



3.      Definitions

  For readability a number of definitions from [DSTE-REQ] are repeated
  here:

  Traffic Trunk: an aggregation of traffic flows of the same class
  [i.e. which are to be treated equivalently from the DS-TE
  perspective] which are placed inside a Label Switched Path.

  Class-Type (CT): the set of Traffic Trunks crossing a link that is
  governed by a specific set of Bandwidth constraints. CT is used for
  the purposes of link bandwidth allocation, constraint based routing
  and admission control. A given Traffic Trunk belongs to the same CT
  on all links.

  TE-Class: A pair of:
             i. a Class-Type
            ii. a preemption priority allowed for that Class-Type. This
                means that an LSP transporting a Traffic Trunk from
                that Class-Type can use that preemption priority as the
                set-up priority, as the holding priority or both.

  Definitions for a number of MPLS terms are not repeated here. Those
  can be found in [MPLS-ARCH].


4.      Configurable Parameters


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  3










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  This section only discusses the differences with the configurable
  parameters supported for MPLS Traffic Engineering as per [TE-REQ],
  [ISIS-TE], [OSPF-TE], and [RSVP-TE]. All other parameters are
  unchanged.

4.1.    Link Parameters

4.1.1.  Bandwidth Constraints (BCs)

  [DSTE-REQ] states that "Regardless of the Bandwidth Constraint Model,
  the DS-TE solution MUST allow support for up to 8 BCs."

  For DS-TE, the existing "Maximum Reservable link bandwidth" parameter
  is retained but its semantic is generalized and interpreted as the
  aggregate bandwidth constraints across all Class-Types, so that,
  independently of the Bandwidth Constraint Model in use:
    SUM (Reserved (CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth,
    where the SUM is across all values of "c" in the range 0 <= c <= 7.

  Additionally, on every link, a DS-TE implementation MUST provide for
  configuration of up to 8 additional link parameters which are the
  eight potential Bandwidth Constraints i.e. BC0, BC1 , ... BC7. The
  LSR MUST interpret these Bandwidth Constraints in accordance with the
  supported Bandwidth Constraint Model (i.e. what bandwidth constraint
  applies to what Class-Type and how).

  Where the Bandwidth Constraint Model imposes some relationship among
  the values to be configured for these Bandwidth Constraints, the LSR
  MUST enforce those at configuration time. For example, when the
  "Russian Doll" Bandwidth Constraints Model ([DSTE-RDM]) is used, the
  LSR must ensure that BCi is configured smaller or equal to BCj, where
  i is greater than j, and ensure that BC0 is equal to the Maximum
  Reservable Bandwidth. As another example, when the Maximum Allocation
  Model ([DSTE-MAM]) is used, the LSR must ensure that all BCi are
  configured smaller or equal to the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth.

4.1.2.  Overbooking

  DS-TE enables a network administrator to apply different overbooking
  (or underbooking) ratios for different CTs.

  The principal methods to achieve this are the same as historically
  used in existing TE deployment, which are :
  (i)    To take into account the overbooking/underbooking ratio
          appropriate for the OA/CT associated with the considered LSP
          at the time of establishing the bandwidth size of a given
          LSP. We refer to this method as the "LSP Size Overbooking
          method".  AND/OR
  (ii)   To take into account the overbooking/underbooking ratio at
          the time of configuring the Maximum Reservable
          Bandwidth/Bandwidth Constraints and use values which are
          larger(overbooking) or smaller(underbooking) than actually

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  4










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

          supported by the link. We refer to this method as the "Link
          Size Overbooking method".

  The "LSP Size Overbooking" method and the "Link size overbooking"
  method are expected to be sufficient in many DS-TE environments and
  require no additional configurable parameters. Other overbooking
  methods may involve such additional configurable parameters but are
  beyond the scope of this document.

4.2.    LSR Parameters

4.2.1.  TE-Class Mapping

  In line with [DSTE-REQ], the preemption attributes defined in [TE-
  REQ] are retained with DS-TE and applicable within, and across, all
  Class Types. The preemption attributes of setup priority and holding
  priority retain existing semantics, and in particular these semantics
  are not affected by the LSP Class Type. This means that if LSP1
  contends with LSP2 for resources, LSP1 may preempt LSP2 if LSP1 has a
  higher set-up preemption priority (i.e. lower numerical priority
  value) than LSP2 holding preemption priority regardless of LSP1 CT
  and LSP2 CT.

  DS-TE LSRs MUST allow configuration of a TE-Class mapping whereby the
  Class-Type and preemption level are configured for each of (up to) 8
  TE-Classes.

  This mapping is referred to as :

       TE-Class[i]  <-->  < CTc , preemption p >

  Where 0 <= i <= 7, 0 <= c <= 7, 0 <= p <= 7

  Two TE-Classes must not be identical (i.e. have both the same Class-
  Type and the same preemption priority).

  There are no other restrictions on how any of the 8 Class-Types can
  be paired up with any of the 8 preemption priorities to form a TE-
  class. In particular, one given preemption priority can be paired up
  with two (or more) different Class-Types to form two (or more) TE-
  classes. Similarly, one Class-Type can be paired up with two (or
  more) different preemption priorities to form two (or more) TE-
  Classes. Also, there is no mandatory ordering relationship between
  the TE-Class index (i.e. "i" above) and the Class-Type (i.e. "c"
  above) or the preemption priority (i.e. "p" above) of the TE-Class.

  Where the network administrator uses less than 8 TE-Classes, the DS-
  TE LSR MUST allow remaining ones to be configured as "Unused". Note
  that "Configuring all the 8 TE-Classes as "Unused" effectively
  results in disabling TE/DS-TE since no TE/DS-TE LSP can be
  established (nor even configured, since as described in section 4.3.3


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  5










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  below, the CT and preemption priorities configured for an LSP must
  form one of the configured TE-Classes)".

  To ensure coherent DS-TE operation, the network administrator MUST
  configure exactly the same TE-Class Mapping on all LSRs of the DS-TE
  domain.

  When the TE-class mapping needs to be modified in the DS-TE domain,
  care must be exercised during the transient period of reconfiguration
  during which some DS-TE LSRs may be configured with the new TE-class
  mapping while others are still configured with the old TE-class
  mapping. It is recommended that active tunnels do not use any of the
  TE-classes which are being modified during such a transient
  reconfiguration period.

4.3.    LSP Parameters

4.3.1.  Class-Type

  With DS-TE, LSRs MUST support, for every LSP, an additional
  configurable parameter which indicates the Class-Type of the Traffic
  Trunk transported by the LSP.

  There is one and only one Class-Type configured per LSP.

  The configured Class-Type indicates, in accordance with the supported
  Bandwidth Constraint Model, what are the Bandwidth Constraints that
  MUST be enforced for that LSP.

4.3.2.  Setup and Holding Preemption Priorities

  As per existing TE, DS-TE LSRs MUST allow every DS-TE LSP to be
  configured with a setup and holding priority, each with a value
  between 0 and 7.

4.3.3.  Class-Type/Preemption Relationship

  With DS-TE, the preemption priority configured for the setup priority
  of a given LSP and the Class-Type configured for that LSP  must be
  such that, together, they form one of the (up to) 8 TE-Classes
  configured in the TE-Class Mapping specified is section 4.2.1 above.

  The preemption priority configured for the holding priority of a
  given LSP and the Class-Type configured for that LSP must also be
  such that, together, they form one of the (up to) 8 TE-Classes
  configured in the TE-Class Mapping specified is section 4.2.1 above.

  The LSR MUST enforce these two rules at configuration time.

4.4.    Examples of Parameters Configuration



 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  6










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  For illustrative purposes, we now present a few examples of how these
  configurable parameters may be used. All these examples assume that
  different bandwidth constraints need to be enforced for different
  sets of Traffic Trunks (e.g. for Voice and for Data) so that two, or
  more, Class-Types need to be used.

4.4.1.  Example 1

  The Network Administrator of a first network using two Class Types
  (CT1 for Voice and CT0 for Data), may elect to configure the
  following TE-Class Mapping to ensure that Voice LSPs are never driven
  away from their shortest path because of Data LSPs:

       TE-Class[0]  <-->  < CT1 , preemption 0 >
       TE-Class[1]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption 1 >
       TE-Class[i]  <-->  unused,   for 2 <= i <= 7

  Voice LSPs would then be configured with:
        - CT=CT1, set-up priority =0, holding priority=0

  Data LSPs would then be configured with:
        - CT=CT0, set-up priority =1, holding priority=1

  A new Voice LSP would then be able to preempt an existing Data LSP in
  case they contend for resources. A Data LSP would never preempt a
  Voice LSP. A Voice LSP would never preempt another Voice LSP. A Data
  LSP would never preempt another Data LSP.

4.4.2.  Example 2

  The Network Administrator of another network may elect to configure
  the following TE-Class Mapping in order to optimize global network
  resource utilization by favoring placement of large LSPs closer to
  their shortest path:

       TE-Class[0]  <-->  < CT1 , preemption 0 >
       TE-Class[1]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption 1 >
       TE-Class[2]  <-->  < CT1 , preemption 2 >
       TE-Class[3]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption 3 >
       TE-Class[i]  <-->  unused,   for 4 <= i <= 7

  Large size Voice LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT1, set-up priority =0, holding priority=0

  Large size Data LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT0, set-up priority = 1, holding priority=1

  Small size Voice LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT1, set-up priority = 2, holding priority=2

  Small size Data LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT0, set-up priority = 3, holding priority=3.

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  7










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003


  A new large size Voice LSP would then be able to preempt a small size
  Voice LSP or any Data LSP in case they contend for resources.
  A new large size Data LSP would then be able to preempt a small size
  Data LSP or a small size Voice LSP in case they contend for
  resources, but it would not be able to preempt a large size Voice
  LSP.

4.4.3.  Example 3

  The Network Administrator of another network may elect to configure
  the following TE-Class Mapping in order to ensure that Voice LSPs are
  never driven away from their shortest path because of Data LSPs while
  also achieving some optimization of global network resource
  utilization by favoring placement of large LSPs closer to their
  shortest path:

       TE-Class[0]  <-->  < CT1 , preemption 0 >
       TE-Class[1]  <-->  < CT1 , preemption 1 >
       TE-Class[2]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption 2 >
       TE-Class[3]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption 3 >
       TE-Class[i]  <-->  unused,   for 4 <= i <= 7

  Large size Voice LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT1, set-up priority = 0, holding priority=0.

  Small size Voice LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT1, set-up priority = 1, holding priority=1.

  Large size Data LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT0, set-up priority = 2, holding priority=2.

  Small size Data LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT0, set-up priority = 3, holding priority=3.

  A Voice LSP could preempt a Data LSP if they contend for resources. A
  Data LSP would never preempt a Voice LSP. A Large size Voice LSP
  could preempt a small size Voice LSP if they contend for resources. A
  Large size Data LSP could preempt a small size Data LSP if they
  contend for resources.

4.4.4.  Example 4

  The Network Administrator of another network may elect to configure
  the following TE-Class Mapping in order to ensure that no preemption
  occurs in the DS-TE domain:

       TE-Class[0]  <-->  < CT1 , preemption 0 >
       TE-Class[1]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption 0 >
       TE-Class[i]  <-->  unused,   for 2 <= i <= 7

  Voice LSPs would then be configured with:

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  8










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

        - CT=CT1, set-up priority =0, holding priority=0

  Data LSPs would then be configured with:
        - CT=CT0, set-up priority =0, holding priority=0

  No LSP would then be able to preempt any other LSP.

4.4.5.  Example 5

  The Network Administrator of another network may elect to configure
  the following TE-Class Mapping in view of increased network stability
  through a more limited use of preemption:

       TE-Class[0]  <-->  < CT1 , preemption 0 >
       TE-Class[1]  <-->  < CT1 , preemption 1 >
       TE-Class[2]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption 1 >
       TE-Class[3]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption 2 >
       TE-Class[i]  <-->  unused,   for 4 <= i <= 7

  Large size Voice LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT1, set-up priority = 0, holding priority=0.

  Small size Voice LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT1, set-up priority = 1, holding priority=0.

  Large size Data LSPs could be configured with:
        - CT=CT0, set-up priority = 2, holding priority=1.

  Small size Data LSPs could be configured with:
       - CT=CT0, set-up priority = 2, holding priority=2.

  A new large size Voice LSP would be able to preempt a Data LSP in
  case they contend for resources, but it would not be able to preempt
  any Voice LSP even a small size Voice LSP.

  A new small size Voice LSP would be able to preempt a small size Data
  LSP in case they contend for resources, but it would not be able to
  preempt a large size Data LSP or any Voice LSP.

  A Data LSP would not be able to preempt any other LSP.


5.      IGP Extensions for DS-TE

  This section only discusses the differences with the IGP
  advertisement supported for (aggregate) MPLS Traffic Engineering as
  per [OSPF-TE] and [ISIS-TE]. The rest of the IGP advertisement is
  unchanged.

5.1.    Bandwidth Constraints



 Le Faucheur et. al                                                  9










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  As detailed above in section 4.1.1, up to 8 Bandwidth Constraints
  ( BCb, 0 <= b <= 7) are configurable on any given link.

  With DS-TE, the existing "Maximum Reservable Bw" sub-TLV is retained
  with a generalized semantic so that it MUST now be interpreted as the
  aggregate bandwidth constraint across all Class-Types [ i.e.
  SUM (Reserved (CTc)) <= Max Reservable Bandwidth], independently of
  the Bandwidth Constraints Model.

  This document also defines the following new optional sub-TLV to
  advertise the eight potential Bandwidth Constraints (BC0 to BC7):

  "Bandwidth Constraints" sub-TLV:
        - Bandwidth Constraint Model Id (1 octet)
        - Bandwidth Constraints (Nx4 octets)

  Where:

        - With OSPF, the sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the "Link TLV" and its
          sub-TLV type is TBD. See IANA Considerations section below.

        - With ISIS, the sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the "extended IS
          reachability TLV" and its sub-TLV type is TBD. See IANA
          Considerations section below.

        - Bandwidth Constraint Model Id: 1 octet identifier for the
          Bandwidth Constraints Model currently in use by the LSR
          initiating the IGP advertisement.
             - Value 0 identifies the Russian Dolls Model specified in
          [DSTE-RDM].
             - Value 1 identifies the Maximum Allocation Model
          specified in [DSTE-MAM].

        - Bandwidth Constraints: contains BC0, BC1,... BC(N-1).
          Each Bandwidth Constraint is encoded on 32 bits in IEEE
          floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per
          second. Where the configured TE-class mapping and the
          Bandwidth Constraints model in use are such that BCh+1,
          BCh+2, ...and BC7 are not relevant to any of the Class-Types
          associated with a configured TE-class, it is recommended that
          only the Bandwidth Constraints from BC0 to BCh be advertised,
          in order to minimize the impact on IGP scalability.

  A DS-TE LSR MAY optionally advertise Bandwidth Constraints.

  A DS-TE LSR which does advertise Bandwidth Constraints MUST use the
  new "Bandwidth Constraints" sub-TLV (in addition to the existing
  Maximum Reservable Bandwidth sub-TLV) to do so. For example,
  considering the case where a Service Provider deploys DS-TE with
  TE-classes associated with CT0 and CT1 only, and where the Bandwidth
  Constraints model is such that only BC0 and BC1 are relevant to CT0
  and CT1: a DS-TE LSR which does advertise Bandwidth Constraints would

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 10










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  include in the IGP advertisement the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth
  sub-TLV as well as the "Bandwidth Constraints" sub-TLV, where the
  former should contain the aggregate bandwidth constraint across all
  CTs and the latter would contain BC0 and BC1.

  A DS-TE LSR receiving the "Bandwidth Constraints" sub-TLV with a
  Bandwidth Constraint Model Id which does not match the Bandwidth
  Constraint Model it currently uses, MAY generate a warning to the
  operator reporting the inconsistency between Bandwidth Constraint
  Models used on different links. Also, in that case, if the DS-TE LSR
  does not support the Bandwidth Constraint Model designated by the
  Bandwidth Constraint Model Id, or if the DS-TE LSR does not support
  operations with multiple simultaneous Bandwidth Constraint Models,
  the DS-TE LSR MAY discard the corresponding TLV. If the DS-TE LSR
  does support the Bandwidth Constraint Model designated by the
  Bandwidth Constraint Model Id and if the DS-TE LSR does support
  operations with multiple simultaneous Bandwidth Constraint Models,
  the DS-TE LSR MAY accept the corresponding TLV and allow operations
  with different Bandwidth Constraints Models used in different parts
  of the DS-TE domain.

5.2.    Unreserved Bandwidth

  With DS-TE, the existing "Unreserved Bandwidth" sub-TLV is retained
  as the only vehicle to advertise dynamic bandwidth information
  necessary for Constraint Based Routing on Head-ends, except that it
  is used with a generalized semantic. The Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV
  still carries eight bandwidth values but they now correspond to the
  unreserved bandwidth for each of the TE-Class (instead of for each
  preemption priority as per existing TE).

  More precisely, a DS-TE LSR MUST support the Unreserved Bandwidth
  sub-TLV with a definition which is generalized into the following:

  The Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV specifies the amount of bandwidth
  not yet reserved for each of the eight TE-classes, in IEEE floating
  point format arranged in increasing order of TE-Class index, with
  unreserved bandwidth for TE-Class [0] occurring at the start of the
  sub-TLV, and unreserved bandwidth for TE-Class [7] at the end of the
  sub-TLV. The unreserved bandwidth value for TE-Class [i] ( 0 <= i <=
  7) is referred to as "Unreserved TE-Class [i]". It indicates the
  bandwidth that is available, for reservation, to an LSP which :
        - transports a Traffic Trunk from the Class-Type of TE-
          Class[i], and
        - has a setup priority corresponding to the preemption priority
          of TE-Class[i].

  The units are bytes per second.

  Since the bandwidth values are now ordered by TE-class index and thus
  can relate to different CTs with different bandwidth constraints and


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 11










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  can relate to any arbitrary preemption priority, a DS-TE LSR MUST NOT
  assume any ordered relationship among these bandwidth values.

  With existing TE, since all preemption priorities reflect the same
  (and only) bandwidth constraints and since bandwidth values are
  advertised in preemption priority order, the following relationship
  is always true, and is often assumed by TE implementations:

      If i < j , then "Unreserved Bw [i]" >= "Unreserved Bw [j]"

  With DS-TE, no relationship is to be assumed so that:
       If i < j , then any of the following relationship may be true
                "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" = "Unreserved TE-Class [j]"
                    OR
                "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" > "Unreserved TE-Class [j]"
                    OR
                "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" < "Unreserved TE-Class [j]".

  Rules for computing "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" are specified in
  section 11.

  If TE-Class[i] is unused, the value advertised by the IGP in
  "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" MUST be set to zero by the LSR generating
  the IGP advertisement, and MUST be ignored by the LSR receiving the
  IGP advertisement.



6.      RSVP-TE Extensions for DS-TE

  In this section we describe extensions to RSVP-TE for support of
  Diff-Serv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering. These extensions are in
  addition to the extensions to RSVP defined in [RSVP-TE] for support
  of (aggregate) MPLS Traffic Engineering and to the extensions to RSVP
  defined in [DIFF-MPLS] for support of Diff-Serv over MPLS.

6.1.    DS-TE related RSVP Messages Format

  One new RSVP Object is defined in this document: the CLASSTYPE
  Object. Detailed description of this Object is provided below. This
  new Object is applicable to Path messages. This specification only
  defines the use of the CLASSTYPE Object in Path messages used to
  establish LSP Tunnels in accordance with [RSVP-TE] and thus
  containing a Session Object with a C-Type equal to LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4
  and containing a LABEL_REQUEST object.

  Restrictions defined in [RSVP-TE] for support of establishment of LSP
  Tunnels via RSVP-TE are also applicable to the establishment of LSP
  Tunnels supporting DS-TE. For instance, only unicast LSPs are
  supported and Multicast LSPs are for further study.



 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 12










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  This new CLASSTYPE object is optional with respect to RSVP so that
  general RSVP implementations not concerned with MPLS LSP set up do
  not have to support this object.

  An LSR supporting DS-TE MUST support the CLASSTYPE Object.

6.1.1.  Path Message Format

  The format of the Path message is as follows:

  <Path Message> ::=      <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                           <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                           <TIME_VALUES>
                           [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
                           <LABEL_REQUEST>
                           [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
                           [ <DIFFSERV> ]
                           [ <CLASSTYPE> ]
                           [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                           [ <sender descriptor> ]

  <sender descriptor> ::=  <SENDER_TEMPLATE> [ <SENDER_TSPEC> ]
                           [ <ADSPEC> ]
                           [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]

6.2.    CLASSTYPE Object

  The CLASSTYPE object format is shown below.

6.2.1.  CLASSTYPE object

  class = TBD, C_Type = 1  (need to get an official class num from the
  IANA with the form 0bbbbbbb). See IANA Considerations section below.

   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |        Reserved                                         |  CT |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


  Reserved : 29 bits
       This field is reserved. It must be set to zero on transmission
       and must be ignored on receipt.

  CT : 3 bits
       Indicates the Class-Type. Values currently allowed are
       1, 2, ... , 7.

6.3.    Handling CLASSTYPE Object



 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 13










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  To establish an LSP tunnel with RSVP, the sender LSR creates a Path
  message with a session type of LSP_Tunnel_IPv4 and with a
  LABEL_REQUEST object as per [RSVP-TE]. The sender LSR may also
  include the DIFFSERV object as per [DIFF-MPLS].

  If the LSP is associated with Class-Type 0, the sender LSR MUST NOT
  include the CLASSTYPE object in the Path message.

  If the LSP is associated with Class-Type N (1 <= N <=7), the sender
  LSR MUST include the CLASSTYPE object in the Path message with the
  Class-Type (CT) field set to N.

  If a path message contains multiple CLASSTYPE objects, only the first
  one is meaningful; subsequent CLASSTYPE object(s) MUST be ignored and
  MUST not be forwarded.

  Each LSR along the path MUST record the CLASSTYPE object, when
  present, in its path state block.

  If the CLASSTYPE object is not present in the Path message, the LSR
  MUST associate the Class-Type 0 to the LSP.

  The destination LSR responding to the Path message by sending a Resv
  message MUST NOT include a CLASSTYPE object in the Resv message
  (whether the Path message contained a CLASSTYPE object or not).

  During establishment of an LSP corresponding to the Class-Type N, the
  LSR MUST perform admission control over the bandwidth available for
  that particular Class-Type.

  An LSR that recognizes the CLASSTYPE object and that receives a path
  message which contains the CLASSTYPE object but which does not
  contain a LABEL_REQUEST object or which does not have a session type
  of LSP_Tunnel_IPv4, MUST send a PathErr towards the sender with the
  error code 'Diff-Serv-aware TE Error' and an error value of
  'Unexpected CLASSTYPE object'. Those are defined below in section
  6.5.

  An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which
  recognizes the CLASSTYPE object but does not support the particular
  Class-Type, MUST send a PathErr towards the sender with the error
  code 'Diff-Serv-aware TE Error' and an error value of 'Unsupported
  Class-Type'. Those are defined below in section 6.5.

  An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which
  recognizes the CLASSTYPE object but determines that the Class-Type
  value is not valid (i.e. Class-Type value 0), MUST send a PathErr
  towards the sender with the error code 'Diff-Serv-aware TE Error' and
  an error value of 'Invalid Class-Type value'. Those are defined below
  in section 6.5.

  An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which:

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 14










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

        - recognizes the CLASSTYPE object,
        - supports the particular Class-Type, but
        - determines that the tuple formed by (i) this Class-Type and
          (ii) the set-up priority signaled in the same Path message,
          is not one of the eight TE-classes configured in the TE-class
          mapping,
  MUST send a PathErr towards the sender with the error code 'Diff-
  Serv-aware TE Error' and an error value of 'CT and setup priority do
  not form a configured TE-Class'. Those are defined below in section
  6.5.

  An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object, which:
        - recognizes the CLASSTYPE object,
        - supports the particular Class-Type, but
        - determines that the tuple formed by (i) this Class-Type and
          (ii) the holding priority signaled in the same Path message,
          is not one of the eight TE-classes configured in the TE-class
          mapping,
  MUST send a PathErr towards the sender with the error code 'Diff-
  Serv-aware TE Error' and an error value of 'CT and holding priority
  do not form a configured TE-Class'. Those are defined below in
  section 6.5.

  An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object and with
  the DIFFSERV object for an L-LSP, which:
        - recognizes the CLASSTYPE object,
        - has local knowledge of the relationship between Class-Types
          and PSC (e.g. via configuration)
        - based on this local knowledge, determines that the PSC
          signaled in the DIFFSERV object is inconsistent with the
          Class-Type signaled in the CLASSTYPE object,
  MUST send a PathErr towards the sender with the error code 'Diff-
  Serv-aware TE Error' and an error value of 'Inconsistency between
  signaled PSC and signaled CT'. Those are defined below in section
  6.5.

  An LSR receiving a Path message with the CLASSTYPE object and with
  the DIFFSERV object for an E-LSP, which:
        - recognizes the CLASSTYPE object,
        - has local knowledge of the relationship between Class-Types
          and PHBs (e.g. via configuration)
        - based on this local knowledge, determines that the PHBs
          signaled in the MAP entries of the DIFFSERV object are
          inconsistent with the Class-Type signaled in the CLASSTYPE
          object,
  MUST send a PathErr towards the sender with the error code 'Diff-
  Serv-aware TE Error' and an error value of 'Inconsistency between
  signaled PHBs and signaled CT'. Those are defined below in section
  6.5.

  An LSR MUST handle the situations where the LSP can not be accepted
  for other reasons than those already discussed in this section, in

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 15










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  accordance with [RSVP-TE] and [DIFF-MPLS] (e.g. a reservation is
  rejected by admission control, a label can not be associated).

6.4.    Non-support of the CLASSTYPE Object

  An LSR that does not recognize the CLASSTYPE object Class-Num MUST
  behave in accordance with the procedures specified in [RSVP] for an
  unknown Class-Num whose format is 0bbbbbbb (i.e. it must send a
  PathErr with the error code 'Unknown object class' toward the
  sender).

  An LSR that recognizes the CLASSTYPE object Class-Num but does not
  recognize the CLASSTYPE object C-Type, MUST behave in accordance with
  the procedures specified in [RSVP] for an unknown C-type (i.e. it
  must send a PathErr with the error code 'Unknown object C-Type'
  toward the sender).

  In both situations, this causes the path set-up to fail. The sender
  SHOULD notify management that a LSP cannot be established and
  possibly might take action to retry reservation establishment without
  the CLASSTYPE object.

6.5.    Error Codes For Diff-Serv-aware TE

  In the procedures described above, certain errors must be reported as
  a 'Diff-Serv-aware TE Error'. The value of the 'Diff-Serv-aware TE
  Error' error code is (TBD). See IANA Considerations section below.

  The following defines error values for the Diff-Serv-aware TE Error:

     Value    Error

       1       Unexpected CLASSTYPE object
       2       Unsupported Class-Type
       3       Invalid Class-Type value
       4       CT and setup priority do not form a configured TE-Class
       5       CT and holding priority do not form a configured
               TE-Class
       6       Inconsistency between signaled PSC and signaled CT
        7       Inconsistency between signaled PHBs and signaled CT


7.      DS-TE support with MPLS extensions.

  There are a number of extensions to the initial base specification
  for signaling [RSVP-TE] and IGP support for TE [OSPF-TE][ISIS-TE].
  Those include enhancements for generalization [GMPLS-SIG]
  [GMPLS-ROUTE], as well as for additional functionality such as LSP
  hierarchy [HIERARCHY], link bundling [BUNDLE] and fast restoration
  [REROUTE]. These specifications may reference how to encode
  information associated with certain preemption priorities, how to
  treat LSPs at different preemption priorities, or otherwise specify

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 16










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  encodings or behavior that have a different meaning for an DS-TE
  router.

  In order for an implementation to support both this specification for
  Diff-Serv-aware TE and a given MPLS enhancement such as those listed
  above (but not limited to those), it MUST treat references to
  "preemption priority" and to "Maximum Reservable Bandwidth" in a
  generalized manner, such as it is used in this specification.

  Additionally, current and future MPLS enhancements may include more
  precise specification for how they interact with Diff-Serv-aware TE.

7.1.    DS-TE support and references to preemption priority

  When a router supports both Diff-Serv-aware TE and one of the MPLS
  protocol extensions such as those mentioned above, encoding of values
  of preemption priority in signaling or encoding of information
  associated with preemption priorities in IGP defined for the MPLS
  extension, MUST be considered to be an encoding of the same
  information for the corresponding TE-Class. For instance, if an MPLS
  enhancement specifies advertisement in IGP of a parameter for routing
  information at preemption priority N, in a DS-TE environment it MUST
  actually be interpreted as specifying advertisement of the same
  routing information but for TE-Class [N].  On receipt, DS-TE routers
  MUST interpret it as such as well.

  When there is discussion on how to comparatively treat LSPs of
  different preemption priority, a DS-TE LSR MUST treat the preemption
  priorities in this context as the preemption priorities associated
  with the TE-Classes of the LSPs in question.

7.2.    DS-TE support and references to Maximum Reservable Bandwidth

  When a router supports both Diff-Serv-aware TE and MPLS protocol
  extensions such as those mentioned above, advertisements of Maximum
  Reservable Bandwidth MUST be done with the generalized interpretation
  defined above in section 4.1.1 as the aggregate bandwidth constraint
  across all Class-Types and MAY also allow the optional advertisement
  of all Bandwidth Constraints.


8.      Constraint Based Routing

  Let us consider the case where a path needs to be computed for an LSP
  whose Class-Type is configured to CTc and whose set-up preemption
  priority is configured to p.

  Then the pair of CTc and p will map to one of the TE-Classes defined
  in the TE-Class mapping. Let us refer to this TE-Class as TE-
  Class[i].



 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 17










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  The Constraint Based Routing algorithm of a DS-TE LSR is still only
  required to perform path computation satisfying a single bandwidth
  constraint which is to fit in "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" as advertised
  by the IGP for every link. Thus, no changes are required to the
  existing TE Constraint Based Routing algorithm itself.

  The Constraint Based Routing algorithm MAY also optionally take into
  account, when used, the optional additional information advertised in
  IGP such as the Bandwidth Constraints and the Maximum Reservable
  Bandwidth. As an example, the Bandwidth Constraints MIGHT be used as
  a tie-breaker criteria in situations where multiple paths, otherwise
  equally attractive, are possible.


9.      Diff-Serv scheduling

  The Class-Type signaled at LSP establishment MAY optionally be used
  by DS-TE LSRs to dynamically adjust the resources allocated to the
  Class-Type by the Diff-Serv scheduler. In addition, the Diff-Serv
  information (i.e. the PSC) signaled by the TE-LSP signaling protocols
  as specified in [DIFF-MPLS], if used, MAY optionally be used by DS-TE
  LSRs to dynamically adjust the resources allocated to a PSC/OA within
  a Class Type by the Diff-Serv scheduler.


10.     Existing TE as a Particular Case of DS-TE

  We observe that existing TE can be viewed as a particular case of
  DS-TE where:

        (i)    a single Class-Type is used,
        (ii)   all 8 preemption priorities are allowed for that Class-
                Type, and
        (iii)  the following TE-Class Mapping is used:
                    TE-Class[i]  <-->  < CT0 , preemption i >
                    Where 0 <= i <= 7.


  In that case, DS-TE behaves as existing TE.

  As with existing TE, the IGP advertises:
        - Unreserved Bandwidth for each of the 8 preemption priorities

  As with existing TE, the IGP may advertise:
        - Maximum Reservable Bandwidth containing an a bandwidth
          constraint applying across all LSPs

  Since all LSPs transport traffic from CT0, RSVP-TE signaling is done
  without explicit signaling of the Class-Type (which is only used for
  other Class-Types than CT0 as explained in section 6) as with
  existing TE.


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 18










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003


11.     Computing "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" and Admission Control Rules

11.1.   Computing "Unreserved TE-Class [i]"

  We first observe that, for existing TE, details on admission control
  algorithms for TE LSPs, and consequently details on formulas for
  computing the unreserved bandwidth, are outside the scope of the
  current IETF work. This is left for vendor differentiation. Note that
  this does not compromise interoperability across various
  implementations since the TE schemes rely on LSRs to advertise their
  local view of the world in terms of Unreserved Bw to other LSRs. This
  way, regardless of the actual local admission control algorithm used
  on one given LSR, Constraint Based Routing on other LSRs can rely on
  advertised information to determine whether an additional LSP will be
  accepted or rejected by the given LSR. The only requirement is that
  an LSR advertises unreserved bandwidth values which are consistent
  with its specific local admission control algorithm and take into
  account the holding preemption priority of established LSPs.

  In the context of DS-TE, again, details on admission control
  algorithms are left for vendor differentiation and formulas for
  computing the unreserved bandwidth for TE-Class[i] are outside the
  scope of this specification. However, DS-TE places the additional
  requirement on the LSR that the unreserved bandwidth values
  advertised MUST reflect all of the Bandwidth Constraints relevant to
  the CT associated with TE-Class[i] in accordance with the Bandwidth
  Constraints Model. Thus, formulas for computing "Unreserved TE-Class
  [i]" depend on the Bandwidth Constraints model in use and MUST
  reflect how bandwidth constraints apply to CTs. Example formulas for
  computing "Unreserved TE-Class [i]" Model are provided for the
  Russian Dolls Model and Maximum Allocation Model respectively in
  [DSTE-RDM] and [DSTE-MAM].

  As with existing TE, DS-TE LSRs MUST consider the holding preemption
  priority of established LSPs (as opposed to their set-up preemption
  priority) for the purpose of computing the unreserved bandwidth for
  TE-Class [i].

11.2.   Admission Control Rules

  A DS-TE LSR MUST support the following admission control rule:

  Regardless of how the admission control algorithm actually computes
  the unreserved bandwidth for TE-Class[i] for one of its local link,
  an LSP of bandwidth B, of set-up preemption priority p and of Class-
  Type CTc is admissible on that link iff:

       B <= Unreserved Bandwidth for TE-Class[i]

        Where


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 19










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

        - TE-Class [i] maps to  < CTc , p > in the LSR's configured TE-
          Class mapping


12.     Security Considerations

  This document does not introduce additional security threats beyond
  those inherent to Diff-Serv and MPLS Traffic Engineering and the same
  security mechanisms proposed for these technologies are applicable
  and may be used. For example, the approach for defense against theft-
  and denial-of-service attacks discussed in [DIFF-ARCH], which
  consists of the combination of traffic conditioning at DS boundary
  nodes along with security and integrity of the network infrastructure
  within a Diff-Serv domain, may be followed when DS-TE is in use.
  Also, as stated in [TE-REQ], it is specifically important that
  manipulation of administratively configurable parameters (such as
  those related to DS-TE LSPs) be executed in a secure manner by
  authorized entities.


13.     Acknowledgments

  We thank Martin Tatham, Angela Chiu and Pete Hicks for their earlier
  contribution in this work. We also thank Sanjaya Choudhury for his
  thorough review and suggestions.


14.     IANA Considerations

  This document defines a number of objects with implications for IANA.

  This document defines in section 5.1 a new sub-TLV, the "Bandwidth
  Constraints" sub-TLV, for the OSPF "Link" TLV [OSPF-TE]. A sub-TLV
  Type in the range 10 to 32767 needs to be assigned by Expert Review.
  This sub-TLV Type also needs to be registered by IANA.

  This document defines in section 5.1 a new sub-TLV, the "Bandwidth
  Constraints" sub-TLV, for the ISIS "Extended IS Reachability" TLV
  [ISIS-TE]. A sub-TLV Type needs to be assigned by Expert Review. This
  sub-TLV Type also needs to be registered by IANA.

  This document defines in section 5.3 a "Bandwidth Constraint Model
  Id" field within the "Bandwidth Constraints" sub-TLV. This document
  also defines in section 5.3 two values for this field (0 and 1).
  Future allocations of values in this space and in the range 2 to 127
  should be handled by IANA using the First Come First Served policy
  defined in [IANA]. Values in the range 128 to 255 are reserved for
  experimental use.

  This document defines in section 6.2.1 a new RSVP object, the
  CLASSTYPE object. This object requires a number from the space
  defined in [RSVP] for those objects which, if not understood, cause

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 20










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  the entire RSVP message to be rejected with an error code of "Unknown
  Object Class". Such objects are identified by a zero in the most
  significant bit of the class number. Within that space, this object
  requires a number to be allocated by IANA from the "IETF Consensus"
  space.

  This document defines in section 6.5 a new RSVP error code, the
  "Diff-Serv-aware TE Error". This new Error code needs to be allocated
  by IANA. This document defines values 1 through 7 of the value field
  to be used within the ERROR_SPEC object for the "Diff-Serv-aware TE
  error" code. Future allocations of values in this space should be
  handled by IANA using the First Come First Served policy defined in
  [IANA].


15.     Normative References

  [DSTE-REQ] Le Faucheur et al, Requirements for support of Diff-Serv-
  aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, RFC3564, .

  [MPLS-ARCH] Rosen et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching
  Architecture", RFC3031.

  [DIFF-ARCH] Blake et al., "An Architecture for Differentiated
  Services", RFC2475.

  [TE-REQ] Awduche et al., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over
  MPLS", RFC2702.

  [OSPF-TE] Katz, Yeung, Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF, draft-
  katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-10.txt, June 2003.

  [ISIS-TE] Smit, Li, IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering, draft-
  ietf-isis-traffic-05.txt, August 2003.

  [RSVP-TE] Awduche et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
  Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

  [RSVP] Braden et al, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Version
  1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

  [DIFF-MPLS] Le Faucheur et al, "MPLS Support of Diff-Serv", RFC3270,
  May 2002.

  [RFC2119] S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
  Requirement Levels, RFC2119, March 1997.


16.     Informative References




 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 21










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  [DSTE-RDM] Le Faucheur et al., "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints
  Model for DS-TE", draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-04.txt, September
  2003

  [DSTE-MAM] Le Faucheur, Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth
  Constraints Model for DS-TE", draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mam-01.txt,
  September 2003.

  [DSTE-MAR] Ash, "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraint
  Model for MPLS/DiffServ TE & Performance Comparisons", March 2003.

  [GMPLS-SIG] Berger et. al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
  Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC3471

  [GMPLS-ROUTE] Kompella et. al., "Routing Extensions in Support of
  Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt, work in
  progress.

  [BUNDLE] Kompella, Rekhter, Berger, "Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic
  Engineering", draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt, work in progress.

  [HIERARCHY] Kompella, Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized MPLS
  TE", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt, work in progress.

  [REROUTE] Pan et. al., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP
  Tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-03.txt, work in
  progress.


17.     Editor's Address:

  Francois Le Faucheur
  Cisco Systems, Inc.
  Village d'Entreprise Green Side - Batiment T3
  400, Avenue de Roumanille
  06410 Biot-Sophia Antipolis
  France
  Phone: +33 4 97 23 26 19
  Email: flefauch@cisco.com


Appendix A - Prediction for Multiple Path Computation

  There are situations where a Head-End needs to compute paths for
  multiple LSPs over a short period of time. There are potential
  advantages for the Head-end in trying to predict the impact of the n-
  th LSP on the unreserved bandwidth when computing the path for the
  (n+1)-th LSP, before receiving updated IGP information. One example
  would be to perform better load-distribution of the multiple LSPs
  across multiple paths. Another example would be to avoid CAC
  rejection when the (n+1)-th LSP would no longer fit on a link after
  establishment of the n-th LSP. While there are also a number of

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 22










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  conceivable scenarios where doing such predictions might result in a
  worse situation, it is more likely to improve the situation. As a
  matter of fact, a number of network administrators have elected to
  use such predictions when deploying existing TE.

  Such predictions are local matters, are optional and are outside the
  scope of this specification.

  Where such predictions are not used, the optional Bandwidth
  Constraint sub-TLV and the optional Maximum Reservable Bandwidth sub-
  TLV need not be advertised in IGP for the purpose of path computation
  since the information contained in the Unreserved Bw sub-TLV is all
  that is required by Head-Ends to perform Constraint Based Routing.

  Where such predictions are used on Head-Ends, the optional Bandwidth
  Constraint sub-TLV and the optional Maximum Reservable Bandwidth sub-
  TLV MAY be advertised in IGP. This is in order for the Head-ends to
  predict as accurately as possible how an LSP affects unreserved
  bandwidth values for subsequent LSPs.

  Remembering that actual admission control algorithms are left for
  vendor differentiation, we observe that predictions can only be
  performed effectively when the Head-end LSR predictions are based on
  the same (or a very close) admission control algorithm as used by
  other LSRs.


Appendix B - Solution Evaluation

1.      Satisfying Detailed Requirements

  This DS-TE Solution addresses all the scenarios presented in [DSTE-
  REQ].

  It also satisfies all the detailed requirements presented in [DSTE-
  REQ].

  The objective set out in the last paragraph of section "4.7
  overbooking" of [DSTE-REQ] is only partially addressed by this DS-TE
  solution. Through support of the "LSP Size Overbooking" and "Link
  Size Overbooking" methods, this DS-TE solution effectively allows CTs
  to have different overbooking ratios and simultaneously allows
  overbooking to be tweaked differently (collectively across all CTs)
  on different links. But, in a general sense, it does not allow the
  effective overbooking ratio of every CT to be tweaked differently in
  different parts of the network independently of other CTs, while
  maintaining accurate bandwidth accounting of how different CTs
  mutually affect each other through shared Bandwidth Constraints (such
  as the Maximum Reservable Bandwidth).

2.      Flexibility


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 23










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  This DS-TE solution supports 8 CTs. It is entirely flexible as to how
  Traffic Trunks are grouped together into a CT.

3.      Extendibility

  A maximum of 8 CTs is considered by the authors of this document as
  more than comfortable. However, this solution could be extended to
  support more CTs if deemed necessary in the future. However, this
  would necessitate additional IGP extensions beyond those specified in
  this document.

  Although the prime objective of this solution is support of Diff-
  Serv-aware Traffic Engineering, its mechanisms are not tightly
  coupled with Diff-Serv. This makes the solution amenable, or more
  easily extendable, for support of potential other future Traffic
  Engineering applications.

4.      Scalability

  This DS-TE solution is expected to have a very small scalability
  impact compared to existing TE.

  From an IGP viewpoint, the amount of mandatory information to be
  advertised is identical to existing TE. One additional sub-TLV has
  been specified, but its use is optional and it only contains a
  limited amount of static information (at most 8 Bandwidth
  Constraints).

  We expect no noticeable impact on LSP Path computation since, as with
  existing TE, this solution only requires CSPF to consider a single
  unreserved bandwidth value for any given LSP.

  From a signaling viewpoint we expect no significant impact due to
  this solution since it only requires processing of one additional
  information (the Class-Type) and does not significantly increase the
  likelihood of CAC rejection. Note that DS-TE has some inherent impact
  on LSP signaling in the sense that it assumes that different classes
  of traffic are split over different LSPs so that more LSPs need to be
  signaled; but this is due to the DS-TE concept itself and not to the
  actual DS-TE solution discussed here.

5.      Backward Compatibility/Migration

  This solution is expected to allow smooth migration from existing TE
  to DS-TE. This is because existing TE can be supported as a
  particular configuration of DS-TE. This means that an "upgraded" LSR
  with a DS-TE implementation can directly interwork with an "old" LSR
  supporting existing TE only.

  This solution is expected to allow smooth migration when increasing
  the number of CTs actually deployed since it only requires


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 24










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  configuration changes. however, these changes must be performed in a
  coordinated manner across the DS-TE domain.


Appendix C - Interoperability with non DS-TE capable LSRs

  This DSTE solution allows operations in a hybrid network where some
  LSRs are DS-TE capable while some LSRs and not DS-TE capable, which
  may occur during migration phases. This Appendix discusses the
  constraints and operations in such hybrid networks.

  We refer to the set of DS-TE capable LSRs as the DS-TE domain. We
  refer to the set of non DS-TE capable (but TE capable) LSRs as the
  TE-domain.

  Hybrid operations requires that the TE-class mapping in the DS-TE
  domain is configured so that:
        - a TE-class exist for CT0 for every preemption priority
          actually used in the TE domain
        - the index in the TE-class mapping for each of these TE-
          classes is equal to the preemption priority.

  For example, imagine the TE domain uses preemption 2 and 3. Then, DS-
  TE can be deployed in the same network by including the following TE-
  classes in the TE-class mapping:
          i   <--->       CT      preemption
        ====================================
          2               CT0     2
          3               CT0     3

  Another way to look at this is to say that, the whole TE-class
  mapping does not have to be consistent with the TE domain, but the
  subset of this TE-Class mapping applicable to CT0 must effectively be
  consistent with the TE domain.

  Hybrid operations also requires that:
        - non DS-TE capable LSRs be configured to advertise the Maximum
          Reservable Bandwidth
        - DS-TE capable LSRs be configured to advertise Bandwidth
          Constraints (using the Max Reservable Bandwidth sub-TLV as
          well as the Bandwidth Constraints sub-TLV, as specified in
          section 5.1 above).
  This allows DS-TE capable LSRs to unambiguously identify non DS-TE
  capable LSRs.

  Finally hybrid operations require that non DS-TE capable LSRs be able
  to accept Unreserved Bw sub-TLVs containing non decreasing bandwidth
  values (ie with Unreserved [p] < Unreserved [q] with p <q).

  In such hybrid networks :
        - CT0 LSPs can be established by both DS-TE capable LSRs and
          non-DSTE capable LSRs

 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 25










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

        - CT0 LSPs can transit via (or terminate at) both DS-TE capable
          LSRs and non-DSTE capable LSRs
        - LSPs from other CTs can only be established by DS-TE capable
          LSRs
        - LSPs from other CTs can only transit via (or terminate at)
          DS-TE capable LSRs


  Let us consider, the following example to illustrate operations:

  LSR0--------LSR1----------LSR2
       Link01       Link12

  Where:
       LSR0 is a non-DS-TE capable LSR
       LSR1 and LSR2 are DS-TE capable LSRs

  Let's assume again that preemption 2 and 3 are used in the TE-domain
  and that the following TE-class mapping is configured on LSR1 and
  LSR2:
          i   <--->       CT      preemption
        ====================================
          0               CT1     0
          1               CT1     1
          2               CT0     2
          3               CT0     3
       rest                 unused

  LSR0 is configured with a Max Reservable bandwidth=m01 for Link01.
  LSR1 is configured with a BC0=x0 a BC1=x1(possibly=0), and a Max
  Reservable Bandwidth=m10(possibly=m01) for Link01.

  LSR0 will advertise in IGP for Link01:
        - Max Reservable Bw sub-TLV = <m01>
        - Unreserved Bw sub-TLV =
          <CT0/0,CT0/1,CT0/2,CT0/3,CT0/4,CT0/5,CT0/6,CT0/7>

  On receipt of such advertisement, LSR1 will:
        - understand that LSR0 is not DS-TE capable because it
          advertised a Max Reservable Bw sub-TLV and no Bandwidth
          Constraint sub-TLV
        - conclude that only CT0 LSPs can transit via LSR0 and that
          only the values CT0/2 and CT0/3 are meaningful in the
          Unreserved Bw sub-TLV. LSR1 may effectively behave as if the
          six other values contained in the Unreserved Bw sub-TLV were
          set to zero.

  LSR1 will advertise in IGP for Link01:
        - Max Reservable Bw sub-TLV = <m10>
        - Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV = <BC Model ID, x0,x1>
        - Unreserved Bw sub-TLV = <CT1/0,CT1/1,CT0/2,CT0/3,0,0,0,0>


 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 26










                   Protocols for Diff-Serv-aware TE     September 2003

  On receipt of such advertisement, LSR0 will:
        - Ignore the Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV (unrecognized)
        - Correctly process CT0/2 and CT0/3 in the Unreserved Bw sub-
          TLV and use these values for CTO LSP establishment
        - Incorrectly believe that the other values contained in the
          Unreserved Bw sub-TLV relates to other preemption priorities
          for CT0, but will actually never use those since we assume
          that only preemption 2 and 3 are used in the TE domain.













































 Le Faucheur et. al                                                 27