Network Working Group B. Davie
Internet-Draft F. le Faucheur
Intended status: Standards Track A. Narayanan
Expires: January 4, 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 3, 2008
Support for RSVP in Layer 3 VPNs
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2009.
Abstract
RFC 4364 and RFC 4659 define an approach to building provider-
provisioned Layer 3 VPNs for IPv4 and IPv6. It may be desirable to
use RSVP to perform admission control on the links between CE and PE
routers. This document specifies procedures by which RSVP messages
travelling from CE to CE across an L3VPN may be appropriately handled
by PE routers so that admission control can be performed on PE-CE
links. Optionally, admission control across the provider's backbone
may also be supported.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Change history
[_Note to RFC Editor: This section to be removed before publication_]
Changes in this version (draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-00) relative to
the last (draft-davie-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-02):
o Outlined signalling security issues and added discussion of
methods to control redistribution of routes among providers and
from providers to customers
o Clarification regarding support for RSVP-TE across L3VPN
o Minor corrections
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Model of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Admission Control on PE-CE Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Path Message Processing at Ingress PE . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Path Message Processing at Egress PE . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Resv Processing at Egress PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Resv Processing at Ingress PE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Other RSVP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Admission Control in Provider's Backbone . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Inter-AS operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Inter-AS Option A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Inter-AS Option B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1. Admission control on ASBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. No admission control on ASBR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Inter-AS Option C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Operation with RSVP disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Other RSVP procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Refresh overhead reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Cryptographic Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.3. RSVP Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.4. Support for CE-CE RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.1. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 SESSION objects . . . . . . . . . . 17
8.2. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE objects . . . . . . 18
8.3. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC objects . . . . . . . . 19
8.4. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP objects . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.5. Aggregated VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 SESSION objects . . . . . 21
8.6. AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 and AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6
SENDER_TEMPLATE objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.7. AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 and AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC
objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A. Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix A.1. GMPLS UNI approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A.2. VRF label approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A.3. VRF label plus VRF address approach . . . . . . . . 28
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 32
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
1. Introduction
[RFC4364] and [RFC4659] define a Layer 3 VPN service known as BGP/
MPLS VPNs for IPv4 and for IPv6 respectively. [RFC2205] defines the
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) which may be used to perform
admission control as part of the Integrated Services (int-serv)
architecture [RFC1633][RFC2210].
Customers of a layer 3 VPN service may run RSVP for the purposes of
admission control in their own networks. Since the links between
Provider Edge (PE) and Customer Edge (CE) routers in a layer 3 VPN
may often be resource constrained, it may be desirable to be able to
perform admission control over those links. In order to perform
admission control using RSVP in such an environment, it is necessary
that RSVP control messages, such as Path messages and Resv messages,
are appropriately handled by the PE routers. This presents a number
of challenges in the context of BGP/MPLS VPNs:
o RSVP Path message processing depends on routers recognizing the
router alert option in the IP header. However, packets traversing
the backbone of a BGP/MPLS VPN are MPLS encapsulated and thus the
router alert option is not normally visible to the egress PE.
o BGP/MPLS VPNs support non-unique addressing of customer networks.
Thus a PE at the ingress or egress of the provider backbone may be
called upon to process Path messages from different customer VPNs
with non-unique destination addresses.
o A PE at the ingress of the provider's backbone may receive Resv
messages corresponding to different customer VPNs from other PEs,
and needs to be able to associate those Resv messages with the
appropriate customer VPNs.
This document describes a set of procedures to overcome these
challenges and thus to enable admission control using RSVP over the
PE-CE links. We note that similar techniques may be applicable to
other protocols used for admission control such as NSIS [RFC4080].
Additionally, it may be desirable to perform admission control over
the provider's backbone on behalf of one or more L3VPN customers.
Core (P) routers in a BGP/MPLS VPN do not have forwarding entries for
customer routes, and thus cannot natively process RSVP messages for
customer flows. Also the core is a shared resource that carries
traffic for many customers, so issues of resource allocation among
customers and trust (or lack thereof) must also be addressed. This
draft also specifies procedures for supporting such a scenario.
This draft deals with establishing reservations for unicast flows
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
only. Because the support of multicast traffic in BGP/MPLS VPNs is
still evolving, and raises additional challenges for admission
control, we leave the support of multicast flows for further study at
this point.
1.1. Terminology
This document draws freely on the terminology defined in [RFC2205]
and [RFC4364]. For convenience, we provide a few brief definitions
here:
o CE (Customer Edge) Router: Router at the edge of a customer site
that attaches to the network of the VPN provider.
o PE (Provider Edge) Router: Router at the edge of the service
provider's network that attaches to one or more customer sites.
o VPN Label: An MPLS label associated with a route to a customer
prefix in a VPN (also called a VPN route label).
o VRF: VPN Routing and Forwarding Table. A PE typically has
multiple VRFs, enabling it to be connected to CEs that are in
different VPNs.
2. Problem Statement
The problem space of this document is the support of admission
control between customer sites when the customer subscribes to a BGP/
MPLS VPN. We subdivide the problem into (a) the problem of admission
control on the PE-CE links (in both directions), and (b) the problem
of admission control across the provider's backbone.
For the PE-CE link subproblem, the most basic challenge is that RSVP
control messages contain IP addresses that are drawn from the
customer's address space, and PEs must be able to deal with traffic
from many customers who may have non-unique (or overlapping) address
spaces. Thus, it is essential that a PE be able in all cases to
identify the correct VPN context in which to process an RSVP control
message. Much of this draft deals with this issue.
For the case of making reservations across the provider backbone, we
observe that BGP/MPLS VPNs do not create any per-customer forwarding
state in the P (provider core) routers. Thus, in order to make
reservations on behalf of customer-specified flows, it is clearly
necessary to make some sort of aggregated reservation from PE-PE and
then map individual, customer-specific reservations onto an aggregate
reservation. That is similar to the problem tackled in [RFC3175] and
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
[RFC4804], with the additional complications of handling customer-
specific addressing associated with BGP/MPLS VPNs.
Finally, we note that RSVP Path messages are normally addressed to
the destination of a session, and contain the router alert IP option.
Routers along the path to the destination that are configured to
process RSVP messages must detect the presence of the router alert
option to allow them to intercept Path messages. However, the egress
PEs of a network supporting BGP/MPLS VPNs receive packets destined
for customer sites as MPLS-encapsulated packets, and may forward
those based only on examination of the MPLS label. Hence, a Path
message would be forwarded without examination of the IP options and
would therefore not receive appropriate processing at the PE. This
problem of recognizing and processing Path messages is also discussed
below.
2.1. Model of Operation
Figure 1 illustrates the basic model of operation with which this
document is concerned.
--------------------------
/ Provider \
|----| | Backbone | |----|
Sender->| CE1| |-----| |-----| |CE2 |->Receiver
| |--| | |---| |---| | |---| |
|----| | | | P | | P | | | |----|
| PE1 |---| |-----| |-----| PE2 |
| | | | | | | |
| | |---| |---| | |
|-----| |-----|
| |
\ /
--------------------------
Figure 1. Model of Operation for RSVP-based admission control over
MPLS/BGP VPN
To establish a unidirectional reservation for a point-to-point flow
from Sender to Receiver that takes account of resource availability
on the CE-PE and PE-CE links only, the following steps must take
place:
1. Sender sends a Path message to an IP address of the Receiver.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
2. Path message is processed by CE1 using normal RSVP procedures
and forwarded towards the Receiver along the link CE1-PE1.
3. PE1 processes Path message and forwards towards the Receiver
across the provider backbone.
4. PE2 processes Path message and forwards towards the Receiver
along link PE2-CE2.
5. CE2 processes Path message using normal RSVP procedures and
forwards towards Receiver.
6. Receiver sends Resv message to CE2.
7. CE2 sends Resv message to PE2.
8. PE2 processes Resv message (including performing admission
control on link PE2-CE2) and sends Resv to PE1.
9. PE1 processes Resv message and sends Resv to CE1.
10. CE1 processes Resv using normal RSVP procedures, performs
admission control on the link CE1-PE1 and sends Resv message to
Sender if successful.
In each of the steps involving Resv messages (6 through 10) the node
sending the Resv uses the previously established Path state to
determine the "RSVP Previous Hop (PHOP)" and sends a Resv message to
that address. We note that establishing that Path state correctly at
PEs is one of the challenges posed by the BGP/MPLS environment.
3. Admission Control on PE-CE Links
In the following sections we trace through the steps outlined in
Section 2.1 and expand on the details for those steps where standard
RSVP procedures need to be extended or modified to support the BGP/
MPLS VPN environment. For all the remaining steps described in the
preceding section, standard RSVP processing rules apply.
All the procedures described below support both IPv4 and IPv6
addressing. In all cases where IPv4 is referenced, IPv6 can be
substituted with identical procedures and results. Object
definitions for both IPv4 and IPv6 are provided in Section 8.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
3.1. Path Message Processing at Ingress PE
When a Path message arrives at the ingress PE (step 3 of Section 2.1)
the PE needs to establish suitable Path state and forward the Path
message on to the egress PE. In the following paragraphs we
described the steps taken by the ingress PE.
The Path message is addressed to the eventual destination (the
receiver at the remote customer site) and carries the IP Router Alert
option, in accordance with [RFC2205]. The ingress PE must recognize
the router alert, intercept these messages and process them as RSVP
signalling messages.
As noted above, there is an issue in recognizing Path messages as
they arrive at the egress PE (PE 2 in Figure 1). The approach
defined here is to address the Path messages sent by the ingress PE
directly to the egress PE, and send it without IP Router Alert; that
is, rather than using the ultimate receiver's destination address as
the destination address of the Path message, we use the loopback
address of the egress PE as the destination address of the Path
message. This approach has the advantage that it does not require
any new data plane capabilities for the egress PE beyond those of a
standard BGP/MPLS VPN PE. Details of the processing of this message
at the egress PE are described below in Section 3.2. The approach of
addressing a Path message directly to an RSVP next hop (that may or
may not be the next IP hop) is already used in other environments
such as those of [RFC4206] and [RFC4804].
For an RSVP Path message, the existing SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE
objects can no longer uniquely identify a flow on VPN PE nodes. We
propose a new format of SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE objects which
contain a VPN-IPv4 format address. The ingress and egress PE nodes
translate between the regular IPv4 addresses for messages to and from
the CE, and VPN-IPv4 addresses for messages to and from PE routers.
The details of operation at the ingress PE are as follows. When the
ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1) receives a Path message from CE1 that is
addressed to the receiver, the VRF that is associated with the
incoming interface is identified, just as for normal data path
operations. The Path state for the session is stored, and is
associated with that VRF, so that potentially overlapping addresses
among different VPNs do not appear to belong to the same session.
The destination address of the receiver is looked up in the
appropriate VRF, and the BGP Next-Hop for that destination is
identified. That next-hop is the egress PE (PE2 in Figure 1). A new
VPN-IPv4 SESSION object is constructed, containing the Route
Distinguisher (RD) that is part of the VPN-IPv4 route prefix for this
destination, and the IPv4 address from the SESSION. In addition, a
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
new VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object is constructed, with the original
IPv4 address from the incoming SENDER_TEMPLATE plus the RD that is
used by this PE to advertise that prefix for this customer into the
VPN. A new Path message is constructed with a destination address
equal to the address of the egress PE identified above. This new
Path message will contain all the objects from the original Path
message, replacing the original SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE objects
with the new VPN-IPv4 type objects. The RSVP_HOP object in the Path
message contains an IP address of the ingress PE. The Path message
is sent without IP Router Alert.
3.2. Path Message Processing at Egress PE
When a Path message arrives at the egress PE, it is addressed to the
PE itself, and is handed to RSVP for processing. The router extracts
the RD and IPv4 address from the VPN-IPv4 SESSION object, and
determines the local VRF context by finding a matching VPN-IPv4
prefix with the specified RD that has been advertised by this router
into BGP. The entire incoming RSVP message, including the VRF
information, is stored as part of the Path state.
Now the RSVP module can construct a Path message which differs from
the Path it received in the following ways:
a. Its destination address is the IP address extracted from the
SESSION Object;
b. The SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE objects are converted back to
IPv4-type by discarding the attached RD
c. The RSVP_HOP Object contains the IP address of the outgoing
interface of the egress PE and an LIH, as per normal RSVP
processing.
The router then sends the Path message on towards its destination
over the interface identified above. This Path message carries the
IP Router-Alert option as required by [RFC2205].
3.3. Resv Processing at Egress PE
When a receiver at the customer site originates a Resv message for
the session, normal RSVP procedures apply until the Resv, making its
way back towards the sender, arrives at the "egress" PE (it is
"egress" with respect to the direction of data flow, i.e. PE2 in
figure 1). On arriving at PE2, the SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects
in the Resv, and the VRF in which the Resv was received, are used to
find the matching Path state stored previously. At this stage,
admission control can be performed on the PE-CE link.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
Assuming admission control is successful, the PE constructs a Resv
message to send to the RSVP HOP stored in the Path state, i.e., the
ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1). The IPv4 SESSION object is replaced
with the same VPN-IPv4 SESSION object received in the Path. The IPv4
FILTER_SPEC object is replaced with a VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object,
which copies the VPN-IPv4 address from the SENDER_TEMPLATE received
in the matching Path message. The RSVP_HOP in the Resv message
contains an IP address of the Egress PE that is reachable by the
ingress PE. The Resv message is sent to the IP address contained
within the RSVP_HOP object in the Path message.
If admission control is not successful on the egress PE, a ResvError
message is sent towards the receiver as per normal RSVP processing.
3.4. Resv Processing at Ingress PE
Upon receiving a Resv message at the ingress PE (with respect to data
flow, i.e. PE1 in Figure 1), the PE determines the local VRF context
and associated Path state for this Resv by decoding the received
SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects. It is now possible to generate a
Resv message to send to the appropriate CE. The Resv message sent to
the ingress CE will contain IPv4 SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects,
derived from the appropriate Path state. Since we assume in this
section that admission control over the Provider's backbone is not
needed, the ingress PE does not perform any admission control for
this reservation.
3.5. Other RSVP Messages
Processing of PathError, PathTear, ResvError, ResvTear and ResvConf
messages is generally straightforward and follows the rules of
[RFC2205]. These additional rules must be observed for messages
transmitted within the VPN (i.e. between the PEs):
o The SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTER_SPEC objects must be
converted from IPv4 to VPN-IPv4 form and back in the same manner
as described above for Path and Resv messages.
o The matching state & VRF must be determined by decoding the RD and
IPv4 addresses in the SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects.
o The message must be directly addressed to the appropriate PE,
without using the IP Router Alert option.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
4. Admission Control in Provider's Backbone
The preceding section outlines how per-customer reservations can be
made over the PE-CE links. This may be sufficient in many situations
where the backbone is well engineered with ample capacity and there
is no need to perform any sort of admission control in the backbone.
However, in some cases where excess capacity cannot be relied upon
(e.g., during failures or unanticipated periods of overload) it may
be desirable to be able to perform admission control in the backbone
on behalf of customer traffic.
Because of the fact that routes to customer addresses are not present
in the P routers, along with the concerns of scalability that would
arise if per-customer reservations were allowed in the P routers, it
is clearly necessary to map the per-customer reservations described
in the preceding section onto some sort of aggregate reservations.
Furthermore, customer data packets need to be tunneled across the
provider backbone just as in normal BGP/MPLS VPN operation.
Given these considerations, a feasible way to achieve the objective
of admission control in the backbone is to use the ideas described in
[RFC4804]. MPLS-TE tunnels can be established between PEs as a means
to perform aggregate admission control in the backbone.
An MPLS-TE tunnel from an ingress PE to an egress PE can be thought
of as a virtual link of a certain capacity. The main change to the
procedures described above is that when a Resv is received at the
ingress PE, an admission control decision can be performed by
checking whether sufficient capacity of that virtual link remains
available to admit the new customer reservation. We note also that
[RFC4804] uses the IF_ID RSVP_HOP object to identify the tunnel
across the backbone, rather than the simple RSVP_HOP object described
in Section 3.1. The procedures of [RFC4804] should be followed here
as well.
To achieve effective admission control in the backbone, there needs
to be some way to separate the data plane traffic that has a
reservation from that which does not. We assume that packets that
are subject to admission control on the core will be given a
particular MPLS EXP value, and that no other packets will be allowed
to enter the core with this value unless they have passed admission
control. Some fraction of link resources will be allocated to queues
on core links for packets bearing that EXP value, and the MPLS-TE
tunnels will use that resource pool to make their constraint-based
routing and admission control decisions. This is all consistent with
the principles of aggregate RSVP reservations described in [RFC3175].
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
5. Inter-AS operation
[RFC4364] defines three modes of inter-AS operation for MPLS/BGP
VPNs, referred to as options A, B and C. In the following sections we
describe how the scheme described above can operate in each inter-AS
environment.
5.1. Inter-AS Option A
Operation of RSVP in Inter-AS Option A is quite straightforward.
Each ASBR operates like a PE, and the ASBR-ASBR links can be viewed
as PE-CE links in terms of admission control. If the procedures
defined in Section 3 are enabled on both ASBRs, then CAC may be
performed on the inter-ASBR links. In addition, the operator of each
AS can independently decide whether or not to perform CAC across his
backbone. The new objects described in this document MUST NOT be
sent in any RSVP message between two Option-A ASBRs.
5.2. Inter-AS Option B
To support inter-AS Option B, we require some additional processing
of RSVP messages on the ASBRs. Recall that, when packets are
forwarded from one AS to another in option B, the VPN label is
swapped by each ASBR as a packet goes from one AS to another. The
BGP next hop seen by the ingress PE will be the ASBR, and there need
not be IP visibility between the ingress and egress PEs. Hence when
the ingress PE sends the Path message to the BGP next hop of the VPN-
IPv4 route towards the destination, it will be received by the ASBR.
The ASBR determines the next hop of the route in a similar way as the
ingress PE - by finding a matching BGP VPN-IPv4 route with the same
RD and a matching prefix.
The provider(s) who interconnect ASes using option B may or may not
desire to perform admission control on the inter-AS links. This
choice affects the detailed operation of ASBRs. We describe the two
modes of operation - with and without admission control at the ASBRs
- in the following sections.
5.2.1. Admission control on ASBR
In this scenario, the ASBR performs full RSVP signalling and
admission control. The RSVP database is indexed on the ASBR using
the VPN-IPv4 SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTER_SPEC objects (which
uniquely identify RSVP sessions and flows as per the requirements of
[RFC2205]). These objects are forwarded unmodified in both
directions by the ASBR. All other procedures of RSVP are performed
as if the ASBR was a RSVP hop. In particular, the RSVP_HOP objects
sent in Path and Resv messages contain IP addresses of the ASBR,
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
which MUST be reachable by the neighbor to whom the message is being
sent. Note that since the VPN-IPv4 SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE and
FILTER_SPEC objects satisfy the uniqueness properties required for a
RSVP database implementation as per [RFC2209], no customer VRF
awareness is required on the ASBR.
5.2.2. No admission control on ASBR
If the ASBR is not doing admission control, it is desirable that per-
flow state not be maintained on the ASBR. This requires adjacent
RSVP hops (i.e. the ingress and egress PEs of the respective ASes) to
send RSVP messages directly between them. Not however that such
routers in an Option B environment are not required to have direct IP
reachability to each other. To mitigate this issue, we propose the
use of label switching to forward RSVP messages from a PE in one AS
to a PE in another AS. A detailed description of how this is
achieved follows.
We first define a new VPN-IPv4 RSVP_HOP object. Use of the VPN-IPv4
RSVP_HOP object enables RSVP control plane reachability between any
two adjacent RSVP hops in a MPLS VPN, regardless of whether they have
IP reachability. RSVP nodes sending Path or Resv messages across a
MPLS VPN MAY use the VPN-IPv4 PHOP object to achieve signalling
across Option-B ASBRs without requiring the ASBRs to install state.
The requirements ("SHOULD", "MUST" etc.) specified in the remainder
of this section only apply when the implementation supports the
OPTIONAL use of the VPN-IPv4 HOP object.
The VPN-IPv4 RSVP_HOP object carries the IPv4 address of the message
sender and a logical interface handle as before, but in addition
carries a VPN-IPv4 address which also represents the sender of the
message. The message sender MUST also advertise this VPN-IPv4 HOP
address into BGP with an associated label, and this advertisement
MUST be propagated by BGP throughout the VPN and to adjacent ASes in
order to provide reachability to this PE. Frames received by the PE
marked with this label MUST be given to the local control plane for
processing. This VPN-IPv4 address MAY be created specially for this
task, or MAY be any previously-advertised address representing any
VRF (e.g. local PE-CE link address). In the case where the address
is specially created for control protocols, the BGP advertisement for
this address SHOULD be marked such that it is not redistributed
outside the MPLS VPN. Two possible methods to achieve this goal are:
o Tag the advertisement of such routes with a route target that is
not imported into any customer VRFs. This requires the creation
of a special "control protocols" VPN which is used only for these
addresses.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
o Tag the advertisement with a specially defined extended-community
attribute, the meaning of which is that this route is not to be
redistributed to customers. Definition of this attribute is
beyond the scope of this document.
When an ASBR that is not installing local RSVP state receives a Path
message, it looks up the next-hop of the matching BGP route as
described in Section 3.1, and sends the Path message to the next-hop,
without modifying any RSVP objects (including the RSVP_HOP). This
process is repeated at subsequent ASBRs until the Path message
arrives at a router that is installing local RSVP state (either the
ultimate egress PE, or an ASBR configured to perform CAC). This
router receives the Path and processes it as described in Section 3.2
if it is a PE, or Section 5.2.1 if it is an ASBR performing CAC.
When this router sends the Resv upstream, it queries BGP for a next-
hop and label for the VPN-IPv4 address in the PHOP, encapsulates the
Resv with that label and sends it upstream. This message will be
received for control processing directly on the upstream RSVP hop
(the hop that last updated the RSVP_HOP field in the Path message),
without any involvement of intermediate ASBRs. Further, the router
sending this Resv message MUST include in its RSVP_HOP object a VPN-
IPv4 address advertised by itself into BGP with a label, so that hop-
by-hop RSVP messages in the downstream direction (e.g. ResvError)
can be sent directly to it. Note that the VPN-IPv4 address is only
used to identify a LSP for neighbor reachability. The IPv4 address
in the RSVP_HOP object is used for all other purposes, including
neighbor matching between Path/Resv and SRefresh messages
([RFC2961]), authentication ([RFC2747]), etc.
The ASBR is not expected to process any other RSVP messages apart
from the Path message as described above. The ASBR also does not
need to store any RSVP state. Note that any ASBR along the path that
wishes to do admission control or insert itself into the RSVP
signalling flow, may do so by writing its own RSVP_HOP object with
IPv4 and VPN-IPv4 address pointing to itself.
If an Option-B ASBR receives a RSVP Path message with an IPv4 type
PHOP, does not wish to perform admission control but is willing to
install local state for this flow, the ASBR MUST process and forward
RSVP signalling messages for this flow as described in section 5.2.1
(except admission control). If an Option-B ASBR receives a RSVP Path
message with an IPv4 type PHOP, but does not wish to install local
state or perform admission control for this flow, the ASBR MUST NOT
forward the Path message. In addition, the ASBR SHOULD send a
PathError message of Error Code [_TBD_], Error Value [_TBD_],
signifying to the upstream RSVP hop that the supplied PHOP object is
insufficient to provide reachability across this VPN. The upstream
node, on receipt of this PathError, SHOULD re-send the Path message
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
including a RSVP_HOP of VPN-IPv4 type.
5.3. Inter-AS Option C
Operation of RSVP in Inter-AS Option C is also quite straightforward,
because there exists an LSP directly from ingress PE to egress PE.
In this case, there is no significant difference in operation from
the single AS case described in Section 3. Furthermore, if it is
desired to provide admission control from PE to PE, it can be done by
building an inter-AS TE tunnel and then using the procedures
described in Section 4.
6. Operation with RSVP disabled
It is often the case that RSVP will not be enabled on the PE-CE
links. In such an environment, a customer may reasonably expect that
RSVP messages sent into the L3 VPN network should be forwarded just
like any other IP datagrams. This transparency is useful when the
customer wishes to use RSVP within his own sites or perhaps to
perform admission control on the CE-PE links (in CE->PE direction
only), without involvement of the PEs. For this reason, a PE SHOULD
NOT discard or modify RSVP messages sent towards it from a CE when
RSVP is not enabled on the PE-CE links. Similarly a PE SHOULD NOT
discard or modify RSVP messages which are destined for one of its
attached CEs, even when RSVP is not enabled on those links. Note
that the presence of the router alert option in some RSVP messages
may cause them to be forwarded outside of the normal forwarding path,
but that the guidance of this paragraph still applies in that case.
Note also that this guidance applies regardless of whether RSVP-TE is
used in some, all, or none of the L3VPN network.
7. Other RSVP procedures
This section describes modifications to other RSVP procedures
introduced by MPLS VPNs
7.1. Refresh overhead reduction
The following points should be noted regarding RSVP refresh overhead
reduction ([RFC2961]) across a MPLS VPN:
o The hop between the ingress and egress PE of a VPN should be
considered as traversing one or more non-RSVP hops. As such, the
procedures described in Section 5.3 of [RFC2961] relating to non-
RSVP hops SHOULD be followed.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
o The source IP address of a SRefresh message MUST match the IPv4
address signalled in the RSVP_HOP object contained in the
corresponding Path or Resv message. The IPv4 address in any
received VPN-IPv4 RSVP_HOP object MUST be used as the source
address of that message for this purpose.
7.2. Cryptographic Authentication
The following points should be noted regarding RSVP cryptographic
authentication ([RFC2747]) across a MPLS VPN:
o The IPv4 address in any received VPN-IPv4 RSVP_HOP object MUST be
used as the source address of that message for purposes of
identifying the security association.
o Forwarding of Challenge and Response messages MUST follow the same
rules as described above for hop-by-hop messages. Specifically,
if the originator of a Challenge/Response message has received a
VPN-IPv4 RSVP_HOP object from the corresponding neighbor, it MUST
use the label associated with that VPN-IPv4 address in BGP to
forward the Challenge/Response message.
7.3. RSVP Aggregation
[RFC3175] and [RFC4860] describe mechanisms to aggregate multiple
individual RSVP reservations into a single larger reservation on the
basis of a common DSCP/PHB for traffic classification. The following
points should be noted in this regard:
o The procedures described in this section apply only in the case
where the Aggregator and Deaggregator nodes are C/CE devices, and
the entire MPLS VPN lies within the Aggregation Region. The case
where the PE is also an Aggregator/Deaggregator is more complex
and not considered in this document.
o Aggregate RSVP sessions will be treated in the same way as regular
IPv4 RSVP sessions. To this end, all the procedures described in
Section 3 and Section 4 apply to aggregate RSVP sessions. New
SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTERSPEC objects are defined in
Section 8.
o End-To-End (E2E) RSVP sessions are passed unmodified through the
MPLS VPN. These RSVP messages may be identified by their IP
protocol (RSVP-E2E-IGNORE, 134). When the ingress PE receives any
RSVP message with this IP protocol, it MUST process this frame as
if it is regular customer traffic and ignore any IP Router-Alert
flags. The appropriate VPN and transport labels are applied to
the frame and it is forwarded towards the remote CE. Note that
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
this message will not be received or processed by any other P or
PE node.
o Any SESSION-OF-INTEREST objects (defined in [RFC4860]) are to be
conveyed unmodified across the MPLS VPN.
7.4. Support for CE-CE RSVP-TE
[I-D.kumaki-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts] describes a set of requirements
for the establishment for CE-CE MPLS LSPs across networks offering an
L3VPN service. The requirements specified in that draft are similar
to those addressed by this document, in that both address the issue
of handling RSVP requests from customers in a VPN context. It is
possible that the solution described here could be adapted to meet
the requirements of [I-D.kumaki-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts]. To the
extent that this draft uses signalling extensions described in
[RFC3473] which have already been used for GMPLS/TE, we expect that
CE-CE RSVP/TE will be incremental work built on these extensions.
These extensions will be considered in a separate document.
8. Object Definitions
8.1. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 SESSION objects
The usage of the VPN-IPv4 SESSION Object is described in Section 3.1
and Section 3.2. The VPN-IPv4 SESSION object should appear in all
RSVP messages that ordinarily contain a SESSION object and are sent
between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction. The object
MUST NOT be included in any RSVP messages that are sent outside of
the provider's backbone (except in the inter-AS option B and C cases,
as described above, when it may appear on inter-AS links). The VPN-
IPv4 address in this object is built by combining the IPv4 address
from the incoming SESSION with the RD in the BGP advertisement from
the egress PE for this prefix and customer.
The VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is analogous to the VPN-IPv4 SESSION
object, using VPN-IPv6 addresses[RFC4659].
The formats of the objects are as follows:
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
o VPN-IPv4 SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv4 DestAddress (12 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Protocol Id | Flags | DstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o VPN-IPv6 SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ VPN-IPv6 DestAddress (24 bytes) +
/ /
. .
/ /
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Protocol Id | Flags | DstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The protocol ID, flags, and DstPort are identical to the IPv4 and
IPv6 SESSION objects.
8.2. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE objects
The usage of the VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE Object is described in
Section 3.1 and Section 3.2. The VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object
should appear in all RSVP messages that ordinarily contain a
SENDER_TEMPLATE object and are sent between ingress PE and egress PE
in either direction (such as Path, PathError, and PathTear). The
object MUST NOT be included in any RSVP messages that are sent
outside of the provider's backbone (except in the inter-AS option B
and C cases, as described above, when it may appear on inter-AS
links). The VPN-IPv4 address in this object is built by combining
the IPv4 address from the incoming SENDER_TEMPLATE with the RD in the
BGP advertisement from the ingress PE for this prefix and customer.
The format of the object is as follows:
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
o VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object: Class = 11, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv4 SrcAddress (12 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | SrcPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object: Class = 11, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ VPN-IPv6 SrcAddress (24 bytes) +
/ /
. .
/ /
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | SrcPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The SrcPort is identical to the IPv4 and IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE
objects. The Reserved field must be set to zero on transmit and
ignored on receipt.
8.3. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC objects
The usage of the VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC Object is described in
Section 3.3 and Section 3.4. The VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object should
appear in all RSVP messages that ordinarily contain a FILTER_SPEC
object and are sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either
direction (such as Resv, ResvError, and ResvTear). The object MUST
NOT be included in any RSVP messages that are sent outside of the
provider's backbone (except in the inter-AS option B and C cases, as
described above, when it may appear on inter-AS links). The VPN-IPv4
address in this object is built by combining the IPv4 address from
the incoming FILTER_SPEC with the RD in the BGP advertisement from
the ingress PE for this prefix and customer.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
o VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object: Class = 10, C-Type = TBA
Definition same as VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
o VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object: Class = 10, C-Type = TBA
Definition same as VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
The protocol ID, flags, and DstPort are identical to the IPv4 and
IPv6 SESSION objects.
8.4. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP objects
Usage of the VPN-IPv4 RSVP_HOP Object is described in Section 5.2.2.
The VPN-IPv4 RSVP_HOP object is used to establish signalling
reachability between RSVP neighbors separated by one or more Option-B
ASBRs. This object may appear in all RSVP messages that carry a
RSVP_HOP object, and that travel between the Ingress and Egress PEs.
It MUST NOT be included in any RSVP messages that are sent outside of
the provider's backbone (except in the inter-AS option B and C cases,
as described above, when it may appear on inter-AS links). The
format of the object is as follows:
o VPN-IPv4 RSVP_HOP object: Class = 3, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Next/Previous Hop Address (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv4 Next/Previous Hop Address (12 bytes) |
+
+
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Logical Interface Handle |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
o VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP object: Class = 3, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 Next/Previous Hop Address (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ VPN-IPv6 Next/Previous Hop Address (24 bytes) +
/ /
. .
/ /
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Logical Interface Handle |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
8.5. Aggregated VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 SESSION objects
The usage of Aggregated VPN-IPv4 SESSION object is described in
Section 7.3. The AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 SESSION object should appear in
all RSVP messages that ordinarily contain a AGGREGATE-IPv4 SESSION
object as defined in [RFC3175] and are sent between ingress PE and
egress PE in either direction. The GENERIC-AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4
SESSION object should appear in all RSVP messages that ordinarily
contain a GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IPv4 SESSION object as defined in
[RFC4860] and are sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either
direction. These objects MUST NOT be included in any RSVP messages
that are sent outside of the provider's backbone (except in the
inter-AS option B and C cases, as described above, when it may appear
on inter-AS links). The processing rules for these objects are
otherwise identical to those of the VPN-IPv4 SESSION object defined
in Section 8.1. The VPN-IPv4 address in this object is built by
combining the IPv4 address from the incoming SESSION with the RD in
the BGP advertisement from the egress PE for this prefix and
customer. The format of the object is as follows:
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
o AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv4 DestAddress (12 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| /////// | Flags | /////// | DSCP |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6 SESSION object: Class = 1, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ VPN-IPv6 DestAddress (24 bytes) +
/ /
. .
/ /
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | Flags | Reserved | DSCP |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The flags and DSCP are identical to the AGGREGATE-IPv4 and AGGREGATE-
IPv6 SESSION objects.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
o GENERIC-AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 SESSION object:
Class = 1, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv4 DestAddress (12 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | Flags | PHB-ID |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | vDstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Extended vDstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o GENERIC-AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6 SESSION object:
Class = 1, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ VPN-IPv6 DestAddress (24 bytes) +
/ /
. .
/ /
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | Flags | PHB-ID |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | vDstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Extended vDstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The flags, PHB-ID, vDstPort and Extended vDstPort are identical to
the GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IPv4 and GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IPv6 SESSION
objects.
8.6. AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 and AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE objects
The usage of Aggregated VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object is described
in Section 7.3. The AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object should
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
appear in all RSVP messages that ordinarily contain a AGGREGATE-IPv4
SENDER_TEMPLATE object as defined in [RFC3175] and [RFC4860], and are
sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction. These
objects MUST NOT be included in any RSVP messages that are sent
outside of the provider's backbone (except in the inter-AS option B
and C cases, as described above, when it may appear on inter-AS
links). The processing rules for these objects are otherwise
identical to those of the VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object defined in
Section 8.2. The VPN-IPv4 address in this object is built by
combining the IPv4 address from the incoming SENDER_TEMPLATE with the
RD in the BGP advertisement from the ingress PE for this prefix and
customer. The format of the object is as follows:
o AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object:
Class = 11, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv4 AggregatorAddress (12 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
o AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object:
Class = 11, C-Type = TBA
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ VPN-IPv6 AggregatorAddress (24 bytes) +
/ /
. .
/ /
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
The flags and DSCP are identical to the AGGREGATE-IPv4 and AGGREGATE-
IPv6 SESSION objects.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
8.7. AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 and AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC objects
The usage of Aggregated VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is described in
Section 7.3. The AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object should appear
in all RSVP messages that ordinarily contain a AGGREGATE-IPv4
FILTER_SPEC object as defined in [RFC3175] and [RFC4860], and are
sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction. These
objects MUST NOT be included in any RSVP messages that are sent
outside of the provider's backbone (except in the inter-AS option B
and C cases, as described above, when it may appear on inter-AS
links). The processing rules for these objects are otherwise
identical to those of the VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object defined in
Section 8.3. The VPN-IPv4 address in this object is built by
combining the IPv4 address from the incoming FILTER_SPEC with the RD
in the BGP advertisement from the ingress PE for this prefix and
customer. The format of the object is as follows:
o AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object:
Class = 10, C-Type = TBA
Definition same as AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
o AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object:
Class = 10, C-Type = TBA
Definition same as AGGREGATE-VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
9. IANA Considerations
This document requires IANA assignment of new RSVP C-Types to
accommodate the new objects described in Section 8. In addition, a
new PathError code/value is required to identify a signalling
reachability failure and the need for a VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP
object as described in Section 5.2.2.
10. Security Considerations
[RFC4364] addresses the security considerations of BGP/MPLS VPNs in
general. General RSVP security considerations are addressed in
[RFC2205]. To ensure the integrity of RSVP, the RSVP Authentication
mechanisms defined in [RFC2747] and [RFC3097]may be used. These
protect RSVP message integrity hop-by-hop and provide node
authentication as well as replay protection, thereby protecting
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
against corruption and spoofing of RSVP messages.
[I-D.behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying] discusses
applicability of various keying approaches for RSVP Authentication.
We note that the RSVP signaling in MPLS VPN is likely to spread over
multiple administrative domains (e.g. the service provider operating
the VPN service, and the customers of the service). Therefore the
considerations in [I-D.behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying]
about inter-domain issues are likely to apply. Since RSVP messages
travel through the L3VPN cloud directly addressed to PE or ASBR
routers (without IP Router-Alert), P routers remain isolated from
RSVP messages signalling customer reservations. Providers MAY choose
to block PEs from sending IP Router-Alert datagrams to P routers as a
security practice, without impacting the functionality described
herein.
Beyond those general issues, four specific issues are introduced by
this document: resource usage on PEs, resource usage in the provider
backbone, PE route advertisement outside the AS, and signalling
exposure to ASBRs and PEs. We discuss these in turn.
A customer who makes resource reservations on the CE-PE links for his
sites is only competing for link resources with himself, as in
standard RSVP, at least in the common case where each CE-PE link is
dedicated to a single customer. Thus, from the perspective of the
CE-PE links, this draft does not introduce any new security issues.
However, because a PE typically serves multiple customers, there is
also the possibility that a customer might attempt to use excessive
computational resources on a PE (CPU cycles, memory etc.) by sending
large numbers of RSVP messages to a PE. In the extreme this could
represent a form of denial-of-service attack. In order to prevent
such an attack, a PE should have mechanisms to limit the fraction of
its processing resources that can be consumed by any one CE or by the
set of CEs of a given customer. For example, a PE might implement a
form of rate limiting on RSVP messages that it receives from each CE.
We observe that these security risks and measures related to PE
resource usage are very similar for any control plane protocol
operating between CE and PE (e.g. RSVP, routing, multicast)
The second concern arises only when the service provider chooses to
offer resource reservation across the backbone, as described in
Section 4. In this case, the concern may be that a single customer
might attempt to reserve a large fraction of backbone capacity,
perhaps with a co-ordinated effort from several different CEs, thus
denying service to other customers using the same backbone.
[RFC4804] provides some guidance on the security issues when RSVP
reservations are aggregated onto MPLS tunnels, which are applicable
to the situation described here. We note that a provider may use
local policy to limit the amount of resources that can be reserved by
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
a given customer from a particular PE, and that a policy server could
be used to control the resource usage of a given customer across
multiple PEs if desired.
A third issue may arise when Inter-AS Option B is used and admission
control is not required on the inter-AS link (Section 5.2.2). In
this case, the VPN PE includes a VPN-IPv4 address in the PHOP/NHOP
objects it generates, which is used by the peer to determine a VPN
label to communicate back with this PE. This results in a direct
VPN-IPv4 route to a PE being exported to another AS, and potentially
could allow customers to direct RSVP messages to remote PEs if those
routes were advertised to the customers. However, as described in
Section 5.2.2, a variety of techniques may be used to prevent such
routes from being advertised to customers. Alternatively, ASBRs may
implement the signalling procedures described in Section 5.2.1, even
if admission control is not required on the inter-AS link, as these
procedures do not require any direct P/PE route advertisement out of
the AS.
Finally, certain operations described herein (Section 3) require an
ASBR or PE to receive and locally process a signalling packet
addressed to the BGP next-hop address advertised by that router.
This requirement does not strictly apply to MPLS/BGP VPNs [RFC4364].
This could be viewed as opening ASBRs and PEs to being directly
addressable by customer devices where they were not open before, and
could be considered a security issue. If a provider wishes to
mitigate this situation, it would be possible to use one of the
approaches described in Section 5.2.2 to prevent such routers from
being reachable by customers. That is, whenever a signalling message
is to be sent to a PE or ASBR, the address of the router in question
would be looked up in the "control protocol" VPN, and the message
would then be sent on the LSP that is found as a result of that
lookup. This would allow the provider to restrict advertisement of
PE and ASBR addresses so that these addresses are not reachable by
customer devices.
11. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Ashwini Dahiya, Prashant Srinivas, Yakov Rekhter, Eric
Rosen for their many contributions to solving the problems described
in this draft. Thanks to Ferit Yegenoglu and Dan Tappan for their
useful comments.
Appendix A. Alternatives Considered
At this stage a number of alternatives to the approach described
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
above have been considered. We document some of the approaches
considered here to assist future discussion. None of these has been
shown to improve upon the approach described above, and the first two
seem to have significant drawbacks relative to the approach described
above.
Appendix A.1. GMPLS UNI approach
[RFC4208] defines the GMPLS UNI. In Section 7 the operation of the
GMPLS UNI in a VPN context is briefly described. This is somewhat
similar to the problem tackled in the current document. The main
difference is that the GMPLS UNI is primarily aimed at the problem of
allowing a CE device to request the establishment of an LSP across
the network on the other side of the UNI. Hence the procedures in
[RFC4208] would lead to the establishment of an LSP across the VPN
provider's network for every RSVP request received, which is not
desired in this case.
To the extent possible, the approach described in this document is
consistent with [RFC4208], while filling in more of the details and
avoiding the problem noted above.
Appendix A.2. VRF label approach
Another approach to solving the problems described here involves the
use of label switching to ensure that Path, Resv, and other RSVP
messages are directed to the appropriate VRF. One challenge with
such an approach is that [RFC4364] does not require labels to be
allocated for VRFs, only for customer prefixes, and that there is no
simple, existing method for advertising the fact that a label is
bound to a VRF. If, for example, an ingress PE sent a Path message
labelled with a VPN label that was advertised by the egress PE for
the prefix that matches the destination address in the Path, there is
a risk that the egress PE would simply label-switch the Path directly
on to the CE without performing RSVP processing.
A second challenge with this approach is that an IP address needs to
be associated with a VRF and used as the PHOP address for the Path
message sent from ingress PE to egress PE. That address must be
reachable from the egress PE, and exist in the VRF at the ingress PE.
Such an address is not always available in today's deployments, so
this represents at least a change to existing deployment practices.
Appendix A.3. VRF label plus VRF address approach
It is possible to create an approach based on that described in the
previous section which addresses the main challenges of that
approach. The basic approach has two parts: (a) define a new BGP
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
Extended Community to tag a route (and its associated MPLS label) as
pointing to a VRF; (b) allocate a "dummy" address to each VRF,
specifically to be used for routing RSVP messages. The dummy address
(which could be anything, e.g. a loopback of the associated PE) would
be used as a PHOP for Path messages and would serve as the
destination for Resv messages but would not be imported into VRFs of
any other PE.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3175] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le Faucheur, F., and B. Davie,
"Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations",
RFC 3175, September 2001.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006.
[RFC4804] Le Faucheur, F., "Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation
Protocol (RSVP) Reservations over MPLS TE/DS-TE Tunnels",
RFC 4804, February 2007.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying]
Behringer, M. and F. Faucheur, "Applicability of Keying
Methods for RSVP Security",
draft-behringer-tsvwg-rsvp-security-groupkeying-01 (work
in progress), November 2007.
[I-D.kumaki-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts]
Kumaki, K., "Requirements for supporting Customer RSVP and
RSVP-TE Over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN",
draft-kumaki-l3vpn-e2e-rsvp-te-reqts-06 (work in
progress), February 2008.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
[RFC1633] Braden, B., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview",
RFC 1633, June 1994.
[RFC2209] Braden, B. and L. Zhang, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing Rules", RFC 2209,
September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.
[RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F.,
and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
Extensions", RFC 2961, April 2001.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC3097] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication -- Updated Message Type Value", RFC 3097,
April 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4080] Hancock, R., Karagiannis, G., Loughney, J., and S. Van den
Bosch, "Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework",
RFC 4080, June 2005.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, October 2005.
[RFC4860] Le Faucheur, F., Davie, B., Bose, P., Christou, C., and M.
Davenport, "Generic Aggregate Resource ReSerVation
Protocol (RSVP) Reservations", RFC 4860, May 2007.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
Authors' Addresses
Bruce Davie
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Mass. Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: bsd@cisco.com
Francois le Faucheur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Village d'Entreprise Green Side - Batiment T3
400, Avenue de Roumanille
Biot Sophia-Antipolis 06410
France
Email: flefauch@cisco.com
Ashok Narayanan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Mass. Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: ashokn@cisco.com
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft RSVP for L3VPNs July 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Davie, et al. Expires January 4, 2009 [Page 32]
