MPLS Working Group R. Li
Internet-Draft Q. Zhao
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 02, 2014 C. Jacquenet
France Telecom Orange
E. Metz
KPN
B. Zhang
Telus Communications
July 01, 2013
Receiver-Driven Multicast Traffic-Engineered Label-Switched Paths
draft-lzj-mpls-receiver-driven-multicast-rsvp-te-03.txt
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the setup of Receiver-Driven
Traffic-Engineered point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and multipoint-to-
multipoint (MP2MP)Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)networks.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 02, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Receiver-Driven mRSVP-TE LSP Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. P2MP Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. MP2MP Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Signaling Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.1. Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.2. L2S Sub-LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.3. Path Originator and Data Receiver . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.4. Explicit Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. Path Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Resv Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4. PathErr Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5. ResvErr Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.6. PathTear Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4. New and Updated Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1. SESSION Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1.1. P2MP LSP for IPv4 SESSION Objects . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.2. MP2MP LSP for IPv4 SESSION Objects . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.3. P2MP LSP for IPv6 SESSION Objects . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.4. MP2MP LSP for IPv6 SESSION Objects . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2. SENDER_TEMPLATE Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.1. Multicast LSP IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE Objects . . . . . 17
4.2.2. Multicast LSP IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE Objects . . . . . 18
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
4.3. L2S_SUB_LSP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.1. L2S_SUB_LSP IPv4 Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3.2. L2S_SUB_LSP IPv6 Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. FILTER_SPEC Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4.1. mRSVP-TE LSP_IPv4 FILTER_SPEC Objects . . . . . . . . 19
4.4.2. mRSVP-TE LSP_IPv6 FILTER_SPEC Objects . . . . . . . . 19
5. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. Interwork with PIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2. Multicast VPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. Fast Re-Route Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction
Multiparty multimedia applications are getting great attentions in
the telecom and datacom world. Such applications are QoS-demanding
and can therefore benefit from the MPLS traffic engineering
capabilities based on dynamic computation and establishment of MPLS
LSPs to meet with application-specific QoS requirements. P2MP-TE
[RFC4875] defines a procedure to set up point-to-multipoint LSPs from
sender to receivers. This procedure works very well if the senders
have a priori knowledge of all its receivers. Sometimes multicast
data streams are required to get transported over both IP networks
and MPLS networks, but MPLS networks have no priori knowledge about
senders and receivers. In the IP networks, the receivers can join/
leave a multicast distribution tree by PIM Join/Prune messages, and
thus the multicast distribution tree is essentially receiver-driven.
When such PIM Join/Prune messages arrive at an MPLS network border,
we need a procedure to initiate and set up the multicast distribution
tree in MPLS. This document extends RSVP-TE for initiation and setup
of P2MP and MP2MP LSPs driven by receivers.
1.1. Motivation
IP multicast distribution trees are initiated by receivers and
dynamic by nature. IP multicast applications are also sensative to
bandwidth, especially in the area of residential IPTV services, where
the delivery of multicast contents to several hundreds of thousands
of IPTV receivers assumes the appropriate level of quality.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
Current source-driven P2MP LSP establishment, as defined as in
[RFC4875], assumes a priori knowledge of receiver locations, and the
LSP signalling is initiated and driven by the data sender (headend).
The priori knowledge of receiver locations is obtained either through
static configuration or by using another protocol to discover such
receivers. On the other hand, [RFC4875] does not address the MP2MP
LSPs. Actually, there is no straightfoward way to support MP2MP
applications by using P2MP LSP unless full-meshed P2MP LSPs are set
up independently and separately.
The receiver-driven extension to RSVP-TE described in this document
will support both P2MP LSPs and MP2MP LSPs. Moreover, it does not
require the sender to know all the receivers' locations a priori.
The protocols for discovery of receivers are not needed. It provides
a natural mechanism to interwork with PIM dynamically.
1.2. Terminology
The following terms are used in this document:
o Sender: Sender refers to the Originator (and hence the Sender) of
the content/payload, as defined in [RFC2205].
o Receiver: Receiver refers to the Receiver of the content/payload,
as defined in [RFC2205].
o Upstream: The direction of flow from content Receiver toward
content Sender, as defined in [RFC2205].
o Downstream: The direction of flow from content Sender toward
content Receiver, as defined in [RFC2205].
o Path-Sender: The sender of RSVP PATH messages, with no correlation
to the direction of content/payload flows. Its flow direction is
irrelevant to that of Sender defined above. All other control
messages discussed in this document will use this as the
reference.
o Path-Receiver: The receiver of RSVP PATH messages, with no
correlation to the direction of content/payload flows.
o Path-Initiator: The Path-Sender that originated a RSVP PATH
message. This is different from Path-Sender in that an
intermediate node can be a Path-Sender, but such an intermediate
node cannot create and initiate the RSVP PATH message. A Path-
Initator is a Path-Sender, but a Path-Sender doesn't have to be a
Path-Initiator.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
o Path-Terminator: The Path-Receiver that does NOT propagate the
Path message any further. This is different from Path-Receiver in
that an intermediate node can be a Path-Receiver, but such an
intermediate node will propagate the Path message to the next hop.
o Root: A router where a multcast LSP tree is rooted at. Data
enters the root and then is distributed to leaves along the P2MP/
MP2MP LSP.
1.3. Overview
Although the receiver-driven extensions to RSVP-TE as defined in this
document use the existing sender-driven syntax, there are important
semantic differences that need to be defined for correct
interpretation and interoperability. In the receiver-driven context,
we inverted the semantics of RSVP-TE messages, while keeping the
syntax unchanged as much as possible. We will use mRSVP-TE to
represent the RSVP-TE with receiver-driven extensions described in
this document.
The following are some key differences that are specific to the
receiver-driven paradigm:
o The leaf router: the router that receives data/content/payload.
In this document, the leaf router will initiate PATH messages. In
some sense, the leaf router and the receiver mean the same thing.
The term "receiver-driven" also means "leaf-driven".
o L2S Destinations: routers where user data payload traffic enters
the LSP. L2S means Leaf-to-Source. The source is the sender or
root of a multicast stream.
o RSVP P2MP PATH messages traverse from receivers to the root.
o RSVP P2MP RESV messages traverse from the root to the leaf routers
of the P2MP tree strcuture.
o For P2MP LSP, a RSVP RESV message received by a router is
interpreted as a successful resource reservation made by the
upstream node.
o For MP2MP LSP, a RSVP RESV message received by a router is
interpreted as successful resource reservation made by the
downstream node.
o After a PATH message is received on an interface for P2MP LSP,
label allocation on that interfaces is done prior to sending the
corresponding RSVP PATH message upstream.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
o After a PATH message is received on an interface for MP2MP LSP,
label allocation on that interfaces is done prior to sending the
corresponding RSVP RESV messages downstream.
o For P2MP LSP tree structures, a node receiving a RSVP PATH message
first decides if this RSVP PATH message will make the said node a
branch LSR or not. If it is not a branch LSR, it is a transit
LSR. In the case that it will become a transit LSR because of
this PATH message, it will, before sending the RSVP PATH message
upstream, allocate required bandwidth on the interface on which
the RSVP PATH message is received. The upstream node can send
traffic soon after successfully reserving resources on the
downstream link, on which the RSVP PATH message SHOULD be
received. In the case that the node is already a branch or a
transit node before it receives the PATH message, then it will
allocate required bandwidth on the interface on which the RSVP
PATH message is received, and send the RESV message to the node
which sends the PATH message without propagating the PATH message
further to the upstream node. For P2MP LSPs, a label is carried
by the PATH message and should be used by the upstream node when
distributing the data from upstream to downstream.
o For MP2MP LSP tree structures, a node will allocate required
bandwidth on the interface through which the RSVP PATH message is
sent before sending the RSVP PATH message upstream. A node
receiving a RSVP PATH message MUST first decide if this RSVP PATH
message will make the said node a branch LSR or not. In the case
it will become a transit LSR because of this PATH message, then it
will allocate required bandwidth on the interface on which the
RSVP PATH message is received and will allocate required bandwidth
on the interface through which the RSVP PATH message is sent,
before sending the RSVP PATH message upstream. The downstream
node can send traffic soon after successfully reserving bandwidth
on the upstream link through which the RSVP PATH message SHOULD be
sent. The upstream node can send traffic soon after successfully
reserving bandwidth on the downstream link on which the RSVP PATH
message SHOULD be received. In the case that the node is already
a branch or a transit node before it receives the PATH message,
then it will allocate required resources on the interface on which
the RSVP PATH message is received, and send the RESV message to
the node which sends the PATH message without propagating the PATH
message further to the upstream node. The label carried by the
PATH message should be used by the Path-Receiver node to forward
data from the Path-Receiver node to the Path-Sender node, and the
label carried by RESV messages should be used by its corresponding
Path-Sender node to send data from the Path-Sender node to the
Path-Receiver node.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
o For the sake of readability, from now on all mRSVP-TE LSPs will be
used to represent all P2MP and/or MP2MP LSPs in receiver-driven
(RD) multicast P2MP/MP2MP MPLS environments. We will sometimes
use RD P2MP TE LSP or RD MP2MP TE LSP to represent such receiver-
driven multicast LSPs.
2. Receiver-Driven mRSVP-TE LSP Examples
In what follows we describe two examples to show how P2MP and MP2MP
are set up, respectively. In both of such examples, Path messages
are initiated by data receivers.
For the P2MP example, a Path message carries a label for the use of
sending data downstream. And for the MP2MP example, both Path
message and Resv message carries a label for sending data downstream
and upstream.
2.1. P2MP Example
Sender/Source/Path Terminator/Ingress Router
+---------+
| R1 |
+-----+---+
_
\ \ /\
\ \ \ Path Message w/ Label OBJECT
Resv \ \ \ (msg2)
Message \ \ \
(msg3) \ \ \
_\/ \ \
+----------------+ Path Remerge
| R3 | Creates Branch Point
+----------------+
_ _
/ / /\ \ \ /\
/ / / \ \ \ Path Message (msg1)
Resv Message / / / msg4 \ \ \ w/ Label OBJECT
(msg6) / / / \ \ \
/ / /Path Msg \ \ \
/ / / (msg5) \ \ \
\/_ / / w/Label OBJ _\/ \ \
+----------+ +---+-----+
| R4 | | R5 |
+----------+ +---------+
Path Initiator Path Initiator
Originator ID = R4 Originator ID = R5
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
L2S Destination = R1 L2S Destination = R1
Session = S Session = S
Figure 1: P2MP Example
In Figure 1, when R5 is added as the first leaf of a mulitcast
distribution tree (multicast LSP), the message flow goes as follows:
R5->msg1->R3->msg2->R1->msg3->R3->msg4->R5. When the leaf R4 is
added, the message flow goes from R4->msg5->R3->msg6->R4. In this
case, when R3 receives msg5, R3 finds out that a multicast LSP has
already been set up for the same session and the same source.
Therefore, R3 finds itself a branch node for leaf R4 and R5, so it
will terminate the PATH message and build the corresponding RESV
message and send it back to R4. The association of the LSP initiated
by R4 to the existing multicast LSP is determined based on the
processing of the SESSION object and L2S_SUB_LSP object from the
mRSVP-TE message. The SESSION object and the L2S_SUB_LSP objects are
documented later in this draft.
2.2. MP2MP Example
Root/Path Terminator/Ingress Router
+---------+
| R1 |
+-----+---+
_
\ \ /\
\ \ \ Path-mp2mp Message w/ Label OBJECT
Resv \ \ \ (msg2)
Message \ \ \
(msg3) \ \ \
w/ Label OBJECT _\/ \ \
+----------------+ Path-mp2mp
| R3 | (Branch Point)
+----------------+
_ _
/ / /\ \ \ /\
/ / / \ \ \ Path-mp2mp Message (msg1)
Resv Message / / / msg4 \ \ \ (msg1)
(msg6) / / / \ \ \ w/ Label OBJECT
w/ Label OBJECT/ / /Path-mp2mp \ \ \
/ / / Message \ \ \
/ / / (msg5) \ \ \
\/_ / / w/ Label OBJ _\/ \ \
+----------+ +---+-----+
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
| R4 | | R5 |
+----------+ +---------+
Path-mp2mp Initiator Path-mp2mp Initiator
Originator ID = R4 Originator ID = R5
L2S Destination = R1 L2S Destination = R1
Session = S Session = S
Figure 2: MP2MP Example
For MP2MP, the root address should be specified. It is something
similar to RP in PIM, but it doesn't need the Register message. In
one-to-many applications, the root should be the same as the Sender,
while in many-to-many applications, the root could be any router, but
should be selected in the same way as RP is selected in PIM. In
Figure 2, R1 is specified as the root. When R5 is added as the first
leaf (as both a sender and a receiver) of an MP2MP multicast LSP, the
message flow goes from R5->msg1->R3->msg2->R1->msg3->R3->msg4->R5.
When the leaf R4 ( as both a sender and a receiver)is added, the
message flow goes from R4->msg5->R3->msg6->R4. In this case, when R3
receives msg5, R3 finds out that an MP2MP mulitcast LSP has already
been set up for the same session and the same root and R3 will become
the branch LSR for the leaf R4 and R5, so it will terminate the PATH
message, build a RESV message and send the RESV message back to R4.
The association of the LSP initiated by R4 to the existing MP2MP LSP
is determined based on the processing of the SESSION object and the
S2L_SUB_LSP from the mRSVP-TE message. The SESSION objects and the
L2S_SUB_LSP objects are further documented later in this draft.
3. Signaling Protocol Extensions
The RSVP-TE with receiver-driven extensions (mRSVP-TE) is similar to
the RSVP-TE protocol as specified in [RFC4875], [RFC3473] and
[RFC3209], but differs in that the data receivers of an LSP tunnel
initiate the Path messages toward the data sender (or the root of a
mulitcast LSP). Compared with [RFC4875], mRSVP-TE can also be used
to set up MP2MP LSPs.
In the context of the receiver-driven RSVP-TE, the Receiver is the
Path-Originator. The Path messages go from the Receivers towards the
Sender. The Resv messages flow in the opposite direction as compared
to the Path messages, i.e. Resv messages are generated by the Sender
or a branch LSR. Path messages flow in opposite directions as
cmpared with those of the multicast stream distributions, while Resv
messages flow in the same directions as the multicast streams.
In the context of the receiver-driven RSVP-TE, a Path message will be
terminated at the "root" of the multicast distribution tree
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
(multicast LSP) or at an intermediate node if the intermediate node
has received another Path message from another receiver for the same
multicast distribution tree. When an intermediate node receives two
or more Path messages for the same multicast distribution tree, the
intermediate node will merge them together. Whether two Path
messages should be merged depends on the information encoded in the
SESSION and L2S-SUB-LSP objects. The SESSION object encodes
multicast group information and the L2S-SUB-LSP (leaf-to-source sub-
lsp) object encodes the multicast source or multicast root
information.
The following sections describe the receiver-driven extensions to the
RSVP-TE protocol. When there is no difference in the protocol, the
usage of [RFC4875] is assumed.
3.1. Mechanisms
3.1.1. Sessions
As specified in [RFC2205], a session is a data flow with a particular
destination and transport-layer protocol. In the context of
multicast, the data flow is essentially a multicast distribution tree
rooted at the P2MP source or MP2MP root.
For the sake of reliability, two or more sources/roots may be
deployed to distribute the same multicast streams. A mulitcast
stream is often represented by a mulitcast group address. In this
document, we will encode the mulitcast group address in the SESSION
object and the mulitcast source/root address in the leaf-to-source
sub-LSP object. Note that the same session can have different
sources/roots, and the same sources/roots can have different
sessions.
In the context of the receiver-driven mRSVP-TE, the processing of
SESSION objects is different from that of SESSION objects in sender-
driven RSVP-TE [RFC4875]. In order to distinguish them, we will
employ different C-Types of SESSIONs. In this document we will
document SESSION objects for native IPv4/IPv6 multicast applications.
For new and more applications, new types of SESSION objects will be
added.
Following the method used by RSVP-TE and P2MP RSVP-TE, this draft
documents the use of some new SESSION C-Type as follows:
Class Name = SESSION
C-Type
XX+0 mRSVP_TE_P2MP_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
XX+1 mRSVP_TE_P2MP_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 C-Type
XX+2 mRSVP_TE_MP2MP_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type
XX+3 mRSVP_TE_MP2MP_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 C-Type
Where XX is a number to be allocated by IANA.
Figure 3: New C-Types of SESSIONs
The new SESSION C-Type MUST be used in all receiver-driven P2MP RSVP-
TE messages.
3.1.2. L2S Sub-LSPs
A multicast LSP is composed of one or more leaf-to-source sub-LSPs,
which are merged together at the branch nodes. There are two ways to
identify each such sub-LSP:
o From the Sender's perspective, each sub-LSP is identified by the
SESSION object, the SENDER_TEMPLATE object and S2L_SUB_LSP object,
as specified in [RFC 4875]. The SESSION object encodes P2MP ID,
Tunnel ID, and Extended Tunnel ID. The P2MP ID is unique within
the scope of the sender (ingress LSR) and remains constant
throughout the lifetime of the P2MP tree structure. The Extended
Tunnel ID, which remains constant throughout the lifetime of the
P2MP tree structure, and which should contain the sender's address
to make sure the identifier is globally unique. Finally, the
Tunnel ID, also remains constant throughout the lifetime of the
P2MP tree structure. The SENDER_TEMPLATE object contains the
ingress LSR source address. The S2L_SUB_LSP contains the
destination address of the sub-LSP.
o From the Receiver's perspective, each sub-LSP is identified by a
new SESSION object, a new SENDER_TEMPLATE object and a new
L2S_SUB_LSP object. The SESSION object, different from the one
used in typical sender-driven environments, contains information
to be used as the key to associate different PATH messages
originated from different leaves. The SENDER_TEMPLATE object
contains the Path-Originator's address, which is actually the Data
Receiver. For P2MP LSP, the L2S_SUB_LSP contains the source
address of the sub-LSP, i.e. the data Sender's address. For MP2MP
LSP, the L2S_SUB_LSP contains the root address of the sub-LSP.
The root address could be any router. The SESSION,
SENDER_TEMPLATE and L2S_SUB_LSP all together will identify the
multicast stream, the multicast stream's source, and a mulitcast
stream's receiver
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
This document takes the approach from the Receiver's perspective.
The approach from the Sender's perspective is documented in [RFC
4875].
Once an LSR receives a receiver-driven Path message with the SESSION
object and L2S_SUB_LSP object, the LSR should be able to use the
SESSION object and L2S_SUB_LSP object to determine whether the sub-
LSP signaled by this Path message should be merged with existing
multicast LSPs.
3.1.3. Path Originator and Data Receiver
In the context of the receiver-driven RSVP-TE, a Path Originator is
also a Data Receiver. This document will document a new type of
SENDER_TEMPLATE object, which contains the Path-Originator's IP
address and describes the identity of the Path Originator.
In [RFC 2205] and [RFC 4875], the "sender" is both a path originator
and a data sender. In the receiver-driven context, path originators
and data senders may be different. For P2MP, path originators are
actually the data receivers. For MP2MP, path originators are also
both the data senders and data receivers.
In this document, we will use the same Object Class SENDER_TEMPLATE
with a different C-Type to represent and identify Path Originator.
In the case of P2MP LSP, the SENDER_TEMPLATE describes the identify
of a data receiver. In the case of MP2MP, the SENDER_TEMPLATE
describes the identify of an LSR which work as both a data sender and
a data receiver.
All of the SESSION object, L2S_SUB_LSP object and SENDER_TEMPLATE
object together contained in a Path message will uniquely identify a
leaf-to-source sub-LSP.
3.1.4. Explicit Routing
An EXPLICIT_ROUTE Object (ERO) is used to optionally specify the
explicit route of an L2S sub-LSP. Each signaled ERO corresponds to a
particular L2S_SUB_LSP object. Details of explicit route encoding
are specified in section 4.5 of [RFC4875], but they are encoded in a
reverse order in the receiver-driven context.
When a Path message signals a L2S sub-LSP, the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
encodes the path from the leaf to the root LSR. The Path message
also includes the L2S_SUB_LSP object for the L2S sub-LSP being
signaled. The < [<EXPLICIT_ROUTE>], <L2S_SUB_LSP>> tuple represents
the L2S sub-LSP and is referred to as the sub-LSP descriptor.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
The absence of the ERO should be interpreted as requiring hop-by-hop
reverse-forwarding for the sub-LSP based on the root address field of
the L2S_SUB_LSP object.
3.2. Path Messages
The mechanism specified in this document allows a multicast P2MP/
MP2MP LSP to be signaled using one or more Path messages. Each Path
message may signal one L2S sub-LSPs.
A receiver-driven P2MP MPLS-TE LSP uses the Path message to carry the
LABEL object upstream from the Receiver towards the Sender. With a
receiver-driven usage of the RSVP PATH messages, the LABEL_REQUEST
object carried by the PATH message is no longer mandatory, it becomes
optional for receiver-driven PATH messages, as specified in Figure 4:
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ...]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
[ <LABEL_REQUEST> ]
[ <PROTECTION> ]
[ <LABEL_SET> ... ]
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
[ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<sender descriptor>
[<L2S_SUB_LSP>]
Figure 4: Path Message Extensions
The SESSION object encodes information about the being-signalled
multicast stream. The SESSION object together with L2S_SUB_LSP will
be used as the key to associate different sub-LSPs to the same
multicast LSP.
Using [RFC4875] as the base specification, the LABEL object is added
to the <sender descriptor> as specified in Figure 5:
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
[ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
[ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
<LABEL>
Figure 5: Sender Descriptor
The LABEL object is defined in section 4.1 of [RFC3209]
Note that the receiver-driven Path messages convey the LABEL_REQUEST
as an optional object. If the Path message signals a P2MP LSP, the
LABEL_REQUEST in the Path message is not used. If the Path message
signals an MP2MP, the LABEL_REQUEST is needed to ask for labels from
its upstream LSR.
3.3. Resv Messages
Receiver-driven P2MP RSVP-TE does not need any change to the basic
RESV messages specified in section 6.1 of [RFC4875], as long as the
receiver-driven SESSION objects of the new C-Types are used.
For receiver-driven P2MP LSPs, the Path message carries the LABEL
object, and thus the Resv message doesn't have to carry the LABEL
object anymore. But for MP2MP LSPs, both Path and Resv messages will
carry LABEL objects for sending and receiving purposes, respectively.
Within the context of MP2MP LSPs, one of the directions is
established as per [RFC3209]. Thus, this document is changing the
use of the LABEL object in the FF Flow Descriptor and SE Filter Spec
from mandatory to optional, as specified in Figure 6:
<FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ] <FILTER_SPEC> [ <LABEL> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <L2S_SUB_LSP> ]
<SE filter spec> ::= <FILTER_SPEC> [ <LABEL> ] [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <L2S_SUB_LSP> ]
Figure 6: Resv Message Extensions
3.4. PathErr Messages
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
The receiver-driven PathErr messages have the same syntax and
utilization as the PathErr message described in [RFC4875], with the
difference in the <sender descriptor> carried by the PathErr message.
The receiver-driven PathErr message will use the <sender descriptor>
defined in this document, the same as that carried by the Path
messages which the PathErr messages correspond to.
3.5. ResvErr Message
The receiver-driven ResvErr messages have the same syntax and
utilization as the ResvErr message described in [RFC4875]. But the
ResvErr messages will be processed as per this document, given that
the <FF flow descriptor> and the <SE filter spec> can optionally
contain the LABEL object instead of mandating the use of the LABEL
object. The optional use of the LABEL object is conditioned by the
nature of the multicast LSP, either uni-directional (P2MP) or bi-
directional (MP2MP).
3.6. PathTear Messages
The receiver-driven PathTear messages have the same syntax and
utilization as the PathTear messages described in [RFC4875] except
for the <sender descriptor> carried by the PathTear messages. The
receiver-driven PathTear messages will use <sender descriptor>
defined in this document, the same as that carried by the Path
messages which the PathTear messages correspond to.
4. New and Updated Objects
4.1. SESSION Objects
An mRSVP-TE LSP SESSION object is used to represent a multicast
stream whose traffic will be carried by the multicast LSP being set
up by the mRSVP-TE. The object still uses the existing SESSION C-Num
assigned for RSVP-TE, but new C-Types are defined for the new
purposes. Different from the values in the existing point-to-point
or point-to-multipoint RSVP-TE SESSION object, the new objects
defined by the new C-Types will encode "multicasting" information.
The new SESSION object will have enough information so that the Path-
Receivers can use the SESSION objects together with L2S_SUB_LSP to
determine whether or not to associate different Path messages from
different leaves to the same P2MP/MP2MP LSP. The combination of the
SESSION object, the SENDER_TEMPLATE object and the L2S_SUB_LSP object
will uniquely identify a single L2S sub-LSP.
For native IPv4/IPv6 multicast, IPv4/IPv6 (S, G) or (*, G, RP) will
be encoded in the SESSION object for P2MP or MP2MP LSPs. In what
follows we specify such session objects for IPv4/IPv6 P2MP and MP2MP
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
applications in the context of receiver-driven RSVP-TE. Other
SESSION objects in the receiver-driven context are defined in other
documents.
4.1.1. P2MP LSP for IPv4 SESSION Objects
Class = SESSION, mRSVP_TE_P2MP_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = TBD.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multicast Group Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: P2MP LSP for IPv4 SESSION Objects
4.1.2. MP2MP LSP for IPv4 SESSION Objects
Class = SESSION, mRSVP_TE_MP2MP_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = TBD.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Multicast Group Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: MP2MP LSP for IPv4 SESSION Objects
The MP2MP LSP for IPv4 SESSION objects are of the same format as P2MP
LSP for IPv4 SESSION objects, but their C-Types are different.
4.1.3. P2MP LSP for IPv6 SESSION Objects
This is the same as the P2MP LSP for IPv4 SESSION object with the
difference that the IPv6 multicast group addresses are 16-byte long.
Class = SESSION, mRSVP_TE_P2MP_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 C-Type = TBD.
0 1 2 3
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Multicast Group Address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: P2MP LSP for IPv6 SESSION Objects
4.1.4. MP2MP LSP for IPv6 SESSION Objects
Class = SESSION, mRSVP_TE_MP2MP_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 C-Type = TBD.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Multicast Group Address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: MP2MP LSP for IPv6 SESSION Objects
4.2. SENDER_TEMPLATE Objects
The SENDER_TEMPLATE object contains the Path-Initiator LSR address.
In this document, the Path-Initiator is the same as the Leaf Router
or Data Receiver. The LSP ID can be changed to allow a sender to do
a certain level of resource sharing. Thus, multiple instances of the
same mutlicast LSP can be created, each with a different LSP ID. The
instances can share resources with each other. The L2S sub-LSPs
corresponding to a particular instance use the same LSP ID.
4.2.1. Multicast LSP IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE Objects
Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, mRSVP_TE_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = TBD.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Leaf Router Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | LSP ID |
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: mRSVP-TE Multicast LSP SENDER_TEMPLATE Objects
IPv4 Leaf Router Address: The IPv4 address of the Data Receiver.
LSP ID: A 2-byte identifier that can be changed to allow it to share
resources with itself. Its usage is the same as that described in
[RFC3209].
4.2.2. Multicast LSP IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE Objects
Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, mRSVP-TE_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 C-Type = TBD.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| IPv6 Leaf Router address |
+ +
| (16 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: mRSVP-TE LSP IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE Objects
IPv6 Leaf Router Address: The IPv6 address of the Data Receiver.
LSP ID: A 2-byte identifier that can be changed to allow it to share
resources with itself. Its usage is the same as that described in
[RFC3209].
4.3. L2S_SUB_LSP Objects
An L2S_SUB_LSP object identifies a particular L2S sub-LSP belonging
to a multicast LSP, as explained earlier in this document.
4.3.1. L2S_SUB_LSP IPv4 Objects
L2S_SUB_LSP Class = TBD, L2S_SUB_LSP_IPv4 C-Type = TBD.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 L2S Sub-LSP Root Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: L2S_SUB_LSP IPv4 Objects
IPv4 L2S Sub-LSP Root Address: IPv4 address of the L2S sub-LSP
sender.
4.3.2. L2S_SUB_LSP IPv6 Objects
L2S_SUB_LSP Class = TBD, L2S_SUB_LSP_IPv6 C-Type = TBD
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 L2S Sub-LSP Root Address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: L2S_SUB_LSP IPv6 Object
4.4. FILTER_SPEC Objects
The FILTER_SPEC object is canonical to the SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
4.4.1. mRSVP-TE LSP_IPv4 FILTER_SPEC Objects
Class = FILTER_SPEC, P2MP LSP_IPv4 C-Type = TBD.
The format of the mRSVP-TE LSP_IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is identical
to the mRSVP_TE_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
4.4.2. mRSVP-TE LSP_IPv6 FILTER_SPEC Objects
The format of the mRSVP-TE LSP_IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is identical
to the mRSVP_TE_LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
5. Applications
There are two basic applications for receiver-driven RSVP-TE: inter-
work with PIM and Multicast VPN.
5.1. Interwork with PIM
Some multicast applications may involve several domains, some of
which are operated with PIM while others are enabled with RSVP-TE.
This requires the multicast distribution trees to be computed and set
up across different domains with PIM and MPLS configured in different
domains. When a PIM Join message is received at the border of the
MPLS domain, information encoded from the PIM Join message can be
encoded as a receiver-driven RSVP-TE Path message which will set up a
multicast distribution LSP across the MPLS domain. The root of such
a multicast LSP can encode a PIM Join message by using the
information encoded in the RSVP-TE Path message. The result of doing
so will enable to build a mulitcast distribution tree across both IP
and MPLS domains. The multicast tree will consist of a set of IP
multicast sub-trees built by PIM and a set of MPLS multicast LSPs
built by the receiver-driven RSVP-TE.
5.2. Multicast VPN
An L3VPN service that supports multicast is known as a Multicast VPN,
or MVPN for short. An MVPN needs to connect multiple customer sites
where some hosts may be senders, may be receivers and may be both
senders and receivers. [RFC 6513] specifies protocols and procedures
for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPN, and [RFC 6514] describes the BGP
encodings and procedures for exchanging the information elements
required by Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs as specified in RFC 6513.
Consider an MVPN with two or more senders. If P2MP RSVP-TE is used
to build the multicast distribution tree for multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs, we will need two or more P2MP LSPs, each such P2MP LSP for each
sender, which will increase the forwarding states in core routers.
The more senders, the more P2MP LSPs, and the more forwarding states.
Instead, we can use the extension and the procedure described in this
document to set up a single MP2MP LSP no matter how many senders
there are. The use of MP2MP will greatly reduce the number of P2MP
LSPs and the forwarding states for multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.
6. Fast Re-Route Considerations
The Fast Re-Route mechanisms and procedures specified in [RFC 4090]
will not be applicable to the receiver-driven extension to RSVP-TE
described in this document, since their Path/Resv messages are sent
in different directions.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
Extensions to mRSVP-TE to support Fast Re-Route are described in the
document [I-D.zlj-mpls-mpls-mrsvp-te-frr].
7. Backward Compatibility
A receiver-driven P2MP LSP mechanism uses different C-Types than
those in the sender-driven P2MP RSVP-TE. If LSRs do not recognize
the receiver-driven C-Types, they will not support the receiver-
driven extensions described in this document. LSRs that do not
support receiver-driven P2MP-TE LSP, send Path Error [TBD] back to
the Path Originator.
The complete discussion on the backward compatibility will be
provided in the Next version of the document.
8. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lin Han, Katherine Zhao, Robert Tao, Lou
Berger and Eric Osborne for their comments, questions, and
suggestions on our earlier drafts and presentations in IETF meetings.
9. IANA Considerations
This section is TBD.
10. Security Considerations
How a receiver is authenticated is outside the scope of this
document. But we will briefly summarize the requirements which are
detailed in the requirements draft.
It is a requirement that any mRSVP-TE solution developed to meet some
or all of the requirements expressed in this document MUST include
mechanisms to enable the secure establishment and management of
mRSVP-TE MPLS-TE LSPs. This includes, but is not limited to:
o A receiver MUST be authenticated before it is allowed to establish
mRSVP-TE LSP with its source, in addition to hop-by-hop security
issues identified by in RFC 3209 and RFC 4206.
o mechanisms to ensure that the ingress LSR of a P2MP LSP is
identified;
o mechanisms to ensure that communicating signaling entities can
verify each other's identities;
o mechanisms to ensure that control plane messages are protected
against spoofing and tampering;
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
o mechanisms to ensure that unauthorized leaves or branches are not
added to the mRSVP-TE LSP; and
o mechanisms to protect signaling messages from snooping.
o Note that mRSVP-TE signaling mechanisms built on P2P RSVP-TE
signaling are likely to inherit all the security techniques and
problems associated with RSVP-TE. These problems may be
exacerbated in mRSVP-TE situations where security relationships
may need to maintained between an ingress LSR and multiple egress
LSRs. Such issues are similar to security issues for IP
multicast.
o It is a requirement that documents offering solutions for P2MP
LSPs MUST have detailed security sections.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2702] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M., and J.
McManus, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS",
RFC 2702, September 1999.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4461] Yasukawa, S., "Signaling Requirements for Point-to-
Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 4461, April 2006.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J., and A.
Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment
Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420, February 2006.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
[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.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
2005.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.zlj-mpls-mrsvp-te-frr]
Zhao, K., Li, R., and C. Jacquenet, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to Receiver-Driven RSVP-TE for Multicast
Tunnels", draft-zlj-mpls-mrsvp-te-frr-00 (work in
progress), July 2012.
[RFC3468] Andersson, L. and G. Swallow, "The Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision on MPLS signaling
protocols", RFC 3468, February 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 3564, July 2003.
[RFC5467] Berger, L., Takacs, A., Caviglia, D., Fedyk, D., and J.
Meuric, "GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5467, March 2009.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, February 2012.
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Receiver-Driven Multicast RSVP-TE July 2013
Authors' Addresses
Renwei Li
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: renwei.li@huawei.com
Quintin Zhao
Huawei Technologies
Boston, MA
USA
Email: quintin.zhao@huawei.com
Christian Jacquenet
France Telecom Orange
4 rue du Clos Courtel
35512 Cesson Sevigne,
France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange-ftgroup.com
Eduard Metz
KPN
The Netherlands
Email: eduard.metz@kpn.com
Boris Zhang
Telus Communications
200 Consilium PL Floor 15
Toronto, ON M1H 3J3
Canada
Email: Boris.Zhang@telus.com
Li, et al. Expires January 02, 2014 [Page 24]