MPLS Working Group Mike Taillon
INTERNET-DRAFT Tarek Saad
Intended Status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Inc.
Expires: January 7, 2016 Nicholas Tan
Arista Networks
Abhishek Deshmukh
Markus Jork
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
July 6, 2015
RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions
for LSP Tunnels
draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-01
Abstract
This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions that reduce the
amount of RSVP signaling required for Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures
and subsequently improve the scalability of the RSVP-TE signaling
when undergoing FRR convergence post a link or node failure. Such
extensions allow the RSVP message exchange between the Point of Local
Repair (PLR) and the Merge Point (MP) to be independent of the number
of protected LSPs traversing between them (eg. when bypass LSP FRR
protection is used). The new signaling extensions are fully backwards
compatible with nodes that do not support them.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Summary FRR LSP Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RECORD_ROUTE subobject . . . 4
2.2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. PLR Path Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2. MP Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.3. PLR Resv Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Post FRR Trigger Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. PLR Summary FRR Path Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. MP Summary FRR Path Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. MP Summary FRR Resv Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Compatibilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
1. Introduction
Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures defined in [RSVP-TE-FRR] describe the
mechanism for the Point of Local Repair (PLR) to reroute traffic and
signaling of a protected RSVP-TE LSP onto the bypass tunnel in the
event of a TE link or node failure. These signaling procedures are
performed individually for each affected LSP and can lead to
scalability and latency issues when the failure event affect a large
number of protected LSPs between the same PLR and MP.
In a scaled deployment, a single P node acting as a PLR may host tens
of thousands of protected RSVP-TE LSPs egressing the same link, and
likewise, act as a Merge Point (MP) for similar number of LSPs
ingressing the same link. In the event of the failure of the link or
neighbor node, the RSVP-TE control plane of PLR and MP becomes busy
rerouting protected LSPs signaling over the bypass tunnel(s) in one
direction, and merging signaling of received messages over bypass
tunnels in the other direction, respectively. At the same time, head-
end PE nodes that are notified of the local repair, attempt to
(re)converge affected RSVP-TE LSPs over newly computed paths,
possibly traversing the same P node. As a result, the RSVP-TE control
plane at the PLR and MP becomes overwhelmed by the FRR processing
overhead following link or node failure while also competing for CPU
processing power with other control plane protocol(s) (e.g. IGP) also
undergoing convergence.
The extensions defined in this document enable a MP to become aware
of the PLR's bypass assignment and allow FRR procedures between PLR
and MP to be signaled and processed on groups of LSPs. Further,
MESSAGE_ID objects for the rerouted PATH and RESV states are
exchanged prior to the fault such that Summary Refresh
procedures defined in [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH] can be used to
immediately refresh rerouted state after fast reroute has occurred.
1.1. Summary FRR LSP Groups
The PLR creates and manages Summary FRR LSP groups
(Bypass_Group_Identifiers) and shares them with the MP via
signaling. Protected LSPs sharing the same egress link and bypass
assignment are grouped together and are assigned the same group. The
MP maintains the PLR group assignments learned via signaling, and
acknowledges the group assignments via signaling. Once the PLR
receives the acknowledgement, FRR signaling can now be group based.
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
1.2. Terminology
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 [KEYWORDS].
2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Coordination
This document defines a new subobject in RSVP RECORD_ROUTE object,
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT, to extend RSVP-TE for summary fast-
reroute signaling. This object is backward compatible with LSRs that
do not recognize it (see section 4.4.5 in [RSVP-TE]).
2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RECORD_ROUTE subobject
When used within an RSVP Path message, the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is used to inform the MP of
the bypass tunnel being used by the PLR, the assigned Summary FRR
Bypass_Group_Identifier for the protected LSP, and the MESSAGE_ID
object that the PLR will use to refresh the protected LSP PATH state
post FRR trigger. When used within a RSVP Resv message, the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is used by the MP to
acknowledge the PLR's bypass tunnel assignment, and provide the
MESSAGE_ID object that the MP will use to refresh the protected LSP
RESV state post FRR trigger (and also indicates support for this
extension).
The IPv4 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following
format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Bypass_Tunnel_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 8 bits
(TBD-1) IPv4 Summary FRR Bypass Assignment
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
Length: 8 bits
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits
The bypass tunnel identifier.
Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address.
Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address.
Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel group identifier.
Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID
A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH].
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
The IPv6 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following
format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Bypass_Tunnel_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 8 bits
(TBD-2) IPv6 Summary FRR Bypass Assignment
Length: 8 bits
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits
The bypass tunnel identifier.
Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address: 128 bits
The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address.
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address: 128 bits
The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address.
Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel group identifier.
Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID
A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH].
2.2. Bypass Tunnel Assignment Signaling Procedure
Before Summary FRR procedures can be used, a handshake MUST be
completed between the PLR and MP. This handshake is performed using
RECORD_ROUTE subobject SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT within both the
RSVP Path and Resv messages.
The PLR assigns a bypass tunnel and Bypass_Group_Identifier for each
protected LSP. The same Bypass_Group_Identifier is used for the set
of protected LSPs that share the same bypass tunnel and traverse the
same egress link and are not already rerouted. The PLR also
generates a MESSAGE_ID object (flags SHOULD be clear, Epoch and
Message_Identifier MUST be set according to [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH])
that is used by the PLR to later match the last sent subobject and
eliminate timing issues.
The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject contents change; for
example, when PLR changes the bypass tunnel assignment.
The PLR notifies the MP of the bypass tunnel assignment via adding a
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject to the RSVP Path message
RECORD_ROUTE object for the protected LSP using procedure described
in section 2.2.1.
The MP acknowledges the PLR's assignment by signalling a
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the RSVP Resv messsage
RECORD_ROUTE object. With exception of the MESSAGE_ID object, all
other fields of the received SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject
are copied into the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT of the Resv
message. The MESSAGE_ID object is set according to [RSVP-SUMMARY-
REFRESH], with the Flags being clear. A new Message_Identifier MUST
be used to acknowledge an updated PLR assignment.
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
The PLR considers the protected LSP as Summary FRR capable only if
the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects within the sent RSVP
Path message RECORD_ROUTE and the received RSVP Resv message
RECORD_ROUTE match (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID object). If a
matching subobject does not exist, or is later absent in a subsequent
refresh, the PLR MUST consider the protected LSP as not Summary FRR
capable.
2.2.1. PLR Path Signaling Procedure
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added to the
RECORD_ROUTE object by each PLR in the RSVP Path message of the
protected LSP to record the bypass tunnel assignment. This subobject
is updated every time the PLR updates the bypass tunnel assignment
(which triggers an RSVP Path change message). Upon updating the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject, the PLR MUST consider the
protected LSP as not Summary FRR capable until a new handshake has
completed.
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the
RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address. A node
MUST NOT add a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject without also
adding the node's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject.
2.2.2. MP Signaling Procedure
Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with RECORD_ROUTE object, the MP
processes all (there may be multiple PLRs for a single MP)
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASSS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching Bypass
Destination address.
The MP first ensures the existence of the bypass tunnel and that the
Bypass_Group_Identifier is not already active. That is, an LSP
cannot join a group that is already active.
The MP builds a mirrored Summary FRR Group database per PLR, which is
determined using the Bypass_Source_Address field. The MESSAGE_ID is
extracted and recorded for the protected LSP PATH state. To
acknowledge each PLR bypass assignment, a matching
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is prepared as per 2.2.
Note, a MP may received more than a Path message with the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject from different upstream PLRs.
In this case, the MP is expected to save all the received
MESSAGE_IDs from the different PLRs. Post failure, the MP determines
and activates the associated Sumamry Refresh ID to use once it
receives and processes the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE from the PLR.
Each SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the
RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address. A node
MUST NOT add a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject without also
adding an IPv4 or IPv6 subobject.
When forwarding an RSVP Path message downstream, the MP MAY remove
any/all SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
Bypass_Destination_Address.
2.2.3. PLR Resv Signaling Procedure
Upon receiving an RSVP Resv message with RECORD_ROUTE object, the PLR
checks if the expected SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is
present. If present, the PLR determines if the MP has acknowledged
the current PLR assignment.
To be a valid acknowledgement, the received
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the Resv message MUST
match the latest SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject sent with
the Path message (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID) and the received
Message_Identifier MUST be different (to prevent race condition
during bypass assignment flip-flop). If the MP has acknowledged the
bypass assignment then the LSP is now ready for Summary FRR.
When forwarding an RSVP Resv message upstream, the PLR MAY remove
any/all SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching
Bypass_Source_Address.
3. Post FRR Trigger Signaling
Upon detection of the fault (egress link or node failure) the PLR
first performs the object modification procedures described by
section 6.4.3 of [RSVP-TE-FRR] for all affected protected LSPs. For
Summary FRR LSPs assigned to the same bypass tunnel a common RSVP_HOP
and SENDER_TEMPLATE MUST be used.
The PLR MUST first signal non-Summary FRR LSPs over the bypass tunnel
before signaling the Summary FRR LSPs. This is needed to allow for
the case when the PLR has recently changed a bypass assignment which
the MP may not have processed the change yet.
A new object SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE is defined and sent within the
RSVP Path message of the bypass tunnel for reroute signaling of
Summary FRR LSPs.
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
3.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object
Sent within an RSVP Path message, the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE
object is used to inform the MP (bypass tunnel destination) that one
or more groups of protected LSPs that are being protected by the
bypass tunnel are being rerouted.
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object has the following format:
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class = TBD (of the form 11bbbbbb)
Class = SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class, C_Type = 1 (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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RSVP_HOP_Object |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
// : //
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
RSVP_HOP_Object: Class 3, as defined by [RSVP]
Replacement HOP object to be applied to all LSPs associated
with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers
Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
Bypass_Group_Identifier field from the RECORD_ROUTE object
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject(s) corresponding to all
LSPs that the bypass headend (PLR) advertised this specific
Bypass_Group_Identifier for. One or more
Bypass_Group_Identifiers may be included.
3.2. PLR Summary FRR Path Signaling Procedure
An individual RSVP Path message for each Summary FRR LSP is not
signaled.
To reroute Summary FRR LSPs via the bypass tunnel, the PLR adds the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object in the RSVP Path message of the
bypass tunnel.
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
The RSVP_HOP_Object field of the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is
set to the common RSVP_HOP that was used during section 3.
The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the MP is activated, meaning
that the MP may now refresh the protected rerouted RESV state using
Summary Refresh procedures.
For each affected Summary FRR group, its group identifier is added to
the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object.
3.3. MP Summary FRR Path Signaling Procedure
Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE
object, the MP performs normal merging processing for each LSP
associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier, as if it received
individual RSVP Path messages for each Summary FRR LSP.
For each Summary FRR LSP being merged, the MP first modifies the Path
state as follows:
1. The RSVP_HOP object is copied from the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE RSVP_HOP_Object field.
2. The SENDER_TEMPLATE object SrcAddress field is copied from the
bypass tunnel SENDER_TEMPLATE object. For the case where PLR is
also the headend, and SENDER_TEMPLATE SrcAddress of the protected
LSP and bypass tunnel are the same, the MP MUST use the modified
HOP Hop Address field instead.
3. The ERO object is modified as per section 6.4.4. of [RSVP-TE-
FRR]
Once the above modifications are completed, the MP then performs the
merge processing as per [RSVP-TE-FRR].
The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the PLR is activated, meaning
that the PLR may now refresh the protected rerouted PATH state using
Summary Refresh procedures.
A failure during merge processing of any individual rerouted LSP MUST
result in an RSVP Path Error message and the LSP MUST not be removed
from the Bypass_Group -- this is to cover the case where the RSVP
Path Error message doesn't reach the PLR and the RSVP Path Error
message may need to be resignaled.
3.4. MP Summary FRR Resv Signaling Procedure
An individual RSVP Resv message for each successfully merged Summary
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
FRR LSP is not signaled. The MP SHOULD immediately use Summary
Refresh to refresh the protected LSP RESV state.
3.5. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs
Refreshing of Summary FRR active LSPs is performed using Summary
Refresh as defined by [RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH].
4. Compatibilty
The new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is to be defined with a
class number in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with
non- supporting nodes. Per [RSVP], nodes not supporting this
extension will ignore the object but forward it, unexamined and
unmodified, in all messages.
The new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RECORD_ROUTE subobject, as per
section 4.4.5. of [RSVP-TE], if not recognized SHOULD be ignored and
forwarded.
5. Security Considerations
This document introduces new RSVP subobjects. Thus in the event of
the interception of a signaling message, slightly more could be
deduced about the state of the network than was previously the case.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for the
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
IANA maintains a name space for RSVP-TE TE parameters "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From the
registries in this namespace "Route Record" types, allocation of two
new RECORD_ROUTE object sub-types (IPv4 and IPv6) for the new
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject are required.
A new RSVP Class (of the form 11bbbbbb) and C-type for the new
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is required.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RSVP] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RSVP-TE] Steinberger, R. and O. Nicklass, "Definitions of Managed
Objects for Frame Relay Service Level Definitions",
RFC 3202, January 2002.
[RSVP-TE-FRR] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
[RSVP-SUMMARY-REFRESH] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P.,
Tommasi, F., and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead
Reduction Extensions", RFC 2961, April 2001.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses
Mike Taillon
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: mtaillon@cisco.com
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems, Inc.
EMail: tsaad@cisco.com
Nicholas Tan
Arista Networks
Email: ntan@arista.com
Abhishek Deshmukh
Juniper Networks
EMail: adeshmukh@juniper.net
Markus Jork
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT RSVP-TE Summary FRR July 6, 2015
Juniper Networks
EMail: mjork@juniper.net
Vishnu Pavan Beerram
Juniper Networks
EMail: vbeeram@juniper.net
Taillon, et al. Expires January 7, 2016 [Page 14]