MPLS Working Group M. Taillon
Internet-Draft T. Saad, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Inc
Expires: September 19, 2016 N. Tan
Arista Networks
A. Deshmukh
M. Jork
V. Beeram
Juniper Networks
March 18, 2016
RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for LSP Tunnels
draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-04
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 Label Switched Paths (LSP)s 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 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 September 19, 2016.
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Summary FRR Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Extended ASSOCIATION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2. Signaling Procedures Post Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Compatibilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] describe the mechanisms for the
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. Such
signaling procedures are performed individually for each affected
protected LSP. This may eventually lead to control plane scalability
and latency issues under limited (memory and CPU processing)
resources after failure that affects a large number of protected LSPs
traversing the same PLR and MP.
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
In a large RSVP-TE LSPs scale deployment, a single LSR acting as a
PLR node may host tens of thousands of protected RSVP-TE LSPs
egressing the same link, and likewise, act as a Merge Point (MP) node
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 the node when acting as PLR becomes busy rerouting protected LSPs
signaling over the bypass tunnel(s) in one direction, and when acting
as an MP node becomes busy merging RSVP states from signaling
received over bypass tunnels for LSP(s) in the reverse direction.
Subsequently, the head-end LER(s) that are notified of the local
repair at downstream LSR will attempt to (re)converge affected RSVP-
TE LSPs onto newly computed paths - possibly traversing the same
previously affected LSR(s). As a result, the RSVP-TE control plane
at the PLR and MP becomes overwhelmed by the amount of FRR RSVP-TE
processing overhead following the link or node failure, and the
competing other control plane protocol(s) (e.g. the IGP) that undergo
their convergence at the same time.
The extensions defined in this document enable an MP node to become
aware of the PLR node's bypass tunnel assignment and allow FRR
procedures between PLR node and MP node to be signaled and processed
on groups of LSPs. Further, the MESSAGE_ID for the rerouted PATH and
RESV states are exchanged a priori to the fault such that Summary
Refresh procedures defined in [RFC2961] can continue to be used to
refresh the rerouted state(s) after FRR has occurred.
1.1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
2. Summary FRR Signaling Procedures
The RSVP ASSOCIATION object was defined in [RFC4872] as a means to
associate LSPs with each other. For example, in the context of
GMPLS-controlled LSP(s), the object is used to associate recovery
LSPs with the LSP they are protecting. The Extended ASSOCIATION
object was also introduced in [RFC6780] to expand on the possible
usage of the ASSOCIATION object and generalize the definition of the
Association ID field.
This document proposes the use of the Extended ASSOCIATION object to
carry the Summary FRR information and associate the protected LSP(s)
with the bypass tunnel that protects them. To this extent, a new
Association Type for the ASSOCIATION object, and a new Association ID
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
are proposed in this draft to describe the Bypass Summary FRR
(B-SFRR) association.
The ASSOCIATION object is defined with a class number in the form
11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non-supporting node. As
per [RFC2205], such nodes will ignore the object but forward it
without modification.
This document also defines a new RSVP ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS
object that is sent within the RSVP Path message of a bypass LSP to
inform the MP node that one or more groups of protected LSPs that are
being protected by the bypass tunnel are being rerouted.
The PLR creates and manages the 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
acknowledgment, FRR signaling can proceed as group based.
The PLR node that supports Summary FRR procedures adds the Extended
ASSOCIATION object with Bypass Summary FRR Association Type -
referred to thereon in this document as B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION
object- in a the RSVP Path message of the protected LSP to inform the
MP of the PLR's assigned bypass tunnel, Summary FRR
Bypass_Group_Identifier, and the MESSAGE_ID object that the PLR will
use to refresh the protected LSP PATH state after FRR occurs.
The MP node that supports Summary FRR procedures adds the B-SFRR
Extended ASSOCIATION object in a RSVP Resv message of the protected
LSP to acknowledge the PLR's bypass tunnel assignment, and provide
the MESSAGE_ID object that the MP node will use to refresh the
protected LSP RESV state after FRR occurs.
2.1. Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure
Before Summary FRR procedures can be used, a handshake MUST be
completed between the PLR and MP. This handshake is performed using
B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object that is carried in both the RSVP
Path and Resv messages of the protected LSP.
2.1.1. Extended ASSOCIATION Object
The B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object is populated using the rules
defined below to associate the Summary FRR enabled protected LSP with
the bypass LSP that is protecting it.
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
The Association Type, Association ID, and Association Source MUST be
set as defined in [RFC4872] for the ASSOCIATION Object. More
specifically:
Association Source:
The Association Source is set to an address selected by the node
that originates the association. For Bypass Summary FRR association
it is set to an address of the PLR node.
Association Type:
The Association Type is set to indicate the Bypass Summary FRR
association. A new Association Type is defined as follows:
Value Type
------- ------
(TBD-1) Bypass Summary FRR Association (B-SFRR)
Extended Association ID:
The Extended Association ID is populated by the node originating the
association -- i.e. the PLR for the Bypass Summary FRR association.
The rules to populate the Extended Association ID in this case is
described in Section below.
2.1.1.1. IPv4 Extended Association ID
The IPv4 Extended Association ID for Summary FRR bypass assignment
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Tunnel_ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MESSAGE_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits
The bypass tunnel identifier.
Reserved: 16 bits
Reserved for future use.
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.
MESSAGE_ID
A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by {{RFC2961}}.
2.1.1.2. IPv6 Extended Association ID
The IPv6 Extended Association ID field for the Summary FRR
information has the following format:
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Tunnel_ID | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MESSAGE_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits
The bypass tunnel identifier.
Reserved: 16 bits
Reserved for future use.
Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address: 128 bits
The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address.
Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address: 128 bits
The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address.
Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel group identifier.
MESSAGE_ID
A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by {{RFC2961}}.
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 [RFC2961]).
The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the contents
of the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object change; for example, when
PLR node changes the bypass tunnel assignment.
The PLR node notifies the MP node of the bypass tunnel assignment via
adding a B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object in the RSVP Path message
for the protected LSP using procedures described in Section 2.2.
The MP node acknowledges the PLR node's assignment by signaling the
B-SFRR Extended Association object within the RSVP Resv messsage of
the protected LSP. With exception of the MESSAGE_ID objects, all
other fields of the received B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object in
the RSVP Path message are copied into the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION
object to be added in the Resv message. The MESSAGE_ID object is set
according to [RFC2961] with the Flags being clear. A new
Message_Identifier MUST be used to acknowledge an updated PLR
assignment.
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
The PLR considers the protected LSP as Summary FRR capable only if
the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION objects sent in the RSVP Path message
and the one received in the RSVP Resv message (with exception of the
MESSAGE_ID) match. If it does not match, or if B-SFRR Extended
Association object is absent in a subsequent refresh, the PLR node
MUST consider the protected LSP as not Summary FRR capable.
2.1.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure
The B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object is added by each PLR in the
RSVP Path message of the protected LSP to record the bypass tunnel
assignment. This object is updated every time the PLR updates the
bypass tunnel assignment (which triggers an RSVP Path change
message).
Upon receiving an RSVP Resv message with B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION
object, the PLR node checks if the expected subobjects in the B-SFRR
Extended ASSOCIATION ID are present. If present, the PLR determines
if the MP has acknowledged the current PLR assignment.
To be a valid acknowledgement, the received B-SFRR Extended
ASSOCIATION object contents within the RSVP Resv message of the
protected LSP MUST match the latest B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION
object contents that the PLR node had sent within the RSVP Path
message (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID)
Note, when forwarding an RSVP Resv message upstream, the PLR node
SHOULD remove any/all B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION objects whose
Association Source matches the PLR node's address.
2.1.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure
Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with an B-SFRR Extended
ASSOCIATION object, the MP node processes all (there may be multiple
PLRs for a single MP) B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION objects that has
the MP node address as Bypass Destination address in the Association
ID.
The MP node first ensures the existence of the bypass tunnel and that
the Bypass_Group_Identifier is not already FRR active. That is, an
LSP cannot join a group that is already FRR rerouted.
The MP node 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. The MP node signals a B-SFRR Extended Association object
within the RSVP Resv messsage of the protected LSP. With exception
of the MESSAGE_ID objects, all other fields of the received B-SFRR
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
Extended ASSOCIATION object in the RSVP Path message are copied into
the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object to be added in the Resv
message. The MESSAGE_ID object is set according to [RFC2961] with
the Flags being clear.
Note, an MP may receive more than one RSVP Path message with the
B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object from different upstream PLR
node(s). In this case, the MP node is expected to save all the
received MESSAGE_IDs from the different upstream PLR node(s). Post
failure, the MP node determines and activates the associated Sumamry
Refresh ID to use once it receives and processes the RSVP Path
message with ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object over the bypass LSP
from the PLR.
When forwarding an RSVP Path message downstream, the MP SHOULD remove
any/all B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object(s) whose Association ID
contains Bypass_Destination_Address matching the MP node address.
2.2. Signaling Procedures Post Failure
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 [RFC4090] 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 signal non-Summary FRR enabled LSPs over the bypass
tunnel before signaling the Summary FRR enabled LSPs. This is needed
to allow for the case when the PLR node has recently changed a bypass
assignment and the MP has not processed the change yet.
A new object ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS is defined in Section 2.2.1
and sent within the RSVP Path message of the bypass LSP to reroute
RSVP state of Summary FRR enabled LSPs.
2.2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Object
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object is carried in the Path message of a
bypass LSP. The ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS is added by the PLR node
to indicate to the MP node (bypass tunnel destination) that one or
more groups of protected LSPs that are being protected by the
specified bypass tunnel are being rerouted over the bypass tunnel.
The ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object is assigned the C-Type (TBD-3).
The ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object has the below format.
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Class-Num = (TBD-2) (of the form 11bbbbbb) Class-
Name = SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Class, ACTIVE C-Type = (TBD-3)
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-N(TBD-2)| C-Type (TBD-3)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Num-BGIDs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
// : //
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RSVP_HOP_Object |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TIMES_VALUE |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved: 16 bits
Reserved for future use.
Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
Bypass_Group_Identifier field previously exchanged using the Extended
Association object 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.
Num-BGIDs: 32 bits
Number of Bypass_Group_Identifier fields.
RSVP_HOP_Object: Class 3, as defined by [RFC2205]
Replacement HOP object to be applied to all LSPs associated
with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers.
TIME_VALUES object: Class 5, as defined by [RFC2205]
Replacement TIMES_VALUES object to be applied to all LSPs associated
with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers.
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
2.2.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure
Post a failure event, when using the Summary FRR path signaling
procedures, an individual RSVP Path message for each Summary FRR LSP
is not signaled. Instead, to reroute Summary FRR LSPs via the bypass
tunnel, the PLR adds the ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object in the RSVP
Path message of the RSVP session of the bypass tunnel.
The RSVP_HOP_Object field of the ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object is
set to the common RSVP_HOP that was used by the PLR in Section 2.2.
The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the MP is activated. As a
result, the MP may refresh the protected rerouted RESV state using
Summary Refresh procedures.
For each affected Summary FRR group, its group identifier is added to
the ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object.
2.2.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure
Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with a ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS
object, the MP performs normal merging processing for each protected
LSP associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier, as if it received
individual RSVP Path messages for the 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 ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS
RSVP_HOP_Object field.
2. The TIMES_VALUE object is copied from the ACTIVE
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS TIMES_VALUE field.
3. 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.
4. The ERO object is modified as per Section 6.4.4. of [RFC4090].
Once the above modifications are completed, the MP then performs
the merge processing as per [RFC4090].
5. 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.
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
A failure during merge processing of any individual rerouted LSP MUST
result in an RSVP Path Error message.
An individual RSVP Resv message for each successfully merged Summary
FRR LSP is not signaled. The MP node SHOULD immediately use Summary
Refresh procedures to refresh the protected LSP RESV state.
2.3. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs
Refreshing of Summary FRR active LSPs is performed using Summary
Refresh as defined by [RFC2961].
3. Compatibilty
The (Extended) ASSOCIATION object is defined in [RFC4872] with a
class number in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with
non-supporting node(s). Such nodes will ignore the object and
forward it without modification.
The new ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object is to be defined with a
class number in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with
non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], the nodes not supporting this
extension will ignore the object but forward it, unexamined and
unmodified, in all messages.
4. Security Considerations
This document updates an existing RSVP object, and introduces a new
RSVP object. 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.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters ). The
"Association Type" subregistry is included in this registry.
This registry has been updated by new Association Types for
ASSOCIATION and Extended ASSOCIATION Objects defined in this document
as follows:
Value Name Reference
----- ---- ---------
TBD-1 Bypass Summary FRR Association (B-SFRR) Section 2.1.1
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
IANA also maintains and assigns the values for the RSVP-TE protocol
parameters "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters).
From this registry, a new RSVP Class (TBD-2) and of the form 11bbbbbb
and a new C-Type (TBD-3) are requested for the new ACTIVE
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object defined in this document.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Lou Berger, Eric
Osborne, Gregory Mirsky, and Mach Chen for reviewing and providing
valuable comments to this document.
7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F.,
and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
Extensions", RFC 2961, DOI 10.17487/RFC2961, April 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2961>.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
[RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.
[RFC6780] Berger, L., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP
ASSOCIATION Object Extensions", RFC 6780, DOI 10.17487/
RFC6780, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6780>.
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2016
Authors' Addresses
Mike Taillon
Cisco Systems Inc
Email: mtaillon@cisco.com
Tarek Saad (editor)
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
Juniper Networks
Email: mjork@juniper.net
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Taillon, et al. Expires September 19, 2016 [Page 15]
