RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
RFC 3209

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 09

Network Working Group                                         D. Awduche
Request for Comments: 3209                          Movaz Networks, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                      L. Berger
                                                                  D. Gan
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                                   T. Li
                                                  Procket Networks, Inc.
                                                           V. Srinivasan
                                             Cosine Communications, Inc.
                                                              G. Swallow
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                           December 2001

              RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation
   Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish
   label-switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching).
   Since the flow along an LSP is completely identified by the label
   applied at the ingress node of the path, these paths may be treated
   as tunnels.  A key application of LSP tunnels is traffic engineering
   with MPLS as specified in RFC 2702.

   We propose several additional objects that extend RSVP, allowing the
   establishment of explicitly routed label switched paths using RSVP as
   a signaling protocol.  The result is the instantiation of label-
   switched tunnels which can be automatically routed away from network
   failures, congestion, and bottlenecks.

Awduche, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 3209           Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels      December 2001

Contents

   1      Introduction   ..........................................   3
   1.1    Background  .............................................   4
   1.2    Terminology  ............................................   6
   2      Overview   ..............................................   7
   2.1    LSP Tunnels and Traffic Engineered Tunnels  .............   7
   2.2    Operation of LSP Tunnels  ...............................   8
   2.3    Service Classes  ........................................  10
   2.4    Reservation Styles  .....................................  10
   2.4.1  Fixed Filter (FF) Style  ................................  10
   2.4.2  Wildcard Filter (WF) Style  .............................  11
   2.4.3  Shared Explicit (SE) Style  .............................  11
   2.5    Rerouting Traffic Engineered Tunnels  ...................  12
   2.6    Path MTU  ...............................................  13
   3      LSP Tunnel related Message Formats  .....................  15
   3.1    Path Message  ...........................................  15
   3.2    Resv Message  ...........................................  16
   4      LSP Tunnel related Objects  .............................  17
   4.1    Label Object  ...........................................  17
   4.1.1  Handling Label Objects in Resv messages  ................  17
   4.1.2  Non-support of the Label Object  ........................  19
   4.2    Label Request Object  ...................................  19
   4.2.1  Label Request without Label Range  ......................  19
   4.2.2  Label Request with ATM Label Range  .....................  20
   4.2.3  Label Request with Frame Relay Label Range  .............  21
   4.2.4  Handling of LABEL_REQUEST  ..............................  22
   4.2.5  Non-support of the Label Request Object  ................  23
   4.3    Explicit Route Object  ..................................  23
   4.3.1  Applicability  ..........................................  24
   4.3.2  Semantics of the Explicit Route Object  .................  24
   4.3.3  Subobjects  .............................................  25
   4.3.4  Processing of the Explicit Route Object  ................  28
   4.3.5  Loops  ..................................................  30
   4.3.6  Forward Compatibility  ..................................  30
   4.3.7  Non-support of the Explicit Route Object  ...............  31
   4.4    Record Route Object  ....................................  31
   4.4.1  Subobjects  .............................................  31
   4.4.2  Applicability  ..........................................  34