GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control
RFC 4003

Network Working Group                                          L. Berger
Request for Comments: 4003                                Movaz Networks
Updates: 3473                                              February 2005
Category: Standards Track

              GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control

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 (2005).

Abstract

   This document clarifies the procedures for the control of the label
   used on an output/downstream interface of the egress node of a Label
   Switched Path (LSP).  This control is also known as "Egress Control".
   Support for Egress Control is implicit in Generalized Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling.  This document clarifies the
   specification of GMPLS Signaling and does not modify GMPLS signaling
   mechanisms and procedures.

1.  Background

   The ability to control the label used on the output/downstream
   interface of an egress node was one of the early requirements for
   GMPLS.  In the initial GMPLS documents, this was called "Egress
   Control".  As the GMPLS documents progressed, the ability to control
   a label on an egress interface was generalized to support control of
   a label on any interface.  This generalization is seen in Section 6
   of [RFC3471] and Section 5.1 of [RFC3473].  When this functionality
   was generalized, the procedures to support control of a label at the
   egress were also generalized.  Although the result was intended to
   cover egress control, this intention is not clear to all.  This note
   reiterates the procedures to cover control of a label used on an
   egress output/downstream interface.

Berger                      Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 4003      GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control February 2005

   For context, the following is the text from the GMPLS signalling
   document dated June 2000 about how ERO (Explicit Route Object) for
   egress control:

      6. Egress Control

      The LSR at the head-end of an LSP can control the termination of
      the LSP by using the ERO.  To terminate an LSP on a particular
      outgoing interface of the egress LSR, the head-end may specify the
      IP address of that interface as the last element in the ERO,
      provided that interface has an associated IP address.

      There are cases where the use of IP address doesn't provide enough
      information to uniquely identify the egress termination.  One case
      is when the outgoing interface on the egress LSR is a component
      link of a link bundle.  Another case is when it is desirable to
      "splice" two LSPs together, i.e., where the tail of the first LSP
      would be "spliced" into the head of the second LSP.  This last
      case is more likely to be used in the non-PSC classes of links.

      6.2. Procedures

      The Egress Label subobject may appear only as the last subobject
      in the ERO/ER.  Appearance of this subobject anywhere else in the
      ERO/ER is treated as a "Bad strict node" error.

      During an LSP setup, when a node processing the ERO/RR performs
      Next Hop selection finds that the second subobject is an Egress
      Label Subobject, the node uses the information carried in this
      subobject to determine the handling of the data received over that
      LSP.  Specifically, if the Link ID field of the subobject is non
      zero, then this field identifies a specific (outgoing) link of the
      node that should be used for sending all the data received over
      the LSP.  If the Label field of the subobject is not Implicit NULL
      label, this field specifies the label that should be used as an
      outgoing label on the data received over the LSP.

      Procedures by which an LSR at the head-end of an LSP obtains the
      information needed to construct the Egress Label subobject are
      outside the scope of this document.

2.  Egress Control Procedures

   This section is intended to complement Sections 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 of
   [RFC3473].  The procedures described in those sections are not
   modified.  This section clarifies procedures related to the label
   used on an egress output/downstream interface.

Berger                      Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 4003      GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control February 2005

   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 [RFC2119].

2.1.  ERO Procedures

   Egress Control occurs when the node processing an ERO is the egress
   and the ERO contains one or more subobjects related to the
   output/downstream interface.  In this case, the outgoing/downstream
   interface is indicated in the ERO as the last listed local interface.
   Note that an interface may be numbered or unnumbered.

   To support Egress Control, an egress checks to see whether the
   received ERO contains an outgoing/downstream interface.  If it does,
   the type of the subobject or subobjects following the interface is
   examined.  If the associated LSP is unidirectional, one subobject is
   examined.  Two subobjects are examined for bidirectional LSPs.  If
   the U-bit of the subobject being examined is clear (0), then the
   value of the label MUST be used for transmitting traffic associated
   with the LSP on the indicated outgoing/downstream interface.

   If the U-bit of the subobject being examined is set (1), then the
   value of the label is used for upstream traffic associated with the
   bidirectional LSP.  Specifically, the label value will be used for
   the traffic associated with the LSP that will be received on the
   indicated outgoing/downstream interface.

   Per [RFC3473], any errors encountered while processing the ERO,
   including if the listed label(s) are not acceptable or cannot be
   supported in forwarding, SHOULD result in the generation of a PathErr
   message with the error code "Routing Error" and error value of "Bad
   Explicit Route Object".

2.2.  RRO Procedures

   If an ERO is used to specify outgoing interface information at the
   egress and label recording is indicated for the LSP, the egress
   should include the specified interface information and the specified
   label or labels in the corresponding RRO (Route Record Object).

3.  Security Considerations

   This document clarifies procedures defined in [RFC3473] but does not
   define any new procedures.  As such, no new security considerations
   are introduced.

Berger                      Standards Track                     [Page 3]
RFC 4003      GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control February 2005

4.  Acknowledgments

   Valuable comments and input were received from Adrian Farrel, Alan
   Kullberg, and Dimitri Papadimitriou.

5.  Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
             January 2003.

   [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
             Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

Author's Address

   Lou Berger
   Movaz Networks, Inc.
   7926 Jones Branch Drive
   Suite 615
   McLean VA, 22102

   Phone:  +1 703 847-1801
   EMail:  lberger@movaz.com

Berger                      Standards Track                     [Page 4]
RFC 4003      GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control February 2005

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
   be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Berger                      Standards Track                     [Page 5]