datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.4.0, 2014-04-22
Report a bug

Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
RFC 4874

Document type: RFC - Proposed Standard (April 2007; Errata)
Updated by RFC 6001
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2013-03-30
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

IETF State: (None)
Consensus: Unknown
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: RFC 4874 (Proposed Standard)
Responsible AD: Ross Callon
Send notices to: ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org

Network Working Group                                            CY. Lee
Request for Comments: 4874                                     A. Farrel
Updates: 3209, 3473                                   Old Dog Consulting
Category: Standards Track                                  S. De Cnodder
                                                          Alcatel-Lucent
                                                              April 2007

                     Exclude Routes - Extension to
      Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)

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 IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   This document specifies ways to communicate route exclusions during
   path setup using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
   (RSVP-TE).

   The RSVP-TE specification, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
   Tunnels" (RFC 3209) and GMPLS extensions to RSVP-TE, "Generalized
   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
   Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions" (RFC 3473) allow
   abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly included in a path
   setup, but not to be explicitly excluded.

   In some networks where precise explicit paths are not computed at the
   head end, it may be useful to specify and signal abstract nodes and
   resources that are to be explicitly excluded from routes.  These
   exclusions may apply to the whole path, or to parts of a path between
   two abstract nodes specified in an explicit path.  How Shared Risk
   Link Groups (SRLGs) can be excluded is also specified in this
   document.

Lee, et al.                 Standards Track                     [Page 1]
RFC 4874         Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE        April 2007

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Requirements Notation ......................................4
      1.2. Scope of Exclude Routes ....................................4
      1.3. Relationship to MPLS TE MIB ................................5
   2. Shared Risk Link Groups .........................................6
      2.1. SRLG Subobject .............................................6
   3. Exclude Route List ..............................................7
      3.1. EXCLUDE_ROUTE Object (XRO) .................................7
           3.1.1. IPv4 Prefix Subobject ...............................8
           3.1.2. IPv6 Prefix Subobject ...............................9
           3.1.3. Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject ..................10
           3.1.4. Autonomous System Number Subobject .................10
           3.1.5. SRLG Subobject .....................................11
      3.2. Processing Rules for the EXCLUDE_ROUTE Object (XRO) .......11
   4. Explicit Exclusion Route .......................................13
      4.1. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) .................13
      4.2. Processing Rules for the Explicit Exclusion Route
           Subobject (EXRS) ..........................................15
   5. Processing of XRO together with EXRS ...........................16
   6. Minimum Compliance .............................................16
   7. Security Considerations ........................................16
   8. IANA Considerations ............................................17
      8.1. New ERO Subobject Type ....................................17
      8.2. New RSVP-TE Class Numbers .................................18
      8.3. New Error Codes ...........................................18
   9. Acknowledgments ................................................19
   10. References ....................................................19
      10.1. Normative References .....................................19
      10.2. Informative References ...................................19
   Appendix A. Applications ..........................................21
      A.1. Inter-Area LSP Protection .................................21
      A.2. Inter-AS LSP Protection ...................................22
      A.3. Protection in the GMPLS Overlay Model .....................24
      A.4. LSP Protection inside a Single Area .......................25

Lee, et al.                 Standards Track                     [Page 2]
RFC 4874         Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE        April 2007

[include full document text]