Skip to main content

Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions
RFC 5151

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
07 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2018-12-20
07 (System)
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes procedures and protocol extensions for the use of Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) …
Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes procedures and protocol extensions for the use of Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling in Multiprotocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) packet networks and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) packet and non-packet networks to support the establishment and maintenance of Label Switched Paths that cross domain boundaries.

For the purpose of this document, a domain is considered to be any collection of network elements within a common realm of address space or path computation responsibility. Examples of such domains include Autonomous Systems, Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) routing areas, and GMPLS overlay networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]')
2017-05-16
07 (System) Changed document authors from "Arthi Ayyangar" to "Arthi Ayyangar, Adrian Farrel, JP Vasseur"
2015-10-14
07 (System) Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Abstain position for Sam Hartman
2012-08-22
07 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2008-02-29
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza
2008-02-29
07 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'RFC 5151' added by Amy Vezza
2008-02-28
07 (System) RFC published
2007-10-16
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2007-10-16
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2007-10-16
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2007-10-16
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2007-10-15
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2007-10-15
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2007-10-15
07 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2007-10-15
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2007-10-15
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2007-10-15
07 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2007-09-28
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2007-09-25
07 Sam Hartman
[Ballot comment]
The security considerations text ended up not being quite strong
enough to meet the requirements necessary to clear my discuss.
However the problem …
[Ballot comment]
The security considerations text ended up not being quite strong
enough to meet the requirements necessary to clear my discuss.
However the problem was my fault; I got a chance to review text that
was proposed to the authors and failed to note what is really a minor
problem.  So I am not blocking.
2007-09-25
07 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sam Hartman has been changed to Abstain from Discuss by Sam Hartman
2007-09-24
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2007-09-24
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-07.txt
2007-09-06
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza
2007-09-06
07 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson
2007-09-06
07 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2007-09-06
07 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2007-09-06
07 Chris Newman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman
2007-09-06
07 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley
2007-09-05
07 Sam Hartman
[Ballot discuss]
This document proposes signaling mechanisms in an inter-domain context
for RSVP-TE.  Everything I've read about that context suggests that
integrity and authentication of …
[Ballot discuss]
This document proposes signaling mechanisms in an inter-domain context
for RSVP-TE.  Everything I've read about that context suggests that
integrity and authentication of signaling is important.  When
evaluated under the Internet threat model, it seems that integrity of
the signaling protocol is an important mandatory to implement security
service.  When considered under the requirements of RFC 4107,
automated key management should be required for this mechanism.

However, I think the authors of this protocol would resist blocking
this mechanism on such work.  I'm not at all happy with the
publication of this mechanism without providing a high quality
integrity mechanism with automated key management for RSVP-TE.
However we'll probably eventually end up doing that, so we might as
well do so now with an IESG note rather than waste a lot of time and
end up with the same result.

Proposed IESG note:

The IESG believes that this specification does not meet the security
requirements for current Internet standards.  IN particular, when
considered under the threat model described in RFC 3552, integrity of
the signaling messages is an important security service. RFC 4107
requires that this security service be provided with automated key
management.  RSVP-TE does not currently provide a mandatory to
implement automated key management solution adequate for the needs of
this specification.  The IESG has chosen to approve this specification
despite this defect and encourages the development of robust automated
key management for RSVP-TE.
2007-09-05
07 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Sam Hartman
2007-09-04
07 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2007-09-04
07 David Ward [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Ward
2007-09-04
07 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2007-09-04
07 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2007-08-30
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Hannes Tschofenig.
2007-08-24
07 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-08-23
2007-08-21
07 Sam Hartman State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Sam Hartman
2007-08-17
07 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
There is ongoing discussion of the concerns raised in the Gen-ART
  Review by Eric Gray (http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/
  draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06-gray.txt).  It is not …
[Ballot discuss]
There is ongoing discussion of the concerns raised in the Gen-ART
  Review by Eric Gray (http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/
  draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06-gray.txt).  It is not
  clear to me that these discussions have reached closure, but it
  is clear to me that a revised document will be needed when the
  discussion is concluded.
2007-08-17
07 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2007-08-16
07 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2007-08-16
07 Cullen Jennings Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-08-23 by Cullen Jennings
2007-08-16
07 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2007-08-16
07 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2007-08-16
07 Ron Bonica Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-08-23 by Ron Bonica
2007-08-14
07 Yoshiko Fong
IANA Last Call Comments:

**NOTE***
Action #3 has an error it is trying to register
a values  that are already taken, please give us
clarification …
IANA Last Call Comments:

**NOTE***
Action #3 has an error it is trying to register
a values  that are already taken, please give us
clarification what to do?
********

Action #1: Section 9.1
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the
"RSVP TE Parameters - per [RFC4420]" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters

sub-registry "Attributes Flags - per [RFC4420]"

Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO Reference
Flags Path Flags Resv
---+-------------------------+---------+----------+----+-----------------
XX + Contiguous LSP + Yes + No + Yes+ [RFC-ccamp-inter-
domain-rsvp-te-06]



Action #2: Section 9.2
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make
the following assignments in the
"RSVP Parameters" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters

sub-registry "Error Codes and Values"
Error code 2 (Policy control failure)

103 = Inter-domain policy failure
[RFC-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06]
104 = Inter-domain explicit route rejected [RFC-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06]


Action #3: Section 9.2
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will
make the following assignmentsv in the
"RSVP Parameters" registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
sub-registry "Error Codes and Values"
Error code 24 (Policy control failure)

The document is requesting the following:
21 = Contiguous LSP type not supported
[RFC-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06]
22 = ERO conflicts with inter-domain signaling method
[RFC-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06]


BUT both 21 and 22 are existing registrations in
the registry.

21 = LSP Segment Protection Failed [RFC4873]
22 = Re-routing limit exceeded [RFC4920]

Please advise what to do, change values or overwrite
the registrations?
2007-08-02
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig
2007-08-02
07 Samuel Weiler Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Hannes Tschofenig
2007-08-02
07 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2007-08-02
07 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2007-08-01
07 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2007-08-01
07 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2007-08-01
07 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2007-08-01
07 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-08-23 by Ross Callon
2007-08-01
07 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2007-08-01
07 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon
2007-08-01
07 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2007-08-01
07 (System) Last call text was added
2007-08-01
07 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2007-06-15
07 Ross Callon State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2007-04-30
07 Ross Callon Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2007-04-30
07 Ross Callon Note field has been cleared by Ross Callon
2007-04-30
07 Ross Callon
Proto Writeup by Deborah Brungard:


  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
          Deborah Brungard (dbrungard@att.com) …
Proto Writeup by Deborah Brungard:


  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?
          Deborah Brungard (dbrungard@att.com)

          Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

          Yes

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?

          Yes

          Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

          No concerns.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

          No concerns.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.

          No concerns.

          Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

          None have been filed.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

          WG agrees.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

          No.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

          Satisfies. One reference comment (see 1.h).

          Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

          Yes.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?

          Yes.

          Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?

          One reference to draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching, which should be progressed
          with this one to ensure the RFC Ed can sort out. draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching
          has finished WG Last Call and it is Standards Track.

          Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

          No.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].

          Yes to all above.

          If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

          None required.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

          Not applicable.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document describes procedures and protocol extensions for the
use of Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
signaling in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) packet networks and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) packet and
non-packet networks to support the establishment and maintenance of
Label Switched Paths that cross domain boundaries.

Working Group Summary

The Working Group had consensus on this document.

Document Quality

This document has been implemented.

Personnel

Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Deborah Brungard
Who is the Responsible Area Director(s)? Ross Callon, David Ward.
Is an IANA expert needed? No.
2007-04-30
07 Ross Callon [Note]: 'Please progress this I-D in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-06.txt and draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-05.txt' added by Ross Callon
2007-04-30
07 Ross Callon Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested
2007-04-23
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-06.txt
2007-03-01
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-05.txt
2007-01-09
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-04.txt
2006-03-06
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-03.txt
2005-10-03
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt
2005-07-19
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-01.txt
2005-02-09
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-00.txt