PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP Reroutes
RFC 5710
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-05-16
|
06 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Dimitri Papadimitriou, Lou Berger" to "Dimitri Papadimitriou, Lou Berger, JP Vasseur" |
|
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Jari Arkko |
|
2010-01-19
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-01-19
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5710' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-01-14
|
06 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2009-09-28
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-09-25
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-09-24
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-06.txt |
|
2009-09-21
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot comment] I'm a little concerned by this language in the Security Considerations section: This document does introduce a new error code value, … [Ballot comment] I'm a little concerned by this language in the Security Considerations section: This document does introduce a new error code value, but this value is functionally equivalent to existing semantics. If the semantics are the same, why have a new error code at all? Is the sentence really trying to say the semantics are similar enough to other things that the security impacts are already well understood? |
|
2009-09-21
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] |
|
2009-09-21
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Robert Sparks |
|
2009-09-11
|
06 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 |
|
2009-09-10
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-09-10
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-09-10
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-05.txt |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > A transit node MAY … [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > A transit node MAY act on a reroute request locally when the ERO > received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not precluded the > reroute. ... does not preclude ? |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] To the extent that I understand this specification, its ready to move forward. However, I did notice the following things which appear to … [Ballot discuss] To the extent that I understand this specification, its ready to move forward. However, I did notice the following things which appear to be errors. Please consider fixing them before approving the document: > the impacted interface MUST be indicated in the > ERROR_SPEC object and the IF_IF [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object formats > SHOULD be used to indicate the impacted interface. RFC 3473 does not define IF_IF, nor does any other RFC for that matter. Did you mean IF_ID? > The IF_ID [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object format MUST be used to indicate > a reroute request that is more specific than an interface. The TLVs > defined in [RFC3471], as updated by [RFC3477] and [RFC4201], and > [RFC4920] MAY be used to provide specific additional reroute request > information, e.g., reroute around a specific label. I don't understand... I thought that IF_ID provided the interface information, so it could also be about a request that is exactly specific to an interface. Did you mean "... that is specific to an interface"? Or maybe the entire paragraph is only about the case wen you have a more specific request. But if so, why is the use of additional TLVs optional, i.e., only a MAY? But I could be missing something. |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > A transit node MAY … [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > A transit node MAY act on a reroute request locally when the ERO > received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not precluded the > reroute. ... does not preclude ? |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] To the extent that I understand this specification, its ready to move forward. However, I did notice the following things which appear to … [Ballot discuss] To the extent that I understand this specification, its ready to move forward. However, I did notice the following things which appear to be errors. Please consider fixing them before approving the document: > the impacted interface MUST be indicated in the > ERROR_SPEC object and the IF_IF [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object formats > SHOULD be used to indicate the impacted interface. RFC 3473 does not define IF_IF, nor does any other RFC for that matter. Did you mean IF_ID? > The IF_ID [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object format MUST be used to indicate > a reroute request that is more specific than an interface. I don't understand... I thought that IF_ID provided the interface information, so it could also be about a request that is exactly specific to an interface. Did you mean "... that is specific to an interface"? |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > The IF_ID [RFC3473 … [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > The IF_ID [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object format MUST be used to indicate > a reroute request that is more specific than an interface. I don't understand... I thought that IF_ID provided the interface information, so it could also be about a request that is exactly specific to an interface. Did you mean "... that is specific to an interface"? > A transit node MAY act on a reroute request locally when the ERO > received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not precluded the > reroute. ... does not preclude ? |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > The IF_ID [RFC3473 … [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > The IF_ID [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object format MUST be used to indicate > a reroute request that is more specific than an interface. I don't understand... I thought that IF_ID provided the interface information, so it could also be about a request that is exactly specific to an interface. Did you mean "... that is specific to an interface"? |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > The IF_ID [RFC3473 … [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined > The IF_ID [RFC3473] ERROR_SPEC object format MUST be used to indicate > a reroute request that is more specific than an interface. I don't understand... I thought that IF_ID provided the interface information, so it could also be about a request that is exactly specific to an interface. |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] > the ERO received in the LSP's incoming Path message does not preclude Term ERO not yet defined |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] I strongly considered entering this as a Comment instead of a Discuss and expect to move it to a Comment after a short … [Ballot discuss] I strongly considered entering this as a Comment instead of a Discuss and expect to move it to a Comment after a short discussion which may or may not result in changes to the text. I'm a little concerned by this language in the Security Considerations section: This document does introduce a new error code value, but this value is functionally equivalent to existing semantics. If the semantics are the same, why have a new error code at all? Is the sentence really trying to say the semantics are similar enough to other things that the security impacts are already well understood? |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot discuss] I strongly considered entering this as a Comment instead of a Discuss and expect to move it to a Comment after a short … [Ballot discuss] I strongly considered entering this as a Comment instead of a Discuss and expect to move it to a Comment after a short discussion which may or may not result in changes to the text. I'm a little concerned by this language in the Security Considerations section: This document does introduce a new error code value, but this value is functionally equivalent to existing semantics. If the semantics are the same, why have a new error code at all? Is the sentence really trying to say the semantics are similar enough to other things that the security impacts are already well understood? |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2009-09-09
|
06 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2009-09-08
|
06 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-09-08
|
06 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2009-09-08
|
06 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2009-09-07
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2009-09-05
|
06 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2009-09-03
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. |
|
2009-09-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-09-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-09-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-09-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2009-09-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-31
|
06 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2009-08-27
|
06 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters … IANA comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters TBD(34) Reroute [RFC-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-04] This Error Code has the following defined Error Value sub-code: 0 = Generic LSP reroute request Reroute error values should be allocated based on the following allocation policy as defined in [RFC5226]. Range Registration Procedures -------- ------------------------ 0-32767 IETF Consensus 32768-65535 Private Use We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
|
2009-08-18
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
|
2009-08-18
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
|
2009-08-17
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2009-08-17
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2009-08-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-08-17
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2009-08-17
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2009-08-17
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2009-08-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation::External Party by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-07-26
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-07-26
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Note]: 'This document should be processed in a batch with draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption and draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr.<br>draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption should be read as the last of the batch.' added by … [Note]: 'This document should be processed in a batch with draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption and draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr.<br>draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption should be read as the last of the batch.' added by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-05-18
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::External Party by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-05-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to Publication Requested::External Party from AD Evaluation::External Party by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-05-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from Publication Requested by Adrian Farrel |
|
2009-05-17
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | This I-D is blocked on draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption waiting for authors update to include comments made during WG last call that were accidnetally not addressed before that … This I-D is blocked on draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption waiting for authors update to include comments made during WG last call that were accidnetally not addressed before that I-D was passed to the AD for publication. |
|
2009-04-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD has been changed to Adrian Farrel from Ross Callon |
|
2009-02-05
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | The MPLS working group requests publication of 3 documents … The MPLS working group requests publication of 3 documents Documents: "Node behavior upon originating and receiving Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) Path Error message" <draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-03.txt> Intended Status: BCP "MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption" <draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-14.txt> Intended Status: Standards Track "PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP Reroute" <draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt> Intended Status: Standards Track Intended status : See above Note: We decided to send all three documents at the same time because their history is common. The soft pre-emption draft is the oldest and the other two has been triggered by that draft to sort out open issues in that document (or maybe issues that were opened up by that document). > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? 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? Loa Andersson is the document shepherd for all three documents. He has personally reviewed the I-Ds and believes they are ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? The documents has been reviewed by the MPLS working group. > (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. 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. The documents are sound. No IPR disclosures filed for either of the documents. > (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? There has been a long history of twists and turns when it comes to consensus for these documents. The current set of three documents adresses all the working group last call comments and represents the working consensus. The working group understands and suppots the solution. > (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 threats. No discontent. > (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. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All checks made, the documents uses the new boiler-plate; there are no errors in the nits. There are a couple of warnings in part this is becasue the documents references each other and the document that is published first will soon have "Outdated references" to the orthers, since you can't published with future references. In part this is because one of the drafts says "Category: Standards Track" rather than "Intended stauts: Standards Track" and the nits tool does not recognize this. I guess that this is rather common and could be fixed by the RFC-ED, since this a filed that is changed anyway. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? 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? 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]. References split in all documents. ================>>> > (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]. 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? The IANA section is present in draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-03.txt: the draft does not request any IANA actions The IANA section is present in draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-14.txt: the draft request IANA allocation of a new flag value in the Session Attribute object. It does also request a new error sub-code value for the case of Soft Preemption. The IANA section is present in the draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt: The document request that IANA upon approval of this document shall make assignment in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP Parameters" registry for the parameteres defined in the document. > (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 > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. Technical summary: draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr-03.txt: This ID describes a common practice when a node sends or receives an RSVP Path Error message for a preempted MPLS-TE LSP. This document does not define any new protocol extensions. draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-14.txt: This document specifies MPLS-TE soft preemption through a number of protocol extensions. The goal is to reduce/eliminate traffic disruption on preempted TE LSPs. Earlier MPLS RSVP-TE is defined supporting only immediate TE LSP displacement upon preemption. The draft defines a reroute request notification which more gracefully mitigate the re-route process of preempted TE LSP. This may lead to a sitution of under-provioning while the soft preemption is executed. For this reason, the feature is primarily of interest in MPLS enabled IP networks with Differentiated Services and Traffic Engineering capabilities. draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt: This document describes how RSVP PathErr Messages may be used to trigger rerouting of MPLS andGMPLS point-to-point TE-LSPs without first removing LSP state or resources. Yhere are a number of cases where such rerouting is beneficial, e.g. soft-preemption and graceful shutdown. This document defines a new reroute-specific error code to allow for future definition of reroute application-specific error values. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? The soft/preemeption draft is "old" and been around for along time. There have been several attempts to resolve the issues, and the other two draft turned out to be necessary to cover all issues. There have been two major issues - both sof and hard preemption has ben poorly defined - existing specification in MPLS and GMPLS have not been totally in synch, draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt resolves this > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? There are no implementations that we know of, but we have polled the wg mailing list and are waiting for responses. |
|
2009-02-05
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
|
2009-01-30
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-04.txt |
|
2008-11-25
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-03.txt |
|
2008-09-19
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-02.txt |
|
2008-09-02
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-01.txt |
|
2008-08-08
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute-00.txt |