Skip to main content

MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption
RFC 5712

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-05-16
18 (System) Changed document authors from "Denver Maddux, Curtis Villamizar, Amir Birjandi, Matthew Meyer, JP Vasseur" to "Matthew Meyer, JP Vasseur"
2015-10-14
18 (System) Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption@ietf.org to (None)
2010-01-19
18 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-19
18 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5712' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-14
18 (System) RFC published
2009-10-07
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-10-07
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-10-07
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-09-16
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-09-16
18 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-09-16
18 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-09-16
18 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-09-16
18 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2009-09-16
18 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-09-11
18 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10
2009-09-10
18 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-09-10
18 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-09-09
18 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-09-09
18 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-09-09
18 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-09-09
18 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-09-09
18 Tim Polk [Ballot comment]
Section 1:

s/ingress (Label Edge Router) LER/ingress Label Edge Router (LER)/
s/(Traffic Engineering (TE)/Traffic Engineering (TE)/
2009-09-09
18 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-09-09
18 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-09-09
18 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-09-08
18 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-09-08
18 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
Missing right paren somewhere in this sentence from the first para of section 1?

  Without an alternative, network operators either
  accept …
[Ballot comment]
Missing right paren somewhere in this sentence from the first para of section 1?

  Without an alternative, network operators either
  accept this limitation, or remove functionality by using only one
  preemption priority or using invalid bandwidth reservation values.
  Understandably desirable features like ingress (Label Edge Router)
  LER automated (Traffic Engineering (TE) reservation adjustments are
  less palatable when preemption is intrusive and high network
  stability levels are a concern.
2009-09-08
18 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot comment]
Regarding the "Soft preemption timer", the interoperability section has some recommendations on its value. However, I would guess that for small values larger …
[Ballot comment]
Regarding the "Soft preemption timer", the interoperability section has some recommendations on its value. However, I would guess that for small values larger than 0 there would still be useless. Any desire to have a minimal usable value? And what unit is this timer in? The text talks all about seconds, but wouldn't values of the magnitude of some RTTs potentially useful, thus milliseconds may be appropriate here.
2009-09-08
18 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-09-08
18 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-09-04
18 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-09-02
18 Adrian Farrel State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-02
18 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2009-09-02
18 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-02
18 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2009-09-02
18 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-09-10 by Adrian Farrel
2009-09-02
18 Adrian Farrel
[Note]: 'This document should be processed in a batch with draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute 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-gmpls-lsp-reroute 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
2009-08-31
18 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-08-31
18 Amanda Baber
[Note]: 'This document should be processed in a batch with� draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute 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-gmpls-lsp-reroute and draft-ietf-mpls-3209-patherr.<br>draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption should be read as the last of the batch.' added by Amanda Baber
2009-08-31
18 Amanda Baber
IANA comments:


[NOTE: Actions in this document depend upon actions in
draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute]

Action 1 (Section 9.1):

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make …
IANA comments:


[NOTE: Actions in this document depend upon actions in
draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute]

Action 1 (Section 9.1):

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Session Attribute Object Flags" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xhtml

Bit Flag Name Reference
-------- ------- ---------
TBD(0x40) Soft Preemption Desired [RFC-mpls-soft-preemption-18]


Action 2 (Section 9.2):

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]

TBD(1) Reroute Request Soft Preemption [RFC-mpls-soft-preemption-18]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2009-08-27
18 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Stephen Kent.
2009-08-18
18 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent
2009-08-18
18 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Stephen Kent
2009-08-17
18 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-08-17
18 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-08-17
18 Adrian Farrel State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-17
18 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-17
18 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-08-17
18 (System) Last call text was added
2009-08-17
18 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-07-29
18 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-07-29
18 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-18.txt
2009-07-26
18 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Adrian Farrel
2009-07-26
18 Adrian Farrel
[Note]: 'This document should be processed in a batch with  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute 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-gmpls-lsp-reroute 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
2009-07-26
18 Adrian Farrel
[Note]: 'This document should be processed in a batch with  draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute 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-gmpls-lsp-reroute 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
18 Adrian Farrel State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested::AD Followup by Adrian Farrel
2009-05-18
18 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-05-18
17 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-17.txt
2009-04-27
18 Adrian Farrel [Note]: 'Waiting for a new revision to address WG last call comments from Mustapha Aissaoui' added by Adrian Farrel
2009-04-02
18 Adrian Farrel Responsible AD has been changed to Adrian Farrel from Ross Callon
2009-03-20
18 Ross Callon State Changes to Publication Requested::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2009-02-05
18 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
18 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2009-02-03
16 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-16.txt
2009-02-02
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-15.txt
2008-11-18
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-14.txt
2008-09-22
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-13.txt
2008-09-01
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-12.txt
2008-08-19
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-11.txt
2008-02-18
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-10.txt
2008-02-14
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-09.txt
2007-04-29
18 (System) Document has expired
2006-10-26
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-08.txt
2006-01-12
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-07.txt
2005-06-16
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-06.txt
2005-06-02
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-05.txt
2005-04-01
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-04.txt
2004-10-01
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-03.txt
2004-03-23
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-02.txt
2003-10-27
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01.txt
2003-04-18
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-00.txt