RSVP-TE Path Diversity Using Exclude Route
RFC 8390
Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(July 2018; No errata)
Updates RFC 4874
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Zafar Ali , George Swallow , Fatai Zhang , Dieter Beller | ||
Last updated | 2018-12-19 | ||
Replaces | draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity | ||
Stream | IETF | ||
Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
Reviews | |||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Lou Berger | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2017-04-28) | ||
IESG | IESG state | RFC 8390 (Proposed Standard) | |
Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date | |||
Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
Send notices to | (None) | ||
IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Z. Ali, Ed. Request for Comments: 8390 Cisco Systems Updates: 4874 G. Swallow, Ed. Category: Standards Track SETC ISSN: 2070-1721 F. Zhang, Ed. Huawei D. Beller, Ed. Nokia July 2018 RSVP-TE Path Diversity Using Exclude Route Abstract RSVP-TE provides support for the communication of exclusion information during Label Switched Path (LSP) setup. A typical LSP diversity use case is for protection, where two LSPs should follow different paths through the network in order to avoid single points of failure, thus greatly improving service availability. This document specifies an approach that can be used for network scenarios where the full path(s) is not necessarily known by use of an abstract identifier for the path. Three types of abstract identifiers are specified: client based, Path Computation Element (PCE) based, and network based. This document specifies two new diversity subobjects for the RSVP eXclude Route Object (XRO) and the Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS). For the protection use case, LSPs are typically created at a slow rate and exist for a long time so that it is reasonable to assume that a given (reference) path currently existing (with a well-known identifier) will continue to exist and can be used as a reference when creating the new diverse path. Re-routing of the existing (reference) LSP, before the new path is established, is not considered. Ali, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8390 RVSP-TE Path Diversity July 2018 Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8390. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Ali, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8390 RVSP-TE Path Diversity July 2018 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3. Client-Initiated Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4. PCE-Allocated Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.5. Network-Assigned Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2. RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1. Diversity XRO Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2. Diversity EXRS Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3. Processing Rules for the Diversity XRO and EXRS Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.1. New XRO Subobject Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2. New EXRS Subobject Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.3. New RSVP Error Sub-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Show full document text