|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 5824
Requirements for Supporting Customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN
Last modified on Thursday, April 29th, 2010
 Permanent link to RFC 5824
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 5824
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 5824
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Kumaki, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5824 KDDI Corporation
Category: Informational R. Zhang
ISSN: 2070-1721 BT
Y. Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
April 2010
Requirements for Supporting
Customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
and RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN
 Abstract
Today, customers expect to run triple-play services through BGP/MPLS
IP-VPNs. Some service providers will deploy services that request
Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees from a local Customer Edge (CE)
to a remote CE across the network. As a result, the application
(e.g., voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed data pipe, etc.)
requirements for an end-to-end QoS and reserving an adequate
bandwidth continue to increase.
Service providers can use both an MPLS and an MPLS Traffic
Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) to meet their service
objectives. This document describes service-provider requirements
for supporting a customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and
RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5824.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(http://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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 2
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................4
2. Requirements Language ...........................................4
3. Terminology .....................................................5
4. Problem Statement ...............................................5
5. Application Scenarios ...........................................7
5.1. Scenario I: Fast Recovery over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs ............8
5.2. Scenario II: Strict C-TE LSP QoS Guarantees ................8
5.3. Scenario III: Load Balance of CE-to-CE Traffic .............9
5.4. Scenario IV: RSVP Aggregation over MPLS-TE Tunnels ........11
5.5. Scenario V: RSVP over Non-TE LSPs .........................12
5.6. Scenario VI: RSVP-TE over Non-TE LSPs .....................13
6. Detailed Requirements for C-TE LSP Model .......................14
6.1. Selective P-TE LSPs .......................................14
6.2. Graceful Restart Support for C-TE LSPs ....................14
6.3. Rerouting Support for C-TE LSPs ...........................15
6.4. FRR Support for C-TE LSPs .................................15
6.5. Admission Control Support on P-TE LSP Head-Ends ...........15
6.6. Admission Control Support for C-TE LSPs in
LDP-Based Core Networks ...................................16
6.7. Policy Control Support for C-TE LSPs ......................16
6.8. PCE Features Support for C-TE LSPs ........................16
6.9. Diversely Routed C-TE LSP Support .........................16
6.10. Optimal Path Support for C-TE LSPs .......................17
6.11. Reoptimization Support for C-TE LSPs .....................17
6.12. DS-TE Support for C-TE LSPs ..............................17
7. Detailed Requirements for C-RSVP Path Model ....................18
7.1. Admission Control between PE-CE for C-RSVP Paths ..........18
7.2. Aggregation of C-RSVP Paths by P-TE LSPs ..................18
7.3. Non-TE LSP Support for C-RSVP Paths .......................18
7.4. Transparency of C-RSVP Paths ..............................18
8. Commonly Detailed Requirements for Two Models ..................18
8.1. CE-PE Routing .............................................18
8.2. Complexity and Risks ......................................19
8.3. Backward Compatibility ....................................19
8.4. Scalability Considerations ................................19
8.5. Performance Considerations ................................19
8.6. Management Considerations .................................20
9. Security Considerations ........................................20
10. References ....................................................21
10.1. Normative References .....................................21
10.2. Informative References ...................................22
Acknowledgments....................................................23
Appendix A. Reference Model........................................24
A.1 End-to-End C-RSVP Path Model................................24
A.2 End-to-End C-TE LSP Model...................................25
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 3
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
1. Introduction
Some service providers want to build a service that guarantees
Quality of Service (QoS) and a bandwidth from a local Customer Edge
(CE) to a remote CE through the network. A CE includes the network
client equipment owned and operated by the service provider.
However, the CE may not be part of the MPLS provider network.
Today, customers expect to run triple-play services such as Internet
access, telephone, and television through BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs [RFC 4364].
As these services evolve, the requirements for an end-to-end QoS to
meet the application requirements also continue to grow. Depending
on the application (e.g., voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed data
pipe, etc.), a native IP using an RSVP and/or an end-to-end
constrained MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Path
(LSP) may be required. The RSVP path may be used to provide QoS
guarantees and reserve an adequate bandwidth for the data. An end-
to-end MPLS-TE LSP may also be used to guarantee a bandwidth, and
provide extended functionality like MPLS fast reroute (FRR) [RFC 4090]
for maintaining the service continuity around node and link,
including the CE-PE link, failures. It should be noted that an RSVP
session between two CEs may also be mapped and tunneled into an MPLS-
TE LSP across an MPLS provider network.
A number of advantages exist for deploying the model previously
mentioned. The first is that customers can use these network
services while being able to use both private addresses and global
addresses. The second advantage is that the traffic is tunneled
through the service-provider backbone so that customer traffic and
route confidentiality are maintained.
This document defines a reference model, example application
scenarios, and detailed requirements for a solution supporting a
customer RSVP and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
A specification for a solution is out of scope in this document.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119].
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 4
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
3. Terminology
This document uses the BGP/MPLS IP-VPN terminology defined in
[RFC 4364] and also uses Path Computation Element (PCE) terms defined
in [RFC 4655].
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path
MPLS-TE LSP: Multiprotocol Label Switching TE LSP
C-RSVP path: Customer RSVP path: a native RSVP path with the
bandwidth reservation of X for customers
C-TE LSP: Customer Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path: an end-
to-end MPLS-TE LSP for customers
P-TE LSP: Provider Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path: a
transport TE LSP between two Provider Edges (PEs)
LSR: a Label Switched Router
Head-end LSR: an ingress LSR
Tail-end LSR: an egress LSR
4. Problem Statement
Service providers want to deliver triple-play services with QoS
guarantees to their customers. Various techniques are available to
achieve this. Some service providers will wish to offer advanced
services using an RSVP signaling for native IP flows (C-RSVP) or an
RSVP-TE signaling for Customer TE LSPs (C-TE LSPs) over BGP/MPLS
IP-VPNs.
The following examples outline each method:
A C-RSVP path with the bandwidth reservation of X can be used to
transport voice traffic. In order to achieve recovery in under 50 ms
during link, node, and Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) failures, and to
provide strict QoS guarantees, a C-TE LSP with bandwidth X between
data centers or customer sites can be used to carry voice and video
traffic. Thus, service providers or customers can choose a C-RSVP
path or a C-TE LSP to meet their requirements.
When service providers offer a C-RSVP path between hosts or CEs over
BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs, the CE/host requests an end-to-end C-RSVP path with
the bandwidth reservation of X to the remote CE/host. However, if a
C-RSVP signaling is to send within a VPN, the service-provider
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 5
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
network will face scalability issues because routers need to retain
the RSVP state per a customer. Therefore, in order to solve
scalability issues, multiple C-RSVP reservations can be aggregated at
a PE, where a P-TE LSP head-end can perform admission control using
the aggregated C-RSVP reservations. The method that is described in
[RFC 4804] can be considered as a useful approach. In this case, a
reservation request from within the context of a Virtual Routing and
Forwarding (VRF) instance can get aggregated onto a P-TE LSP. The
P-TE LSP can be pre-established, resized based on the request, or
triggered by the request. Service providers, however, cannot provide
a C-RSVP path over the VRF instance as defined in [RFC 4364]. The
current BGP/MPLS IP-VPN architecture also does not support an RSVP
instance running in the context of a VRF to process RSVP messages and
integrated services (int-serv) ([RFC 1633], [RFC 2210]). One solution
is described in [RSVP-L3VPN].
If service providers offer a C-TE LSP from a CE to a CE over the
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN, they require that an MPLS-TE LSP from a local CE to
a remote CE be established. However, if a C-TE LSP signaling is to
send within the VPN, the service-provider network may face the
following scalability issues:
- A C-TE LSP can be aggregated by a P-TE LSP at a PE (i.e.,
hierarchical LSPs). In this case, only a PE maintains the state of
customer RSVP sessions.
- A C-TE LSP cannot be aggregated by a P-TE LSP at a PE, depending on
some policies (i.e., continuous LSPs). In this case, both Ps and
PEs maintain the state of customer RSVP sessions.
- A C-TE LSP can be aggregated by the non-TE LSP (i.e., LDP).
In this case, only a PE maintains the state of customer RSVP-TE
sessions. Note that it is assumed that there is always enough
bandwidth available in the service-provider core network.
Furthermore, if service providers provide the C-TE LSP over the
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN, they currently cannot provide it over the VRF
instance as defined in [RFC 4364]. Specifically, the current BGP/MPLS
IP-VPN architecture does not support the RSVP-TE instance running in
the context of a VRF to process RSVP messages and trigger the
establishment of the C-TE LSP over the service-provider core network.
If every C-TE LSP is to trigger the establishment or resizing of a
P-TE LSP, the service-provider network will also face scalability
issues that arise from maintaining a large number of P-TE LSPs and/or
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 6
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
the dynamic signaling of these P-TE LSPs. Section 8.4 of this
document, "Scalability Considerations", provides detailed scalability
requirements.
Two different models have been described above. The differences
between C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs are as follows:
- C-RSVP path model: data packets among CEs are forwarded by "native
IP packets" (i.e., not labeled packets).
- C-TE LSP model: data packets among CEs are forwarded by "labeled IP
packets".
Depending on the service level and the need to meet specific
requirements, service providers should be able to choose P-TE LSPs or
non-TE LSPs in the backbone network. The selection may be dependent
on the service provider's policy and the node's capability to support
the mechanisms described.
The items listed below are selectively required to support C-RSVP
paths and C-TE LSPs over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs based on the service level.
For example, some service providers need all of the following items
to provide a service, and some service providers need only some of
them to provide the service. It depends on the service level and
policy of service providers. Detailed requirements are described in
Sections 6, 7, and 8.
- C-RSVP path QoS guarantees.
- Fast recovery over the BGP/MPLS IP-VPN to protect traffic for the
C-TE LSP against CE-PE link failure and PE node failure.
- Strict C-TE LSP bandwidth and QoS guarantees.
- Resource optimization for C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs.
- Scalability for C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs.
5. Application Scenarios
The following sections present a few application scenarios for C-RSVP
paths and C-TE LSPs in BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments. Appendix A,
"Reference Model", describes a C-RSVP path, a C-TE LSP, and a
P-TE LSP.
In all scenarios, it is the responsibility of the service provider to
ensure that enough bandwidth is available to meet the customers'
application requirements.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 7
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
5.1. Scenario I: Fast Recovery over BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs
In this scenario, as shown in Figure 1, a customer uses a VoIP
application between its sites (i.e., between CE1 and CE2). H0 and H1
represent voice equipment.
In this case, the customer establishes C-TE LSP1 as a primary path
and C-TE LSP2 as a backup path. If the link between PE1 and CE1 or
the node of PE1 fails, C-TE LSP1 needs C-TE LSP2 as a path
protection.
Generally speaking, C-RSVP paths are used by customers, and P-TE LSPs
are used by service providers.
C-TE LSP1
<---------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP1
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|H0 | |CE1|-----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2| |H1 |.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.........|... --- --- --- --- ...|.........
+-------|PE3|----|P3 |-----|P4 |----|PE4|-------+
--- --- --- ---
<--------------------------->
P-TE LSP2
<---------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP2
<--customer--> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <--customer->
network network
Figure 1. Scenario I
5.2. Scenario II: Strict C-TE LSP QoS Guarantees
In this scenario, as shown in Figure 2, service provider B (SP B)
transports voice and video traffic between its sites (i.e., between
CE1 and CE2). In this case, service provider B establishes C-TE LSP1
with preemption priority 0 and 100-Mbps bandwidth for the voice
traffic, and C-TE LSP2 with preemption priority 1 and 200-Mbps
bandwidth for the unicast video traffic. On the other hand, service
provider A (SP A) also pre-establishes P-TE LSP1 with preemption
priority 0 and 1-Gbps bandwidth for the voice traffic, and P-TE LSP2
with preemption priority 1 and 2-Gbps bandwidth for the video
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 8
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
traffic. In this scenario, P-TE LSP1 and P-TE LSP2 should support
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) [RFC 4124].
PE1 and PE3 should choose an appropriate P-TE LSP based on the
preemption priority. In this case, C-TE LSP1 must be associated with
P-TE LSP1 at PE1, and C-TE LSP2 must be associated with P-TE LSP2 at
PE3.
Furthermore, PE1 and PE3 head-ends should control the bandwidth of
C-TE LSPs. In this case, PE1 and PE3 can choose C-TE LSPs by the
amount of maximum available bandwidth for each P-TE LSP,
respectively.
C-TE LSP1
<---------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP1
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|CE0| |CE1|-----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2| |CE3|.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.........|... --- --- --- --- ...|.........
+-------|PE3|----|P3 |-----|P4 |----|PE4|-------+
--- --- --- ---
<--------------------------->
P-TE LSP2
<---------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP2
<---SP B----> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <---SP B--->
network SP A network network
Figure 2. Scenario II
It's possible that the customer and the service provider have
differing preemption priorities. In this case, the PE policy will
override the customers. In the case where the service provider does
not support preemption priorities, then such priorities should be
ignored.
5.3. Scenario III: Load Balance of CE-to-CE Traffic
In this scenario, as shown in Figure 3, service provider C (SP C)
uses voice and video traffic between its sites (i.e., between CE0 and
CE5/CE7, between CE2 and CE5/CE7, between CE5 and CE0/CE2, and
between CE7 and CE0/CE2). H0 and H1 represent voice and video
equipment. In this case, service provider C establishes C-TE LSP1,
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 9
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
C-TE LSP3, C-TE LSP5, and C-TE LSP7 with preemption priority 0 and
100-Mbps bandwidth for the voice traffic, and establishes C-TE LSP2,
C-TE LSP4, C-TE LSP6, and C-TE LSP8 with preemption priority 1 and
200-Mbps bandwidth for the video traffic. On the other hand, service
provider A also pre-establishes P-TE LSP1 and P-TE LSP3 with
preemption priority 0 and 1-Gbps bandwidth for the voice traffic, and
P-TE LSP2 and P-TE LSP4 with preemption priority 1 and 2-Gbps
bandwidth for the video traffic. In this scenario, P-TE LSP1,
P-TE LSP2, P-TE LSP3, and P-TE LSP4 should support DS-TE [RFC 4124].
All PEs should choose an appropriate P-TE LSP based on the preemption
priority. To minimize the traffic disruption due to a single network
failure, diversely routed C-TE LSPs are established. In this case,
the FRR [RFC 4090] is not necessarily required.
Also, unconstrained TE LSPs (i.e., C-TE LSPs/P-TE LSPs with
0 bandwidth) [RFC 5330] are applicable to this scenario.
Furthermore, the load balancing for any communication between H0 and
H1 can be done by setting up full-mesh C-TE LSPs between CE0/CE2 and
CE5/CE7.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 10
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
C-TE LSP1(P=0),2(P=1) (CE0->CE1->...->CE4->CE5)
(CE0<-CE1<-...<-CE4<-CE5)
<---------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP3(P=0),4(P=1) (CE2->CE1->...->CE4->CE7)
(CE2<-CE1<-...<-CE4<-CE7)
<---------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP1 (p=0)
<-------------------->
P-TE LSP2 (p=1)
<-------------------->
.................. ..................
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
. |CE0|-|CE1|--|PE1|--|P1 |---|P2 |--|PE2|--|CE4|-|CE5| .
. --- /--- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- ---\ --- .
.|H0 | + . + . + |H1 |.
. --- \--- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- ---/ --- .
. |CE2|-|CE3|--|PE3|--|P3 |---|P4 |--|PE4|--|CE6|-|CE7| .
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.................. ..................
<-------------------->
P-TE LSP3 (p=0)
<-------------------->
P-TE LSP4 (p=1)
<---------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP5(P=0),6(P=1) (CE0->CE3->...->CE6->CE5)
(CE0<-CE3<-...<-CE6<-CE5)
<---------------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP7(P=0),8(P=1) (CE2->CE3->...->CE6->CE7)
(CE2<-CE3<-...<-CE6<-CE7)
<-----SP C-----> <----BGP/MPLS IP-VPN----> <-----SP C----->
network SP A network network
Figure 3. Scenario III
5.4. Scenario IV: RSVP Aggregation over MPLS-TE Tunnels
In this scenario, as shown in Figure 4, the customer has two hosts
connecting to CE1 and CE2, respectively. CE1 and CE2 are connected
to PE1 and PE2, respectively, within a VRF instance belonging to the
same VPN. The requesting host (H1) may request from H2 an RSVP path
with the bandwidth reservation of X. This reservation request from
within the context of VRF will get aggregated onto a pre-established
P-TE/DS-TE LSP based upon procedures similar to [RFC 4804]. As in the
case of [RFC 4804], there may be multiple P-TE LSPs belonging to
different DS-TE class-types. Local policies can be implemented to
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 11
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
map the incoming RSVP path request from H1 to the P-TE LSP with the
appropriate class-type. Please note that the end-to-end (e2e) RSVP
path request may also be initiated by the CE devices themselves.
C-RSVP path
<----------------------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|H1 | |CE1|---|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|---|CE2| |H2 |.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
............. .............
^ ^
| |
VRF instance VRF instance
<-customer-> <--------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <-customer->
network network
Figure 4. Scenario IV
5.5. Scenario V: RSVP over Non-TE LSPs
In this scenario, as shown in Figure 5, a customer has two hosts
connecting to CE1 and CE2, respectively. CE1 and CE2 are connected
to PE1 and PE2, respectively, within a VRF instance belonging to the
same VPN. The requesting host (H1) may request from H2 an RSVP path
with the bandwidth reservation of X. In this case, a non-TE LSP
(i.e., LDP, etc.) is provided between PEs and has LDP, which supports
MPLS Diffserv [RFC 3270].
Note that this only provides Diffserv, and not the bandwidth
reservation as is done with RSVP-TE.
Local policies can be implemented to map the customer's reserved flow
to the LSP with the appropriate Traffic Class [RFC 5462] at PE1.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 12
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
C-RSVP path
<------------------------------------------>
Non-TE LSP
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|H1 | |CE1|---|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|---|CE2| |H2 |.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
............. .............
^ ^
| |
VRF instance VRF instance
<-customer-> <-------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <-customer->
network network
Figure 5. Scenario V
5.6. Scenario VI: RSVP-TE over Non-TE LSPs
In this scenario, as shown in Figure 6, a customer uses a VoIP
application between its sites (i.e., between CE1 and CE2). H0 and H1
represent voice equipment. In this case, a non-TE LSP means LDP, and
the customer establishes C-TE LSP1 as a primary path and C-TE LSP2 as
a backup path. If the link between PE1 and CE1 or the node of PE1
fails, C-TE LSP1 needs C-TE LSP2 as a path protection.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 13
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
C-TE LSP1
<----------------------------------------->
Non-TE LSP
<-------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|H0 | |CE1|---|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|---|CE2| |H1 |.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.........|... --- --- --- --- ...|.........
+-----|PE3|----|P3 |-----|P4 |----|PE4|-----+
--- --- --- ---
<-------------------------->
Non-TE LSP
<----------------------------------------->
C-TE LSP2
<-customer-> <------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN------> <-customer->
network network
Figure 6. Scenario VI
6. Detailed Requirements for the C-TE LSP Model
This section describes detailed requirements for C-TE LSPs in
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments.
6.1. Selective P-TE LSPs
The solution MUST provide the ability to decide which P-TE LSPs a PE
uses for a C-RSVP path and a C-TE LSP. When a PE receives a native
RSVP and/or a path message from a CE, it MUST be able to decide which
P-TE LSPs it uses. In this case, various kinds of P-TE LSPs exist in
the service-provider network. For example, the PE MUST choose an
appropriate P-TE LSP based on local policies such as:
1. preemption priority
2. affinity
3. class-type
4. on the data plane: (Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) or
Traffic Class bits)
6.2. Graceful Restart Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution SHOULD support the graceful restart capability, where
the C-TE LSP traffic continues to be forwarded during a PE graceful
restart. Graceful restart mechanisms related to this architecture
are described in [RFC 3473], [RFC 3623], and [RFC 4781].
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 14
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
6.3. Rerouting Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST provide the rerouting of a C-TE LSP in case of
link, node, and SRLG failures, or in case of preemption. Such
rerouting may be controlled by a CE or by a PE, depending on the
failure. In a dual-homed environment, the ability to perform
rerouting MUST be provided against a CE-PE link failure or a PE
failure, if another CE-PE link or PE is available between the head-
end and the tail-end of the C-TE LSP.
6.4. FRR Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support FRR [RFC 4090] features for a C-TE LSP over
a VRF instance.
In BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments, a C-TE LSP from a CE traverses
multiple PEs and Ps, albeit tunneled over a P-TE LSP. In order to
avoid PE-CE link/PE node/SRLG failures, a CE (a customer's head-end
router) needs to support link protection or node protection.
The following protection MUST be supported:
1. CE link protection
2. PE node protection
3. CE node protection
6.5. Admission Control Support on P-TE LSP Head-Ends
The solution MUST support admission control on a P-TE LSP tunnel
head-end for C-TE LSPs. C-TE LSPs may potentially try to reserve the
bandwidth that exceeds the bandwidth of the P-TE LSP. The P-TE LSP
tunnel head-end SHOULD control the number of C-TE LSPs and/or the
bandwidth of C-TE LSPs. For example, the transport TE LSP head-end
SHOULD have a configurable limit on the maximum number of C-TE LSPs
that it can admit from a CE. As for the amount of bandwidth that can
be reserved by C-TE LSPs, there could be two situations:
1. Let the P-TE LSP do its natural bandwidth admission
2. Set a cap on the amount of bandwidth, and have the configuration
option to:
a. Reserve the minimum cap bandwidth or the C-TE LSP bandwidth on
the P-TE LSP if the required bandwidth is available
b. Reject the C-TE LSP if the required bandwidth by the C-TE LSP
is not available
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 15
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
6.6. Admission Control Support for C-TE LSPs in LDP-Based Core
Networks
The solution MUST support admission control for a C-TE LSP at a PE in
the LDP-based core network. Specifically, PEs MUST have a
configurable limit on the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be
reserved by C-TE LSPs for a given VRF instance (i.e., for a given
customer). Also, a PE SHOULD have a configurable limit on the total
amount of bandwidth that can be reserved by C-TE LSPs between PEs.
6.7. Policy Control Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support the policy control for a C-TE LSP at a PE.
The PE MUST be able to perform the following:
1. Limit the rate of RSVP messages per CE link.
2. Accept and map, or reject, requests for a given affinity.
3. Accept and map, or reject, requests with a specified setup and/or
preemption priorities.
4. Accept or reject requests for fast reroutes.
5. Ignore the requested setup and/or preemption priorities, and
select a P-TE LSP based on a local policy that applies to the
CE-PE link or the VRF.
6. Ignore the requested affinity, and select a P-TE LSP based on a
local policy that applies to the CE-PE link or the VRF.
7. Perform mapping in the data plane between customer Traffic Class
bits and transport P-TE LSP Traffic Class bits, as signaled per
[RFC 3270].
6.8. PCE Features Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution SHOULD support the PCE architecture for a C-TE LSP
establishment in the context of a VRF instance. When a C-TE LSP is
provided, CEs, PEs, and Ps may support PCE features ([RFC 4655],
[RFC 5440]).
In this case, CE routers or PE routers may be Path Computation
Clients (PCCs), and PE routers and/or P routers may be PCEs.
Furthermore, the solution SHOULD support a mechanism for dynamic PCE
discovery. Specifically, all PCEs are not necessarily discovered
automatically, and only specific PCEs that know VPN routes should be
discovered automatically.
6.9. Diversely Routed C-TE LSP Support
The solution MUST provide for setting up diversely routed C-TE LSPs
over the VRF instance. These diverse C-TE LSPs MAY be traversing
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 16
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
over two different P-TE LSPs that are fully disjoint within a
service-provider network. When a single CE has multiple uplinks that
connect to different PEs, it is desirable that multiple C-TE LSPs
over the VRF instance be established between a pair of LSRs. When
two CEs have multiple uplinks that connect to different PEs, it is
desirable that multiple C-TE LSPs over the VRF instance be
established between two different pairs of LSRs. In these cases, for
example, the following points will be beneficial to customers.
1. load balance of the CE-to-CE traffic across diverse C-TE LSPs so
as to minimize the traffic disruption in case of a single network
element failure
2. path protection (e.g., 1:1, 1:N)
6.10. Optimal Path Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support the optimal path for a C-TE LSP over the
VRF instance. Depending on an application (e.g., voice and video),
an optimal path is needed for a C-TE LSP over the VRF instance. In
the case of a TE LSP, an optimal route may be the shortest path based
on the TE metric applied. For a non-TE LSP using LDP, the IGP metric
may be used to compute optimal paths.
6.11. Reoptimization Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support the reoptimization of a C-TE LSP over the
VRF instance. These LSPs MUST be reoptimized using "make-before-
break" [RFC 3209].
In this case, it is desirable for a CE to be configured with regard
to the timer-based or event-driven reoptimization. Furthermore,
customers SHOULD be able to reoptimize a C-TE LSP manually. To
provide for delay-sensitive or jitter-sensitive traffic (i.e., voice
traffic), C-TE LSP path computation and route selection are expected
to be optimal for the specific application.
6.12. DS-TE Support for C-TE LSPs
The solution MUST support DS-TE [RFC 4124] for a C-TE LSP over the VRF
instance. In the event that the service provider and the customer
have differing bandwidth constraint models, then only the service-
provider bandwidth model should be supported.
Applications, which have different traffic characteristics, are used
in BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments. Service providers try to achieve
the fine-grained optimization of transmission resources, efficiency,
and further-enhanced network performance. It may be desirable to
perform TE at a per-class level.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 17
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
By mapping the traffic from a given Diffserv class of service on a
separate C-TE LSP, DS-TE allows this traffic to utilize resources
available to the given class on both shortest paths and non-shortest
paths, and also to follow paths that meet TE constraints that are
specific to the given class.
7. Detailed Requirements for the C-RSVP Path Model
This section describes detailed requirements for C-RSVP paths in
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments.
7.1. Admission Control between PE and CE for C-RSVP Paths
The solution MUST support admission control at the ingress PE. PEs
MUST control RSVP messages per a VRF instance.
7.2. Aggregation of C-RSVP Paths by P-TE LSPs
The solution SHOULD support C-RSVP paths aggregated by P-TE LSPs.
P-TE LSPs SHOULD be pre-established manually or dynamically by
operators and MAY be established if triggered by C-RSVP messages.
Also, the P-TE LSP SHOULD support DS-TE.
7.3. Non-TE LSP Support for C-RSVP Paths
The solution SHOULD support non-TE LSPs (i.e., LDP-based LSP, etc.).
Non-TE LSPs are established by LDP [RFC 5036] between PEs and support
MPLS Diffserv [RFC 3270]. The solution MAY support local policies to
map the customer's reserved flow to the LSP with the appropriate
Traffic Class at the PE.
7.4. Transparency of C-RSVP Paths
The solution SHOULD NOT change RSVP messages from the local CE to the
remote CE (Path, Resv, Path Error, Resv Error, etc.). The solution
SHOULD allow customers to receive RSVP messages transparently between
CE sites.
8. Commonly Detailed Requirements for Two Models
This section describes commonly detailed requirements for C-TE LSPs
and C-RSVP paths in BGP/MPLS IP-VPN environments.
8.1. CE-PE Routing
The solution SHOULD support the following routing configuration on
the CE-PE links with either RSVP or RSVP-TE on the CE-PE link:
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 18
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
1. static routing
2. BGP routing
3. OSPF
4. OSPF-TE (RSVP-TE case only)
8.2. Complexity and Risks
The solution SHOULD avoid introducing unnecessary complexity to the
current operating network to such a degree that it would affect the
stability and diminish the benefits of deploying such a solution over
SP networks.
8.3. Backward Compatibility
The deployment of C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs SHOULD avoid impacting
existing RSVP and MPLS-TE mechanisms, respectively, but should allow
for a smooth migration or co-existence.
8.4. Scalability Considerations
The solution SHOULD minimize the impact on network scalability from a
C-RSVP path and a C-TE LSP over the VRF instance. As identified in
earlier sections, PCE provides a method for offloading computation of
C-TE LSPs and helps with the solution scalability.
The solution MUST address the scalability of C-RSVP paths and
C-TE LSPs for the following protocols.
1. RSVP (e.g., number of RSVP messages, retained state, etc.).
2. RSVP-TE (e.g., number of RSVP control messages, retained state,
message size, etc.).
3. BGP (e.g., number of routes, flaps, overload events, etc.).
8.5. Performance Considerations
The solution SHOULD be evaluated with regard to the following
criteria.
1. Degree of path optimality of the C-TE LSP.
2. TE LSP setup time.
3. Failure and restoration time.
4. Impact and scalability of the control plane due to added overhead.
5. Impact and scalability of the data/forwarding plane due to added
overhead.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 19
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
8.6. Management Considerations
The solution MUST address the manageability of C-RSVP paths and
C-TE LSPs for the following considerations.
1. Need for a MIB module for the control plane (including mapping of
P-TE LSPs and C-TE LSPs) and bandwidth monitoring.
2. Need for diagnostic tools (this includes traceroute and Ping).
The solution MUST allow routers to support the MIB module for C-RSVP
paths and C-TE LSPs per a VRF instance. If a CE is managed by
service providers, the solution MUST allow service providers to
collect MIB information for C-RSVP paths and C-TE LSPs from the CE
per a customer.
Diagnostic tools can detect failures of the control plane and data
plane for general MPLS-TE LSPs [RFC 4379]. The solution MUST allow
routers to be able to detect failures of the control plane and the
data plane for C-TE LSPs over a VRF instance.
MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for C-TE LSPs
MUST be supported within the context of VRF, except for the above.
9. Security Considerations
Any solution should consider the following general security
requirements:
1. The solution SHOULD NOT divulge the service-provider topology
information to the customer network.
2. The solution SHOULD minimize the service-provider network's
vulnerability to Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.
3. The solution SHOULD minimize the misconfiguration of DSCP marking,
preemption, and holding priorities of the customer traffic.
The following additional security issues for C-TE LSPs relate to both
the control plane and the data plane.
In terms of the control plane, in both the C-RSVP path and C-TE LSP
models, a PE receives IPv4 or IPv6 RSVP control packets from a CE.
If the CE is a router that is not trusted by service providers, the
PE MUST be able to limit the rate and number of IPv4 or IPv6 RSVP
control packets.
In terms of the data plane, in the C-TE LSP model, a PE receives
labeled IPv4 or IPv6 data packets from a CE. If the CE is a router
that is not trusted by service providers, the PE MUST be able to
limit the rate of labeled IPv4 or IPv6 data packets. If the CE is a
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 20
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
trusted router for service providers, the PE MAY be able to limit the
rate of labeled IPv4 or IPv6 data packets. Specifically, the PE must
drop MPLS-labeled packets if the MPLS label was not assigned over the
PE-CE link on which the packet was received. The PE must also be
able to police traffic to the traffic profile associated with the LSP
on which traffic is received on the PE-CE link.
Moreover, flooding RSVP/RSVP-TE control packets from malicious
customers must be avoided. Therefore, a PE MUST isolate the impact
of such customers' RSVP/RSVP-TE packets from other customers.
In the event that C-TE LSPs are diversely routed over VRF instances,
the VRF should indicate to the CE how such diversity was provided.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC 1633] Braden, R., Clark, D., and S. Shenker, "Integrated
Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview",
RFC 1633, June 1994.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC 3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,
Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions
to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC 3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S.,
Vaananen, P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and
J. Heinanen, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Support of Differentiated Services", RFC 3270,
May 2002.
[RFC 3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC 3623] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., and A. Lindem, "Graceful
OSPF Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 21
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
[RFC 4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed.,
"Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels",
RFC 4090, May 2005.
[RFC 4124] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Protocol Extensions for Support
of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
June 2005.
[RFC 4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC 4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC 4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture",
RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC 4781] Rekhter, Y. and R. Aggarwal, "Graceful Restart
Mechanism for BGP with MPLS", RFC 4781, January 2007.
[RFC 5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas,
Ed., "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC 5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field
Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field", RFC 5462,
February 2009.
10.2. Informative References
[RSVP-L3VPN] Davie, B., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "Support
for RSVP in Layer 3 VPNs", Work in Progress,
November 2009.
[RFC 4804] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "Aggregation of Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations over MPLS
TE/DS-TE Tunnels", RFC 4804, February 2007.
[RFC 5330] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Meyer, M., Kumaki, K., and
A. Bonda, "A Link-Type sub-TLV to Convey the Number of
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Signalled
with Zero Reserved Bandwidth across a Link", RFC 5330,
October 2008.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 22
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
[RFC 5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path
Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol
(PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
11. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express thanks to Nabil Bitar,
David McDysan, and Daniel King for their helpful and useful comments
and feedback.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 23
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
Appendix A. Reference Model
In this appendix, a C-RSVP path, a C-TE LSP, and a P-TE LSP are
explained.
All scenarios in this appendix assume the following:
- A P-TE LSP is established between PE1 and PE2. This LSP is used by
the VRF instance to forward customer packets within a BGP/MPLS
IP-VPN.
- The service provider has ensured that enough bandwidth is available
to meet the service requirements.
A.1. End-to-End C-RSVP Path Model
A C-RSVP path and a P-TE LSP are shown in Figure 7, in the context of
a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. A P-TE LSP may be a non-TE LSP (i.e., LDP) in
some cases. In the case of a non-TE mechanism, however, it may be
difficult to guarantee an end-to-end bandwidth, as resources are
shared.
CE0/CE1 requests an e2e C-RSVP path to CE3/CE2 with the bandwidth
reservation of X. At PE1, this reservation request received in the
context of a VRF will get aggregated onto a pre-established P-TE LSP,
or trigger the establishment of a new P-TE LSP. It should be noted
that C-RSVP sessions across different BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs can be
aggregated onto the same P-TE LSP between the same PE pair, achieving
further scalability. [RFC 4804] defines this scenario in more detail.
The RSVP control messages (e.g., an RSVP PATH message and an RSVP
RESV message) exchanged among CEs are forwarded by IP packets through
the BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. After CE0 and/or CE1 receive a reservation
message from CE2 and/or CE3, CE0/CE1 establishes a C-RSVP path
through the BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 24
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
C-RSVP path
<------------------------------------------>
P-TE LSP
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|CE0| |CE1|---|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|---|CE2| |CE3|.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
............. .............
^ ^
| |
VRF instance VRF instance
<-customer-> <------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN------> <-customer->
network network
or or
another another
service-provider service-provider
network network
Figure 7. e2e C-RSVP Path Model
A.2. End-to-End C-TE LSP Model
A C-TE LSP and a P-TE LSP are shown in Figure 8, in the context of a
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. A P-TE LSP may be a non-TE LSP (i.e., LDP) in some
cases. As described in the previous sub-section, it may be difficult
to guarantee an end-to-end QoS in some cases.
CE0/CE1 requests an e2e TE LSP path to CE3/CE2 with the bandwidth
reservation of X. At PE1, this reservation request received in the
context of a VRF will get aggregated onto a pre-established P-TE LSP,
or trigger the establishment of a new P-TE LSP. It should be noted
that C-TE LSPs across different BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs can be aggregated
onto the same P-TE LSP between the same PE pair, achieving further
scalability.
The RSVP-TE control messages (e.g., an RSVP PATH message and an RSVP
RESV message) exchanged among CEs are forwarded by a labeled packet
through the BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. After CE0 and/or CE1 receive a
reservation message from CE2 and/or CE3, CE0/CE1 establishes a
C-TE LSP through the BGP/MPLS IP-VPN.
A P-TE LSP is established between PE1 and PE2. This LSP is used by
the VRF instance to forward customer packets within the BGP/MPLS
IP-VPN.
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 25
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
C-TE LSP
<------------------------------------------------------->
or
C-TE LSP
<----------------------------------------->
P-TE LSP
<--------------------------->
............. .............
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
.|CE0| |CE1|---|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|---|CE2| |CE3|.
. --- --- . --- --- --- --- . --- --- .
............. .............
^ ^
| |
VRF instance VRF instance
<-customer-> <-------BGP/MPLS IP-VPN-------> <-customer->
network network
or or
another another
service-provider service-provider
network network
Figure 8. e2e C-TE LSP Model
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 26
RFC 5824 Supporting RSVP/RSVP-TE over BGP/MPLS IP-VPN April 2010
Authors' Addresses
Kenji Kumaki (Editor)
KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
EMail: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Raymond Zhang
BT
Farady Building, PP1.21
1 Knightrider Street
London EC4V 5BT
UK
EMail: raymond.zhang@bt.com
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Granpark Tower
3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8118
Japan
EMail: y.kamite@ntt.com
Kumaki, et al. Informational PAGE 27
Requirements for Supporting Customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 56102 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, April 29th, 2010
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
