|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 4208
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model
Last modified on Tuesday, October 25th, 2005
 Permanent link to RFC 4208
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 4208
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 4208
Network Working Group G. Swallow
Request for Comments: 4208 Cisco Systems, Inc
Category: Standards Track J. Drake
Boeing
H. Ishimatsu
G1M Co., Ltd.
Y. Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc
October 2005
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
User-Network Interface (UNI):
Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Support for the Overlay Model
 Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright © The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) defines both
routing and signaling protocols for the creation of Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) in various switching technologies. These protocols can
be used to support a number of deployment scenarios. This memo
addresses the application of GMPLS to the overlay model.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. GMPLS User-Network Interface (GMPLS UNI) ...................4
2. Addressing ......................................................5
3. ERO Processing ..................................................6
3.1. Path Message without ERO ...................................6
3.2. Path Message with ERO ......................................6
3.3. Explicit Label Control .....................................7
4. RRO Processing ..................................................7
5. Notification ....................................................7
6. Connection Deletion .............................................8
6.1. Alarm-Free Connection Deletion .............................8
6.2. Connection Deletion with PathErr ...........................8
7. VPN Connections .................................................9
8. Security Considerations ........................................10
9. Acknowledgments ................................................10
10. References ....................................................10
10.1. Normative References .....................................10
10.2. Informational References .................................10
1. Introduction
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) defines both
routing and signaling protocols for the creation of Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) in various transport technologies. These protocols can
be used to support a number of deployment scenarios. In a peer
model, edge-nodes support both a routing and a signaling protocol.
The protocol interactions between an edge-node and a core-node are
the same as between two core-nodes. In the overlay model, the core-
nodes act more as a closed system. The edge-nodes do not participate
in the routing protocol instance that runs among the core nodes; in
particular, the edge-nodes are unaware of the topology of the core-
nodes. There may, however, be a routing protocol interaction between
a core-node and an edge-node for the exchange of reachability
information to other edge-nodes.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
Overlay Overlay
Network +----------------------------------+ Network
+---------+ | | +---------+
| +----+ | | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| -+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN +----+ CN +----+ CN +---+-----+-+ EN +- |
| | | | +--+--| | | | | | | | | | |
| +----+ | | | +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | +--+--+ | +--+--+ | | |
| +----+ | | | | | +-------+ | | | +----+ |
| | +-+--+ | | CN +---------------+ CN | | | | | |
| -+ EN +-+-----+--+ | | +---+-----+-+ EN +- |
| | | | | +-----+ +-----+ | | | | |
| +----+ | | | | +----+ |
| | +----------------------------------+ | |
+---------+ Core Network +---------+
Overlay Overlay
Network Network
Legend: EN - Edge Node
CN - Core Node
Figure 1: Overlay Reference Model
Figure 1 shows a reference network. The core network is represented
by the large box in the center. It contains five core-nodes marked
'CN'. The four boxes around the edge marked "Overlay Network"
represent four islands of a single overlay network. Only the nodes
of this network with TE links into the core network are shown. These
nodes are called edge-nodes; the terminology is in respect to the
core network, not the overlay network. Note that each box marked
"Overlay Network" could contain many other nodes. Such nodes are not
shown; they do not participate directly in the signaling described in
this document. Only the edge-nodes can signal to set up links across
the core to other edge-nodes.
How a link between edge-nodes is requested and triggered is out of
the scope of this document, as is precisely how that link is used by
the Overlay Network. One possibility is that the edge-nodes will
inform the other nodes of the overlay network of the existence of the
link, possibly using a forwarding adjacency as described in
[MPLS-HIER]. Note that this contrasts with a forwarding adjacency
that is provided by the core network as a link between core-nodes.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
In the overlay model, there may be restrictions on what may be
signaled between an edge-node and a core-node. This memo addresses
the application of GMPLS to the overlay model. Specifically, it
addresses RSVP-TE procedures between an edge-node and a core-node in
the overlay model. All signaling procedures are identical to the
GMPLS extensions specified in [RFC 3473], except as noted in this
document.
This document primarily addresses interactions between an edge-node
and it's adjacent (at the data plane) core-node; out-of-band and
non-adjacent signaling capabilities may mean that signaling messages
are delivered on a longer path. Except where noted, the term core-
node refers to the node immediately adjacent to an edge-node across a
particular data plane interface. The term core-nodes, however,
refers to all nodes in the core.
Realization of a single or multiple instance of the UNI is
implementation dependent at both the CN and EN so long as it meets
the functional requirements for robustness, security, and privacy
detailed in Section 7.
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].
Readers are assumed to be familiar with the terminology introduced in
[RFC 3031], [GMPLS-ARCH], and [RFC 3471].
1.1. GMPLS User-Network Interface (GMPLS UNI)
One can apply the GMPLS Overlay model at the User-Network Interface
(UNI) reference point defined in the Automatically Switched Optical
Network (ASON) [G.8080]. Consider the case where the 'Core Network'
in Figure 1 is a Service Provider network, and the Edge Nodes are
'user' devices. The interface between an EN and a CN is the UNI
reference point, and to support the ASON model, one must define
signaling across the UNI.
The extensions described in this memo provide mechanisms for UNI
signaling that are compatible with GMPLS signaling [RFC 3471,
RFC 3473]. Moreover, these mechanisms for UNI signaling are in line
with the RSVP model; namely, there is a single end-to-end RSVP
session for the user connection. The first and last hops constitute
the UNI, and the RSVP session carries the user parameters end-to-end.
This obviates the need to map (or carry) user parameters to (in) the
format expected by the network-to-network interface (NNI) used within
the Service Provider network. This in turn means that the UNI and
NNI can be independent of one another, which is a requirement of the
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
ASON architecture. However, in the case that the UNI and NNI are
both GMPLS RSVP-based, the methodology specified in this memo allows
for a single RSVP session to instantiate both UNI and NNI signaling,
if so desired, and if allowed by Service Provider policy.
2. Addressing
Addresses for edge-nodes in the overlay model are drawn from the same
address space as the edge-nodes use to address their adjacent core-
nodes. This may be the same address space as used by the core-nodes
to communicate among themselves, or it may be a VPN space supported
by the core-nodes as an overlay.
To be more specific, an edge-node and its attached core-node must
share the same address space that is used by GMPLS to signal between
the edge-nodes across the core network. A set of <edge-node, core-
node> tuples share the same address space if the edge-nodes in the
set could establish LSPs (through the core-nodes) among themselves
without address mapping or translation (note that edge-nodes in the
set may be a subset of all the edge-nodes). The address space used
by the core-nodes to communicate among themselves may, but need not,
be shared with the address space used by any of the <edge-node,
core-node> tuples. This does not imply a mandatory 1:1 mapping
between a set of LSPs and a given addressing space.
When multiple overlay networks are supported by a single core
network, one or more address spaces may be used according to privacy
requirements. This may be achieved without varying the core-node
addresses since it is the <edge-node, core-node> tuple that
constitutes address space membership.
An edge-node is identified by either a single IP address representing
its Node-ID, or by one or more numbered TE links that connect the
edge-node to the core-nodes. Core-nodes are assumed to be ignorant
of any other addresses associated with an edge-node (i.e., addresses
that are not used in signaling connections through the GMPLS core).
An edge-node need only know its own address, an address of the
adjacent core-node, and know (or be able to resolve) the address of
any other edge-node to which it wishes to connect, as well as (of
course) the addresses used in the overlay network island of which it
is a part.
A core-node need only know (and track) the addresses on interfaces
between that core-node and its attached edge-nodes, as well as the
Node IDs of those edge-nodes. In addition, a core-node needs to know
the interface addresses and Node IDs of other edge-nodes to which an
attached edge-node is permitted to connect.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
When forming a SENDER_TEMPLATE, the ingress edge-node includes either
its Node-ID or the address of one of its numbered TE links. In the
latter case the connection will only be made over this interface.
When forming a SESSION_OBJECT, the ingress edge-node includes either
the Node-ID of the egress edge-device or the address of one of the
egress' numbered TE links. In the latter case the connection will
only be made over this interface. The Extended_Tunnel_ID of the
SESSION Object is set to either zero or to an address of the ingress
edge-device.
Links may be either numbered or unnumbered. Further, links may be
bundled or unbundled. See [GMPLS-ARCH], [RFC 3471], [BUNDLE], and
[RFC 3477].
3. ERO Processing
An edge-node MAY include an ERO. A core-node MAY reject a Path
message that contains an ERO. Such behavior is controlled by
(hopefully consistent) configuration. If a core-node rejects a Path
message due to the presence of an ERO, it SHOULD return a PathErr
message with an error code of "Unknown object class" toward the
sender as described in [RFC 3209]. This causes the path setup to
fail.
Further, a core-node MAY accept EROs that only include the ingress
edge-node, the ingress core-node, the egress core-node, and the
egress edge-node. This is to support explicit label control on the
edge-node interface; see below. If a core-node rejects a Path
message due to the presence of an ERO that is not of the permitted
format, it SHOULD return a PathErr message with an error code of Bad
Explicit Route Object as defined in [RFC 3209].
3.1. Path Message without ERO
When a core-node receives a Path message from an edge-node that
contains no ERO, it MUST calculate a route to the destination and
include that route in an ERO, before forwarding the PATH message.
One exception would be if the egress edge-node were also adjacent to
this core-node. If no route can be found, the core-node SHOULD
return a PathErr message with an error code and value of 24,5 - "No
route available toward destination".
3.2. Path Message with ERO
When a core-node receives a Path message from an edge-node that
contains an ERO, it SHOULD verify the route against its topology
database before forwarding the PATH message. If the route is not
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
viable (according to topology, currently available resources, or
local policy), then a PathErr message with an error code and value of
24,5 - "No route available toward destination" should be returned.
3.3. Explicit Label Control
In order to support explicit label control and full identification of
the egress link, an ingress edge-node may include this information in
the ERO that it passes to its neighboring core-node. In the case
that no other ERO is supplied, this explicit control information is
provided as the only hop of the ERO and is encoded by setting the
first subobject of the ERO to the node-ID of the egress core-node
with the L-bit set; following this subobject are all other subobjects
necessary to identify the link and labels as they would normally
appear.
The same rules apply to the presence of the explicit control
subobjects as the last hop in the ERO, if a fuller ERO is supplied by
the ingress edge-node to its neighbor core-node; but in this case the
L-bit MAY be clear.
This process is described in [RFC 3473] and [EXPLICIT].
4. RRO Processing
An edge-node MAY include an RRO. A core-node MAY remove the RRO from
the Path message before forwarding it. Further, the core-node may
remove the RRO from a Resv message before forwarding it to the edge-
node. Such behavior is controlled by (hopefully consistent)
configuration.
Further, a core-node MAY edit the RRO in a Resv message such that it
includes only the subobjects from the egress core-node through the
egress edge-node. This is to allow the ingress node to be aware of
the selected link and labels on at the far end of the connection.
5. Notification
An edge-node MAY include a NOTIFY_REQUEST object in both the Path and
Resv messages it generates. Core-nodes may send Notify messages to
edge-nodes that have included the NOTIFY_REQUEST object.
A core-node MAY remove a NOTIFY_REQUEST object from a Path or Resv
message received from an edge-node before forwarding it.
If no NOTIFY_REQUEST object is present in the Path or Resv received
from an edge-node, the core-node adjacent to the edge-node may
include a NOTIFY_REQUEST object and set its value to its own address.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
In either of the above cases, the core-node SHOULD NOT send Notify
messages to the edge-node.
When a core-node receives a NOTIFY_REQUEST object from an edge-node,
it MAY update the Notify Node Address with its own address before
forwarding it. In this case, when Notify messages are received, they
MAY be selectively (based on local policy) forwarded to the edge-
node.
6. Connection Deletion
6.1. Alarm-Free Connection Deletion
RSVP-TE currently deletes connections using either a single pass
PathTear message, or a ResvTear and PathTear message combination.
Upon receipt of the PathTear message, a node deletes the connection
state and forwards the message. In optical networks, however, it is
possible that the deletion of a connection (e.g., removal of the
cross-connect) in a node may cause the connection to be perceived as
failed in downstream nodes (e.g., loss of frame, loss of light,
etc.). This may in turn lead to management alarms and perhaps the
triggering of restoration/protection for the connection.
To address this issue, the graceful connection deletion procedure
SHOULD be followed. Under this procedure, an ADMIN_STATUS object
MUST be sent in a Path or Resv message along the connection's path to
inform all nodes en route to the intended deletion, prior to the
actual deletion of the connection. The procedure is described in
[RFC 3473].
If an ingress core-node receives a PathTear without having first seen
an ADMIN_STATUS object informing it that the connection is about to
be deleted, it MAY pause the PathTear and first send a Path message
with an ADMIN_STATUS object to inform all downstream LSRs that the
connection is about to be deleted. When the Resv is received echoing
the ADMIN_STATUS or using a timer as described in [RFC 3473], the
ingress core-node MUST forward the PathTear.
6.2. Connection Deletion with PathErr
[RFC 3473] introduces the Path_State_Removed flag to a PathErr message
to indicate that the sender has removed all state associated with the
LSP and does not need to see a PathTear. A core-node next to an
edge-node MAY map between teardown using ResvTear/PathTear and
PathErr with Path_state_Removed.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
A core-node next to an edge-node receiving a ResvTear from its
downstream neighbor MAY respond with a PathTear and send a PathErr
with Path_State_Removed further upstream.
Note, however, that a core-node next to an edge-node receiving a
PathErr with Path_State_Removed from its downstream neighbor MUST NOT
retain Path state and send a ResvTear further upstream because that
would imply that Path state further downstream had also been
retained.
7. VPN Connections
As stated in the addressing section above, the extensions in this
document are designed to be compatible with the support of VPNs.
Since the core network may be some technology other than GMPLS, no
mandatory means of mapping core connections to access connections is
specified. However, when GMPLS is used for the core network, it is
RECOMMENDED that the following procedure based on [MPLS-HIER] is
followed.
The VPN connection is modeled as being three hops. One for each
access link and one hop across the core network.
The VPN connection is established using a two-step procedure. When a
Path message is received at a core-node on an interface that is part
of a VPN, the Path message is held until a core connection is
established.
The connection across the core is setup as a separate signaling
exchange between the core-nodes, using the address space of the core
nodes. While this exchange is in progress, the original Path message
is held at the ingress core-node. Once the exchange for the core
connection is complete, this connection is used in the VPN connection
as if it were a single link. This is signaled by including an IF_ID
RSVP_HOP object (defined in [RFC 3473]) using the procedures defined
in [MPLS-HIER].
The original Path message is then forwarded within the VPN addressing
realm to the core-node attached to the destination edge-node. Many
ways of accomplishing this are available, including IP and GRE
tunnels and BGP/MPLS VPNs. Specifying a particular means is beyond
the scope of this document.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
8. Security Considerations
The trust model between the core and edge-nodes is different than the
one described in [RFC 3473], as the core is permitted to hide its
topology from the edge-nodes, and the core is permitted to restrict
the actions of edge-nodes by filtering out specific RSVP objects.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kireeti Kompella, Jonathan Lang,
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Dimitrios Pendarakis, Bala Rajagopalan, and
Adrian Farrel for their comments and input. Thanks for thorough
final reviews from Loa Andersson and Dimitri Papadimitriou.
Adrian Farrel edited the last two revisions of this document to
incorporate comments from Working Group last call and from AD review.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC 3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January
2003.
[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.
10.2. Informational References
[RFC 3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
January 2001.
[RFC 3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered
Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
[BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link
Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201,
October 2005.
[EXPLICIT] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress
Control", RFC 4003, February 2005.
[GMPLS-ARCH] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[MPLS-HIER] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
October 2005.
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," November
2001 (and Revision, January 2003). For information on
the availability of this document, please see
http://www.itu.int.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
Authors' Addresses
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave,
Boxborough, MA 01719
Phone: +1 978 936 1398
EMail: swallow@cisco.com
John Drake
Boeing Satellite Systems
2300 East Imperial Highway
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: +1 412 370-3108
EMail: John.E.Drake2@boeing.com
Hirokazu Ishimatsu
G1M Co., Ltd.
Nishinippori Start up Office 214,
5-37-5 Nishinippori, Arakawaku,
Tokyo 116-0013, Japan
Phone: +81 3 3891 8320
EMail: hirokazu.ishimatsu@g1m.jp
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 4208 RSVP-TE Support for the Overlay Model October 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright © The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track PAGE 13
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay Model
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 28693 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Tuesday, October 25th, 2005
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
