|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 4990
Use of Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks
Last modified on Tuesday, September 4th, 2007
 Permanent link to RFC 4990
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 4990
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 4990
Network Working Group K. Shiomoto
Request for Comments: 4990 NTT
Category: Informational R. Papneja
Isocore
R. Rabbat
Google
September 2007
Use of Addresses
in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks
 Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document clarifies the use of addresses in Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. The aim is to
facilitate interworking of GMPLS-capable Label Switching Routers
(LSRs). The document is based on experience gained in
implementation, interoperability testing, and deployment.
The document describes how to interpret address and identifier fields
within GMPLS protocols, and how to choose which addresses to set in
those fields for specific control plane usage models. It also
discusses how to handle IPv6 sources and destinations in the MPLS and
GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)
modules.
This document does not define new procedures or processes. Whenever
this document makes requirements statements or recommendations, these
are taken from normative text in the referenced RFCs.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. Support of Numbered and Unnumbered Links ........................5
4. Numbered Addressing .............................................6
4.1. Numbered Addresses in IGPs .................................6
4.1.1. Router Address and TE Router ID .....................6
4.1.2. Link ID and Remote Router ID ........................6
4.1.3. Local Interface IP Address ..........................7
4.1.4. Remote Interface IP Address .........................7
4.2. Numbered Addresses in RSVP-TE ..............................7
4.2.1. IP Tunnel End Point Address in Session Object .......7
4.2.2. IP Tunnel Sender Address in Sender Template Object ..8
4.2.3. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object for Numbered Interfaces .......8
4.2.4. Explicit Route Object (ERO) .........................9
4.2.5. Record Route Object (RRO) ...........................9
4.2.6. IP Packet Source Address ............................9
4.2.7. IP Packet Destination Address .......................9
5. Unnumbered Addressing ..........................................10
5.1. Unnumbered Addresses in IGPs ..............................10
5.1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers in OSPF-TE ...........10
5.1.2. Link Local/Remote Identifiers in IS-IS-TE ..........11
5.2. Unnumbered Addresses in RSVP-TE ...........................11
5.2.1. Sender and End Point Addresses .....................11
5.2.2. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object for Unnumbered Interfaces ....11
5.2.3. Explicit Route Object (ERO) ........................11
5.2.4. Record Route Object (RRO) ..........................11
5.2.5. LSP_Tunnel Interface ID Object .....................12
5.2.6. IP Packet Addresses ................................12
6. RSVP-TE Message Content ........................................12
6.1. ERO and RRO Addresses .....................................12
6.1.1. Strict Subobject in ERO ............................12
6.1.2. Loose Subobject in ERO .............................14
6.1.3. RRO ................................................14
6.1.4. Label Record Subobject in RRO ......................15
6.2. Component Link Identification .............................15
6.3. Forwarding Destination of Path Messages with ERO ..........16
7. Topics Related to the GMPLS Control Plane ......................16
7.1. Control Channel Separation ................................16
7.1.1. Native and Tunneled Control Plane ..................16
7.2. Separation of Control and Data Plane Traffic ..............17
8. Addresses in the MPLS and GMPLS TE MIB Modules .................17
8.1. Handling IPv6 Source and Destination Addresses ............18
8.1.1. Identifying LSRs ...................................18
8.1.2. Configuring GMPLS Tunnels ..........................18
8.2. Managing and Monitoring Tunnel Table Entries ..............19
9. Security Considerations ........................................19
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 2
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
10. Acknowledgments ...............................................20
11. References ....................................................20
11.1. Normative References .....................................20
11.2. Informative References ...................................21
1. Introduction
This informational document clarifies the use of addresses in
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC 3945] networks.
The aim is to facilitate interworking of GMPLS-capable Label
Switching Routers (LSRs). The document is based on experience gained
in implementation, interoperability testing, and deployment.
The document describes how to interpret address and identifier fields
within GMPLS protocols (RSVP-TE [RFC 3473], GMPLS OSPF [RFC 4203], and
GMPLS ISIS [RFC 4205]), and how to choose which addresses to set in
those fields for specific control plane usage models.
This document does not define new procedures or processes and the
protocol specifications listed above should be treated as definitive.
Furthermore, where this document makes requirements statements or
recommendations, these are taken from normative text in the
referenced RFCs. Nothing in this document should be considered
normative.
This document also discusses how to handle IPv6 sources and
destinations in the MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Management Information Base (MIB) modules [RFC 3812], [RFC 4802].
2. Terminology
As described in [RFC 3945], the components of a GMPLS network may be
separated into a data plane and a control plane. The control plane
may be further split into signaling components and routing
components.
A data plane switch or router is called a data plane entity. It is a
node on the data plane topology graph. A data plane resource is a
facility available in the data plane, such as a data plane entity
(node), data link (edge), or data label (such as a lambda).
In the control plane, there are protocol speakers that are software
implementations that communicate using signaling or routing
protocols. These are control plane entities, and may be physically
located separately from the data plane entities that they control.
Further, there may be separate routing entities and signaling
entities.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 3
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
GMPLS supports a control plane entity that is responsible for one or
more data plane entities, and supports the separation of signaling
and routing control plane entities. For the purposes of this
document, it is assumed that there is a one-to-one correspondence
between control plane and data plane entities. That is, each data
plane switch has a unique control plane entity responsible for
participating in the GMPLS signaling and routing protocols, and that
each such control plane presence is responsible for a single data
plane switch.
The combination of control plane and data plane entities is referred
to as a Label Switching Router (LSR).
Note that the term 'Router ID' is used in two contexts within GMPLS.
It may refer to an identifier of a participant in a routing protocol,
or it may be an identifier for an LSR that participates in TE
routing. These could be considered as the control plane and data
plane contexts.
In this document, the contexts are distinguished by the following
definitions.
o Loopback address: A loopback address is a stable IP address of the
advertising router that is always reachable if there is any IP
connectivity to it [RFC 3477], [RFC 3630]. Thus, for example, an
IPv4 127/24 address is excluded from this definition.
o TE Router ID: A stable IP address of an LSR that is always
reachable in the control plane if there is any IP connectivity to
the LSR, e.g., a loopback address. The most important requirement
is that the address does not become unusable if an interface on
the LSR is down [RFC 3477], [RFC 3630].
o Router ID: The OSPF protocol version 2 [RFC 2328] defines the
Router ID to be a 32-bit network-unique number assigned to each
router running OSPF. IS-IS [RFC 1195] includes a similar concept
in the System ID. This document describes both concepts as the
"Router ID" of the router running the routing protocol. The
Router ID is not required to be a reachable IP address, although
an operator may set it to a reachable IP address on the same node.
o TE link: "A TE link is a representation in the IS-IS/OSPF Link
State advertisements and in the link state database of certain
physical resources, and their properties, between two GMPLS nodes"
[RFC 3945].
o Data plane node: A vertex on the TE graph. It is a data plane
switch or router. Data plane nodes are connected by TE links that
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 4
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
are constructed from physical data links. A data plane node is
controlled through some combination of management and control
plane actions. A data plane node may be under full or partial
control of a control plane node.
o Control plane node: A GMPLS protocol speaker. It may be part of a
data plane switch or may be a separate computer. Control plane
nodes are connected by control channels that are logical
connection-less or connection-oriented paths in the control plane.
A control plane node is responsible for controlling zero, one, or
more data plane nodes.
o Interface ID: The Interface ID is defined in [RFC 3477] and in
Section 9.1 of [RFC 3471].
o Data Plane Address: This document refers to a data plane address
in the context of GMPLS. It does not refer to addresses such as
E.164 SAPI in Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH).
o Control Plane Address: An address used to identify a control plane
resource including, and restricted to, control plane nodes and
control channels.
o IP Time to Live (TTL): The IPv4 TTL field or the IPv6 Hop Limit
field, whichever is applicable.
o TED: Traffic Engineering Database.
o LSR: Label Switching Router.
o FA: Forwarding Adjacency.
o IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol.
3. Support of Numbered and Unnumbered Links
The links in the control and data planes may be numbered or
unnumbered [RFC 3945]. That is, their end points may be assigned IP
addresses, or may be assigned link IDs specific to the control plane
or data plane entity at the end of the link. Implementations may
decide to support numbered and/or unnumbered addressing.
The argument for numbered addressing is that it simplifies
troubleshooting. The argument for unnumbered addressing is to save
on IP address resources.
An LSR may choose to only support its own links being configured as
numbered, or may only support its own links being configured as
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 5
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
unnumbered. But an LSR must not restrict the choice of other LSRs to
use numbered or unnumbered links since this might lead to
interoperablity issues. Thus, a node should be able to accept and
process link advertisements containing both numbered and unnumbered
addresses.
Numbered and unnumbered addressing is described in Sections 4 and 5
of this document, respectively.
4. Numbered Addressing
When numbered addressing is used, addresses are assigned to each node
and link in both the control and data planes of the GMPLS network.
A numbered link is identified by a network-unique identifier (e.g.,
an IP address).
4.1. Numbered Addresses in IGPs
In this section, we discuss numbered addressing using two Interior
Gateway Protocols (IGPs) that have extensions defined for GMPLS:
OSPF-TE and IS-IS-TE. The routing enhancements for GMPLS are defined
in [RFC 3630], [RFC 3784], [RFC 4202], [RFC 4203], and [RFC 4205].
4.1.1. Router Address and TE Router ID
The IGPs define a field called the "Router Address". It is used to
advertise the TE Router ID.
The Router Address is advertised in OSPF-TE using the Router Address
TLV structure of the TE Link State Advertisement (LSA) [RFC 3630].
In IS-IS-TE, this is referred to as the Traffic Engineering router
ID, and is carried in the advertised Traffic Engineering router ID
TLV [RFC 3784].
4.1.2. Link ID and Remote Router ID
In OSPF-TE [RFC 3630], the Router ID of the remote end of a TE link is
carried in the Link ID sub-TLV. This applies for point-to-point TE
links only; multi-access links are for further study.
In IS-IS-TE [RFC 3784], the Extended IS Reachability TLV is used to
carry the System ID. This corresponds to the Router ID as described
in Section 2.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 6
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
4.1.3. Local Interface IP Address
The Local Interface IP Address is advertised in:
o the Local Interface IP Address sub-TLV in OSPF-TE [RFC 3630]
o the IPv4 Interface Address sub-TLV in IS-IS-TE [RFC 3784].
This is the ID of the local end of the numbered TE link. It must be
a network-unique number (since this section is devoted to numbered
addressing), but it does not need to be a routable address in the
control plane.
4.1.4. Remote Interface IP Address
The Remote Interface IP Address is advertised in:
o the Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV in OSPF-TE [RFC 3630]
o the IPv4 Neighbor Address sub-TLV in IS-IS-TE [RFC 3784].
This is the ID of the remote end of the numbered TE link. It must be
a network-unique number (since this section is devoted to numbered
addressing), but it does not need to be a routable address in the
control plane
4.2. Numbered Addresses in RSVP-TE
The following subsections describe the use of addresses in the GMPLS
signaling protocol [RFC 3209], [RFC 3473].
4.2.1. IP Tunnel End Point Address in Session Object
The IP tunnel end point address of the Session Object [RFC 3209] is
either an IPv4 or IPv6 address.
The Session Object is invariant for all messages relating to the same
Label Switched Path (LSP). The initiator of a Path message sets the
IP tunnel end point address in the Session Object to one of:
o The TE Router ID of the egress since the TE Router ID is routable
and uniquely identifies the egress node.
o The destination data plane address to precisely identify the
interface that should be used for the final hop of the LSP. That
is, the Remote Interface IP Address of the final TE link, if the
ingress knows that address.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 7
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
The IP tunnel end point address in the Session Object is not required
to be routable in the control plane, but should be present in the
TED.
4.2.2. IP Tunnel Sender Address in Sender Template Object
The IP tunnel sender address of the Sender Template Object [RFC 3209]
is either an IPv4 or IPv6 address.
When an LSP is being set up to support an IPv4-numbered FA, [RFC 4206]
recommends that the IP tunnel sender address be set to the head-end
address of the TE link that is to be created so that the tail-end
address can be inferred as the /31 partner address.
When an LSP is being set up that will not be used to form an FA, the
IP tunnel sender address in the Sender Template Object may be set to
one of:
o The TE Router ID of the ingress LSR since the TE Router ID is a
unique, routable ID per node.
o The sender data plane address (i.e., the Local Interface IP
Address).
4.2.3. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object for Numbered Interfaces
There are two addresses used in the IF_ID RSVP_HOP object.
1. The IPv4/IPv6 Next/Previous Hop Address [RFC 3473]
When used in a Path or Resv messages, this address specifies the
IP reachable address of the control plane interface used to send
the messages, or the TE Router ID of the node that sends the
message. That is, it is a routable control plane address of the
sender of the message and can be used to send return messages.
Note that because of data plane / control plane separation (see
Section 7.1) and data plane robustness in the face of control
plane faults, it may be advisable to use the TE Router ID since it
is a more stable address.
2. The IPv4/IPv6 address in the Value Field of the Interface_ID TLV
[RFC 3471]
This address identifies the data channel associated with the
signaling message. In all cases, the data channel is indicated by
the use of the data plane local interface address at the upstream
LSR, that is, at the sender of the Path message.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 8
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
See Section 6.2 for a description of these fields when bundled links
are used.
4.2.4. Explicit Route Object (ERO)
The IPv4/IPv6 address in the ERO provides a data-plane identifier of
an abstract node, TE node, or TE link to be part of the signaled LSP.
See Section 6 for a description of the use of addresses in the ERO.
4.2.5. Record Route Object (RRO)
The IPv4/IPv6 address in the RRO provides a data-plane identifier of
either a TE node or a TE link that is part of an LSP that has been
established or is being established.
See Section 6 for a description of the use of addresses in the RRO.
4.2.6. IP Packet Source Address
GMPLS signaling messages are encapsulated in IP. The IP packet
source address is either an IPv4 or IPv6 address and must be a
reachable control plane address of the node sending the TE message.
In order to provide control plane robustness, a stable IPv4 or IPv6
control plane address (for example, the TE Router ID) can be used.
Some implementations may use the IP source address of a received IP
packet containing a Path message as the destination IP address of a
packet containing the corresponding Resv message (see Section 4.2.7).
Using a stable IPv4 or IPv6 address in the IP packet containing the
Path message supports this situation robustly when one of the control
plane interfaces is down.
4.2.7. IP Packet Destination Address
The IP packet destination address for an IP packet carrying a GMPLS
signaling message is either an IPv4 or IPv6 address, and must be
reachable in the control plane if the message is to be delivered. It
must be an address of the intended next-hop recipient of the message.
That is, unlike RSVP, the IP packet is not addressed to the ultimate
destination (the egress).
For a Path message, a stable IPv4 or IPv6 address of the next-hop
node may be used. This may be the TE Router ID of the next-hop node.
A suitable address may be determined by examining the TE
advertisements for the TE link that will form the next-hop data link.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 9
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
A Resv message is sent to the previous-hop node. The IPv4 or IPv6
destination of an IP packet carrying a Resv message may be any of the
following:
o The IPv4 or IPv6 source address of the received IP packet
containing the Path message.
o A stable IPv4 or IPv6 address of the previous node found by
examining the TE advertisements for the upstream data plane
interface.
o The value in the received in the Next/Previous Hop Address field
of the RSVP_HOP (PHOP) Object [RFC 2205].
5. Unnumbered Addressing
An unnumbered address is the combination of a network-unique node
identifier and a node-unique interface identifier.
An unnumbered link is identified by the combination of the TE Router
ID that is a reachable address in the control plane and a node-unique
Interface ID [RFC 3477].
5.1. Unnumbered Addresses in IGPs
In this section, we consider unnumbered address advertisement using
OSPF-TE and IS-IS-TE.
5.1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers in OSPF-TE
Link Local and Link Remote Identifiers are carried in OSPF using a
single sub-TLV of the Link TLV [RFC 4203]. They advertise the IDs of
an unnumbered TE link's local and remote ends, respectively. Link
Local/Remote Identifiers are numbers unique within the scopes of the
advertising LSR and the LSR managing the remote end of the link
respectively [RFC 3477].
Note that these numbers are not network-unique and therefore cannot
be used as TE link end identifiers on their own. An unnumbered TE
link end network-wide identifier is comprised of two elements as
defined in [RFC 3477]:
- A TE Router ID that is associated with the link local end
- The link local identifier.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 10
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
5.1.2. Link Local/Remote Identifiers in IS-IS-TE
The Link Local and Link Remote Identifiers are carried in IS-IS using
a single sub-TLV of the Extended IS Reachability TLV. Link
identifiers are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field of
the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type [RFC 4205].
The same discussion of unique identification applies here as in
Section 5.1.1.
5.2. Unnumbered Addresses in RSVP-TE
We consider in this section the interface ID fields of objects used
in RSVP-TE in the case of unnumbered addressing.
5.2.1. Sender and End Point Addresses
The IP Tunnel End Point Address in the RSVP Session Object and the IP
Tunnel Sender Address in the RSVP Sender Template Object cannot use
unnumbered addresses [RFC 3209], [RFC 3473].
5.2.2. IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object for Unnumbered Interfaces
The interface ID field in the IF_INDEX TLV specifies the interface of
the data channel for an unnumbered interface.
In both Path and Resv messages, the value of the interface ID in the
IF_INDEX TLV specifies the local interface ID of the associated data
channel at the upstream node (the node sending the Path message and
receiving the Resv message).
See Section 6.2 for a description of the use bundled links.
5.2.3. Explicit Route Object (ERO)
The ERO may use an unnumbered identifier of a TE link to be part of
the signaled LSP.
See Section 6 for a description of the use of addresses in the ERO.
5.2.4. Record Route Object (RRO)
The RRO records the data-plane identifiers of TE nodes and TE links
that are part of an LSP that has been established or is being
established. TE links may be identified using unnumbered addressing.
See Section 6 for a description of the use of addresses in the RRO.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 11
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
5.2.5. LSP_Tunnel Interface ID Object
The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object includes the LSR's Router ID and
Interface ID, as described in [RFC 3477], to specify an unnumbered
Forward Adjacency Interface ID. The Router ID of the GMPLS-capable
LSR must be set to the TE Router ID.
5.2.6. IP Packet Addresses
IP packets can only be addressed to numbered addresses.
6. RSVP-TE Message Content
This section examines the use of addresses in RSVP EROs and RROs, the
identification of component links, and forwarding addresses for RSVP
messages.
6.1. ERO and RRO Addresses
EROs may contain strict or loose hop subobjects. These are discussed
separately below. A separate section describes the use of addresses
in the RRO.
Implementations making limited assumptions about the content of an
ERO or RRO when processing a received RSVP message may cause or
experience interoperability issues. Therefore, implementations that
want to ensure full interoperability need to support the receipt for
processing of all ERO and RRO options applicable to their hardware
capabilities.
Note that the phrase "receipt for processing" is intended to indicate
that an LSR is not expected to look ahead in an ERO or process any
subobjects that do not refer to the LSR itself or to the next hop in
the ERO. An LSR is not generally expected to process an RRO except
by adding its own information.
Note also that implementations do not need to support the ERO options
containing Component Link IDs if they do not support link bundling
[RFC 4201].
ERO processing at region boundaries is described in [RFC 4206].
6.1.1. Strict Subobject in ERO
Depending on the level of control required, a subobject in the ERO
includes an address that may specify an abstract node (i.e., a group
of nodes), a simple abstract node (i.e., a specific node), or a
specific interface of a TE link in the data plane [RFC 3209].
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 12
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
A hop may be flagged as strict (meaning that the LSP must go directly
to the identified next hop without any intervening nodes), or loose.
If a hop is strict, the ERO may contain any of the following.
1. Address prefix or AS number specifying a group of nodes.
2. TE Router ID identifying a specific node.
3. Link ID identifying an incoming TE link.
4. Link ID identifying an outgoing TE link, optionally followed by a
Component Interface ID and/or one or two Labels.
5. Link ID identifying an incoming TE link, followed by a Link ID
identifying an outgoing TE link, optionally followed by a
Component Interface ID and/or one or two Labels.
6. TE Router ID identifying a specific node, followed by a Link ID
identifying an outgoing TE link, optionally followed by a
Component Interface ID and/or one or two Labels.
7. Link ID identifying an incoming TE link, followed by a TE Router
ID identifying a specific node, followed by a Link ID identifying
an outgoing TE link, optionally followed by Component Interface ID
and/or one or two Labels.
The label value that identifies a single unidirectional resource
between two nodes may be different from the perspective of upstream
and downstream nodes. This is typically the case in fiber switching
because the label value is a number indicating the port/fiber. It
may also be the case for lambda switching, because the label value is
an index for the lambda in the hardware and may not be a globally
defined value such as the wavelength in nanometers.
The value of a label in any RSVP-TE object indicates the value from
the perspective of the sender of the object/TLV [RFC 3471].
Therefore, any label in an ERO is given using the upstream node's
identification of the resource.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 13
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
6.1.2. Loose Subobject in ERO
There are two differences between Loose and Strict subobjects.
o A subobject marked as a loose hop in an ERO must not be followed
by a subobject indicating a label value [RFC 3473].
o A subobject marked as a loose hop in an ERO should never include
an identifier (i.e., address or ID) of the outgoing interface.
There is no way to specify in an ERO whether a subobject identifies
an incoming or outgoing TE link. Path computation must be performed
by an LSR when it encounters a loose hop in order to resolve the LSP
route to the identified next hop. If an interface is specified as a
loose hop and is treated as an incoming interface, the path
computation will select a path that enters an LSR through that
interface. If the interface was intended to be used as an outgoing
interface, the computed path may be unsatisfactory and the explicit
route in the ERO may be impossible to resolve. Thus a loose hop that
identifies an interface should always identify the incoming TE link
in the data plane.
6.1.3. RRO
The RRO is used on Path and Resv messages to record the path of an
LSP. Each LSR adds subobjects to the RRO to record information. The
information added to an RRO by a node should be the same in the Path
and the Resv message although there may be some information that is
not available during LSP setup.
One use of the RRO is to allow the operator to view the path of the
LSP. At any transit node, it should be possible to construct the
path of the LSP by joining together the RRO from the Path and the
Resv messages.
It is also important that a whole RRO on a Resv message received at
an ingress LSR can be used as an ERO on a subsequent Path message to
completely recreate the LSP.
Therefore, when a node adds one or more subobjects to an RRO, any of
the following options is valid.
1. TE Router ID identifying the LSR.
2. Link ID identifying the incoming (upstream) TE link.
3. Link ID identifying the outgoing (downstream) TE link, optionally
followed by a Component Interface ID and/or one or two Labels.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 14
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
4. Link ID identifying the incoming (upstream) TE link, followed by a
Link ID identifying the outgoing (downstream) TE link, optionally
followed by a Component Interface ID and/or one or two Labels.
5. TE Router ID identifying the LSR, followed by a Link ID
identifying the outgoing (downstream) TE link, optionally followed
by a Component Interface ID and/or one or two Labels.
6. Link ID identifying the incoming (upstream) TE link, followed by
the TE Router ID identifying the LSR, followed by a Link ID
identifying the outgoing (downstream) TE link, optionally followed
by a Component Interface ID and/or one or two Labels.
An implementation may choose any of these options and must be
prepared to receive an RRO that contains any of these options.
6.1.4. Label Record Subobject in RRO
RRO Label recording is requested by an ingress node setting the Label
Recording flag in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object and including an RRO
is included in the Path message as described in [RFC 3209]. Under
these circumstances, each LSR along the LSP should include label
information in the RRO in the Path message if it is available.
As described in [RFC 3209], the processing for a Resv message "mirrors
that of the Path" and "The only difference is that the RRO in a Resv
message records the path information in the reverse direction." This
means that hops are added to the RRO in the reverse order, but the
information added at each LSR is in the same order (see Sections
6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3). Thus, when label recording is requested,
labels are included in the RROs in both the Path and Resv messages.
6.2. Component Link Identification
When a bundled link [RFC 4201] is used to provide a data channel, a
component link identifier is specified in the Interface
Identification TLV in the IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object in order to indicate
which data channel from within the bundle is to be used. The
Interface Identification TLV is IF_INDEX TLV (Type 3) in the case of
an unnumbered component link and IPv4 TLV (Type 1) or IPv6 TLV
(Type 2) in the case of a numbered component link.
The component link for the upstream data channel may differ from that
for the downstream data channel in the case of a bidirectional LSP.
In this case, the Interface Identification TLV specifying a
downstream interface is followed by another Interface Identification
TLV specifying an upstream interface.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 15
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
Note that identifiers in TLVs for upstream and downstream data
channels in both Path and Resv messages are specified from the
viewpoint of the upstream node (the node sending the Path message and
receiving the Resv message), using identifiers belonging to the node.
An LSR constructing an ERO may include a Link ID that identifies a
bundled link. If the LSR knows the identities of the component links
and wishes to exert control, it may also include component link
identifiers in the ERO. Otherwise, the component link identifiers
are not included in the ERO.
When a bundled link is in use, the RRO may include the Link ID that
identifies the link bundle. Additionally, the RRO may include a
component link identifier.
6.3. Forwarding Destination of Path Messages with ERO
The final destination of the Path message is the Egress node that is
specified by the tunnel end point address in the Session object.
The Egress node must not forward the corresponding Path message
downstream, even if the ERO includes the outgoing interface ID of the
Egress node for Egress control [RFC 4003].
7. Topics Related to the GMPLS Control Plane
7.1. Control Channel Separation
In GMPLS, a control channel can be separated from the data channel
and there is not necessarily a one-to-one association of a control
channel to a data channel. Two nodes that are adjacent in the data
plane may have multiple IP hops between them in the control plane.
There are two broad types of separated control planes: native and
tunneled. These differ primarily in the nature of encapsulation used
for signaling messages, which also results in slightly different
address handling with respect to the control plane address.
7.1.1. Native and Tunneled Control Plane
A native control plane uses IP forwarding to deliver RSVP-TE messages
between protocol speakers. The message is not further encapsulated.
IP forwarding applies normal rules to the IP header. Note that an IP
hop must not decrement the TTL of the received RSVP-TE message.
For the case where two adjacent nodes have multiple IP hops between
them in the control plane, then as stated in Section 9 of [RFC 3945],
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 16
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
implementations should use the mechanisms of Section 6.1.1 of
[RFC 4206] whether or not they use LSP Hierarchy. Note that Section
6.1.1 of [RFC 4206] applies to an "FA-LSP" as stated in that section,
but also to a "TE link" for the case where a normal TE link is used.
With a tunneled control plane, the RSVP-TE message is packaged in an
IP packet that is inserted into a tunnel such that the IP packet will
traverse exactly one IP hop. Various tunneling techniques can be
used including (but not limited to) IP-in-IP, Generic Routing
Encapsulation (GRE), and IP in MPLS.
Where the tunneling mechanism includes a TTL, it should be treated as
for any network message sent on that network. Implementations
receiving RSVP-TE messages on the tunnel interface must not compare
the RSVP-TE TTL to any other TTL (whether the IP TTL or the tunnel
TTL).
It has been observed that some implementations do not support the
tunneled control plane features, and it is suggested that to enable
interoperability, all implementations should support at least a
native control plane.
7.2. Separation of Control and Data Plane Traffic
Data traffic must not be transmitted through the control plane. This
is crucial when attempting PSC (Packet-Switching Capable) GMPLS with
separated control and data channels.
8. Addresses in the MPLS and GMPLS TE MIB Modules
This section describes a method of defining or monitoring an LSP
tunnel using the MPLS-TE-STD-MIB module [RFC 3812] and GMPLS-TE-STD-
MIB module [RFC 4802] where the ingress and/or egress routers are
identified using 128-bit IPv6 addresses. This is the case when the
mplsTunnelIngressLSRId and mplsTunnelEgressLSRId objects in the
mplsTunnelTable [RFC 3812] cannot be used to carry the tunnel end
point address and Extended Tunnel Id fields from the signaled Session
Object because the IPv6 variant (LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6_SESSION object) is
in use.
The normative text for MIB objects for control and monitoring MPLS
and GMPLS nodes is found in the RFCs referenced above. This section
makes no changes to those objects, but describes how they may be used
to provide the necessary function.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 17
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
8.1. Handling IPv6 Source and Destination Addresses
8.1.1. Identifying LSRs
For this feature to be used, all LSRs in the network must advertise a
32-bit value that can be used to identify the LSR. In this document,
this is referred to as the 32-bit LSR ID. The 32-bit LSR ID is the
OSPFv3 router ID [RFC 2740] or the ISIS IPv4 TE Router ID [RFC 3784].
Note that these are different from TE router ID (see Section 2).
8.1.2. Configuring GMPLS Tunnels
When setting up RSVP TE tunnels, it is common practice to copy the
values of the mplsTunnelIngressLSRId and mplsTunnelEgressLSRId fields
in the MPLS TE MIB mplsTunnelTable [RFC 3812] into the Extended Tunnel
ID and IPv4 tunnel end point address fields, respectively, in the
RSVP-TE LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 SESSION object [RFC 3209].
This approach cannot be used when the ingress and egress routers are
identified by 128-bit IPv6 addresses as the mplsTunnelIngressLSRId,
and mplsTunnelEgressLSRId fields are defined to be 32-bit values
[RFC 3811], [RFC 3812].
Instead, the IPv6 addresses should be configured in the mplsHopTable
as the first and last hops of the mplsTunnelHopTable entries defining
the explicit route for the tunnel. Note that this implies that a
tunnel with IPv6 source and destination addresses must have an
explicit route configured, although it should be noted that the
configuration of an explicit route in this way does not imply that an
explicit route will be signaled.
In more detail, the tunnel is configured at the ingress router as
follows. See [RFC 3812] for definitions of MIB table objects and for
default (that is, "normal") behavior.
The mplsTunnelIndex and mplsTunnelInstance fields are set as normal.
The mplsTunnelIngressLSRId and mplsTunnelEgressLSRId fields should be
set to 32-bit LSR IDs for ingress and egress LSRs, respectively.
The mplsTunnelHopTableIndex must be set to a non-zero value. That
is, an explicit route must be specified.
The first hop of the explicit route must have mplsTunnelHopAddrType
field set to ipv6(2) and should have the mplsTunnelHopIpAddr field
set to a global scope IPv6 address of the ingress router that is
reachable in the control plane.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 18
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
The last hop of the explicit route must have mplsTunnelHopAddrType
field set to ipv6(2) and should have the mplsTunnelHopIpAddr field
set to a global scope IPv6 address of the egress router that is
reachable in the control plane.
The ingress router should set the signaled values of the Extended
Tunnel ID and IPv6 tunnel end point address fields, respectively, of
the RSVP-TE LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SESSION object [RFC 3209] from the
mplsTunnelHopIpAddr object of the first and last hops in the
configured explicit route.
8.2. Managing and Monitoring Tunnel Table Entries
In addition to their use for configuring LSPs as described in Section
8.1, the TE MIB modules (MPLS-TE-STD-MIB and GMPLS-TE-STD-MIB) may be
used for managing and monitoring MPLS and GMPLS TE LSPs,
respectively. This function is particularly important at egress and
transit LSRs.
For a tunnel with IPv6 source and destination addresses, an LSR
implementation should return values in the mplsTunnelTable as follows
(where "normal" behavior is the default taken from [RFC 3812]).
The mplsTunnelIndex and mplsTunnelInstance fields are set as normal.
The mplsTunnelIngressLSRId field and mplsTunnelEgressLSRId are set to
32-bit LSR IDs. That is, each transit and egress router maps from
the IPv6 address in the Extended Tunnel ID field to the 32-bit LSR ID
of the ingress LSR. Each transit router also maps from the IPv6
address in the IPv6 tunnel end point address field to the 32-bit LSR
ID of the egress LSR.
9. Security Considerations
In the interoperability testing we conducted, the major issue we
found was the use of control channels for forwarding data. This was
due to the setting of both control and data plane addresses to the
same value in PSC (Packet-Switching Capable) equipment. This
occurred when attempting to test PSC GMPLS with separated control and
data channels. What resulted instead were parallel interfaces with
the same addresses. This could be avoided simply by keeping the
addresses for the control and data plane separate.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 19
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
10. Acknowledgments
The following people made textual contributions to this document:
Alan Davey, Yumiko Kawashima, Kaori Shimizu, Thomas D. Nadeau,
Ashok Narayanan, Eiji Oki, Lyndon Ong, Vijay Pandian, Hari
Rakotoranto, and Adrian Farrel.
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for the helpful
discussions and the feedback he gave on the document. In addition,
Jari Arkko, Arthi Ayyangar, Deborah Brungard, Diego Caviglia, Lisa
Dusseault, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Jonathan Sadler, Hidetsugu
Sugiyama, and Julien Meuric provided helpful comments and
suggestions.
Adrian Farrel edited the final revisions of this document before and
after working group last call.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC 2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC 2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[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 3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, January 2003.
[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 3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC 3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 20
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
[RFC 3811] Nadeau, T., Ed., and J. Cucchiara, Ed., "Definitions of
Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Management", RFC 3811, June 2004.
[RFC 3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June
2004.
[RFC 3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC 4003] Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure for Egress Control",
RFC 4003, February 2005.
[RFC 4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[RFC 4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[RFC 4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC
4203, October 2005.
[RFC 4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with
Generalized MPLS TE", RFC 4206, October 2005.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC 1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC 2740] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC
2740, December 1999.
[RFC 3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004.
[RFC 4205] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
4205, October 2005.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 21
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
[RFC 4802] Nadeau, T., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
Management Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007.
Authors' Addresses
Kohei Shiomoto
NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories
3-9-11 Midori
Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585
Japan
Phone: +81 422 59 4402
EMail: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp
Richard Rabbat
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
Phone: +1 650-714-7618
EMail: rabbat@alum.mit.edu
Rajiv Papneja
Isocore Corporation
12359 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 100
Reston, Virginia 20191
United States of America
Phone: +1 703-860-9273
EMail: rpapneja@isocore.com
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 22
RFC 4990 Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks September 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright © The IETF Trust (2007).
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Shiomoto, et al. Informational PAGE 23
Use of Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 50908 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Tuesday, September 4th, 2007
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
