|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 6107
Procedures for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths
Last modified on Thursday, February 3rd, 2011
 Permanent link to RFC 6107
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 6107
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 6107
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Shiomoto, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6107 NTT
Updates: 3477, 4206 A. Farrel, Ed.
Category: Standards Track Old Dog Consulting
ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2011
Procedures for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths
 Abstract
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) set up in Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks can be used to form links
to carry traffic in those networks or in other (client) networks.
Protocol mechanisms already exist to facilitate the establishment of
such LSPs and to bundle traffic engineering (TE) links to reduce the
load on routing protocols. This document defines extensions to those
mechanisms to support identifying the use to which such LSPs are to
be put and to enable the TE link endpoints to be assigned addresses
or unnumbered identifiers during the signaling process.
The mechanisms defined in this document deprecate the technique for
the signaling of LSPs that are to be used as numbered TE links
described in RFC 4206.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 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 6107.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Problem Statement ..............................3
1.1. Background .................................................4
1.1.1. Hierarchical LSPs ...................................4
1.1.2. LSP Stitching Segments ..............................5
1.1.3. Private Links .......................................5
1.1.4. Routing Adjacencies .................................5
1.1.5. Forwarding Adjacencies ..............................5
1.1.6. Client/Server Networks ..............................6
1.1.7. Link Bundles ........................................6
1.2. Desired Function ...........................................7
1.3. Existing Mechanisms ........................................7
1.3.1. LSP Setup ...........................................7
1.3.2. Routing Adjacency Establishment and Link
State Advertisement .................................7
1.3.3. TE Link Advertisement ...............................7
1.3.4. Configuration and Management Techniques .............8
1.3.5. Signaled Unnumbered FAs .............................8
1.3.6. Establishing Numbered FAs through Signaling
and Routing .........................................9
1.4. Overview of Required Extensions ...........................10
1.4.1. Efficient Signaling of Numbered FAs ................10
1.4.2. LSPs for Use as Private Links ......................10
1.4.3. Signaling an LSP for Use in Another Network ........10
1.4.4. Signaling an LSP for Use in a Link Bundle ..........11
1.4.5. Support for IPv4 and IPv6 ..........................11
1.4.6. Backward Compatibility .............................11
2. Overview of Solution ...........................................11
2.1. Common Approach for Numbered and Unnumbered Links .........11
2.2. LSP Usage Indication ......................................12
2.3. IGP Instance Identification ...............................12
2.4. Link Bundle Identification ................................12
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
2.5. Backward Compatibility ....................................12
3. Mechanisms and Protocol Extensions .............................13
3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object ............................13
3.1.1. Existing Definition and Usage ......................13
3.1.2. Unnumbered Links with Action Identification ........13
3.1.3. IPv4 Numbered Links with Action Identification .....16
3.1.4. IPv6 Numbered Links with Action Identification .....17
3.2. Target IGP Identification TLV .............................18
3.3. Component Link Identification TLV .........................19
3.3.1. Unnumbered Component Link Identification ...........20
3.3.2. IPv4 Numbered Component Link Identification ........20
3.3.3. IPv6 Numbered Component Link Identification ........21
3.4. Link State Advertisement ..................................21
3.5. Message Formats ...........................................22
3.6. Error Cases and Non-Acceptance ............................22
3.7. Backward Compatibility ....................................24
4. Security Considerations ........................................25
5. IANA Considerations ............................................25
5.1. New Class Types ...........................................25
5.2. Hierarchy Actions .........................................26
5.3. New Error Codes and Error Values ..........................26
6. Acknowledgements ...............................................27
7. References .....................................................27
7.1. Normative References ......................................27
7.2. Informative References ....................................28
1. Introduction and Problem Statement
Traffic Engineering (TE) links in a Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) or a Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) network may be constructed from
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC 4206]. Such LSPs are known as
hierarchical LSPs (H-LSPs).
The LSPs established in one network may be used as TE links in
another network, and this is particularly useful when a server layer
network (for example, an optical network) provides LSPs for use as TE
links in a client network (for example, a packet network). This
enables the construction of a multilayer network (MLN) [RFC 5212].
When the number of TE links (created from LSPs or otherwise) between
a pair of nodes grows large, it is inefficient to advertise them
individually. This may cause scaling issues in configuration and in
the routing protocols used to carry the advertisements. The solution
(described in [RFC 4201]) is to collect the TE links together and to
advertise them as a single TE link called a link bundle.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
These various mechanisms have proved to be very powerful in building
dynamically provisioned networks, but, as set out later in this
document, several issues have been identified during deployment with
how LSPs are established and made available for use as H-LSPs or as
components of a link bundle, and with how these links are advertised
appropriately in an interior gateway protocol (IGP). These issues
relate to how the LSP's endpoints coordinate two things: the use to
which the LSP is put and the identifiers of the endpoints.
This document provides solutions to these issues by defining
mechanisms so that the ends of signaled LSPs can exchange information
about:
- Whether the LSP is an ordinary LSP or an H-LSP.
- In which IGP instances the LSP should be advertised as a link.
- How the client networks should make use of the new links.
- Whether the link should form part of a bundle (and if so, which
bundle).
- How the link endpoints should be identified when advertised.
This document deprecates one of the mechanisms defined in [RFC 4206]
for the signaling of LSPs that are to be used as numbered TE links
(see Sections 1.3.6 and 1.4.6 for more details), and provides
extensions to the other mechanisms defined in [RFC 4206] so that the
use to which the new LSP is to be put may be indicated during
signaling. It also extends the mechanisms defined in [RFC 3477] for
signaling unnumbered TE links.
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].
1.1. Background
1.1.1. Hierarchical LSPs
[RFC 3031] describes how MPLS labels may be stacked so that LSPs may
be nested with one LSP running through another. This concept of
H-LSPs is formalized in [RFC 4206] with a set of protocol mechanisms
for the establishment of an H-LSP that can carry one or more other
LSPs.
[RFC 4206] goes on to explain that an H-LSP may carry other LSPs only
according to their switching types. This is a function of the way
labels are carried. In a packet switch capable (PSC) network, the
H-LSP can carry other PSC LSPs using the MPLS label stack. In non-
packet networks where the label is implicit, label stacks are not
possible, and H-LSPs rely on the ability to nest switching
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
technologies. Thus, for example, a lambda switch capable (LSC) LSP
can carry a time-division multiplexing (TDM) LSP, but cannot carry
another LSC LSP.
Signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC 4206] allow an H-LSP to be
treated as a single hop in the path of another LSP (i.e., one hop of
the LSP carried by the H-LSP). This mechanism is known as "non-
adjacent signaling".
1.1.2. LSP Stitching Segments
LSP stitching is defined in [RFC 5150]. It enables LSPs of the same
switching type to be included (stitched) as hops in an end-to-end
LSP. The stitching LSP (S-LSP) is used in the control plane in the
same way as an H-LSP, but in the data plane the LSPs are stitched so
that there is no label stacking or nesting of technologies. Thus, an
S-LSP must be of the same switching technology as the end-to-end LSP
that it facilitates.
1.1.3. Private Links
An H-LSP or S-LSP can be used as a private link. Such links are
known by their endpoints, but are not more widely known and are not
advertised by routing protocols. They can be used to carry traffic
between the endpoints, but are not usually used to carry traffic that
is going beyond the egress of the LSP.
1.1.4. Routing Adjacencies
A routing adjacency is formed between two IGP speakers that are
logically adjacent. In this sense, 'logically adjacent' means that
the routers have a protocol tunnel between them through which they
can exchange routing protocol messages. The tunnel is also usually
available for carrying IP data although a distinction should be made
in GMPLS networks between data-plane traffic and control-plane
traffic.
Routing adjacencies for forwarding data traffic are only relevant in
PSC networks (i.e., IP/MPLS networks).
1.1.5. Forwarding Adjacencies
A Forwarding Adjacency (FA) is defined in [RFC 4206] as a data link
created from an LSP and advertised in the same instance of the
control plane that advertises the TE links from which the LSP is
constructed. The LSP itself is called an FA-LSP.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
Thus, an H-LSP or S-LSP may form an FA such that it is advertised as
a TE link in the same instance of the routing protocol as was used to
advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses.
As observed in [RFC 4206], the nodes at the ends of an FA would not
usually have a routing adjacency.
1.1.6. Client/Server Networks
An LSP may be created in one network and used as a link (sometimes
called a virtual link) in another network [RFC 5212]. In this case,
the networks are often referred to as server and client networks,
respectively.
The server network LSP is used as an H-LSP or an S-LSP as described
above, but it does not form an FA because the client and server
networks run separate instances of the control-plane routing
protocols.
The virtual link may be used in the client network as a private link
or may be advertised in the client network IGP. Additionally, the
link may be used in the client network to form a routing adjacency
and/or as a TE link.
1.1.7. Link Bundles
[RFC 4201] recognizes that a pair of adjacent routers may have a large
number of TE links that run between them. This can be a considerable
burden to the operator who may need to configure them and to the IGP
that must distribute information about each of them. A TE link
bundle is defined by [RFC 4201] as a TE link that is advertised as an
aggregate of multiple TE links that could have been advertised in
their own right. All TE links that are collected into a TE link
bundle have the same TE properties.
Thus, a link bundle is a shorthand that improves the scaling
properties of the network.
Since a TE link may, itself, be an LSP (either an FA or a virtual
link), a link bundle may be constructed from FA-LSPs or virtual
links.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
1.2. Desired Function
It should be possible to signal an LSP and automatically coordinate
its use and advertisement in any of the ways described in Section 1.3
with minimum involvement from an operator. The mechanisms used
should be applicable to numbered and unnumbered links and should not
require implementation complexities.
1.3. Existing Mechanisms
This section briefly introduces existing protocol mechanisms used to
satisfy the desired function described in Section 1.2.
1.3.1. LSP Setup
Both unidirectional LSPs and bidirectional LSPs are signaled from the
ingress label switching router (LSR) to the egress LSR. That is, the
ingress LSR is the initiator, and the egress learns about the LSP
through the signaling protocol [RFC 3209] [RFC 3473].
1.3.2. Routing Adjacency Establishment and Link State Advertisement
Although hosts can discover routers (for example, through ICMP
[RFC 1256]), routing adjacencies are usually configured at both ends
of the adjacency. This requires that each router know the identity
of the router at the other end of the link connecting the routers,
and know that the IGP is to be run on this link.
Once a routing adjacency has been established, a pair of routers may
use the IGP to share information about the links available for
carrying IP traffic in the network.
Suitable routing protocols are OSPF version 2 [RFC 2328], OSPF version
3 [RFC 5340], and IS-IS [RFC 1195].
1.3.3. TE Link Advertisement
Extensions have been made to IGPs to advertise TE link properties
([RFC 3630], [RFC 5329], [RFC 5305], [RFC 5308], and [ISIS-IPV6-TE]) and
also to advertise link properties in GMPLS networks ([RFC 4202],
[RFC 4203], and [RFC 5307]).
TE link advertisement can be performed by the same instance of the
IGP as is used for normal link state advertisement, or can use a
separate instance. Furthermore, the ends of a TE link advertised in
an IGP do not need to form a routing adjacency. This is particularly
the case with FAs as described in Section 1.1.5.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
1.3.4. Configuration and Management Techniques
LSPs are usually created as the result of a management action. This
is true even when a control plane is used: the management action is a
request to the control plane to signal the LSP.
If the LSP is to be used as an H-LSP or S-LSP, management commands
can be used to install the LSP as a link. The link must be defined,
interface identifiers allocated, and the endpoints configured to know
about (and advertise, if necessary) the new link.
If the LSP is to be used as part of a link bundle, the operator must
decide which bundle it forms part of and ensure that information is
configured at the ingress and egress, along with the necessary
interface identifiers.
These mechanisms are perfectly functional and quite common in MLNs,
but require configuration coordination and additional management.
They are open to user error and misconfiguration that might result in
the LSP not being used (a waste of resources) or the LSP being made
available in the wrong way with some impact on traffic engineering.
1.3.5. Signaled Unnumbered FAs
[RFC 3477] describes how to establish an LSP and to make it available
automatically as a TE link in the same instance of the routing
protocol as advertises the TE links it traverses, using IPv4-based
unnumbered identifiers to identify the new TE link. That is,
[RFC 3477] describes how to create an unnumbered FA.
The mechanism, as defined in Section 3 of [RFC 3477], is briefly as
follows:
- The ingress of the LSP signals the LSP as normal using a Path
message, and includes an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object. The
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object identifies:
- The sender's LSR Router ID
- The sender's interface ID for the TE link being created
- The egress of the LSP responds as normal to accept the LSP and set
it up, and includes an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object. The
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object identifies:
- The egress's LSR Router ID
- The egress's interface ID for the TE link being created.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
- Following the exchange of the Path and Resv messages, both the
ingress and the egress know that the LSP is to be advertised as a
TE link in the same instance of the routing protocol as was used to
advertise the TE links that it traverses, and also know the
unnumbered interface identifiers to use in the advertisement.
[RFC 3477] does not include mechanisms to support IPv6-based
unnumbered identifiers, nor IPv4 or IPv6 numbered identifiers.
1.3.6. Establishing Numbered FAs through Signaling and Routing
[RFC 4206] describes procedures to establish an LSP and to make it
available automatically as a TE link that is identified using IPv4
addresses in the same instance of the routing protocol as advertises
the TE links it traverses (that is, as a numbered FA).
The mechanism, as defined in [RFC 4206], is briefly as follows:
- The ingress of the LSP signals the LSP as normal using a Path
message, and sets the IPv4 tunnel sender address to the IP address
it will use to identify its interface for the TE link being
created. This is one address from a /31 pair.
- The egress of the LSP responds as normal to accept the LSP and set
it up. It infers the address that it must assign to identify its
interface for the TE link being created as the partner address of
the /31 pair.
- The ingress decides whether the LSP is to be advertised as a TE
link (i.e., as an FA). If so, it advertises the link in the IGP in
the usual way.
- If the link is unidirectional, nothing more needs to be done. If
the link is bidirectional, the egress must also advertise the link,
but it does not know that advertisement is required as there is no
indication in the signaling messages.
- When the ingress's advertisement of the link is received by the
egress, it must check to see whether it is the egress of the LSP
that formed the link. Typically, this means the egress:
- Checks to see if the link advertisement is new.
- Checks to see if the Link-ID address in the received
advertisement matches its own TE Router ID.
- Checks the advertising router ID from the advertisement against
the ingress address of each LSP for which it is the egress.
- Deduces the LSP that has been advertised as a TE link and issues
the corresponding advertisement for the reverse direction.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
It is possible that some reduction in processing can be achieved by
mapping based on the /31 pairing, but nevertheless, there is a fair
amount of processing required, and this does not scale well in large
networks.
Note that this document deprecates this procedure as explained in
Section 1.4.6.
No explanation is provided in [RFC 4206] of how to create numbered
IPv6 FAs.
1.4. Overview of Required Extensions
This section provides a brief outline of the required protocol
extensions.
1.4.1. Efficient Signaling of Numbered FAs
The mechanism described in Section 1.3.6 is inefficient. The egress
must wait until it receives an advertisement from the ingress before
it knows that the LSP is to be installed as a TE link and advertised
as an FA. Further, it must parse all received advertisements to
determine if any is the trigger for it to advertise an FA.
An efficient signaling mechanism is required so that the egress is
informed by the ingress during LSP establishment.
1.4.2. LSPs for Use as Private Links
There is currently no mechanism by which an ingress can indicate that
an LSP is set up for use as a private link. Any attempt to make it a
link would currently cause it to be advertised as an FA.
A signaling mechanism is needed to identify the use to which an LSP
is to be put.
1.4.3. Signaling an LSP for Use in Another Network
The existing signaling/routing mechanisms are designed for use in the
creation of FAs. That is, the TE link created is advertised in the
single IGP instance.
The numbered TE link mechanism (Section 1.3.6) could, in theory, be
used in an MLN with multiple IGP instances if the addressing model is
kept consistent across the networks, and if the egress searches all
advertisements in all IGP instances. However, this is complex and
does not work for unnumbered interfaces.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
A signaling mechanism is required to indicate in which IGP instance
the TE link should be advertised.
1.4.4. Signaling an LSP for Use in a Link Bundle
A signaling mechanism is required to indicate that an LSP is intended
to form a component link of a link bundle, and to identify the bundle
and the IGP instance in which the bundle is advertised.
1.4.5. Support for IPv4 and IPv6
The protocol mechanisms must support IPv4 and IPv6 numbered and
unnumbered TE links.
1.4.6. Backward Compatibility
The existing protocol mechanisms for unnumbered FAs as defined in
[RFC 4206] and [RFC 3477] must continue to be supported, and new
mechanisms must be devised such that their introduction will not
break existing implementations or deployments.
Note that an informal survey in the CCAMP working group established
that there are no significant deployments of numbered FAs established
using the technique described in [RFC 4206] and set out in Section
1.3.6. Therefore, this document deprecates this procedure.
2. Overview of Solution
This section provides an overview of the mechanisms and protocol
extensions defined in this document. Details are presented in
Section 3.
2.1. Common Approach for Numbered and Unnumbered Links
The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object [RFC 3477] is extended for use for
all H-LSPs and S-LSPs whether they form numbered or unnumbered IPv4
or IPv6 links. Different Class Types of the object identify the
address type for which it applies.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
2.2. LSP Usage Indication
The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object is given flags in a new Actions
field to say how the LSP is to be used. The following categories are
supported:
- The LSP is used as an advertised TE link.
- The LSP is used to form a routing adjacency.
- The LSP is used to form an advertised TE link and a routing
adjacency.
- The LSP forms a private link and is not advertised.
- The LSP is used as part of a link bundle.
- The LSP is used as a hierarchical LSP or a stitching segment.
2.3. IGP Instance Identification
An optional TLV is added to the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object to
identify the IGP instance into which the link formed by the LSP is to
be advertised. If the TLV is absent and the link is to be advertised
as indicated by the Actions field, the link is advertised in the same
instance of the IGP as was used to advertise the TE links it
traverses.
2.4. Link Bundle Identification
When an LSP is to be used as a component link of a link bundle, the
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object refers to the bundle indicating how
the bundle is addressed and used, and a new TLV indicates the
component link identifier for the link that the LSP creates.
2.5. Backward Compatibility
Backward compatibility has three aspects.
- Existing mechanisms for unnumbered FAs described in [RFC 3477] and
[RFC 4206] must continue to work, so that ingress nodes do not have
to be updated when egresses are updated.
- Existing mechanisms for establishing numbered FAs described in
[RFC 4206] are safely deprecated by this document, as they are not
significantly deployed.
- New mechanisms must be gracefully rejected by existing egress
implementations so that egress nodes do not have to be updated when
ingresses are updated.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
3. Mechanisms and Protocol Extensions
This section defines protocol mechanisms and extensions to achieve
the function described in the previous section.
3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID Object
The principal signaling protocol element used to achieve all of the
required functions is the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object defined in
[RFC 3477]. The existing definition and usage continues to be
supported as described in the next section. Subsequent sections
describe new variants of the object (denoted by new Class Types), and
additional information carried in the object by means of extensions.
3.1.1. Existing Definition and Usage
This document does not deprecate the mechanisms defined in [RFC 3477]
and [RFC 4206]. Those procedures must continue to operate as
described in Section 3.7.
That means that the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with Class Type 1
remains unchanged, and can be used to establish an LSP that will be
advertised as an unnumbered TE link in the same instance of the IGP
as was used to advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses (that
is, as an FA). The procedure is unchanged and operates as summarized
in Section 1.3.5.
[RFC 3477] does not make any suggestions about where in Path or Resv
messages the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object should be placed. See
Section 3.5 for recommended placement of this object in new
implementations.
3.1.2. Unnumbered Links with Action Identification
A new C-Type variant of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object is defined
to carry an unnumbered interface identifier and to indicate into
which instance of the IGP the consequent TE link should be
advertised. This does not deprecate the use of C-Type 1.
The format of the object is as shown below.
C-NUM = 193, C-Type = 4
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSR's Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID (32 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Actions | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LSR's Router ID
Unchanged from the definition in [RFC 3477].
Interface ID
Unchanged from the definition in [RFC 3477].
Actions
This field specifies how the LSP that is being set up is to be
treated.
The field has meaning only on a Path message. On a Resv
message, the field SHOULD be set to reflect the value received
on the corresponding Path message, and it MUST be ignored on
receipt.
The field is composed of bit flags as follows:
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| | | |H|B|R|T|P|
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
P-flag (Private)
0 means that the LSP is to be advertised as a link according
to the settings of the other flags.
1 means the LSP is to form a private link and is not to be
advertised in the IGP, but is to be used according to the
settings of the other flags.
T-flag (TE link)
0 means that the LSP is to be used as a TE link.
1 means that the LSP is not to be used as a TE link. It may
still be used as an IP link providing a routing adjacency
as defined by the R-flag.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
R-flag (Routing adjacency)
0 means that the link is not to be used as a routing
adjacency.
1 means that the link is to be used to form a routing
adjacency.
B-flag (Bundle)
0 means that the LSP will not form part of a link bundle.
1 means that the LSP will form part of a bundle. See Section
3.3 for more details.
H-flag (Hierarchy/stitching)
The use of an LSP as an H-LSP or as an S-LSP is usually
implicit from the network technologies of the networks and
the LSP, but this is not always the case (for example, in PSC
networks).
0 means that the LSP is to be used as a hierarchical LSP.
1 means that the LSP is to be used as a stitching segment.
Other bits are reserved for future use. They MUST be set to
zero on transmission and SHOULD be ignored on receipt.
Note that all defined bit flags have meaning at the same time.
An LSP that is to form an FA would carry the Actions field set
to 0x00. That is:
P=0 (advertised)
T=0 (TE link)
R=0 (not a routing adjacency)
B=0 (not a bundle)
H=0 (hierarchical LSP)
Reserved
The Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and
SHOULD be ignored on receipt.
TLVs
Zero, one, or more TLVs may be present. Each TLV is encoded as
follows:
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
Type (16 bits)
The identifier of the TLV. Two type values are defined in
this document:
1 IGP Instance Identifier TLV
2 Unnumbered Component Link Identifier TLV
3 IPv4 Numbered Component Link Identifier TLV
4 IPv6 Numbered Component Link Identifier TLV
Length (16 bits)
Indicates the total length of the TLV in octets, i.e., 4 +
the length of the value field in octets. A value field
whose length is not a multiple of four MUST be zero-padded
so that the TLV is four-octet aligned.
Value
The data for the TLV padded as described above.
If this object is carried in a Path message, it is known as the
"Forward Interface ID" for the LSP that is being set up. On a Resv
message, the object is known as the "Reverse Interface ID" for the
LSP.
3.1.3. IPv4 Numbered Links with Action Identification
A new C-Type variant of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object is defined
to carry an IPv4 numbered interface address.
The format of the object is as shown below.
C-NUM = 193, C-Type = 2
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Interface Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Actions | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
IPv4 Interface Address
The address assigned to the interface that the sender applies
to this LSP.
Actions
See Section 3.1.2.
Reserved
See Section 3.1.2.
TLVs
See Section 3.1.2.
If this object is carried in a Path message, it is known as the
"Forward Interface ID" for the LSP that is being set up. On a Resv
message, the object is known as the "Reverse Interface ID" for the
LSP.
3.1.4. IPv6 Numbered Links with Action Identification
A new C-Type variant of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object is defined
to carry an IPv6 numbered interface address.
The format of the object is as shown below.
C-NUM = 193, C-Type = 3
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Interface Address (128 bits) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Interface Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Interface Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Interface Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Actions | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TLVs ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
IPv6 Interface Address
The address assigned to the interface the sender applies to
this LSP.
Actions
See Section 3.1.2.
Reserved
See Section 3.1.2.
TLVs
See Section 3.1.2.
If this object is carried in a Path message, it is known as the
"Forward Interface ID" for the LSP that is being set up. On a Resv
message, the object is known as the "Reverse Interface ID" for the
LSP.
3.2. Target IGP Identification TLV
If the LSP being set up is to be advertised as a link, the egress
needs to know which instance of the IGP it should use to make the
advertisement. The default in [RFC 4206] and [RFC 3477] is that the
LSP is advertised as an FA, that is, in the same instance of the IGP
as was used to advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses.
In order to facilitate an indication from the ingress to the egress
of which IGP instance to use, the IGP Identification TLV is defined
for inclusion in the new variants of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
object defined in this document.
The TLV has meaning only in a Path message. It SHOULD NOT be
included in the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object in a Resv message and
MUST be ignored if found.
If the P-flag in the Actions field of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
object in a Path message is clear (i.e., zero), this TLV indicates
the IGP instance to use for the advertisement. If the TLV is absent,
the same instance of the IGP should be used as is used to advertise
the TE links that the LSP traverses. Thus, for an FA, the TLV can be
omitted; alternatively, the IGP Instance TLV may be present and
identify the IGP instance or carry the reserved value 0xffffffff.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 18
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
If the P-flag in the Actions field in the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
object in a Resv message is set (i.e., one) indicating that the LSP
is not to be advertised as a link, this TLV SHOULD NOT be present and
MUST be ignored if encountered.
The TLV is formatted as described in Section 3.1.2. The Type field
has the value 1, and the Value field has the following content:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IGP Instance Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IGP Instance Identifier
A 32-bit identifier assigned to each of the IGP instances within a
network, such that ingress and egress LSRs have the same
understanding of these numbers. This is a management
configuration exercise outside the scope of this document.
Note that the IGP Instance Identifier might be mapped from an
instance identifier used in the IGP itself (such as section 2.4 of
[RFC 5340] for OSPFv3, or [OSPFv2-MI] for OSPFv2) as a matter of
network policy. See [OSPF-TI] for further discussion of this
topic in OSPF, and [ISIS-GENAP] for IS-IS.
The value 0xffffffff is reserved to mean that the LSP is to be
advertised in the same instance of the IGP as was used to
advertise the TE links that the LSP traverses.
3.3. Component Link Identification TLV
If the LSP that is being set up is to be used as a component link in
a link bundle [RFC 4201], it is necessary to indicate both the
identity of the component link and the identity of the link bundle.
Furthermore, it is necessary to indicate how the link bundle (that
may be automatically created by the establishment of this LSP) is to
be used and advertised.
If the B-flag in the Actions field of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
object is set, the other fields of the object apply to the link
bundle itself. That is, the interface identifiers (numbered or
unnumbered) and the other flags in the Actions field apply to the
link bundle and not to the component link that the LSP will form.
Furthermore, the IGP Instance Identifier TLV (if present) also
applies to the link bundle and not to the component link.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 19
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
In order to exchange the identity of the component link, the
Component Link Identifier TLVs are introduced as set out in the next
sections. If the B-flag is set in the Actions field of the
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object in the Path message, exactly one of
these TLVs MUST be present in the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object in
both the Path and Resv objects.
3.3.1. Unnumbered Component Link Identification
If the component link is to be unnumbered, the Unnumbered Component
Link Identifier TLV is used. The TLV is formatted as described in
Section 3.1.2. The Type field has the value 2, and the Value field
has the following content:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Component Link Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Component Link Identifier
Unnumbered identifier that is assigned to this component link
within the bundle [RFC 4201].
3.3.2. IPv4 Numbered Component Link Identification
If the component link is identified with an IPv4 address, the IPv4
Numbered Component Link Identifier TLV is used. The TLV is formatted
as described in Section 3.1.2. The Type field has the value 3, and
the Value field has the following content:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4 Address
The IPv4 address that is assigned to this component link within
the bundle.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 20
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
3.3.3. IPv6 Numbered Component Link Identification
If the component link is identified with an IPv6 address, the IPv6
Numbered Component Link Identifier TLV is used. The TLV is formatted
as described in Section 3.1.2. The Type field has the value 4, and
the Value field has the following content:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Address (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv6 Address
The IPv6 address that is assigned to this component link within
the bundle.
3.4. Link State Advertisement
The ingress and egress of an LSP that is set up using the
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object MUST advertise the LSP as agreed in
the parameters of the object.
Where a TE link is created from the LSP, the TE link SHOULD inherit
the TE properties of the LSP as described in [RFC 5212], but this
process is subject to local and network-wide policy.
It is possible that an LSP will be used to offer capacity and
connectivity to multiple other networks. In this case, multiple
instances of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object are permitted in the
same Path and Resv messages. Each instance MUST have a different IGP
Instance Identifier.
Note, however, that a Path or Resv message MUST NOT contain more than
one instance of the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with C-Type 1, and
if such an object is present, all other instances of the
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object MUST include an IGP Instance
Identifier TLV with IGP Instance Identifier set to a value that
identifies some other IGP instance (in particular, not the value
0xffffffff).
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 21
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
If the link created from an LSP is advertised in the same IGP
instance as was used to advertise the TE links that the LSP
traverses, the addresses for the new link and for the links from
which it is built MUST come from the same address space.
If the link is advertised into another IGP instance, the addresses
MAY be drawn from overlapping address spaces such that some addresses
have different meanings in each IGP instance.
In the IGP, the TE Router ID of the ingress LSR is taken from the
Tunnel Sender Address in the Sender Template object signaled in the
Path message. It is assumed that the ingress LSR knows the TE Router
ID of the egress LSR since it has chosen to establish an LSP to that
LSR and plans to use the LSP as a TE link.
The link interface addresses or link interface identifiers for the
forward and reverse direction links are taken from the
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object on the Path and Resv messages,
respectively.
When an LSP is torn down through explicit action (a PathTear message
or a PathErr message with the Path_State_Removed flag set), the
ingress and egress LSRs SHOULD withdraw the advertisement of any link
that the LSP created and that was previously advertised. The link
state advertisement MAY be retained as a virtual link in another
layer network according to network-wide policy [PCE-LAYER].
3.5. Message Formats
[RFC 3477] does not state where in the Path message or Resv message
the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object should be placed.
It is RECOMMENDED that new implementations place the
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID objects in the Path message immediately after
the SENDER_TSPEC object, and in the Resv message immediately after
the FILTER_SPEC object.
All implementations SHOULD be able to handle received messages with
objects in any order, as described in [RFC 3209].
3.6. Error Cases and Non-Acceptance
Error cases and non-acceptance of new object variants caused by back-
level implementations are discussed in Section 3.7.
An egress LSR that receives an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object may
have cause to reject the parameters carried in the object for a
number of reasons as set out below. In all cases, the egress SHOULD
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 22
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
respond with a PathErr message with the error code as indicated in
the list below. In most cases, the error will arise during LSP
setup, no Resv state will exist, and the PathErr will cause Path
state to be removed. Where the error arises after the LSP has been
successfully set up, the PathErr SHOULD be sent with the
Path_State_Removed flag [RFC 3473] clear so that the LSP remains
operational.
The error cases identified are as follows and are reported using the
new error code 'LSP Hierarchy Issue' (code 38) and the error values
listed below.
Error | Error | Error-case
code | value |
------+-------+------------------------------------------------------
38 1 Link advertisement not supported
38 2 Link advertisement not allowed by policy
38 3 TE link creation not supported
38 4 TE link creation not allowed by policy
38 5 Routing adjacency creation not supported
38 6 Routing adjacency creation not allowed by policy
38 7 Bundle creation not supported
38 8 Bundle creation not allowed by policy
38 9 Hierarchical LSP not supported
38 10 LSP stitching not supported
38 11 Link address type or family not supported
38 12 IGP instance unknown
38 13 IGP instance advertisement not allowed by policy
38 14 Component link identifier not valid
38 15 Unsupported component link identifier address family
When an ingress LSR receives an LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object on a
Resv message, it may need to reject it because of the setting of
certain parameters in the object. Since these reasons all represent
errors rather than mismatches of negotiable parameters, the ingress
SHOULD respond with a PathTear to remove the LSP. The ingress MAY
use a ResvErr with one of the following error codes, allowing the
egress the option to correct the error in a new Resv message, or to
tear down the LSP with a PathErr with the Path_State_Removed flag
set. An ingress that uses the ResvErr MUST take precautions against
a protocol loop where the egress responds with the same
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with the same (or different) issues.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 23
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
Error | Error | Error-case
code | value |
------+-------+------------------------------------------------------
38 11 Link address type or family not supported
38 14 Component link identifier not valid
38 15 Unsupported component link identifier address family
38 16 Component link identifier missing
3.7. Backward Compatibility
The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object defined in [RFC 3477] has a class
number of 193. According to [RFC 2205], this means that a node that
does not understand the object SHOULD ignore the object but forward
it, unexamined and unmodified. Thus, there are no issues with
transit LSRs supporting the pre-existing or new Class Types of this
object.
A back-level ingress node will behave as follows:
- It will not issue Path messages containing LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
objects with the new Class Types defined in this document.
- It will reject Resv messages containing LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID
objects with the new Class Types defined in this document as
described in [RFC 2205]. In any case, such a situation would
represent an error by the egress.
- It will continue to use the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with
Class Type 1 as defined in [RFC 3477]. This behavior is supported
by back-level egresses and by egresses conforming to this document.
- According to an informal survey, there is no significant deployment
of numbered FA establishment following the procedures defined in
[RFC 4206] and set out in Section 1.3.6 of this document. It is
therefore safe to assume that back-level ingress LSRs will not use
this mechanism.
A back-level egress node will behave as follows:
- It will continue to support the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with
Class Type 1, as defined in [RFC 3477], if issued by an ingress.
- It will reject a Path message that carries an
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object with any of the new Class Types
defined in this document using the procedures of [RFC 2205]. This
will inform the ingress that the egress is a back-level LSR.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 24
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
- It will not expect to use the procedures for numbered FA
establishment defined in [RFC 4206] and set out in Section 1.3.6 of
this document.
In summary, the new mechanisms defined in this document do not impact
the method to exchange unnumbered FA information described in
[RFC 3477]. That mechanism can be safely used in combination with the
new mechanisms described here and is functionally equivalent to using
the new C-Type indicating an unnumbered link with target IGP instance
identifier with the Target IGP Instance value set to 0xffffffff.
The mechanisms in this document obsolete the method to exchange the
numbered FA information described in [RFC 4206] as described in
Section 1.4.6.
4. Security Considerations
[RFC 3477] points out that one can argue that the use of the extra
interface identifier that it provides could make an RSVP message
harder to spoof. In that respect, the minor extensions to the
protocol made in this document do not constitute an additional
security risk, but could also be said to improve security.
It should be noted that the ability of an ingress LSR to request that
an egress LSR advertise an LSP as a TE link MUST be subject to
appropriate policy checks at the egress LSR. That is, the egress LSR
MUST NOT automatically accept the word of the ingress unless it is
configured with such a policy.
Further details of security for MPLS-TE and GMPLS can be found in
[RFC 5920].
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. New Class Types
IANA maintains a registry of RSVP parameters called "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called
"Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types". There is an entry in
this registry for the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object defined in
[RFC 3477] with one Class Type defined.
IANA has allocated three new Class Types for this object as defined
in Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 3.1.4 as follows:
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 25
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
C-Type Meaning Reference
---------------------------------------------------------------
2 IPv4 interface identifier with target [RFC 6107]
3 IPv6 interface identifier with target [RFC 6107]
4 Unnumbered interface with target [RFC 6107]
5.2. Hierarchy Actions
Section 3.1.2 defines an 8-bit flags field in the
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object. IANA has created a new sub-registry
of the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling
Parameters" registry called the "Hierarchy Actions" sub-registry as
follows:
Registry Name: Hierarchy Actions
Reference: [RFC 6107]
Registration Procedures: Standards Action
Registry:
Bit Number Hex Value Name Reference
---------- ----------- ----------------------- ---------
0-2 Unassigned
3 0x10 Hierarchy/stitching (H) [RFC 6107]
4 0x08 Bundle (B) [RFC 6107]
5 0x04 Routing adjacency (R) [RFC 6107]
6 0x02 TE link (T) [RFC 6107]
7 0x01 Private (P) [RFC 6107]
5.3. New Error Codes and Error Values
IANA maintains a registry of RSVP error codes and error values as the
"Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" sub-registry
of the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" registry.
IANA has defined a new error code with value 38 as below (see also
Section 3.6).
Error Code Meaning
38 LSP Hierarchy Issue [RFC 6107]
IANA has listed the following error values for this error code (see
also Section 3.6).
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 26
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
Value sub-codes:
1 = Link advertisement not supported [RFC 6107]
2 = Link advertisement not allowed by policy [RFC 6107]
3 = TE link creation not supported [RFC 6107]
4 = TE link creation not allowed by policy [RFC 6107]
5 = Routing adjacency creation not supported [RFC 6107]
6 = Routing adjacency creation not allowed by policy [RFC 6107]
7 = Bundle creation not supported [RFC 6107]
8 = Bundle creation not allowed by policy [RFC 6107]
9 = Hierarchical LSP not supported [RFC 6107]
10 = LSP stitching not supported [RFC 6107]
11 = Link address type or family not supported [RFC 6107]
12 = IGP instance unknown [RFC 6107]
13 = IGP instance advertisement not allowed by policy [RFC 6107]
14 = Component link identifier not valid [RFC 6107]
15 = Unsupported component link identifier address [RFC 6107]
family
16 = Component link identifier missing [RFC 6107]
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Lou Berger, Deborah Brungard, John
Drake, Yakov Rekhter, Igor Bryskin, and Lucy Yong for their valuable
discussions and comments.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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 3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC
3031, January 2001.
[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.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 27
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
[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 4201] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link
Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201,
October 2005.
[RFC 4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths
(LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
October 2005.
[RFC 5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Farrel, "Label Switched Path Stitching with
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering (GMPLS TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC 1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP
and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC 1256] Deering, S., Ed., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages",
RFC 1256, September 1991.
[RFC 2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April
1998.
[RFC 3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC
3630, September 2003.
[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 (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 28
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
[RFC 5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL.,
Vigoureux, M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for
GMPLS-Based Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks
(MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212, July 2008.
[RFC 5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[RFC 5307] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[RFC 5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
October 2008.
[RFC 5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem,
Ed., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version
3", RFC 5329, September 2008.
[RFC 5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem,
"OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[RFC 5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[ISIS-GENAP] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "Advertising
Generic Information in IS-IS", Work in Progress,
November 2010.
[ISIS-IPV6-TE] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6
Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", Work in Progress,
September 2010.
[OSPF-TI] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPF Transport
Instance Extensions", Work in Progress, October 2010.
[OSPFv2-MI] Lindem, A., Roy, A., and S. Mirtorabi, "OSPF Multi-
Instance Extensions", Work in Progress, October 2010.
[PCE-LAYER] Takeda, T., Ed., and A. Farrel, "PCC-PCE Communication
and PCE Discovery Requirements for Inter-Layer Traffic
Engineering", Work in Progress, December 2010.
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 29
RFC 6107 Procedures for H-LSPs February 2011
Authors' Addresses
Richard Rabbat
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043
United States of America
EMail: rabbat@alum.mit.edu
Arthi Ayyangar
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
EMail: arthi@juniper.net
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3E8
Canada
EMail: zali@cisco.com
Editors' 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
Adrian Farrel
Old Dog Consulting
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Shiomoto & Farrel Standards Track PAGE 30
Procedures for Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 65363 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, February 3rd, 2011
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
