|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8149
Last modified on Thursday, April 20th, 2017
 Permanent link to RFC 8149
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8149
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8149
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Saad, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8149 R. Gandhi, Ed.
Category: Standards Track Z. Ali
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency
Y. Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
April 2017
RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely Routed
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
 Abstract
The reoptimization of a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineering (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) may be triggered based on
the need to reoptimize an individual source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSP or
a set of S2L sub-LSPs, both using the Sub-Group-based reoptimization
method, or the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree using the Make-Before-Break
(MBB) method. This document discusses the application of the
existing mechanisms for path reoptimization of loosely routed Point-
to-Point (P2P) TE LSPs to the P2MP-TE LSPs, identifies issues in
doing so, and defines procedures to address them. When reoptimizing
a large number of S2L sub-LSPs in a tree using the Sub-Group-based
reoptimization method, the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list may need to be
semantically fragmented. This document defines the notion of a
fragment identifier to help recipient nodes unambiguously reconstruct
the fragmented S2L sub-LSP descriptor list.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8149.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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 ....................................................3
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................4
2.1. Key Word Definitions .......................................4
2.2. Abbreviations ..............................................4
2.3. Terminology ................................................4
3. Overview ........................................................5
3.1. Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree ...............5
3.2. Existing Mechanism for Tree-Based P2MP-TE LSP
Reoptimization .............................................6
3.3. Existing Mechanism for Sub-Group-Based P2MP-TE LSP
Reoptimization .............................................7
4. Signaling Extensions for Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP
Reoptimization ..................................................8
4.1. Tree-Based Reoptimization ..................................8
4.2. Sub-Group-Based Reoptimization Using Fragment Identifier ...9
5. Message and Object Definitions .................................11
5.1. "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" Flag .................11
5.2. "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" Path Error Sub-code ......11
5.3. Fragment Identifier for S2L Sub-LSP Descriptor ............11
6. Compatibility ..................................................12
7. IANA Considerations ............................................13
7.1. "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" Flag .................13
7.2. "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" Path Error Sub-code ......13
7.3. Fragment Identifier for S2L Sub-LSP Descriptor ............14
8. Security Considerations ........................................14
9. References .....................................................15
9.1. Normative References ......................................15
9.2. Informative References ....................................16
Acknowledgments ...................................................16
Authors' Addresses ................................................17
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
1. Introduction
This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC 2205] [RFC 3209] signaling extensions for
reoptimizing loosely routed Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC 4875] in a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
[RFC 3473] network.
A P2MP-TE LSP is comprised of one or more source-to-leaf (S2L)
sub-LSPs. A loosely routed P2MP-TE S2L sub-LSP is defined as one
whose path does not contain the full explicit route identifying each
node along the path to the egress node at the time of its signaling
by the ingress node. Such an S2L sub-LSP is signaled with no
Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC 3209], with an ERO that contains at
least one "loose next hop", or with an ERO that contains an abstract
node that identifies more than one node. This is often the case with
inter-domain P2MP-TE LSPs where a Path Computation Element (PCE) is
not used [RFC 5440].
As per [RFC 4875], an ingress node may reoptimize the entire P2MP-TE
LSP tree by re-signaling all its S2L sub-LSPs using the
Make-Before-Break (MBB) method, or it may reoptimize an individual
S2L sub-LSP or a set of S2L sub-LSPs, i.e., an individual destination
or a set of destinations, both using the Sub-Group-based
reoptimization method.
[RFC 4736] defines an RSVP signaling procedure for reoptimizing the
path(s) of loosely routed Point-to-Point (P2P) TE LSP(s). The
mechanisms listed in [RFC 4736] include a method for the ingress node
to trigger a new path re-evaluation request and a method for the
midpoint node to send a notification regarding the availability of a
preferred path. This document discusses the application of those
mechanisms to the reoptimization of loosely routed P2MP-TE LSPs,
identifies issues in doing so, and defines procedures to address
them.
For reoptimizing a group of S2L sub-LSPs in a tree using the
Sub-Group-based reoptimization method, an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list
can be used to signal one or more S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP message.
This RSVP message may need to be semantically fragmented when a large
number of S2L sub-LSPs are added to the descriptor list. This
document defines the notion of a fragment identifier to help
recipient nodes unambiguously reconstruct the fragmented S2L sub-LSP
descriptor list.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Key Word Definitions
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].
2.2. Abbreviations
ABR: Area Border Router.
ERO: Explicit Route Object.
LSP: Label Switched Path.
LSR: Label Switching Router.
RRO: Record Route Object.
S2L sub-LSP: Source-to-leaf sub-LSP.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering LSP.
2.3. Terminology
This document defines the following terms:
o Ingress node: Head-end / source node of the TE LSP.
o Egress node: Tail-end / destination node of the TE LSP.
It is assumed that the reader is also familiar with the terminology
in [RFC 4736] and [RFC 4875].
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
3. Overview
[RFC 4736] defines RSVP signaling extensions for reoptimizing loosely
routed P2P TE LSPs as follows:
o A midpoint LSR that expands loose next hop(s) sends a solicited or
unsolicited PathErr with Notify error code 25 (as defined in
[RFC 3209]), with sub-code 6 to indicate "Preferable Path Exists"
to the ingress node.
o An ingress node triggers a path re-evaluation request at all
midpoint LSRs that expand loose next hop(s) by setting the "Path
Re-evaluation Request" flag (0x20) in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTES
object in the Path message.
o The ingress node, upon receiving this PathErr with the Notify
error code (either solicited or unsolicited), initiates the
reoptimization of the LSP, using the MBB method with a different
LSP-ID.
The following sections discuss the issues that may arise when
applying the mechanisms defined in [RFC 4736] for reoptimizing loosely
routed P2MP-TE LSPs.
3.1. Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree
An example of a loosely routed inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree is shown
in Figure 1. In this example, the P2MP-TE LSP tree consists of three
S2L sub-LSPs, to destinations (i.e., leafs) R10, R11, and R12 from
the ingress node (i.e., source) R1. Nodes R2 and R5 are branch
nodes, and nodes ABR3, ABR4, ABR7, ABR8, and ABR9 are ABRs. For the
S2L sub-LSP to destination R10, nodes ABR3, ABR7, and R10 are defined
as loose next hops. For the S2L sub-LSP to destination R11, nodes
ABR3, ABR8, and R11 are defined as loose next hops. For the S2L
sub-LSP to destination R12, nodes ABR4, ABR9, and R12 are defined as
loose next hops.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
<--area1--><--area0--><-area2->
ABR7---R10
/
/
ABR3---R5
/ \
/ \
R1---R2 ABR8---R11
\
\
ABR4---R6
\
\
ABR9---R12
Figure 1: Example of Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree
3.2. Existing Mechanism for Tree-Based P2MP-TE LSP Reoptimization
The mechanisms defined in [RFC 4736] can be easily applied to trigger
the reoptimization of an individual S2L sub-LSP or a group of S2L
sub-LSPs. However, to apply those mechanisms for triggering the
reoptimization of a P2MP-TE LSP tree, an ingress node needs to send
path re-evaluation requests on all (typically hundreds) of the
S2L sub-LSPs, and the midpoint LSR needs to send PathErrs with the
Notify error code for all S2L sub-LSPs. Such mechanisms may lead to
the following issues:
o A midpoint LSR that expands loose next hop(s) may have to
accumulate the received path re-evaluation request(s) for all S2L
sub-LSPs (e.g., by using a wait timer) and interpret them as a
reoptimization request for the whole P2MP-TE LSP tree. Otherwise,
a midpoint LSR may prematurely send a "Preferable Path Exists"
notification for one S2L sub-LSP or a subset of S2L sub-LSPs.
o Similarly, the ingress node may have to heuristically determine
when to perform P2MP-TE LSP tree reoptimization and when to
perform S2L sub-LSP reoptimization. For example, an
implementation may choose to delay reoptimization long enough to
allow all PathErrs to be received. Such timer-based procedures
may produce undesired results.
o The ingress node that receives (un)solicited PathErr(s) with the
Notify error code for one or more individual S2L sub-LSPs may
prematurely start reoptimizing the subset of S2L sub-LSPs.
However, as mentioned in [RFC 4875], Section 14.2, such a
Sub-Group-based reoptimization procedure may result in data
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
duplication that can be avoided if the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree is
reoptimized using the MBB method with a different LSP-ID,
especially if the ingress node eventually receives PathErrs with
the Notify error code for all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE
LSP tree.
In order to address the above-mentioned issues and to align the
reoptimization of P2MP-TE LSPs with P2P LSPs [RFC 4736], a mechanism
is needed to trigger the reoptimization of the LSP tree by
re-signaling all S2L sub-LSPs with a different LSP-ID. To meet this
requirement, this document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions for
the ingress node to trigger the re-evaluation of the P2MP LSP tree on
every hop that has a next hop defined as a loose or abstract hop for
one or more S2L sub-LSP paths, and a midpoint LSR to signal to the
ingress node that a preferable LSP tree exists (compared to the
current path) or that the whole P2MP-TE LSP must be reoptimized
(because of maintenance required on the TE LSP path) (see
Section 4.1).
3.3. Existing Mechanism for Sub-Group-Based P2MP-TE LSP Reoptimization
Applying the procedures discussed in [RFC 4736] in conjunction with
the Sub-Group-based reoptimization procedures ([RFC 4875],
Section 14.2), an ingress node MAY trigger path re-evaluation
requests for a set of S2L sub-LSPs in a single Path message using an
S2L sub-LSP descriptor list. Similarly, a midpoint LSR may send a
PathErr with Notify error code 25 and sub-code 6 ("Preferable Path
Exists") containing a list of S2L sub-LSPs transiting through the LSR
using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list to notify the ingress node.
This method can be used for reoptimizing a sub-group of S2L sub-LSPs
within an LSP tree using the same LSP-ID. This method can alleviate
the scaling issue associated with sending RSVP messages for
individual S2L sub-LSPs. However, this procedure can lead to the
following issues when used to reoptimize the LSP tree:
o A Path message that is intended to carry the path re-evaluation
request as defined in [RFC 4736] with a full list of S2L sub-LSPs
in an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list will be decomposed at branching
LSRs, and only a subset of the S2L sub-LSPs that are routed over
the same next hop will be added in the descriptor list of the Path
message propagated to downstream midpoint LSRs. Consequently,
when a preferable path exists at such midpoint LSRs, the PathErr
with the Notify error code can only include the subset of S2L
sub-LSPs traversing the LSR. In this case, at the ingress node
there is no way to distinguish which mode of reoptimization to
invoke, i.e., Sub-Group-based reoptimization using the same LSP-ID
or tree-based reoptimization using a different LSP-ID.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
o An LSR may semantically fragment a large RSVP message (when a
combined message may not be large enough to fit all S2L sub-LSPs).
In this case, the ingress node may receive multiple PathErrs with
subsets of S2L sub-LSPs in each (due to either the combined Path
message getting fragmented or the combined PathErr message getting
fragmented) and would require additional logic to determine how to
reoptimize the LSP tree (for example, waiting for some time to
aggregate all possible PathErr messages before taking an action).
When fragmented, RSVP messages may arrive out of order, and the
receiver has no way of knowing the beginning and end of the S2L
sub-LSP list.
In order to address the above-mentioned issues caused by semantic
fragmentation of an RSVP message, this document defines a new
fragment identifier object for the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list when
combining a large number of S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP message (see
Section 4.2).
4. Signaling Extensions for Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP Reoptimization
4.1. Tree-Based Reoptimization
To evaluate a P2MP-TE LSP tree on midpoint LSRs that expand loose
next hop(s), an ingress node MAY send a Path message with the
"P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag set (bit number 14 in the
Attribute Flags TLV) as defined in this document. The ingress node
selects one of the S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP tree transiting a
midpoint LSR to trigger the re-evaluation request. The ingress node
MAY send a re-evaluation request to each border LSR on the path of
the LSP tree.
A midpoint LSR that expands loose next hop(s) for one or more S2L
sub-LSP paths does the following upon receiving a Path message with
the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag set:
o The midpoint LSR MUST check for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree by
re-evaluating all S2L sub-LSPs that are expanded paths of the
loose next hops of the P2MP-TE LSP.
o If a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, the midpoint LSR MUST
send to the ingress node an RSVP PathErr with Notify error code 25
[RFC 3209] and sub-code 13 ("Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists)" as
defined in this document. The midpoint LSR, in turn, SHOULD NOT
propagate the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag in the
subsequent RSVP Path messages sent downstream for the re-evaluated
P2MP-TE LSP.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
o If no preferable tree for P2MP-TE LSPs can be found, the midpoint
LSR that expands loose next hop(s) for one or more S2L sub-LSP
paths MUST propagate the request downstream by setting the
"P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object of the RSVP Path message.
A midpoint LSR MAY send an unsolicited PathErr with the Notify error
code and the "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" sub-code to the ingress
node to notify the ingress node of a preferred P2MP-TE LSP tree when
it determines that it exists. In this case, the midpoint LSR that
expands loose next hop(s) for one or more S2L sub-LSP paths selects
one of the S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP tree to send this PathErr
message to the ingress node. The midpoint LSR SHOULD consider how
frequently it chooses to send such a PathErr, considering that both
(1) a PathErr may be lost during its transit to the ingress node and
(2) the ingress node may choose not to reoptimize the LSP when such a
PathErr is received.
The sending of an RSVP PathErr with the Notify error code and the
"Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" sub-code to the ingress node
notifies the ingress node of the existence of a preferable P2MP-TE
LSP tree, and upon receiving this PathErr, the ingress node SHOULD
trigger the reoptimization of the LSP, using the MBB method with a
different LSP-ID.
4.2. Sub-Group-Based Reoptimization Using Fragment Identifier
It might be preferable, as per [RFC 4875], to reoptimize the entire
P2MP-TE LSP by re-signaling all of its S2L sub-LSPs (Section 14.1
("Make-before-Break") in [RFC 4875]) or to reoptimize an individual
S2L sub-LSP or a group of S2L sub-LSPs, i.e., an individual
destination or a group of destinations (Section 14.2
("Sub-Group-Based Re-Optimization") in [RFC 4875]), both using the
same LSP-ID. For loosely routed S2L sub-LSPs, this can be achieved
by using the procedures defined in [RFC 4736] to reoptimize one or
more S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP.
An ingress node may trigger path re-evaluation requests using the
procedures defined in [RFC 4736] for a set of S2L sub-LSPs by
combining multiple Path messages using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list
[RFC 4875]. An S2L sub-LSP descriptor list is created using a series
of S2L_SUB_LSP objects as defined in [RFC 4875]. Similarly, a
midpoint LSR may send a PathErr with Notify error code 25 and
sub-code 6 ("Preferable Path Exists") containing a list of S2L
sub-LSPs transiting through the LSR using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor
list to notify the ingress node of preferable paths available.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG object defined in this document is optional,
with the following exceptions:
o As per [RFC 4875], Section 5.2.3 ("Transit Fragmentation of Path
State Information"), when a Path message is not large enough to
fit all S2L sub-LSPs in the descriptor list, an LSR may
semantically fragment the message. In this case, the LSR MUST add
the S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG object defined in this document for each
fragment in the S2L sub-LSP descriptor to be able to rebuild the
list from the received fragments that may arrive out of order.
o In any other situation where an RSVP message needs to be
fragmented, an LSR MUST add the S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG object for each
fragment in the S2L sub-LSP descriptor.
A midpoint LSR SHOULD wait to accumulate all S2L sub-LSPs before
attempting to re-evaluate a preferable path when a Path message for
"Path Re-evaluation Request" is received with the S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG
object. If a midpoint LSR does not receive all fragments of the Path
message (for example, when fragments are lost) within a configurable
time interval, it SHOULD trigger the re-evaluation of all S2L
sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP transiting on the node. A midpoint LSR
MUST receive at least one fragment of the Path message to trigger
this behavior.
An ingress node SHOULD wait to accumulate all S2L sub-LSPs before
attempting to trigger reoptimization when a PathErr with the Notify
error code and the "Preferable Path Exists" sub-code is received with
an S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG object. If an ingress node does not receive all
fragments of the PathErr message (for example, when fragments are
lost) within a configurable time interval, it SHOULD trigger the
reoptimization of all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP transiting on
the midpoint node that had sent the PathErr message. An ingress node
MUST receive at least one fragment of the PathErr message to trigger
this behavior.
The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG object defined in this document has a wider
applicability in addition to the P2MP-TE LSP reoptimization. It can
also be used (in Path and Resv messages) to set up a new P2MP-TE LSP
and to send other PathErr messages as well as Path Tear and Resv Tear
messages for a set of S2L sub-LSPs. This is outside the scope of
this document.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
5. Message and Object Definitions
5.1. "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" Flag
In order to trigger a tree re-evaluation request, a new flag in the
Attribute Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object [RFC 5420] is defined
by this document:
Bit Number 14: "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag
The "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag is meaningful in a Path
message of a P2MP-TE S2L sub-LSP and is inserted by the ingress node
using the message format defined in [RFC 6510].
5.2. "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" Path Error Sub-code
In order to indicate to an ingress node that a preferable P2MP-TE LSP
tree exists, the following new sub-code for PathErr messages with
Notify error code 25 [RFC 3209] is defined by this document:
Sub-code 13: "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" sub-code
When a preferable path for a P2MP-TE LSP tree exists, the midpoint
LSR sends a solicited or unsolicited "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists"
sub-code with a PathErr message with Notify error code 25 to the
ingress node of the P2MP-TE LSP.
5.3. Fragment Identifier for S2L Sub-LSP Descriptor
The S2L_SUB_LSP object [RFC 4875] identifies a particular S2L sub-LSP
belonging to the P2MP-TE LSP. An S2L sub-LSP descriptor list is
created using a series of S2L_SUB_LSP objects as defined in
[RFC 4875]. The RSVP message may need to be semantically fragmented
[RFC 4875] due to a large number of S2L sub-LSPs added in the
descriptor list, and such fragments may be received out of order. To
be able to rebuild the fragmented S2L sub-LSP descriptor list
correctly, the following object is defined to identify the fragments:
S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG: Class Number 204
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (8 bytes) | Class Num 204 | C-Type 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Fragment ID | Fragments Tot.| Fragment Num. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
Fragment ID: 16-bit integer in the range of 1 to 65535.
This value is incremented for each new RSVP message that needs to
be semantically fragmented. The fragment ID is reset to 1 when it
reaches the maximum value of 65535. The scope of the fragment ID
is limited to the RSVP message type (e.g., Path) carrying the
fragment. In other words, fragment IDs do not have any
correlation between different RSVP message types (e.g., Path and
PathErr). The receiver does not check to ensure that the
consecutive new RSVP messages (e.g., Path messages) are received
with fragment IDs incremented by 1.
Fragments Total: 8-bit integer in the range of 1 to 255.
This value indicates the number of fragments sent for the given
RSVP message. This value MUST be the same in all fragmented RSVP
messages with a common fragment ID.
Fragment Number: 8-bit integer in the range of 1 to 255.
This value indicates the position of this fragment in the given
RSVP message.
The format of an S2L sub-LSP descriptor message is as follows:
<S2L sub-LSP descriptor> ::=
[ <S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG> ]
<S2L_SUB_LSP>
[ <P2MP SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG object is added before adding the S2L_SUB_LSP
object in the semantically fragmented RSVP message.
6. Compatibility
The LSP_ATTRIBUTES object has been defined in [RFC 5420] and its
message formats in [RFC 6510] with class numbers in the form 11bbbbbb,
which ensures compatibility with non-supporting nodes. Per
[RFC 2205], nodes not supporting this extension will ignore the new
flag defined for this object in this document and will forward it
without modification.
The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG object has been defined with class numbers in
the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non-supporting
nodes. Per [RFC 2205], nodes not supporting this object will ignore
the object and will forward it without modification.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
7. IANA Considerations
IANA has performed the actions described below.
7.1. "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" Flag
IANA maintains the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry (see
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>). Per
Section 5.1 of this document, IANA has registered a new flag in the
"Attribute Flags" registry. This new flag is defined for the
Attribute Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object [RFC 5420].
+-----+---------------+----------+----------+-----+-----+-----------+
| Bit | Name | Attribute| Attribute| RRO | ERO | Reference |
| No | | Flags | Flags | | | |
| | | Path | Resv | | | |
+-----+---------------+----------+----------+-----+-----+-----------+
| | P2MP-TE Tree | Yes | No | No | No | This |
| 14 | Re-evaluation | | | | | document |
| | Request | | | | | |
+-----+---------------+----------+----------+-----+-----+-----------+
7.2. "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" Path Error Sub-code
IANA maintains the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry (see <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>).
Per Section 5.2 of this document, IANA has registered a new error
code in the "Sub-Codes - 25 Notify Error" sub-registry of the "Error
Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes" registry.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
As defined in [RFC 3209], error code 25 in the ERROR_SPEC object
corresponds to a PathErr with the Notify error. This document adds a
new "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" sub-code for this PathErr as
follows:
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
| Value | Description | PathErr | PathErr | Reference |
| | | Code | Name | |
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
| 13 | Preferable P2MP-TE | 25 | Notify | This |
| | Tree Exists | | Error | document |
+----------+--------------------+---------+---------+-----------+
7.3. Fragment Identifier for S2L Sub-LSP Descriptor
IANA maintains the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry (see <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>).
Per Section 5.3 of this document, IANA has registered a new class
number in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" registry.
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| Class Number | Class Name | Reference |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| 204 | S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG | This document |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
IANA has also created the "Class Types or C-Types - 204
S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG" registry and populated it as follows:
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| 1 | S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG | This document |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
8. Security Considerations
This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow an
ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the LSP
tree downstream of a node and to allow a midpoint LSR to notify the
ingress node of the existence of a preferable tree by sending a
PathErr message. As per [RFC 4736], in the case of a P2MP-TE LSP S2L
sub-LSP spanning multiple domains, it may be desirable for a midpoint
LSR to modify the RSVP PathErr message to preserve confidentiality
across domains.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
This document also defines a fragment identifier for the S2L sub-LSP
descriptor when combining a large number of S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP
message and the message needs to be semantically fragmented. The
introduction of the fragment identifier, by itself, introduces no
additional information to signaling. For a general discussion on
security issues related to MPLS and GMPLS, see the MPLS/GMPLS
security framework [RFC 5920].
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2205>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3209>.
[RFC 4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4736,
November 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4736>.
[RFC 4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for
Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)",
RFC 4875, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4875, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4875>.
[RFC 5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5420,
February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5420>.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
9.2. Informative References
[RFC 3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3473, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3473>.
[RFC 5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5440>.
[RFC 5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5920, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5920>.
[RFC 6510] Berger, L. and G. Swallow, "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Message Formats for Label Switched Path (LSP)
Attributes Objects", RFC 6510, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6510,
February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6510>.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Sriganesh Kini, Curtis
Villamizar, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Nobo Akiya, Vishnu Pavan Beeram,
and Joel M. Halpern for reviewing this document and providing many
useful comments and suggestions. The authors would also like to
thank Ling Zeng with Cisco Systems for implementing the mechanisms
defined in this document. A special thanks to Adrian Farrel for his
thorough review of this document.
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 8149 P2MP-TE Loosely Routed LSPs April 2017
Authors' Addresses
Tarek Saad (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: tsaad@cisco.com
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Robert H. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency
Email: robert.h.venator.civ@mail.mil
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
Saad, et al. Standards Track PAGE 17
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 37916 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, April 20th, 2017
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
