One document matched: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt

Network Working Group                        Lou Berger (Movaz Networks)
Internet Draft
Expiration Date: September 2004

                                                              March 2004


              GMPLS Signaling Procedure For Egress Control


                draft-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
   and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   To view the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in an Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directory, see http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Abstract

   This note clarifies the procedures for the control of a label used on
   an egress output/downstream interface.  Such control is also known as
   "Egress Control".  Support for Egress Control is implicit in
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling.  This
   note does not modify GMPLS signaling mechanisms and procedures and
   should be viewed as an informative clarification of GMPLS  Signaling
   - Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
   Extensions, [RFC3473].

















Berger                                                          [Page 1]

Internet Draft   draft-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt      March 2004


1. Background

   The ability to control a label used on an egress output/downstream
   interface was one of the early requirements for GMPLS.  In the
   initial GMPLS drafts, this was called "Egress Control".  As the GMPLS
   drafts progressed, the ability to control a label on an egress
   interface was generalized to support control of a label on any
   interface.  This generalization is seen in Section 6 of [RFC3471] and
   Section 5.1 of [RFC3473].  In generalizing this functionality, the
   procedures to support control of a label at the egress were also
   generalized.  While the result was intended to cover egress control,
   this intention is not clear to all.  This note reiterates the
   procedures to cover control of a label used on an egress
   output/downstream interface.

   For context, the following is the text from the GMPLS signaling draft
   dated June 2000:

      6. Egress Control

      The LSR at the head-end of an LSP can control the termination of the
      LSP by using the ERO.  To terminate an LSP on a particular outgoing
      interface of the egress LSR, the head-end may specify the IP address
      of that interface as the last element in the ERO, provided that that
      interface has an associated IP address.

      There are cases where the use of IP address doesn't provide enough
      information to uniquely identify the egress termination.  One case is
      when the outgoing interface on the egress LSR is a component link of
      a link bundle.  Another case is when it is desirable to "splice" two
      LSPs together, i.e., where the tail of the first LSP would be
      "spliced" into the head of the second LSP.  This last case is more
      likely to be used in the non-PSC classes of links.

   and

      6.2. Procedures

      The Egress Label subobject may appear only as the last subobject in
      the ERO/ER.  Appearance of this subobject anywhere else in the ERO/ER
      is treated as a "Bad strict node" error.

      During an LSP setup, when a node processing the ERO/RR performs Next
      Hop selection finds that the second subobject is an Egress Label
      Subobject, the node uses the information carried in this subobject to
      determine the handling of the data received over that LSP.
      Specifically, if the Link ID field of the subobject is non zero, then
      this field identifies a specific (outgoing) link of the node that



Berger                                                          [Page 2]

Internet Draft   draft-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt      March 2004


      should be used for sending all the data received over the LSP.  If
      the Label field of the subobject is not Implicit NULL label, this
      field specifies the label that should be used as an outgoing label on
      the data received over the LSP.

      Procedures by which an LSR at the head-end of an LSP obtains the
      information needed to construct the Egress Label subobject are
      outside the scope of this document.


2. Egress Control Procedures

   This section is intended to complement Section 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 of
   [RFC3473].  The procedures described in those sections are not
   modified.  This section clarifies procedures related to the label
   used on an egress output/downstream interface.


2.1. ERO Procedures

   Egress Control occurs when the node processing an ERO is the egress
   and the ERO contains one or more label subobjects.  In this case, the
   outgoing/downstream interface is indicated in the ERO as the last
   listed local interface.  Note that an interface may be numbered or
   unnumbered.

   To support Egress Control, an egress checks to see if the received
   ERO contains an outgoing/downstream interface.  If it does, the type
   of the subobject or subobjects following the interface are examined.
   If the associated LSP is unidirectional, one subobject is examined.
   Two subobjects are examined for bidirectional LSPs.  If the U-bit of
   the subobject being examined is clear (0), then the value of the
   label is copied into a new Label_Set object.  Note, this Label_Set
   object is for internal use only.  This Label_Set object indicates the
   label value that MUST be used for transmitting traffic associated
   with the LSP on the indicated outgoing/downstream interface.

   If the U-bit of the subobject being examined is set (1), then the
   value of the label is used for upstream traffic associated with the
   bidirectional LSP.  Specifically, the label value will be used for
   the traffic associated with the LSP that will be received on the
   indicated outgoing/downstream interface.

   Per [RFC3473], any errors encountered while processing the ERO,
   including if the listed label(s) are not acceptable or cannot be
   supported in forwarding, SHOULD result in the generation of a PathErr
   message containing a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error.




Berger                                                          [Page 3]

Internet Draft   draft-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt      March 2004


2.2. RRO Procedures

   In the case where an ERO is used to specify outgoing interface
   information at the egress, the egress should include the specified
   interface information and the specified label or labels, in the
   corresponding RRO.


3. Security Considerations

   This note clarifies procedures defined in [RFC3473].  As such, no new
   security considerations are introduced.


4. IANA Considerations

   None.


5. References

[RFC3471]   Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
            Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional
            Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.

[RFC3473]   Berger, L., Editor "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
            Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
            Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
            RFC 3473, January 2003.


6. Contact Address

   Lou Berger
   Movaz Networks, Inc.
   7926 Jones Branch Drive
   Suite 615
   McLean VA, 22102
   Phone:  +1 703 847-1801
   Email:  lberger@movaz.com











Berger                                                          [Page 4]

Internet Draft   draft-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt      March 2004


7. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


8. 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.













Berger                                                          [Page 5]

Generated on: Mon Mar 15 10:52:32 2004