One document matched: draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-04.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-03.txt
Network Working Group A. Ayyangar, Ed.
Internet-Draft Nuova Systems
Intended status: Standards Track K. Kompella, Ed.
Expires: June 5, 2007 Juniper Networks
JP. Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
December 2, 2006
Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized MPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching-04.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 5, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
Abstract
In certain scenarios, there may be a need to combine together several
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) such that a single end-to-end (e2e) LSP is realized and
all traffic from one constituent LSP is switched onto the next LSP.
We will refer to this as "LSP stitching", the key requirement being
that a constituent LSP not be allocated to more than one e2e LSP.
The constituent LSPs will be referred to as "LSP segments" (S-LSPs).
It may be possible to configure a GMPLS node to switch the traffic
from an LSP for which it is the egress, to another LSP for which it
is the ingress, without requiring any signaling or routing extensions
whatsoever, completely transparent to other nodes. This will also
result in LSP stitching in the data plane. However, this document
does not cover this scenario of LSP stitching.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Comparison with LSP Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Triggers for LSP segment setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Routing aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Signaling aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. RSVP-TE signaling extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1.1. Creating and preparing LSP segment for stitching . . . 9
5.1.2. Stitching the e2e LSP to the LSP segment . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3. RRO Processing for e2e LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1.4. Teardown of LSP segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.5. Teardown of e2e LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Summary of LSP Stitching procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.1. Example topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.2. LSP segment setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.3. Setup of e2e LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.4. Stitching of e2e LSP into an LSP segment . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. New Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 22
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
1. Introduction
This document describes the mechanisms to accomplish LSP stitching in
the control (routing and signaling) and data planes, contrasting
stitching with LSP hierarchy ([2]) as is meaningful. With the
mechanism described here, the node performing the stitching does not
require configuration of the pair of LSPs to be stitched together.
Also, LSP stitching as defined here results in an end-to-end LSP both
in the control and data planes.
LSP hierarchy ([2]) provides signaling and routing procedures so
that:
a. A Hierarchical LSP (H-LSP) can be created. Such an LSP created
in one layer can appear as a data link to LSPs in higher layers.
As such, one or more LSPs in a higher layer can traverse this
H-LSP as a single hop; we call this "nesting".
b. An H-LSP may be managed and advertised (although this is not a
requirement) as a Traffic Engineering (TE) link. Advertising an
H-LSP as a TE link allows other nodes in the TE domain in which
it is advertised to use this H-LSP in path computation. If the
H-LSP TE link is advertised in the same instance of control plane
(TE domain) in which the H-LSP was provisioned, it is then
defined as a forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-LSP) and GMPLS nodes
can form a forwarding adjacency (FA) over this FA-LSP. There is
usually no routing adjacency between end points of an FA. An
H-LSP may also be advertised as a TE link in a different TE
domain. In this case, the end points of the H-LSP are required
have a routing adjacency between them.
c. RSVP signaling for LSP setup can occur between nodes that do not
have a routing adjacency.
A stitched TE LSP comprises of different LSP segments (S-LSPs) that
are connected together in the data plane in such a way that a single
end-to-end LSP is realized in the data plane. In this document, we
define the concept of LSP stitching and detail the control plane
mechanisms and procedures to accomplish this. Where applicable,
similarities and differences between LSP hierarchy and LSP stitching
are highlighted. Signaling extensions required for LSP stitching are
also described here.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
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].
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
2. Comparison with LSP Hierarchy
In case of LSP stitching, instead of an H-LSP, an "LSP segment"
(S-LSP) is created between two GMPLS nodes. An S-LSP for stitching
is considered to be the moral equivalent of an H-LSP for nesting. An
S-LSP created in one layer, unlike an H-LSP, provides a data link to
other LSPs in the same layer. Similar to an H-LSP, an S-LSP could be
managed and advertised, although it is not required, as a TE link,
either in the same TE domain as it was provisioned or a different
one. If so advertised, other GMPLS nodes can use the corresponding
S-LSP TE link in path computation. While there is a forwarding
adjacency between end points of an H-LSP TE link, there is no
forwarding adjacency between end points of an S-LSP TE link. In this
aspect, an H-LSP TE link more closely resembles a 'basic' TE link as
compared to an S-LSP TE link.
While LSP hierarchy allows more than one LSP to be mapped to an
H-LSP, in case of LSP stitching, at most one LSP may be associated
with an S-LSP. Thus, if LSP-AB is an H-LSP between nodes A and B,
then multiple LSPs, say LSP1, LSP2, and LSP3 can potentially be
'nested into' LSP-AB. This is achieved by exchanging a unique label
for each of LSP1..3 over the LSP-AB hop, thereby separating the data
corresponding to each of LSP1..3 while traversing the H-LSP LSP-AB.
Each of LSP1..3 may reserve some bandwidth on LSP-AB. On the other
hand, if LSP-AB is an S-LSP, then at most one LSP, say LSP1, may be
stitched to the S-LSP LSP-AB. LSP-AB is then dedicated to LSP1 and
no other LSPs can be associated with LSP-AB. The entire bandwith on
S-LSP LSP-AB is allocated to LSP1. However, similar to H-LSPs,
several S-LSPs may be bundled into a TE link ([11]).
The LSPs LSP1..3 which are either nested or stitched into another LSP
are termed as end-to-end (e2e) LSPs in the rest of this document.
Routing procedures specific to LSP stitching are detailed in
Section 4.
Targetted (non-adjacent) RSVP signaling defined in [2] is required
for LSP stitching of an e2e LSP to an S-LSP. Specific extensions for
LSP stitching are described later in Section 5.1. Therefore, in the
control plane, there is one RSVP session corresponding to the e2e LSP
as well as one for each S-LSP. The creation and termination of an
S-LSP may be dictated by administrative control (statically
provisioned) or due to another incoming LSP request (dynamic).
Triggers for dynamic creation of an S-LSP may be different from that
of an H-LSP and will be described in detail later.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
3. Usage
3.1. Triggers for LSP segment setup
An S-LSP may be created either by administrative control
(configuration trigger) or dynamically due to an incoming LSP
request. LSP Hierarchy ([2]) defines one possible trigger for
dynamic creation of FA-LSP by introducing the notion of LSP regions
based on Interface Switching Capabilities. As per [2], dynamic FA-
LSP creation may be triggered on a node when an incoming LSP request
crosses region boundaries. However, this trigger MUST NOT be used
for creation of S-LSP for LSP stitching as described in this
document. In case of LSP stitching, the switching capabilities of
the previous hop and the next hop TE links MUST be the same.
Therefore, local policies configured on the node SHOULD be used for
dynamic creation of LSP segments.
Other possible triggers for dynamic creation of both H-LSPs and
S-LSPs include cases where an e2e LSP may cross domain boundaries or
satisfy locally configured policies on the node as described in [8].
3.2. Applications
LSP stitching procedures described in this document are applicable to
GMPLS nodes that need to associate an e2e LSP with another S-LSP of
the same switching type and LSP hierarchy procedures do not apply.
E.g., if an e2e lambda LSP traverses an LSP segment TE link which is
also lambda switch capable, then LSP hierarchy is not possible; in
this case, LSP switching may be an option.
LSP stitching procedures can be used for inter-domain TE LSP
signaling to stitch an inter-domain e2e LSP to a local intra-domain
TE S-LSP ([8]).
LSP stitching may also be useful in networks to bypass legacy nodes
which may not have certain new capabilities in the control plane
and/or data plane. E.g., one suggested usage in case of P2MP RSVP
LSPs ([7]) is the use of LSP stitching to stitch a P2MP RSVP LSP to
an LSP segment between P2MP capable LSRs in the network. The LSP
segment would traverse legacy LSRs that may be incapable of acting as
P2MP branch points, thereby shielding them from the P2MP control and
data path. Note, however, that such configuration may limit the
attractiveness of RSVP P2MP and should carefully be examined before
deployment.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
4. Routing aspects
An S-LSP is created between two GMPLS nodes and it may traverse zero
or more intermediate GMPLS nodes. There is no forwarding adjacency
between the end points of an S-LSP TE link. So, although in the TE
topology, the end points of an S-LSP TE link are adjacent, in the
data plane, these nodes do not have an adjacency. Hence any data
plane resource identifier between these nodes is also meaningless.
The traffic that arrives at the head end of the S-LSP is switched
into the S-LSP contiguously with a label swap and no label is
associated directly between the end nodes of the S-LSP itself.
An S-LSP MAY be treated and managed as a TE link. This TE link MAY
be numbered or unnumbered. For an unnumbered S-LSP TE link, the
schemes for assignment and handling of the local and remote link
identifiers as specified in [10] SHOULD be used. When appropriate,
the TE information associated with an S-LSP TE link MAY be flooded
via ISIS-TE [13] or OSPF-TE [12]. Mechanisms similar to that for
regular (basic) TE links SHOULD be used to flood S-LSP TE links.
Advertising or flooding the S-LSP TE link is not a requirement for
LSP stitching. If advertised, this TE information will exist in the
TE database (TED) and can then be used for path computation by other
GMPLS nodes in the TE domain in which it is advertised. When so
advertising S-LSPs, one should keep in mind that these add to the
size and complexity of the link-state database.
If an S-LSP is advertised as a TE link in the same TE domain in which
it was provisioned, there is no need for a routing adjacency between
end points of this S-LSP TE link. If an S-LSP TE link is advertised
in a different TE domain, the end points of that TE link SHOULD have
a routing adjacency between them.
The TE parameters defined for an FA in [2] SHOULD be used for an
S-LSP TE link as well. The switching capability of an S-LSP TE link
MUST be equal to the switching type of the underlying S-LSP; i.e. an
S-LSP TE link provides a data link to other LSPs in the same layer,
so no hierarchy is possible.
An S-LSP MUST NOT admit more than one e2e LSP into it. If an S-LSP
is allocated to an e2e LSP, the unreserved bandwidth SHOULD be set to
zero to prevent further e2e LSPs being admitted into the S-LSP.
Multiple S-LSPs between the same pair of nodes MAY be bundled using
the concept of Link Bundling ([11]) into a single TE link. In this
case, each component S-LSP may be allocated to at most one e2e LSP.
When any component S-LSP is allocated for an e2e LSP, the component's
unreserved bandwidth SHOULD be set to zero and the Minimum and
Maximum LSP bandwidth of the TE link SHOULD be recalculated. This
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
will prevent more than one LSP from being computed and admitted over
an S-LSP.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
5. Signaling aspects
The end nodes of an S-LSP may or may not have a routing adjacency.
However, they SHOULD have a signaling adjacency (RSVP neighbor
relationship) and will exchange RSVP messages with each other. It
may, in fact, be desirable to exchange RSVP Hellos directly between
the LSP segment end points to allow support for state recovery during
Graceful Restart procedures as described in [4].
In order to signal an e2e LSP over an LSP segment, signaling
procedures described in section 8.1.1 of [2] MUST be used.
Additional signaling extensions for stitching are described in the
next section.
5.1. RSVP-TE signaling extensions
The signaling extensions described here MUST be used for stitching an
e2e packet or non-packet GMPLS LSP ([4]), to an S-LSP.
Stitching an e2e LSP to an LSP segment involves the following two
step process:
1. Creating and preparing the S-LSP for stitching by signaling the
desire to stitch between end points of the S-LSP; and
2. stitching the e2e LSP to the S-LSP.
5.1.1. Creating and preparing LSP segment for stitching
If a GMPLS node desires to create an S-LSP, i.e., one to be used for
stitching, then it MUST indicate this in the Path message for the
S-LSP. This signaling explicitly informs the S-LSP egress node that
the ingress node is planning to perform stitching over the S-LSP.
Since an S-LSP is not conceptually different from any other LSP,
explicitly signaling 'LSP stitching desired' helps clarify the data
plane actions to be carried out when the S-LSP is used by some other
e2e LSP. Also, in case of packet LSPs, this is what allows the
egress of the S-LSP to carry out label allocation as explained below.
Also, so that the head-end node can ensure that correct stitching
actions will be carried out at the egress node, the egress node MUST
signal this information back to the head-end node in the Resv, as
explained below.
In order to request LSP stitching on the S-LSP, we define a new bit
in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object defined in
[3]:
Bit Number 5 (TBD): LSP stitching desired bit - This bit SHOULD be
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
set in the Attributes Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object in the
Path message for the S-LSP by the head-end of the S-LSP, that desires
LSP stitching. This bit MUST NOT be modified by any other nodes in
the network. Nodes other than the egress of the S-LSP SHOULD ignore
this bit.
An LSP segment can be used for stitching only if the egress node of
the S-LSP is also ready to participate in stitching. In order to
indicate this to the head-end node of the S-LSP, the following new
bit is defined in the Flags field of the RRO Attributes subobject:
Bit Number 5 (TBD): LSP segment stitching ready.
If an egress node of the S-LSP receiving the Path message, supports
the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and the Attributes Flags TLV, and also
recognizes the "LSP stitching desired" bit, but cannot support the
requested stitching behavior, then it MUST send back a PathErr
message with an error code of "Routing Problem" and an error sub-
code="Stitching unsupported" (TBD) to the head-end node of the S-LSP.
If an egress node receiving a Path message with the "LSP stitching
desired" bit set in the Flags field of received LSP_ATTRIBUTES,
recognizes the object, the TLV and the bit and also supports the
desired stitching behavior, then it MUST allocate a non-NULL label
for that S-LSP in the corresponding Resv message. Also, so that the
head-end node can ensure that the correct label (forwarding) actions
will be carried out by the egress node and that the S-LSP can be used
for stitching, the egress node MUST set the "LSP segment stitching
ready" bit defined in the Flags field of the RRO Attribute sub-
object.
Finally, if the egress node for the S-LSP supports the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object but does not recognize the Attributes Flags TLV, or supports
the TLV as well but does not recognize this particular bit, then it
SHOULD simply ignore the above request.
An ingress node requesting LSP stitching MUST examine the RRO
Attributes sub-object Flags corresponding to the egress node for the
S-LSP, to make sure that stitching actions are carried out at the
egress node. It MUST NOT use the S-LSP for stitching if the "LSP
segment stitching ready" bit is cleared.
5.1.1.1. Steps to support Penultimate Hop Popping
Note that this section is only applicable to packet LSPs that use
Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) at the last hop, where the egress node
distributes the Implicit NULL Label ([9]) in the Resv Label. These
steps MUST NOT be used for a non-packet LSP and for packet LSPs where
PHP is not desired.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
When the egress node of an S-LSP receives a Path message for an e2e
LSP using this S-LSP and this is a packet LSP, it SHOULD first check
if it is also the egress for the e2e LSP. If the egress node is the
egress for both the S-LSP as well as the e2e TE LSP, and this is a
packet LSP which requires PHP, then the node MUST send back a Resv
trigger message for the S-LSP with a new label corresponding to the
Implicit or Explicit NULL label. Note that this operation does not
cause any traffic disruption since the S-LSP is not carrying any
traffic at this time, since the e2e LSP has not yet been established.
If the e2e LSP and the S-LSP are bidirectional, the ingress of the
e2e LSP SHOULD first check whether it is also the ingress of the
S-LSP. If so, it SHOULD re-issue the Path message for the S-LSP with
an implicit or explicit NULL upstream label; and only then proceed
with the signaling of the e2e LSP.
5.1.2. Stitching the e2e LSP to the LSP segment
When a GMPLS node receives an e2e LSP request, depending on the
applicable trigger, it may either dynamically create an S-LSP based
on procedures described above or it may map an e2e LSP to an existing
S-LSP. The switching type in the Generalized Label Request of the
e2e LSP MUST be equal to the switching type of the S-LSP. Other
constraints like ERO, bandwidth, local TE policies MUST also be used
for S-LSP selection or signaling. In either case, once an S-LSP has
been selected for an e2e LSP, the following procedures MUST be
followed in order to stitch an e2e LSP to an S-LSP.
The GMPLS node receiving the e2e LSP setup Path message MUST use the
signaling procedures described in [2] to send the Path message to the
end point of the S-LSP. In this Path message, the node MUST identify
the S-LSP in the RSVP_HOP. An egress node receiving this RSVP_HOP
should also be able to identify the S-LSP TE link based on the
information signaled in the RSVP_HOP. If the S-LSP TE link is
numbered, then the addressing scheme as proposed in [2] SHOULD be
used to number the S-LSP TE link. If the S-LSP TE link is
unnumbered, then any of the schemes proposed in [10] SHOULD be used
to exchange S-LSP TE link identifiers between the S-LSP end points.
If the TE link is bundled, the RSVP_HOP SHOULD identify the component
link as defined in [11].
In case of a bidirectional e2e TE LSP, an Upstream Label MUST be
signaled in the Path message for the e2e LSP over the S-LSP hop.
However, since there is no forwarding adjacency between the S-LSP end
points, any label exchanged between them has no significance. So the
node MAY chose any label value for the Upstream Label. The label
value chosen and signaled by the node in the Upstream Label is out of
the scope of this document and is specific to the implementation on
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
that node. The egress node receiving this Path message MUST ignore
the Upstream Label in the Path message over the S-LSP hop.
The egress node receiving this Path message MUST signal a Label in
the Resv message for the e2e TE LSP over the S-LSP hop. Again, since
there is no forwarding adjacency between the egress and ingress S-LSP
nodes, any label exchanged between them is meaningless. So, the
egress node MAY choose any label value for the Label. The label
value chosen and signaled by the egress node is out of the scope of
this document and is specific to the implementation on the egress
node. The egress S-LSP node SHOULD also carry out data plane
operations so that traffic coming in on the S-LSP is switched over to
the e2e LSP downstream, if the egress of the e2e LSP is some other
node downstream. If the e2e LSP is bidirectional, this means setting
up label switching in both directions. The Resv message from the
egress S-LSP node is IP routed back to the previous hop (ingress of
the S-LSP). The ingress node stitching an e2e TE LSP to an S-LSP
MUST ignore the Label object received in the Resv for the e2e TE LSP
over the S-LSP hop. The S-LSP ingress node SHOULD also carry out
data plane operations so that traffic coming in on the e2e LSP is
switched into the S-LSP. It should also carry out actions to handle
traffic in the opposite direction if the e2e LSP is bidirectional.
Note that the label exchange procedure for LSP stitching on the S-LSP
hop, is similar to that for LSP hierarchy over the H-LSP hop. The
difference is the lack of the significance of this label between the
S-LSP end points in case of stitching. Therefore, in case of
stitching the recepients of the Label/Upstream Label MUST NOT process
these labels. Also, at most one e2e LSP is associated with one
S-LSP. If a node at the head-end of an S-LSP receives a Path Msg for
an e2e LSP that identifies the S-LSP in the ERO and the S-LSP
bandwidth has already been allocated to some other LSP, then regular
rules of RSVP-TE pre-emption apply to resolve contention for S-LSP
bandwidth. If the LSP request over the S-LSP cannot be satisfied,
then the node SHOULD send back a PathErr with the error codes as
described in [5].
5.1.3. RRO Processing for e2e LSP
RRO procedures for the S-LSP specific to LSP stitching are already
described in Section 5.1.1. In this section we will look at the RRO
processing for the e2e LSP over the S-LSP hop.
An e2e LSP traversing an S-LSP, SHOULD record in the RRO for that
hop, an identifier corresponding to the S-LSP TE link. This is
applicable to both Path and Resv messages over the S-LSP hop. If the
S-LSP is numbered, then the IPv4 or IPv6 address subobject ([5])
SHOULD be used to record the S-LSP TE link address. If the S-LSP is
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
unnumbered, then the Unnumbered Interface ID subobject as described
in [10] SHOULD be used to record the node's Router ID and Interface
ID of the S-LSP TE link. In either case, the RRO subobject SHOULD
identify the S-LSP TE link end point. Intermediate links or nodes
traversed by the S-LSP itself SHOULD NOT be recorded in the RRO for
the e2e LSP over the S-LSP hop.
5.1.4. Teardown of LSP segment
S-LSP teardown follows the standard procedures defined in [5] and
[4]. This includes procedures without and with setting the
administrative status. Teardown of S-LSP may be initiated by either
the ingress, egress or any other node along the S-LSP path.
Deletion/teardown of the S-LSP SHOULD be treated as a failure event
for the e2e LSP associated with it and corresponding teardown or
recovery procedures SHOULD be triggered for the e2e LSP. In case of
S-LSP teardown for maintenance purpose, the S-LSP ingress node MAY
treat this to be equivalent to administratively shutting down a TE
link along the e2e LSP path and take corresponding actions to notify
the ingress of this event. The actual signaling procedures to handle
this event is out of the scope of this document.
5.1.5. Teardown of e2e LSP
e2e LSP teardown also follows standard procedures defined in [5] and
[4] either without or with the administrative status. Note, however,
that teardown procedures of e2e LSP and of S-LSP are independent of
each other. So, it is possible that while one LSP follows graceful
teardown with adminstrative status, the other LSP is torn down
without administrative status (using PathTear/ResvTear/PathErr with
state removal).
When an e2e LSP teardown is initiated from the head-end, and a
PathTear arrives at the GMPLS stitching node, the PathTear message
like the Path message MUST be IP routed to the LSP segment egress
node with the destination IP address of the Path message set to the
address of the S-LSP end node. Router Alert MUST be off and RSVP TTL
check MUST be disabled on the receiving node. PathTear will result
in deletion of RSVP states corresponding to the e2e LSP and freeing
of label allocations and bandwidth reservations on the S-LSP. The
unreserved bandwidth on the S-LSP TE link SHOULD be re-adjusted.
Similarly, a teardown of the e2e LSP may be initiated from the tail-
end either using a ResvTear or a PathErr with state removal. The
egress of the S-LSP MUST propagate the ResvTear/PathErr upstream, IP
routed to the ingress of the LSP segment.
Graceful LSP teardown using ADMIN_STATUS as described in [4] is also
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
applicable to stitched LSPs.
If the S-LSP was statically provisioned, tearing down of an e2e LSP
MAY not result in tearing down of the S-LSP. If, however, the S-LSP
was dynamically setup due to the e2e LSP setup request, then
depending on local policy, the S-LSP MAY be torn down if no e2e LSP
is utilizing the S-LSP. Although the S-LSP may be torn down while
the e2e LSP is being torn down, it is RECOMMENDED that a delay be
introduced in tearing down the S-LSP once the e2e LSP teardown is
complete, in order to reduce the simultaneous generation of RSVP
errors and teardown messages due to multiple events. The delay
interval may be set based on local implementation. The RECOMMENDED
interval is 30 seconds.
5.2. Summary of LSP Stitching procedures
5.2.1. Example topology
The following topology will be used for the purpose of examples
quoted in the following sections.
e2e LSP
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++> (LSP1-2)
LSP segment (S-LSP)
====================> (LSP-AB)
C --- E --- G
/|\ | / |\
/ | \ | / | \
R1 ---- A \ | \ | / | / B --- R2
\| \ |/ |/
D --- F --- H
PATH
====================> (LSP stitching desired)
RESV
<==================== (LSP segment stitching ready)
PATH (Upstream Label)
+++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++ ++++++>
<++++++ +++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++
RESV (Label)
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
5.2.2. LSP segment setup
Let us consider an S-LSP LSP-AB being setup between two nodes A and B
which are more than one hop away. Node A sends a Path message for
the LSP-AB with "LSP stitching desired" set in Flags field of
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. If the egress node B is ready to carry out
stitching procedures, then B will respond with "LSP segment stitching
ready" set in the Flags field of the RRO Attributes subobject, in the
RRO sent in the Resv for the S-LSP. Once A receives the Resv for
LSP-AB and sees this bit set in the RRO, it can then use LSP-AB for
stitching. A cannot use LSP-AB for stitching if the bit is cleared
in the RRO.
5.2.3. Setup of e2e LSP
Let us consider an e2e LSP LSP1-2 starting one hop before A on R1 and
ending on node R2, as shown above. If the S-LSP has been advertised
as a TE link in the TE domain, and R1 and A are in the same domain,
then R1 may compute a path for LSP1-2 over the S-LSP LSP-AB and
identify the LSP-AB hop in the ERO. If not, R1 may compute hops
between A and B and A may use these ERO hops for S-LSP selection or
signaling a new S-LSP. If R1 and A are in different domains, then
LSP1-2 is an inter-domain LSP. In this case, S-LSP LSP-AB, similar
to any other basic TE link in the domain will not be advertised
outside the domain. R1 would use either per-domain path computation
([14]) or PCE based computation ([15]) for LSP1-2.
5.2.4. Stitching of e2e LSP into an LSP segment
When the Path message for the e2e LSP LSP1-2 arrives at node A, A
matches the switching type of LSP1-2 with the S-LSP LSP-AB. If the
switching types are not equal, then LSP-AB cannot be used to stitch
LSP1-2. Once the S-LSP LSP-AB to which LSP1-2 will be stitched has
been determined, the Path message for LSP1-2 is sent (via IP routing,
if needed) to node B with the IF_ID RSVP_HOP identifying the S-LSP
LSP-AB. When B receives this Path message for LSP1-2, if B is also
the egress for LSP1-2, and if this is a packet LSP requiring PHP,
then B will send a Resv refresh for LSP-AB with the NULL Label. In
this case, since B is not the egress, the Path message for LSP1-2 is
propagated to R2. The Resv for LSP1-2 from B is sent back to A with
a Label value chosen by B. B also sets up its data plane to swap the
Label sent to either G or H on the S-LSP with the Label received from
R2. Node A ignores the Label on receipt of the Resv message and then
propagates the Resv to R1. A also sets up its data plane to swap the
Label sent to R1 with the Label received on the S-LSP from C or D.
This stitches the e2e LSP LSP1-2 to an S-LSP LSP-AB between nodes A
and B. In the data plane, this yields a series of label swaps from R1
to R2 along e2e LSP LSP1-2.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
6. Security Considerations
Similar to [2], this document permits that the control interface over
which RSVP messages are sent or received need not be the same as the
data interface which the message identifies for switching traffic.
Also, the 'sending interface' and 'receiving interface' may change as
routing changes. So, these cannot be used to establish security
association between neighbors. Mechanisms described in [6] should be
re-examined and may need to be altered to define new security
associations based on receiver's IP address instead of the sending
and receiving interfaces. Also, this document allows the IP
destination address of Path and PathTear messages to be the IP
address of a nexthop node (receiver's address) instead of the RSVP
session destination address. So, [6] should be revisited to check if
IPSec AH is now a viable means of securing RSVP-TE messages.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
7. IANA Considerations
The following values have to be defined by IANA for this document.
The registry is http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
7.1. Attribute Flags for LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
The following new bit is being defined for the Attributes Flags TLV
in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. The numeric value should be assigned
by IANA.
LSP stitching desired bit - Bit Number 5 (Suggested value)
This bit is only to be used in the Attributes Flags TLV on a Path
message.
The 'LSP stitching desired bit' has a corresponding 'LSP segment
stitching ready' bit (Bit Number 5) to be used in the RRO Attributes
sub-object.
7.2. New Error Codes
The following new error sub-code is being defined under the RSVP
error-code "Routing Problem" (24). The numeric error sub-code value
should be assigned by IANA.
Stitching unsupported - sub-code 23 (Suggested value)
This error code is to be used only in an RSVP PathErr.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for his comments and
suggestions. The authors would also like to thank Dimitri
Papadimitriou and Igor Bryskin for their thorough review of the
document and discussions regarding the same.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[3] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar,
"Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4420,
February 2006.
[4] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[5] 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.
[6] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.
9.2. Informative References
[7] Aggarwal, R., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE
LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-06 (work in progress),
August 2006.
[8] Ayyangar, A. and J. Vasseur, "Inter domain GMPLS Traffic
Engineering - RSVP-TE extensions",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-03 (work in progress),
March 2006.
[9] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci,
D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding",
RFC 3032, January 2001.
[10] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links in
Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)",
RFC 3477, January 2003.
[11] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling in
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.
[12] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203,
October 2005.
[13] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205,
October 2005.
[14] Vasseur, J., "A Per-domain path computation method for
establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)",
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03 (work in
progress), August 2006.
[15] Farrel, A., "A Path Computation Element (PCE) Based
Architecture", draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05 (work in
progress), April 2006.
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
Authors' Addresses
Arthi Ayyangar (editor)
Nuova Systems
2600 San Tomas Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95051
US
Email: arthi@nuovasystems.com
Kireeti Kompella (editor)
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Jean Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road
Boxborough, MA 01719
US
Email: jpv@cisco.com
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LSP Stitching with GMPLS TE December 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Ayyangar, et al. Expires June 5, 2007 [Page 22]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 23:19:51 |