One document matched: draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-02.txt
Differences from draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-01.txt
MPLS Working Group M. Taillon
Internet-Draft T. Saad
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Inc
Expires: March 15, 2016 N. Tan
Arista Networks
A. Deshmukh
M. Jork
V. Beeram
Juniper Networks
September 12, 2015
RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for LSP Tunnels
draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-02
Abstract
This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions that reduce the
amount of RSVP signaling required for Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures
and subsequently improve the scalability of the RSVP-TE signaling
when undergoing FRR convergence post a link or node failure. Such
extensions allow the RSVP message exchange between the Point of Local
Repair (PLR) and the Merge Point (MP) to be independent of the number
of protected LSPs traversing between them (eg. when bypass LSP FRR
protection is used). The new signaling extensions are fully
backwards compatible with nodes that do not support them.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2016.
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Summary FRR Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Signaling Procedures Post Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Compatibilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
FRR procedures defined in [RFC4090] describe the mechanisms for the
PLR to reroute traffic and signaling of a protected RSVP-TE LSP onto
the bypass tunnel in the event of a TE link or node failure. Such
signaling procedures are performed individually for each affected
protected LSP. This may eventually lead to control plane scalability
and latency issues under limited (memory and processing) resources
after failure that affects a large number of protected LSPs
traversing the same PLR and MP.
In a large RSVP-TE LSPs scale deployment, a single P node acting as a
PLR may host tens of thousands of protected RSVP-TE LSPs egressing
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
the same link, and likewise, act as a Merge Point (MP) for similar
number of LSPs ingressing the same link. In the event of the failure
of the link or neighbor node, the RSVP-TE control plane of the node
acting as PLR becomes busy rerouting protected LSPs signaling over
the bypass tunnel(s) in one direction. In addition, its control
plane acting as MP becomes busy merging RSVP states signaling
received over bypass tunnels in the opposite direction. At the same
time, the head-end PE nodes that are notified of the local repair at
downstream P nodes, will attempt to (re)converge affected RSVP-TE
LSPs onto newly computed paths - possibly traversing the same
previously affected P node(s). As a result, the RSVP-TE control
plane at the PLR and MP becomes overwhelmed by the amount of FRR
RSVP-TE processing overhead following the link or node failure, and
the competing other control plane protocol(s) (e.g. the IGP) that
undergo their convergence at the same time.
The extensions defined in this document enable an MP to become aware
of the PLR's bypass assignment and allow FRR procedures between PLR
and MP to be signaled and processed on groups of LSPs. Further,
MESSAGE_ID objects for the rerouted PATH and RESV states are
exchanged a-priori to the fault such that Summary Refresh procedures
defined in [RFC2961] can continue to be used to refresh the rerouted
state(s) after FRR has occurred.
1.1. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
2. Summary FRR Signaling Procedures
This document defines two new subobjects (IPv4 and IPv6
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects) in RSVP RECORD_ROUTE object
to coordinate bypass tunnel assignment between the PLR and MP. These
new subobjects are backward compatible with LSRs that do not
recognize them (see section 4.4.5 in [RFC3209]). The document also
defines a new RSVP SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object that is sent
within an RSVP Path message to inform the MP that one or more groups
of protected LSPs that are being protected by the bypass tunnel are
being rerouted.
The PLR creates and manages Summary FRR LSP groups
(Bypass_Group_Identifiers) and shares them with the MP via signaling.
Protected LSPs sharing the same egress link and bypass assignment are
grouped together and are assigned the same group. The MP maintains
the PLR group assignments learned via signaling, and acknowledges the
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
group assignments via signaling. Once the PLR receives the
acknowledgment, FRR signaling can proceed as group based.
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RRO subobject is used to inform the
MP of the bypass tunnel being used by the PLR, the assigned Summary
FRR Bypass_Group_Identifier for the protected LSP, and the MESSAGE_ID
object that the PLR will use to refresh the protected LSP PATH state
post FRR trigger. When used within a RSVP Resv message, the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is used by the MP to
acknowledge the PLR's bypass tunnel assignment, and provide the
MESSAGE_ID object that the MP will use to refresh the protected LSP
RESV state post FRR trigger (and also indicates support for this
extension).
2.1. Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure
Before Summary FRR procedures can be used, a handshake MUST be
completed between the PLR and MP. This handshake is performed using
RECORD_ROUTE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within both the
RSVP Path and Resv messages.
2.1.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject
The IPv4 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following
format:
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Bypass_Tunnel_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 8 bits
(TBD-1) IPv4 Summary FRR Bypass Assignment
Length: 8 bits
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits
The bypass tunnel identifier.
Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address.
Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address.
Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel group identifier.
Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID
A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by {{RFC2961}}.
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
The IPv6 SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject has the following
format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Bypass_Tunnel_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: 8 bits
(TBD-2) IPv6 Summary FRR Bypass Assignment
Length: 8 bits
The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits
The bypass tunnel identifier.
Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address: 128 bits
The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address.
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address: 128 bits
The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address.
Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
The bypass tunnel group identifier.
Summary_FRR_MESSAGE_ID
A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by {{RFC2961}}.
The PLR assigns a bypass tunnel and Bypass_Group_Identifier for each
protected LSP. The same Bypass_Group_Identifier is used for the set
of protected LSPs that share the same bypass tunnel and traverse the
same egress link and are not already rerouted. The PLR also
generates a MESSAGE_ID object (flags SHOULD be clear, Epoch and
Message_Identifier MUST be set according to [RFC2961]) that is used
by the PLR to later match the last sent subobject and eliminate
timing issues.
The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject contents change; for example,
when PLR changes the bypass tunnel assignment.
The PLR notifies the MP of the bypass tunnel assignment via adding a
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject to the RSVP Path message
RECORD_ROUTE object for the protected LSP using procedure described
in section 2.2.1.
The MP acknowledges the PLR's assignment by signalling a
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the RSVP Resv messsage
RECORD_ROUTE object. With exception of the MESSAGE_ID object, all
other fields of the received SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject
are copied into the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT of the Resv
message. The MESSAGE_ID object is set according to [RFC2961] with
the Flags being clear. A new Message_Identifier MUST be used to
acknowledge an updated PLR assignment.
The PLR considers the protected LSP as Summary FRR capable only if
the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects within the sent RSVP
Path message RECORD_ROUTE and the received RSVP Resv message
RECORD_ROUTE match (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID object). If a
matching subobject does not exist, or is later absent in a subsequent
refresh, the PLR MUST consider the protected LSP as not Summary FRR
capable.
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
2.1.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added to the
RECORD_ROUTE object by each PLR in the RSVP Path message of the
protected LSP to record the bypass tunnel assignment. This subobject
is updated every time the PLR updates the bypass tunnel assignment
(which triggers an RSVP Path change message). Upon updating the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject, the PLR MUST consider the
protected LSP as not Summary FRR capable until a new handshake has
completed.
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the
RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address. An
implementation may choose to also add the interface IPv4/IPv6 address
sub-object after the node's IP address. A node MUST NOT add a
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject without also adding the
node's IPv4 or IPv6 subobject.
Upon receiving an RSVP Resv message with RECORD_ROUTE object, the PLR
checks if the expected SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is
present. If present, the PLR determines if the MP has acknowledged
the current PLR assignment.
To be a valid acknowledgement, the received
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the Resv message MUST
match the latest SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject sent with
the Path message (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID) and the received
Message_Identifier MUST be different (to prevent race condition
during bypass assignment flip-flop). If the MP has acknowledged the
bypass assignment then the LSP is now ready for Summary FRR.
When forwarding an RSVP Resv message upstream, the PLR MAY remove
any/all SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching
Bypass_Source_Address.
2.1.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure
Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with RECORD_ROUTE object, the MP
processes all (there may be multiple PLRs for a single MP)
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASSS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching Bypass
Destination address.
The MP first ensures the existence of the bypass tunnel and that the
Bypass_Group_Identifier is not already active. That is, an LSP
cannot join a group that is already active.
The MP builds a mirrored Summary FRR Group database per PLR, which is
determined using the Bypass_Source_Address field. The MESSAGE_ID is
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
extracted and recorded for the protected LSP PATH state. To
acknowledge each PLR bypass assignment, a matching
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is prepared as per 2.2.
Note, an MP may received more than a Path message with the
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject from different upstream PLRs.
In this case, the MP is expected to save all the received MESSAGE_IDs
from the different PLRs. Post failure, the MP determines and
activates the associated Sumamry Refresh ID to use once it receives
and processes the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE from the PLR.
Each SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject is added in the
RECORD_ROUTE object prior to adding the node's IP address. An
implementation may choose to also add the interface IPv4/IPv6 address
sub-object after the node's IP address. A node MUST NOT add a
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject without also adding an IPv4
or IPv6 subobject.
When forwarding an RSVP Path message downstream, the MP MAY remove
any/all SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects with a matching
Bypass_Destination_Address.
2.2. Signaling Procedures Post Failure
Upon detection of the fault (egress link or node failure) the PLR
first performs the object modification procedures described by
section 6.4.3 of [RFC4090] for all affected protected LSPs. For
Summary FRR LSPs assigned to the same bypass tunnel a common RSVP_HOP
and SENDER_TEMPLATE MUST be used.
The PLR MUST signal non-Summary FRR LSPs over the bypass tunnel
before signaling the Summary FRR LSPs. This is needed to allow for
the case when the PLR has recently changed a bypass assignment which
the MP may not have processed the change yet.
A new object SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE is defined and sent within the
RSVP Path message of the bypass tunnel for reroute signaling of
Summary FRR LSPs.
2.2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is sent within an RSVP Path
message to inform the MP (bypass tunnel destination) that one or more
groups of protected LSPs that are being protected by the bypass
tunnel are being rerouted.
The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object has the following format:
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class = (TBD-3) (of the form 11bbbbbb)
Class = SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE Class, C_Type = (TBD-4)
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RSVP_HOP_Object |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| : |
// : //
| : |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bypass_Group_Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
RSVP_HOP_Object: Class 3, as defined by {{RFC2205}}]
Replacement HOP object to be applied to all LSPs associated
with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers
Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
Bypass_Group_Identifier field from the RECORD_ROUTE object
SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject(s) corresponding to all
LSPs that the bypass headend (PLR) advertised this specific
Bypass_Group_Identifier for. One or more
Bypass_Group_Identifiers may be included.
2.2.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure
Post a failure event, when using the Summary FRR path signalling
procedures, an individual RSVP Path message for each Summary FRR LSP
is not signaled. Instead, to reroute Summary FRR LSPs via the bypass
tunnel, the PLR adds the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object in the RSVP
Path message of the RSVP session of the bypass tunnel.
The RSVP_HOP_Object field of the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is
set to the common RSVP_HOP that was used by the PLR in Section 2.2.
The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the MP is activated. As a
result, the MP may refresh the protected rerouted RESV state using
Summary Refresh procedures.
For each affected Summary FRR group, its group identifier is added to
the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object.
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
2.2.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure
Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with a SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE
object, the MP performs normal merging processing for each LSP
associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier, as if it received
individual RSVP Path messages for each Summary FRR LSP.
For each Summary FRR LSP being merged, the MP first modifies the Path
state as follows:
1. The RSVP_HOP object is copied from the SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE
RSVP_HOP_Object field.
2. The SENDER_TEMPLATE object SrcAddress field is copied from the
bypass tunnel SENDER_TEMPLATE object. For the case where PLR is
also the headend, and SENDER_TEMPLATE SrcAddress of the protected
LSP and bypass tunnel are the same, the MP MUST use the modified
HOP Hop Address field instead.
3. The ERO object is modified as per section 6.4.4. of [RFC4090].
Once the above modifications are completed, the MP then performs
the merge processing as per [RFC4090].
4. The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the PLR is activated,
meaning that the PLR may now refresh the protected rerouted PATH
state using Summary Refresh procedures.
A failure during merge processing of any individual rerouted LSP MUST
result in an RSVP Path Error message and the LSP MUST NOT be removed
from the Bypass_Group - this is to cover the case where the RSVP Path
Error message doesn't reach the PLR and the RSVP Path Error message
may need to be resignaled.
An individual RSVP Resv message for each successfully merged Summary
FRR LSP is not signaled. The MP SHOULD immediately use Summary
Refresh to refresh the protected LSP RESV state.
2.3. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs
Refreshing of Summary FRR active LSPs is performed using Summary
Refresh as defined by [RFC2961].
3. Compatibilty
The new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object is to be defined with a
class number in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with
non- supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
extension will ignore the object but forward it, unexamined and
unmodified, in all messages.
The new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT RECORD_ROUTE subobject, as per
section 4.4.5. of [RFC3209], if not recognized SHOULD be ignored and
forwarded.
4. Security Considerations
This document introduces new RSVP subobjects, and one new RSVP
object. Thus in the event of the interception of a signaling
message, slightly more could be deduced about the state of the
network than was previously the case.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for the
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section.
IANA maintains and assigns the values for RSVP-TE protocol parameters
"Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters).
From the registries in this namespace for "Route Record" types, IANA
is requested to allocate two new RECORD_ROUTE object sub-types (IPv4
and IPv6) for the new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects.
From the same registry, a new RSVP Class and C-type (of the form
11bbbbbb) is requested for the new SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object
defined in this document.
6. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] 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/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F.,
and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
Extensions", RFC 2961, DOI 10.17487/RFC2961, April 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2961>.
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR September 2015
[RFC3209] 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/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast
Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.
Authors' Addresses
Mike Taillon
Cisco Systems Inc
Email: mtaillon@cisco.com
Tarek Saad
Cisco Systems Inc
Email: tsaad@cisco.com
Nicholas Tan
Arista Networks
Email: ntan@arista.com
Abhishek Deshmukh
Juniper Networks
Email: adeshmukh@juniper.net
Markus Jork
Juniper Networks
Email: mjork@juniper.net
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
Email: vbeeram@juniper.net
Taillon, et al. Expires March 15, 2016 [Page 13]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 11:25:12 |