draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt 
Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN) Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
Category: Experimental Attila Takacs (Ericsson) Category: Experimental Attila Takacs (Ericsson)
Expiration Date: September 12, 2008 Diego Caviglia (Ericsson) Expiration Date: October 29, 2008 Diego Caviglia (Ericsson)
Don Fedyk (Nortel) Don Fedyk (Nortel)
Julien Meuric (France Telecom) Julien Meuric (France Telecom)
March 12, 2008 April 29, 2008
GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS Asymmetric This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS Asymmetric
Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs. The presented approach is applicable Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented
to any switching technology and builds on the original RSVP model for approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
the transport of traffic related parameters. original RSVP model for the transport of traffic related parameters.
The procedures described in this document are experimental.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................. 3 1 Introduction .............................................. 3
1.1 Background ................................................ 3 1.1 Background ................................................ 3
1.2 Approach Overview ......................................... 4 1.2 Approach Overview ......................................... 4
1.3 Conventions used in this document ......................... 4 1.3 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5
2 Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs ....... 5 2 Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs ....... 5
2.1 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object .................................. 5 2.1 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object .................................. 5
2.1.1 Procedures ................................................ 5 2.1.1 Procedures ................................................ 5
2.2 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ..................................... 6 2.2 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ..................................... 6
2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 6 2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 6
2.3 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .................................... 6 2.3 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .................................... 6
2.3.1 Procedures ................................................ 6 2.3.1 Procedures ................................................ 6
3 Packet Formats ............................................ 7 3 Packet Formats ............................................ 7
4 Compatibility ............................................. 8 4 Compatibility ............................................. 8
5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 8 5 IANA Considerations ....................................... 8
5.1 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object .................................. 8 5.1 UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object .................................. 8
5.2 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ..................................... 8 5.2 UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ..................................... 9
5.3 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .................................... 9 5.3 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .................................... 9
6 Security Considerations ................................... 9 6 Security Considerations ................................... 9
7 References ................................................ 9 7 References ................................................ 9
7.1 Normative References ...................................... 9 7.1 Normative References ...................................... 9
7.2 Informative References .................................... 10 7.2 Informative References .................................... 10
8 Author's Addresses ........................................ 10 8 Authors' Addresses ........................................ 10
A. Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object ........ 11 A. Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object ........ 11
A.1. Applicability ............................................. 11 A.1. Applicability ............................................. 11
A.2. Overview .................................................. 12 A.2. Overview .................................................. 12
A.3. Procedures ................................................ 13 A.3. Procedures ................................................ 13
A.4. Compatibility ............................................. 13 A.4. Compatibility ............................................. 13
9 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 13 Full Copyright Statement .................................. 14
10 Intellectual Property ..................................... 14 Intellectual Property ..................................... 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
GMPLS, see [RFC3473], introduced explicit support for bidirectional GMPLS, see [RFC3473], introduced explicit support for bidirectional
LSPs. The defined support matched the switching technologies covered Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the
by GMPLS, notably TDM and lambdas, and specifically only supported switching technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division
Multiplexing (TDM) and lambdas, and specifically only supported
bidirectional LSPs with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bidirectional LSPs with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric
bandwidth requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects bandwidth requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects
defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210]. defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210].
Recent work, see [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC], has looked at Recent work, see [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC], has looked at
extending GMPLS to control Ethernet switching. In this context there extending GMPLS to control Ethernet switching. In this context there
has been discussion on the support of bidirectional LSPs with has been discussion of the support of bidirectional LSPs with
asymmetric bandwidth. This discussion motivated the extensions asymmetric bandwidth. (That is, bidirectional LSPs that have
defined in this document, which may be used with any switching different bandwidth reservations in each direction.) This discussion
technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs. motivated the extensions defined in this document, which may be used
with any switching technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth
bidirectional LSPs. The procedures described in this document are
experimental.
1.1. Background 1.1. Background
Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP (see [RFC2210], Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP (see [RFC2210],
[RFC3209] and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to RSVP. [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to RSVP.
While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model for While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model for
the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP session the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP session
sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model of sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model of
communication defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209] used communication defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209] used
the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the FLOWSPEC the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the FLOWSPEC
skipping to change at page 4, line 11 skipping to change at page 4, line 11
unmodified, and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is unmodified, and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is
implicitly or explicitly (see [RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) implicitly or explicitly (see [RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC])
irrelevant. irrelevant.
1.2. Approach Overview 1.2. Approach Overview
The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs
defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the
transport of traffic related parameters and GMPLS' support for transport of traffic related parameters and GMPLS' support for
bidirectional LSPs. An alternative approach was considered and bidirectional LSPs. An alternative approach was considered and
rejected. For reference purposes only, the rejected approach is rejected in favor of the more generic approach presented below. For
summarized in Appendix A. reference purposes only, the rejected approach is summarized in
Appendix A.
The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching
technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing
SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the
addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
objects. The existing objects are used in the original fashion objects. The existing objects are used in the original fashion
defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only to traffic defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only to traffic
associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream direction. The new associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream direction. The new
objects are used in exactly the same fashion as the old objects, but objects are used in exactly the same fashion as the old objects, but
refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 shows the bandwidth refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 shows the bandwidth
skipping to change at page 5, line 13 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs 2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs
The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled
using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with
the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC and the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC and
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects.
The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in
the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they only differ the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in
in that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while
while the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream
downstream direction. direction. The new objects also differ in that they are used on
messages in the opposite directions.
2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object 2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object
The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC
object. This includes the definition of class types and their object. This includes the definition of class types and their
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object object is formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object object is
TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).
2.1.1. Procedures 2.1.1. Procedures
skipping to change at page 6, line 14 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object 2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object
The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC
object. This includes the definition of class types and their object. This includes the definition of class types and their
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object object is TBA formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object object is TBA
by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).
2.2.1. Procedures 2.2.1. Procedures
The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any Resv message that The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates
corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any
The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an
corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object
UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a consistent format MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
and procedures used to construct the FLOWSPEC object that will be The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a
used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328]. The contents of the consistent format and procedures used to construct the FLOWSPEC
UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MAY differ from contents of the object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328].
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data transmission The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MAY differ from contents of
the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data transmission
requirements. requirements.
When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress
MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to
satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path
message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the
resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification
might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might
result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not
available.
2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object 2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object
The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC
object. This includes the definition of class types and their object. This includes the definition of class types and their
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is TBA by formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is TBA by
IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb). IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).
2.3.1. Procedures 2.3.1. Procedures
The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that
skipping to change at page 7, line 13 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
ADSPEC object and as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes. ADSPEC object and as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes.
3. Packet Formats 3. Packet Formats
This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by This section presents the RSVP message related formats as modified by
this section. Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects this section. Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects
are defined in this section: are defined in this section:
Object name Applicable RSVP messages Object name Applicable RSVP messages
--------------- ------------------------ --------------- ------------------------
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path and PathErr (via sender descriptor) UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr and Notify
UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv and Notify (via flow descriptor list) (via sender descriptor)
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv and Notify (via flow descriptor list) UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr and
Notify (via flow descriptor list)
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr and
Notify (via flow descriptor list)
The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric
LSPs is: LSPs is:
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC> <sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ] [ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ] [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
[ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ] [ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
<UPSTREAM_LABEL> <UPSTREAM_LABEL>
skipping to change at page 8, line 12 skipping to change at page 8, line 17
<SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document. <SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document.
4. Compatibility 4. Compatibility
This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in
[RFC2205], [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to support bidirectional LSPs with [RFC2205], [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to support bidirectional LSPs with
asymmetric bandwidth. To indicate the use of asymmetric bandwidth asymmetric bandwidth. To indicate the use of asymmetric bandwidth
three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is defined with three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is defined with
class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], nodes not class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], nodes not
supporting this extension should not recognize the new class numbers supporting this extension will not recognize the new class numbers
and respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The error message and should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The error
will propagate to the ingress which can then take action to avoid the message will propagate to the ingress which can then take action to
path with the incompatible node, or may simply terminate the session. avoid the path with the incompatible node, or may simply terminate
the session.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespaces defined in this section and reviewed in this subsection. namespaces defined in this section and reviewed in this subsection.
Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignments Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignments
described below in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" described below in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"
section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
skipping to change at page 9, line 17 skipping to change at page 9, line 26
A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb
range (TBD suggested) with the following definition: range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-types: Class Types or C-types:
Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13) Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13)
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS
signaling [RFC3473]. It does not introduce any new signaling signaling [RFC3473]. Specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC,
messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These object parallel
in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional the exiting SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects but are used in
security considerations. See [RFC3473] for relevant security the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities that are due to
considerations. the use of the old objects now apply to messages flowing in the
reverse direction.
From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new
signaling messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are
adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no
additional message or neighbor related security considerations.
See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC-
FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security
discussions.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic
Parameters,"
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-03.txt,
Work in progress, November 2007.
[RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol [RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997. September 1997.
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services," RFC 2210, September 1997. Services," RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
skipping to change at page 10, line 8 skipping to change at page 10, line 22
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Switching (GMPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003. RFC 3473, January 2003.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS control of Ethernet" , [GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS control of Ethernet" ,
draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt, Work in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-00.txt, Work in
progress, November 2007. progress, April 2008.
[MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic
Parameters,"
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-04.txt,
Work in progress, April 2008.
[RFC4606] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized [RFC4606] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006. Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709
Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January
2006. 2006.
8. Author's Addresses [SEC-FRAMEWORK] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and
GMPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-02.txt,
Work in progress, February 2008.
8. Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Attila Takacs Attila Takacs
Ericsson Ericsson
1. Laborc u. 1. Laborc u.
1037 Budapest, Hungary 1037 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36-1-4377044 Phone: +36-1-4377044
Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A Via A. Negrone 1/A
skipping to change at page 11, line 14 skipping to change at page 11, line 35
Julien Meuric Julien Meuric
France Telecom France Telecom
Research & Development Research & Development
2, avenue Pierre Marzin 2, avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex - France 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28 Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com Email: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
A. Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object A. Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object
This section is included for historic purposes and SHOULD NOT be This section is included for historic purposes and its implementation
implemented. is NOT RECOMMENDED.
A.1. Applicability A.1. Applicability
This section presents an alternate method for the support of This section presents an alternate method for the support of
asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP establishment with a single asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP establishment with a single
RSVP-TE signaling session. This approach differs in applicability and RSVP-TE signaling session. This approach differs in applicability and
generality from the approach presented in the main body of this generality from the approach presented in the main body of this
document. document. In particular this approach is technology specific; it
uses the ADSPEC object to carry traffic parameters for upstream data
and requires MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameter while the approach
presented above is suitable for use with any technology.
The generalized asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP presented in The generalized asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP presented in
the main body of this document has the benefit of being applicable to the main body of this document has the benefit of being applicable to
any switching technology, but requires support for three new types of any switching technology, but requires support for three new types of
object classes, i.e., the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and object classes, i.e., the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.
The solution presented in this section is based on the Ethernet The solution presented in this section is based on the Ethernet
specific ADSPEC Object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC Object" specific ADSPEC Object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC Object"
approach. This approach limits applicability to cases where the approach. This approach limits applicability to cases where the
skipping to change at page 13, line 35 skipping to change at page 14, line 5
modified by transit nodes. modified by transit nodes.
A.4. Compatibility A.4. Compatibility
The approach presented in this section reuses semantics and The approach presented in this section reuses semantics and
procedures defined in [RFC3473]. To indicate the use of asymmetric procedures defined in [RFC3473]. To indicate the use of asymmetric
bandwidth a new ADSPEC object c-type would be defined. Per bandwidth a new ADSPEC object c-type would be defined. Per
[RFC2205], nodes not supporting the approach should not recognize [RFC2205], nodes not supporting the approach should not recognize
this new C-type and respond with an "Unknown object C-Type" error. this new C-type and respond with an "Unknown object C-Type" error.
9. Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
10. Intellectual Property Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at line 580 skipping to change at line 618
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Generated on: Wed Mar 12 11:01:44 EDT 2008 Generated on: Tue Apr 29 11:46:28 EDT 2008
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
60 lines changed or deleted 98 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/