draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt		rfc5467.txt
	Internet Draft Lou Berger (LabN)
	Category: Experimental Attila Takacs (Ericsson)
	Expiration Date: May 17, 2009 Diego Caviglia (Ericsson)
	Don Fedyk (Nortel)
	Julien Meuric (France Telecom)
	November 17, 2008
			Network Working Group L. Berger
			Request for Comments: 5467 LabN
			Category: Experimental A. Takacs
			Ericsson
			D. Caviglia
			Ericsson
			D. Fedyk
			Nortel
			J. Meuric
			France Telecom
	GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)		GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
	draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-02.txt		Status of This Memo
	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		This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
	http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html		community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
			Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
			Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		Copyright Notice
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
	This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2009.		Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
			document authors. All rights reserved.
	Copyright Notice		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
			Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
			publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
			Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
			and restrictions with respect to this document.
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).		This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
			Contributions published or made publicly available before November
			10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
			material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
			modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
			Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
			the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
			outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
			not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
			it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
			than English.
	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 Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented		bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented
	approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the		approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
	original RSVP model for the transport of traffic related parameters.		original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport
	The procedures described in this document are experimental.		of traffic-related parameters. The procedures described in this
			document are experimental.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1 Introduction .............................................. 3		1. Introduction ....................................................2
	1.1 Background ................................................ 3		1.1. Background .................................................3
	1.2 Approach Overview ......................................... 4		1.2. Approach Overview ..........................................3
	1.3 Conventions used in this document ......................... 5		1.3. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
	2 Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs ....... 5		2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs .............4
	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 ......................................5
	2.2.1 Procedures ................................................ 6		2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................5
	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 ..................................................6
	4 Compatibility ............................................. 8		4. Compatibility ...................................................7
	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 ..................................... 9		5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................8
	5.3 UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .................................... 9		5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................8
	6 Security Considerations ................................... 9		6. Security Considerations .........................................8
	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 .....................................9
	8 Authors' Addresses ........................................ 11		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 ..................................................11
	A.3. Procedures ................................................ 13		A.3. Procedures ................................................12
	A.4. Compatibility ............................................. 14		A.4. Compatibility .............................................13
	Full Copyright Statement .................................. 14
	Intellectual Property ..................................... 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	GMPLS, see [RFC3473], introduced explicit support for bidirectional		GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label
	Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the		Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching
	switching technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division		technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing
	Multiplexing (TDM) and lambdas, and specifically only supported		(TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs
	bidirectional LSPs with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric		with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth
	bandwidth requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects		requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in
	defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210].		[RFC2205] and [RFC2210].
	Recent work, see [GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC], has looked at		Recent work ([GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) has looked at extending
	extending GMPLS to control Ethernet switching. In this context there		GMPLS to control Ethernet switching. In this context, there has been
	has been discussion of the support of bidirectional LSPs with		discussion of the support of bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric
	asymmetric bandwidth. (That is, bidirectional LSPs that have		bandwidth. (That is, bidirectional LSPs that have different
	different bandwidth reservations in each direction.) This discussion		bandwidth reservations in each direction.) This discussion motivated
	motivated the extensions defined in this document, which may be used		the extensions defined in this document, which may be used with any
	with any switching technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth		switching technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional
	bidirectional LSPs. The procedures described in this document are		LSPs. The procedures described in this document are experimental.
	experimental.
	1.1. Background		1.1. Background
	Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP (see [RFC2210],		Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210],
	[RFC3209] and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to RSVP.		[RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to
	While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model for		RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model
	the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP session		for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP
	sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model of		session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model
	communication defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209] used		of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209],
	the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the FLOWSPEC		used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the
	object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used to		FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used
	indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC		to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC
	object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that		object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that
	should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC		should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC
	object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the		object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the
	actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic.		actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic.
	With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473] the model of		With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473], the model
	communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In the		of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In
	context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object		the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object
	indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream		indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream
	directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the		directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the
	allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either		allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either
	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 ([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's support for
	bidirectional LSPs. An alternative approach was considered and		bidirectional LSPs. An alternative approach was considered and
	rejected in favor of the more generic approach presented below. For		rejected in favor of the more generic approach presented below. For
	reference purposes only, the rejected approach is summarized in		reference purposes only, the rejected approach is summarized in
	Appendix A.		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
	objects. The existing objects are used in the original fashion		UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. The existing objects are used in the
	defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only to traffic		original fashion defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only
	associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream direction. The new		to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream
	objects are used in exactly the same fashion as the old objects, but		direction. The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as
	refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 shows the bandwidth		the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1
	related objects used for Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs.		shows the bandwidth-related objects used for asymmetric bandwidth
			bidirectional LSPs.
	|---| Path |---|		|---| Path |---|
	| I |------------------->| E |		| I |------------------->| E |
	| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |		| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
	| g | -ADSPEC | r |		| g | -ADSPEC | r |
	| r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |		| r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |
	| e | | s |		| e | | s |
	| s | Resv | s |		| s | Resv | s |
	| s |<-------------------| |		| s |<-------------------| |
	| | -FLOWSPEC | |		| | -FLOWSPEC | |
	| | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | |		| | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | |
	| | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | |		| | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | |
	|---| |---|		|---| |---|
	Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs		Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs
	This extensions defined in this document are limited to P2P LSPs.		The extensions defined in this document are limited to Point-to-Point
	Support for P2MP bidirectional LSPs is not currently defined and, as		(P2P) LSPs. Support for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) bidirectional
	such, not covered in this document.		LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this
			document.
	1.3. Conventions used in this document		1.3. Conventions Used in This Document
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	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 differ in		the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in
	that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while		that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while
	the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream		the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream
	direction. The new objects also differ in that they are used on		direction. The new objects also differ in that they are used on
	messages in the opposite directions.		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 is 120 (of
	TBA by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).		the form 0bbbbbbb).
	2.1.1. Procedures		2.1.1. Procedures
	The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST		The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST
	contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional		contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional
	LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The C-Type of the		LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The C-Type of the
	UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC		UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC
	object used in the Path message. The contents of the		object used in the Path message. The contents of the
	UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a format and		UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and
	procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC		procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC
	object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328].		object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328].
	Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC		Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
	Object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object in the		object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object in the
	upstream label and resource allocation procedure defined in Section		upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in
	3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable		Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is
	to allocate a label or internal resources based on the contents of		unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the
	the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object, MUST issue a PathErr message with a		contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message
	"Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.		with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.
	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 is 121 (of
	by IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).		the form 0bbbbbbb).
	2.2.1. Procedures		2.2.1. Procedures
	The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates		The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates
	at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any		at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any
	Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an		Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an
	UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object		UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object
	MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.		MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
	The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a		The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be constructed using a
	format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the		format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the
	FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or		FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or
	[RFC4328]. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object MAY differ from		[RFC4328]. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MAY differ from
	contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data		contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data
	transmission requirements.		transmission requirements.
	When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress		When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress
	MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to		MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to
	satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path		satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path
	message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the		message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the
	resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification		resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification
	might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might		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		result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not
	available.		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 122 (of
	IANA (of the form 0bbbbbbb).		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
	corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.		corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
	The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the		The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the
	C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of		C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents
	the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object MUST be constructed using a format and		of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and
	procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object		procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object
	that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The		that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The
	UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the		UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the
	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. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205],		this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205],
	[RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. See [RSVP-BNF] for the syntax used by RSVP.		[RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RSVP-BNF] for the syntax used by
	Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in		RSVP. Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are
	this section:		defined in this section:
	Object name Applicable RSVP messages		Object name Applicable RSVP messages
	--------------- ------------------------		--------------- ------------------------
	UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr and Notify		UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify
	(via sender descriptor)		(via sender descriptor)
	UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr and		UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
	Notify (via flow descriptor list)		Notify (via flow descriptor list)
	UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr and		UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
	Notify (via flow descriptor list)		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>
	<UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>		<UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>
	skipping to change at page 8, line 16		skipping to change at page 7, line 42
	<SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>		<SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
	<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]		<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
	<SE filter spec list>		<SE filter spec list>
	<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
	asymmetric bandwidth. To indicate the use of asymmetric bandwidth		with asymmetric bandwidth. To indicate the use of asymmetric
	three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is defined with		bandwidth, three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is
	class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], nodes not		defined with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205],
	supporting this extension will not recognize the new class numbers		nodes not supporting this extension will not recognize the new class
	and should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The error		numbers and should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The
	message will propagate to the ingress which can then take action to		error message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take
	avoid the path with the incompatible node, or may simply terminate		action to avoid the path with the incompatible node or may simply
	the session.		terminate the session.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for		IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this section
	namespaces defined in this section and reviewed in this subsection.		and reviewed in this subsection.
	Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the assignments		The IANA has made the assignments described below in the "Class
	described below in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types"		Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP
	section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at		PARAMETERS" registry.
	http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters
	5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object		5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object
	A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb		A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
	range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:		range (120) with the following definition:
	Class Types or C-types:		Class Types or C-types:
	Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)		Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)
	5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object		5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object
	A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb		A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
	range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:		range (121) with the following definition:
	Class Types or C-types:		Class Types or C-types:
	Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)		Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)
	5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object		5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object
	A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC will be created in the 0bbbbbbb		A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
	range (TBD suggested) with the following definition:		range (122) 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]. Specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC,		signaling [RFC3473] -- specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC,
	UPSTREAM_ADSPEC and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These object parallel		UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These objects
	the exiting SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC and FLOWSPEC objects but are used in		parallel the exiting SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but
	the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities that are due to		are used in the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities
	the use of the old objects now apply to messages flowing in the		that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages
	reverse direction.		flowing in the reverse direction.
	From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new		From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new
	signaling messages, nor change the relationship between LSRs that are		signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are
	adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no		adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no
	additional message or neighbor related security considerations.		additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations.
	See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC-		See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC-
	FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security		FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security
	discussions.		discussions.
	7. References		7. References
	7.1. Normative References		7.1. Normative References
	[RFC2205] Braden, R. Ed. et al, "Resource ReserVation Protocol		[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S.,
			and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
	-- 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", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC3209] Awduche, et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for		[RFC3209] 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.		LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
	[RFC3473] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label		[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "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", Work in
	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-01.txt, Work in		Progress, July 2008.
	progress, July 2008.
	[MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic		[MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
	Parameters,"		Work in Progress, October 2008.
	draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-06.txt,
	Work in progress, October 2008.
	[RFC4606] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., "Generalized		[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
	Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for		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
	Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January		G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328,
	2006.		January 2006.
	[RSVP-BNF] Farrel, A., "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax		[RSVP-BNF] Farrel, A. "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax
	Used in Various Protocol Specifications", Work in		Used in Various Protocol Specifications", Work in
	progress. draft-farrel-rtg-common-bnf-07.txt, November		Progress, November 2008.
	2008.
	[SEC-FRAMEWORK] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and
	GMPLS Networks",
	draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-04.txt,
	Work in progress, November 2008.
	8. Authors' Addresses
	Lou Berger
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	Email: lberger@labn.net
	Attila Takacs
	Ericsson
	1. Laborc u.
	1037 Budapest, Hungary
	Phone: +36-1-4377044
	Email: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
	Diego Caviglia
	Ericsson
	Via A. Negrone 1/A
	Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
	Phone: +390106003738
	Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
	Don Fedyk
	Nortel Networks
	600 Technology Park Drive
	Billerica, MA, USA 01821
	Phone: +1-978-288-3041
	Email: dwfedyk@nortel.com
	Julien Meuric		[SEC-FRAMEWORK] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
	France Telecom		Networks", Work in Progress, November 2008.
	Research & Development
	2, avenue Pierre Marzin
	22307 Lannion Cedex - France
	Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
	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 its implementation		This section is included for historic purposes and its implementation
	is NOT RECOMMENDED.		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
	generality from the approach presented in the main body of this		and generality from the approach presented in the main body of this
	document. In particular this approach is technology specific; it		document. In particular, this approach is technology-specific; it
	uses the ADSPEC object to carry traffic parameters for upstream data		uses the ADSPEC object to carry traffic parameters for upstream data
	and requires MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameter while the approach		and requires the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Traffic
	presented above is suitable for use with any technology.		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
	specific ADSPEC Object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC Object"		Ethernet-specific ADSPEC object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC
	approach. This approach limits applicability to cases where the		Object" approach. This approach limits applicability to cases where
	[MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters are appropriate, and to switching		the [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters are appropriate, and to
	technologies that define no use for the ADSPEC object. While		switching technologies that define no use for the ADSPEC object.
	ultimately it is this limited scope that has resulted in this		While ultimately it is this limited scope that has resulted in this
	approach being relegated to an Appendix, the semantics of this		approach being relegated to an Appendix, the semantics of this
	approach are quite simple in that they only require the definition of		approach are quite simple in that they only require the definition of
	a new ADSPEC object C-Type.		a new ADSPEC object C-Type.
	In summary, the "ADSPEC Object" approach presented in this section		In summary, the "ADSPEC Object" approach presented in this section
	SHOULD NOT be implemented.		SHOULD NOT be implemented.
	A.2. Overview		A.2. Overview
	The "ADSPEC Object" approach is specific to Ethernet and uses [MEF-		The "ADSPEC Object" approach is specific to Ethernet and uses [MEF-
	TRAFFIC] traffic parameters. This approach is not generic and is		TRAFFIC] traffic parameters. This approach is not generic and is
	aimed at providing asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs for just		aimed at providing asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs for just
	Ethernet transport. With this approach, the ADSPEC object carries		Ethernet transport. With this approach, the ADSPEC object carries
	the traffic parameters for the upstream data flow. SENDER_TSPEC		the traffic parameters for the upstream data flow. SENDER_TSPEC
	object is used to indicate the traffic parameters for the downstream		object is used to indicate the traffic parameters for the downstream
	data flow. The FLOWSPEC object provides confirmation of the allocated		data flow. The FLOWSPEC object provides confirmation of the
	downstream resources. Confirmation of the upstream resource		allocated downstream resources. Confirmation of the upstream
	allocation is a Resv message, as any resource allocation failure for		resource allocation is a Resv message, as any resource allocation
	the upstream direction will always result in a PathErr message.		failure for the upstream direction will always result in a PathErr
	Figure 2 shows the bandwidth related objects used in the first		message. Figure 2 shows the bandwidth-related objects used in the
	approach.		first approach.
	|---| Path |---|		|---| Path |---|
	| I |----------------->| E |		| I |----------------->| E |
	| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |		| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
	| g | -ADSPEC | r |		| g | -ADSPEC | r |
	| r | | e |		| r | | e |
	| e | Resv | s |		| e | Resv | s |
	| s |<-----------------| s |		| s |<-----------------| s |
	| s | -FLOWSPEC | |		| s | -FLOWSPEC | |
	|---| |---|		|---| |---|
	skipping to change at page 13, line 28		skipping to change at page 12, line 31
	bidirectional LSP would be signaled using the bidirectional		bidirectional LSP would be signaled using the bidirectional
	procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with the inclusion of a new		procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with the inclusion of a new
	ADSPEC object. The new ADSPEC object would be specific to Ethernet		ADSPEC object. The new ADSPEC object would be specific to Ethernet
	and could be called the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC		and could be called the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC
	object. The Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object would		object. The Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object would
	use the Class-Number 13 and C-Type UNASSIGNED (this approach should		use the Class-Number 13 and C-Type UNASSIGNED (this approach should
	not be implemented). The format of the object would be the same as		not be implemented). The format of the object would be the same as
	the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC].		the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC].
	This approach would not modify behavior of symmetric bandwidth LSPs.		This approach would not modify behavior of symmetric bandwidth LSPs.
	Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], such LSPs are signaled without an ADSPEC or with		Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], such LSPs are signaled either without an ADSPEC or
	an INTSERV ADSPEC.		with an INTSERV ADSPEC.
	The defined approach could be reused to support asymmetric bandwidth		The defined approach could be reused to support asymmetric bandwidth
	bidirectional LSPs for other types of switching technologies. All		bidirectional LSPs for other types of switching technologies. All
	that would be needed would be to define the proper ADSPEC object.		that would be needed would be to define the proper ADSPEC object.
	A.3. Procedures		A.3. Procedures
	Using the approach presented in this section, the process of		Using the approach presented in this section, the process of
	establishing an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP would follow		establishing an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP would follow
	the process of establishing symmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP, as		the process of establishing a symmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP,
	defined in Section 3 of [RFC3473], with two modifications. These		as defined in Section 3 of [RFC3473], with two modifications. These
	modifications would be followed when an incoming Path message is		modifications would be followed when an incoming Path message is
	received containing an Upstream_Label object and the Ethernet		received containing an Upstream_Label object and the Ethernet
	Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object.		Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object.
	The first modification to the symmetric bandwidth process would be		The first modification to the symmetric bandwidth process would be
	that when allocating the upstream label, the bandwidth associated		that when allocating the upstream label, the bandwidth associated
	with the upstream label would be taken from the Ethernet Upstream		with the upstream label would be taken from the Ethernet Upstream
	Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object, see Section 3.1 of [RFC3473].		Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object, see Section 3.1 of [RFC3473].
	Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable to allocate a label		Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable to allocate a label
	or internal resources based on the contents of the ADSPEC Object,		or internal resources based on the contents of the ADSPEC object,
	would issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label		would issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label
	allocation failure" indication.		allocation failure" indication.
	The second modification would be that the ADSPEC object would not be		The second modification would be that the ADSPEC object would not be
	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.
	Full Copyright Statement		Authors' Addresses
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).		Lou Berger
			LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions		EMail: lberger@labn.net
	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		Attila Takacs
	"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS		Ericsson
	OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND		1. Laborc u.
	THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS		1037 Budapest, Hungary
	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		Phone: +36-1-4377044
			EMail: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		Diego Caviglia
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed		Ericsson
	to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology		Via A. Negrone 1/A
	described in this document or the extent to which any license		Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
	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		Phone: +390106003738
	assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an		EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
	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		Don Fedyk
	any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other		Nortel Networks
	proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required		600 Technology Park Drive
	to implement this standard. Please address the information to the		Billerica, MA, USA 01821
	IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
	Acknowledgement		Phone: +1-978-288-3041
			EMail: dwfedyk@nortel.com
	Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF		Julien Meuric
	Administrative Support Activity (IASA).		France Telecom
			Research & Development
			2, avenue Pierre Marzin
			22307 Lannion Cedex - France
	Generated on: Thu Nov 13 15:24:58 EST 2008		Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
			EMail: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
End of changes. 81 change blocks.
	285 lines changed or deleted		239 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/