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/