draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt 
Network Working Group JP Vasseur (Ed.) Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur (Editor)
Cisco System Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
IETF Internet Draft JL Le Roux (Ed.) IETF Internet Draft J.L. Le Roux (Editor)
France Telecom France Telecom
Proposed Status: Standard Track S. Yasukawa
Proposed Status: Standard Track Expires: December 2006 NTT
Expires: May 2006 November 2005 S. Previdi
P. Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Paul Mabey
Comcast
Routing extensions for discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Routing extensions for discovery of Traffic Engineering Node
Capabilities Capabilities
draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-00.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
data plane traffic engineering node capabilities. data plane traffic engineering node capabilities.
Conventions used in this document 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 RFC-2119. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Contributors................................................3 1. Terminology.................................................3
2. Terminology.................................................3 2. Introduction................................................3
3. Introduction................................................4 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor...............................4 3.1. Description.................................................4
4.1. Description.................................................4 3.2. Required Information........................................4
4.2. Required Information........................................5 4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats...................5
5. OSPF TE extensions..........................................6 4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............5
5.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format...............6 4.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................5
5.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................7 4.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...............................6
5.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...............................8 4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format..............7
5.2. Elements of Procedure.......................................9 4.2.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV......................................8
6. IS-IS TE Extensions........................................10 4.2.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV...................................8
6.1. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format.............10 5. Elements of procedure.......................................9
6.1.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV.....................................10 5.1. OSPF........................................................9
6.1.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV..................................11 5.2. IS-IS......................................................10
6.2. Elements of procedure......................................12 6. Backward compatibility.....................................10
7. Backward compatibility.....................................12 7. Security Considerations....................................10
8. Security Considerations....................................12 8. IANA considerations........................................10
9. IANA considerations........................................12 8.1. OSPF TLVs..................................................10
9.1. OSPF TLVs..................................................12 8.2. ISIS TLVs..................................................11
9.2. ISIS TLVs..................................................13 8.3. Capability bits............................................11
9.3. Capability bits............................................13 9. Acknowledgments............................................12
10. Acknowledgments............................................13 10. References.................................................12
11. References.................................................14 10.1. Normative references.......................................12
11.1. Normative references.......................................14 10.2. Informative References.....................................13
11.2. Informative References.....................................14 11. Editors Address............................................13
12. Editors' Address...........................................15 12. Contributors address.......................................14
13. Intellectual Property Statement............................15 13. Intellectual Property Statement............................14
1. Contributors
This document was the collective work of several. The text and
content of this document was contributed by the editors and the
co-authors listed below (the contact information for the editors
appears in section 12, and is not repeated below):
Paul Mabey Seisho Yasukawa
Qwest Communications NTT
950 17th street 9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Denver, CO 80202 Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585
USA JAPAN
Email: pmabey@qwest.com Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi Peter Psenak
Cisco System, Inc. Cisco System, Inc.
Via del Serafico 200 Pegasus Park
00142 Roma DE Kleetlaan 6A
ITALY 1831, Diegmen
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com BELGIUM
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
2. Terminology
LSR: Label Switch Router.
TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.
P2MP TE LSP: A TE LSP that has one unique
ingress LSR and one or more egress LSRs.
Branch LSR: An LSR on a P2MP LSP that has more than one directly 1. Terminology
connected downstream LSRs.
Bud-LSR: An LSR on a P2MP LSP, that is an egress, but also has one or This document uses terminologies defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3209] and
more directly connected downstream LSRs. [RFC4461].
3. Introduction 2. Introduction
MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing ([IS-IS-TE], [OSPF-TE]) MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing ([IS-IS-TE], [OSPF-TE])
relies on extensions to link state IGP routing protocols ([OSPF], relies on extensions to link state IGP routing protocols ([OSPF-v2],
[IS-IS]) in order to carry Traffic Engineering (TE) link information [IS-IS]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE) link
used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) information used for constraint based routing. Further Generalized
related routing extensions are defined in [IS-IS-G] and [OSPF-G]. MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in [IS-IS-G] and
[OSPF-G].
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
carry TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information. These advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information.
TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints during These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints
path selection. during path selection.
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities, Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
such as, for instance the capability to be a branch LSR or a bud-LSR such as, for instance the capability for an LSR to be a branch LSR or
of a P2MP LSP. These capabilities are then taken into account as a bud-LSR of a P2MP LSP. These capabilities can then be taken into
constraints when computing TE LSP paths. account as constraints when computing TE LSP paths.
It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
such as for instance the capability to support GMPLS such as for instance the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a
signaling for a packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point packet LSR, or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint)
to Multipoint) TE LSP signaling. This allows selecting a path that TE LSP signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes
avoids nodes that do not support a given signaling feature, or that do not support a given signaling feature, or triggering a
triggering a mechanism to support such nodes. Hence this facilitates mechanism to support such nodes. Hence this facilitates backward
backward compatibility. compatibility.
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS) For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
traffic engineering node capability TLVs in order to advertise data traffic engineering node capability TLVs in order to advertise data
plane and control plane capabilities of a node. plane and control plane capabilities of a node.
A new TLV is defined for ISIS and OSPF: the TE Node Capability A new TLV is defined for ISIS and OSPF: the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV, to be carried within: Descriptor TLV, to be carried within:
- the ISIS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]) for ISIS - The ISIS Capability TLV ([ISIS-CAP]) for ISIS
- the Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]), for OSPF. - The Router Information LSA ([OSPF-CAP]) for OSPF.
4. TE Node Capability Descriptor 3. TE Node Capability Descriptor
4.1. Description 3.1. Description
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
information defined in this document describes data and control plane information defined in this document describes data and control plane
capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used for instance capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used for instance
during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a during path computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a
given TE feature either in the control or data plane or to trigger given TE feature either in the control or data plane or to trigger
procedure to handle these nodes. In some cases, this may also be procedure to handle these nodes along the path (e.g trigger LSP
useful to ensure backward compatibility. hierarchy to support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [RSVP-
P2MP]). In some cases, this may also be useful to ensure backward
compatibility.
4.2. Required Information 3.2. Required Information
The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains two variable length sets The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains two variable length sets
of bit flags: of bit flags:
-The Data Plane Capabilities: This a variable length -The Data Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE data plane set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE data plane
capability. capability.
-The Control Plane Capabilities: This a variable length -The Control Plane Capabilities: This a variable length
set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE control set of bit flags where each bit corresponds to a given TE control
plane capability. plane capability.
Two Data Plane Capabilities are currently defined: Two Data Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
-B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act -B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [P2MP-REQ]) and [RSVP- as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [P2MP-REQ]);
P2MP]).
-E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act -E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an LSR that is both
transit and egress. transit and egress (see [P2MP-REQ]).
Three Control Plane Capabilities are currently defined: Three Control Plane Capabilities are currently defined:
-M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports -M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]). MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]);
-G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports -G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]). GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]);
-P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports -P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]). P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Note that new capabilities may be added in the future if required. Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.
Also more complex capabilities encoded within sub-TLVs may be added
Note that bits numbers are under IANA control. in the future if required.
5. OSPF TE extensions 4. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV formats
5.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format 4.1. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non-
ordered sub-TLVs. ordered sub-TLVs.
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV and its sub- The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV and its sub-
TLVs is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering TLVs is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2
octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the TLV length and a value octets for the type, 2 octets specifying the TLV length and a value
field. field. The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not
The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in included in the length field (so a three octet value would have a
the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight
three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested octets). Sub-TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types are
TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types are ignored. All ignored. All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-
types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-specific specific extensions. All other undefined type codes are reserved for
extensions. All other undefined type codes are reserved for future future assignment by IANA.
assignment by IANA.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format: The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 TYPE To be defined by IANA
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ LENGHT Variable
| Type | Length | VALUE This comprises one or more sub-TLVs
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// sub-TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type To be defined by IANA
Length Variable
Value This comprises one or more sub-TLVs
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined: Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV 1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV 2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new
capabilities. capabilities.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
router information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP]. Router Information LSA which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].
5.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV 4.1.1. The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
length. length.
The format of the DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows: The format of the DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:
0 1 2 3 TYPE To be assigned by IANA (suggested value =1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 LENGTH It is set to N x 4 octets. N starts
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Plane TE Node Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type To be assigned by IANA (suggested value =1)
Length It is set to N x 4 octets. N starts
from 1 and can be increased when there is a need. from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag. Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag.
Value This comprises one or more capability flags. VALUE This comprises one or more capability flags.
For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
significant to the least significant, where each bit significant to the least significant, where each bit
represents one data plane TE node capability. When represents one data plane TE node capability. When
the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
capability flag will be used to accommodate the next capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
capability. These bits are under IANA control. capability. These bits are under IANA control.
The following bits in the first capability flag are to be assigned by The following bits are defined the first capability flag:
IANA:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|E| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates 0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[P2MP-REQ]; [P2MP-REQ];
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates 1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ]; LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ];
The values for the B and E bits are to be assigned by IANA.
2-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA. 2-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
5.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV 4.1.2. The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
variable length. variable length.
The format of the CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows: The format of the CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is as follows:
0 1 2 3 TYPE To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 LENGHT It is set to N x 4 octets. N starts
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Control Plane TE Node Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2)
Length It is set to N x 4 octets. N starts
from 1 and can be increased when there is a need. from 1 and can be increased when there is a need.
Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag. Each 4 octets are referred to as a capability flag.
Value This comprises one or more capability flags. VALUE This comprises one or more capability flags.
For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most For each 4 octets, the bits are indexed from the most
Significant to the least significant, where each bit significant to the least significant, where each bit
represents one control plane TE node capability. When represents one control plane TE node capability. When
the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new the first 32 capabilities are defined, a new
capability flag will be used to accommodate the next capability flag will be used to accommodate the next
capability. These bits are under IANA control. capability. These bits are under IANA control.
The following bits in the first capability flag are to be assigned by The following bits are defined in the first capability:
IANA:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|G|P| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bit Capabilities Bit Capabilities
0 M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports 0 M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]). MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-TE]).
1 G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports 1 G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]). GMPLS signaling ([RSVP-G]).
2 P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports 2 P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]). P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
3-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA 3-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA
5.2. Elements of Procedure The values for the M, G and P bits are to be assigned by IANA.
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
Router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0)
which is defined in [OSPF-CAP].
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of any of the carried TLVs changes or whenever
required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
LSRefreshTime)).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
are taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding scope is area-local, and MUST be carried within a type
10 router information LSA.
TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs are OPTIONAL. When an OSPF LSA
does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor TLV, this means
that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
6. IS-IS TE Extensions
6.1. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format 4.2. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV format
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is made of various non
ordered sub-TLVs. ordered sub-TLVs.
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability TLV and its sub-TLVs is The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability TLV and its sub-TLVs is
the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions
to IS-IS [ISIS-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the to IS-IS [IS-IS-TE]. That is, the TLV is composed of 1 octet for the
type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field. type, 1 octet specifying the TLV length and a value field.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format: The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA TYPE: To be assigned by IANA
LENGTH: Variable, from 3 to 255 LENGTH: Variable, from 3 to 255
VALUE: set of one or more sub-TLVs VALUE: set of one or more sub-TLVs
Currently two sub-TLVs are defined: Currently two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV 1 variable DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV 2 variable CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
Any non recognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored. More sub-TLVs
More sub-TLVs could be added in the future to handle new could be added in the future to handle new capabilities.
capabilities.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an IS- The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an IS-
IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP]. IS CAPABILITY TLV which is defined in [ISIS-CAP].
6.1.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV 4.2.1. DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each bit
correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable correspond to a data plane TE node capability, and has a variable
length. These bits are under IANA control. length. These bits are under IANA control.
The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format: The DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1) TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (Suggested value =1)
LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased when LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased when
there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
capability flag. capability flag.
VALUE: This comprises one or more data plane TE node capability VALUE: This comprises one or more data plane TE node capability
flags. flags.
The following bits in the first capability flag are to be assigned by The following bits are defined in the first capability flag:
IANA:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|B|E| Reserved | |B|E| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
B bit: P2MP Branch node capability: When set this indicates B bit: P2MP Branch node capability: When set this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[P2MP-REQ] ([P2MP-REQ]).
E bit: P2MP bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates E bit: P2MP bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e. an
LSR that is both transit and egress [P2MP-REQ]. LSR that is both transit and egress ([P2MP-REQ]).
Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA
6.1.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV The values for the B and E bits are to be assigned by IANA.
4.2.2. CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV is a series of bit flags, where each
bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a bit correspond to a control plane TE node capability, and has a
variable length. These bits are under IANA control. variable length. These bits are under IANA control.
The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format: The CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2) TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value = 2)
LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased LENGTH: It is set to N. N starts from 1 and can be increased
when there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a when there is a need. Each octet is referred to as a
capability flag. capability flag.
VALUE: This comprises one or more control plane TE node capability VALUE: This comprises one or more control plane TE node capability
flags. flags.
The following bits in the first capability flag are to be assigned by The following bits defined in the first capability flag:
IANA.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|G|P|Reserved | |M|G|P|Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE -M bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling ([RSVP-TE]). signaling ([RSVP-TE]).
-G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling -G bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS signaling
([RSVP-G]). ([RSVP-G]).
-P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE -P bit: If set this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP MPLS-TE
signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]). signaling ([RSVP-P2MP]).
Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA. Reserved bits are for future assignment by IANA.
6.2. Elements of procedure The values for the M, G and P bits are to be assigned by IANA.
5. Elements of procedure
5.1. OSPF
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2
Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0)
or OSPFv3 Router information LSA (function code of 12) which are
defined in [OSPF-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [OSPF-CAP].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried within
OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in [RFC2370]) or an
OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set and the S2 bit
cleared (as defined in [OSPFv3]).
A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever
the content of any of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes
or whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh
(every LSRefreshTime)).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and must at most
appear once in an OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router
Capability TLV.
When an OSPF LSA or ISIS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability
Descriptor TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are
unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
5.2. IS-IS
The TE Node Capability TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV The TE Node Capability TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. defined in [IS-IS-CAP]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [IS-IS-CAP].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence
its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS
CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
of any of the TE Node Capability TLV changes or whenever required by of any of the TE Node Capability TLV changes or whenever required by
the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh). the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and must at most
are taken into account as constraints during path selection. Hence appear once in an OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router
its flooding is area-local, and MUST be carried within an IS-IS Capability TLV.
CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs are OPTIONAL. When a IS-IS LSP When a IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor
does not contain any TE Node capability Descriptor TLV, this means TLV, this means that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
that the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation. computation, but MUST not trigger normal SPF computation.
7. Backward compatibility Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
6. Backward compatibility
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not not introduce any interoperability issue. For OSPF, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV SHOULD just silently supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST just silently
ignore the TLV as specified in RFC2370. For IS-IS a router not ignore the TLV as specified in [OSPF-CAP]. For IS-IS a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV SHOULD just silently supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV MUST just silently
ignore the TLV. ignore the TLV as specified in [IS-IS-CAP].
8. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
No new security issues are raised in this document. No new security issues are raised in this document.
9. IANA considerations 8. IANA considerations
9.1. OSPF TLVs 8.1. OSPF TLVs
IANA is in charge of the assignment of TLV code points for the Router
Information LSA defined in [OSPF-CAP].
IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router Descriptor TLV defined in this document and carried within the Router
Information LSA. Information LSA.
IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by
IANA: IANA:
-CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1) -CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
-DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2) -DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)
9.2. ISIS TLVs 8.2. ISIS TLVs
IANA is in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for the
ISIS CAPABILITY TLV defined in [ISIS-CAP].
IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability IANA will assign a new codepoint for the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV defined in this document, and carried within the ISIS Descriptor TLV defined in this document, and carried within the ISIS
CAPABILITY TLV. CAPABILITY TLV.
IANA will be in charge of the assignment of sub-TLV code points for
the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document.
Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by Two sub-TLVs types are defined for this TLV and should be assigned by
IANA: IANA:
-CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1) -CONTROL-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =1)
-DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2) -DATA-PLANE-CAP sub-TLV (suggested value =2)
9.3. Capability bits 8.3. Capability bits
IANA is requested to manage the space of control plane and data plane IANA is requested to manage the space of control plane and data plane
capability bit flags, numbering them in the usual IETF notation capability bit flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node
Capability Descriptor TLVs, numbering them in the usual IETF notation
starting at zero and continuing at least through 31. starting at zero and continuing at least through 31.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action. New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities: Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number - Bit number
- Defining RFC - Defining RFC
- Name of bit - Name of bit
Currently two bits are defined in the data plane capability flags. Currently two capabilies are defined in the data plane capability
Here are the suggested values: flags and must be assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested values:
-0x01: P2MP Branch LSR capability -0x01: P2MP Branch LSR capability
-0x02: P2MP Bud LSR capability -0x02: P2MP Bud LSR capability
Currently three bits are defined in the control plane capability Currently three capabilities are defined in the control plane
flags. Here are the suggested values: capability flags and must be assigned by IANA. Here are the suggested
values:
-0x01: MPLS-TE support -0x01: MPLS-TE support
-0x02: GMPLS support -0x02: GMPLS support
-0x04: P2MP RSVP-TE support -0x04: P2MP RSVP-TE support
10. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel and Dimitri We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
Papadimitriou for their useful comments and suggestions. Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem and David Ward for their useful comments
and suggestions.
We would also like to thank authors of [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] from which We would also like to thank authors of [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] and [OSPF-CAP]
some text of this document has been inspired. from which some text of this document has been inspired.
11. References 10. References
11.1. Normative references 10.1. Normative references
[RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate [RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 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", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC
3667, February 2004. 3667, February 2004.
[BCP79] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF [BCP79] Bradner, S., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology", RFC 3979, March 2005. Technology", RFC 3979, March 2005.
[OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF-v3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
RFC 2740, December 1999.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370,
July 1998.
[IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain [IS-IS] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589. Routing Exchange Protocol " ISO 10589.
[IS-IS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and [IS-IS-IP] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering
Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003. Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[IS-IS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic [IS-IS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004. Engineering", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur, [OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur,
J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router J.P., "Extensions to OSPF for advertising Optional Router
Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress. Capabilities", draft-ietf-ospf-cap, work in progress.
[IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising [IS-IS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising
router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in progress. router information", draft-ietf-isis-caps, work in progress.
10.2. Informative References
[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP [RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., et. al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions", [RSVP-G] Berger, L, et. al., "GMPLS Signaling RSVP-TE extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003. RFC 3473, January 2003.
11.2. Informative References
[GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support [GMPLS-RTG] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Routing Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp- of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC4202, October
gmpls-routing, work in progress. 2005.
[OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of [OSPF-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "OSPF extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf- Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4203, October 2005.
gmpls-extensions, work in progress.
[IS-IS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of [IS-IS-G] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "IS-IS extensions in support of
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", draft-ietf-isis-gmpls- Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching", RFC4205, October 2005.
extensions, work in progress.
[P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point [P2MP-REQ] Yasukawa, S., et. al., "Signaling Requirements for Point
to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp- to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS LSPs", RFC4461, April 2006.
sig-requirement, work in progress.
[RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to [RSVP-P2MP] Aggarwal, Papadimitriou, Yasukawa, et. al. "Extensions to
RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te- RSVP-TE for point-to-multipoint TE LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-
p2mp-01, work in progress. p2mp, work in progress.
[LSP-ATTRIBUTE] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS [LSP-ATTRIBUTE] Farrel, A., and al., "Encoding of attributes for MPLS
LSPs establishment Using RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvpte-attributes, LSPs establishment Using RSVP-TE", RFC4420, February 2006.
work in progress.
12. Editors' Address 11. Editors Address
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Road 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough , MA - 01719 Boxborough , MA - 01719
USA USA
Email: jpv@cisco.com Email: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin 2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex 22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE FRANCE
Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com Email: jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com
12. Contributors address
Seisho Yasukawa
NTT
9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome
Tokyo, 180-8585
JAPAN
Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc
Via Del Serafico 200
Roma, 00142
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
Diegmen, 1831
BELGIUM
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Paul Mabbey
Comcast
USA
Email:
13. Intellectual Property Statement 13. Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 16, line 26 skipping to change at page 15, line 17
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 End of changes. 84 change blocks. 
241 lines changed or deleted 261 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.32. The latest version is available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/