draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-01.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02.txt 
MPLS Working Group H. Sitaraman MPLS Working Group H. Sitaraman
Internet-Draft V. Beeram Internet-Draft V. Beeram
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: September 6, 2018 T. Parikh Expires: December 30, 2018 T. Parikh
Verizon Verizon
T. Saad T. Saad
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
March 5, 2018 June 28, 2018
Signaling RSVP-TE tunnels on a shared MPLS forwarding plane Signaling RSVP-TE tunnels on a shared MPLS forwarding plane
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-01.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-02.txt
Abstract Abstract
As the scale of MPLS RSVP-TE networks has grown, so the number of As the scale of MPLS RSVP-TE networks has grown, so the number of
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) supported by individual network elements Label Switched Paths (LSPs) supported by individual network elements
has increased. Various implementation recommendations have been has increased. Various implementation recommendations have been
proposed to manage the resulting increase in control plane state. proposed to manage the resulting increase in control plane state.
However, those changes have had no effect on the number of labels However, those changes have had no effect on the number of labels
that a transit Label Switching Router (LSR) has to support in the that a transit Label Switching Router (LSR) has to support in the
skipping to change at page 2, line 22 skipping to change at page 2, line 22
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 51 skipping to change at page 2, line 51
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Allocation of TE Link Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Allocation of TE Link Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Segment Routed RSVP-TE Tunnel Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Segment Routed RSVP-TE Tunnel Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Delegating Label Stack Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Delegating Label Stack Imposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Stacking at the Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Stacking at the Ingress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Stack to Reach Delegation Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.1. Stack to Reach Delegation Hop . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.2. Stack to Reach Egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1.2. Stack to Reach Egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Explicit Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Explicit Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Automatic Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.3. Automatic Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3.1. Effective Transport Label-Stack Depth (ETLD) . . . . 10 5.3.1. Effective Transport Label-Stack Depth (ETLD) . . . . 11
6. Mixing TE Link Labels and Regular Labels in an RSVP-TE Tunnel 11 6. Mixing TE Link Labels and Regular Labels in an RSVP-TE Tunnel 12
7. Construction of Label Stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Construction of Label Stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Facility Backup Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Facility Backup Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Link Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Link Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Attribute Flags TLV: TE Link Label . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.2. Attribute Flags TLV: TE Link Label . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3. RRO Label Subobject Flag: TE Link Label . . . . . . . . . 15 9.3. RRO Label Subobject Flag: TE Link Label . . . . . . . . . 16
9.4. Attribute Flags TLV: LSI-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9.4. Attribute Flags TLV: LSI-D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.5. RRO Label Subobject Flag: Delegation Label . . . . . . . 16 9.5. RRO Label Subobject Flag: Delegation Label . . . . . . . 17
9.6. Attributes Flags TLV: LSI-D-S2E . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.6. Attributes Flags TLV: LSI-D-S2E . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.7. Attributes TLV: ETLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9.7. Attributes TLV: ETLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. OAM Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10. OAM Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
13.1. Attribute Flags: TE Link Label, LSI-D, LSI-D-S2E . . . . 17 13.1. Attribute Flags: TE Link Label, LSI-D, LSI-D-S2E . . . . 18
13.2. Attribute TLV: ETLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13.2. Attribute TLV: ETLD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.3. Record Route Label Sub-object Flags: TE Link Label, 13.3. Record Route Label Sub-object Flags: TE Link Label,
Delegation Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Delegation Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13.4. Error Codes and Error Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13.4. Error Codes and Error Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The scaling of RSVP-TE [RFC3209] control plane implementations can be The scaling of RSVP-TE [RFC3209] control plane implementations can be
improved by adopting the guidelines and mechanisms described in improved by adopting the guidelines and mechanisms described in
[RFC2961] and [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec]. These documents [RFC2961] and [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec]. These documents
do not make any difference to the forwarding plane state required to do not make any difference to the forwarding plane state required to
handle the control plane state. The forwarding plane state remains handle the control plane state. The forwarding plane state remains
unchanged and is directly proportional to the total number of Label unchanged and is directly proportional to the total number of Label
Switching Paths (LSPs) supported by the control plane. Switching Paths (LSPs) supported by the control plane.
skipping to change at page 5, line 21 skipping to change at page 5, line 21
TE link label: An incoming label at an LSR that will be popped by TE link label: An incoming label at an LSR that will be popped by
the LSR with the packet being forwarded over a specific outgoing the LSR with the packet being forwarded over a specific outgoing
TE link to a neighbor. TE link to a neighbor.
Shared MPLS forwarding plane: An MPLS forwarding plane where every Shared MPLS forwarding plane: An MPLS forwarding plane where every
participating LSR uses TE link labels on every LSP. participating LSR uses TE link labels on every LSP.
Segment Routed RSVP-TE tunnel: An MPLS RSVP-TE tunnel that requests Segment Routed RSVP-TE tunnel: An MPLS RSVP-TE tunnel that requests
the use of a shared MPLS forwarding plane at every hop of the LSP. the use of a shared MPLS forwarding plane at every hop of the LSP.
The corresponding LSPs are referred to as Segment Routed RSVP-TE
LSPs.
Delegation hop: A transit hop of a Segment Routed RSVP-TE LSP that
is selected to assist in the imposition of the label stack in
scenarios where the ingress LER cannot impose the full label
stack. There could be multiple delegation hops along the path of
a Segment Routed RSVP-TE LSP.
Delegation label: A label assigned at the delegation hop to
represent a set of labels that will be pushed at this hop.
3. Allocation of TE Link Labels 3. Allocation of TE Link Labels
An LSR that participates in a shared MPLS forwarding plane MUST An LSR that participates in a shared MPLS forwarding plane MUST
allocate a unique TE link label for each TE link. When an LSR allocate a unique TE link label for each TE link. When an LSR
encounters a TE link label at the top of the label stack it MUST pop encounters a TE link label at the top of the label stack it MUST pop
the label and forward the packet over the TE link to the downstream the label and forward the packet over the TE link to the downstream
neighbor on the RSVP-TE tunnel. neighbor on the RSVP-TE tunnel.
Multiple TE link labels MAY be allocated for the TE link to Multiple TE link labels MAY be allocated for the TE link to
skipping to change at page 11, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 23
1500d | | 1500d | |
+---+ 600p+---+ 550p+---+ 500p+---+ 450p+---+ 400p+---+ v +---+ 600p+---+ 550p+---+ 500p+---+ 450p+---+ 400p+---+ v
| L |-----| K |-----| J |-----| I |-----| H |-----+ G + | L |-----| K |-----| J |-----| I |-----| H |-----+ G +
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
ETLD:3 ETLD:4 ETLD:5 ETLD:1 ETLD:2 ETLD:3 ETLD:4 ETLD:5 ETLD:1 ETLD:2
<----- <----- <----- <----- <----- <----- <----- <----- <----- <-----
Figure 5: ETLD Figure 5: ETLD
When an LSP that requests automatic delegation also requests facility
backup protection [RFC4090], the ingress or the delegation hop MUST
account for the bypass tunnel's label when populating the ETLD. So,
the ETLD that gets populated on these nodes is one less than what
gets populated for a corresponding unprotected LSP.
Signaling extension for the ingress LER to request automatic Signaling extension for the ingress LER to request automatic
delegation is defined in Section 9.4. The extension for signaling delegation is defined in Section 9.4. The extension for signaling
the ETLD is defined in Section 9.7. The extension required for the the ETLD is defined in Section 9.7. The extension required for the
delegation hop to indicate that the recorded label is a delegation delegation hop to indicate that the recorded label is a delegation
label is defined in Section 9.5. label is defined in Section 9.5.
6. Mixing TE Link Labels and Regular Labels in an RSVP-TE Tunnel 6. Mixing TE Link Labels and Regular Labels in an RSVP-TE Tunnel
Labels can be mixed across transit hops in a single MPLS RSVP-TE LSP. Labels can be mixed across transit hops in a single MPLS RSVP-TE LSP.
Certain LSRs can use TE link labels and others can use regular Certain LSRs can use TE link labels and others can use regular
skipping to change at page 15, line 7 skipping to change at page 16, line 7
requested: requested:
+ the ingress SHOULD have the ability to indicate the chosen + the ingress SHOULD have the ability to indicate the chosen
stacking approach (and) stacking approach (and)
+ the delegation hop SHOULD have the ability to indicate that + the delegation hop SHOULD have the ability to indicate that
the recorded label is a delegation label. the recorded label is a delegation label.
9.2. Attribute Flags TLV: TE Link Label 9.2. Attribute Flags TLV: TE Link Label
Bit Number (TBD1): TE Link Label Bit Number 16 (Early allocation by IANA): TE Link Label
The presence of this in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES/LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES The presence of this in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES/LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES
object of a Path message indicates that the ingress has requested/ object of a Path message indicates that the ingress has requested/
mandated the use and recording of TE link labels at all hops along mandated the use and recording of TE link labels at all hops along
the path of this LSP. When a node that does not cater to the mandate the path of this LSP. When a node that does not cater to the mandate
receives a Path message carrying the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object receives a Path message carrying the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
with this flag set, it MUST send a PathErr message with an error code with this flag set, it MUST send a PathErr message with an error code
of 'Routing Problem' and an error value of 'TE link label usage of 'Routing Problem (24)' and an error value of 'TE link label usage
failure'. failure (TBD3)'.
9.3. RRO Label Subobject Flag: TE Link Label 9.3. RRO Label Subobject Flag: TE Link Label
Bit Number (TBD2): TE Link Label Bit Number (TBD1): TE Link Label
The presence of this flag indicates that the recorded label is a TE The presence of this flag indicates that the recorded label is a TE
link label. This flag MUST be used by a node only if the use and link label. This flag MUST be used by a node only if the use and
recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated for the LSP. recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated for the LSP.
9.4. Attribute Flags TLV: LSI-D 9.4. Attribute Flags TLV: LSI-D
Bit Number (TBD3): Label Stack Imposition - Delegation (LSI-D) Bit Number 17 (Early allocation by IANA): Label Stack Imposition -
Delegation (LSI-D)
Automatic Delegation: The presence of this flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Automatic Delegation: The presence of this flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
object of a Path message indicates that the ingress has requested object of a Path message indicates that the ingress has requested
automatic delegation of label stack imposition. This flag MUST be automatic delegation of label stack imposition. This flag MUST be
set in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a Path message only if the use set in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a Path message only if the use
and recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated for this LSP. and recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated for this LSP.
Explicit Delegation: The presence of this flag in the HOP_ATTRIBUTES Explicit Delegation: The presence of this flag in the HOP_ATTRIBUTES
subobject [RFC7570] of an ERO object in the Path message indicates subobject [RFC7570] of an ERO object in the Path message indicates
that the hop identified by the preceding IPv4 or IPv6 or Unnumbered that the hop identified by the preceding IPv4 or IPv6 or Unnumbered
Interface ID subobject has been picked as an explicit delegation hop. Interface ID subobject has been picked as an explicit delegation hop.
The HOP_ATTRIBUTES subobject carrying this flag MUST have the R The HOP_ATTRIBUTES subobject carrying this flag MUST have the R
(Required) bit set. This flag MUST be set in the HOP_ATTRIBUTES (Required) bit set. This flag MUST be set in the HOP_ATTRIBUTES
subobject of an ERO object in the Path message only if the use and subobject of an ERO object in the Path message only if the use and
recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated for this LSP. If recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated for this LSP. If
the hop is not able to comply with this mandate, it MUST send a the hop is not able to comply with this mandate, it MUST send a
PathErr message with an error code of 'Routing Problem' and an error PathErr message with an error code of 'Routing Problem (24)' and an
value of 'Label stack imposition failure'. error value of 'Label stack imposition failurei (TBD4)'.
9.5. RRO Label Subobject Flag: Delegation Label 9.5. RRO Label Subobject Flag: Delegation Label
Bit Number (TBD4): Delegation Label Bit Number (TBD2): Delegation Label
The presence of this flag indicates that the recorded label is a The presence of this flag indicates that the recorded label is a
delegation label. This flag MUST be used by a node only if the use delegation label. This flag MUST be used by a node only if the use
and recording of TE link labels and delegation are requested/mandated and recording of TE link labels and delegation are requested/mandated
for the LSP. for the LSP.
9.6. Attributes Flags TLV: LSI-D-S2E 9.6. Attributes Flags TLV: LSI-D-S2E
Bit Number (TBD5): Label Stack Imposition - Delegation - Stack to Bit Number 18 (Early allocation by IANA): Label Stack Imposition -
reach egress (LSI-D-S2E) Delegation - Stack to reach egress (LSI-D-S2E)
The presence of this flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a Path The presence of this flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a Path
message indicates that the ingress has chosen to use the "Stack to message indicates that the ingress has chosen to use the "Stack to
reach egress" approach for stacking. The absence of this flag in the reach egress" approach for stacking. The absence of this flag in the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a Path message indicates that the ingress LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a Path message indicates that the ingress
has chosen to use the "Stack to reach delegation hop" approach for has chosen to use the "Stack to reach delegation hop" approach for
stacking. This flag MUST be set in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a stacking. This flag MUST be set in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object of a
Path message only if the use and recording of TE link labels and Path message only if the use and recording of TE link labels and
delegation are requested/mandated for this LSP. If the transit hop delegation are requested/mandated for this LSP. If the transit hop
is not able to support the "Stack to reach egress" approach, it MUST is not able to support the "Stack to reach egress" approach, it MUST
send a PathErr message with an error code of 'Routing Problem' and an send a PathErr message with an error code of 'Routing Problem (24)'
error value of 'Label stack imposition failure'. and an error value of 'Label stack imposition failure (TBD4)'.
9.7. Attributes TLV: ETLD 9.7. Attributes TLV: ETLD
The format of the ETLD Attributes TLV is shown in Figure 8. The The format of the ETLD Attributes TLV is shown in Figure 8. The
Attribute TLV Type is TBD6. Attribute TLV Type is 6 (Early allocation by IANA).
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | ETLD | | Reserved | ETLD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: The ETLD Attributes TLV Figure 8: The ETLD Attributes TLV
The presence of this TLV in the HOP_ATTRIBUTES subobject of an RRO The presence of this TLV in the HOP_ATTRIBUTES subobject of an RRO
object in the Path message indicates that the hop identified by the object in the Path message indicates that the hop identified by the
preceding IPv4 or IPv6 or Unnumbered Interface ID subobject supports preceding IPv4 or IPv6 or Unnumbered Interface ID subobject supports
automatic delegation. This attribute MUST be used only if the use automatic delegation. This attribute MUST be used only if the use
and recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated and automatic and recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated and automatic
delegation is requested for the LSP. The ETLD field specifies the delegation is requested for the LSP.
maximum number of transport labels that this hop can potentially send
to its downstream hop. The ETLD field specifies the maximum number of transport labels that
this hop can potentially send to its downstream hop. It MUST be set
to a non-zero value.
The Reserved field is for future specification. It SHOULD be set to
zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt to ensure future
compatibility.
10. OAM Considerations 10. OAM Considerations
MPLS LSP ping and traceroute [RFC8029] are applicable for Segment MPLS LSP ping and traceroute [RFC8029] are applicable for Segment
Routed RSVP-TE tunnels. The existing procedures allow for the label Routed RSVP-TE tunnels. The existing procedures allow for the label
stack imposed at a delegation hop to be reported back in the Label stack imposed at a delegation hop to be reported back in the Label
Stack Sub-TLV in the MPLS echo reply for traceroute. Stack Sub-TLV in the MPLS echo reply for traceroute.
11. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
skipping to change at page 18, line 7 skipping to change at page 19, line 7
13.1. Attribute Flags: TE Link Label, LSI-D, LSI-D-S2E 13.1. Attribute Flags: TE Link Label, LSI-D, LSI-D-S2E
IANA manages the 'Attribute Flags' registry as part of the 'Resource IANA manages the 'Attribute Flags' registry as part of the 'Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters' Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters'
registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te- registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters. This document introduces three new Attribute Flags. parameters. This document introduces three new Attribute Flags.
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
No. FlagsPath FlagsResv No. FlagsPath FlagsResv
TBD1 TE Link Label Yes No No No [This.ID] 16 TE Link Label Yes No No No [This.ID]
(Section 9.2) (Section 9.2)
TBD3 LSI-D Yes No No Yes [This.ID] 17 LSI-D Yes No No Yes [This.ID]
(Section 9.4) (Section 9.4)
TBD5 LSI-D-S2E Yes No No No [This.ID] 18 LSI-D-S2E Yes No No No [This.ID]
(Section 9.6) (Section 9.6)
Note: The code points specified for TE Link Label, LSI-D and LSI-
D-S2E are early allocations by IANA.
13.2. Attribute TLV: ETLD 13.2. Attribute TLV: ETLD
IANA manages the "Attribute TLV Space" registry as part of the IANA manages the "Attribute TLV Space" registry as part of the
'Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) 'Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Parameters' registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp- Parameters' registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
te-parameters. This document introduces a new Attribute TLV. te-parameters. This document introduces a new Attribute TLV.
Type Name Allowed on Allowed on Allowed on Reference Type Name Allowed on Allowed on Allowed on Reference
LSP LSP REQUIRED LSP Hop LSP LSP REQUIRED LSP Hop
ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTES Attributes ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTES Attributes
TBD6 ETLD No No Yes [This.ID] 6 ETLD No No Yes [This.ID]
(Section 9.7) (Section 9.7)
Note: The code point specified for ETLD is an early allocation by
IANA.
13.3. Record Route Label Sub-object Flags: TE Link Label, Delegation 13.3. Record Route Label Sub-object Flags: TE Link Label, Delegation
Label Label
IANA manages the 'Record Route Object Sub-object Flags' registry as IANA manages the 'Record Route Object Sub-object Flags' registry as
part of the 'Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP- part of the 'Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-
TE) Parameters' registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ TE) Parameters' registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/
rsvp-te-parameters. This registry currently does not include Label rsvp-te-parameters. This registry currently does not include Label
Sub-object Flags. This document requests the addition of a new sub- Sub-object Flags. This document requests the addition of a new sub-
registry for Label Sub-object Flags as shown below. registry for Label Sub-object Flags as shown below.
Flag Name Reference Flag Name Reference
0x1 Global Label RFC 3209 0x1 Global Label RFC 3209
TBD2 TE Link Label [This.ID] (Section 9.3) TBD1 TE Link Label [This.ID] (Section 9.3)
TBD4 Delegation Label [This.ID] (Section 9.5) TBD2 Delegation Label [This.ID] (Section 9.5)
13.4. Error Codes and Error Values 13.4. Error Codes and Error Values
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a subregistry called "Error Codes and (RSVP) Parameters" with a subregistry called "Error Codes and
Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes". Within this subregistry Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes". Within this subregistry
there is a definition of the "Routing Problem" error code with error there is a definition of the "Routing Problem" error code with error
code value 24. The definition lists a number of error values that code value 24. The definition lists a number of error values that
may be used with this error code. IANA is requested to allocate may be used with this error code. IANA is requested to allocate
further error values for use with this error code as described in further error values for use with this error code as described in
this document. The resulting entry in the registry should look as this document. The resulting entry in the registry should look as
follows. follows.
24 Routing Problem [RFC3209] 24 Routing Problem [RFC3209]
This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error This Error Code has the following globally-defined Error
Value sub-codes: Value sub-codes:
TBD7 = TE link label usage failure [This.ID] TBD3 = TE link label usage failure [This.ID]
TBD8 = Label stack imposition failure [This.ID] TBD4 = Label stack imposition failure [This.ID]
14. Security Considerations 14. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce new security issues. The security This document does not introduce new security issues. The security
considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RFC2205] and considerations pertaining to the original RSVP protocol [RFC2205] and
RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and those that are described in [RFC5920] remain RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and those that are described in [RFC5920] remain
relevant. relevant.
15. References 15. References
skipping to change at page 20, line 32 skipping to change at page 21, line 42
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing
Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work
in progress), January 2018. in progress), January 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-12 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-14
(work in progress), February 2018. (work in progress), June 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec] [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-scaling-rec]
Beeram, V., Minei, I., Shakir, R., Pacella, D., and T. Beeram, V., Minei, I., Shakir, R., Pacella, D., and T.
Saad, "Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP Saad, "Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP
Traffic Engineering Deployments", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- Traffic Engineering Deployments", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
scaling-rec-09 (work in progress), February 2018. scaling-rec-09 (work in progress), February 2018.
[I-D.ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec] [I-D.ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec]
Sitaraman, H., Beeram, V., Minei, I., and S. Sivabalan, Sitaraman, H., Beeram, V., Minei, I., and S. Sivabalan,
"Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing LSP co- "Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing LSP co-
existence", draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-01 existence", draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-04
(work in progress), June 2017. (work in progress), May 2018.
[RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F., [RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F.,
and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction
Extensions", RFC 2961, DOI 10.17487/RFC2961, April 2001, Extensions", RFC 2961, DOI 10.17487/RFC2961, April 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2961>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2961>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010, Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 88 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/