draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-05.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-06.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: April 18, 2019 T. Parikh Expires: May 25, 2019 T. Parikh
Verizon Verizon
T. Saad T. Saad
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
October 15, 2018 November 21, 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-05.txt draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-06.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 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
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 April 18, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 25, 2019.
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 16, line 9 skipping to change at page 16, line 9
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 Explicit Route Object (ERO) in the Path subobject [RFC7570] of an Explicit Route Object (ERO) in the Path
message indicates that the hop identified by the preceding IPv4 or message indicates that the hop identified by the preceding IPv4 or
IPv6 or Unnumbered Interface ID subobject has been picked as an IPv6 or Unnumbered Interface ID subobject has been picked as an
explicit delegation hop. The HOP_ATTRIBUTES subobject carrying this explicit delegation hop. The HOP_ATTRIBUTES subobject carrying this
flag MUST have the R (Required) bit set. This flag MUST be set in flag MUST have the R (Required) bit set. This flag MUST be set in
the HOP_ATTRIBUTES subobject of an ERO object in the Path message the HOP_ATTRIBUTES subobject of an ERO object in the Path message
only if the use and recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated only if the use and recording of TE link labels is requested/mandated
for this LSP. If the hop is not able to comply with this mandate, it for this LSP. If the hop is not able to comply with this mandate, it
MUST send a PathErr message with an error code of 'Routing Problem MUST send a PathErr message with an error code of 'Routing Problem
(24)' and an error value of 'Label stack imposition failurei (TBD4)'. (24)' and an error value of 'Label stack imposition failure (TBD4)'.
9.5. RRO Label Subobject Flag: Delegation Label 9.5. RRO Label Subobject Flag: Delegation Label
Bit Number (TBD2): 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.
skipping to change at page 20, line 46 skipping to change at page 20, line 46
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
15.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[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-14 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-15
(work in progress), June 2018. (work in progress), October 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. 6 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 7 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/