Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb
Network Working Group J. Dong
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 5, 2015 Z. Li
China Mobile
D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson
March 4, 2015
GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-05
Abstract
This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Lock Instruct (LI) and
Loopback (LB) mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). These
mechanisms are applicable to technologies which use Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) for the control plane.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2015.
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB March 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Lock Instruct Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Extensions for Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Operational Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Allocation Rule for ERO Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The requirements for Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) in the
Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) are
specified in [RFC5860], and the framework of LI and LB is specified
in [RFC6371]. An LSP that is locked, using LI, is prevented from
carrying user data traffic. The LB function can only be applied to
an LSP that has been previously locked.
In general the LI and LB are useful Operations, Administration and
Maintenance (OAM) functions for technologies which use Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) for the control plane, e.g.,
time-division multiplexing, wavelength-division multiplexing and
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB March 2015
packet switching. It is natural to use and extend the GMPLS control
plane protocol to provide a unified approach for LI and LB
provisioning in all these technologies.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] specifies the RSVP-TE
extensions for the configuration of pro-active MPLS-TP OAM functions,
such as Continuity Check (CC), Connectivity Verification (CV), Delay
Measurement (DM) and Loss Measurement (LM). The provisioning of on-
demand OAM functions such as LI and LB are not covered in that
document.
This document specifies extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support lock instruct and loopback
mechanisms for Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The mechanisms are
applicable to technologies which use GMPLS for the control plane.
For a network supporting MPLS-TP, the mechanisms defined in this
document are complementary to [RFC6435].
2. Flag Definitions for LI and LB
2.1. Lock Instruct Indication
In order to indicate the lock/unlock status of the LSP, the A
(Administratively down) bit in the Administrative Status
(ADMIN_STATUS) object [RFC3471] [RFC3473] is used.
2.2. Extensions for Loopback
In order to indicate the loopback mode of LSP, a new bit flag is
defined in the Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420].
Loopback flag:
This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is required to
enter loopback mode. This can also be used for specifying the
loopback state of the node.
- Bit number: TBA-1
- Attribute flag carried in Path message: Yes
- Attribute flag carried in Resv message: No
- Attribute flag carried in RRO Attributes subobject: Yes
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB March 2015
3. Operational Procedures
3.1. Lock Instruct
When an ingress node intends to put an LSP into lock mode, it MUST
send a Path message with the Administratively down (A) bit used as
specified above and the Reflect (R) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object
set.
On receipt of this Path message, the egress node SHOULD try to take
the LSP out of service. If the egress node locks the LSP
successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in the
ADMIN_STATUS object set. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr message
with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value
"Lock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent with the
A bit cleared.
When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv
messages MUST keep the A bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object set.
When the ingress node intends to take the LSP out of the lock mode,
it MUST send a Path message with the A bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object
cleared.
On receipt of this Path message, the egress node SHOULD try to bring
the LSP back to service. If the egress node unlocks the LSP
successfully, it MUST send a Resv message with the A bit in the
ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it MUST send a PathErr
message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error
Value "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv messages MUST be sent
with the A bit set.
When an LSP is taken out of lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv
messages MUST keep the A bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared.
3.2. Loopback
The loopback request can be sent either to the egress node or to a
particular intermediate node. The mechanism defined in
[I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used for addressing the loopback
request to a particular node on the LSP. The ingress node MUST
ensure that the LSP is in lock mode before it requests setting a
particular node on the LSP into loopback mode.
When a ingress node intends to put a particular node on the LSP into
loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback
Attribute Flag defined above in the Attribute Flags TLV set. The
mechanism defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB March 2015
address the loopback request to the particular node. The ingress
node MUST ensure that the entity (node or interface), at which
loopback is intended to occur, is marked as a strict hop in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO) subobject. The Administratively down (A)
bit in the ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept set to indicate that the
LSP is still in lock mode.
On receipt of this Path message, the target node of the loopback
request MUST check if the LSP is in lock mode by verifying that the
Administratively down (A) bit is set in the ADMIN_STATUS object. If
the bit is not set, the loopback request MUST be ignored. If the bit
is set, the node MUST check that the desired loopback entity is
explicitly identified by the ERO subobject prior to the ERO Hop
Attributes subobject. Currently, the type value MUST be verified to
be less than 32 (i.e., able to identify a specific entity where a
loopback can occur, see Section 4.3), and for type values 1 (IPv4
prefix) and 2 (IPv6 prefix), the prefix length MUST be 32 and 128
respectively. If the desired loopback entity is not explicitly
identified, the request MUST be ignored and a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object" error SHOULD be generated. Otherwise, the node SHOULD try to
put the LSP into loopback mode. If the node puts the LSP into
loopback mode successfully, it MUST set the Loopback Attribute Flag
if it adds, per [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro], an RRO Hop
Attributes subobject to the RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO) of a Path or
Resv message. The Administratively down (A) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS
object MUST be kept set in the message. If the node cannot put the
LSP into loopback mode, it MUST send a PathErr message with the Error
Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value "Loopback
Failure".
When the ingress node intends to take the particular node out of
loopback mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Loopback
Attribute Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV cleared. The mechanism
defined in [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] is used to indicate that
the particular node SHOULD exit loopback mode for this LSP. The
Administratively down (A) bit in the ADMIN_STATUS object MUST be kept
set to indicate the LSP is still in lock mode.
On receipt of this Path message, the target node SHOULD try to take
the LSP out of loopback mode. If the node takes the LSP out of
loopback mode successfully, it MUST clear the Loopback Attribute Flag
in the RRO Hop Attributes subobject and push this subobject onto the
RRO object in the corresponding Path or Resv message. The
Administratively down (A) Bit in the ADMIN_STATUS Object MUST be kept
set in the message. Otherwise, the node MUST send a PathErr message
with the Error Code "OAM Problem" [RFC7260] and the new Error Value
"Exit Loopback Failure".
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB March 2015
After the loopback mode is cleared successfully, the ingress node MAY
remove the Lock Instruct using the mechanism defined in section 3.1.
The ingress node MUST NOT request to exit lock mode if the LSP is
still in loopback mode. The egress node MUST ignore such request
when the LSP is still in loopback mode.
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined
in this document and summarized in this section.
4.1. Attribute Flags
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters" with a sub-registry called
"Attribute Flags".
IANA is requested to assign a new bit flag as follows:
Bit | | Attribute | Attribute | | |
No. | Name | Flags Path | Flags Resv | RRO | ERO | Reference
-----+-----------+------------+------------+-----+-----+-------------
TBA-1| Loopback | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |this document
4.2. RSVP Error Value Sub-codes
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Error Codes and
Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes".
IANA is requested to assign four new Error Value sub-codes for the
"OAM Problem" Error Code:
Value | Description | Reference
-----------+-----------------------------+--------------
TBA-2 | Lock Failure | this document
TBA-3 | Unlock Failure | this document
TBA-4 | Loopback Failure | this document
TBA-5 | Exit Loopback Failure | this document
4.3. Allocation Rule for ERO Subobjects
IANA maintains a registry called "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" with a sub-registry called "Class Names, Class
Numbers, and Class Types".
For Explicit Route Object , the allocation rule for subobject types
in the range 5 - 31 (0x05 - 0x1F) needs to be updated as:
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB March 2015
5-31 Unassigned (For explicit resource identification)
5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security issues above those
identified in [RFC3209] [RFC3473] and
[I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro]. For a more comprehensive
discussion of GMPLS security and attack mitigation techniques, please
see the Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks [RFC5920].
In addition, the reporting of the loopback status using the RRO may
reveal details about the node that the operator wishes to remain
confidential. The privacy considerations as described in section 5,
paragraph 3 of [I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro] also apply to this
document.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, Lou Berger and Francesco
Fondelli for their comments and suggestions.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro]
Margaria, C., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B. Wright,
"LSP Attribute in ERO", draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-
ro-03 (work in progress), March 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[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.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB March 2015
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext]
Bellagamba, E., Takacs, A., Mirsky, G., Andersson, L.,
Skoldstrom, P., and D. Ward, "Configuration of Pro-Active
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Functions for MPLS-based Transport Networks using RSVP-
TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-16 (work in
progress), January 2015.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6435] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M.,
and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and
Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB March 2015
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile
Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave.
Beijing 100053
China
Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Dong, et al. Expires September 5, 2015 [Page 9]
