Internet DRAFT - draft-tfl-mpls-rsvp-te-inter-as-p2mp
draft-tfl-mpls-rsvp-te-inter-as-p2mp
Internet Engineering Task Force X. Tu
Internet-Draft Z. Fu
Intended status: Standards Track K. Li
Expires: July 2, 2012 ZTE Corporation
December 30, 2011
Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering(RSVP-TE) Extensions
for Inter-AS P2MP TE LSPs
draft-tfl-mpls-rsvp-te-inter-as-p2mp-00
Abstract
[RFC4875] describes extensions to RSVP-TE protocol for building a
P2MP TE LSP in MPLS/GMPLS network environment.However, [RFC4875]
doesn't specify path selecting problem of inter-AS P2MP TE LSP.This
document specifies an inter-AS P2MP path computation method based on
extentions to RSVP-TE Protocol.
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 July 2, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Procedures Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Egress ASBR Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Ingress ASBR Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Transit Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Leaf Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Messages Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Path Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Resv message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Object Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. S2L_SUB_LSP_COST Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. S2L_SUB_LSP_HOPS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Class Numbers and C-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
1. Introduction
[RFC4875] describes extensions to RSVP-TE protocol for building a
P2MP TE LSP in MPLS/GMPLS network environment. However, [RFC4875]
doesn't specify path selecting problem of inter-AS P2MP TE LSP. In
inter-AS scenario, node maybe have not topology and resources of the
whole network, so it may be not able to compute an inter-AS P2MP TE
LSP.
This document specifies an inter-AS P2MP path bulding method based on
extentions to RSVP-TE Protocol. Inter-AS P2MP LSP is comprised of
multiple source-to-leaf(S2L) sub-LSPS, which are set up between the
ingress and egress LSRs located in different ASes.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
2. Terminology
AS: Autonomous System, A collection of connected routing prefixes
under the control of one or more network operators that presents a
common, clearly defined routing policy to the Internet.
ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router. Routers used to connect
together ASes of the same or different service providers via one or
more inter-AS links.
Ingress ASBR of AS(n): an ASBR connecting AS(n-1) to AS(n) on a path.
Egress ASBR of AS(n): an ASBR connecting AS(n) to AS(n+1) on a path.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
3. Procedures Overview
3.1. Overview
This document specifies an inter-AS P2MP path bulding method using
RSVP-TE Protocol Extension. Using this method, the ingress node will
start the intra-AS P2MP TE LSP building process, and distribute the
PATH message according to RSVP-TE protocol extension specified in
[RFC4875]. Egress ASBRs will transmit the PATH request message of a
P2MP TE LSP to the ingress ASBRs of the neighbor ASes, which will
processes the message as an request for intra-AS P2MP TE LSP building
request, and continuing the building process. Following text
describes this mechanism.
1. Ingress node treats egress ASBRs and leaf nodes in the same AS as
leaf nodes of the intra-AS P2MP tree, and computes P2MP path to
those leaf nodes.. Since it is intra-AS path computation,
current existing mature solutions could be used here.
2. Ingress node uses RSVP-TE protocol to construct Path messages and
send them through the path that has been computed to leaf nodes
in the same AS. The Path message should contain path information
to leaf nodes and cost information of S2L sub-LSPs.
3. When egress ASBR node receives path request message, it should
first decide whether or not cost value of path in the message is
smaller than that exists on the node. If yes, egress ASBR node
should save the Path message and update cost value, then transmit
the Path message to ingress ASBR nodes of downstream neighbor AS.
Otherwise, egress ASBR node should desert the Path message
without any process.
4. When ingress ASBR node of neighbor AS receives Path message, it
should first decide whether or not cost value of path in the
message is smaller than that exists on the node. If yes, ingress
ASBR node should save the later received path message and compute
path to all egress ASBRs and leaf nodes in the same AS, after
computation is finished, ingress node construct Path messages and
send them through the path that has been computed to leaf nodes
in the same AS. This is similar to step 1 and 2.
5. When egress node receives Path message, it should first decide
whether or not cost value of path in the message is smaller than
that exists on the node, if yes, then it should further decide
the interface that received the newly path request message is not
the same interface that has been used to reply, if yes, egress
node should save the newly Path message, waits for a Delay time
and then reserves resources and assigns label, replies Resv
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
message to corresponding upstream node.
6. Resv message passes through the path that Path message used,
reaches ingress ASBR node and upstream neighbor AS's egress ASBR
node, those ASBR nodes need reserve resources, assign label for
upstream node, and transmit new Resv message to upstream node.
7. Ingress node receives Resv message, configures received label to
the node. Then, an inter-AS S2L sub-LSP for one leaf node is set
up.
3.2. Egress ASBR Node
When egress ASBR receivers PATH messages, it should process the
message according to following procedures.
It should first decide whether or not the cost value of S2L sub-LSP
in the messages is smaller than the pre-saved one. if yes, egress
ASBR node should desert the Path message without any further process.
Otherwise, egress ASBR must replace the pre-saved PATH request
messages with the newly received messages. if links that connect to
these ingress ASBR nodes could satisfy TE attributions, egress ASBR
node will transmit Path message to these ingress ASBR nodes. The
Path message treats egress ASBR node as root and ingress ASBR node of
next neighbor AS as leaf node, and cost value of path in the Path
message equals cost value of path in the Path message that egress
ASBR node received plus cost value of the link between egress ASBR
node and ingress ASBR node.
When Egress ASBR receives Resv message, it should process the message
according to following procedures.
If it has replied the corresponding P2MP TE LSP, it only needs to
configure label to the node. If not, it should also reserve
resources and assign label, construct new Resv message and reply Resv
message to corresponding upstream node. If this node receives more
than one Resv messages, it should merge flow descriptors of those
messages and reply single Resv message to corresponding upstream
node.
3.3. Ingress ASBR Node
Ingress ASBR node receives Path message, it should process the
message according to following procedures.
It should first decide whether or not cost value of path in the
message isn't smaller than that exists on the node, if yes, ingress
ASBR node should desert the path message without any further process.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
Otherwise, ingress ASBR node should save the Path message. If this
is first Path message received, ingress ASBR node would compute
optimal multicast tree between it and every egress ASBR node or
egress PE node in the same AS; if this is not the first message
received, ingress ASBR node could use computation result which has
been computed. Then, ingress ASBR node computes cost value of path
between it and each egress ASBR node or egress PE node, constructs
new Path message, sends the message to every egress ASBR node and
egress PE node.
Ingress ASBR node receives Resv message, it should process the
message according to following procedures.
If it has replied the corresponding P2MP TE LSP, it only needs to
configure label to the node. If not, it should also reserve
resources and assign label, construct new Resv message and reply Resv
message to corresponding egress ASBR node of upstream neighbor AS.
If this node receives more than one Resv messages, it should merge
flow descriptors of those messages and reply single Resv message to
corresponding egress ASBR node of upstream neighbor AS.
3.4. Transit Node
Transit node receives Path message, it should process the message
according to following procedures.
It should first decide whether or not cost value of path in the
message isn't smaller than that exists on the node, if yes, Transit
node should desert the path message without any further process.
Otherwise, transit node should update the message that saved on the
node, and analyze the message and process it according to procedures
defined in RFC4875, then transmit it to downstream node.
Transit node receives Resv message, it should process the message
according to following procedures.
If it has replied the corresponding P2MP TE LSP, it only needs to
configure label to the node. If not, it should also reserve
resources and assign label, construct new Resv message and reply Resv
message to corresponding upstream node. If this node receives more
than one Resv messages, it should merge flow descriptors of those
messages and reply single Resv message to corresponding upstream
node.
3.5. Leaf Node
Leaf node receives Path message, it should process the message
according to following procedures.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
Leaf node should first decide whether or not this is the first
message received, if yes, leaf node should start timer.
If this isn't the first message, and timer doesn't expire, leaf node
should decide if cost value of path in the message is smaller than
that exists on the node, if yes, leaf node should update the message
that saved on the node. If cost value in the message is not smaller,
leaf node should desert the message.
If this is not the first message but timer expires, leaf node should
desert the message.
If timer expires, leaf node should reserve resources and assign
label, and reply Resv message to upstream node.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
4. Messages Format
4.1. Path Message
Path message is used to transmit path setup request, [RFC4875] gives
a detailed definition. This document gives extensions to Path
message, and Path message could also transmit cost or hops of path
which is from root node to certain transit node or leaf node. The
format of Path message is as follows.
<Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ...]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
<LABEL_REQUEST>
[ <PROTECTION> ]
[ <LABEL_SET> ... ]
[ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
[ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<sender descriptor>
[<S2L sub-LSP descriptor list>]
<S2L sub-LSP descriptor list> ::= <S2L sub-LSP descriptor>
[ <S2L sub-LSP descriptor list> ]
<S2L sub-LSP descriptor> ::= <S2L_SUB_LSP>
<S2L_SUB_LSP_COST>| <S2L_SUB_LSP_HOPS>
[ <P2MP SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
In each <S2L sub-LSP descriptor> object, there is a
<S2L_SUB_LSP_COST> or <S2L_SUB_LSP_HOPS> object, they are used to
describe cost of a path.
4.2. Resv message
Resv message is used to reply Path message and assign label for
upstream node, [RFC4875] gives a detailed definition. This document
gives extentions to Resv message, and Resv message could also
transmit cost or hops of path which is from root node to leaf node.
The format of Resv message is as follows.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
<Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
[ [<MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK>] ... ]
[ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
<SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
<TIME_VALUES>
[ <RESV_CONFIRM> ] [ <SCOPE> ]
[ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
[ <ADMIN_STATUS> ]
[ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
<STYLE> <flow descriptor list>
<flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
| <SE flow descriptor>
<FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor>
| <FF flow descriptor list>
<FF flow descriptor>
<SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC> <SE filter spec list>
<SE filter spec list> ::= <SE filter spec>
| <SE filter spec list> <SE filter spec>
<FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ] <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL>
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <S2L sub-LSP flow descriptor list> ]
<SE filter spec> ::= <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <S2L sub-LSP flow descriptor list> ]
<S2L sub-LSP flow descriptor list> ::=
<S2L sub-LSP flow descriptor>
[ <S2L sub-LSP flow descriptor list> ]
<S2L sub-LSP flow descriptor> ::= <S2L_SUB_LSP>
<S2L_SUB_LSP_COST>|<S2L_SUB_LSP_HOPS>
[ <P2MP_SECONDARY_RECORD_ROUTE> ]
The structure of <S2L sub-LSP flow descriptor> is similar to that of
<S2L sub-LSP descriptor> ; <S2L_SUB_LSP_COST> and <S2L_SUB_LSP_HOPS>
objects are used to describe cost of a path. The root of P2MP LSP
could know cost value of path to each leaf node through those objects
that contained in Resv message.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
5. Object Format
5.1. S2L_SUB_LSP_COST Object
This object is used to describe cost value of a path. The format of
this object is as follows.
S2L_SUB_LSP_ATTR Class = 55 S2L_SUB_LSP_COST C-Type = 1
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S2L Sub-LSP path cost |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Inter-AS P2MP S2L_SUB_LSP_COST Object Format
5.2. S2L_SUB_LSP_HOPS Object
This object is used to describe hops of a path. The format of this
object is as follows.
S2L_SUB_LSP_ATTR Class = 55 S2L_SUB_LSP_HOPS C-Type = 2
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| S2L Sub-LSP path hops |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Inter-domain P2MP S2L_SUB_LSP_HOPS Object Format
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
6. Security Considerations
TBD
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Class Numbers and C-Types
This document adds new class named S2L_SUB_LSP_ATTR, and class number
is 55. This class have two C-Types. C-type 1 for cost value, C-Type
2 for hops value.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 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.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC6037] Rosen, E., Cai, Y., and IJ. Wijnands, "Cisco Systems'
Solution for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", RFC 6037,
October 2010.
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for inter-AS P2MP Path December 2011
Authors' Addresses
XiaoPing Tu
ZTE Corporation
6F, RD Building 3, ZTE Industrical Park, XiLi LiuXian Road
Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055
P.R.China
Phone: +86 755 26773624
Email: tu.xiaoping@zte.com.cn
ZhenTao Fu
ZTE Corporation
No.50, RuanJian Avenue
Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, Jiangsu
P.R.China
Phone: +86 25 88014227
Email: fu.zhentao@zte.com.cn
KeJun Li
ZTE Corporation
6F, RD Building 3, ZTE Industrical Park, XiLi LiuXian Road
Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055
P.R.China
Phone: +86 755 26773611
Email: li.kejun@zte.com.cn
Tu, et al. Expires July 2, 2012 [Page 15]
