| Rfc | 7570 |
|---|
| Title | Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object
(ERO) |
|---|
| Author | C. Margaria, Ed., G. Martinelli, S. Balls, B. Wright |
|---|
| Date | July
2015 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Margaria, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7570 Juniper
Category: Standards Track G. Martinelli
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
S. Balls
B. Wright
Metaswitch
July 2015
Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
Abstract
RFC 5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes that
apply to the whole of the path of a Label Switched Path (LSP). This
document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO)
and Record Route Object (RRO) to allow them to specify or record
generic attributes that apply to a given hop.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570.
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
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Hop Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 7
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes Subobject . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) can be route constrained by making use of the Explicit
Route Object (ERO) and related subobjects as defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520], and [RFC5553].
Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be
targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163],
[WSON-SIG], [RFC7571], or [OBJ-FUN]. This document provides a
generic mechanism for use by these other documents.
RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP attributes in
[RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint
extensions, this document provides a mechanism to define per-hop
attributes.
The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information
related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This document does
not restrict what that information can be used for. The defined
approach builds on LSP attributes defined in [RFC5420] and enables
attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route
Objects (SEROs). A new ERO subobject is defined, containing a list
of generic per-hop attributes.
1.1. 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].
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used, it is carried
in the ERO or SERO. The subobject uses the standard format of an ERO
subobject.
2.1. Encoding
The length is variable and content is a list of Hop Attributes TLVs
defined in Section 2.2. The size of the ERO subobject limits the
size of the Hop Attributes TLV to 250 bytes. The typical size of
currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs applicable to a
specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, Objective Function (OF), and Metric) is
not foreseen to exceed this limit.
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Hop Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The L, Type, and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209],
Section 4.3.3. The L bit MUST be set to 0. The Type for the ERO Hop
Attributes subobject is 35. The Hop Attributes TLVs are encoded as
defined in Section 2.2.
Reserved: Reserved MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO, and
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO
subobjects.
R: This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE
semantic defined in [RFC5420]. When set, it indicates required
hop attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it
indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in
Section 2.3.
Hop Attributes TLVs: The TLVs as defined in Section 2.2.
2.2. Hop Attributes TLVs
ERO attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document
are encoded within TLVs. Each object MAY contain one or more TLVs.
There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation SHOULD NOT
be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The TLV format is
defined in [RFC5420], Section 3.
The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] is carried in an ERO Hop
Attributes subobject. Flags set in the Attribute Flags TLV [RFC5420]
carried in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject SHALL be interpreted in
the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of defined flags are
defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV carried in an ERO Hop
Attributes subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be silently ignored.
Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a PathErr with Error
Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in [RFC5420], Section 5.2.
The set of valid flags are defined in Section 4.3.
The presence and ordering rule of the Attribute Flags TLV in an ERO
Hop Attributes subobject is defined by each Flag. A document
defining a flag to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the
ERO Hop Attributes subobject has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject the flag is valid,
o if ordering of the flag and other ERO subobjects associated with
the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the flag is interpreted in
association with the preceding subobjects, and
o any flag modification rules that might apply.
2.3. Procedures
As described in [RFC3209], the ERO is managed as a list of subobjects
each identifying a specific entity, an abstract node, or a link that
defines a waypoint in the network path. Identifying subobjects of
various types are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
[RFC4874], [RFC5520], and [RFC5553].
[RFC3473] modified the ERO list by allowing one or two Label
subobjects to be interposed in the list after a subobject identifying
a link. One or more ERO Hop Attributes subobjects applicable to a
particular hop MAY be inserted directly after any of the existing
identifying subobjects defined in[RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
[RFC4874], [RFC5520], and [RFC5553]. If any Label subobjects are
present for a hop, the ERO Hop Attributes subobject(s) MAY also be
inserted after the Label subobjects.
The attributes specified in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject apply to
the immediately preceding subobject(s) in the ERO subobject list.
A document defining a specific Hop Attributes TLV has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject they are valid,
o if ordering of the Hop Attributes subobject and other ERO
subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects)
is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the attribute is interpreted in
association with the preceding ERO subobjects, and
o any TLV modification rules that might apply.
For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by describing
rules similar to [RFC4990], Section 6.1.
If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not
support the handling of the subobject, it will behave as described in
[RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
node will return a PathErr with Error Code "Routing Error" and Error
Value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
subobject.
When the R bit is set, a node MUST examine the attributes TLV present
in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420],
Section 5.2. When the R bit is not set, a node MUST examine the
attributes TLV present in the subobject following the rules described
in [RFC5420], Section 4.2.
A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with a Hop
Attributes TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr
with Error Code "Routing Error" and Error Value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the
left) to the offending malformed subobject. A processing node MUST
NOT originate a Hop Attributes TLV longer than the ERO Hop Attributes
subobject. The processing of the Hop Attributes TLVs SHOULD be
described in the documents defining them.
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject
In some cases, it is important to determine if an OPTIONAL hop
attribute has been processed by a node.
3.1. Encoding
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used, it is carried
in the RECORD_ROUTE object. The subobject uses the standard format
of an RRO subobject.
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Hop Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209],
Section 4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is 35.
The Hop Attributes TLVs are encoded as defined in Section 2.2.
Reserved: Reserved MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the RRO, and
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO
subobjects.
Hop Attributes TLVs: The processed or additional Hop Attributes
TLVs, using the format defined in Section 2.2.
3.2. Procedures
3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule
The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes
subobject (if present) as defined in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects
identifying the Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local
policy applies, all such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by
transit LSRs.
It is noted that a node (e.g., a domain edge node) MAY edit the RRO
to prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attributes subobject
before forwarding due to confidentiality policy or other reasons (for
instance, RRO size reduction).
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes
To report that an ERO hop attribute has been considered, or to report
an additional attribute, an LSR can add a RRO Hop Attributes
subobject with the Hop Attributes TLV, which describes the attribute
to be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be
specified in the document that defines the usage of a hop attribute.
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes Subobject
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO
Attributes subobject defined in [RFC5420], Section 7.2 by allowing
the node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in
this document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using
the following procedures.
For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
subobject to report processing of those attributes.
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop
Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject.
Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will
drop the information, as described in [RFC3209], Section 4.4.5.
A node can use the RRO Hop Attributes subobject to report an LSP
attribute signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only
if the following conditions are met:
The attribute and its corresponding flag is allowed on both the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP Hop Attributes
subobject.
The reporting of an LSP attribute signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES in the RRO Hop Attribute is specified in
the document defining that LSP attribute.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. Per this
document, IANA has made an allocation in the Sub-object type 20
EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry.
This document introduces a new ERO subobject:
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
35 Hop Attributes This document, Section 2
4.2. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. Per this
document, IANA has made an allocation in the Sub-object type 21
ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. This value is the same
as that in Section 4.1.
This document introduces a new RRO subobject:
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
35 Hop Attributes This document, Section 3
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags
IANA manages the "Attribute Flags" registry as part of the "Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters"
registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>. A new column
in the registry is introduced by this document. This column
indicates if the flag is permitted to be used in an Attribute Flags
TLV carried in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject. The column uses the
heading "ERO" and the registry has been updated as follows:
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
No. FlagsPath FlagsResv
0 End-to-end re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing [RFC5420]
This Document
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
[RFC5420]
This Document
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing [RFC5420]
This Document
3 LSP Integrity Yes No No No [RFC4875]
Required
This Document
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151]
This Document
5 LSP stitching Yes No Yes No [RFC5150]
desired
This Document
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001]
This Document
7 Non-PHP behavior Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
flag
This Document
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
This Document
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790]
Capability
This Document
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
This Document
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
This Document
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [SRLG-COLLECT]
(TEMPORARY - This Document
registered
2014-09-11, expires
2015-09-11)
New allocation requests to this registry SHALL indicate the value to
be used in the ERO column.
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>. The
"Attributes TLV Space" registry manages the following attributes, as
defined in [RFC5420]:
o TLV Type (T-field value)
o TLV Name
o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
Per this document, IANA has added the following information for each
TLV in the RSVP TLV type identifier registry.
o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject
The existing registry has been modified for existing TLVs as follows.
The following abbreviations are used below:
LSP_A: Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
LSP_RA: Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
HOP_A: Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes Yes [RFC5420]
This Document
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
This Document
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
This Document
5. Security Considerations
This document adds a new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the
ROUTE_RECORD objects carried in RSVP messages used in MPLS and GMPLS
signaling. It builds on mechanisms defined in [RFC3209] and
[RFC5420] and does not introduce any new security. The existing
security considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473],
and [RFC5420] do apply.
As with any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this
document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences
on a specific node. The mechanism added in this document does allow
more control of LSP attributes at a given node. A node SHOULD check
the hop attributes against its policies and admission procedures as
it does with other inputs. A node MAY reject the message using
existing RSVP Error Codes like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission
Control Failure". The node MAY also, depending on the specific TLV
procedures, modify the requested attribute. This can reveal
information about the LSP request and status to anyone with
unauthorized access. The mechanism described in this document does
not contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by
encrypting the content of the whole signaling message.
In addition, the reporting of attributes using the RRO can reveal
details about the node that the operator wishes to remain
confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO
subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is RECOMMENDED that
domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes
into consideration.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477>.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873>.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874,
April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC4920] Farrel, A., Ed., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N.,
and G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and
GMPLS RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, DOI 10.17487/RFC4920, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4920>.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, DOI 10.17487/RFC5150, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150>.
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-
Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions", RFC 5151, DOI 10.17487/RFC5151, February
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151>.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Ed., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", RFC 5553, DOI 10.17487/RFC5553, May 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5553>.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001>.
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control
of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-
TE)", RFC 6060, DOI 10.17487/RFC6060, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6060>.
[RFC6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate
Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE
Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, DOI 10.17487/RFC6511,
February 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6511>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, DOI 10.17487/RFC7260, June
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260>.
6.2. Informative References
[OBJ-FUN] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric
Bound", Work in Progress, draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-
function-metric-bound-05, February 2014.
[RFC4990] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of
Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, DOI 10.17487/RFC4990,
September 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4990>.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC7571] Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", RFC
7571, DOI 10.17487/RFC7571, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7571>.
[RSVP-TE-HOPS]
Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", Work in Progress,
draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00, October 2009.
[SRLG-COLLECT]
Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M.,
and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-
srlg-collect-00, December 2014.
[WSON-SIG]
Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-
wson-signaling-10, March 2015.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Lou Berger for his directions and
Attila Takacs for inspiring [RSVP-TE-HOPS]. The authors also thank
Dirk Schroetter for his contribution to the initial draft versions of
this document.
Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor)
Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
United States
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Giovanni Martinelli
Cisco
via Philips 12
Monza 20900
Italy
Phone: +39 039 209 2044
Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Steve Balls
Metaswitch
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com
Ben Wright
Metaswitch
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com