diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc3209.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc3209.txt | 3419 |
1 files changed, 3419 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3209.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3209.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5575b57 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3209.txt @@ -0,0 +1,3419 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group D. Awduche +Request for Comments: 3209 Movaz Networks, Inc. +Category: Standards Track L. Berger + D. Gan + Juniper Networks, Inc. + T. Li + Procket Networks, Inc. + V. Srinivasan + Cosine Communications, Inc. + G. Swallow + Cisco Systems, Inc. + December 2001 + + + RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels + +Status of this Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. + +Abstract + + This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation + Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish + label-switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching). + Since the flow along an LSP is completely identified by the label + applied at the ingress node of the path, these paths may be treated + as tunnels. A key application of LSP tunnels is traffic engineering + with MPLS as specified in RFC 2702. + + We propose several additional objects that extend RSVP, allowing the + establishment of explicitly routed label switched paths using RSVP as + a signaling protocol. The result is the instantiation of label- + switched tunnels which can be automatically routed away from network + failures, congestion, and bottlenecks. + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +Contents + + 1 Introduction .......................................... 3 + 1.1 Background ............................................. 4 + 1.2 Terminology ............................................ 6 + 2 Overview .............................................. 7 + 2.1 LSP Tunnels and Traffic Engineered Tunnels ............. 7 + 2.2 Operation of LSP Tunnels ............................... 8 + 2.3 Service Classes ........................................ 10 + 2.4 Reservation Styles ..................................... 10 + 2.4.1 Fixed Filter (FF) Style ................................ 10 + 2.4.2 Wildcard Filter (WF) Style ............................. 11 + 2.4.3 Shared Explicit (SE) Style ............................. 11 + 2.5 Rerouting Traffic Engineered Tunnels ................... 12 + 2.6 Path MTU ............................................... 13 + 3 LSP Tunnel related Message Formats ..................... 15 + 3.1 Path Message ........................................... 15 + 3.2 Resv Message ........................................... 16 + 4 LSP Tunnel related Objects ............................. 17 + 4.1 Label Object ........................................... 17 + 4.1.1 Handling Label Objects in Resv messages ................ 17 + 4.1.2 Non-support of the Label Object ........................ 19 + 4.2 Label Request Object ................................... 19 + 4.2.1 Label Request without Label Range ...................... 19 + 4.2.2 Label Request with ATM Label Range ..................... 20 + 4.2.3 Label Request with Frame Relay Label Range ............. 21 + 4.2.4 Handling of LABEL_REQUEST .............................. 22 + 4.2.5 Non-support of the Label Request Object ................ 23 + 4.3 Explicit Route Object .................................. 23 + 4.3.1 Applicability .......................................... 24 + 4.3.2 Semantics of the Explicit Route Object ................. 24 + 4.3.3 Subobjects ............................................. 25 + 4.3.4 Processing of the Explicit Route Object ................ 28 + 4.3.5 Loops .................................................. 30 + 4.3.6 Forward Compatibility .................................. 30 + 4.3.7 Non-support of the Explicit Route Object ............... 31 + 4.4 Record Route Object .................................... 31 + 4.4.1 Subobjects ............................................. 31 + 4.4.2 Applicability .......................................... 34 + 4.4.3 Processing RRO ......................................... 35 + 4.4.4 Loop Detection ......................................... 36 + 4.4.5 Forward Compatibility .................................. 37 + 4.4.6 Non-support of RRO ..................................... 37 + 4.5 Error Codes for ERO and RRO ............................ 37 + 4.6 Session, Sender Template, and Filter Spec Objects ...... 38 + 4.6.1 Session Object ......................................... 39 + 4.6.2 Sender Template Object ................................. 40 + 4.6.3 Filter Specification Object ............................ 42 + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + 4.6.4 Reroute and Bandwidth Increase Procedure ............... 42 + 4.7 Session Attribute Object ............................... 43 + 4.7.1 Format without resource affinities ..................... 43 + 4.7.2 Format with resource affinities ........................ 45 + 4.7.3 Procedures applying to both C-Types .................... 46 + 4.7.4 Resource Affinity Procedures .......................... 48 + 5 Hello Extension ........................................ 49 + 5.1 Hello Message Format ................................... 50 + 5.2 HELLO Object formats ................................... 51 + 5.2.1 HELLO REQUEST object ................................... 51 + 5.2.2 HELLO ACK object ....................................... 51 + 5.3 Hello Message Usage .................................... 52 + 5.4 Multi-Link Considerations .............................. 53 + 5.5 Compatibility .......................................... 54 + 6 Security Considerations ................................ 54 + 7 IANA Considerations .................................... 54 + 7.1 Message Types .......................................... 55 + 7.2 Class Numbers and C-Types .............................. 55 + 7.3 Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes . 57 + 7.4 Subobject Definitions .................................. 57 + 8 Intellectual Property Considerations ................... 58 + 9 Acknowledgments ........................................ 58 + 10 References ............................................. 58 + 11 Authors' Addresses ..................................... 60 + 12 Full Copyright Statement ............................... 61 + +1. Introduction + + Section 2.9 of the MPLS architecture [2] defines a label distribution + protocol as a set of procedures by which one Label Switched Router + (LSR) informs another of the meaning of labels used to forward + traffic between and through them. The MPLS architecture does not + assume a single label distribution protocol. This document is a + specification of extensions to RSVP for establishing label switched + paths (LSPs) in MPLS networks. + + Several of the new features described in this document were motivated + by the requirements for traffic engineering over MPLS (see [3]). In + particular, the extended RSVP protocol supports the instantiation of + explicitly routed LSPs, with or without resource reservations. It + also supports smooth rerouting of LSPs, preemption, and loop + detection. + + The LSPs created with RSVP can be used to carry the "Traffic Trunks" + described in [3]. The LSP which carries a traffic trunk and a + traffic trunk are distinct though closely related concepts. For + example, two LSPs between the same source and destination could be + load shared to carry a single traffic trunk. Conversely several + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + traffic trunks could be carried in the same LSP if, for instance, the + LSP were capable of carrying several service classes. The + applicability of these extensions is discussed further in [10]. + + Since the traffic that flows along a label-switched path is defined + by the label applied at the ingress node of the LSP, these paths can + be treated as tunnels, tunneling below normal IP routing and + filtering mechanisms. When an LSP is used in this way we refer to it + as an LSP tunnel. + + LSP tunnels allow the implementation of a variety of policies related + to network performance optimization. For example, LSP tunnels can be + automatically or manually routed away from network failures, + congestion, and bottlenecks. Furthermore, multiple parallel LSP + tunnels can be established between two nodes, and traffic between the + two nodes can be mapped onto the LSP tunnels according to local + policy. Although traffic engineering (that is, performance + optimization of operational networks) is expected to be an important + application of this specification, the extended RSVP protocol can be + used in a much wider context. + + The purpose of this document is to describe the use of RSVP to + establish LSP tunnels. The intent is to fully describe all the + objects, packet formats, and procedures required to realize + interoperable implementations. A few new objects are also defined + that enhance management and diagnostics of LSP tunnels. + + The document also describes a means of rapid node failure detection + via a new HELLO message. + + All objects and messages described in this specification are optional + with respect to RSVP. This document discusses what happens when an + object described here is not supported by a node. + + Throughout this document, the discussion will be restricted to + unicast label switched paths. Multicast LSPs are left for further + study. + +1.1. Background + + Hosts and routers that support both RSVP [1] and Multi-Protocol Label + Switching [2] can associate labels with RSVP flows. When MPLS and + RSVP are combined, the definition of a flow can be made more + flexible. Once a label switched path (LSP) is established, the + traffic through the path is defined by the label applied at the + ingress node of the LSP. The mapping of label to traffic can be + accomplished using a number of different criteria. The set of + packets that are assigned the same label value by a specific node are + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + said to belong to the same forwarding equivalence class (FEC) (see + [2]), and effectively define the "RSVP flow." When traffic is mapped + onto a label-switched path in this way, we call the LSP an "LSP + Tunnel". When labels are associated with traffic flows, it becomes + possible for a router to identify the appropriate reservation state + for a packet based on the packet's label value. + + The signaling protocol model uses downstream-on-demand label + distribution. A request to bind labels to a specific LSP tunnel is + initiated by an ingress node through the RSVP Path message. For this + purpose, the RSVP Path message is augmented with a LABEL_REQUEST + object. Labels are allocated downstream and distributed (propagated + upstream) by means of the RSVP Resv message. For this purpose, the + RSVP Resv message is extended with a special LABEL object. The + procedures for label allocation, distribution, binding, and stacking + are described in subsequent sections of this document. + + The signaling protocol model also supports explicit routing + capability. This is accomplished by incorporating a simple + EXPLICIT_ROUTE object into RSVP Path messages. The EXPLICIT_ROUTE + object encapsulates a concatenation of hops which constitutes the + explicitly routed path. Using this object, the paths taken by + label-switched RSVP-MPLS flows can be pre-determined, independent of + conventional IP routing. The explicitly routed path can be + administratively specified, or automatically computed by a suitable + entity based on QoS and policy requirements, taking into + consideration the prevailing network state. In general, path + computation can be control-driven or data-driven. The mechanisms, + processes, and algorithms used to compute explicitly routed paths are + beyond the scope of this specification. + + One useful application of explicit routing is traffic engineering. + Using explicitly routed LSPs, a node at the ingress edge of an MPLS + domain can control the path through which traffic traverses from + itself, through the MPLS network, to an egress node. Explicit + routing can be used to optimize the utilization of network resources + and enhance traffic oriented performance characteristics. + + The concept of explicitly routed label switched paths can be + generalized through the notion of abstract nodes. An abstract node + is a group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress + node of the LSP. An abstract node is said to be simple if it + contains only one physical node. Using this concept of abstraction, + an explicitly routed LSP can be specified as a sequence of IP + prefixes or a sequence of Autonomous Systems. + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + The signaling protocol model supports the specification of an + explicit path as a sequence of strict and loose routes. The + combination of abstract nodes, and strict and loose routes + significantly enhances the flexibility of path definitions. + + An advantage of using RSVP to establish LSP tunnels is that it + enables the allocation of resources along the path. For example, + bandwidth can be allocated to an LSP tunnel using standard RSVP + reservations and Integrated Services service classes [4]. + + While resource reservations are useful, they are not mandatory. + Indeed, an LSP can be instantiated without any resource reservations + whatsoever. Such LSPs without resource reservations can be used, for + example, to carry best effort traffic. They can also be used in many + other contexts, including implementation of fall-back and recovery + policies under fault conditions, and so forth. + +1.2. Terminology + + 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 RFC2119 [6]. + + The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in [1], [2] + and [3]. + + Abstract Node + + A group of nodes whose internal topology is opaque to the ingress + node of the LSP. An abstract node is said to be simple if it + contains only one physical node. + + Explicitly Routed LSP + + An LSP whose path is established by a means other than normal IP + routing. + + Label Switched Path + + The path created by the concatenation of one or more label + switched hops, allowing a packet to be forwarded by swapping + labels from an MPLS node to another MPLS node. For a more precise + definition see [2]. + + LSP + + A Label Switched Path + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + LSP Tunnel + + An LSP which is used to tunnel below normal IP routing and/or + filtering mechanisms. + + Traffic Engineered Tunnel (TE Tunnel) + + A set of one or more LSP Tunnels which carries a traffic trunk. + + Traffic Trunk + + A set of flows aggregated by their service class and then placed + on an LSP or set of LSPs called a traffic engineered tunnel. For + further discussion see [3]. + +2. Overview + +2.1. LSP Tunnels and Traffic Engineered Tunnels + + According to [1], "RSVP defines a 'session' to be a data flow with a + particular destination and transport-layer protocol." However, when + RSVP and MPLS are combined, a flow or session can be defined with + greater flexibility and generality. The ingress node of an LSP can + use a variety of means to determine which packets are assigned a + particular label. Once a label is assigned to a set of packets, the + label effectively defines the "flow" through the LSP. We refer to + such an LSP as an "LSP tunnel" because the traffic through it is + opaque to intermediate nodes along the label switched path. + + New RSVP SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE, and FILTER_SPEC objects, called + LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 have been defined to support the + LSP tunnel feature. The semantics of these objects, from the + perspective of a node along the label switched path, is that traffic + belonging to the LSP tunnel is identified solely on the basis of + packets arriving from the PHOP or "previous hop" (see [1]) with the + particular label value(s) assigned by this node to upstream senders + to the session. In fact, the IPv4(v6) that appears in the object + name only denotes that the destination address is an IPv4(v6) + address. When we refer to these objects generically, we use the + qualifier LSP_TUNNEL. + + In some applications it is useful to associate sets of LSP tunnels. + This can be useful during reroute operations or to spread a traffic + trunk over multiple paths. In the traffic engineering application + such sets are called traffic engineered tunnels (TE tunnels). To + enable the identification and association of such LSP tunnels, two + identifiers are carried. A tunnel ID is part of the SESSION object. + The SESSION object uniquely defines a traffic engineered tunnel. The + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTER_SPEC objects carry an LSP ID. The + SENDER_TEMPLATE (or FILTER_SPEC) object together with the SESSION + object uniquely identifies an LSP tunnel + +2.2. Operation of LSP Tunnels + + This section summarizes some of the features supported by RSVP as + extended by this document related to the operation of LSP tunnels. + These include: (1) the capability to establish LSP tunnels with or + without QoS requirements, (2) the capability to dynamically reroute + an established LSP tunnel, (3) the capability to observe the actual + route traversed by an established LSP tunnel, (4) the capability to + identify and diagnose LSP tunnels, (5) the capability to preempt an + established LSP tunnel under administrative policy control, and (6) + the capability to perform downstream-on-demand label allocation, + distribution, and binding. In the following paragraphs, these + features are briefly described. More detailed descriptions can be + found in subsequent sections of this document. + + To create an LSP tunnel, the first MPLS node on the path -- that is, + the sender node with respect to the path -- creates an RSVP Path + message with a session type of LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 or LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 and + inserts a LABEL_REQUEST object into the Path message. The + LABEL_REQUEST object indicates that a label binding for this path is + requested and also provides an indication of the network layer + protocol that is to be carried over this path. The reason for this + is that the network layer protocol sent down an LSP cannot be assumed + to be IP and cannot be deduced from the L2 header, which simply + identifies the higher layer protocol as MPLS. + + If the sender node has knowledge of a route that has high likelihood + of meeting the tunnel's QoS requirements, or that makes efficient use + of network resources, or that satisfies some policy criteria, the + node can decide to use the route for some or all of its sessions. To + do this, the sender node adds an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object to the RSVP + Path message. The EXPLICIT_ROUTE object specifies the route as a + sequence of abstract nodes. + + If, after a session has been successfully established, the sender + node discovers a better route, the sender can dynamically reroute the + session by simply changing the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object. If problems + are encountered with an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object, either because it + causes a routing loop or because some intermediate routers do not + support it, the sender node is notified. + + By adding a RECORD_ROUTE object to the Path message, the sender node + can receive information about the actual route that the LSP tunnel + traverses. The sender node can also use this object to request + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + notification from the network concerning changes to the routing path. + The RECORD_ROUTE object is analogous to a path vector, and hence can + be used for loop detection. + + Finally, a SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object can be added to Path messages to + aid in session identification and diagnostics. Additional control + information, such as setup and hold priorities, resource affinities + (see [3]), and local-protection, are also included in this object. + + Routers along the path may use the setup and hold priorities along + with SENDER_TSPEC and any POLICY_DATA objects contained in Path + messages as input to policy control. For instance, in the traffic + engineering application, it is very useful to use the Path message as + a means of verifying that bandwidth exists at a particular priority + along an entire path before preempting any lower priority + reservations. If a Path message is allowed to progress when there + are insufficient resources, then there is a danger that lower + priority reservations downstream of this point will unnecessarily be + preempted in a futile attempt to service this request. + + When the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object (ERO) is present, the Path message is + forwarded towards its destination along a path specified by the ERO. + Each node along the path records the ERO in its path state block. + Nodes may also modify the ERO before forwarding the Path message. In + this case the modified ERO SHOULD be stored in the path state block + in addition to the received ERO. + + The LABEL_REQUEST object requests intermediate routers and receiver + nodes to provide a label binding for the session. If a node is + incapable of providing a label binding, it sends a PathErr message + with an "unknown object class" error. If the LABEL_REQUEST object is + not supported end to end, the sender node will be notified by the + first node which does not provide this support. + + The destination node of a label-switched path responds to a + LABEL_REQUEST by including a LABEL object in its response RSVP Resv + message. The LABEL object is inserted in the filter spec list + immediately following the filter spec to which it pertains. + + The Resv message is sent back upstream towards the sender, following + the path state created by the Path message, in reverse order. Note + that if the path state was created by use of an ERO, then the Resv + message will follow the reverse path of the ERO. + + Each node that receives a Resv message containing a LABEL object uses + that label for outgoing traffic associated with this LSP tunnel. If + the node is not the sender, it allocates a new label and places that + label in the corresponding LABEL object of the Resv message which it + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + sends upstream to the PHOP. The label sent upstream in the LABEL + object is the label which this node will use to identify incoming + traffic associated with this LSP tunnel. This label also serves as + shorthand for the Filter Spec. The node can now update its "Incoming + Label Map" (ILM), which is used to map incoming labeled packets to a + "Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry" (NHLFE), see [2]. + + When the Resv message propagates upstream to the sender node, a + label-switched path is effectively established. + +2.3. Service Classes + + This document does not restrict the type of Integrated Service + requests for reservations. However, an implementation SHOULD support + the Controlled-Load service [4] and the Null Service [16]. + +2.4. Reservation Styles + + The receiver node can select from among a set of possible reservation + styles for each session, and each RSVP session must have a particular + style. Senders have no influence on the choice of reservation style. + The receiver can choose different reservation styles for different + LSPs. + + An RSVP session can result in one or more LSPs, depending on the + reservation style chosen. + + Some reservation styles, such as FF, dedicate a particular + reservation to an individual sender node. Other reservation styles, + such as WF and SE, can share a reservation among several sender + nodes. The following sections discuss the different reservation + styles and their advantages and disadvantages. A more detailed + discussion of reservation styles can be found in [1]. + +2.4.1. Fixed Filter (FF) Style + + The Fixed Filter (FF) reservation style creates a distinct + reservation for traffic from each sender that is not shared by other + senders. This style is common for applications in which traffic from + each sender is likely to be concurrent and independent. The total + amount of reserved bandwidth on a link for sessions using FF is the + sum of the reservations for the individual senders. + + Because each sender has its own reservation, a unique label is + assigned to each sender. This can result in a point-to-point LSP + between every sender/receiver pair. + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +2.4.2. Wildcard Filter (WF) Style + + With the Wildcard Filter (WF) reservation style, a single shared + reservation is used for all senders to a session. The total + reservation on a link remains the same regardless of the number of + senders. + + A single multipoint-to-point label-switched-path is created for all + senders to the session. On links that senders to the session share, + a single label value is allocated to the session. If there is only + one sender, the LSP looks like a normal point-to-point connection. + When multiple senders are present, a multipoint-to-point LSP (a + reversed tree) is created. + + This style is useful for applications in which not all senders send + traffic at the same time. A phone conference, for example, is an + application where not all speakers talk at the same time. If, + however, all senders send simultaneously, then there is no means of + getting the proper reservations made. Either the reserved bandwidth + on links close to the destination will be less than what is required + or then the reserved bandwidth on links close to some senders will be + greater than what is required. This restricts the applicability of + WF for traffic engineering purposes. + + Furthermore, because of the merging rules of WF, EXPLICIT_ROUTE + objects cannot be used with WF reservations. As a result of this + issue and the lack of applicability to traffic engineering, use of WF + is not considered in this document. + +2.4.3. Shared Explicit (SE) Style + + The Shared Explicit (SE) style allows a receiver to explicitly + specify the senders to be included in a reservation. There is a + single reservation on a link for all the senders listed. Because + each sender is explicitly listed in the Resv message, different + labels may be assigned to different senders, thereby creating + separate LSPs. + + SE style reservations can be provided using multipoint-to-point + label-switched-path or LSP per sender. Multipoint-to-point LSPs may + be used when path messages do not carry the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object, or + when Path messages have identical EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects. In either + of these cases a common label may be assigned. + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Path messages from different senders can each carry their own ERO, + and the paths taken by the senders can converge and diverge at any + point in the network topology. When Path messages have differing + EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects, separate LSPs for each EXPLICIT_ROUTE object + must be established. + +2.5. Rerouting Traffic Engineered Tunnels + + One of the requirements for Traffic Engineering is the capability to + reroute an established TE tunnel under a number of conditions, based + on administrative policy. For example, in some contexts, an + administrative policy may dictate that a given TE tunnel is to be + rerouted when a more "optimal" route becomes available. Another + important context when TE tunnel reroute is usually required is upon + failure of a resource along the TE tunnel's established path. Under + some policies, it may also be necessary to return the TE tunnel to + its original path when the failed resource becomes re-activated. + + In general, it is highly desirable not to disrupt traffic, or + adversely impact network operations while TE tunnel rerouting is in + progress. This adaptive and smooth rerouting requirement + necessitates establishing a new LSP tunnel and transferring traffic + from the old LSP tunnel onto it before tearing down the old LSP + tunnel. This concept is called "make-before-break." A problem can + arise because the old and new LSP tunnels might compete with each + other for resources on network segments which they have in common. + Depending on availability of resources, this competition can cause + Admission Control to prevent the new LSP tunnel from being + established. An advantage of using RSVP to establish LSP tunnels is + that it solves this problem very elegantly. + + To support make-before-break in a smooth fashion, it is necessary + that on links that are common to the old and new LSPs, resources used + by the old LSP tunnel should not be released before traffic is + transitioned to the new LSP tunnel, and reservations should not be + counted twice because this might cause Admission Control to reject + the new LSP tunnel. + + A similar situation can arise when one wants to increase the + bandwidth of a TE tunnel. The new reservation will be for the full + amount needed, but the actual allocation needed is only the delta + between the new and old bandwidth. If policy is being applied to + PATH messages by intermediate nodes, then a PATH message requesting + too much bandwidth will be rejected. In this situation simply + increasing the bandwidth request without changing the + SENDER_TEMPLATE, could result in a tunnel being torn down, depending + upon local policy. + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + The combination of the LSP_TUNNEL SESSION object and the SE + reservation style naturally accommodates smooth transitions in + bandwidth and routing. The idea is that the old and new LSP tunnels + share resources along links which they have in common. The + LSP_TUNNEL SESSION object is used to narrow the scope of the RSVP + session to the particular TE tunnel in question. To uniquely + identify a TE tunnel, we use the combination of the destination IP + address (an address of the node which is the egress of the tunnel), a + Tunnel ID, and the tunnel ingress node's IP address, which is placed + in the Extended Tunnel ID field. + + During the reroute or bandwidth-increase operation, the tunnel + ingress needs to appear as two different senders to the RSVP session. + This is achieved by the inclusion of the "LSP ID", which is carried + in the SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTER_SPEC objects. Since the semantics + of these objects are changed, a new C-Types are assigned. + + To effect a reroute, the ingress node picks a new LSP ID and forms a + new SENDER_TEMPLATE. The ingress node then creates a new ERO to + define the new path. Thereafter the node sends a new Path Message + using the original SESSION object and the new SENDER_TEMPLATE and + ERO. It continues to use the old LSP and refresh the old Path + message. On links that are not held in common, the new Path message + is treated as a conventional new LSP tunnel setup. On links held in + common, the shared SESSION object and SE style allow the LSP to be + established sharing resources with the old LSP. Once the ingress + node receives a Resv message for the new LSP, it can transition + traffic to it and tear down the old LSP. + + To effect a bandwidth-increase, a new Path Message with a new LSP_ID + can be used to attempt a larger bandwidth reservation while the + current LSP_ID continues to be refreshed to ensure that the + reservation is not lost if the larger reservation fails. + +2.6. Path MTU + + Standard RSVP [1] and Int-Serv [11] provide the RSVP sender with the + minimum MTU available between the sender and the receiver. This path + MTU identification capability is also provided for LSPs established + via RSVP. + + Path MTU information is carried, depending on which is present, in + the Integrated Services or Null Service objects. When using + Integrated Services objects, path MTU is provided based on the + procedures defined in [11]. Path MTU identification when using Null + Service objects is defined in [16]. + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + With standard RSVP, the path MTU information is used by the sender to + check which IP packets exceed the path MTU. For packets that exceed + the path MTU, the sender either fragments the packets or, when the IP + datagram has the "Don't Fragment" bit set, issues an ICMP destination + unreachable message. This path MTU related handling is also required + for LSPs established via RSVP. + + The following algorithm applies to all unlabeled IP datagrams and to + any labeled packets which the node knows to be IP datagrams, to which + labels need to be added before forwarding. For labeled packets the + bottom of stack is found, the IP header examined. + + Using the terminology defined in [5], an LSR MUST execute the + following algorithm: + + 1. Let N be the number of bytes in the label stack (i.e, 4 times the + number of label stack entries) including labels to be added by + this node. + + 2. Let M be the smaller of the "Maximum Initially Labeled IP Datagram + Size" or of (Path MTU - N). + + When the size of an IPv4 datagram (without labels) exceeds the value + of M, + + If the DF bit is not set in the IPv4 header, then + + (a) the datagram MUST be broken into fragments, each of whose + size is no greater than M, and + + (b) each fragment MUST be labeled and then forwarded. + + If the DF bit is set in the IPv4 header, then + + (a) the datagram MUST NOT be forwarded + + (b) Create an ICMP Destination Unreachable Message: + + i. set its Code field [12] to "Fragmentation Required and + DF Set", + ii. set its Next-Hop MTU field [13] to M + + (c) If possible, transmit the ICMP Destination Unreachable + Message to the source of the of the discarded datagram. + + When the size of an IPv6 datagram (without labels) exceeds the + value of M, + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + (a) the datagram MUST NOT be forwarded + + (b) Create an ICMP Packet too Big Message with the Next-Hop + link MTU field [14] set to M + + (c) If possible, transmit the ICMP Packet too Big Message to + the source of the of the discarded datagram. + +3. LSP Tunnel related Message Formats + + Five new objects are defined in this section: + + Object name Applicable RSVP messages + --------------- ------------------------ + LABEL_REQUEST Path + LABEL Resv + EXPLICIT_ROUTE Path + RECORD_ROUTE Path, Resv + SESSION_ATTRIBUTE Path + + New C-Types are also assigned for the SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE, and + FILTER_SPEC, objects. + + Detailed descriptions of the new objects are given in later sections. + All new objects are OPTIONAL with respect to RSVP. An implementation + can choose to support a subset of objects. However, the + LABEL_REQUEST and LABEL objects are mandatory with respect to this + specification. + + The LABEL and RECORD_ROUTE objects, are sender specific. In Resv + messages they MUST appear after the associated FILTER_SPEC and prior + to any subsequent FILTER_SPEC. + + The relative placement of EXPLICIT_ROUTE, LABEL_REQUEST, and + SESSION_ATTRIBUTE objects is simply a recommendation. The ordering + of these objects is not important, so an implementation MUST be + prepared to accept objects in any order. + +3.1. Path Message + + The format of the Path message is as follows: + + <Path Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] + <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> + <TIME_VALUES> + [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ] + <LABEL_REQUEST> + [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ] + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] + <sender descriptor> + + <sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC> + [ <ADSPEC> ] + [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] + +3.2. Resv Message + + The format of the Resv message is as follows: + + <Resv Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] + <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP> + <TIME_VALUES> + [ <RESV_CONFIRM> ] [ <SCOPE> ] + [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ] + <STYLE> <flow descriptor list> + + <flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list> + | <SE flow descriptor> + + + <FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC> <FILTER_SPEC> + <LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] + | <FF flow descriptor list> + <FF flow descriptor> + + <FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ] <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL> + [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] + + <SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC> <SE filter spec list> + + <SE filter spec list> ::= <SE filter spec> + | <SE filter spec list> <SE filter spec> + + <SE filter spec> ::= <FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ] + + Note: LABEL and RECORD_ROUTE (if present), are bound to the + preceding FILTER_SPEC. No more than one LABEL and/or + RECORD_ROUTE may follow each FILTER_SPEC. + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +4. LSP Tunnel related Objects + +4.1. Label Object + + Labels MAY be carried in Resv messages. For the FF and SE styles, a + label is associated with each sender. The label for a sender MUST + immediately follow the FILTER_SPEC for that sender in the Resv + message. + + The LABEL object has the following format: + + LABEL class = 16, 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | (top label) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + The contents of a LABEL is a single label, encoded in 4 octets. Each + generic MPLS label is an unsigned integer in the range 0 through + 1048575. Generic MPLS labels and FR labels are encoded right aligned + in 4 octets. ATM labels are encoded with the VPI right justified in + bits 0-15 and the VCI right justified in bits 16-31. + +4.1.1. Handling Label Objects in Resv messages + + In MPLS a node may support multiple label spaces, perhaps associating + a unique space with each incoming interface. For the purposes of the + following discussion, the term "same label" means the identical label + value drawn from the identical label space. Further, the following + applies only to unicast sessions. + + Labels received in Resv messages on different interfaces are always + considered to be different even if the label value is the same. + +4.1.1.1. Downstream + + The downstream node selects a label to represent the flow. If a + label range has been specified in the label request, the label MUST + be drawn from that range. If no label is available the node sends a + PathErr message with an error code of "routing problem" and an error + value of "label allocation failure". + + If a node receives a Resv message that has assigned the same label + value to multiple senders, then that node MAY also assign a single + value to those same senders or to any subset of those senders. Note + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + that if a node intends to police individual senders to a session, it + MUST assign unique labels to those senders. + + In the case of ATM, one further condition applies. Some ATM nodes + are not capable of merging streams. These nodes MAY indicate this by + setting a bit in the label request to zero. The M-bit in the + LABEL_REQUEST object of C-Type 2, label request with ATM label range, + serves this purpose. The M-bit SHOULD be set by nodes which are + merge capable. If for any senders the M-bit is not set, the + downstream node MUST assign unique labels to those senders. + + Once a label is allocated, the node formats a new LABEL object. The + node then sends the new LABEL object as part of the Resv message to + the previous hop. The node SHOULD be prepared to forward packets + carrying the assigned label prior to sending the Resv message. The + LABEL object SHOULD be kept in the Reservation State Block. It is + then used in the next Resv refresh event for formatting the Resv + message. + + A node is expected to send a Resv message before its refresh timers + expire if the contents of the LABEL object change. + +4.1.1.2. Upstream + + A node uses the label carried in the LABEL object as the outgoing + label associated with the sender. The router allocates a new label + and binds it to the incoming interface of this session/sender. This + is the same interface that the router uses to forward Resv messages + to the previous hops. + + Several circumstance can lead to an unacceptable label. + + 1. the node is a merge incapable ATM switch but the downstream + node has assigned the same label to two senders + + 2. The implicit null label was assigned, but the node is not + capable of doing a penultimate pop for the associated L3PID + + 3. The assigned label is outside the requested label range + + In any of these events the node send a ResvErr message with an error + code of "routing problem" and an error value of "unacceptable label + value". + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +4.1.2. Non-support of the Label Object + + Under normal circumstances, a node should never receive a LABEL + object in a Resv message unless it had included a LABEL_REQUEST + object in the corresponding Path message. However, an RSVP router + that does not recognize the LABEL object sends a ResvErr with the + error code "Unknown object class" toward the receiver. This causes + the reservation to fail. + +4.2. Label Request Object + + The Label Request Class is 19. Currently there are three possible + C_Types. Type 1 is a Label Request without label range. Type 2 is a + label request with an ATM label range. Type 3 is a label request + with a Frame Relay label range. The LABEL_REQUEST object formats are + shown below. + +4.2.1. Label Request without Label Range + + Class = 19, 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | L3PID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Reserved + + This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission + and MUST be ignored on receipt. + + L3PID + + an identifier of the layer 3 protocol using this path. + Standard Ethertype values are used. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 19] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +4.2.2. Label Request with ATM Label Range + + Class = 19, 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | L3PID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + |M| Res | Minimum VPI | Minimum VCI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Res | Maximum VPI | Maximum VCI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Reserved (Res) + + This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission + and MUST be ignored on receipt. + + L3PID + + an identifier of the layer 3 protocol using this path. + Standard Ethertype values are used. + + M + + Setting this bit to one indicates that the node is capable of + merging in the data plane + + Minimum VPI (12 bits) + + This 12 bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of + Virtual Path Identifiers that is supported on the originating + switch. If the VPI is less than 12-bits it MUST be right + justified in this field and preceding bits MUST be set to zero. + + Minimum VCI (16 bits) + + This 16 bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of + Virtual Connection Identifiers that is supported on the + originating switch. If the VCI is less than 16-bits it MUST be + right justified in this field and preceding bits MUST be set to + zero. + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 20] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Maximum VPI (12 bits) + + This 12 bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of + Virtual Path Identifiers that is supported on the originating + switch. If the VPI is less than 12-bits it MUST be right + justified in this field and preceding bits MUST be set to zero. + + Maximum VCI (16 bits) + + This 16 bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of + Virtual Connection Identifiers that is supported on the + originating switch. If the VCI is less than 16-bits it MUST be + right justified in this field and preceding bits MUST be set to + zero. + +4.2.3. Label Request with Frame Relay Label Range + + Class = 19, C_Type = 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | L3PID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved |DLI| Minimum DLCI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Reserved | Maximum DLCI | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Reserved + + This field is reserved. It MUST be set to zero on transmission + and ignored on receipt. + + L3PID + + an identifier of the layer 3 protocol using this path. + Standard Ethertype values are used. + + DLI + + DLCI Length Indicator. The number of bits in the DLCI. The + following values are supported: + + Len DLCI bits + + 0 10 + 2 23 + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 21] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Minimum DLCI + + This 23-bit field specifies the lower bound of a block of Data + Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs) that is supported on the + originating switch. The DLCI MUST be right justified in this + field and unused bits MUST be set to 0. + + Maximum DLCI + + This 23-bit field specifies the upper bound of a block of Data + Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs) that is supported on the + originating switch. The DLCI MUST be right justified in this + field and unused bits MUST be set to 0. + +4.2.4. Handling of LABEL_REQUEST + + To establish an LSP tunnel the sender creates a Path message with a + LABEL_REQUEST object. The LABEL_REQUEST object indicates that a + label binding for this path is requested and provides an indication + of the network layer protocol that is to be carried over this path. + This permits non-IP network layer protocols to be sent down an LSP. + This information can also be useful in actual label allocation, + because some reserved labels are protocol specific, see [5]. + + The LABEL_REQUEST SHOULD be stored in the Path State Block, so that + Path refresh messages will also contain the LABEL_REQUEST object. + When the Path message reaches the receiver, the presence of the + LABEL_REQUEST object triggers the receiver to allocate a label and to + place the label in the LABEL object for the corresponding Resv + message. If a label range was specified, the label MUST be allocated + from that range. A receiver that accepts a LABEL_REQUEST object MUST + include a LABEL object in Resv messages pertaining to that Path + message. If a LABEL_REQUEST object was not present in the Path + message, a node MUST NOT include a LABEL object in a Resv message for + that Path message's session and PHOP. + + A node that sends a LABEL_REQUEST object MUST be ready to accept and + correctly process a LABEL object in the corresponding Resv messages. + + A node that recognizes a LABEL_REQUEST object, but that is unable to + support it (possibly because of a failure to allocate labels) SHOULD + send a PathErr with the error code "Routing problem" and the error + value "MPLS label allocation failure." This includes the case where + a label range has been specified and a label cannot be allocated from + that range. + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 22] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + A node which receives and forwards a Path message each with a + LABEL_REQUEST object, MUST copy the L3PID from the received + LABEL_REQUEST object to the forwarded LABEL_REQUEST object. + + If the receiver cannot support the protocol L3PID, it SHOULD send a + PathErr with the error code "Routing problem" and the error value + "Unsupported L3PID." This causes the RSVP session to fail. + +4.2.5. Non-support of the Label Request Object + + An RSVP router that does not recognize the LABEL_REQUEST object sends + a PathErr with the error code "Unknown object class" toward the + sender. An RSVP router that recognizes the LABEL_REQUEST object but + does not recognize the C_Type sends a PathErr with the error code + "Unknown object C_Type" toward the sender. This causes the path + setup to fail. The sender should notify management that a LSP cannot + be established and possibly take action to continue the reservation + without the LABEL_REQUEST. + + RSVP is designed to cope gracefully with non-RSVP routers anywhere + between senders and receivers. However, obviously, non-RSVP routers + cannot convey labels via RSVP. This means that if a router has a + neighbor that is known to not be RSVP capable, the router MUST NOT + advertise the LABEL_REQUEST object when sending messages that pass + through the non-RSVP routers. The router SHOULD send a PathErr back + to the sender, with the error code "Routing problem" and the error + value "MPLS being negotiated, but a non-RSVP capable router stands in + the path." This same message SHOULD be sent, if a router receives a + LABEL_REQUEST object in a message from a non-RSVP capable router. + See [1] for a description of how a downstream router can determine + the presence of non-RSVP routers. + +4.3. Explicit Route Object + + Explicit routes are specified via the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object (ERO). + The Explicit Route Class is 20. Currently one C_Type is defined, + Type 1 Explicit Route. The EXPLICIT_ROUTE object has the following + format: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 23] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Class = 20, 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + // (Subobjects) // + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Subobjects + + The contents of an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object are a series of variable- + length data items called subobjects. The subobjects are defined in + section 4.3.3 below. + + If a Path message contains multiple EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects, only the + first object is meaningful. Subsequent EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects MAY be + ignored and SHOULD NOT be propagated. + +4.3.1. Applicability + + The EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is intended to be used only for unicast + situations. Applications of explicit routing to multicast are a + topic for further research. + + The EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is to be used only when all routers along + the explicit route support RSVP and the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object. The + EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is assigned a class value of the form 0bbbbbbb. + RSVP routers that do not support the object will therefore respond + with an "Unknown Object Class" error. + +4.3.2. Semantics of the Explicit Route Object + + An explicit route is a particular path in the network topology. + Typically, the explicit route is determined by a node, with the + intent of directing traffic along that path. + + An explicit route is described as a list of groups of nodes along the + explicit route. In addition to the ability to identify specific + nodes along the path, an explicit route can identify a group of nodes + that must be traversed along the path. This capability allows the + routing system a significant amount of local flexibility in + fulfilling a request for an explicit route. This capability allows + the generator of the explicit route to have imperfect information + about the details of the path. + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 24] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + The explicit route is encoded as a series of subobjects contained in + an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object. Each subobject identifies a group of nodes + in the explicit route. An explicit route is thus a specification of + groups of nodes to be traversed. + + To formalize the discussion, we call each group of nodes an abstract + node. Thus, we say that an explicit route is a specification of a + set of abstract nodes to be traversed. If an abstract node consists + of only one node, we refer to it as a simple abstract node. + + As an example of the concept of abstract nodes, consider an explicit + route that consists solely of Autonomous System number subobjects. + Each subobject corresponds to an Autonomous System in the global + topology. In this case, each Autonomous System is an abstract node, + and the explicit route is a path that includes each of the specified + Autonomous Systems. There may be multiple hops within each + Autonomous System, but these are opaque to the source node for the + explicit route. + +4.3.3. Subobjects + + The contents of an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object are a series of variable- + length data items called subobjects. Each subobject has the form: + + 0 1 + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------//----------------+ + |L| Type | Length | (Subobject contents) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-------------//----------------+ + + L + + The L bit is an attribute of the subobject. The L bit is set + if the subobject represents a loose hop in the explicit route. + If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop in + the explicit route. + + Type + + The Type indicates the type of contents of the subobject. + Currently defined values are: + + 1 IPv4 prefix + 2 IPv6 prefix + 32 Autonomous system number + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 25] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Length + + The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, + including the L, Type and Length fields. The Length MUST be at + least 4, and MUST be a multiple of 4. + +4.3.3.1. Strict and Loose Subobjects + + The L bit in the subobject is a one-bit attribute. If the L bit is + set, then the value of the attribute is 'loose.' Otherwise, the + value of the attribute is 'strict.' For brevity, we say that if the + value of the subobject attribute is 'loose' then it is a 'loose + subobject.' Otherwise, it's a 'strict subobject.' Further, we say + that the abstract node of a strict or loose subobject is a strict or + a loose node, respectively. Loose and strict nodes are always + interpreted relative to their prior abstract nodes. + + The path between a strict node and its preceding node MUST include + only network nodes from the strict node and its preceding abstract + node. + + The path between a loose node and its preceding node MAY include + other network nodes that are not part of the strict node or its + preceding abstract node. + +4.3.3.2. Subobject 1: IPv4 prefix + + 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 | IPv4 address (4 bytes) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv4 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Resvd | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + L + + The L bit is an attribute of the subobject. The L bit is set + if the subobject represents a loose hop in the explicit route. + If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop in + the explicit route. + + Type + + 0x01 IPv4 address + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 26] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Length + + The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, + including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 8. + + IPv4 address + + An IPv4 address. This address is treated as a prefix based on + the prefix length value below. Bits beyond the prefix are + ignored on receipt and SHOULD be set to zero on transmission. + + Prefix length + + Length in bits of the IPv4 prefix + + Padding + + Zero on transmission. Ignored on receipt. + + The contents of an IPv4 prefix subobject are a 4-octet IPv4 address, + a 1-octet prefix length, and a 1-octet pad. The abstract node + represented by this subobject is the set of nodes that have an IP + address which lies within this prefix. Note that a prefix length of + 32 indicates a single IPv4 node. + +4.3.3.3. Subobject 2: IPv6 Prefix + + 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 | IPv6 address (16 bytes) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (continued) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (continued) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (continued) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Resvd | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + L + + The L bit is an attribute of the subobject. The L bit is set + if the subobject represents a loose hop in the explicit route. + If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop in + the explicit route. + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 27] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Type + + 0x02 IPv6 address + + Length + + The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, + including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 20. + + IPv6 address + + An IPv6 address. This address is treated as a prefix based on + the prefix length value below. Bits beyond the prefix are + ignored on receipt and SHOULD be set to zero on transmission. + + Prefix Length + + Length in bits of the IPv6 prefix. + + Padding + + Zero on transmission. Ignored on receipt. + + The contents of an IPv6 prefix subobject are a 16-octet IPv6 address, + a 1-octet prefix length, and a 1-octet pad. The abstract node + represented by this subobject is the set of nodes that have an IP + address which lies within this prefix. Note that a prefix length of + 128 indicates a single IPv6 node. + +4.3.3.4. Subobject 32: Autonomous System Number + + The contents of an Autonomous System (AS) number subobject are a 2- + octet AS number. The abstract node represented by this subobject is + the set of nodes belonging to the autonomous system. + + The length of the AS number subobject is 4 octets. + +4.3.4. Processing of the Explicit Route Object + +4.3.4.1. Selection of the Next Hop + + A node receiving a Path message containing an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object + must determine the next hop for this path. This is necessary because + the next abstract node along the explicit route might be an IP subnet + or an Autonomous System. Therefore, selection of this next hop may + involve a decision from a set of feasible alternatives. The criteria + used to make a selection from feasible alternatives is implementation + dependent and can also be impacted by local policy, and is beyond the + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 28] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + scope of this specification. However, it is assumed that each node + will make a best effort attempt to determine a loop-free path. Note + that paths so determined can be overridden by local policy. + + To determine the next hop for the path, a node performs the following + steps: + + 1) The node receiving the RSVP message MUST first evaluate the first + subobject. If the node is not part of the abstract node described + by the first subobject, it has received the message in error and + SHOULD return a "Bad initial subobject" error. If there is no + first subobject, the message is also in error and the system + SHOULD return a "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" error. + + 2) If there is no second subobject, this indicates the end of the + explicit route. The EXPLICIT_ROUTE object SHOULD be removed from + the Path message. This node may or may not be the end of the + path. Processing continues with section 4.3.4.2, where a new + EXPLICIT_ROUTE object MAY be added to the Path message. + + 3) Next, the node evaluates the second subobject. If the node is + also a part of the abstract node described by the second + subobject, then the node deletes the first subobject and continues + processing with step 2, above. Note that this makes the second + subobject into the first subobject of the next iteration and + allows the node to identify the next abstract node on the path of + the message after possible repeated application(s) of steps 2 and + 3. + + 4) Abstract Node Border Case: The node determines whether it is + topologically adjacent to the abstract node described by the + second subobject. If so, the node selects a particular next hop + which is a member of the abstract node. The node then deletes the + first subobject and continues processing with section 4.3.4.2. + + 5) Interior of the Abstract Node Case: Otherwise, the node selects a + next hop within the abstract node of the first subobject (which + the node belongs to) that is along the path to the abstract node + of the second subobject (which is the next abstract node). If no + such path exists then there are two cases: + + 5a) If the second subobject is a strict subobject, there is an error + and the node SHOULD return a "Bad strict node" error. + + 5b) Otherwise, if the second subobject is a loose subobject, the node + selects any next hop that is along the path to the next abstract + node. If no path exists, there is an error, and the node SHOULD + return a "Bad loose node" error. + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 29] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + 6) Finally, the node replaces the first subobject with any subobject + that denotes an abstract node containing the next hop. This is + necessary so that when the explicit route is received by the next + hop, it will be accepted. + +4.3.4.2. Adding subobjects to the Explicit Route Object + + After selecting a next hop, the node MAY alter the explicit route in + the following ways. + + If, as part of executing the algorithm in section 4.3.4.1, the + + EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is removed, the node MAY add a new + EXPLICIT_ROUTE object. + + Otherwise, if the node is a member of the abstract node for the first + subobject, a series of subobjects MAY be inserted before the first + subobject or MAY replace the first subobject. Each subobject in this + series MUST denote an abstract node that is a subset of the current + abstract node. + + Alternately, if the first subobject is a loose subobject, an + arbitrary series of subobjects MAY be inserted prior to the first + subobject. + +4.3.5. Loops + + While the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is of finite length, the existence of + loose nodes implies that it is possible to construct forwarding loops + during transients in the underlying routing protocol. This can be + detected by the originator of the explicit route through the use of + another opaque route object called the RECORD_ROUTE object. The + RECORD_ROUTE object is used to collect detailed path information and + is useful for loop detection and for diagnostics. + +4.3.6. Forward Compatibility + + It is anticipated that new subobjects may be defined over time. A + node which encounters an unrecognized subobject during its normal ERO + processing sends a PathErr with the error code "Routing Error" and + error value of "Bad Explicit Route Object" toward the sender. The + EXPLICIT_ROUTE object is included, truncated (on the left) to the + offending subobject. The presence of an unrecognized subobject which + is not encountered in a node's ERO processing SHOULD be ignored. It + is passed forward along with the rest of the remaining ERO stack. + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 30] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +4.3.7. Non-support of the Explicit Route Object + + An RSVP router that does not recognize the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object + sends a PathErr with the error code "Unknown object class" toward the + sender. This causes the path setup to fail. The sender should + notify management that a LSP cannot be established and possibly take + action to continue the reservation without the EXPLICIT_ROUTE or via + a different explicit route. + +4.4. Record Route Object + + Routes can be recorded via the RECORD_ROUTE object (RRO). + Optionally, labels may also be recorded. The Record Route Class is + 21. Currently one C_Type is defined, Type 1 Record Route. The + RECORD_ROUTE object has the following format: + + Class = 21, 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + // (Subobjects) // + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Subobjects + + The contents of a RECORD_ROUTE object are a series of + variable-length data items called subobjects. The subobjects + are defined in section 4.4.1 below. + + The RRO can be present in both RSVP Path and Resv messages. If a + Path message contains multiple RROs, only the first RRO is + meaningful. Subsequent RROs SHOULD be ignored and SHOULD NOT be + propagated. Similarly, if in a Resv message multiple RROs are + encountered following a FILTER_SPEC before another FILTER_SPEC is + encountered, only the first RRO is meaningful. Subsequent RROs + SHOULD be ignored and SHOULD NOT be propagated. + +4.4.1. Subobjects + + The contents of a RECORD_ROUTE object are a series of variable-length + data items called subobjects. Each subobject has its own Length + field. The length contains the total length of the subobject in + bytes, including the Type and Length fields. The length MUST always + be a multiple of 4, and at least 4. + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 31] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Subobjects are organized as a last-in-first-out stack. The first + subobject relative to the beginning of RRO is considered the top. + The last subobject is considered the bottom. When a new subobject is + added, it is always added to the top. + + An empty RRO with no subobjects is considered illegal. + + Three kinds of subobjects are currently defined. + +4.4.1.1. Subobject 1: IPv4 address + + 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 | IPv4 address (4 bytes) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv4 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Flags | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Type + + 0x01 IPv4 address + + Length + + The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, + including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 8. + + IPv4 address + + A 32-bit unicast, host address. Any network-reachable + interface address is allowed here. Illegal addresses, such as + certain loopback addresses, SHOULD NOT be used. + + Prefix length + + 32 + + Flags + + 0x01 Local protection available + + Indicates that the link downstream of this node is + protected via a local repair mechanism. This flag can + only be set if the Local protection flag was set in the + SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object of the corresponding Path + message. + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 32] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + 0x02 Local protection in use + + Indicates that a local repair mechanism is in use to + maintain this tunnel (usually in the face of an outage + of the link it was previously routed over). + +4.4.1.2. Subobject 2: IPv6 address + + 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 | IPv6 address (16 bytes) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (continued) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (continued) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (continued) | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv6 address (continued) | Prefix Length | Flags | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Type + + 0x02 IPv6 address + + Length + + The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, + including the Type and Length fields. The Length is always 20. + + IPv6 address + + A 128-bit unicast host address. + + Prefix length + + 128 + + Flags + + 0x01 Local protection available + + Indicates that the link downstream of this node is + protected via a local repair mechanism. This flag can + only be set if the Local protection flag was set in the + SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object of the corresponding Path + message. + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 33] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + 0x02 Local protection in use + + Indicates that a local repair mechanism is in use to + maintain this tunnel (usually in the face of an outage + of the link it was previously routed over). + +4.4.1.3. Subobject 3, Label + + 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 | Flags | C-Type | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Contents of Label Object | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Type + + 0x03 Label + + Length + + The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, + including the Type and Length fields. + + Flags + + 0x01 = Global label + This flag indicates that the label will be understood + if received on any interface. + + C-Type + + The C-Type of the included Label Object. Copied from the Label + Object. + + Contents of Label Object + + The contents of the Label Object. Copied from the Label Object + +4.4.2. Applicability + + Only the procedures for use in unicast sessions are defined here. + + There are three possible uses of RRO in RSVP. First, an RRO can + function as a loop detection mechanism to discover L3 routing loops, + or loops inherent in the explicit route. The exact procedure for + doing so is described later in this document. + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 34] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Second, an RRO collects up-to-date detailed path information hop-by- + hop about RSVP sessions, providing valuable information to the sender + or receiver. Any path change (due to network topology changes) will + be reported. + + Third, RRO syntax is designed so that, with minor changes, the whole + object can be used as input to the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object. This is + useful if the sender receives RRO from the receiver in a Resv + message, applies it to EXPLICIT_ROUTE object in the next Path message + in order to "pin down session path". + +4.4.3. Processing RRO + + Typically, a node initiates an RSVP session by adding the RRO to the + Path message. The initial RRO contains only one subobject - the + sender's IP addresses. If the node also desires label recording, it + sets the Label_Recording flag in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. + + When a Path message containing an RRO is received by an intermediate + router, the router stores a copy of it in the Path State Block. The + RRO is then used in the next Path refresh event for formatting Path + messages. When a new Path message is to be sent, the router adds a + new subobject to the RRO and appends the resulting RRO to the Path + message before transmission. + + The newly added subobject MUST be this router's IP address. The + address to be added SHOULD be the interface address of the outgoing + Path messages. If there are multiple addresses to choose from, the + decision is a local matter. However, it is RECOMMENDED that the same + address be chosen consistently. + + When the Label_Recording flag is set in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object, + nodes doing route recording SHOULD include a Label Record subobject. + If the node is using a global label space, then it SHOULD set the + Global Label flag. + + The Label Record subobject is pushed onto the RECORD_ROUTE object + prior to pushing on the node's IP address. A node MUST NOT push on a + Label Record subobject without also pushing on an IPv4 or IPv6 + subobject. + + Note that on receipt of the initial Path message, a node is unlikely + to have a label to include. Once a label is obtained, the node + SHOULD include the label in the RRO in the next Path refresh event. + + If the newly added subobject causes the RRO to be too big to fit in a + Path (or Resv) message, the RRO object SHALL be dropped from the + message and message processing continues as normal. A PathErr (or + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 35] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + ResvErr) message SHOULD be sent back to the sender (or receiver). An + error code of "Notify" and an error value of "RRO too large for MTU" + is used. If the receiver receives such a ResvErr, it SHOULD send a + PathErr message with error code of "Notify" and an error value of + "RRO notification". + + A sender receiving either of these error values SHOULD remove the RRO + from the Path message. + + Nodes SHOULD resend the above PathErr or ResvErr message each n + seconds where n is the greater of 15 and the refresh interval for the + associated Path or RESV message. The node MAY apply limits and/or + back-off timers to limit the number of messages sent. + + An RSVP router can decide to send Path messages before its refresh + time if the RRO in the next Path message is different from the + previous one. This can happen if the contents of the RRO received + from the previous hop router changes or if this RRO is newly added to + (or deleted from) the Path message. + + When the destination node of an RSVP session receives a Path message + with an RRO, this indicates that the sender node needs route + recording. The destination node initiates the RRO process by adding + an RRO to Resv messages. The processing mirrors that of the Path + messages. The only difference is that the RRO in a Resv message + records the path information in the reverse direction. + + Note that each node along the path will now have the complete route + from source to destination. The Path RRO will have the route from + the source to this node; the Resv RRO will have the route from this + node to the destination. This is useful for network management. + + A received Path message without an RRO indicates that the sender node + no longer needs route recording. Subsequent Resv messages SHALL NOT + contain an RRO. + +4.4.4. Loop Detection + + As part of processing an incoming RRO, an intermediate router looks + into all subobjects contained within the RRO. If the router + determines that it is already in the list, a forwarding loop exists. + + An RSVP session is loop-free if downstream nodes receive Path + messages or upstream nodes receive Resv messages with no routing + loops detected in the contained RRO. + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 36] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + There are two broad classifications of forwarding loops. The first + class is the transient loop, which occurs as a normal part of + operations as L3 routing tries to converge on a consistent forwarding + path for all destinations. The second class of forwarding loop is + the permanent loop, which normally results from network mis- + configuration. + + The action performed by a node on receipt of an RRO depends on the + message type in which the RRO is received. + + For Path messages containing a forwarding loop, the router builds and + sends a "Routing problem" PathErr message, with the error value "loop + detected," and drops the Path message. Until the loop is eliminated, + this session is not suitable for forwarding data packets. How the + loop eliminated is beyond the scope of this document. + + For Resv messages containing a forwarding loop, the router simply + drops the message. Resv messages should not loop if Path messages do + not loop. + +4.4.5. Forward Compatibility + + New subobjects may be defined for the RRO. When processing an RRO, + unrecognized subobjects SHOULD be ignored and passed on. When + processing an RRO for loop detection, a node SHOULD parse over any + unrecognized objects. Loop detection works by detecting subobjects + which were inserted by the node itself on an earlier pass of the + object. This ensures that the subobjects necessary for loop + detection are always understood. + +4.4.6. Non-support of RRO + + The RRO object is to be used only when all routers along the path + support RSVP and the RRO object. The RRO object is assigned a class + value of the form 0bbbbbbb. RSVP routers that do not support the + object will therefore respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. + +4.5. Error Codes for ERO and RRO + + In the processing described above, certain errors must be reported as + either a "Routing Problem" or "Notify". The value of the "Routing + Problem" error code is 24; the value of the "Notify" error code is + 25. + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 37] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + The following defines error values for the Routing Problem Error + Code: + + Value Error: + + 1 Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object + + 2 Bad strict node + + 3 Bad loose node + + 4 Bad initial subobject + + 5 No route available toward destination + + 6 Unacceptable label value + + 7 RRO indicated routing loops + + 8 MPLS being negotiated, but a non-RSVP-capable router + stands in the path + + 9 MPLS label allocation failure + + 10 Unsupported L3PID + + For the Notify Error Code, the 16 bits of the Error Value field are: + + ss00 cccc cccc cccc + + The high order bits are as defined under Error Code 1. (See [1]). + + When ss = 00, the following subcodes are defined: + + 1 RRO too large for MTU + + 2 RRO notification + + 3 Tunnel locally repaired + +4.6. Session, Sender Template, and Filter Spec Objects + + New C-Types are defined for the SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE and + FILTER_SPEC objects. + + The LSP_TUNNEL objects have the following format: + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 38] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +4.6.1. Session Object + +4.6.1.1. LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Session Object + + Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = 7 + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv4 tunnel end point address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | MUST be zero | Tunnel ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Extended Tunnel ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + IPv4 tunnel end point address + + IPv4 address of the egress node for the tunnel. + + Tunnel ID + + A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant + over the life of the tunnel. + + Extended Tunnel ID + + A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant + over the life of the tunnel. Normally set to all zeros. + Ingress nodes that wish to narrow the scope of a SESSION to the + ingress-egress pair may place their IPv4 address here as a + globally unique identifier. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 39] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +4.6.1.2. LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Session Object + + Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 C_Type = 8 + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + + + + | IPv6 tunnel end point address | + + + + | (16 bytes) | + + + + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | MUST be zero | Tunnel ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + + + + | Extended Tunnel ID | + + + + | (16 bytes) | + + + + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + IPv6 tunnel end point address + + IPv6 address of the egress node for the tunnel. + + Tunnel ID + + A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant + over the life of the tunnel. + + Extended Tunnel ID + + A 16-byte identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant + over the life of the tunnel. Normally set to all zeros. + Ingress nodes that wish to narrow the scope of a SESSION to the + ingress-egress pair may place their IPv6 address here as a + globally unique identifier. + +4.6.2. Sender Template Object + +4.6.2.1. LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Sender Template Object + + Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = 7 + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 40] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | IPv4 tunnel sender address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | MUST be zero | LSP ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + IPv4 tunnel sender address + + IPv4 address for a sender node + + LSP ID + + A 16-bit identifier used in the SENDER_TEMPLATE and the + FILTER_SPEC that can be changed to allow a sender to share + resources with itself. + +4.6.2.2. LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Sender Template Object + + Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 C_Type = 8 + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + + + + | IPv6 tunnel sender address | + + + + | (16 bytes) | + + + + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | MUST be zero | LSP ID | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + IPv6 tunnel sender address + + IPv6 address for a sender node + + LSP ID + + A 16-bit identifier used in the SENDER_TEMPLATE and the + FILTER_SPEC that can be changed to allow a sender to share + resources with itself. + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 41] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +4.6.3. Filter Specification Object + +4.6.3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 Filter Specification Object + + Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 C-Type = 7 + + The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is identical to + the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object. + +4.6.3.2. LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 Filter Specification Object + + Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 C_Type = 8 + + The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is identical to + the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object. + +4.6.4. Reroute and Bandwidth Increase Procedure + + This section describes how to setup a tunnel that is capable of + maintaining resource reservations (without double counting) while it + is being rerouted or while it is attempting to increase its + bandwidth. In the initial Path message, the ingress node forms a + SESSION object, assigns a Tunnel_ID, and places its IPv4 address in + the Extended_Tunnel_ID. It also forms a SENDER_TEMPLATE and assigns + a LSP_ID. Tunnel setup then proceeds according to the normal + procedure. + + On receipt of the Path message, the egress node sends a Resv message + with the STYLE Shared Explicit toward the ingress node. + + When an ingress node with an established path wants to change that + path, it forms a new Path message as follows. The existing SESSION + object is used. In particular the Tunnel_ID and Extended_Tunnel_ID + are unchanged. The ingress node picks a new LSP_ID to form a new + SENDER_TEMPLATE. It creates an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object for the new + route. The new Path message is sent. The ingress node refreshes + both the old and new path messages. + + The egress node responds with a Resv message with an SE flow + descriptor formatted as: + + <FLOWSPEC><old_FILTER_SPEC><old_LABEL_OBJECT><new_FILTER_SPEC> + <new_LABEL_OBJECT> + + (Note that if the PHOPs are different, then two messages are sent + each with the appropriate FILTER_SPEC and LABEL_OBJECT.) + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 42] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + When the ingress node receives the Resv Message(s), it may begin + using the new route. It SHOULD send a PathTear message for the old + route. + +4.7. Session Attribute Object + + The Session Attribute Class is 207. Two C_Types are defined, + LSP_TUNNEL, C-Type = 7 and LSP_TUNNEL_RA, C-Type = 1. The + LSP_TUNNEL_RA C-Type includes all the same fields as the LSP_TUNNEL + C-Type. Additionally it carries resource affinity information. The + formats are as follows: + +4.7.1. Format without resource affinities + + SESSION_ATTRIBUTE class = 207, LSP_TUNNEL C-Type = 7 + + 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Setup Prio | Holding Prio | Flags | Name Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + // Session Name (NULL padded display string) // + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Setup Priority + + The priority of the session with respect to taking resources, + in the range of 0 to 7. The value 0 is the highest priority. + The Setup Priority is used in deciding whether this session can + preempt another session. + + Holding Priority + + The priority of the session with respect to holding resources, + in the range of 0 to 7. The value 0 is the highest priority. + Holding Priority is used in deciding whether this session can + be preempted by another session. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 43] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Flags + + 0x01 Local protection desired + + This flag permits transit routers to use a local repair + mechanism which may result in violation of the explicit + route object. When a fault is detected on an adjacent + downstream link or node, a transit router can reroute + traffic for fast service restoration. + + 0x02 Label recording desired + + This flag indicates that label information should be + included when doing a route record. + + 0x04 SE Style desired + + This flag indicates that the tunnel ingress node may + choose to reroute this tunnel without tearing it down. + A tunnel egress node SHOULD use the SE Style when + responding with a Resv message. + + Name Length + + The length of the display string before padding, in bytes. + + Session Name + + A null padded string of characters. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 44] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +4.7.2. Format with resource affinities + + SESSION_ATTRIBUTE class = 207, LSP_TUNNEL_RA 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Exclude-any | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Include-any | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Include-all | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Setup Prio | Holding Prio | Flags | Name Length | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | + // Session Name (NULL padded display string) // + | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Exclude-any + + A 32-bit vector representing a set of attribute filters + associated with a tunnel any of which renders a link + unacceptable. + + Include-any + + A 32-bit vector representing a set of attribute filters + associated with a tunnel any of which renders a link acceptable + (with respect to this test). A null set (all bits set to zero) + automatically passes. + + Include-all + + A 32-bit vector representing a set of attribute filters + associated with a tunnel all of which must be present for a + link to be acceptable (with respect to this test). A null set + (all bits set to zero) automatically passes. + + Setup Priority + + The priority of the session with respect to taking resources, + in the range of 0 to 7. The value 0 is the highest priority. + The Setup Priority is used in deciding whether this session can + preempt another session. + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 45] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Holding Priority + + The priority of the session with respect to holding resources, + in the range of 0 to 7. The value 0 is the highest priority. + Holding Priority is used in deciding whether this session can + be preempted by another session. + + Flags + + 0x01 Local protection desired + + This flag permits transit routers to use a local repair + mechanism which may result in violation of the explicit + route object. When a fault is detected on an adjacent + downstream link or node, a transit router can reroute + traffic for fast service restoration. + + 0x02 Label recording desired + + This flag indicates that label information should be + included when doing a route record. + + 0x04 SE Style desired + + This flag indicates that the tunnel ingress node may + choose to reroute this tunnel without tearing it down. + A tunnel egress node SHOULD use the SE Style when + responding with a Resv message. + + Name Length + + The length of the display string before padding, in bytes. + + Session Name + + A null padded string of characters. + +4.7.3. Procedures applying to both C-Types + + The support of setup and holding priorities is OPTIONAL. A node can + recognize this information but be unable to perform the requested + operation. The node SHOULD pass the information downstream + unchanged. + + As noted above, preemption is implemented by two priorities. The + Setup Priority is the priority for taking resources. The Holding + Priority is the priority for holding a resource. Specifically, the + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 46] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Holding Priority is the priority at which resources assigned to this + session will be reserved. The Setup Priority SHOULD never be higher + than the Holding Priority for a given session. + + The setup and holding priorities are directly analogous to the + preemption and defending priorities as defined in [9]. While the + interaction of these two objects is ultimately a matter of policy, + the following default interaction is RECOMMENDED. + + When both objects are present, the preemption priority policy element + is used. A mapping between the priority spaces is defined as + follows. A session attribute priority S is mapped to a preemption + priority P by the formula P = 2^(14-2S). The reverse mapping is + shown in the following table. + + Preemption Priority Session Attribute Priority + + 0 - 3 7 + 4 - 15 6 + 16 - 63 5 + 64 - 255 4 + 256 - 1023 3 + 1024 - 4095 2 + 4096 - 16383 1 + 16384 - 65535 0 + + When a new Path message is considered for admission, the bandwidth + requested is compared with the bandwidth available at the priority + specified in the Setup Priority. + + If the requested bandwidth is not available a PathErr message is + returned with an Error Code of 01, Admission Control Failure, and an + Error Value of 0x0002. The first 0 in the Error Value indicates a + globally defined subcode and is not informational. The 002 indicates + "requested bandwidth unavailable". + + If the requested bandwidth is less than the unused bandwidth then + processing is complete. If the requested bandwidth is available, but + is in use by lower priority sessions, then lower priority sessions + (beginning with the lowest priority) MAY be preempted to free the + necessary bandwidth. + + When preemption is supported, each preempted reservation triggers a + TC_Preempt() upcall to local clients, passing a subcode that + indicates the reason. A ResvErr and/or PathErr with the code "Policy + Control failure" SHOULD be sent toward the downstream receivers and + upstream senders. + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 47] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + The support of local-protection is OPTIONAL. A node may recognize + the local-protection Flag but may be unable to perform the requested + operation. In this case, the node SHOULD pass the information + downstream unchanged. + + The recording of the Label subobject in the ROUTE_RECORD object is + controlled by the label-recording-desired flag in the + SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object. Since the Label subobject is not needed + for all applications, it is not automatically recorded. The flag + allows applications to request this only when needed. + + The contents of the Session Name field are a string, typically of + display-able characters. The Length MUST always be a multiple of 4 + and MUST be at least 8. For an object length that is not a multiple + of 4, the object is padded with trailing NULL characters. The Name + Length field contains the actual string length. + +4.7.4. Resource Affinity Procedures + + Resource classes and resource class affinities are described in [3]. + In this document we use the briefer term resource affinities for the + latter term. Resource classes can be associated with links and + advertised in routing protocols. Resource class affinities are used + by RSVP in two ways. In order to be validated a link MUST pass the + three tests below. If the test fails a PathErr with the code "policy + control failure" SHOULD be sent. + + When a new reservation is considered for admission over a strict node + in an ERO, a node MAY validate the resource affinities with the + resource classes of that link. When a node is choosing links in + order to extend a loose node of an ERO, the node MUST validate the + resource classes of those links against the resource affinities. If + no acceptable links can be found to extend the ERO, the node SHOULD + send a PathErr message with an error code of "Routing Problem" and an + error value of "no route available toward destination". + + In order to be validated a link MUST pass the following three tests. + + To precisely describe the tests use the definitions in the object + description above. We also define + + Link-attr A 32-bit vector representing attributes associated + with a link. + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 48] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + The three tests are + + 1. Exclude-any + + This test excludes a link from consideration if the link + carries any of the attributes in the set. + + (link-attr & exclude-any) == 0 + + 2. Include-any + + This test accepts a link if the link carries any of the + attributes in the set. + + (include-any == 0) | ((link-attr & include-any) != 0) + + 3. Include-all + + This test accepts a link only if the link carries all of the + attributes in the set. + + (include-all == 0) | (((link-attr & include-all) ^ include- + all) == 0) + + For a link to be acceptable, all three tests MUST pass. If the test + fails, the node SHOULD send a PathErr message with an error code of + "Routing Problem" and an error value of "no route available toward + destination". + + If a Path message contains multiple SESSION_ATTRIBUTE objects, only + the first SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object is meaningful. Subsequent + SESSION_ATTRIBUTE objects can be ignored and need not be forwarded. + + All RSVP routers, whether they support the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object + or not, SHALL forward the object unmodified. The presence of non- + RSVP routers anywhere between senders and receivers has no impact on + this object. + +5. Hello Extension + + The RSVP Hello extension enables RSVP nodes to detect when a + neighboring node is not reachable. The mechanism provides node to + node failure detection. When such a failure is detected it is + handled much the same as a link layer communication failure. This + mechanism is intended to be used when notification of link layer + failures is not available and unnumbered links are not used, or when + the failure detection mechanisms provided by the link layer are not + sufficient for timely node failure detection. + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 49] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + It should be noted that node failure detection is not the same as a + link failure detection mechanism, particularly in the case of + multiple parallel unnumbered links. + + The Hello extension is specifically designed so that one side can use + the mechanism while the other side does not. Neighbor failure + detection may be initiated at any time. This includes when neighbors + first learn about each other, or just when neighbors are sharing Resv + or Path state. + + The Hello extension is composed of a Hello message, a HELLO REQUEST + object and a HELLO ACK object. Hello processing between two + neighbors supports independent selection of, typically configured, + failure detection intervals. Each neighbor can autonomously issue + HELLO REQUEST objects. Each request is answered by an + acknowledgment. Hello Messages also contain enough information so + that one neighbor can suppress issuing hello requests and still + perform neighbor failure detection. A Hello message may be included + as a sub-message within a bundle message. + + Neighbor failure detection is accomplished by collecting and storing + a neighbor's "instance" value. If a change in value is seen or if + the neighbor is not properly reporting the locally advertised value, + then the neighbor is presumed to have reset. When a neighbor's value + is seen to change or when communication is lost with a neighbor, then + the instance value advertised to that neighbor is also changed. The + HELLO objects provide a mechanism for polling for and providing an + instance value. A poll request also includes the sender's instance + value. This allows the receiver of a poll to optionally treat the + poll as an implicit poll response. This optional handling is an + optimization that can reduce the total number of polls and responses + processed by a pair of neighbors. In all cases, when both sides + support the optimization the result will be only one set of polls and + responses per failure detection interval. Depending on selected + intervals, the same benefit can occur even when only one neighbor + supports the optimization. + +5.1. Hello Message Format + + Hello Messages are always sent between two RSVP neighbors. The IP + source address is the IP address of the sending node. The IP + destination address is the IP address of the neighbor node. + + The HELLO mechanism is intended for use between immediate neighbors. + When HELLO messages are being the exchanged between immediate + neighbors, the IP TTL field of all outgoing HELLO messages SHOULD be + set to 1. + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 50] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + The Hello message has a Msg Type of 20. The Hello message format is + as follows: + + <Hello Message> ::= <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ] + <HELLO> + +5.2. HELLO Object formats + + The HELLO Class is 22. There are two C_Types defined. + +5.2.1. HELLO REQUEST object + + Class = HELLO Class, 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Src_Instance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Dst_Instance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + +5.2.2. HELLO ACK object + + Class = HELLO Class, 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 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Src_Instance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | Dst_Instance | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + + Src_Instance: 32 bits + + a 32 bit value that represents the sender's instance. The + advertiser maintains a per neighbor representation/value. This + value MUST change when the sender is reset, when the node reboots, + or when communication is lost to the neighboring node and + otherwise remains the same. This field MUST NOT be set to zero + (0). + + Dst_Instance: 32 bits + + The most recently received Src_Instance value received from the + neighbor. This field MUST be set to zero (0) when no value has + ever been seen from the neighbor. + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 51] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +5.3. Hello Message Usage + + The Hello Message is completely OPTIONAL. All messages may be + ignored by nodes which do not wish to participate in Hello message + processing. The balance of this section is written assuming that the + receiver as well as the sender is participating. In particular, the + use of MUST and SHOULD with respect to the receiver applies only to a + node that supports Hello message processing. + + A node periodically generates a Hello message containing a HELLO + REQUEST object for each neighbor who's status is being tracked. The + periodicity is governed by the hello_interval. This value MAY be + configured on a per neighbor basis. The default value is 5 ms. + + When generating a message containing a HELLO REQUEST object, the + sender fills in the Src_Instance field with a value representing it's + per neighbor instance. This value MUST NOT change while the agent is + exchanging Hellos with the corresponding neighbor. The sender also + fills in the Dst_Instance field with the Src_Instance value most + recently received from the neighbor. For reference, call this + variable Neighbor_Src_Instance. If no value has ever been received + from the neighbor or this node considers communication to the + neighbor to have been lost, the Neighbor_Src_Instance is set to zero + (0). The generation of a message SHOULD be suppressed when a HELLO + REQUEST object was received from the destination node within the + prior hello_interval interval. + + On receipt of a message containing a HELLO REQUEST object, the + receiver MUST generate a Hello message containing a HELLO ACK object. + The receiver SHOULD also verify that the neighbor has not reset. + This is done by comparing the sender's Src_Instance field value with + the previously received value. If the Neighbor_Src_Instance value is + zero, and the Src_Instance field is non-zero, the + Neighbor_Src_Instance is updated with the new value. If the value + differs or the Src_Instance field is zero, then the node MUST treat + the neighbor as if communication has been lost. + + The receiver of a HELLO REQUEST object SHOULD also verify that the + neighbor is reflecting back the receiver's Instance value. This is + done by comparing the received Dst_Instance field with the + Src_Instance field value most recently transmitted to that neighbor. + If the neighbor continues to advertise a wrong non-zero value after a + configured number of intervals, then the node MUST treat the neighbor + as if communication has been lost. + + On receipt of a message containing a HELLO ACK object, the receiver + MUST verify that the neighbor has not reset. This is done by + comparing the sender's Src_Instance field value with the previously + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 52] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + received value. If the Neighbor_Src_Instance value is zero, and the + Src_Instance field is non-zero, the Neighbor_Src_Instance is updated + with the new value. If the value differs or the Src_Instance field + is zero, then the node MUST treat the neighbor as if communication + has been lost. + + The receiver of a HELLO ACK object MUST also verify that the neighbor + is reflecting back the receiver's Instance value. If the neighbor + advertises a wrong value in the Dst_Instance field, then a node MUST + treat the neighbor as if communication has been lost. + + If no Instance values are received, via either REQUEST or ACK + objects, from a neighbor within a configured number of + hello_intervals, then a node MUST presume that it cannot communicate + with the neighbor. The default for this number is 3.5. + + When communication is lost or presumed to be lost as described above, + a node MAY re-initiate HELLOs. If a node does re-initiate it MUST + use a Src_Instance value different than the one advertised in the + previous HELLO message. This new value MUST continue to be + advertised to the corresponding neighbor until a reset or reboot + occurs, or until another communication failure is detected. If a new + instance value has not been received from the neighbor, then the node + MUST advertise zero in the Dst_instance value field. + +5.4. Multi-Link Considerations + + As previously noted, the Hello extension is targeted at detecting + node failures not per link failures. When there is only one link + between neighboring nodes or when all links between a pair of nodes + fail, the distinction between node and link failures is not really + meaningful and handling of such failures has already been covered. + When there are multiple links shared between neighbors, there are + special considerations. When the links between neighbors are + numbered, then Hellos MUST be run on each link and the previously + described mechanisms apply. + + When the links are unnumbered, link failure detection MUST be + provided by some means other than Hellos. Each node SHOULD use a + single Hello exchange with the neighbor. The case where all links + have failed, is the same as the no received value case mentioned in + the previous section. + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 53] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +5.5. Compatibility + + The Hello extension does not affect the processing of any other RSVP + message. The only effect is to allow a link (node) down event to be + declared sooner than it would have been. RSVP response to that + condition is unchanged. + + The Hello extension is fully backwards compatible. The Hello class + is assigned a class value of the form 0bbbbbbb. Depending on the + implementation, implementations that do not support the extension + will either silently discard Hello messages or will respond with an + "Unknown Object Class" error. In either case the sender will fail to + see an acknowledgment for the issued Hello. + +6. Security Considerations + + In principle these extensions to RSVP pose no security exposures over + and above RFC 2205[1]. However, there is a slight change in the + trust model. Traffic sent on a normal RSVP session can be filtered + according to source and destination addresses as well as port + numbers. In this specification, filtering occurs only on the basis + of an incoming label. For this reason an administration may wish to + limit the domain over which LSP tunnels can be established. This can + be accomplished by setting filters on various ports to deny action on + a RSVP path message with a SESSION object of type LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 (7) + or LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 (8). + +7. IANA Considerations + + IANA assigns values to RSVP protocol parameters. Within the current + document an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object and a ROUTE_RECORD object are + defined. Each of these objects contain subobjects. This section + defines the rules for the assignment of subobject numbers. This + section uses the terminology of BCP 26 "Guidelines for Writing an + IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [15]. + + EXPLICIT_ROUTE Subobject Type + + EXPLICIT_ROUTE Subobject Type is a 7-bit number that identifies + the function of the subobject. There are no range restrictions. + All possible values are available for assignment. + + Following the policies outlined in [15], subobject types in the + range 0 - 63 (0x00 - 0x3F) are allocated through an IETF Consensus + action, codes in the range 64 - 95 (0x40 - 0x5F) are allocated as + First Come First Served, and codes in the range 96 - 127 (0x60 - + 0x7F) are reserved for Private Use. + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 54] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + ROUTE_RECORD Subobject Type + + ROUTE_RECORD Subobject Type is an 8-bit number that identifies the + function of the subobject. There are no range restrictions. All + possible values are available for assignment. + + Following the policies outlined in [15], subobject types in the + range 0 - 127 (0x00 - 0x7F) are allocated through an IETF + Consensus action, codes in the range 128 - 191 (0x80 - 0xBF) are + allocated as First Come First Served, and codes in the range 192 - + 255 (0xC0 - 0xFF) are reserved for Private Use. + + The following assignments are made in this document. + +7.1. Message Types + + Message Message + Number Name + + 20 Hello + +7.2. Class Numbers and C-Types + + Class Class + Number Name + + 1 SESSION + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 7 LSP Tunnel IPv4 + 8 LSP Tunnel IPv6 + + 10 FILTER_SPEC + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 7 LSP Tunnel IPv4 + 8 LSP Tunnel IPv6 + + 11 SENDER_TEMPLATE + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 7 LSP Tunnel IPv4 + 8 LSP Tunnel IPv6 + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 55] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + 16 RSVP_LABEL + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 1 Type 1 Label + + 19 LABEL_REQUEST + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 1 Without Label Range + 2 With ATM Label Range + 3 With Frame Relay Label Range + + 20 EXPLICIT_ROUTE + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 1 Type 1 Explicit Route + + 21 ROUTE_RECORD + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 1 Type 1 Route Record + + 22 HELLO + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 1 Request + 2 Acknowledgment + + + 207 SESSION_ATTRIBUTE + + Class Types or C-Types: + + 1 LSP_TUNNEL_RA + 7 LSP Tunnel + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 56] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +7.3. Error Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes + + The following list extends the basic list of Error Codes and Values + that are defined in [RFC2205]. + + Error Code Meaning + + 24 Routing Problem + + This Error Code has the following globally-defined + Error Value sub-codes: + + 1 Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object + 2 Bad strict node + 3 Bad loose node + 4 Bad initial subobject + 5 No route available toward + destination + 6 Unacceptable label value + 7 RRO indicated routing loops + 8 MPLS being negotiated, but a + non-RSVP-capable router stands + in the path + 9 MPLS label allocation failure + 10 Unsupported L3PID + + 25 Notify Error + + This Error Code has the following globally-defined + Error Value sub-codes: + + 1 RRO too large for MTU + 2 RRO Notification + 3 Tunnel locally repaired + +7.4. Subobject Definitions + + Subobjects of the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object with C-Type 1: + + 1 IPv4 prefix + 2 IPv6 prefix + 32 Autonomous system number + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 57] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + Subobjects of the RECORD_ROUTE object with C-Type 1: + + 1 IPv4 address + 2 IPv6 address + 3 Label + +8. Intellectual Property Considerations + + The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in + regard to some or all of the specification contained in this + document. For more information consult the online list of claimed + rights. + +9. Acknowledgments + + This document contains ideas as well as text that have appeared in + previous Internet Drafts. The authors of the current document wish + to thank the authors of those drafts. They are Steven Blake, Bruce + Davie, Roch Guerin, Sanjay Kamat, Yakov Rekhter, Eric Rosen, and Arun + Viswanathan. We also wish to thank Bora Akyol, Yoram Bernet and Alex + Mondrus for their comments on this document. + +10. References + + [1] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin, + "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1, Functional + Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. + + [2] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label + Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. + + [3] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell and J. McManus, + "Requirements for Traffic Engineering over MPLS", RFC 2702, + September 1999. + + [4] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network + Element Service", RFC 2211, September 1997. + + [5] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., + Li, T. and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, + January 2001. + + [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement + Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [7] Almquist, P., "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite", + RFC 1349, July 1992. + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 58] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + + [8] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black, "Definition of + the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and + IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998. + + [9] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", RFC + 2751, January 2000. + + [10] Awduche, D., Hannan, A. and X. Xiao, "Applicability Statement + for Extensions to RSVP for LSP-Tunnels", RFC 3210, December + 2001. + + [11] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services", + RFC 2210, September 1997. + + [12] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, + September 1981. + + [13] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191, + November 1990. + + [14] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol + (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2463, + December 1998. + + [15] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA + Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. + + [16] Bernet, Y., Smiht, A. and B. Davie, "Specification of the Null + Service Type", RFC 2997, November 2000. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 59] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +11. Authors' Addresses + + Daniel O. Awduche + Movaz Networks, Inc. + 7926 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 615 + McLean, VA 22102 + Voice: +1 703-298-5291 + EMail: awduche@movaz.com + + + Lou Berger + Movaz Networks, Inc. + 7926 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 615 + McLean, VA 22102 + Voice: +1 703 847 1801 + EMail: lberger@movaz.com + + + Der-Hwa Gan + Juniper Networks, Inc. + 385 Ravendale Drive + Mountain View, CA 94043 + EMail: dhg@juniper.net + + + Tony Li + Procket Networks + 3910 Freedom Circle, Ste. 102A + Santa Clara CA 95054 + EMail: tli@procket.com + + + Vijay Srinivasan + Cosine Communications, Inc. + 1200 Bridge Parkway + Redwood City, CA 94065 + Voice: +1 650 628 4892 + EMail: vsriniva@cosinecom.com + + + George Swallow + Cisco Systems, Inc. + 250 Apollo Drive + Chelmsford, MA 01824 + Voice: +1 978 244 8143 + EMail: swallow@cisco.com + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 60] + +RFC 3209 Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels December 2001 + + +12. Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. + + This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to + others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it + or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published + and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any + kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are + included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this + document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing + the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other + Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of + developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for + copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be + followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than + English. + + The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be + revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. + + This document and the information contained herein is provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING + TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING + BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION + HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF + MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Acknowledgement + + Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the + Internet Society. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Awduche, et al. Standards Track [Page 61] + |