Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro
TEAS C. Margaria, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track G. Martinelli
Expires: September 24, 2015 Cisco
S. Balls
B. Wright
Metaswitch
March 23, 2015
LSP Attribute in ERO
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-attribute-ro-05
Abstract
RFC5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes which
apply to the whole of the path of a Label Switched Path (LSP). This
document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO)
and Record Route Object (RRO) objects to allow it to specify or
record generic attributes which apply to a given hop.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . 7
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) can be route-constrained by making use of the Explicit
Route object (ERO) and related sub-objects as defined in [RFC3209],
[RFC3473], [RFC3477], [RFC4873], [RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be
targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [RFC6163],
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling], [I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb] or
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]. This document
provides a generic mechanism for use by these other documents.
RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP Attributes in
[RFC5420]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint
extensions this document provides a mechanism to define per-Hop
attributes.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information
related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This document does
not restrict what that information can be used for. The defined
approach builds on LSP Attributes defined in [RFC5420], and enables
attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route object
(SERO) objects. A new ERO sub-object is defined, containing a list
of generic per-Hop attributes.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used it is carried
in the ERO or SERO. The subobject uses the standard format of an ERO
subobject.
2.1. Encoding
The length is variable and content is a list of HOP Attributes TLVs
defined in Section 2.2. The size of the ERO sub-object limits the
size of the attribute TLV to 250 bytes. The typical size of
currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs applicable to a
specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, Objective Function (OF) and Metric) is
not foreseen to exceed this limit.
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The L, Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209]
Section 4.3.3. The L bit MUST be set to 0. The Type for the ERO Hop
Attributes subobject is TBA-1 by IANA. The attributes TLV are
encoded as defined in Section 2.2.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
Reserved Reserved, MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO and
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO
subobjects.
R This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE
semantic defined in [RFC5420]. When set it indicates required hop
attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it
indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in
Section 2.3.
Attributes TLVs The TLVs as defined in Section 2.2.
2.2. HOP Attributes TLVs
ERO Attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document
are encoded within TLVs. Each object MAY contain one or more TLVs.
There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation SHOULD NOT
be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The TLV format is
defined in [RFC5420] Section 3.
The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [RFC5420] are carried in an ERO
Hop Attributes Subobject. Flags set in the an Attribute Flags TLV
[RFC5420] carried in an ERO Hop Attributes Subobject SHALL be
interpreted in the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of
defined flags are defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV
carried in an ERO Hop Attributes Subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be
silently ignored. Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a
PathErr with Error Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in
[RFC5420] Section 5.2. The set of valid flags are defined in
Section 4.3.
The presence and ordering rule of the Attribute Flags TLV in an ERO
Hop Attributes Subobject is defined by each Flag. A document
defining a Flag to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the
ERO Hop Attributes Subobject has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject the Flag is valid
o if ordering of the Flag and other ERO subobjects associated with
the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the Flag is interpreted in
association with the preceding subobjects,
o any Flag modification rules that might apply.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
2.3. Procedures
As described in [RFC3209] the ERO is managed as a list of subobjects
each identifying a specific entity, an abstract node or a link that
defines a waypoint in the network path. Identifying subobjects of
various types are defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
[RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553].
[RFC3473] modified the ERO list by allowing one or two Label
subobjects to be interposed in the list after a subobject identifying
a link. One or more ERO Hop Attributes subobjects applicable to a
particular hop MAY be inserted directly after any of the existing
identifying subobjects defined in[RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4873],
[RFC4874], [RFC5520] and [RFC5553]. If any Label subobjects are
present for a hop, the ERO Hop Attributes subobject(s) MAY also be
inserted after the Label subobjects.
The attributes specified in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject apply to
the immediately preceding subobject(s) in the ERO subobject list.
A document defining a specific Hop Attribute TLV has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject they are valid ,
o if ordering of the Hop Attributes subobject and other ERO
subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects)
is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the attribute is interpreted in
association with the preceding ERO subobjects, and
o any TLV modification rules that might apply.
For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by describing
rules similar to [RFC4990] Section 6.1.
If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not
support handling of the subobject it will behave as described in
[RFC3209] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
node will return a PathErr with error code "Routing Error" and error
value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
subobject.
When the R bit is set a node MUST examine the attribute TLV present
in the subobject following the rules described in [RFC5420]
Section 5.2. When the R bit is not set a node MUST examine the
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
attribute TLV present in the subobject following the rules described
in [RFC5420] Section 4.2.
A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with a HOP
Attributes TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr
with error code "Routing Error" and error value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the
left) to the offending malformed subobject. A processing node MUST
NOT originates a HOP Attributes TLV longer than the ERO HOP
Attributes Subobject. The processing of the Hop attribute TLVs
SHOULD be described in the documents defining them.
3. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject
In some cases it is important to determine if an OPTIONAL Hop
attribute has been processed by a node.
3.1. Encoding
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used it is carried
in the RECORD_ROUTE object. The subobject uses the standard format
of an RRO subobject.
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type and Length parameters are as defined in [RFC3209]
Section 4.4.1. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is
TBA-2 by IANA. The attributes TLV are encoded as defined in
Section 2.2.
Reserved Reserved, MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node process the RRO and
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO
subobjects.
Attributes TLVs The processed or additional HOP Attributes, using
the format defined in Section 2.2.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
3.2. Procedures
3.2.1. Subobject Presence Rule
The RRO rules defined in [RFC3209] are not changed. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes
subobject (if present) defined in [RFC5420]. The RRO Hop Attributes
subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects identifying
Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local policy apply all
such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by transit LSRs.
It is noted that a node (e.g., a domain edge node) MAY edit the RRO
to prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attribute subobject
before forwarding due to confidentiality policy or other reasons (for
instance RRO size reduction).
3.2.2. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes
To report that an ERO Hop attribute has been considered, or to report
an additional attribute, an LSR can add a RRO Hop Attributes
subobject with the HOP Attribute TLV which describes the attribute to
be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be specified
in the document that defines the usage of a Hop attribute.
3.2.3. Compatibility with RRO Attributes subobject
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO
Attributes subobject defined in [RFC5420] Section 7.2 by allowing the
node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in this
document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using the
following procedures.
For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
subobject to report processing of those attributes.
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop
Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject.
Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will
drop the information, as described in [RFC3209] Section 4.4.5.
A node can use the RRO Hop Attribute to report an LSP Attribute
signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only if the
following conditions are met:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
The Attribute and its corresponding flag is allowed on both the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP Hop Attributes
subobject.
The document defining this Attribute specify this specific
behavior.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. ERO Hop Attribute Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 20
EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry.
This document introduces a new ERO sub-object:
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA-1 Hop Attributes This document, Section 2
4.2. RRO LSP Attribute Subobject
IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/rsvp-parameters.xml.
We request IANA to make an allocation in the Sub-object type 21
ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. We request the value to
be the same as Section 4.1.
This document introduces a new RRO sub-object:
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
TBA-2 Hop Attributes This document, Section 3
4.3. Existing Attribute Flags
IANA manages the "Attribute Flags" registry as part of the "RSVP-TE
PARAMETERS" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-
te-parameters/rsvp-te-parameters.xml. A new column in the registry
is introduced by this document. This column indicates if the flag is
permitted to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the ERO Hop
Attributes Subobject. The column uses the heading "ERO" and the
registry is to be updated as follows:
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
FlagsPath FlagsResv
0 End-to-end re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
This Document
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [RFC4920]
This Document
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [RFC4920]
routing
This Document
3 LSP Integrity Required Yes No No No [RFC4875]
This Document
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [RFC5151]
This Document
5 LSP stitching desired Yes No Yes No [RFC5150]
This Document
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [RFC6001]
This Document
7 Non-PHP behavior flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
This Document
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [RFC6511]
This Document
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [RFC6790]
Capability
This Document
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
This Document
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
desired
This Document
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [I.D.draft-
(TEMPORARY - registered ietf-teas-
2014-09-11, expires rsvp-te-
2015-09-11) srlg-collect]
This Document
New allocation requests to this registry SHALL indicate the value to
be used in the ERO column.
4.4. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs
IANA manages the "RSVP-TE PARAMETERS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/rsvp-te-
parameters.xml. The "Attributes TLV Space" registry manage the
following attributes, as defined in [RFC5420]:
o TLV Type (T-field value)
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
o TLV Name
o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
We request IANA to add the following information for each TLV in the
RSVP TLV type identifier registry.
o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject
The existing registry is modified for existing TLVs as follows: The
following abbreviation are used in the table:
LSP_A Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
LSP_RA Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
HOP_A Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes Yes [RFC5420]
This Document
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [RFC6060]
This Document
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [RFC7260]
This Document
5. Security Considerations
This document adds new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the
ROUTE_RECORD object carried in RSVP message used in MPLS and GMPLS
signaling. It builds on mechanism defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC5420]
and does not introduce any new security. The existing security
considerations described in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC3473] and
[RFC5420] do apply.
As any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this
document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences
on specific node. The mechanism added in this document does allow
more control of LSP attributes at a given node. As other inputs, a
node SHOULD check the Hop Attributes against his policies and
admission procedures. A node MAY reject the message using existing
RSVP error code like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission Control
Failure". The node MAY also, depending on the specific TLV
procedures, modify the requested attribute. This can reveal
information about the LSP request and status to anyone with
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
unauthorized access. The mechanism described in this document do not
contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by encrypting
the content of the whole signaling message.
In addition the reporting of attributes using the RRO can reveal
details about the node that the operator wishes to remains
confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO
subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is RECOMMENDED that
domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes
into consideration.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thanks Lou Berger for his directions and
Attila Takacs for inspiring this
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]. The authors also thanks Dirk
Schroetter for his contribution to the initial versions of the
documents (version -00 up to -02).
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", RFC 3477, January 2003.
[RFC4873] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", RFC 4873, May 2007.
[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, April 2007.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4920] Farrel, A., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N., and
G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS
RSVP-TE", RFC 4920, July 2007.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-Domain
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
5151, February 2008.
[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, February 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, April 2009.
[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", RFC 5553, May 2009.
[RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", RFC 6001, October 2010.
[RFC6060] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control
of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-
TE)", RFC 6060, March 2011.
[RFC6511] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate
Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE
Label Switched Paths", RFC 6511, February 2012.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012.
[RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, June 2014.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound]
Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric
Bound", draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-
bound-05 (work in progress), February 2014.
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling]
Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-10
(work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb]
Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", draft-
ietf-teas-rsvp-te-li-lb-05 (work in progress), March 2015.
[I-D.ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect]
Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M.,
and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00
(work in progress), December 2014.
[I-D.kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes]
Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-
hop-attributes-00 (work in progress), October 2009.
[RFC4990] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of
Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, September 2007.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Bernstein, G., and W. Imajuku, "Framework for
GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)", RFC 6163,
April 2011.
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft General ERO LSP parameters March 2015
Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor)
Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, , Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
USA
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Giovanni Martinelli
Cisco
via Philips 12
Monza 20900
IT
Phone: +39 039 209 2044
Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Steve Balls
Metaswitch
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
GB
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com
Ben Wright
Metaswitch
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
GB
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com
Margaria, et al. Expires September 24, 2015 [Page 14]
