wdiff rfc8149.original rfc8149.txt

TEAS Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Saad, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8149 R. Gandhi, Ed.
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Z. Ali
Expires: August 6, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
R. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency
Y. Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
February 2,
April 2017

RSVP Extensions For Re-optimization for Reoptimization of Loosely Routed
Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt-09

Abstract

Re-optimization

The reoptimization of a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered
Engineering (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) may be triggered based on
the need to
re-optimize reoptimize an individual source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSP or
a set of S2L sub-LSPs, both using Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization the Sub-Group-based reoptimization
method, or the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree using the Make-Before-Break
(MBB) method. This document discusses the application of the
existing mechanisms for path re-optimization reoptimization of loosely routed Point-to-Point Point-
to-Point (P2P) TE LSPs to the P2MP-TE LSPs, identifies issues in
doing so so, and defines procedures to address them. When re-optimizing reoptimizing
a large number of S2L sub-LSPs in a tree using the Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Sub-Group-based
reoptimization method, the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list may need to be
semantically fragmented. This document defines the notion of a
fragment identifier to help recipient nodes unambiguously reconstruct
the fragmented S2L sub-LSP descriptor list.

Status of this This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8149.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ....................................................3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ...............................4
2.1. Key Word Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .......................................4
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ..............................................4
2.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ................................................4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ........................................................5
3.1. Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree . . . . . . . 6 ...............5
3.2. Existing Mechanism For for Tree-Based P2MP-TE LSP
Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Reoptimization .............................................6
3.3. Existing Mechanism For for Sub-Group-Based P2MP-TE LSP
Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Reoptimization .............................................7
4. Signaling Extensions For for Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP
Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reoptimization ..................................................8
4.1. Tree-Based Re-optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Reoptimization ..................................8
4.2. Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Reoptimization Using Fragment Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ...9
5. Message and Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .................................11
5.1. P2MP-TE "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Request" Flag . . . . . . . . . 11 .................11
5.2. Preferable "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Exists" Path Error Sub-code . . . . 11 ......11
5.3. Fragment Identifier For for S2L sub-LSP Sub-LSP Descriptor . . . . . . 11 ............11
6. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ..................................................12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ............................................13
7.1. P2MP-TE "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Request" Flag . . . . . . . . . 13 .................13
7.2. Preferable "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Exists" Path Error Sub-code . . . . 13 ......13
7.3. Fragment Identifier For for S2L sub-LSP Sub-LSP Descriptor . . . . . . 14 ............14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ........................................14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 .....................................................15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ......................................15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ....................................16
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's ...................................................16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 ................................................17

1. Introduction

This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) [RFC2205] [RFC3209] signaling extensions for
re-optimizing
reoptimizing loosely routed Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
Engineered
Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) [RFC4875] in a
Multi-Protocol
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
[RFC3473] network.

A P2MP-TE LSP is comprised of one or more source-to-leaf (S2L)
sub-LSPs. A loosely routed P2MP-TE S2L sub-LSP is defined as one
whose path does not contain the full explicit route identifying each
node along the path to the egress node at the time of its signaling
by the ingress node. Such an S2L sub-LSP is signaled with no
Explicit Route Object (ERO) [RFC3209], or with an ERO that contains at
least one loose next-hop, "loose next hop", or with an ERO that contains an abstract
node which that identifies more than one node. This is often the case with
inter-domain P2MP-TE LSPs where a Path Computation Element (PCE) is
not used [RFC5440].

As per [RFC4875], an ingress node may re-optimize reoptimize the entire P2MP-TE
LSP tree by re-signaling all its S2L sub-LSP(s) sub-LSPs using the
Make-Before-Break (MBB) method method, or it may re-optimize reoptimize an individual
S2L sub-
LSP sub-LSP or a set of S2L sub-LSPs i.e. sub-LSPs, i.e., an individual destination
or a set of destinations, both using the Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Sub-Group-based
reoptimization method.

[RFC4736] defines an RSVP signaling procedure for re-optimizing reoptimizing the
path(s) of loosely routed Point-to-Point (P2P) TE LSP(s). Those The
mechanisms listed in [RFC4736] include a method for the ingress node
to trigger a new path re-evaluation request and a method for the mid-point
midpoint node to
notify send a notification regarding the availability of a
preferred path. This document discusses the application of those
mechanisms to the re-optimization reoptimization of loosely routed P2MP-TE LSPs,
identifies issues in doing so so, and defines procedures to address
them.

For re-optimizing reoptimizing a group of S2L sub-LSPs in a tree using the Sub-
Group-Based Re-optimization
Sub-Group-based reoptimization method, an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list
can be used to signal one or more S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP message.
This RSVP message may need to be semantically fragmented when a large
number of S2L sub-LSPs are added to the descriptor list. This
document defines the notion of a fragment identifier to help
recipient nodes unambiguously reconstruct the fragmented S2L sub-LSP
descriptor list.

2. Conventions Used in This Document

2.1. Key Word Definitions

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].

2.2. Abbreviations

ABR: Area Border Router.

AS: Autonomous System.

ERO: Explicit Route Object.

LSP: Label Switched Path.

LSR: Label Switching Router.

RRO: Record Route Object.

S2L sub-LSP: Source-to-leaf sub Label Switched Path. sub-LSP.

TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path.

TE LSP ingress: Head-end/source LSP.

2.3. Terminology

This document defines the following terms:

o Ingress node: Head-end / source node of the TE LSP.

TE LSP egress: Tail-end/destination

o Egress node: Tail-end / destination node of the TE LSP.

2.3. Terminology

The reader

It is assumed to be that the reader is also familiar with the terminology
in [RFC4736] and [RFC4875].

3. Overview

[RFC4736] defines RSVP signaling extensions for re-optimizing reoptimizing loosely
routed P2P TE LSPs as follows:

o A mid-point midpoint LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) next hop(s) sends a solicited or
unsolicited PathErr with the Notify error code 25 (as defined in [RFC3209])
[RFC3209]), with sub-code 6 to indicate "Preferable Path Exists"
to the ingress node.

o An ingress node triggers a path re-evaluation request at all
mid-point LSR(s)
midpoint LSRs that expands expand loose next-hop(s) next hop(s) by setting the "Path
Re-evaluation Request" flag (0x20) in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTES
Object
object in the Path message.

o The ingress node node, upon receiving this PathErr with the Notify
error code either (either solicited or unsolicited unsolicited), initiates re-optimization the
reoptimization of the LSP LSP, using the MBB method with a different
LSP-ID.

The following sections discuss the issues that may arise when
applying the mechanisms defined in [RFC4736] for re-optimizing reoptimizing loosely
routed P2MP-TE LSPs.

3.1. Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree

An example of a loosely routed inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree is shown
in Figure 1. In this example, the P2MP-TE LSP tree consists of 3 three
S2L sub-LSPs, to destinations (i.e. (i.e., leafs) R10, R11 R11, and R12 from
the ingress node (i.e. (i.e., source) R1. Nodes R2 and R5 are branch nodes
nodes, and nodes ABR3, ABR4, ABR7, ABR8 ABR8, and ABR9 are area border routers. ABRs. For the
S2L sub-LSP to destination R10, nodes ABR3, ABR7 ABR7, and R10 are defined
as loose next-hops. next hops. For the S2L sub-LSP to destination R11, nodes
ABR3, ABR8 ABR8, and R11 are defined as loose next-hops. next hops. For the S2L
sub-LSP to destination R12, nodes ABR4, ABR9 ABR9, and R12 are defined as
loose next-hops. next hops.

<--area1--><--area0--><-area2->

ABR7---R10
/
/
ABR3---R5
/ \
/ \
R1---R2 ABR8---R11
\
\
ABR4---R6
\
\
ABR9---R12

Figure 1: An Example of Loosely Routed Inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP Tree

3.2. Existing Mechanism For for Tree-Based P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization

Mechanisms Reoptimization

The mechanisms defined in [RFC4736] can be easily applied to trigger
the
re-optimization reoptimization of an individual S2L sub-LSP or a group of S2L sub-LSP(s).
sub-LSPs. However, to apply these [RFC4736] those mechanisms for triggering the
re-optimization
reoptimization of a P2MP-TE LSP tree, an ingress node needs to send
path re-evaluation requests on all (typically 100s of) hundreds) of the
S2L sub-LSPs sub-LSPs, and the mid-point midpoint LSR needs to send PathErrs with the
Notify error code for all S2L sub-LSPs. Such mechanisms may lead to
the following issues:

o A mid-point midpoint LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) next hop(s) may have to
accumulate the received path re-evaluation request(s) for all S2L
sub-LSPs (e.g. (e.g., by using a wait timer) and interpret them as a
re-optimization
reoptimization request for the whole P2MP-TE LSP tree. Otherwise,
a mid-point midpoint LSR may prematurely notify send a "Preferable Path Exists"
notification for one S2L sub-LSP or a sub-set subset of S2L sub-LSPs.

o Similarly, the ingress node may have to heuristically determine
when to perform P2MP-TE LSP tree re-optimization reoptimization and when to
perform S2L sub-LSP re-optimization. reoptimization. For example, an
implementation may choose to delay re-optimization reoptimization long enough to
allow all PathErr(s) PathErrs to be received. Such timer-based procedures
may produce undesired results.

o The ingress node that receives (un)solicited PathErr(s) with the
Notify error code for one or more individual S2L sub-LSP(s), sub-LSPs may
prematurely start re-optimizing reoptimizing the sub-set subset of S2L sub-LSPs.
However, as mentioned in [RFC4875] [RFC4875], Section 14.2, such sub-group based re-
optimization a
Sub-Group-based reoptimization procedure may result in data
duplication that can be avoided if the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree is re-optimized
reoptimized using the
Make-Before-Break MBB method with a different LSP-ID,
especially if the ingress node eventually receives PathErrs with
the Notify error code for all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE
LSP tree.

In order to address above mentioned the above-mentioned issues and to align
re-optimization the
reoptimization of P2MP-TE LSP LSPs with P2P LSP LSPs [RFC4736], there is a
need for a mechanism
is needed to trigger re-optimization the reoptimization of the LSP tree by
re-signaling all S2L sub-LSPs with a different LSP-ID. To meet this
requirement, this document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions for
the ingress node to trigger the re-evaluation of the P2MP LSP tree on
every hop that has a next-hop next hop defined as a loose or abstract hop for
one or more S2L sub-LSP path, paths, and a mid-point midpoint LSR to signal to the
ingress node that a preferable LSP tree exists (compared to the
current path) or that the whole P2MP-TE LSP must be re-optimized reoptimized
(because of maintenance required on the TE LSP path) (see
Section 4.1).

3.3. Existing Mechanism For for Sub-Group-Based P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization Reoptimization

Applying the procedures discussed in RFC4736 [RFC4736] in conjunction with
the
Sub-Group-Based Re-Optimization Sub-Group-based reoptimization procedures ([RFC4875],
Section 14.2), an ingress node MAY trigger path re-evaluation
requests for a set of S2L sub-LSPs in a single Path message using an
S2L sub-LSP descriptor list. Similarly, a mid-point midpoint LSR may send a
PathErr with the Notify error code 25 and sub-code 6 ("Preferable Path
Exists") containing a list of S2L sub-LSPs transiting through the LSR
using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list to notify the ingress node.
This method can be used for re-optimizing reoptimizing a sub-group of S2L sub-LSPs
within an LSP tree using the same LSP-ID. This method can alleviate
the scale scaling issue associated with sending RSVP messages for
individual S2L sub-LSPs. However, this procedure can lead to the
following issues when used to re-optimize reoptimize the LSP tree:

o A Path message that is intended to carry the path re-evaluation
request as defined in [RFC4736] with a full list of S2L sub-LSPs
in an S2L sub-LSPs sub-LSP descriptor list will be decomposed at branching
LSRs, and only a subset of the S2L sub-LSPs that are routed over
the same next-hop next hop will be added in the descriptor list of the Path
message propagated to downstream mid-point midpoint LSRs. Consequently,
when a preferable path exists at such mid-point midpoint LSRs, the PathErr
with the Notify error code can only include the sub-set subset of S2L
sub-LSPs traversing the LSR. In this case, at the ingress node
there is no way to distinguish which mode of re-optimization reoptimization to
invoke, i.e. sub-group based re-optimization i.e., Sub-Group-based reoptimization using the same LSP-ID
or tree based re-optimization tree-based reoptimization using a different LSP-ID.

o An LSR may semantically fragment a large RSVP message (when a
combined message may not be large enough to fit all S2L sub-LSPs).
In this case, the ingress node may receive multiple PathErrs with
sub-sets
subsets of S2L sub-LSPs in each (due to either the combined Path
message getting fragmented or the combined PathErr message getting
fragmented) and would require additional logic to determine how to
re-optimize
reoptimize the LSP tree (for example, waiting for some time to
aggregate all possible PathErr messages before taking an action).
When fragmented, RSVP messages may arrive out of order, and the
receiver has no way of knowing the beginning and end of the S2L
sub-LSP list.

In order to address the above mentioned above-mentioned issues caused by RSVP message semantic fragmentation,
fragmentation of an RSVP message, this document defines a new
fragment identifier object for the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list when
combining a large number of S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP message (see
Section 4.2).

4. Signaling Extensions For for Loosely Routed P2MP-TE LSP Re-optimization Reoptimization

4.1. Tree-Based Re-optimization Reoptimization

To evaluate a P2MP-TE LSP tree on mid-point midpoint LSRs that expand loose
next-hop(s),
next hop(s), an ingress node MAY send a Path message with the
"P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request (value TBA1)" Request" flag set (bit number 14 in the
Attribute Flags TLV) as defined in this document. The ingress node
selects one of the S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP tree transiting a mid-point
midpoint LSR to trigger the re-evaluation request. The ingress node
MAY send a re-evaluation request to each border LSR on the path of
the LSP tree.

A mid-point midpoint LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) next hop(s) for one or more S2L
sub-LSP path(s) paths does the following upon receiving a Path message with
the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag set:

o The mid-point midpoint LSR MUST check for a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree by
re-evaluating all S2L sub-LSP(s) sub-LSPs that are expanded paths of the
loose next-hops next hops of the P2MP-TE LSP.

o If a preferable P2MP-TE LSP tree is found, the mid-point midpoint LSR MUST
send to the ingress node an RSVP PathErr with the Notify error code 25 defined in
[RFC3209] and sub-code "Preferable 13 ("Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists (value
TBA2)" Exists)" as
defined in this document to the ingress node. document. The mid-
point midpoint LSR, in turn, SHOULD NOT
propagate the "P2MP-TE Tree Re-
evaluation Re-evaluation Request" flag in the
subsequent RSVP Path messages sent downstream for the re-evaluated
P2MP-TE LSP.

o If no preferable tree for P2MP-TE LSP LSPs can be found, the mid-point midpoint
LSR that expands loose next-hop(s) next hop(s) for one or more S2L sub-LSP
path(s)
paths MUST propagate the request downstream by setting the
"P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object
object of the RSVP Path message.

A mid-point midpoint LSR MAY send an unsolicited PathErr with the Notify error
code and sub-code the "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" sub-code to the ingress
node to notify the ingress node of a preferred P2MP-TE LSP tree when
it determines that it exists. In this case, the mid-point midpoint LSR that
expands loose next- next hop(s) for one or more S2L sub-LSP path(s) paths selects
one of the S2L
sub-LSP(s) sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP tree to send this PathErr
message to the ingress node. The mid-point midpoint LSR SHOULD consider how
frequently it chooses to send such a PathErr - PathErr, considering both that both
(1) a PathErr may be lost on during its transit to the ingress node and that
(2) the ingress node may choose not to re-optimize reoptimize the LSP when such a
PathErr is received.

The sending of an RSVP PathErr with the Notify error code and the
"Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" sub-code to the ingress node
notifies the ingress node of the existence of a preferable P2MP-TE
LSP tree tree, and upon receiving this PathErr, the ingress node SHOULD
trigger re-optimization the reoptimization of the LSP LSP, using the MBB method with a
different LSP-ID.

4.2. Sub-Group-Based Re-optimization Reoptimization Using Fragment Identifier

It might be preferable, as per [RFC4875], to re-optimize reoptimize the entire
P2MP-TE LSP by re-signaling all of its S2L sub-LSP(s) sub-LSPs (Section 14.1,
"Make-before-Break") 14.1
("Make-before-Break") in [RFC4875]) or to re-optimize reoptimize an individual
S2L sub-LSP or a group of S2L
sub-LSP(s) i.e. sub-LSPs, i.e., an individual
destination or a group of destination(s) destinations (Section 14.2
"Sub-Group-Based Re-Optimization"
("Sub-Group-Based Re-Optimization") in [RFC4875]), both using the
same LSP-ID. For loosely routed S2L sub-LSPs, this can be achieved
by using the procedures defined in [RFC4736] to re-optimize reoptimize one or
more S2L sub-LSP(s) sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP.

An ingress node may trigger path re-evaluation requests using the
procedures defined in [RFC4736] for a set of S2L sub-LSPs by
combining multiple Path messages using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor list
[RFC4875]. An S2L sub-LSP descriptor list is created using a series
of S2L_SUB_LSP Objects objects as defined in [RFC4875]. Similarly, a mid-
point
midpoint LSR may send a PathErr with the Notify error code (value 25) 25 and "Preferable
sub-code 6 ("Preferable Path Exists" (sub-code 6) Exists") containing a list of S2L
sub-LSPs transiting through the LSR using an S2L sub-LSP descriptor
list to notify the ingress node of preferable paths available.

The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG object defined in this document is optional,
with the following exceptions:

o As per [RFC4875] (Section 5.2.3, "Transit [RFC4875], Section 5.2.3 ("Transit Fragmentation of Path
State Information"), when a Path message is not large enough to
fit all S2L sub-LSPs in the descriptor list, an LSR may
semantically fragment the message. In this case, the LSR MUST add
the S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object object defined in this document for each
fragment in the S2L sub-LSP descriptor to be able to rebuild the
list from the received fragments that may arrive out of order.

The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object defined in this document is optional.
However, a node

o In any other situation where an RSVP message needs to be
fragmented, an LSR MUST add the S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object object for each
fragment in the S2L sub-LSP descriptor when the RSVP message needs to be
fragmented. descriptor.

A mid-point midpoint LSR SHOULD wait to accumulate all S2L sub-LSPs before
attempting to re-evaluate a preferable path when a Path message for
"Path Re-evaluation Request" is received with the S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG
Object.
object. If a mid-point midpoint LSR does not receive all fragments of the Path
message (for example, when fragments are lost) within a configurable
time interval, it SHOULD trigger the re-evaluation of all S2L
sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP transiting on the node. A mid-point midpoint LSR
MUST receive at least one fragment of the Path message to trigger
this behaviour. behavior.

An ingress node SHOULD wait to accumulate all S2L sub-LSPs before
attempting to trigger re-optimization reoptimization when a PathErr with the Notify
error code and the "Preferable Path Exists" sub-code is received with a
an S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object. object. If an ingress node does not receive all
fragments of the PathErr message (for example, when fragments are
lost) within a configurable time interval, it SHOULD trigger re-
optimization the
reoptimization of all S2L sub-LSPs of the P2MP-TE LSP transiting on
the
mid-point midpoint node that had sent the PathErr message. An ingress node
MUST receive at least one fragment of the PathErr message to trigger
this behaviour. behavior.

The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object object defined in this document has a wider
applicability in addition to the P2MP-TE LSP re-optimization. reoptimization. It can
also be used (in Path and Resv messages) to setup set up a new P2MP-TE LSP, LSP
and to send other PathErr messages as well as Path Tear and Resv Tear
messages for a set of S2L sub-LSPs. This is outside the scope of
this document.

5. Message and Object Definitions

5.1. P2MP-TE "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Request" Flag

In order to trigger a tree re-evaluation request, a new flag is
defined in Attributes the
Attribute Flags TLV of the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object object [RFC5420] as follows: is defined
by this document:

Bit Number (TBA1, to be assigned by IANA): P2MP-TE 14: "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Request" flag

The "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request" flag is meaningful in a Path
message of a P2MP-TE S2L sub-LSP and is inserted by the ingress node
using the message format defined in [RFC6510].

5.2. Preferable "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Exists" Path Error Sub-code

In order to indicate to an ingress node that a preferable P2MP-TE LSP
tree exists, the following new sub-code for PathErr messages with
Notify error code 25 [RFC3209] is defined: defined by this document:

Sub-code (TBA2, to be assigned by IANA): Preferable 13: "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree
Exists Exists" sub-code

When a preferable path for a P2MP-TE LSP tree exists, the mid-point midpoint
LSR sends a solicited or unsolicited "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists"
sub-code with a PathErr message with Notify error code 25 to the
ingress node of the P2MP-TE LSP.

5.3. Fragment Identifier For for S2L sub-LSP Sub-LSP Descriptor

The S2L_SUB_LSP Object object [RFC4875] identifies a particular S2L sub-LSP
belonging to the P2MP-TE LSP. An S2L sub-LSP descriptor list is
created using a series of S2L_SUB_LSP Objects objects as defined in
[RFC4875]. The RSVP message may need to be semantically fragmented
[RFC4875] due to a large number of S2L sub-LSPs added in the
descriptor list, and such fragments may be received our out of order. To
be able to rebuild the fragmented S2L sub-LSP descriptor list
correctly, the following Object object is defined to identify the fragments. fragments:

S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG: Class-Num TBA3 by IANA

+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ Class Number 204

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length (8 bytes) | Class-Num TBA3| Class Num 204 | C-Type 1 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Fragment ID | Fragments Tot | Tot.| Fragment Num Num. |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Fragment ID: 16-bit integer in the range of 1 to 65535.

This value is incremented for each new RSVP message that needs to
be semantically fragmented. The fragment ID is reset to 1 when it
reaches the maximum value of 65535. The scope of the fragment ID
is limited to the RSVP message type (e.g. (e.g., Path) carrying the
fragment. In other words, fragment IDs do not have any
correlation between different RSVP message types (e.g. (e.g., Path and
PathErr). The receiver does not check to ensure if that the
consecutive new RSVP messages (e.g. (e.g., Path messages) are received
with fragment IDs incremented by 1.

Fragments Total: 8-bit integer in the range of 1 to 255.

This value indicates the number of fragments sent for the given
RSVP message. This value MUST be the same in all fragmented RSVP
messages with a common Fragment fragment ID.

Fragment Number: 8-bit integer in the range of 1 to 255.

This value indicates the position of this fragment in the given
RSVP message.

The format of an S2L sub-LSP descriptor message is as follows:

<S2L sub-LSP descriptor> ::=
[ <S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG> ]
<S2L_SUB_LSP>
[ <P2MP SECONDARY_EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]

The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object object is added before adding the S2L_SUB_LSP
Object
object in the semantically fragmented RSVP message.

6. Compatibility

The LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object object has been defined in [RFC5420] and its
message formats in [RFC6510] with class numbers in the form 11bbbbbb,
which ensures compatibility with non-supporting nodes. Per
[RFC2205], nodes not supporting this extension will ignore the new
flag defined for this Object object in this document but and will forward it
without modification.

The S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object object has been defined with class numbers in
the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non-supporting
nodes. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this Object object will ignore
the Object but object and will forward it without modification.

7. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to administer assignment of new values for
namespace defined in this document and summarized in this section. has performed the actions described below.

7.1. P2MP-TE "P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Request" Flag

IANA maintains a name space for RSVP-TE TE parameters the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters). From the
registries in this name space "Attribute Flags", allocation
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>). Per
Section 5.1 of this document, IANA has registered a new flag is requested (Section 5.1).

The following in the
"Attribute Flags" registry. This new flag is defined for the Attributes
Attribute Flags TLV in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object object [RFC5420]. The numeric value is to be assigned
by IANA.

o P2MP-TE Tree Re-evaluation Request Flag:

+--------+---------------+---------+---------+---------+-----------+

7.2. Preferable "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists Exists" Path Error Sub-code

IANA maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>).
Per Section 5.2 of this document, IANA has registered a new error
code in the
sub-registry "Sub-Codes - 25 Notify Error" in registry sub-registry of the "Error
Codes and Globally-Defined Error Value Sub-Codes", allocation of a new
error code is requested (Section 5.2). Sub-Codes" registry.

As defined in [RFC3209], the Error Code error code 25 in the ERROR SPEC Object ERROR_SPEC object
corresponds to a PathErr with the Notify error. This document adds a
new "Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists" sub-code for this PathErr as
follows:

o Preferable P2MP-TE Tree Exists sub-code:

7.3. Fragment Identifier For for S2L sub-LSP Sub-LSP Descriptor

IANA maintains a name space for RSVP protocol parameters the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry (see
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From <http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>).
Per Section 5.3 of this document, IANA has registered a new class
number in the registry "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types", allocation of new
Class-Num is requested (Section 5.3).

o Types" registry.

+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| Class Number | Class Name | Reference |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+
| 204 | S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG Object: | This document |
+-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------+

IANA has also created the "Class Types or C-Types - 204
S2L_SUB_LSP_FRAG" registry and populated it as follows:

8. Security Considerations

This document defines RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow an
ingress node of a P2MP-TE LSP to request the re-evaluation of the LSP
tree downstream of a node, node and for to allow a mid-point midpoint LSR to notify the
ingress node of the existence of a preferable tree by sending a
PathErr.
PathErr message. As per [RFC4736], in the case of a P2MP-TE LSP S2L
sub-LSP spanning multiple domains, it may be desirable for a mid-point midpoint
LSR to modify the RSVP PathErr message defined in this document to preserve confidentiality
across domains.

This document also defines a fragment identifier for the S2L sub-LSP
descriptor when combining a large number of S2L sub-LSPs in an RSVP
message and the message needs to be semantically fragmented. The
introduction of the fragment identifier, by itself, introduces no
additional information to signaling. For a general discussion on
security issues related to MPLS and GMPLS related security issues, GMPLS, see the MPLS/GMPLS
security framework [RFC5920].

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997. 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.

[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001. 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

[RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y. Y., and R. Zhang, R,
"Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched
Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, DOI 10.17487/RFC4736,
November 2006. 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4736>.

[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for
Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)",
RFC 4875, DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007. 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.

[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and Ayyangar,
A., A.
Ayyangarps, "Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP
Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 5420, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009. 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420>.

9.2. Informative References

[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003. 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed., and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009. 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010. 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.

[RFC6510] Berger, L. and G. Swallow, "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Message Formats for Label Switched Path (LSP)
Attributes Objects", RFC 6510, DOI 10.17487/RFC6510,
February 2012. 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6510>.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Sriganesh Kini, Curtis
Villamizar, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Nobo Akiya, Vishnu Pavan Beeram Beeram,
and Joel M. Halpern for reviewing this document and providing many
useful comments and suggestions. The authors would also like to
thank Ling Zeng with Cisco Systems for implementing the mechanisms
defined in this document. A special thanks to Adrian Farrel for his
thorough review of this document.

Author's

Authors' Addresses

Tarek Saad (editor)
Cisco Systems

EMail: Systems, Inc.

Email: tsaad@cisco.com

Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems

EMail: Systems, Inc.

Email: rgandhi@cisco.com

Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems

EMail: Systems, Inc.

Email: zali@cisco.com

Robert H. Venator
Defense Information Systems Agency

EMail:

Email: robert.h.venator.civ@mail.mil

Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation

EMail:

Email: y.kamite@ntt.com