Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path Diversity using Exclude Route
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-10

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (teas WG)
Last updated 2018-05-07 (latest revision 2018-03-02)
Replaces draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-diversity
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Jul 2015 - Submit XRO based LSP... )
Document shepherd Lou Berger
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2017-04-28)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Deborah Brungard
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC Editor RFC Editor state AUTH48
TEAS Working Group                                    Zafar Ali, Ed. 
   Internet Draft                                   George Swallow, Ed. 
   Intended status: Standard Track                        Cisco Systems 
   Updates RFC4874                                        F. Zhang, Ed. 
   Expires: September 03, 2018                                   Huawei 
                                                         D. Beller, Ed. 
                                                                  Nokia 
                                                         March 02, 2018 
    
      Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Path 
                       Diversity using Exclude Route 

                    draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-10.txt 

   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 03, 2018. 
       
   Copyright Notice 

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 
   document authors.  All rights reserved. 

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

 
   Ali, Swallow, Zhang, Beller, et al. Expires September 2018     [Page 1] 

   Internet Draft      draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-10.txt 

   Abstract 

   Resource ReSerVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering provides support 
   for the communication of exclusion information during label switched 
   path (LSP) setup. A typical LSP diversity use case is for 
   protection, where two LSPs should follow different paths through the 
   network in order to avoid single points of failure, thus greatly 
   improving service availability. This document specifies an approach 
   which can be used for network scenarios where full knowledge of the 
   path(s) is not necessarily known by use of an abstract identifier 
   for the path. Three types of abstract identifiers are specified: 
   client-based, Path Computation Engine (PCE)-based, network-based. 
   This document specifies two new diversity subobjects for the RSVP 
   eXclude Route Object (XRO) and the Explicit Exclusion Route 
   Subobject (EXRS). 
    
   For the protection use case, LSPs are typically created at a slow 
   rate and exist for a long time, so that it is reasonable to assume 
   that a given (reference) path currently existing, with a well-known 
   identifier, will continue to exist and can be used as a reference 
   when creating the new diverse path. Re-routing of the existing 
   (reference)LSP, before the new path is established, is not 
   considered. 
    
   Conventions used in this document 

   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]. 

   Table of Contents 

   Terms and Abbreviations..........................................3 
   1. Introduction..................................................3 
      1.1. Client-Initiated Identifier..............................6 
      1.2. PCE-allocated Identifier.................................7 
      1.3. Network-Assigned Identifier..............................8 
   2. RSVP-TE signaling extensions.................................10 
      2.1. Diversity XRO Subobject.................................10 
      2.2. Diversity EXRS Subobject................................17 
      2.3. Processing rules for the Diversity XRO and EXRS 
           subobjects..............................................17 
   3. Security Considerations......................................21 
   4. IANA Considerations..........................................22 
      4.1. New XRO subobject types.................................22 
      4.2. New EXRS subobject types................................22 
Show full document text