Network Working Group Adrian Farrel
Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting
Category: Standards Track
Expires: July 2004 Arun Satyanarayana
Movaz Networks, Inc.
January 2004
Identification of Component Links of Unnumbered Interfaces
<draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full
conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be
accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document provides a means to identify component links that are
bundled within an unnumbered interface. This feature is required
during Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that utilize such
component links. Similarly, it is useful in error reporting for
such LSPs.
0. Summary for Sub-IP Area
(This section to be removed before publication as an RFC).
0.1. Summary
0.2. Related documents
See the References Sections.
0.3. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work
This work is applicable to GMPLS signaling protocols.
Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 1
draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004
0.4. Why is it Targeted at this WG
GMPLS is worked on by the CCAMP WG.
This is a core requirement for GMPLS signaling and reporting
errors on unnumbered links. This makes it immediately in scope.
0.5. Justification
[RFC3471] and [RFC3473] define how component links of numbered
bundles may be identified within the IF_ID PHOP and IF_ID
ERROR_SPEC objects.
[RFC3477] defines how unnumbered links may be used in RSVP-TE.
[RFC3471] and [RFC3473] define how unnumbered links may be identified
within the IF_ID PHOP and IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects.
There is no provision for identifying component links of unnumbered
bundles within the IF_ID PHOP and IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. This is
required for completeness and to allow full functionality of GMPLS.
1. Introduction
GMPLS offers support for bundled links to presented as a single
interface [RFC3471, RFC3473]. This has configuration and management
benefits.
GMPLS [RFC3471, RFC3473] recognises the value of specifying
interfaces both during LSP establishment for out-of-band signaling
(IF_ID PHOP object), and for error reporting (IF_ID ERROR_SPEC
object). This is achieved using TLVs in these objects to specify the
interface identifier. Both numbered and unnumbered interfaces are
supported.
Further, GMPLS [RFC3471, RFC3473] recognises the value of specifying
the component link of a link bundle during LSP establishment (IF_ID
PHOP object), and for error reporting (IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object). This
is achieved using TLVs in these objects to specify the interface
identifier and component link identifier. Numbered bundles of
component links are supported. However, no provision is made for
unnumbered bundles of component links.
This document extends the TLV definitions of [RFC3471] to provide the
means to identify component links of unnumbered bundles within the
IF_ID PHOP and IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects.
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]
Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 2
draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004
3. Existing Interface Identifiers
[RFC3471] defines IF_ID TLVs to identify links. These TLVs
are applied in [RFC3473] in the IF_ID PHOP Object during LSP
establishment, and in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC Object to identify the
failed link which is usually the downstream link from the reporting
node.
The following set of TLVs are defined in [RFC3471].
Type Length Format Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 8 IPv4 Addr. IPv4 (Interface address)
2 20 IPv6 Addr. IPv6 (Interface address)
3 12 Compound IF_INDEX (Interface index)
4 12 Compound COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM (Component interface)
5 12 Compound COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM (Component interface)
4. New Interface Identifiers
Two new TLVs are defined for use in the IF_ID PHOP Object and in the
IF_ID ERROR_SPEC Object. Note that the Type values shown here are
only suggested values - final values are TBD and to be determined by
IETF consensus.
Two TLVs are provided to allow the forward and reverse paths to be
separately identified.
Type Length Format Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------
6 16 See below UNUM_COMPONENT_IF_DOWN (Component interface)
7 16 See below UNUM_COMPONENT_IF_UP (Component interface)
4.1 TLV Definitions
The new TLVs have a common format as shown below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IP Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Component ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IP Address: 32 bits
Any IP address associated with the local node.
Interface ID: 32 bits
The identifier of the unnumbered bundled link. By definition,
this is unique within the scope of the node identified by
the IP Address field.
Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 3
draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004
Component ID: 32 bits
A component in the bundled link identified by the Interface
ID. During LSP establishment, the special value 0xFFFFFFFF can
be used to indicate the same label to be valid across all
component links in the bundle identified by the Interface ID.
4.1 Procedures
The procedures are unmodified from [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and
[RFC3477].
5. IANA Considerations
5.1 IF_ID_ERROR_SPEC TLVs
Note that the IF_ID TLV type values are not currently tracked or
managed by IANA. This might be a good opportunity to move them under
IANA control.
6. Security Considerations
The extensions in this document make no changes to the security
provisions in [RFC3473].
7. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the authors of [CRANKBACK] where these
proposals originally appeared.
8. Intellectual Property Considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 4
draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004
9. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional
Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] L. Berger, et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered
Links in RSVP-TE", RFC 3477, January 2003.
10. Informational References
[CRANKBACK] A. Farrel (editor), "Crankback Signaling Extensions
for MPLS Signaling", draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-01.txt
January 2004, work in progress.
11. Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel (editor)
Old Dog Consulting
Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Arun Satyanarayana
Movaz Networks, Inc.
7926 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 615
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: (+1) 703-847-1785
EMail: aruns@movaz.com
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2004). 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.
Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 5
draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004
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.
Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 6