wdiff rfc6882.original rfc6882.txt

Network Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Kumaki, Ed.
Internet Draft
Request for Comments: 6882 KDDI Corporation
Intended Status:
Category: Experimental T. Murai
Expires: June 20, 2013
ISSN: 2070-1721 Furukawa Network Solutions Solution Corp.
D. Cheng
Huawei Technologies
S. Matsushima
Softbank Telecom
P. Jiang
KDDI Corporation
December 21, 2012
March 2013

Support for RSVP-TE Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
in L3VPNs
draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-09.txt Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (L3VPNs)

Abstract

IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) provide connectivity between sites
across an IP/MPLS backbone. These VPNs can be operated using BGP/MPLS
BGP/MPLS, and a single provider edge Provider Edge (PE) node may provide access to
multiple customer sites belonging to different VPNs.

The VPNs may support a number of customer services services, including RSVP
and
RSVP-TE Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
traffic. This document describes how to support RSVP-TE between
customer sites when a single PE supports multiple VPNs and labels are
not used to identify VPNs between PEs.

Status of this This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents
evaluation.

This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product 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 (IETF). It represents the consensus of six months the IETF
community. It has received public review and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted has been approved for
publication by other the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents at approved by the IESG are a candidate for any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list status of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be accessed obtained at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 20, 2013.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6882.

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..................................................3 Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Conventions ................................................3
2. Motivation....................................................3
2.1 Motivation ......................................................4
2.1. Network Example...........................................4 Example ............................................4
3. Protocol Extensions and Procedures............................5
3.1 Procedures ..............................5
3.1. Object Definitions........................................5
3.1.1 Definitions .........................................5
3.1.1. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6
SESSION Object
..............................................................5
3.1.2 ......................................5
3.1.2. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6
SENDER_TEMPLATE
Objects.......................................................7
3.1.3 .....................................7
3.1.3. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6
FILTER_SPEC
Objects.......................................................8
3.1.4 Objects .................................9
3.1.4. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP Objects..................9
3.2 Handling..................................................9
3.2.1 Objects ..............9
3.2. Handling the Messages ......................................9
3.2.1. Path Message Processing at the Ingress PE...................9
3.2.2 PE ...........9
3.2.2. Path Message Processing at the Egress PE....................10
3.2.3 PE ...........10
3.2.3. Resv Processing at the Egress PE............................10
3.2.4 PE ...................11
3.2.4. Resv Processing at the Ingress PE...........................10
3.2.5 PE ..................11
3.2.5. Other RSVP Messages.....................................10 Messages ................................12
4. Management Considerations.....................................11
4.1 Considerations ......................................12
4.1. Impact on Network Operation...............................11 Operation ...............................12
5. Security Considerations.......................................11 Considerations ........................................13
6. IANA Considerations...........................................12
7. References....................................................12
7.1 References .....................................................13
6.1. Normative References......................................13
7.2 References ......................................13
6.2. Informative References....................................13 References ....................................13
7. Acknowledgments ................................................14
8. Acknowledgments...............................................13
9. Author's Addresses............................................14
10. Contributors' Addresses......................................14

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 [RFC2119]. Contributors ...................................................14

1. Introduction

Service Providers would like to use BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs IP VPNs [RFC4364] to
support connections between Customer Edge (CE) sites. As described
in [RFC5824], these connections can be MPLS Traffic Engineered (TE)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) established using extensions to RSVP
[RFC3209] for a number of different deployment scenarios. The
requirements for supporting MPLS-TE LSP connections across BGP/MPLS
IP-VPNs
IP VPNs are documented in [RFC5824].

In order to establish a customer MPLS-TE LSP over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN, IP VPN,
it is necessary for the RSVP-TE control messages, including the Path
messages
and Resv messages described in [RFC3209], to be
appropriately handled appropriately
by the Provider Edge (PE) routers. [RFC4364] allows RSVP messages
sent within a VPN's context to be handled just like any other VPN
data. In such a solution, the RSVP-TE component at a PE that sends
messages toward a remote PE must process the messages in the context
of the VPN and must ensure that the messages are correctly labelled. labeled.
Similarly, when a message sent across the core is received by a PE having been sent across the core, PE,
both labels to must indicate the correct VPN context.

Implementation of the standards-based solution described in the
previous paragraph is possible, but requires proper support on the
PE. In particular, a PE must be able to process RSVP messages within
the context of the appropriate VPN VRF. Routing and Forwarding (VRF).
This may be
achieved easily easy to achieve in some implementations, but in others others,
it is not so
easy to achieved. easy.

This document defines experimental formats and mechanisms that
follows follow
a different approach. The documented approach enables the VPN
identifier to be carried in the RSVP-TE protocol message so that
there is no requirement for label based label-based VRF identification on the PE.

The experiment proposed by this document does not negate the
label label-
based approach supported by [RFC4364]. The experiment is intended to
enable research into alternate methods of supporting RSVP-TE within
VPNs.

1.1. Conventions

2. Motivation

If multiple BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs IP VPNs are supported at the same PE, new
RSVP-TE RSVP-
TE extensions are required so that RSVP-TE control messages from the
CEs can be appropriately handled appropriately by the PE.

2.1

2.1. Network Example

Figure 1 (Customer ("Customer MPLS TE LSPs in the context of BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs) IP VPNs")
shows two VPNs supported by a core IP/MPLS network. Both VPNs have
customer sites supported by on the two PEs shown in the figure. The customer
sites operate MPLS-TE LSPs.

Here, we make the following set of assumptions.

1. assumptions:

o VPN1 and VPN2 are for different customers.
2.
o CE1 and CE3 are head-end routers.
3.
o CE2 and CE4 are tail-end routers.
4.
o The same address (e.g., 192.0.2.1) is assigned at CE2 and CE4.

<--------A customer MPLS TE

<--------Customer MPLS-TE LSP for VPN1-------->

....... .......
. --- . --- --- --- --- . --- .
.|CE1|----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2|.
. --- . --- --- --- --- . --- .
....... | | .......
(VPN1) | | (VPN1)
| |
....... | | .......
. --- . | | . --- .
.|CE3|------+ +-------|CE4|.
. --- . . --- .
....... .......
(VPN2) (VPN2)

<--------A customer MPLS TE

<--------Customer MPLS-TE LSP for VPN2-------->
^ ^
| |
VRF instance VRF instance

<-Customer-> <---BGP/MPLS IP-VPN---> IP VPN---> <-Customer->
network network

Figure 1: Customer MPLS TE LSPs in the context of BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs IP VPNs
Consider that customers in VPN1 and VPN2 would like to establish a
customer MPLS TE MPLS-TE LSPs between their sites (i.e., between CE1 and
CE2, and between CE3 and CE4). In this situation situation, the following
RSVP-TE Path messages would be sent:

1. CE1 would send a Path message to PE1 to establish the MPLS TE MPLS-TE
LSP (VPN1) between CE1 and CE2.

2. CE3 would also send a Path message to PE1 to establish the MPLS TE
MPLS-TE LSP (VPN2) between CE1 and CE2.

After receiving each Path messages, message, PE1 can identify the customer
context for each Path message from the incoming interface over which
the message was received. PE1 forwards the messages to PE2 using the
routing mechanisms described in [RFC4364] and [RFC4659].

When the Path messages are received at PE2, that node needs to
distinguish the messages and determine which applies to VPN1 and
which to VPN2 so that the right forwarding state can be established
and so that the messages can be passed on to the correct CE.
Although the messages will arrive at PE2 with an MPLS label that
identifies the VPN, the messages will be are delivered to the RSVP-TE
component on
PE2 PE2, and the context of the core VPN LSP (i.e., the
label) will be is lost. Some RSVP-TE protocol mechanism is therefore needed
to embed the VPN identifier within the RSVP-TE message.

Similarly, Resv messages sent from PE2 to PE1 need an RSVP-TE
mechanisms
mechanism to assign them to the correct VPN.

3. Protocol Extensions and Procedures

This section provides defines the additional RSVP-TE objects to meet the
requirements described in Section 2. These objects are new variants
of the SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE SENDER_TEMPLATE, and FILTERSPEC objects. These new objects
will They act as
identifiers and allow PEs to The new object types are
defined distinguish Path/Resv messages per VPN
in the context of BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. Section 3.1, 3.1 defines the new
object types, and Section 3.2 defines the specific procedure is described in
Section 3.2.

3.1 procedures for
handling RSVP messages.

3.1. Object Definitions

3.1.1

This experiment will be carried out using the following private Class
Types. This document identifies these Class Types as "C-Type =
EXPn".

Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP1
Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP2
Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP3
Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP4
Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP5
Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP6

3.1.1. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION Object

The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6) SESSION object
appears in RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a SESSION object
and that are sent between the ingress PE and egress PE in either
direction. The This object MUST NOT be included in any RSVP-TE message
that is sent outside of the provider's backbone.

The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is analogous to the
LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 SESSION object, using a VPN-IPv6 address
([RFC4659]) instead of a VPN-IPv4 address ([RFC4364]).

This experimentation will be carried out using private Class Types.
These can be identified in this document as C-Type=EXPn:

Experimenters MUST ensure that there is no conflict between the
private Class Types used for this experiment and other Class Types
used by the PEs.

The formats of the SESSION objects are as follows:

Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP1

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv4 tunnel end point address Tunnel Endpoint Address (12 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MUST be zero | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP2

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv6 tunnel end point address |
+ +
| (24 bytes) |
+ VPN-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint Address (24 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MUST be zero | Tunnel ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Extended Tunnel ID |
+ +
| (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The VPN-IPv4 tunnel end point address (respectively, or VPN-IPv6 tunnel
end point address) endpoint address field contains an
address of the VPN-IPv4 (respectively, VPN-IPv6) or VPN-IPv6 address family encoded as
specified in [RFC4364](respectively, [RFC4659]). [RFC4364] or [RFC4659], respectively.

The Tunnel ID and Extended Tunnel ID are identical to the same fields
in the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SESSION objects as per
[RFC3209].

3.1.2

3.1.2. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE
Objects

The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6) SENDER_TEMPLATE
object appears in RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a
SENDER_TEMPLATE object and that are sent between ingress PE and
egress PE in either direction
(such direction, such as Path, PathError, and PathTear). PathTear
messages. The object MUST NOT be included in any RSVP-TE messages
that are sent outside of the provider's backbone.

The format of the object is as follows:

Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP3

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv4 tunnel sender address Tunnel Sender Address (12 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MUST be zero | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP4

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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| VPN-IPv6 tunnel sender address |
+ +
| (24 bytes) |
+ VPN-IPv6 Tunnel Sender Address (24 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MUST be zero | LSP ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The VPN-IPv4 tunnel sender address (respectively, or VPN-IPv6 tunnel sender address) address field contains an
address of the VPN-IPv4
(respectively, VPN-IPv6) or VPN-IPv6 address family encoded as
specified in [RFC4364] (respectively, [RFC4659]). or [RFC4659], respectively.

The LSP ID is identical to the LSP ID field in the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4
and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE objects as per [RFC3209].

3.1.3

3.1.3. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC Objects

The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or VPN-IPv6) LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6) FILTER_SPEC object
appears in RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a FILTER_SPEC
object and that are sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either direction (such
direction, such as Resv, ResvError, and ResvTear). ResvTear messages. The
object MUST NOT be included in any RSVP-TE messages that are sent
outside of the provider's backbone.

Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP5

The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is
identical to the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.

Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP6

The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is
identical to the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.

3.1.4

3.1.4. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP Objects

The format formats of the VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP objects are
identical to the RSVP_HOP objects described in [RFC6016].

3.2

3.2. Handling

It the Messages

This section describes how the RSVP-TE messages are handled.
Handling of these messages assumes that ingress PEs and egress PEs that, in the context of BGP/MPLS
IP-VPNs
IP VPNs, the ingress and egress PEs have RSVP-TE capabilities.

3.2.1

3.2.1. Path Message Processing at the Ingress PE

When a Path message arrives at the ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1), the
PE needs to establish suitable Path state and forward the Path
message on to the egress PE (PE2 in Figure 1). In this section Below, we described describe
the message handling process at the ingress PE.

1. CE1 would send sends a Path message to PE1 to establish the MPLS TE MPLS-TE LSP
(VPN1) between CE1 and CE2. The Path message is addressed to
the eventual destination (the receiver at the remote customer
site) and carries the IP Router Alert option, in accordance
with [RFC2205]. The ingress PE must recognize the router
alert, intercept these messages messages, and process them as RSVP-TE signalling
signaling messages.

2. When the ingress PE receives a Path message from a CE that is
addressed to the receiver, the VRF that is associated with the
incoming interface can be identified (this identified. (This step does not
deviate from current behavior). behavior.)

3. The tunnel end point endpoint address of the receiver is looked up in the
appropriate VRF, and the BGP Next-Hop next hop for that tunnel end
point endpoint
address is identified. The next-hop next hop is the egress PE.

4. A new LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is
constructed, containing the Route Distinguisher (RD) that is
part of the VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 route prefix for this tunnel end
point
endpoint address, and the IPv4/IPv6 tunnel end point endpoint address
from the original SESSION object.

5. A new LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object is
constructed, with the original IPv4/IPv6 tunnel sender address
from the incoming SENDER_TEMPLATE plus the RD that is used by
the PE to advertise the prefix for the customers VPN.

6. A new Path message is sent containing all the objects from the
original Path message, replacing the original SESSION and
SENDER_TEMPLATE objects with the new
LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 type objects. This Path message
is sent directly to the egress PE (the next hop as being looked up that was
determined in step 3 above) Step 3) without the IP Router Alert.

3.2.2 Alert option.

3.2.2. Path Message Processing at the Egress PE

In this section

Below, we described describe the message handling process at the egress PE.

1. When a Path message arrives at the egress PE (PE2 in Figure 1) , 1),
it is addressed to the PE itself, itself and is handed to RSVP for
processing.

2. The router extracts the RD and IPv4/IPv6 address from the
LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object, object and determines the
local VRF context by finding a matching VPN-IPv4 prefix with
the specified RD that has been advertised by this router into
BGP.

3. The entire incoming RSVP message, including the VRF
information, is stored as part of the Path state.

4. The egress PE can now construct a Path message which that differs
from the Path message it received in the following ways:

a. Its tunnel end point endpoint address is the IP address extracted from
the SESSION object; object.

b. The SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE objects are have been converted
back to IPv4-type/IPv6-type by discarding the attached
RD; RD.

c. The RSVP_HOP object contains the IP address of the outgoing
interface of the egress PE and an a Logical Interface Handle
(LIH), as per normal RSVP processing.

5. The egress PE then sends the Path message on towards its tunnel end point
endpoint address over the interface identified above. in Step 4c.
This Path message carries the IP Router-Alert option Router Alert option, as
required by [RFC2205].

3.2.3

3.2.3. Resv Processing at the Egress PE

When a receiver at the customer site originates a Resv message for
the session, normal RSVP procedures apply until the Resv, making its
way back towards the sender, arrives at the "egress" PE (it is
"egress" the
egress with respect to the direction of data flow, i.e. i.e., PE2 in
figure
Figure 1). On Upon arriving at PE2, the SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects
in the Resv, Resv message, and the VRF in which the Resv was received, are
used to find the matching Path state that was stored previously.

The PE constructs a Resv message to send to the RSVP HOP stored in
the Path state, i.e., the ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1). The LSP
TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 SESSION object is replaced with the same
LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object received in the Path. Path
message. The LSP TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is replaced
with a LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object, which copies
the VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 address from the LSP TUNNEL SENDER_TEMPLATE
received in the matching Path message.

The Resv message MUST be addressed to the IP address contained within
the RSVP_HOP object in the Path message.

3.2.4

3.2.4. Resv Processing at the Ingress PE

Upon receiving

When the ingress PE receives a Resv message at the (the ingress PE (with with respect
to data flow, i.e. i.e., PE1 in Figure 1), the PE determines the local VRF
context and associated Path state for this Resv message by decoding
the received SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects. It is now possible to
generate a Resv message to send to the appropriate CE. The Resv
message sent to the ingress CE will contain contains the LSP TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6
SESSION and LSP TUNNEL FILTER_SPEC objects, which are derived from
the appropriate Path state.

3.2.5

3.2.5. Other RSVP Messages

Processing of other RSVP messages, i.e., messages (i.e., PathError, PathTear,
ResvError, ResvTear, and ResvConf message in general ResvConf) generally follows the rules
defined in [RFC2205], with [RFC2205]. The following additional rules that MUST be
observed for messages transmitted within the VPN, i.e., between the
PEs as follows:
PEs:

o The SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE, and FILTER_SPEC objects MUST be
converted from LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 [RFC3209] to
LSP_TUNNEL_VPN_IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_VPN_IPv6
LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 form, respectively, and
back again, in the same manner as described above for Path and
Resv messages.

o The appropriate type of RSVP_HOP object (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6)
MUST be used used, as described in Section 8.4 of [RFC6016].

o Depending on the type of RSVP_HOP object received from the
neighbor, the message MUST be MPLS encapsulated or IP
encapsulated.

o The matching state and VRF MUST be determined by decoding the
corresponding RD and IPv4 (respectively, IPv6) or IPv6 address in the SESSION and
FILTER_SPEC objects.

o The message MUST be directly addressed to the appropriate PE,
without using the Router Alert Option.

4. Management Considerations

MPLS-TE based

MPLS-TE-based BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs IP VPNs are based on a peer model. If an
operator would like to configure a new site to an existing VPN VPN,
configuration of both the CE router and the attached PE router is
required. The operator is not required to modify the configuration
of PE routers connected to other sites or to modify the configuration
of other VPNs.

4.1

4.1. Impact on Network Operation

It is expected that the use of the extensions specified in this
document will not significantly increase the level of operational
traffic.

Furthermore, the additional extensions described in this document
will have no impact on the operation of existing resiliency
mechanisms available within MPLS-TE.

5. Security Considerations

This document defines RSVP-TE extensions for BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. IP VPNs. The
general security issues for RSVP-TE are described in [RFC3209],
[RFC4364] addresses the specific security considerations of BGP/MPLS
VPNs. General security considerations for MPLS are described in
[RFC5920].

In order to secure the control plane, techniques such as the TCP
Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] MAY be used authenticate BGP
messages.

To ensure the integrity of an RSVP request, the RSVP Authentication
mechanisms defined in [RFC2747], update and updated by [RFC3097], SHOULD be
used.

6. IANA Considerations

This document makes no request for IANA actions.

7. References

7.1

6.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V. V.,
and G. Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

7.2

6.2. Informative References

[RFC2205] Braden, B., R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, S., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

[RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.

[RFC3097] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic
Authentication -- Updated Message Type Value", RFC 3097,
April 2001.

[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.

[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006.

[RFC5824] Kumaki, K., Ed., Zhang, R. R., and Y. Kamite, Y., "Requirements
for
supporting Supporting Customer RSVP Resource ReSerVation Protocol
(RSVP) and RSVP-TE RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) over a
BGP/MPLS IP-VPN", RFC 5824, April 2010.

[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

[RFC5925] J. Touch, et. al., J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option",
RFC5925, RFC 5925, June 2010.

[RFC6016] Davie, B., Le Faucheur, F. F., and A. Narayanan, A., "Support for
the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) in Layer 3 VPNs",
RFC 6016, October 2010.

7. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express thanks to Makoto Nakamura and
Daniel King for their helpful and useful comments and feedback.

9. Author's

8. Contributors

Chikara Sasaki
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino
Saitama 356-8502
Japan
EMail: ch-sasaki@kddilabs.jp

Daisuke Tatsumi
KDDI Corporation
2-3-2 Nishishinjuku Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo 163-8003
Japan
EMail: da-tatsumi@kddi.com

Authors' Addresses

Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
Email: 102-8460
Japan
EMail: ke-kumaki@kddi.com

Tomoki Murai
Furukawa Network Solutions Solution Corp.
5-1-9, Higashi-Yawata, Hiratsuka
Kanagawa 254-0016, JAPAN
Email: 254-0016
Japan
EMail: murai@fnsc.co.jp

Dean Cheng
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara Clara, CA 95050, U.S.A.
Email: 95050
USA
EMail: dean.cheng@huawei.com

Satoru Matsushima
Softbank Telecom
1-9-1,Higashi-Shimbashi,Minato-Ku
Tokyo 105-7322, JAPAN
Email: 105-7322
Japan
EMail: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp

Peng Jiang
KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
Email: 102-8460
Japan
EMail: pe-jiang@kddi.com

10. Contributors' Addresses

Chikara Sasaki
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino
Saitama 356-8502, JAPAN
Email: ch-sasaki@kddilabs.jp

Daisuke Tatsumi
KDDI Corporation
Garden Air Tower
Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-8460, JAPAN
Email: da-tatsumi@kddi.com