wdiff rfc8001.original rfc8001.txt

TEAS Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Zhang, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8001 Huawei
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track O. Gonzalez de Dios, Ed.
Expires February 24, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 Telefonica Global CTO
C. Margaria
Juniper
M. Hartley
Z. Ali
Cisco
C. Margaria

August 24, 2016
January 2017

RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information
draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-08

Abstract

This document provides extensions for the Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Reservation Protocol -
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE), including GMPLS, to support automatic
collection of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information for the TE
link formed by a Label Switched Path (LSP).

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 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."

This Internet-Draft will expire on February 24, 2017.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8001.

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing Dual-Homing . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. RSVP-TE Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. SRLG Collection Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
3.4. SRLG ID definition Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. SRLG Collection Flag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. RRO SRLG sub-object Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
5. Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. SRLG Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. SRLG Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3 Domain Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11
6.1. Policy Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12
8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes Subcodes . . . . . . . . . . 12 13
9. Contributors . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgements . . . 13
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . 13
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.2. Informative References 15
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 16

1. Introduction

It is important to understand which Traffic Engineering (TE) links in
the
a given network might be at risk from the same failures. In this
sense, a set of links can constitute a 'shared risk link group' Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
if they share a resource whose failure can affect all links in the
set [RFC4202].

On the other hand, as described in [RFC4206] and [RFC6107], H-LSP
(Hierarchical LSP) a
Hierarchical LSP (H-LSP) or S-LSP (stitched LSP) stitched LSP (S-LSP) can be used for
carrying one or more other LSPs. Both of the H-LSP and S-LSP can be
formed as a TE link. In such cases, it is important to know the SRLG
information of the LSPs that will be used to carry further LSPs.

This document provides a signaling mechanism to collect that collects the SRLGs
that are used by a LSP, which an LSP and can then be advertized advertised as properties of
the TE- TE link formed by that LSP.

1.1. Applicability Example: Dual Homing Dual-Homing

An interesting use case for the SRLG collection procedures defined in
this document is achieving LSP diversity in a dual homing dual-homing scenario.
The use case is illustrated in Figure 1, when the overlay model is
applied as defined in RFC 4208 [RFC4208] . [RFC4208]. In this example, the exchange of
routing information over the User-Network Interface (UNI) is
prohibited by operator policy.

+---+ +---+
| P |....| P |
+---+ +---+
/ \
+-----+ +-----+
+---+ | PE1 | | PE3 | +---+
|CE1|----| | | |----|CE2|
+---+\ +-----+ +-----+ /+---+
\ | | /
\ +-----+ +-----+ /
\| PE2 | | PE4 |/
| | | |
+-----+ +-----+
\ /
+---+ +---+
| P |....| P |
+---+ +---+

Figure 1: Dual Homing Dual-Homing Configuration
Single-homed customer edge (CE) devices are connected to a single
provider edge (PE) device via a single UNI link (which could be a
bundle of parallel links, typically using the same fiber cable).
This single UNI link can constitute a single point of failure. Such
a single point of failure can be avoided if the CE device is
connected to two PE devices via two UNI interfaces as depicted in Figure 1
above for CE1 and CE2, respectively.
respectively, as depicted in Figure 1.

For the dual-homing case, it is possible to establish two connections
(LSPs) from the source CE device to the same destination CE device
where one connection is using one UNI link to PE1, for example, and
the other connection is using the UNI link to PE2. In order to avoid
single points of failure within the provider network, it is necessary
to also ensure path (LSP) diversity within the provider network in
order to
achieve end-to-end diversity for the two LSPs between the two CE
devices CE1 and CE2. This use case describes how it is possible to
achieve path diversity within the provider network based on collected
SRLG information. As the two connections (LSPs) enter the provider
network at different PE devices, the PE device that receives the
connection request for the second connection needs to know the
additional path computation constraints such that the path of the
second LSP is disjoint with respect to the already established first
connection.

As SRLG information is normally not shared between the provider
network and the client network, i.e., between PE and CE devices, the
challenge is how to solve the diversity problem when a CE is dual-
homed. The RSVP extensions for collecting SRLG information defined
in this document make it possible to retrieve SRLG information for an
LSP and hence solve the dual-homing LSP diversity problem. For
example, CE1 in Figure 1 may have requested an LSP1 to CE2 via PE1
that is routed via PE3 to CE2. CE1 can then subsequently request an
LSP2 to CE2 via PE2 with the constraint that it needs to be maximally
SRLG disjoint with respect to LSP1. PE2, however, does not have any
SRLG information associated with LSP1, which and this is needed as input
for its constraint-based path computation function. If CE1 is
capable of retrieving the SRLG information associated with LSP1 from
PE1, it can pass this discovered information to PE2 as part of the
LSP2 setup request (RSVP PATH message) in an EXCLUDE_ROUTE Object
(XRO) or Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) as described in
[RFC4874], and PE2 can now calculate a path for LSP2 that is SRLG
disjoint with respect to LSP1. The SRLG information associated with
LSP1 can be retrieved when LSP1 is established or at any time before
LSP2 is
setup. set up.

When CE1 sends the setup request for LSP2 to PE2, it can also request
the collection of SRLG information for LSP2 and send that information
to PE1 by re-signaling LSP1 with SRLG-exclusion based on LSP2's
discovered SRLGs. This will ensure that the two paths for the two
LSPs remain mutually diverse, which diverse; this is important when the provider
network is capable of restoring connections that failed due to a
network failure (fiber cut) in the provider network.

Note that the knowledge of SRLG information even for multiple LSPs
does not allow a CE device to derive the provider network topology
based on the collected SRLG information. It would, however, be
possible for an entity controlling multiple CE devices to derive some
information related to the topology. This document therefore allows
PE devices to control the communication of SRLGs outside the provider
network if desired.

2. 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].

3. RSVP-TE Requirements

The SRLG-collection SRLG collection process takes place in three stages:

o The LSP's ingress node requests that SRLG collection take place;

o SRLG data is added to the Path and Resv ROUTE_RECORD Objects
(RROs) by all nodes during signaling;

o Changes to previously-signaled previously signaled SRLG data are made by sending
updated Path and Resv messages as required.

3.1. SRLG Collection Indication

The ingress node of the LSP needs be capable of indicating whether
the SRLG information of the LSP is to be collected during the
signaling procedure of setting up an LSP. There is no need for SRLG
information to be collected without an explicit request for it being
made by the
ingress node.

It may be preferable for the SRLG collection request to be understood
by all nodes along the LSP's path, or it may be more important for
the LSP to be established successfully even if it traverses nodes
that cannot supply SRLG information or have not implemented the
procedures specified in this document. It is desirable for the
ingress node to make the SRLG collection request in a manner that
best suits its own policy.

3.2. SRLG Collection

If requested, the SRLG information is collected during the setup of
an LSP. SRLG information is added by each hop to the Path RRO during
Path message processing. The same information is also added to the
Resv RRO during Resv processing at each hop.

3.3. SRLG Update

When the SRLG information of an existing LSP for which SRLG
information was collected during signaling changes, the relevant
nodes of the LSP need to be capable of updating the SRLG information
of the LSP. This means that the signaling procedure needs to be
capable of updating the new SRLG information.

3.4. SRLG ID definition Definition

The identifier of an SRLG (SRLG ID) is defined as a 32-bit quantity
in [RFC4202]. This definition is used in this document.

4. Encodings

4.1. SRLG Collection Flag

In order to indicate to nodes that SRLG collection is desired, this
document defines a new flag in the Attribute Flags TLV (see RFC 5420
[RFC5420]). This document defines a new SRLG collection flag Collection Flag in the
Attribute Flags TLV (see RFC 5420 [RFC5420]). TLV. A node that wishes to indicate that SRLG
collection is desired MUST set this flag in an Attribute Flags TLV in
an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object if object (if collection is to be mandatory, mandatory)
or an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object if object (if collection is desired but not mandatory.
mandatory).

o Bit Number (specified in Section 8.1): SRLG Collection flag Flag

The SRLG Collection flag Flag is meaningful on a Path message. If the
SRLG Collection flag Flag is set to 1, it means that the SRLG information
SHOULD be reported to the ingress and egress node along the setup of
the LSP.

The rules for the processing of the Attribute Flags TLV are not
changed.

4.2. RRO SRLG sub-object Subobject

This document defines a new RRO sub-object subobject (ROUTE_RECORD sub-object) subobject) to
record the SRLG information of the LSP. Its format is modeled on the
RRO sub-objects subobjects defined in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].

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 |D| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID 1 (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

~ ...... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SRLG ID n (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type (8 bits)

The type of the sub-object. subobject. The value is specified in Section 8.2.

Length (8 bits)

The Length field contains the total length of the sub-object subobject in
octets, including the Type and Length fields. The Length depends on
the number of SRLG IDs.

Direction bit (D-bit) (1 bit)

If not set, the SRLGs contained in this sub-object subobject apply to the
downstream direction. If set, they apply to the upstream direction.

Reserved (15 bits)

This 15-bit field is reserved. It SHOULD be set to zero on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.

SRLG ID (4 octets)

This field contains one SRLG ID. There is one SRLG ID field per SRLG
collected. There MAY be multiple SRLG ID fields in an SRLG sub-
object.
subobject.

A node MUST NOT push a an SRLG sub-object subobject in the RECORD_ROUTE ROUTE_RECORD without
also pushing either a an IPv4 sub-object, a subobject, an IPv6 sub-object, a subobject, an
Unnumbered Interface ID sub-object subobject, or a Path Key sub-object. Subobject (PKS).

As described in RFC 3209 [RFC3209], the RECORD_ROUTE ROUTE_RECORD object is managed as a
stack. The SRLG sub-object subobject MUST be pushed by the node before the node
IP address or link identifier. The SRLG-sub-object SRLG subobject SHOULD be pushed
after the Attribute sub-object, subobject, if present, and after the LABEL sub-object,
subobject, if requested. It MUST be pushed within the hop to which
it applies.

RFC 5553

[RFC5553] describes mechanisms to carry a PKS (Path Key Sub-
object) in the RRO so as to
facilitate confidentiality in the signaling of inter-domain TE LSPs, and LSPs.
RFC 5553 allows the path segment that needs to be hidden (that is, a
Confidential Path Segment (CPS)) to be replaced in the RRO with a
PKS. If the CPS contains SRLG Sub-
objects, subobjects, these MAY be retained in
the RRO by adding them again after the PKS Sub-object in the RRO. The CPS is
defined in RFC 5520 [RFC5520].

The rules for the processing of the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES,
LSP_ATTRIBUTE
LSP_ATTRIBUTES, and ROUTE_RECORD Objects objects are not changed.

5. Signaling Procedures

The ingress node of the LSP MUST be capable of indicating whether the
SRLG information of the LSP is to be collected during the signaling
procedure of setting up an LSP.

5.1. SRLG Collection

Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], an ingress node initiates the recording of the route
information of an LSP by adding a an RRO to a Path message. If an
ingress node also desires SRLG recording, it MUST set the SRLG
Collection Flag in the Attribute Flags TLV TLV, which MAY be carried
either in
either an LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object when object (when the collection is
mandatory,
mandatory) or in an LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object when object (when the collection is
desired, but not mandatory. mandatory).

A node MUST NOT add SRLG information without an explicit request for
it being made by
the ingress node in the Path message.

When a node receives a Path message which that carries an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object object with the SRLG Collection Flag set, if
local policy determines that the SRLG information is not to be
provided to the endpoints, it MUST return a PathErr message with: with

o Error Code 2 (policy) and

o Error subcode "SRLG Recording Rejected" (see Section 8.3 for
value)

to reject the Path message.

When a node receives a Path message which that carries an LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Object
object with the SRLG Collection Flag set, if local policy determines
that the SRLG information is not to be provided to the endpoints, the
Path message MUST NOT be rejected due to the SRLG recording
restriction
restriction, and the Path message MUST be forwarded without any SRLG
sub-object(s)
subobject(s) added to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path
message.

If local policy permits the recording of the SRLG information, the
processing node SHOULD add local SRLG information, as defined below,
to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Path message. The
processing node MAY add multiple SRLG sub-objects subobjects to the RRO if
necessary. It then forwards the Path message to the next node in the
downstream direction. The processing node MUST retain a record of
the SRLG recording request for reference during Resv processing
described below.

If the addition of SRLG information to the RRO would result in the
RRO exceeding its maximum possible size or becoming too large for the
Path message to contain it, the requested SRLGs MUST NOT be added.
If the SRLG collection request was contained in an
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES Object, object, the processing node MUST behave as
specified by RFC 3209 [RFC3209] and drop the RRO from the Path message
entirely. If the SRLG collection request was contained in an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object, object, the processing node MAY omit some or all of
the requested SRLGs from the RRO; otherwise otherwise, it MUST behave as
specified by [RFC3209] and drop the RRO from the Path message
entirely. Subsequent processing of the LSP proceeds as further
specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209].

Following the steps described above, the intermediate nodes of the
LSP can collect the SRLG information in the RRO during the processing
of the Path message hop by hop. When the Path message arrives at the
egress node, the egress node receives SRLG information in the RRO.

Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209], when issuing a Resv message for a Path message which that
contains an RRO, an egress node initiates the RRO process by adding
an RRO to the outgoing Resv message. The processing for RROs
contained in Resv messages then mirrors that of the Path messages.

When a node receives a Resv message for an LSP for which SRLG
Collection was specified in the corresponding Path message, then when
local policy allows recording SRLG information, the node MUST add
SRLG information to the RRO of the corresponding outgoing Resv
message as specified below. When the Resv message arrives at the
ingress node, the ingress node can extract the SRLG information from
the RRO in the same way as the egress node.

Note that a link's SRLG information for the upstream direction cannot
be assumed to be the same as that in for the downstream. downstream direction.

o For Path and Resv messages for a unidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects subobjects in the RRO for the downstream data link
only.

o For Path and Resv messages for a bidirectional LSP, a node SHOULD
include SRLG sub-objects subobjects in the RRO for both the upstream data link
and the downstream data link from the local node. In this case,
the node MUST include the information in the same order for both
Path messages and Resv messages. That is, the SRLG sub-
object subobject for
the upstream link is added to the RRO before the SRLG
sub-object subobject
for the downstream link.

If SRLG data is added for both the upstream and downstream links,
the two sets of SRLG data MUST be added in separate SRLG sub-
objects.
subobjects. A single SRLG sub-object subobject MUST NOT contain a mixture of
upstream and downstream SRLGs. When adding a SRLG sub-object subobject to an
RRO, the D-bit MUST be set appropriately to indicate the direction
of the SRLGs. If an SRLG ID applies in both directions, it SHOULD
be added to both the upstream and downstream SRLG sub-objects. subobjects.

Based on the above procedure, the endpoints can get the SRLG
information automatically. Then Then, for instance, the endpoints can for instance
advertise it as a TE link to the routing instance based on the
procedure described in [RFC6107] and configure the SRLG information
of the Forwarding Adjacency (FA) automatically.

5.2. SRLG Update

When the SRLG information of a link is changed, the endpoints of LSPs
using that link need to be made aware of the changes. When a change
to the set of SRLGs associated with a link occurs, the procedures
defined in Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 [RFC3209] MUST be used to refresh the
SRLG information for each affected LSP if the local node's policy
dictates that the SRLG change
is to be communicated to other nodes according to the local node's
policy. nodes.

5.3 Domain Boundaries

If mandated by local policy as specified by the network operator, a
node MAY remove SRLG information from any RRO in a Path or Resv
message being processed. It MAY add a summary of the removed SRLGs
or map them to other SRLG values. However, this SHOULD NOT be done
unless explicitly mandated by local policy.

5.4. Compatibility

A node that does not recognize the SRLG Collection Flag in the
Attribute Flags TLV is expected to proceed as specified in RFC 5420 [RFC5420].
It is expected to pass the TLV on unaltered if it appears in a an
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, object or to reject the Path message with the
appropriate Error Code and Value if it appears in a
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.

A node that does not recognize the SRLG RRO sub-object subobject is expected to
behave as specified in RFC 3209 [RFC3209]: unrecognized sub-objects subobjects are to be
ignored and passed on unchanged.

6. Manageability Considerations

6.1. Policy Configuration

In a border node of an inter-domain or inter-layer network, the
following SRLG processing policy MUST be capable of being configured:

o Whether the node is allowed to participate in SRLG collection and
notify changes to collected SRLG information to endpoint nodes as
described in section Section 5.2.

o Whether the SRLG IDs of the domain or specific layer network can
be exposed to the nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
whether they SHOULD be summarized, mapped to values that are
comprehensible to nodes outside the domain or layer network, or
removed entirely as described in section Section 5.3.

A node using RFC 5553 [RFC5553] and PKS MAY apply the same policy.

6.2. Coherent SRLG IDs

In a multi-layer multi-layer, multi-domain scenario, SRLG IDs can be configured
by different management entities in each layer/domain. layer or domain. In such
scenarios, maintaining a coherent set of SRLG IDs is a key
requirement in order to be able to use the SRLG information properly.
Thus, SRLG IDs SHOULD be unique. Note that current procedure is procedures are
targeted towards a scenario where the different layers and domains
belong to the same operator, operator or to several coordinated administrative
groups. Ensuring the aforementioned coherence of SRLG IDs is beyond
the scope of this document.

Further scenarios, where coherence in the SRLG IDs cannot be
guaranteed
guaranteed, are out of the scope of the present document and are left
for further study.

7. Security Considerations

This document builds on the mechanisms defined in [RFC3473], which
also discusses related security measures. In addition, [RFC5920]
provides an overview of security vulnerabilities and protection
mechanisms for the GMPLS control plane. The procedures defined in
this document permit the transfer of SRLG data between layers or
domains during the signaling of LSPs, subject to policy at the layer
or domain boundary. As described in section Sections 5.3 and section 6.1, local
policy as specified by the network operator will explicitly mandate
the processing of information at domain or layer boundaries.

8. IANA Considerations

8.1. RSVP Attribute Bit Flags

IANA has created a registry and manages the space of the Attribute
bit flags of the Attribute Flags TLV, as described in section Section 11.3 of
RFC 5420
[RFC5420], in the "Attribute Flags" section subregistry of the "Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters"
registry located in http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-
parameters". at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters>.

This document introduces a new Attribute Bit Flag: bit flag:

Bit No Name Attribute Attribute ERO RRO ERO Reference
Flags Path Flags Resv
--------- ---------- ---------- ----------- --- --- ---------
TBD;
12 SRLG Yes No No Yes This I-D
suggested No RFC 8001,
Collection
value: 12 [RFC7570]
Flag

8.2. ROUTE_RECORD Object

IANA manages the "RSVP PARAMETERS" "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>. This document
introduces a new RRO sub-object: subobject under the "Sub-object type - 21
ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record" subregistry:

Value Description Reference
---------------------
----- ------------------- ---------
TBD; suggested SRLG sub-object This I-D
value:
34 SRLG subobject RFC 8001

8.3. Policy Control Failure Error subcodes Subcodes

IANA manages the assignments in the "Error Codes and Globally-Defined
Error Value Sub-Codes" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" "Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters>.

This document introduces a new value under "Sub-Codes - 2 Policy
Control Failure Error sub-code: Failure":

Value Description Reference
---------------------
----- ----------------------- ---------
TBD; suggested
21 SRLG Recording Rejected This I-D
value: 21 RFC 8001

9. Contributors

Dan Li
Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
Email: danli@huawei.com

10. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dieter Beller, Vishnu Pavan Beeram,
Lou Berger, Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Niclas
Comstedt, Alan Davey, Elwyn Davies, Dhruv Dhody, Himanshu Shah and
Xian Zhang for their useful comments and improvements to this
document.

11. References

11.1.

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>.

[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>.

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

[RFC4202] Kompella, K. K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202,
October 2005. 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.

[RFC5420] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, JP., and 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>.

[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009. 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.

[RFC5553] Farrel, A., Ed., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", RFC 5553, DOI 10.17487/RFC5553, May 2009.

11.2. 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5553>.

9.2. Informative References

[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4206, October 2005. 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4206>.

[RFC4208] Swallow, G., Drake, J., Ishimatsu, H., and Y. Rekhter,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) User-
Network Interface (UNI): Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Support for the Overlay
Model", RFC 4208, DOI 10.17487/RFC4208, October 2005. 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4208>.

[RFC4874] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", RFC 4874, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874,
April 2007. 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874>.

[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>.

[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. K., Ed., and A. Farrel, Ed., "Procedures for
Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths",
RFC 6107, DOI 10.17487/RFC6107, February 2011. 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6107>.

[RFC7570] Margaria, C., Ed., Martinelli, G., Balls, S., and B.
Wright, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the
Explicit Route Object (ERO)", RFC 7570,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7570, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dieter Beller, Vishnu Pavan Beeram,
Lou Berger, Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Ramon Casellas, Niclas
Comstedt, Alan Davey, Elwyn Davies, Dhruv Dhody, Himanshu Shah, and
Xian Zhang for their useful comments and improvements to this
document.

Contributors

Dan Li
Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
China

Email: danli@huawei.com

Authors' Addresses

Fatai Zhang (editor)
Huawei
F3-5-B RD Center
Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen 518129
P.R.China
China

Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com

Oscar Gonzalez de Dios (editor)
Telefonica Global CTO
Distrito Telefonica, edificio sur, Ronda de la Comunicacion 28045
Madrid 28050
Spain
Phone: +34 913129647

Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com

Cyril Margaria
Suite 4001,
Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Blvd. Blvd., Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
US
United States of America

Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com cmargaria@juniper.net

Matt Hartley
Cisco

Email: mhartley@cisco.com

Zafar Ali
Cisco

Email: zali@cisco.com