Network Working Group J. Dong Internet-Draft M. Chen Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Expires: May 3, 2012 Z. Li China Mobile October 31, 2011 RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback in MPLS Transport Profile draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-li-lb-01 Abstract This document specifies extensions to RSVP-TE to support lock instruct and loopback mechanism for MPLS-TP LSPs. The mechanisms are intended to be applicable to other aspects of MPLS as well. 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]. 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 May 3, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 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 Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB October 2011 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 2. Extensions to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Lock Instruct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Loopback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB October 2011 1. Introduction The requirements of Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) are specified in [RFC5860]. [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb] defines in-band Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) functions, it leverages the Generic Associated Channel (GACH) and Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) [RFC5586] and the management plane to perform LI function and use management plane to perform the LB function. In-band LI and LB is suitable for the scenarios where control plane is not used. When a control plane is used for establishing MPLS-TP LSPs, it's natural to use and extend the control plane protocol to implement LI and LB functions. Since LI and LB would modify the forwarding plane of an LSP, without the involvement of control plane this may result in inconsistency of the LSP information between control plane and data plane. Besides, with control plane mechanisms, it does not need to rely on the TTL expiration to make the LI/LB commands to reach particular MIP or MEP. This document specifies extensions to RSVP-TE to implement LI and LB for MPLS-TP LSPs when MPLS-TP control plane is used. The mechanisms defined in this document are complementary to [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb]. 2. Extensions to RSVP-TE In this document, Path and Resv message are used to implement LI function, and Notify message is used for LB functions. Two new flags (Lock bit and Loopback bit) are defined in ADMIN_STATUS Object [RFC3471] [RFC3473] that can be carried in Path/Resv and Notify message. Format of extended ADMIN_STATUS Object is as 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Class-Num(196)| C-Type (1) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |R| Reserved |K|B|H|L|I|C|T|A|D| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Lock (K): When this bit is set in Path message, it indicates that local actions related to the "Lock" mode should be taken. When this bit is set in Resv or Notify message, it indicates that the LSP is put in "Lock" mode. Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB October 2011 Loopback (B): When this bit is set in Notify message sent from the ingress node, it indicates that the target node of this message SHOULD perform loopback function for this LSP. When this bit is set in Notify message sent to the ingress node, it indicates the node originating this message is in "Loopback" mode. Reflect (R): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] Handover (H): 1 bit - see [RFC5852] Lockout (L): 1 bit - see [RFC4872] Inhibit Alarm Indication (I): 1 bit - see [RFC4783] Call Control (C): 1 bit - see [RFC4974] Testing (T): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] Administratively down (A): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] Deletion in progress (D): 1 bit - see [RFC3471] 3. Operations 3.1. Lock Instruct When a MEP wants to put an LSP in lock mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Lock (K) bit and the Reflect (R) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. The intermediate nodes do not need to take action on this message and SHOULD forward it unchanged to the downstream. On receipt of this Path message, the receiving MEP node SHOULD try to take the LSP out of service. If the receiving MEP locks the LSP successfully, it SHOULD send a Resv message with the Lock (K) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" and the new Error Value "Lock Failure", and the following Resv message SHOULD be sent with the Lock (K) bit cleared. Though the intermediate nodes do not need to take actions during this procedure, they would be aware of whether the LSP is put in Lock mode or not. When an LSP is put in lock mode, the subsequent Path and Resv messages SHOULD keep the Lock (K) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. When a MEP wants to take the LSP out of the lock mode, it MUST send a Path message with the Lock (K) bit cleared. The intermediate nodes do not need to take action on this message and SHOULD forward it unchanged to the downstream. On receipt of this Path message, the receiving MEP node SHOULD try to bring the LSP back to service. If the receiving MEP unlocks the LSP successfully, it SHOULD send a Resv message with the Lock (K) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object cleared. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a PathErr message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" and the new Error Value Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB October 2011 "Unlock Failure", and the following Resv message SHOULD be sent with the Lock (K) bit set. 3.2. Loopback Notify message is used to support signaling of Loopback request. When a MEP wants to put an LSP in loopback mode, it MUST send a Notify message with the Reflect (R) bit, the Loopback (B) Bit and the Lock (K) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set. The destination address of this Notify message SHOULD be set to the MIP or MEP which is required to loopback the traffic. The ERROR_SPEC object is not relevant in loopback request and MUST carry the Error Code zero ("Confirmation") to indicate that there is no error. On receipt of this Notify message, the receiver node SHOULD try to put the LSP in loopback mode. If the receiver node puts the LSP into loopback mode successfully, it SHOULD send a Notify message back to the MEP node, with both the Loopback (B) Bit and the Lock (K) bit in ADMIN_STATUS Object set, and the ERROR_SPEC object MUST carry the Error Code zero. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a Notify message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" and the new Error Value "Loopback Failure". When a MEP wants to take the LSP out of the loopback mode, it MUST send a Notify message with the Lock (K) bit set and the Loopback (B) Bit cleared. The destination address of this Notify message SHOULD be set to the MIP or MEP which is performing the loopback action for this LSP. On receipt of this Notify message, the receiving node SHOULD try to put the LSP back to normal operation. If the receiving node put the LSP into normal operation successfully, it SHOULD send a Notify message back to the MEP node, with the Lock (K) Bit set and the Loopback (B) Bit cleared , and the ERROR_SPEC object MUST carry the Error Code zero. Otherwise, it SHOULD send a Notify message with the Error Code "OAM Problem" and the new Error Value "Exit Loopback Failure". 4. IANA Considerations Two bits ("Lock" (K) and "Loopback" (B)) need to be allocated in the ADMIN_STATUS Object. Four new Error Values need to be allocated for Error Code "OAM Problem": "Lock Failure", "Unlock Failure", "Loopback Failure", "Exit Loopback Failure". Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB October 2011 5. Security Considerations This document does not introduce any new security issues above those identified in [RFC3209] and [RFC3473]. 6. Acknowledgements TBD 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE extensions for OAM Configuration", draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-06 (work in progress), July 2011. [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., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009. [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009. [RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB October 2011 Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext] Bellagamba, E., Andersson, L., Skoldstrom, P., Ward, D., and A. Takacs, "Configuration of Pro-Active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS- based Transport Networks using RSVP-TE", draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-mpls-tp-oam-ext-06 (work in progress), July 2011. [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb] Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M., and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile lock Instruct and Loopback Functions", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-08 (work in progress), October 2011. [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D. and A. Farrel, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in Support of Calls", RFC 4974, August 2007. Authors' Addresses Jie Dong Huawei Technologies Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd Beijing 100095 China Email: jie.dong@huawei.com Mach Chen Huawei Technologies Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd Beijing 100095 China Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Extensions for LI&LB October 2011 Zhenqiang Li China Mobile Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave. Beijing 100053 China Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Dong, et al. Expires May 3, 2012 [Page 8]