1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
|
<pre>Network Working Group L. Berger
Request for Comments: 5467 LabN
Category: Experimental A. Takacs
Ericsson
D. Caviglia
Ericsson
D. Fedyk
Nortel
J. Meuric
France Telecom
March 2009
<span class="h1">GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</span>
Status of This Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
Abstract
This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric
bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented
approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the
original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport
of traffic-related parameters. The procedures described in this
document are experimental.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Background .................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Approach Overview ..........................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs .............<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object ...................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.1.1">2.1.1</a>. Procedures ..........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.2.1">2.2.1</a>. Procedures ..........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-2.3.1">2.3.1</a>. Procedures ..........................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Packet Formats ..................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Compatibility ...................................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations .............................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object ...................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References .....................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object.................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. Applicability .............................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. Overview ..................................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.3">A.3</a>. Procedures ................................................<a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#appendix-A.4">A.4</a>. Compatibility .............................................<a href="#page-13">13</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
GMPLS [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label
Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching
technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing
(TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs
with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth
requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in
[<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>] and [<a href="./rfc2210" title=""The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services"">RFC2210</a>].
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
Recent work ([<a href="#ref-GMPLS-PBBTE" title=""GMPLS Control of Ethernet"">GMPLS-PBBTE</a>] and [<a href="#ref-MEF-TRAFFIC" title=""MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"">MEF-TRAFFIC</a>]) has looked at extending
GMPLS to control Ethernet switching. In this context, there has been
discussion of the support of bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric
bandwidth. (That is, bidirectional LSPs that have different
bandwidth reservations in each direction.) This discussion motivated
the extensions defined in this document, which may be used with any
switching technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional
LSPs. The procedures described in this document are experimental.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Background</span>
Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([<a href="./rfc2210" title=""The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services"">RFC2210</a>],
[<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>], and [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]) via several objects that are opaque to
RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model
for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP
session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model
of communication, defined in [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>] and maintained in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>],
used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the
FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used
to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC
object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that
should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC
object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the
actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic.
With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>], the model
of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In
the context of [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object
indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream
directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the
allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either
unmodified and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is
implicitly or explicitly ([<a href="./rfc4606" title=""Generalized Multi- Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control"">RFC4606</a>] and [<a href="#ref-MEF-TRAFFIC" title=""MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"">MEF-TRAFFIC</a>]) irrelevant.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.2" href="#section-1.2">1.2</a>. Approach Overview</span>
The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs
defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the
transport of traffic-related parameters and GMPLS's support for
bidirectional LSPs. An alternative approach was considered and
rejected in favor of the more generic approach presented below. For
reference purposes only, the rejected approach is summarized in
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>.
The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching
technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing
SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the
addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. The existing objects are used in the
original fashion defined in [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>] and [<a href="./rfc2210" title=""The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services"">RFC2210</a>], and refer only
to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream
direction. The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as
the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1
shows the bandwidth-related objects used for asymmetric bandwidth
bidirectional LSPs.
|---| Path |---|
| I |------------------->| E |
| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
| g | -ADSPEC | r |
| r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |
| e | | s |
| s | Resv | s |
| s |<-------------------| |
| | -FLOWSPEC | |
| | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | |
| | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | |
|---| |---|
Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs
The extensions defined in this document are limited to Point-to-Point
(P2P) LSPs. Support for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) bidirectional
LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this
document.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.3" href="#section-1.3">1.3</a>. Conventions Used in This Document</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs</span>
The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled
using the bidirectional procedures defined in [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] together with
the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC, and
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects.
The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in
the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in
that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while
the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream
direction. The new objects also differ in that they are used on
messages in the opposite directions.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object</span>
The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC
object. This includes the definition of class types and their
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is 120 (of
the form 0bbbbbbb).
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1.1" href="#section-2.1.1">2.1.1</a>. Procedures</span>
The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST
contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional
LSP formats and procedures defined in [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]. The C-Type of the
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC
object used in the Path message. The contents of the
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and
procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC
object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [<a href="./rfc2210" title=""The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services"">RFC2210</a>] or [<a href="./rfc4328" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control"">RFC4328</a>].
Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC
object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object in the
upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in
<a href="./rfc3473#section-3.1">Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]</a>. Consistent with [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>], a node that is
unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the
contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message
with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object</span>
The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC
object. This includes the definition of class types and their
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is 121 (of
the form 0bbbbbbb).
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2.1" href="#section-2.2.1">2.2.1</a>. Procedures</span>
The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates
at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any
Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object
MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be constructed using a
format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the
FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [<a href="./rfc2210" title=""The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services"">RFC2210</a>] or
[<a href="./rfc4328" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control"">RFC4328</a>]. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MAY differ from
contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data
transmission requirements.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress
MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to
satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path
message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the
resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification
might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might
result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not
available.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.3" href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object</span>
The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC
object. This includes the definition of class types and their
formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is 122 (of
the form 0bbbbbbb).
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.3.1" href="#section-2.3.1">2.3.1</a>. Procedures</span>
The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that
corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object.
The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the
C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents
of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and
procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object
that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [<a href="./rfc2210" title=""The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services"">RFC2210</a>] or [<a href="#ref-MEF-TRAFFIC" title=""MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"">MEF-TRAFFIC</a>]. The
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the
ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Packet Formats</span>
This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by
this section. This document modifies formats defined in [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>],
[<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>], and [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]. See [<a href="#ref-RSVP-BNF" title=""Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax Used in Various Protocol Specifications"">RSVP-BNF</a>] for the syntax used by
RSVP. Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are
defined in this section:
Object name Applicable RSVP messages
--------------- ------------------------
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify
(via sender descriptor)
UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
Notify (via flow descriptor list)
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
Notify (via flow descriptor list)
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric
LSPs is:
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
[ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
<UPSTREAM_LABEL>
<UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>
The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric
LSPs is:
<flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
| <SE flow descriptor>
<FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<FILTER_SPEC>
<LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
| <FF flow descriptor list>
<FF flow descriptor>
<FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ]
[ <UPSTREAM_TSPEC>] [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL>
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
<SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<SE filter spec list>
<SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Compatibility</span>
This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in
[<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>], [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>], and [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] to support bidirectional LSPs
with asymmetric bandwidth. To indicate the use of asymmetric
bandwidth, three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is
defined with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>],
nodes not supporting this extension will not recognize the new class
numbers and should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The
error message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take
action to avoid the path with the incompatible node or may simply
terminate the session.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this section
and reviewed in this subsection.
The IANA has made the assignments described below in the "Class
Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP
PARAMETERS" registry.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object</span>
A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
range (120) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-types:
Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object</span>
A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
range (121) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-types:
Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object</span>
A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb
range (122) with the following definition:
Class Types or C-types:
Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13)
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS
signaling [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] -- specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC,
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These objects
parallel the exiting SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but
are used in the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities
that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages
flowing in the reverse direction.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new
signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are
adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no
additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations.
See [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC-
FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security
discussions.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2205">RFC2205</a>] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S.,
and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", <a href="./rfc2205">RFC 2205</a>,
September 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC2210">RFC2210</a>] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
Services", <a href="./rfc2210">RFC 2210</a>, September 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3209">RFC3209</a>] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels", <a href="./rfc3209">RFC 3209</a>, December 2001.
[<a id="ref-RFC3473">RFC3473</a>] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
<a href="./rfc3473">RFC 3473</a>, January 2003.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-GMPLS-PBBTE">GMPLS-PBBTE</a>] Fedyk, D., et al <a style="text-decoration: none" href='https://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=datatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2F&q=inurl:draft-+%22GMPLS+Control+of+Ethernet%22'>"GMPLS Control of Ethernet"</a>, Work in
Progress, July 2008.
[<a id="ref-MEF-TRAFFIC">MEF-TRAFFIC</a>] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"
Work in Progress, October 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC4606">RFC4606</a>] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", <a href="./rfc4606">RFC 4606</a>, August
2006.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4328">RFC4328</a>] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for
G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", <a href="./rfc4328">RFC 4328</a>,
January 2006.
[<a id="ref-RSVP-BNF">RSVP-BNF</a>] Farrel, A. "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax
Used in Various Protocol Specifications", Work in
Progress, November 2008.
[<a id="ref-SEC-FRAMEWORK">SEC-FRAMEWORK</a>] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, November 2008.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">A</a>. <a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object</span>
This section is included for historic purposes and its implementation
is NOT RECOMMENDED.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.1" href="#appendix-A.1">A.1</a>. Applicability</span>
This section presents an alternate method for the support of
asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP establishment with a single
RSVP-TE signaling session. This approach differs in applicability
and generality from the approach presented in the main body of this
document. In particular, this approach is technology-specific; it
uses the ADSPEC object to carry traffic parameters for upstream data
and requires the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Traffic
Parameter, while the approach presented above is suitable for use
with any technology.
The generalized asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP presented in
the main body of this document has the benefit of being applicable to
any switching technology, but requires support for three new types of
object classes, i.e., the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.
The solution presented in this section is based on the
Ethernet-specific ADSPEC object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC
Object" approach. This approach limits applicability to cases where
the [<a href="#ref-MEF-TRAFFIC" title=""MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"">MEF-TRAFFIC</a>] traffic parameters are appropriate, and to
switching technologies that define no use for the ADSPEC object.
While ultimately it is this limited scope that has resulted in this
approach being relegated to an Appendix, the semantics of this
approach are quite simple in that they only require the definition of
a new ADSPEC object C-Type.
In summary, the "ADSPEC Object" approach presented in this section
SHOULD NOT be implemented.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.2" href="#appendix-A.2">A.2</a>. Overview</span>
The "ADSPEC Object" approach is specific to Ethernet and uses [MEF-
TRAFFIC] traffic parameters. This approach is not generic and is
aimed at providing asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs for just
Ethernet transport. With this approach, the ADSPEC object carries
the traffic parameters for the upstream data flow. SENDER_TSPEC
object is used to indicate the traffic parameters for the downstream
data flow. The FLOWSPEC object provides confirmation of the
allocated downstream resources. Confirmation of the upstream
resource allocation is a Resv message, as any resource allocation
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
failure for the upstream direction will always result in a PathErr
message. Figure 2 shows the bandwidth-related objects used in the
first approach.
|---| Path |---|
| I |----------------->| E |
| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
| g | -ADSPEC | r |
| r | | e |
| e | Resv | s |
| s |<-----------------| s |
| s | -FLOWSPEC | |
|---| |---|
Figure 2: Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs Using ADSPEC Object
In the "ADSPEC Object" approach, the setup of an asymmetric bandwidth
bidirectional LSP would be signaled using the bidirectional
procedures defined in [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] together with the inclusion of a new
ADSPEC object. The new ADSPEC object would be specific to Ethernet
and could be called the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC
object. The Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object would
use the Class-Number 13 and C-Type UNASSIGNED (this approach should
not be implemented). The format of the object would be the same as
the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object defined in [<a href="#ref-MEF-TRAFFIC" title=""MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"">MEF-TRAFFIC</a>].
This approach would not modify behavior of symmetric bandwidth LSPs.
Per [<a href="#ref-MEF-TRAFFIC" title=""MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters,"">MEF-TRAFFIC</a>], such LSPs are signaled either without an ADSPEC or
with an INTSERV ADSPEC.
The defined approach could be reused to support asymmetric bandwidth
bidirectional LSPs for other types of switching technologies. All
that would be needed would be to define the proper ADSPEC object.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.3" href="#appendix-A.3">A.3</a>. Procedures</span>
Using the approach presented in this section, the process of
establishing an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP would follow
the process of establishing a symmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP,
as defined in <a href="./rfc3473#section-3">Section 3 of [RFC3473]</a>, with two modifications. These
modifications would be followed when an incoming Path message is
received containing an Upstream_Label object and the Ethernet
Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object.
The first modification to the symmetric bandwidth process would be
that when allocating the upstream label, the bandwidth associated
with the upstream label would be taken from the Ethernet Upstream
Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object, see <a href="./rfc3473#section-3.1">Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]</a>.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
Consistent with [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>], a node that is unable to allocate a label
or internal resources based on the contents of the ADSPEC object,
would issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label
allocation failure" indication.
The second modification would be that the ADSPEC object would not be
modified by transit nodes.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A.4" href="#appendix-A.4">A.4</a>. Compatibility</span>
The approach presented in this section reuses semantics and
procedures defined in [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]. To indicate the use of asymmetric
bandwidth, a new ADSPEC object C-type would be defined. Per
[<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>], nodes not supporting the approach should not recognize
this new C-type and respond with an "Unknown object C-Type" error.
<span class="grey">Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5467">RFC 5467</a> Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSP March 2009</span>
Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
EMail: lberger@labn.net
Attila Takacs
Ericsson
1. Laborc u.
1037 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36-1-4377044
EMail: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
Phone: +390106003738
EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA, USA 01821
Phone: +1-978-288-3041
EMail: dwfedyk@nortel.com
Julien Meuric
France Telecom
Research & Development
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex - France
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
EMail: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
Berger, et al. Experimental [Page 14]
</pre>
|
