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
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) JP. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5711 G. Swallow
Updates: <a href="./rfc3209">3209</a> Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track I. Minei
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
January 2010
<span class="h1">Node Behavior upon Originating and Receiving Resource Reservation</span>
<span class="h1">Protocol (RSVP) Path Error Messages</span>
Abstract
The aim of this document is to describe a common practice with regard
to the behavior of nodes that send and receive a Resource Reservation
Protocol (RSVP) Traffic Engineering (TE) Path Error messages for a
preempted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP). (For
reference to the notion of TE LSP preemption, see <a href="./rfc3209">RFC 3209</a>.) This
document does not define any new protocol extensions.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5711">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5711</a>.
<span class="grey">Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5711">RFC 5711</a> Node Behavior with RSVP PathErr January 2010</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction ....................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language ......................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Protocol Behavior ...............................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Behavior at Detecting Nodes ................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Behavior at Receiving Nodes ................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. Data-Plane Behavior ........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. RSVP PathErr Messages for a Preempted TE LSP ....................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Acknowledgements ................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References .....................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<span class="grey">Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5711">RFC 5711</a> Node Behavior with RSVP PathErr January 2010</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The aim of this document is to describe a common practice with regard
to the behavior of a node sending a Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) Traffic Engineering (TE) Path Error message and to the
behavior of a node receiving an RSVP Path Error message for a
preempted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP). (For
reference to the notion of TE LSP preemption, see [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>]).
[<a id="ref-RFC2205">RFC2205</a>] defines two RSVP error message types: PathErr and ResvErr
that are generated when an error occurs. Path Error messages
(PathErr) are used to report errors and travel upstream toward the
head-end of the flow. Resv Error messages (ResvErr) travel
downstream toward the tail-end of the flow.
This document describes only PathErr message processing for the
specific case of a preempted TE LSP, where the term preemption is
defined in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language</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">RFC 2119</a> [<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>. Protocol Behavior</span>
PathErr messages are routed hop-by-hop using the path state
established when a Path message is routed through the network from
the head-end to its tail-end.
As stated in [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>], PathErr messages do not modify the state of
any node through which they pass; they are only reported to the head-
end of the TE LSP (Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path).
The format of the PathErr message is defined in <a href="./rfc2205#section-3">Section 3. of
[RFC2205]</a>.
The ERROR_SPEC object includes the IP address of the node that
detected the error (Error Node Address), and specifies the error
through two fields. The Error Code field encodes the category of the
error, for example, Policy Control Failure or Unknown object class.
The Error Value field qualifies the error code to indicate the error
with more precision. [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>] extends RSVP as defined in [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>]
for the management of MPLS-TE LSPs. [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>] specifies several
additional conditions that trigger the sending of a RSVP PathErr
message for which new error codes and error values have been defined
<span class="grey">Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5711">RFC 5711</a> Node Behavior with RSVP PathErr January 2010</span>
that extend the list defined in [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>]. The exact circumstances
under which a TE LSP is preempted and such PathErr messages are sent
are defined in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>] and will not be repeated here.
Values for the Error Code and Error Value fields 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 other documents are maintained in a
registry by the IANA.
The error conditions fall into two categories:
o Fatal errors represent disruptive conditions for a TE LSP.
o Non-fatal errors are non-disruptive conditions that have occurred
for this TE LSP.
PathErr messages may be used in two circumstances:
o during TE LSP establishment, and
o after a TE LSP has been successfully established.
Nodal behavior is dependent on which combination of the four cases
listed above applies. The following sections describe the expected
behavior at nodes that perform a preemption action for a TE LSP (and
therefore report using error PathErr messages), and at nodes that
receive PathErr messages. This text is a clarification and
restatement of the procedures set out in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>] and does not
define any new behavior.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Behavior at Detecting Nodes</span>
In the case of fatal errors ("Hard Preemption"; see <a href="./rfc3209#section-4.7.3">Section 4.7.3 of
[RFC3209]</a> ), the detecting node MUST send a PathErr message reporting
the error condition, and MUST clear the corresponding Path and Resv
(control plane) states. A direct implication is that the data-plane
resources of such a TE LSP are also released, thus resulting in
traffic disruption. It should be noted, however, that in fatal error
cases, the LSP has usually already failed in the data plane, and
traffic has already been disrupted. When the error arises during LSP
establishment, the implications are different to when it arises on an
active LSP since no traffic flows until the LSP has been fully
established. In the case of non-fatal errors, the detecting node
should send a PathErr message, and must not clear control plane or
data plane state.
<span class="grey">Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5711">RFC 5711</a> Node Behavior with RSVP PathErr January 2010</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Behavior at Receiving Nodes</span>
Nodes that receive PathErr messages are all of the nodes along the
path of the TE LSP upstream of the node that detected the error.
This includes the head-end node. In accordance with <a href="./rfc2205#section-3.7.1">Section 3.7.1 of
[RFC2205]</a>, a node receiving a PathErr message takes no action upon
it, and consequently the node must not clear Path or Resv control-
plane or data-plane state. This is true regardless of whether the
error condition reported by the PathErr is fatal or non-fatal. RSVP
states should only be affected upon receiving a PathTear or ResvTear
message, or in the event of a Path or Resv state timeout. Further
discussion of the processing of these events is outside the scope of
this document.
Note that [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>] defines a Path_State_Removed flag in the
ERROR_SPEC object carried on a PathErr message. This field may be
set to change the behavior of upstream nodes that receive the PathErr
message. When set, the flag indicates that the message sender has
removed Path state (and any associated Resv and data-plane state) for
the TE LSP. The message receiver should do likewise before
forwarding the message, but may retain state and clear the flag
before forwarding the message.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.3" href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. Data-Plane Behavior</span>
Any node clearing either or both the Path or the Resv state of a TE
LSP MUST also free up the data-plane resources allocated to the
corresponding TE LSP.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. RSVP PathErr Messages for a Preempted TE LSP</span>
Two Error Codes have been defined to report a preempted TE LSP:
o As defined in [<a href="./rfc2750" title=""RSVP Extensions for Policy Control"">RFC2750</a>]: Error Code=2: "Policy Control Failure",
Error Value=5: "Flow was preempted"
o As defined in [<a href="./rfc2205" title=""Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification"">RFC2205</a>], Error Code=12: "Service preempted"
They are both fatal errors.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document does not define any new procedures, but clarifies those
defined in other documents where security considerations are already
specified in [<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>]. This document does not raise
specific security issues beyond those of existing MPLS-TE. By
<span class="grey">Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5711">RFC 5711</a> Node Behavior with RSVP PathErr January 2010</span>
clarifying the procedures, this document reduces the security risk
introduced by non-conformant implementations. See [<a href="#ref-SEC_FMWK" title=""Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks"">SEC_FMWK</a>] for
further discussion of MPLS security issues.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Acknowledgements</span>
The authors would like to thank Carol Iturralde, Ashok Narayanan, Rom
Reuther, and Reshad Rahman.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<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-RFC2205">RFC2205</a>] Braden, B., 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-RFC2750">RFC2750</a>] Herzog, S., "RSVP Extensions for Policy Control",
<a href="./rfc2750">RFC 2750</a>, January 2000.
[<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., "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-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-SEC_FMWK">SEC_FMWK</a>] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", Work in Progress, October 2009.
<span class="grey">Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5711">RFC 5711</a> Node Behavior with RSVP PathErr January 2010</span>
Authors' Addresses
JP Vasseur (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
EMail: swallow@cisco.com
Ina Minei
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
EMail: ina@juniper.net
Vasseur, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
</pre>
|
