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
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Margaria, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7570 Juniper
Category: Standards Track G. Martinelli
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
S. Balls
B. Wright
Metaswitch
July 2015
<span class="h1">Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)</span>
Abstract
<a href="./rfc5420">RFC 5420</a> extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes that
apply to the whole of the path of a Label Switched Path (LSP). This
document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO)
and Record Route Object (RRO) to allow them to specify or record
generic attributes that apply to a given hop.
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/rfc7570">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
<span class="grey">Margaria, 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="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Hop Attributes TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.2.1">3.2.1</a>. Subobject Presence Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.2.2">3.2.2</a>. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3.2.3">3.2.3</a>. Compatibility with RRO Attributes Subobject . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Existing Attribute Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-14">14</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) can be route constrained by making use of the Explicit
Route Object (ERO) and related subobjects as defined in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>],
[<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>], [<a href="./rfc3477" title=""Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC3477</a>], [<a href="./rfc4873" title=""GMPLS Segment Recovery"">RFC4873</a>], [<a href="./rfc4874" title=""Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC4874</a>], [<a href="./rfc5520" title=""Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism"">RFC5520</a>], and [<a href="./rfc5553" title=""Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key Support"">RFC5553</a>].
Several documents have identified the need for attributes that can be
targeted at specific hops in the path of an LSP, including [<a href="./rfc6163" title=""Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)"">RFC6163</a>],
[<a href="#ref-WSON-SIG">WSON-SIG</a>], [<a href="./rfc7571" title=""GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback"">RFC7571</a>], or [<a href="#ref-OBJ-FUN" title=""Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric Bound"">OBJ-FUN</a>]. This document provides a
generic mechanism for use by these other documents.
RSVP already supports generic extension of LSP attributes in
[<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]. In order to support current and future ERO constraint
extensions, this document provides a mechanism to define per-hop
attributes.
The document describes a generic mechanism for carrying information
related to specific nodes when signaling an LSP. This document does
not restrict what that information can be used for. The defined
approach builds on LSP attributes defined in [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>] and enables
<span class="grey">Margaria, 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="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
attributes to be expressed in ERO and Secondary Explicit Route
Objects (SEROs). A new ERO subobject is defined, containing a list
of generic per-hop attributes.
<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>. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject</span>
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used, it is carried
in the ERO or SERO. The subobject uses the standard format of an ERO
subobject.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Encoding</span>
The length is variable and content is a list of Hop Attributes TLVs
defined in <a href="#section-2.2">Section 2.2</a>. The size of the ERO subobject limits the
size of the Hop Attributes TLV to 250 bytes. The typical size of
currently defined and forthcoming LSP_ATTRIBUTE TLVs applicable to a
specific hop (WSON_SIGNALING, Objective Function (OF), and Metric) is
not foreseen to exceed this limit.
The ERO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Hop Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The L, Type, and Length parameters are as defined in <a href="./rfc3209#section-4.3.3">[RFC3209],
Section 4.3.3</a>. The L bit MUST be set to 0. The Type for the ERO Hop
Attributes subobject is 35. The Hop Attributes TLVs are encoded as
defined in <a href="#section-2.2">Section 2.2</a>.
Reserved: Reserved MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the ERO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the ERO, and
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding ERO
subobjects.
<span class="grey">Margaria, 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="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
R: This bit reflects the LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTE and LSP_ATTRIBUTE
semantic defined in [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]. When set, it indicates required
hop attributes to be processed by the node. When cleared, it
indicates that the hop attributes are not required as described in
<a href="#section-2.3">Section 2.3</a>.
Hop Attributes TLVs: The TLVs as defined in <a href="#section-2.2">Section 2.2</a>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Hop Attributes TLVs</span>
ERO attributes carried by the new objects defined in this document
are encoded within TLVs. Each object MAY contain one or more TLVs.
There are no ordering rules for TLVs, and interpretation SHOULD NOT
be placed on the order in which TLVs are received. The TLV format is
defined in <a href="./rfc5420#section-3">[RFC5420], Section 3</a>.
The Attribute Flags TLV defined in [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>] is carried in an ERO Hop
Attributes subobject. Flags set in the Attribute Flags TLV [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]
carried in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject SHALL be interpreted in
the context of the received ERO. Only a subset of defined flags are
defined as valid for use in Attribute Flags TLV carried in an ERO Hop
Attributes subobject. Invalid flags SHALL be silently ignored.
Unknown flags SHOULD trigger the generation of a PathErr with Error
Code "Unknown Attributes Bit" as defined in <a href="./rfc5420#section-5.2">[RFC5420], Section 5.2</a>.
The set of valid flags are defined in <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>.
The presence and ordering rule of the Attribute Flags TLV in an ERO
Hop Attributes subobject is defined by each Flag. A document
defining a flag to be used in an Attribute Flags TLV carried in the
ERO Hop Attributes subobject has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject the flag is valid,
o if ordering of the flag and other ERO subobjects associated with
the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects) is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the flag is interpreted in
association with the preceding subobjects, and
o any flag modification rules that might apply.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.3" href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. Procedures</span>
As described in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>], the ERO is managed as a list of subobjects
each identifying a specific entity, an abstract node, or a link that
defines a waypoint in the network path. Identifying subobjects of
various types are defined in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>], [<a href="./rfc3477" title=""Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC3477</a>], [<a href="./rfc4873" title=""GMPLS Segment Recovery"">RFC4873</a>],
[<a href="./rfc4874" title=""Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC4874</a>], [<a href="./rfc5520" title=""Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism"">RFC5520</a>], and [<a href="./rfc5553" title=""Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key Support"">RFC5553</a>].
<span class="grey">Margaria, 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="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3473">RFC3473</a>] modified the ERO list by allowing one or two Label
subobjects to be interposed in the list after a subobject identifying
a link. One or more ERO Hop Attributes subobjects applicable to a
particular hop MAY be inserted directly after any of the existing
identifying subobjects defined in[RFC3209], [<a href="./rfc3477" title=""Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC3477</a>], [<a href="./rfc4873" title=""GMPLS Segment Recovery"">RFC4873</a>],
[<a href="./rfc4874" title=""Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC4874</a>], [<a href="./rfc5520" title=""Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism"">RFC5520</a>], and [<a href="./rfc5553" title=""Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key Support"">RFC5553</a>]. If any Label subobjects are
present for a hop, the ERO Hop Attributes subobject(s) MAY also be
inserted after the Label subobjects.
The attributes specified in an ERO Hop Attributes subobject apply to
the immediately preceding subobject(s) in the ERO subobject list.
A document defining a specific Hop Attributes TLV has to describe:
o after which kinds of ERO subobject they are valid,
o if ordering of the Hop Attributes subobject and other ERO
subobjects associated with the same hop (e.g., Label subobjects)
is significant,
o if ordering is significant, how the attribute is interpreted in
association with the preceding ERO subobjects, and
o any TLV modification rules that might apply.
For instance, subobject presence rules can be defined by describing
rules similar to <a href="./rfc4990#section-6.1">[RFC4990], Section 6.1</a>.
If a node is processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject and does not
support the handling of the subobject, it will behave as described in
[<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>] when an unrecognized ERO subobject is encountered. This
node will return a PathErr with Error Code "Routing Error" and Error
Value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
included, truncated (on the left) to the offending unrecognized
subobject.
When the R bit is set, a node MUST examine the attributes TLV present
in the subobject following the rules described in <a href="./rfc5420#section-5.2">[RFC5420],
Section 5.2</a>. When the R bit is not set, a node MUST examine the
attributes TLV present in the subobject following the rules described
in <a href="./rfc5420#section-4.2">[RFC5420], Section 4.2</a>.
A node processing an ERO Hop Attributes subobject with a Hop
Attributes TLV longer than the ERO subobject SHOULD return a PathErr
with Error Code "Routing Error" and Error Value "Bad EXPLICIT_ROUTE
object" with the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object included, truncated (on the
left) to the offending malformed subobject. A processing node MUST
<span class="grey">Margaria, 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="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
NOT originate a Hop Attributes TLV longer than the ERO Hop Attributes
subobject. The processing of the Hop Attributes TLVs SHOULD be
described in the documents defining them.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject</span>
In some cases, it is important to determine if an OPTIONAL hop
attribute has been processed by a node.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Encoding</span>
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is OPTIONAL. If used, it is carried
in the RECORD_ROUTE object. The subobject uses the standard format
of an RRO subobject.
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject is defined as follows:
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 | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Hop Attributes TLVs //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type and Length parameters are as defined in <a href="./rfc3209#section-4.4.1">[RFC3209],
Section 4.4.1</a>. The Type for the RRO Hop Attributes subobject is 35.
The Hop Attributes TLVs are encoded as defined in <a href="#section-2.2">Section 2.2</a>.
Reserved: Reserved MUST be set to 0 when the subobject is inserted
in the RRO, MUST NOT be changed when a node processes the RRO, and
MUST be ignored on the node addressed by the preceding RRO
subobjects.
Hop Attributes TLVs: The processed or additional Hop Attributes
TLVs, using the format defined in <a href="#section-2.2">Section 2.2</a>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Procedures</span>
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.1" href="#section-3.2.1">3.2.1</a>. Subobject Presence Rule</span>
The RRO rules defined in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>] are not changed. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MUST be pushed after the RRO Attributes
subobject (if present) as defined in [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]. The RRO Hop
Attributes subobject MAY be present between a pair of subobjects
identifying the Label Switching Router (LSR) or links. Unless local
<span class="grey">Margaria, 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="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
policy applies, all such subobjects SHOULD be forwarded unmodified by
transit LSRs.
It is noted that a node (e.g., a domain edge node) MAY edit the RRO
to prune/modify the RRO, including the RRO Hop Attributes subobject
before forwarding due to confidentiality policy or other reasons (for
instance, RRO size reduction).
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.2" href="#section-3.2.2">3.2.2</a>. Reporting Compliance with ERO Hop Attributes</span>
To report that an ERO hop attribute has been considered, or to report
an additional attribute, an LSR can add a RRO Hop Attributes
subobject with the Hop Attributes TLV, which describes the attribute
to be reported. The requirement to report compliance MUST be
specified in the document that defines the usage of a hop attribute.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2.3" href="#section-3.2.3">3.2.3</a>. Compatibility with RRO Attributes Subobject</span>
The RRO Hop Attributes subobject extends the capability of the RRO
Attributes subobject defined in <a href="./rfc5420#section-7.2">[RFC5420], Section 7.2</a> by allowing
the node to report the attribute value. The mechanism defined in
this document is compatible with the RRO Attributes subobject using
the following procedures.
For LSP attributes signaled in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, a node SHOULD use the RRO Attributes
subobject to report processing of those attributes.
For LSP attributes signaled in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject and
not in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects, if a
node desires to report the attributes, it SHOULD use the RRO Hop
Attributes subobject and SHOULD NOT use the RRO Attributes subobject.
Ingress nodes not supporting the RRO Hop Attributes subobject will
drop the information, as described in <a href="./rfc3209#section-4.4.5">[RFC3209], Section 4.4.5</a>.
A node can use the RRO Hop Attributes subobject to report an LSP
attribute signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES only
if the following conditions are met:
The attribute and its corresponding flag is allowed on both the
LSP_ATTRIBUTES or LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES and LSP Hop Attributes
subobject.
The reporting of an LSP attribute signaled in LSP_ATTRIBUTES or
LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES in the RRO Hop Attribute is specified in
the document defining that LSP attribute.
<span class="grey">Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. ERO Hop Attributes Subobject</span>
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry located at
<<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters</a>>. Per this
document, IANA has made an allocation in the Sub-object type 20
EXPLICIT_ROUTE - Type 1 Explicit Route registry.
This document introduces a new ERO subobject:
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
35 Hop Attributes This document, <a href="#section-2">Section 2</a>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. RRO Hop Attributes Subobject</span>
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters"
registry located at
<<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters</a>>. Per this
document, IANA has made an allocation in the Sub-object type 21
ROUTE_RECORD - Type 1 Route Record registry. This value is the same
as that in <a href="#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a>.
This document introduces a new RRO subobject:
Value Description Reference
------ ----------------- ------------------------
35 Hop Attributes This document, <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Existing Attribute Flags</span>
IANA manages the "Attribute Flags" registry as part of the "Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Parameters"
registry located at
<<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters</a>>. A new column
in the registry is introduced by this document. This column
indicates if the flag is permitted to be used in an Attribute Flags
TLV carried in the ERO Hop Attributes subobject. The column uses the
heading "ERO" and the registry has been updated as follows:
<span class="grey">Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
Bit Name Attribute Attribute RRO ERO Reference
No. FlagsPath FlagsResv
0 End-to-end re- Yes No No No [<a href="./rfc4920" title=""Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE"">RFC4920</a>]
routing [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]
This Document
1 Boundary re-routing Yes No No No [<a href="./rfc4920" title=""Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE"">RFC4920</a>]
[<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]
This Document
2 Segment-based re- Yes No No No [<a href="./rfc4920" title=""Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE"">RFC4920</a>]
routing [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]
This Document
3 LSP Integrity Yes No No No [<a href="./rfc4875" title=""Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4875</a>]
Required
This Document
4 Contiguous LSP Yes No Yes No [<a href="./rfc5151" title=""Inter- Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC5151</a>]
This Document
5 LSP stitching Yes No Yes No [<a href="./rfc5150" title=""Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)"">RFC5150</a>]
desired
This Document
6 Pre-Planned LSP Flag Yes No No No [<a href="./rfc6001" title=""Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/ MRN)"">RFC6001</a>]
This Document
7 Non-PHP behavior Yes No Yes No [<a href="./rfc6511" title=""Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths"">RFC6511</a>]
flag
This Document
8 OOB mapping flag Yes No Yes No [<a href="./rfc6511" title=""Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths"">RFC6511</a>]
This Document
9 Entropy Label Yes Yes No No [<a href="./rfc6790" title=""The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding"">RFC6790</a>]
Capability
This Document
10 OAM MEP entities Yes Yes Yes No [<a href="./rfc7260" title=""GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration"">RFC7260</a>]
desired
This Document
11 OAM MIP entities Yes Yes Yes No [<a href="./rfc7260" title=""GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration"">RFC7260</a>]
desired
This Document
12 SRLG collection Flag Yes Yes Yes No [<a href="#ref-SRLG-COLLECT">SRLG-COLLECT</a>]
(TEMPORARY - This Document
registered
2014-09-11, expires
2015-09-11)
New allocation requests to this registry SHALL indicate the value to
be used in the ERO column.
<span class="grey">Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. Existing LSP Attribute TLVs</span>
IANA manages the "Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE) Parameters" registry located at
<<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters</a>>. The
"Attributes TLV Space" registry manages the following attributes, as
defined in [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]:
o TLV Type (T-field value)
o TLV Name
o Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object
o Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object
Per this document, IANA has added the following information for each
TLV in the RSVP TLV type identifier registry.
o Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes ERO subobject
The existing registry has been modified for existing TLVs as follows.
The following abbreviations are used below:
LSP_A: Whether allowed on LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.
LSP_RA: Whether allowed on LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES object.
HOP_A: Whether allowed on LSP Hop Attributes subobject.
T Name LSP_A LSP_RA HOP_A Ref.
- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- --------------
1 Attribute Flags Yes Yes Yes [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>]
This Document
2 Service ID TLV Yes No No [<a href="./rfc6060" title=""Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB- TE)"">RFC6060</a>]
This Document
3 OAM Configuration TLV Yes Yes No [<a href="./rfc7260" title=""GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration"">RFC7260</a>]
This Document
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document adds a new subobject in the EXPLICIT_ROUTE and the
ROUTE_RECORD objects carried in RSVP messages used in MPLS and GMPLS
signaling. It builds on mechanisms defined in [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>] and
[<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>] and does not introduce any new security. The existing
security considerations described 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>], [<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>],
and [<a href="./rfc5420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC5420</a>] do apply.
<span class="grey">Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
As with any RSVP-TE signaling request, the procedures defined in this
document permit the transfer and reporting of functional preferences
on a specific node. The mechanism added in this document does allow
more control of LSP attributes at a given node. A node SHOULD check
the hop attributes against its policies and admission procedures as
it does with other inputs. A node MAY reject the message using
existing RSVP Error Codes like "Policy Control Failure" or "Admission
Control Failure". The node MAY also, depending on the specific TLV
procedures, modify the requested attribute. This can reveal
information about the LSP request and status to anyone with
unauthorized access. The mechanism described in this document does
not contribute to this issue, which can be only resolved by
encrypting the content of the whole signaling message.
In addition, the reporting of attributes using the RRO can reveal
details about the node that the operator wishes to remain
confidential. The same strategy and policies that apply to other RRO
subobjects also apply to this new mechanism. It is RECOMMENDED that
domain boundary policies take the releasing of RRO hop attributes
into consideration.
<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>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<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>, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205</a>>.
[<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>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209</a>>.
[<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>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473</a>>.
<span class="grey">Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3477">RFC3477</a>] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Signalling Unnumbered Links
in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering
(RSVP-TE)", <a href="./rfc3477">RFC 3477</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3477, January 2003,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3477</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4873">RFC4873</a>] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., and A. Farrel,
"GMPLS Segment Recovery", <a href="./rfc4873">RFC 4873</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4873,
May 2007, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4873</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4874">RFC4874</a>] Lee, CY., Farrel, A., and S. De Cnodder, "Exclude Routes -
Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE)", <a href="./rfc4874">RFC 4874</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4874,
April 2007, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4874</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4875">RFC4875</a>] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", <a href="./rfc4875">RFC 4875</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4920">RFC4920</a>] Farrel, A., Ed., Satyanarayana, A., Iwata, A., Fujita, N.,
and G. Ash, "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and
GMPLS RSVP-TE", <a href="./rfc4920">RFC 4920</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4920, July 2007,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4920">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4920</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5150">RFC5150</a>] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", <a href="./rfc5150">RFC 5150</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5150, February 2008,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5150</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5151">RFC5151</a>] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-
Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource
Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extensions", <a href="./rfc5151">RFC 5151</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5151, February
2008, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5151</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5420">RFC5420</a>] 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)", <a href="./rfc5420">RFC 5420</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5420,
February 2009, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420</a>>.
<span class="grey">Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5520">RFC5520</a>] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", <a href="./rfc5520">RFC 5520</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5553">RFC5553</a>] Farrel, A., Ed., Bradford, R., and JP. Vasseur, "Resource
Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key
Support", <a href="./rfc5553">RFC 5553</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5553, May 2009,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5553">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5553</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6001">RFC6001</a>] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol
Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/
MRN)", <a href="./rfc6001">RFC 6001</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6001, October 2010,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6001</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6060">RFC6060</a>] Fedyk, D., Shah, H., Bitar, N., and A. Takacs,
"Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control
of Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-
TE)", <a href="./rfc6060">RFC 6060</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6060, March 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6060">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6060</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6511">RFC6511</a>] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., and R. Aggarwal, "Non-Penultimate
Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE
Label Switched Paths", <a href="./rfc6511">RFC 6511</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6511,
February 2012, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6511">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6511</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6790">RFC6790</a>] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
<a href="./rfc6790">RFC 6790</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7260">RFC7260</a>] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE
Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
(OAM) Configuration", <a href="./rfc7260">RFC 7260</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7260, June
2014, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7260</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-OBJ-FUN">OBJ-FUN</a>] Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Filsfils, C., Fang, L., Kumaki, K.,
Kunze, R., Ceccarelli, D., and X. Zhang, "Resource
ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Extension for Signaling Objective Function and Metric
Bound", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-05">draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-</a>
<a href="./draft-ali-ccamp-rc-objective-function-metric-bound-05">function-metric-bound-05</a>, February 2014.
<span class="grey">Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4990">RFC4990</a>] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of
Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Networks", <a href="./rfc4990">RFC 4990</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC4990,
September 2007, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4990">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4990</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC6163">RFC6163</a>] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
<a href="./rfc6163">RFC 6163</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7571">RFC7571</a>] Dong, J., Chen, M., Li, Z., and D. Ceccarelli, "GMPLS
RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and Loopback", <a href="./rfc7571">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc7571">7571</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7571, July 2015,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7571">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7571</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RSVP-TE-HOPS">RSVP-TE-HOPS</a>]
Kern, A. and A. Takacs, "Encoding of Attributes of LSP
intermediate hops using RSVP-TE", Work in Progress,
<a href="./draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00">draft-kern-ccamp-rsvpte-hop-attributes-00</a>, October 2009.
[<a id="ref-SRLG-COLLECT">SRLG-COLLECT</a>]
Zhang, F., Dios, O., Li, D., Margaria, C., Hartley, M.,
and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting SRLG
Information", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00">draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-</a>
<a href="./draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-00">srlg-collect-00</a>, December 2014.
[<a id="ref-WSON-SIG">WSON-SIG</a>]
Bernstein, G., Xu, S., Lee, Y., Martinelli, G., and H.
Harai, "Signaling Extensions for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-10">draft-ietf-ccamp-</a>
<a href="./draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-10">wson-signaling-10</a>, March 2015.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Lou Berger for his directions and
Attila Takacs for inspiring [<a href="#ref-RSVP-TE-HOPS">RSVP-TE-HOPS</a>]. The authors also thank
Dirk Schroetter for his contribution to the initial draft versions of
this document.
<span class="grey">Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7570">RFC 7570</a> General ERO LSP Parameters July 2015</span>
Authors' Addresses
Cyril Margaria (editor)
Juniper
200 Somerset Corporate Boulevard, Suite 4001
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
United States
Email: cmargaria@juniper.net
Giovanni Martinelli
Cisco
via Philips 12
Monza 20900
Italy
Phone: +39 039 209 2044
Email: giomarti@cisco.com
Steve Balls
Metaswitch
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: steve.balls@metaswitch.com
Ben Wright
Metaswitch
100 Church Street
Enfield EN2 6BQ
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 208 366 1177
Email: Ben.Wright@metaswitch.com
Margaria, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
</pre>
|
