MPLS Working Group M. Taillon Internet-Draft T. Saad, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track R. Gandhi Expires: March 19, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc. A. Deshmukh M. Jork V. Beeram Juniper Networks September 15, 2017 RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for LSP Tunnels draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-00 Abstract This document defines Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Traffic- Engineering (TE) signaling extensions that reduce the amount of RSVP signaling required for Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures and subsequently improve the scalability of the RSVP-TE signaling when undergoing FRR convergence after a link or node failure. Such extensions allow the RSVP message exchange between the Point of Local Repair (PLR) and the Merge Point (MP) to be independent of the number of protected Label Switched Paths (LSPs) traversing between them when facility bypass FRR protection is used. The signaling extensions are fully backwards compatible with nodes that do not support them. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2017. Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Key Word Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Summary FRR Signaling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.1. Extended ASSOCIATION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Signaling Procedures Post Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1. Introduction The Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures defined in [RFC4090] describe the mechanisms for the Point of Local Repair (PLR) to reroute traffic and signaling of a protected RSVP-TE LSP onto the bypass tunnel in the event of a TE link or node failure. Such signaling procedures are performed individually for each affected protected LSP. This may eventually lead to control plane scalability and latency issues under limited (memory and CPU processing) resources after a failure that Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 affects a large number of protected LSPs traversing the same PLR and Merge Point (MP) nodes. For example, in a large RSVP-TE LSPs scale deployment, a single LSR acting as a PLR node may host tens of thousands of protected RSVP-TE LSPs egressing the same link, and also act as a MP node for similar number of LSPs ingressing the same link. In the event of the failure of the link or neighbor node, the RSVP-TE control plane of the node when acting as PLR becomes busy rerouting protected LSPs signaling over the bypass tunnel(s) in one direction, and when acting as an MP node becomes busy merging RSVP states from signaling received over bypass tunnels for LSP(s) in the reverse direction. Subsequently, the head-end LER(s) that are notified of the local repair at downstream LSR will attempt to (re)converge affected RSVP- TE LSPs onto newly computed paths - possibly traversing the same previously affected LSR(s). As a result, the RSVP-TE control plane at the PLR and MP becomes overwhelmed by the amount of FRR RSVP-TE processing overhead following the link or node failure, and the competing other control plane protocol(s) (e.g. the IGP) that undergo their convergence at the same time. The extensions defined in this document enable a MP node to become aware of the PLR node's bypass tunnel assignment group and allow FRR procedures between PLR node and MP node to be signaled and processed on groups of LSPs. Further, the MESSAGE_ID for the rerouted PATH and RESV states are exchanged a priori to the fault such that Summary Refresh procedures defined in [RFC2961] can continue to be used to refresh the rerouted state(s) after FRR has occurred. 2. Conventions Used in This Document 2.1. Key Word Definitions 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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2.2. Terminology The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology in [RFC3209] and [RFC4090]. 3. Summary FRR Signaling Procedures The RSVP ASSOCIATION object is defined in [RFC4872] as a means to associate LSPs with each other. For example, in the context of GMPLS-controlled LSP(s), the object is used to associate recovery Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 LSPs with the LSP they are protecting. The Extended ASSOCIATION object is introduced in [RFC6780] to expand on the possible usage of the ASSOCIATION object and generalize the definition of the Association ID field. This document proposes the use of the Extended ASSOCIATION object to carry the Summary FRR information and associate the protected LSP(s) with the bypass tunnel that protects them. To this extent, a new Association Type for the Extended ASSOCIATION object, and a new Association ID are proposed in this draft to describe the Bypass Summary FRR (B-SFRR) association. The PLR creates and manages the Summary FRR LSP groups (Bypass_Group_Identifiers) and shares them with the MP via signaling. Protected LSPs sharing the same egress link and bypass assignment are grouped together and are assigned the same group. The MP maintains the PLR group assignments learned via signaling, and acknowledges the group assignments via signaling. Once the PLR receives the acknowledgment, FRR signaling can proceed as group based. The PLR node that supports Summary FRR procedures adds the Extended ASSOCIATION object with Bypass Summary FRR Association Type - referred to thereon in this document as B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object- in the RSVP Path message of the protected LSP to inform the MP of the PLR's assigned bypass tunnel, Summary FRR Bypass_Group_Identifier, and the MESSAGE_ID object that the PLR will use to refresh the protected LSP PATH state after FRR occurs. The MP node that supports Summary FRR procedures adds the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object in a RSVP Resv message of the protected LSP to acknowledge the PLR's bypass tunnel assignment, and provide the MESSAGE_ID object that the MP node will use to refresh the protected LSP RESV state after FRR occurs. This document also defines a new RSVP FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object that is sent within the RSVP Path message of a bypass LSP to inform the MP node that one or more groups of protected LSPs that are being protected by the bypass tunnel are being rerouted i.e. signaling is rerouted over the bypass tunnel. 3.1. Signaling Procedures Prior to Failure Before Summary FRR procedures can be used, a handshake MUST be completed between the PLR and MP. This handshake is performed using B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object that is carried in both the RSVP Path and Resv messages of the protected LSP. Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 3.1.1. Extended ASSOCIATION Object The B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object is populated using the rules defined below to associate the Summary FRR enabled protected LSP with the bypass LSP that is protecting it. The Association Type, Association ID, and Association Source MUST be set as defined in [RFC4872] for the ASSOCIATION Object. More specifically: Association Source: The Association Source is set to an address selected by the node that originates the association. For Bypass Summary FRR association it is set to an address of the PLR node. Association Type: The Association Type is set to indicate the Bypass Summary FRR association. A new Association Type is defined as follows: Value Type ------- ------ (TBD-1) Bypass Summary FRR Association (B-SFRR) Extended Association ID: The Extended Association ID is populated by the node originating the association -- i.e. the PLR for the Bypass Summary FRR association. The rules to populate the Extended Association ID in this case is described below. 3.1.1.1. IPv4 Extended Association ID The IPv4 Extended Association ID for Summary FRR bypass assignment has the following format: Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Tunnel_ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Group_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MESSAGE_ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: The IPv4 Extended Association ID field Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits The bypass tunnel identifier. Reserved: 16 bits Reserved for future use. Bypass_Source_IPv4_Address: 32 bits The bypass tunnel source IPV4 address. Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address: 32 bits The bypass tunnel destination IPV4 address. Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits The bypass tunnel group identifier. MESSAGE_ID A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by [RFC2961]. 3.1.1.2. IPv6 Extended Association ID The IPv6 Extended Association ID field for the Summary FRR information has the following format: Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Tunnel_ID | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Group_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MESSAGE_ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: The IPv6 Extended Association ID field Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 Bypass_Tunnel_ID: 16 bits The bypass tunnel identifier. Reserved: 16 bits Reserved for future use. Bypass_Source_IPv6_Address: 128 bits The bypass tunnel source IPV6 address. Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address: 128 bits The bypass tunnel destination IPV6 address. Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits The bypass tunnel group identifier. MESSAGE_ID A MESSAGE_ID object as defined by [RFC2961]. The PLR assigns a bypass tunnel and Bypass_Group_Identifier for each protected LSP. The same Bypass_Group_Identifier is used for the set of protected LSPs that share the same bypass tunnel and traverse the same egress link and are not already rerouted. The PLR also generates a MESSAGE_ID object (flags SHOULD be clear, Epoch and Message_Identifier MUST be set according to [RFC2961]). The PLR MUST generate a new Message_Identifier each time the contents of the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object change; for example, when PLR node changes the bypass tunnel assignment. The PLR node notifies the MP node of the bypass tunnel assignment via adding a B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object in the RSVP Path message for the protected LSP using procedures described in Section 3.2. The MP node acknowledges the PLR node assignment by signaling the B-SFRR Extended Association object within the RSVP Resv message of the protected LSP. With exception of the MESSAGE_ID objects, all other fields of the received B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object in the RSVP Path message are copied into the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object to be added in the Resv message. The MESSAGE_ID object is set according to [RFC2961] with the Flags being clear. A new Message_Identifier MUST be used to acknowledge an updated PLR assignment. Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 The PLR considers the protected LSP as Summary FRR capable only if the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION objects sent in the RSVP Path message and the one received in the RSVP Resv message (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID) match. If it does not match, or if B-SFRR Extended Association object is absent in a subsequent refresh, the PLR node MUST consider the protected LSP as not Summary FRR capable. 3.1.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure The B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object is added by each PLR in the RSVP Path message of the protected LSP to record the bypass tunnel assignment. This object is updated every time the PLR updates the bypass tunnel assignment (which triggers an RSVP Path change message). Upon receiving an RSVP Resv message with B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object, the PLR node checks if the expected subobjects in the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION ID are present. If present, the PLR determines if the MP has acknowledged the current PLR assignment. To be a valid acknowledgement, the received B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object contents within the RSVP Resv message of the protected LSP MUST match the latest B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object contents that the PLR node had sent within the RSVP Path message (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID). Note, when forwarding an RSVP Resv message upstream, the PLR node SHOULD remove any/all B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION objects whose Association Source matches the PLR node address. 3.1.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with an B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object, the MP node processes all (there may be multiple PLRs for a single MP) B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION objects that have the MP node address as Bypass Destination address in the Association ID. The MP node first ensures the existence of the bypass tunnel and that the Bypass_Group_Identifier is not already FRR active. That is, an LSP cannot join a group that is already FRR rerouted. The MP node builds a mirrored Summary FRR Group database per PLR, which is determined using the Bypass_Source_Address field. The MESSAGE_ID is extracted and recorded for the protected LSP PATH state. The MP node signals a B-SFRR Extended Association object within the RSVP Resv message of the protected LSP. With exception of the MESSAGE_ID objects, all other fields of the received B-SFRR Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 Extended ASSOCIATION object in the RSVP Path message are copied into the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object to be added in the Resv message. The MESSAGE_ID object is set according to [RFC2961] with the Flags being clear. Note, an MP may receive more than one RSVP Path message with the B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object from different upstream PLR node(s). In this case, the MP node is expected to save all the received MESSAGE_IDs from the different upstream PLR node(s). After a failure, the MP node determines and activates the associated Summary Refresh ID to use once it receives and processes the RSVP Path message with FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object over the bypass LSP from the PLR. When forwarding an RSVP Path message downstream, the MP SHOULD remove any/all B-SFRR Extended ASSOCIATION object(s) whose Association ID contains Bypass_Destination_Address matching the MP node address. 3.2. Signaling Procedures Post Failure Upon detection of the fault (egress link or node failure) the PLR first performs the object modification procedures described by Section 6.4.3 of [RFC4090] for all affected protected LSPs. For Summary FRR LSPs assigned to the same bypass tunnel a common RSVP_HOP and SENDER_TEMPLATE MUST be used. The PLR MUST signal non-Summary FRR enabled LSPs over the bypass tunnel before signaling the Summary FRR enabled LSPs. This is needed to allow for the case when the PLR node has recently changed a bypass assignment and the MP has not processed the change yet. A new object FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS is defined in Section 3.2.1 and sent within the RSVP Path message of the bypass LSP to reroute RSVP state of Summary FRR enabled LSPs. 3.2.1. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Object The SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Object with Type FRR_ACTIVE is carried in the Path message of a bypass LSP. This object is added by the PLR node to indicate to the MP node (bypass tunnel destination) that one or more groups of protected LSPs that are being protected by the specified bypass tunnel are being rerouted over the bypass tunnel. The FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object is assigned the C-Type (TBD- 3). The FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object has the below format. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Class-Num = (TBD-2) (of the form 11bbbbbb) Class- Name = SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS Class, FRR_ACTIVE C-Type = (TBD-3) Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | Class-N(TBD-2)| C-Type (TBD-3)| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Num-BGIDs | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Group_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | : | // : // | : | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bypass_Group_Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RSVP_HOP_Object | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TIME_VALUES | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: Summary FRR Bypass Object Reserved: 16 bits Reserved for future use. Num-BGIDs: 16 bits Number of Bypass_Group_Identifier fields. Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits The Bypass_Group_Identifier that is previously advertised by the PLR using the Extended Association object. One or more Bypass_Group_Identifiers may be included. RSVP_HOP_Object: Class 3, as defined by [RFC2205] Replacement RSVP HOP object to be applied to all LSPs associated with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers. This corresponds to C-Type = 1 for IPv4 RSVP HOP, or C-Type = 2 for IPv6 RSVP HOP depending on the IP address family carried within the object. TIME_VALUES object: Class 5, as defined by [RFC2205] Replacement TIME_VALUES object to be applied to all LSPs associated with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers after receiving the FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object. Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 11] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 3.2.2. PLR Summary FRR Signaling Procedure After a failure event, when using the Summary FRR path signaling procedures, an individual RSVP Path message for each Summary FRR LSP is not signaled. Instead, to reroute Summary FRR LSPs via the bypass tunnel, the PLR adds the FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object in the RSVP Path message of the RSVP session of the bypass tunnel. The RSVP_HOP_Object field of the FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object is set to the common RSVP_HOP that was used by the PLR in Section 3.2 of this document. The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the MP is activated. As a result, the MP may refresh the protected rerouted RESV state using Summary Refresh procedures. For each affected Summary FRR group, its Bypass_Group_Identifier is added to the FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object. 3.2.3. MP Summary FRR Signaling Procedure Upon receiving an RSVP Path message with a FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object, the MP performs normal merge point processing for each protected LSP associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier, as if it received individual RSVP Path messages for the LSP. For each Summary FRR LSP being merged, the MP first modifies the Path state as follows: 1. The RSVP_HOP object is copied from the FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS RSVP_HOP_Object field. 2. The TIME_VALUES object is copied from the FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS TIMES_VALUE field. The TIME_VALUES object contains the refresh time of the PLR to generate refreshes and that would have exchanged in a Path message sent to the MP after the failure when no SFRR procedures are in effect. 3. The SENDER_TEMPLATE object SrcAddress field is copied from the bypass tunnel SENDER_TEMPLATE object. For the case where PLR is also the head-end, and SENDER_TEMPLATE SrcAddress of the protected LSP and bypass tunnel are the same, the MP MUST use the modified HOP Address field instead. 4. The ERO object is modified as per Section 6.4.4. of [RFC4090]. Once the above modifications are completed, the MP then performs the merge processing as per [RFC4090]. Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 12] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 5. The previously received MESSAGE_ID from the PLR is activated, meaning that the PLR may now refresh the protected rerouted PATH state using Summary Refresh procedures. A failure during merge processing of any individual rerouted LSP MUST result in an RSVP Path Error message. An individual RSVP Resv message for each successfully merged Summary FRR LSP is not signaled. The MP node SHOULD immediately use Summary Refresh procedures to refresh the protected LSP RESV state. 3.3. Refreshing Summary FRR Active LSPs Refreshing of Summary FRR active LSPs is performed using Summary Refresh as defined by [RFC2961]. 4. Compatibility The (Extended) ASSOCIATION object is defined in [RFC4872] with a class number in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non-supporting node(s). Such nodes will ignore the object and forward it without modification. The new FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object is to be defined with a class number in the form 11bbbbbb, which ensures compatibility with non-supporting nodes. Per [RFC2205], the nodes not supporting this extension will ignore the object but forward it, unexamined and unmodified, in all messages. 5. Security Considerations This document updates an existing RSVP object, and introduces a new RSVP object. Thus, in the event of the interception of a signaling message, a slightly more information could be deduced about the state of the network than was previously the case. Existing mechanisms for maintaining the integrity and authenticity of RSVP protocol messages [RFC2747] can be applied. 6. IANA Considerations IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters ). The "Association Type" subregistry is included in this registry. This registry has been updated by new Association Type for Extended ASSOCIATION Object defined in this document as follows: Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 13] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 Value Name Reference ----- ---- --------- TBD-1 Bypass Summary FRR Association (B-SFRR) Section 2.1.1 IANA also maintains and assigns the values for the RSVP-TE protocol parameters "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters" (see http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters). From this registry, a new RSVP Class (TBD-2) and of the form 11bbbbbb and a new C-Type (TBD-3) are requested for the new FRR_ACTIVE SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS object defined in this document. Class-Number = (TBD-2), Class-Name = SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS C-Type = (TBD-3) Name = FRR_ACTIVE 7. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Lou Berger, Eric Osborne, Gregory Mirsky, and Mach Chen for reviewing and providing valuable comments to this document. 8. Contributors Nicholas Tan Arista Networks Email: ntan@arista.com 9. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, September 1997, . [RFC2747] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 2747, DOI 10.17487/RFC2747, January 2000, . Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 14] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 [RFC2961] Berger, L., Gan, D., Swallow, G., Pan, P., Tommasi, F., and S. Molendini, "RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions", RFC 2961, DOI 10.17487/RFC2961, April 2001, . [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001, . [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, DOI 10.17487/RFC4090, May 2005, . [RFC4872] Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007, . [RFC6780] Berger, L., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions", RFC 6780, DOI 10.17487/ RFC6780, October 2012, . Authors' Addresses Mike Taillon Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: mtaillon@cisco.com Tarek Saad (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: tsaad@cisco.com Rakesh Gandhi Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: rgandhi@cisco.com Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 15] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE Summary FRR March 2017 Abhishek Deshmukh Juniper Networks Email: adeshmukh@juniper.net Markus Jork Juniper Networks Email: mjork@juniper.net Vishnu Pavan Beeram Juniper Networks Email: vbeeram@juniper.net Taillon, et al. Expires September 8, 2017 [Page 16]