Network Working Group Adrian Farrel Internet Draft Old Dog Consulting Category: Standards Track Expires: July 2004 Arun Satyanarayana Movaz Networks, Inc. January 2004 Identification of Component Links of Unnumbered Interfaces Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document provides a means to identify component links that are bundled within an unnumbered interface. This feature is required during Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that utilize such component links. Similarly, it is useful in error reporting for such LSPs. 0. Summary for Sub-IP Area (This section to be removed before publication as an RFC). 0.1. Summary 0.2. Related documents See the References Sections. 0.3. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work This work is applicable to GMPLS signaling protocols. Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 1 draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004 0.4. Why is it Targeted at this WG GMPLS is worked on by the CCAMP WG. This is a core requirement for GMPLS signaling and reporting errors on unnumbered links. This makes it immediately in scope. 0.5. Justification [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] define how component links of numbered bundles may be identified within the IF_ID PHOP and IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. [RFC3477] defines how unnumbered links may be used in RSVP-TE. [RFC3471] and [RFC3473] define how unnumbered links may be identified within the IF_ID PHOP and IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. There is no provision for identifying component links of unnumbered bundles within the IF_ID PHOP and IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. This is required for completeness and to allow full functionality of GMPLS. 1. Introduction GMPLS offers support for bundled links to presented as a single interface [RFC3471, RFC3473]. This has configuration and management benefits. GMPLS [RFC3471, RFC3473] recognises the value of specifying interfaces both during LSP establishment for out-of-band signaling (IF_ID PHOP object), and for error reporting (IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object). This is achieved using TLVs in these objects to specify the interface identifier. Both numbered and unnumbered interfaces are supported. Further, GMPLS [RFC3471, RFC3473] recognises the value of specifying the component link of a link bundle during LSP establishment (IF_ID PHOP object), and for error reporting (IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object). This is achieved using TLVs in these objects to specify the interface identifier and component link identifier. Numbered bundles of component links are supported. However, no provision is made for unnumbered bundles of component links. This document extends the TLV definitions of [RFC3471] to provide the means to identify component links of unnumbered bundles within the IF_ID PHOP and IF_ID ERROR_SPEC objects. 2. Terminology 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 [RFC2119] Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 2 draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004 3. Existing Interface Identifiers [RFC3471] defines IF_ID TLVs to identify links. These TLVs are applied in [RFC3473] in the IF_ID PHOP Object during LSP establishment, and in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC Object to identify the failed link which is usually the downstream link from the reporting node. The following set of TLVs are defined in [RFC3471]. Type Length Format Description -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 8 IPv4 Addr. IPv4 (Interface address) 2 20 IPv6 Addr. IPv6 (Interface address) 3 12 Compound IF_INDEX (Interface index) 4 12 Compound COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM (Component interface) 5 12 Compound COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM (Component interface) 4. New Interface Identifiers Two new TLVs are defined for use in the IF_ID PHOP Object and in the IF_ID ERROR_SPEC Object. Note that the Type values shown here are only suggested values - final values are TBD and to be determined by IETF consensus. Two TLVs are provided to allow the forward and reverse paths to be separately identified. Type Length Format Description -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 16 See below UNUM_COMPONENT_IF_DOWN (Component interface) 7 16 See below UNUM_COMPONENT_IF_UP (Component interface) 4.1 TLV Definitions The new TLVs have a common format as shown below. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IP Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Component ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ IP Address: 32 bits Any IP address associated with the local node. Interface ID: 32 bits The identifier of the unnumbered bundled link. By definition, this is unique within the scope of the node identified by the IP Address field. Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 3 draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004 Component ID: 32 bits A component in the bundled link identified by the Interface ID. During LSP establishment, the special value 0xFFFFFFFF can be used to indicate the same label to be valid across all component links in the bundle identified by the Interface ID. 4.1 Procedures The procedures are unmodified from [RFC3471], [RFC3473] and [RFC3477]. 5. IANA Considerations 5.1 IF_ID_ERROR_SPEC TLVs Note that the IF_ID TLV type values are not currently tracked or managed by IANA. This might be a good opportunity to move them under IANA control. 6. Security Considerations The extensions in this document make no changes to the security provisions in [RFC3473]. 7. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the authors of [CRANKBACK] where these proposals originally appeared. 8. Intellectual Property Considerations The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 4 draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004 9. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3471] Berger, L., Editor, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] L. Berger, et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC3477] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., "Signalling Unnumbered Links in RSVP-TE", RFC 3477, January 2003. 10. Informational References [CRANKBACK] A. Farrel (editor), "Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS Signaling", draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-01.txt January 2004, work in progress. 11. Authors' Addresses Adrian Farrel (editor) Old Dog Consulting Phone: +44 (0) 1978 860944 EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk Arun Satyanarayana Movaz Networks, Inc. 7926 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 615 McLean, VA 22102 Phone: (+1) 703-847-1785 EMail: aruns@movaz.com 12. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (c) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 5 draft-farrel-ccamp-ifid-unnum-00.txt January 2004 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Farrel and Satyanarayana Page 6