60 likes | 243 Views
Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching Label Switched Path Establishment Using RSVP-TE draft-farrel-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-00.txt. Adrian Farrel ( adrian@olddog.co.uk ) Dimitri Papadimitriou ( dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be ) Jean-Philippe Vasseur ( jpv@cisco.com ).
E N D
Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching Label Switched Path Establishment Using RSVP-TEdraft-farrel-mpls-rsvpte-attributes-00.txt Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) Dimitri Papadimitriou (dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be) Jean-Philippe Vasseur (jpv@cisco.com) 58th IETF, Minneapolis, November 2003
The Problem – Session_Attribute Flags +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Setup Prio | Holding Prio | Flags | Name Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Session Name (NULL padded display string) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ • Existing Flags RFC 3209 daft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-03 0x01 Local protection desired 0x08 Bandwidth protection desired 0x02 Label recording desired 0x10 Node protection desired 0x04 SE Style desired • Other Flags Needed draft-iwata-mpls-rsvp-crankback-06 draft-vasseur-mpls-loose-path-reopt-02 0x20 End-to-end re-routing desired 0x20 ERO Expansion request 0x40 Hierarchical re-routing desired draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-01 0x80 Segment-based re-routing desired 0x40 Soft preemption desired draft-vasseur-inter-as-te-01 Crankback allowed bit Contiguous LSP required bit LSP stitching required bit 58th IETF, Minneapolis, November 2003
Requirements • Need more per-LSP bit flags • Solution should be long-lived • While we’re at it, what about scope for arbitrary LSP attributes using TLVs? 58th IETF, Minneapolis, November 2003
Rejected Solution • New C-Type for Session_Attribute +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Extra Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Setup Prio | Holding Prio | Flags | Name Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Session Name (NULL padded display string) // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ • Would have created two new C-Types (with and without resource affinities) • Backwards compatibility issues • Can’t handle unknown C-Types • No scope for TLVs 58th IETF, Minneapolis, November 2003
Solution • Two new objects • Contain TLVs • One TLV is defined with 32 bit flags • Other TLVs to be defined as needed • One C-Num 11bbbbbb is passed transparently by legacy LSRs • One C-Num 0bbbbbbb must be processed at each LSR 58th IETF, Minneapolis, November 2003
Issues • Is this a problem we want to solve now? • Do we need to add support for arbitrary TLVs? • Is adding a new object the right solution? • Do we need two C-Nums?(explanation of why is in the draft) • Usual question – working group adoption? 58th IETF, Minneapolis, November 2003