[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: (draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-ingress-protection) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Internet Engineering Task Force                             H. Chen, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Experimental                              R. Torvi, Ed.
Expires: September 1, 2018                              Juniper Networks
                                                       February 28, 2018


          Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress FRR Protection
             draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-14.txt

Abstract

   This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol -
   Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node
   of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic
   Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP).  It extends the fast-
   reroute (FRR) protection for transit nodes of an LSP to the ingress
   node of the LSP.  The procedures described in this document are
   experimental.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 1, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Ingress Local Protection Example . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Ingress Local Protection Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Ingress Failure Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Source Detects Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Backup and Source Detect Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Backup Forwarding State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Forwarding State for Backup LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Protocol Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  INGRESS_PROTECTION Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.1.  Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4 Address . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.2.  Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv6 Address . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.3.  Subobject: Ingress IPv4 Address  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.1.4.  Subobject: Ingress IPv6 Address  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.1.5.  Subobject: Traffic Descriptor  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.1.6.  Subobject: Label-Routes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Behavior of Ingress Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.1.1.  Relay-Message Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       5.1.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  Ingress Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.2.1.  Relay-Message Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.2.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     5.3.  Backup Ingress Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       5.3.1.  Backup Ingress Behavior in Off-path Case . . . . . . . 18
       5.3.2.  Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case  . . . . . . . 20
       5.3.3.  Failure Detection and Refresh PATH Messages  . . . . . 21
     5.4.  Revertive Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.4.1.  Revert to Primary Ingress  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.4.2.  Global Repair by Backup Ingress  . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.  Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9.  Co-authors and Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   10. Acknowledgement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26





Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


1.  Introduction

   For a MPLS TE LSP, protecting the failures of its transit nodes using
   fast-reroute (FRR) is covered in RFC 4090 for P2P LSP and RFC 4875
   for P2MP LSP.  However, protecting the failure of its ingress node
   using FRR is not covered in either RFC 4090 or RFC 4875.  The MPLS
   Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection described in RFC 6378
   can provide a protection against the failure of any transit node of a
   LSP between the ingress node and the egress node of the LSP, but
   cannot protect against the failure of the ingress node.

   To protect against the failure of the (primary) ingress node of a
   primary end to end P2MP (or P2P) TE LSP, a typical existing solution
   is to set up a secondary backup end to end P2MP (or P2P) TE LSP.  The
   backup LSP is from a backup ingress node to backup egress nodes (or
   node).  The backup ingress node is different from the primary ingress
   node.  The backup egress nodes (or node) are (or is) different from
   the primary egress nodes (or node) of the primary LSP.  For a P2MP TE
   LSP, on each of the primary (and backup) egress nodes, a P2P LSP is
   created from the egress node to its primary (backup) ingress node and
   configured with BFD.  This is used to detect the failure of the
   primary (backup) ingress node for the receiver to switch to the
   backup (or primary) egress node to receive the traffic after the
   primary (or backup) ingress node fails when both the primary LSP and
   the secondary LSP carry the traffic.  In addition, FRR may be used to
   provide protections against the failures of the transit nodes and the
   links of the primary and secondary end to end TE LSPs.

   There are a number of issues in this solution:

   o  It consumes lots of network resources.  Double states need to be
      maintained in the network since two end to end TE LSPs are
      created.  Double link bandwidth is reserved and used when both the
      primary and the secondary end to end TE LSPs carry the traffic at
      the same time.

   o  More operations are needed, which include the configuration of two
      end to end TE LSPs and BFDs from each of the egress nodes to its
      corresponding ingress node.

   o  The detection of the failure of the ingress node may not be
      reliable.  Any failure on the path of the BFD from an egress node
      to an ingress node may cause the BFD to indicate the failure of
      the ingress node.







Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   o  The speed of protection against the failure of the ingress node
      may be slow.

   This specification defines a simple extension to RSVP-TE for local
   protection (FRR) of the ingress node of a P2MP or P2P LSP to resolve
   these issues.  Ingress local protection and ingress FRR protection
   will be used exchangeably.

   Note that this document is experimental.  Two different approaches
   are proposed to transfer the information for ingress protection.
   They both use the same new INGRESS_PROTECTION object, which is sent
   in both PATH and RESV messages between a primary ingress and a backup
   ingress.  One approach is Relay-Message Method (refer to section
   5.1.1 and 5.2.1), the other is Proxy-Ingress Method (refer to section
   5.1.2 and 5.2.2).  Each of them has its advantages and disadvantages.
   It is hard to decide which one is used as a standard approach now.
   After one approach is selected, the document will be revised to
   reflect that selection and any other items learned from the
   experiment.  The revised document is expected to be submitted for
   publication on the standards track.

1.1.  Ingress Local Protection Example

   Figure 1 shows an example of using a backup P2MP LSP to locally
   protect the ingress of a primary P2MP LSP, which is from ingress Ia
   to three egresses: L1, L2 and L3.  The backup LSP is from backup
   ingress Ib to the next hops R2 and R4 of ingress Ia.


                       *******  *******              S Source
                    [R2]-----[R3]-----[L1]          Ix Ingress
                   */ &                             Rx Transit
                  */  &                             Lx Egress
                 */   &                            *** Primary LSP
                */    &                            &&& Backup LSP across
               */     &                                logical hop
              */      &
             */ ********    ********  *******
      [S]---[Ia]--------[R4]------[R5]-----[L2]
        \      |     &    &           *\
         \     |    &    &             *\
          \    |   &    &               *\
           \   |  &    &                 *\
            \  | &    &                   *\
             \ |&    &                     *\
              [Ib]&&&                       [L3]

                    Figure 1: Ingress Local Protection



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   In normal operations, source S sends the traffic to primary ingress
   Ia.  Ia imports the traffic into the primary LSP.

   When source S detects the failure of Ia, it switches the traffic to
   backup ingress Ib, which imports the traffic from S into the backup
   LSP to Ia's next hops R2 and R4, where the traffic is merged into the
   primary LSP, and then sent to egresses L1, L2 and L3.

   Note that the backup ingress is one logical hop away from the
   ingress.  A logical hop is a direct link or a tunnel such as a GRE
   tunnel, over which RSVP-TE messages may be exchanged.

1.2.  Ingress Local Protection Overview

   There are four parts in ingress local protection:

   o  Setting up the necessary backup LSP forwarding state based on the
      information received for ingress local protection;

   o  Detecting the primary ingress failure and providing the fast
      repair (as discussed in Sections 2 and 3);

   o  Maintaining the RSVP-TE control plane state until a global repair
      is done; and

   o  Performing the global repair(see Section 5.4).

   The primary ingress of a primary LSP sends the backup ingress the
   information for ingress protection in a PATH message with a new
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object.  The backup ingress sets up the backup
   LSP(s) and forwarding state after receiving the necessary information
   for ingress protection.  And then it sends the primary ingress the
   status of ingress protection in a RESV message with a new
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object.

   When the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress sends or refreshes
   the next hops of the primary ingress the PATH messages without any
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object after verifying the failure.  Thus the
   RSVP-TE control plane state of the primary LSP is maintained.


2.  Ingress Failure Detection

   Exactly how to detect the failure of the ingress is out of scope.
   However, it is necessary to discuss different modes for detecting the
   failure because they determine what is the required behavior for the
   source and backup ingress.




Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


2.1.  Source Detects Failure

   Source Detects Failure or Source-Detect for short means that the
   source is responsible for fast detecting the failure of the primary
   ingress of an LSP.  Fast detecting the failure means detecting the
   failure in a few or tens of milliseconds.  The backup ingress is
   ready to import the traffic from the source into the backup LSP(s)
   after the backup LSP(s) is up.

   In normal operations, the source sends the traffic to the primary
   ingress.  When the source detects the failure of the primary ingress,
   it switches the traffic to the backup ingress, which delivers the
   traffic to the next hops of the primary ingress through the backup
   LSP(s), where the traffic is merged into the primary LSP.

   For an LSP, after the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress MUST
   use a method to verify the failure of the primary ingress before the
   PATH message for the LSP expires at the next hop of the primary
   ingress.  After verifying the failure, the backup ingress sends/
   refreshes the PATH message to the next hop through the backup LSP as
   needed.  The method may verify the failure of the primary ingress
   slowly such as in seconds.

   After the primary ingress fails, it will not be reachable after
   routing convergence.  Thus checking whether the primary ingress
   (address) is reachable is a possible method.

   When the previously failed primary ingress of a primary LSP becomes
   available again and the primary LSP has recovered from its primary
   ingress, the source may switches the traffic to the primary ingress
   from the backup ingress.  A operator may control the traffic switch
   through using a command on the source node after seeing that the
   primary LSP has recovered.

2.2.  Backup and Source Detect Failure

   Backup and Source Detect Failure or Backup-Source-Detect for short
   means that both the backup ingress and the source are concurrently
   responsible for fast detecting the failure of the primary ingress.

   Note that one of the differences between Source-Detect and Backup-
   Source-Detect is: in the former, the backup ingress verifies the
   failure of the primary ingress slowly such as in seconds; in the
   latter, the backup ingress detects the failure fast such as in a few
   or tens of milliseconds.

   In normal operations, the source sends the traffic to the primary
   ingress.  It switches the traffic to the backup ingress when it



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   detects the failure of the primary ingress.

   The backup ingress does not import any traffic from the source into
   the backup LSP in normal operations.  When it detects the failure of
   the primary ingress, it imports the traffic from the source into the
   backup LSP to the next hops of the primary ingress, where the traffic
   is merged into the primary LSP.

   The source-detect is preferred.  It is simpler than the backup-
   source-detect, which needs both the source and the backup ingress
   detect the ingress failure quickly.


3.  Backup Forwarding State

   Before the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress is responsible
   for creating the necessary backup LSPs.  These LSPs might be multiple
   bypass P2P LSPs that avoid the ingress.  Alternately, the backup
   ingress could choose to use a single backup P2MP LSP as a bypass or
   detour to protect the primary ingress of a primary P2MP LSP.

   The backup ingress may be off-path or on-path of an LSP.  If a backup
   ingress is not any node of the LSP, it is off-path.  If a backup
   ingress is a next-hop of the primary ingress of the LSP, it is on-
   path.  When a backup ingress for protecting the primary ingress is
   configured, the backup ingress MUST not be on the LSP except for it
   is the next hop of the primary ingress.  If it is on-path, the
   primary forwarding state associated with the primary LSP SHOULD be
   clearly separated from the backup LSP(s) state.

3.1.  Forwarding State for Backup LSP

   A forwarding entry for a backup LSP is created on the backup ingress
   after the LSP is set up.  Depending on the failure-detection mode
   (e.g., source-detect), it may be used to forward received traffic or
   simply be inactive (e.g., backup-source-detect) until required.  In
   either case, when the primary ingress fails, this entry is used to
   import the traffic into the backup LSP to the next hops of the
   primary ingress, where the traffic is merged into the primary LSP.

   The forwarding entry for a backup LSP is a local implementation
   issue.  In one device, it may have an inactive flag.  This inactive
   forwarding entry is not used to forward any traffic normally.  When
   the primary ingress fails, it is changed to active, and thus the
   traffic from the source is imported into the backup LSP.






Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


4.  Protocol Extensions

   A new object INGRESS_PROTECTION is defined for signaling ingress
   local protection.  The primary ingress of a primary LSP sends the
   backup ingress this object in a PATH message.  In this case, the
   object contains the information needed to set up ingress protection.
   The information includes:

   o  Backup ingress IP address indicating the backup ingress,

   o  Traffic Descriptor describing the traffic that the primary LSP
      transports, this traffic is imported into the backup LSP(s) on the
      backup ingress when the primary ingress fails,

   o  Label and Routes indicating the first hops of the primary LSP,
      each of which is paired with its label, and

   o  Desire options on ingress protection such as P2MP option
      indicating a desire to use a backup P2MP LSP to protect the
      primary ingress of a primary P2MP LSP.

   The backup ingress sends the primary ingress this object in a RESV
   message.  In this case, the object contains the information about the
   status on the ingress protection.

4.1.  INGRESS_PROTECTION Object

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object with the FAST_REROUTE object in a PATH
   message is used to control the backup for protecting the primary
   ingress of a primary LSP.  The primary ingress MUST insert this
   object into the PATH message to be sent to the backup ingress for
   protecting the primary ingress.  It has the following format:



















Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


       Class-Num = TBD (Using 37 PROTECTION is suggested)
       C-Type = 4 for INGRESS_PROTECTION
      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 (bytes)        |    Class-Num  |    C-Type     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    Reserved (zero)  |   NUB   |      Flags    |    Options    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                         (Subobjects)                          ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        NUB      Number of Unprotected Branches
        Flags
         0x01    Ingress local protection available
         0x02    Ingress local protection in use
         0x04    Bandwidth protection

        Options
         0x01    Revert to Ingress
         0x02    P2MP Backup


   For protecting the ingress of a P2MP LSP, if the backup ingress
   doesn't have a backup LSP to each of the next hops of the primary
   ingress, it SHOULD clear "Ingress local protection available" and set
   NUB to the number of the next hops to which there is no backup LSP.

   The flags are used to communicate status information from the backup
   ingress to the primary ingress.

    o Ingress local protection available: The backup ingress MUST set
      this flag after backup LSPs are up and ready for locally
      protecting the primary ingress.  The backup ingress sends this to
      the primary ingress to indicate that the primary ingress is
      locally protected.

    o Ingress local protection in use: The backup ingress MUST set this
      flag when it detects a failure in the primary ingress and actively
      redirects the traffic into the backup LSPs.  The backup ingress
      records this flag and does not send any RESV message with this
      flag to the primary ingress since the primary ingress is down.

    o Bandwidth protection: The backup ingress MUST set this flag if the
      backup LSPs guarantee to provide desired bandwidth for the
      protected LSP against the primary ingress failure.

   The options are used by the primary ingress to specify the desired
   behavior to the backup ingress.



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


    o Revert to Ingress: The primary ingress sets this option indicating
      that the traffic for the primary LSP successfully re-signaled will
      be switched back to the primary ingress from the backup ingress
      when the primary ingress is restored.

    o P2MP Backup: This option is set to ask for the backup ingress to
      use backup P2MP LSP to protect the primary ingress.

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may contain some sub objects of
   following format:

      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 (zero)|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                    Contents/Body of subobject                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   where Type is the type of a sub object, Length is the total size of
   the sub object in bytes, including Type, Length and Contents fields.

4.1.1.  Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv4 Address

   When the primary ingress of a protected LSP sends a PATH message with
   an INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the backup ingress, the object MUST
   have a Backup Ingress IPv4 Address sub object containing an IPv4
   address belonging to the backup ingress if IPv4 is used.  The Type of
   the sub object is TBD1 (the exact number to be assigned by IANA), and
   the body of the sub object is given 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Backup ingress IPv4 address (4 bytes)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Backup ingress IPv4 address: An IPv4 host address of backup ingress


4.1.2.  Subobject: Backup Ingress IPv6 Address

   When the primary ingress of a protected LSP sends a PATH message with
   an INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the backup ingress, the object MUST
   have a Backup Ingress IPv6 Address sub object containing an IPv6
   address belonging to the backup ingress if IPv6 is used.  The Type of



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   the sub object is TBD2, the body of the sub object is given 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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Backup ingress IPv6 address (16 bytes)            |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Backup ingress IPv6 address: An IPv6 host address of backup ingress


4.1.3.  Subobject: Ingress IPv4 Address

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have an Ingress IPv4 Address sub
   object containing an IPv4 address belonging to the primary ingress if
   IPv4 is used.  The Type of the sub object is TBD3.  The sub object
   has the following body:


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               Ingress IPv4 address (4 bytes)                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Ingress IPv4 address: An IPv4 host address of ingress


4.1.4.  Subobject: Ingress IPv6 Address

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have an Ingress IPv6 Address sub
   object containing an IPv6 address belonging to the primary ingress if
   IPv6 is used.  The Type of the sub object is TBD4.  The sub object
   has the following body:


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               Ingress IPv6 address (16 bytes)                 |
     ~                                                               ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

       Ingress IPv6 address: An IPv6 host address of ingress





Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


4.1.5.  Subobject: Traffic Descriptor

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object may have a Traffic Descriptor sub
   object describing the traffic to be mapped to the backup LSP on the
   backup ingress for locally protecting the primary ingress.  The Type
   of the sub object is TBD5, TBD6, TBD7 or TBD8 for Interface, IPv4
   Prefix, IPv6 Prefix or Application Identifier respectively.  The sub
   object has the following body:


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                        Traffic Element 1                      |
     ~                                                               ~
     |                        Traffic Element n                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The Traffic Descriptor sub object may contain multiple Traffic
   Elements of same type as follows:

    o Interface Traffic (Type TBD5): Each of the Traffic Elements is a
      32 bit index of an interface, from which the traffic is imported
      into the backup LSP.

    o IPv4 Prefix Traffic (Type TBD6): Each of the Traffic Elements is
      an IPv4 prefix, containing an 8-bit prefix length followed by an
      IPv4 address prefix, whose length, in bits, is specified by the
      prefix length, padded to a byte boundary.

    o IPv6 Prefix Traffic (Type TBD7): Each of the Traffic Elements is
      an IPv6 prefix, containing an 8-bit prefix length followed by an
      IPv6 address prefix, whose length, in bits, is specified by the
      prefix length, padded to a byte boundary.

    o Application Traffic (Type TBD8): Each of the Traffic Elements is a
      32 bit identifier of an application, from which the traffic is
      imported into the backup LSP.

4.1.6.  Subobject: Label-Routes

   The INGRESS_PROTECTION object in a PATH message from the primary
   ingress to the backup ingress may have a Label-Routes sub object
   containing the labels and routes that the next hops of the ingress
   use.  The Type of the sub object is TBD9.  The sub object has the
   following body:




Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                           Subobjects                          ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The Subobjects in the Label-Routes are copied from those in the
   RECORD_ROUTE objects in the RESV messages that the primary ingress
   receives from its next hops for the primary LSP.  They MUST contain
   the first hops of the LSP, each of which is paired with its label.


5.  Behavior of Ingress Protection

5.1.  Overview

   There are two different proposed signaling approaches to transfer the
   information for ingress protection.  They both use the same new
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object.  The object is sent in both PATH and RESV
   messages.

5.1.1.  Relay-Message Method

   The primary ingress relays the information for ingress protection of
   an LSP to the backup ingress via PATH messages.  Once the LSP is
   created, the ingress of the LSP sends the backup ingress a PATH
   message with an INGRESS_PROTECTION object with Label-Routes
   subobject, which is populated with the next-hops and labels.  This
   provides sufficient information for the backup ingress to create the
   appropriate forwarding state and backup LSP(s).

   The ingress also sends the backup ingress all the other PATH messages
   for the LSP with an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object.  An
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object without any Traffic-Descriptor sub-object
   is called an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object.  Thus, the backup
   ingress has access to all the PATH messages needed for modification
   to refresh control-plane state after a failure.

   The empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object is for efficient processing of
   ingress protection for a P2MP LSP.  For a P2MP LSP, its primary
   ingress may have more than one PATH messages, each of which is sent
   to a next hop along a branch of the P2MP LSP.  The PATH message along
   a branch will be selected and sent to the backup ingress with an
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object containing the Traffic-Descriptor sub-
   object; all the PATH messages along the other branches will be sent
   to the backup ingress containing an INGRESS_PROTECTION object without
   any Traffic-Descriptor sub-object (empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object).



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   For a P2MP LSP, the backup ingress only needs one Traffic-Descriptor.

5.1.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method

   Conceptually, a proxy ingress is created that starts the RSVP
   signaling.  The explicit path of the LSP goes from the proxy ingress
   to the backup ingress and then to the real ingress.  The behavior and
   signaling for the proxy ingress is done by the real ingress; the use
   of a proxy ingress address avoids problems with loop detection.  Note
   that the proxy ingress MUST reside within the same router as the real
   ingress.


                              [ traffic source ]       *** Primary LSP
                               $             $         --- Backup LSP
                               $             $          $$  Link
                               $             $
                       [ proxy ingress ]  [ backup ]
                       [ & ingress     ]     |
                              *              |
                              *****[ MP ]----|


          Figure 2: Example Protected LSP with Proxy Ingress Node

   The backup ingress MUST know the merge points or next-hops and their
   associated labels.  This is accomplished by having the RSVP PATH and
   RESV messages go through the backup ingress, although the forwarding
   path need not go through the backup ingress.  If the backup ingress
   fails, the ingress simply removes the INGRESS_PROTECTION object and
   forwards the PATH messages to the LSP's next-hop(s).  If the ingress
   has its LSP configured for ingress protection, then the ingress can
   add the backup ingress and itself to the ERO and start forwarding the
   PATH messages to the backup ingress.

   Slightly different behavior can apply for the on-path and off-path
   cases.  In the on-path case, the backup ingress is a next hop node
   after the ingress for the LSP.  In the off-path, the backup ingress
   is not any next-hop node after the ingress for all associated sub-
   LSPs.

   The key advantage of this approach is that it minimizes the special
   handling code required.  Because the backup ingress is on the
   signaling path, it can receive various notifications.  It easily has
   access to all the PATH messages needed for modification to be sent to
   refresh control-plane state after a failure.





Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


5.2.  Ingress Behavior

   The primary ingress MUST be configured with a couple of pieces of
   information for ingress protection.

    o Backup Ingress Address: The primary ingress MUST know the IP
      address of the backup ingress it wants to be used before it can
      use the INGRESS_PROTECTION object.

    o Proxy-Ingress-Id (only needed for Proxy-Ingress Method): The
      Proxy-Ingress-Id is only used in the Record Route Object for
      recording the proxy-ingress.  If no proxy-ingress-id is specified,
      then a local interface address that will not otherwise be included
      in the Record Route Object can be used.  A similar technique is
      used in [RFC4090 Sec 6.1.1].

    o Application Traffic Identifier: The primary ingress and backup
      ingress MUST both know what application traffic should be directed
      into the LSP.  If a list of prefixes in the Traffic Descriptor
      sub-object will not suffice, then a commonly understood
      Application Traffic Identifier can be sent between the primary
      ingress and backup ingress.  The exact meaning of the identifier
      should be configured similarly at both the primary ingress and
      backup ingress.  The Application Traffic Identifier is understood
      within the unique context of the primary ingress and backup
      ingress.

    o A connection between backup ingress and primary ingress: If there
      is not any direct link between the primary ingress and the backup
      ingress, a tunnel MUST be configured between them.

   With this additional information, the primary ingress can create and
   signal the necessary RSVP extensions to support ingress protection.

5.2.1.  Relay-Message Method

   To protect the primary ingress of an LSP, the primary ingress MUST do
   the following after the LSP is up.

   1.  Select a PATH message P0 for the LSP.

   2.  If the backup ingress is off-path (the backup ingress is not the
       next hop of the primary ingress for P0), then send it a PATH
       message P0' with the content from P0 and an INGRESS_PROTECTION
       object; else (the backup ingress is a next hop, i.e., on-path
       case) add an INGRESS_PROTECTION object into the existing PATH
       message to the backup ingress (i.e., the next hop).  The object
       contains the Traffic-Descriptor sub-object, the Backup Ingress



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


       Address sub-object and the Label-Routes sub-object.  The options
       is set to indicate whether a Backup P2MP LSP is desired.  The
       Label-Routes sub-object contains the next-hops of the primary
       ingress and their labels.  Note that for on-path case, there is
       an existing PATH message to the backup ingress (i.e., the next
       hop), and we just add an INGRESS_PROTECTION object into the
       existing PATH message to be sent to the backup ingress.  We do
       not send a separate PATH message to the backup ingress for this
       existing PATH message.

   3.  For each Pi of the other PATH messages for the LSP, send the
       backup ingress a PATH message Pi' with the content copied from Pi
       and an empty INGRESS_PROTECTION object.

   For every PATH message Pj' (i.e., P0'/Pi') to be sent to the backup
   ingress, it has the same SESSION as Pj (i.e., P0/Pi).  If the backup
   ingress is off-path, the primary ingress updates Pj' according to the
   backup ingress as its next hop before sending it.  It adds the backup
   ingress to the beginning of the ERO, and sets RSVP_HOP based on the
   interface to the backup ingress.  The primary ingress MUST NOT set up
   any forwarding state to the backup ingress if the backup ingress is
   off-path.

5.2.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method

   The primary ingress is responsible for starting the RSVP signaling
   for the proxy-ingress node.  To do this, the following MUST be done
   for the RSVP PATH message.

   1.  Compute the EROs for the LSP as normal for the ingress.

   2.  If the selected backup ingress node is not the first node on the
       path (for all sub-LSPs), then insert at the beginning of the ERO
       first the backup ingress node and then the ingress node.

   3.  In the PATH RRO, instead of recording the ingress node's address,
       replace it with the Proxy-Ingress-Id.

   4.  Leave the HOP object populated as usual with information for the
       ingress-node.

   5.  Add the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to the PATH message.  Include
       the Backup Ingress Address (IPv4 or IPv6) sub-object and the
       Traffic-Descriptor sub-object.  Set or clear the options
       indicating that a Backup P2MP LSP is desired.

   6.  Optionally, add the FAST-REROUTE object [RFC4090] to the Path
       message.  Indicate whether one-to-one backup is desired.



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


       Indicate whether facility backup is desired.

   7.  The RSVP PATH message is sent to the backup node as normal.

   If the ingress detects that it can't communicate with the backup
   ingress, then the ingress SHOULD instead send the PATH message to the
   next-hop indicated in the ERO computed in step 1.  Once the ingress
   detects that it can communicate with the backup ingress, the ingress
   SHOULD follow the steps 1-7 to obtain ingress failure protection.

   When the ingress node receives an RSVP PATH message with an
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object and the object specifies that node as the
   ingress node and the PHOP as the backup ingress node, the ingress
   node SHOULD remove the INGRESS_PROTECTION object from the PATH
   message before sending it out.  Additionally, the ingress node MUST
   store that it will install ingress forwarding state for the LSP
   rather than midpoint forwarding.

   When an RSVP RESV message is received by the ingress, it uses the
   NHOP to determine whether the message is received from the backup
   ingress or from a different node.  The stored associated PATH message
   contains an INGRESS_PROTECTION object that identifies the backup
   ingress node.  If the RESV message is not from the backup node, then
   ingress forwarding state SHOULD be set up, and the INGRESS_PROTECTION
   object MUST be added to the RESV before it is sent to the NHOP, which
   SHOULD be the backup node.  If the RESV message is from the backup
   node, then the LSP SHOULD be considered available for use.

   If the backup ingress node is on the forwarding path, then a RESV is
   received with an INGRESS_PROTECTION object and an NHOP that matches
   the backup ingress.  In this case, the ingress node's address will
   not appear after the backup ingress in the RRO.  The ingress node
   SHOULD set up ingress forwarding state, just as is done if the LSP
   weren't ingress-node protected.

5.3.  Backup Ingress Behavior

   An LER determines that the ingress local protection is requested for
   an LSP if the INGRESS_PROTECTION object is included in the PATH
   message it receives for the LSP.  The LER can further determine that
   it is the backup ingress if one of its addresses is in the Backup
   Ingress Address sub-object of the INGRESS_PROTECTION object.  The LER
   as the backup ingress will assume full responsibility of the ingress
   after the primary ingress fails.  In addition, the LER determines
   that it is off-path if it is not any node of the LSP.  The LER
   determines whether it uses Relay-Message Method or Proxy-Ingress
   Method according to configurations.




Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


5.3.1.  Backup Ingress Behavior in Off-path Case

   The backup ingress considers itself as a PLR and the primary ingress
   as its next hop and provides a local protection for the primary
   ingress.  It behaves very similarly to a PLR providing fast-reroute
   where the primary ingress is considered as the failure-point to
   protect.  Where not otherwise specified, the behavior given in
   [RFC4090] for a PLR applies.

   The backup ingress MUST follow the control-options specified in the
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object and the flags and specifications in the
   FAST-REROUTE object.  This applies to providing a P2MP backup if the
   "P2MP backup" is set, a one-to-one backup if "one-to-one desired" is
   set, facility backup if the "facility backup desired" is set, and
   backup paths that support the desired bandwidth, and administrative
   groups that are requested.

   If multiple non empty INGRESS_PROTECTION objects have been received
   via multiple PATH messages for the same LSP, then the most recent one
   MUST be the one used.

   The backup ingress creates the appropriate forwarding state for the
   backup LSP tunnel(s) to the merge point(s).

   When the backup ingress sends a RESV message to the primary ingress,
   it MUST add an INGRESS_PROTECTION object into the message.  It MUST
   set or clear the flags in the object to report "Ingress local
   protection available", "Ingress local protection in use", and
   "bandwidth protection".

   If the backup ingress doesn't have a backup LSP tunnel to each of the
   merge points, it SHOULD clear "Ingress local protection available"
   and set NUB to the number of the merge points to which there is no
   backup LSP.

   When the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress redirects the
   traffic from a source into the backup P2P LSPs or the backup P2MP LSP
   transmitting the traffic to the next hops of the primary ingress,
   where the traffic is merged into the protected LSP.

   In this case, the backup ingress MUST keep the PATH message with the
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the primary ingress and the
   RESV message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to be sent to the
   primary ingress.  The backup ingress MUST set the "local protection
   in use" flag in the RESV message, indicating that the backup ingress
   is actively redirecting the traffic into the backup P2P LSPs or the
   backup P2MP LSP for locally protecting the primary ingress failure.




Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   Note that the RESV message with this piece of information will not be
   sent to the primary ingress because the primary ingress has failed.

   If the backup ingress has not received any PATH message from the
   primary ingress for an extended period of time (e.g., a cleanup
   timeout interval) and a confirmed primary ingress failure did not
   occur, then the standard RSVP soft-state removal SHOULD occur.  The
   backup ingress SHALL remove the state for the PATH message from the
   primary ingress, and tear down the one-to-one backup LSPs for
   protecting the primary ingress if one-to-one backup is used or unbind
   the facility backup LSPs if facility backup is used.

   When the backup ingress receives a PATH message from the primary
   ingress for locally protecting the primary ingress of a protected
   LSP, it MUST check to see if any critical information has been
   changed.  If the next hops of the primary ingress are changed, the
   backup ingress SHALL update its backup LSP(s) accordingly.

5.3.1.1.  Relay-Message Method

   When the backup ingress receives a PATH message with an non empty
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object, it examines the object to learn what
   traffic associated with the LSP.  It determines the next-hops to be
   merged to by examining the Label-Routes sub-object in the object.

   The backup ingress MUST store the PATH message received from the
   primary ingress, but NOT forward it.

   The backup ingress responds with a RESV message to the PATH message
   received from the primary ingress.  If the backup ingress is off-
   path, the LABEL object in the RESV message contains IMPLICIT-NULL.
   If the INGRESS_PROTECTION object is not "empty", the backup ingress
   SHALL send the RESV message with the state indicating protection is
   available after the backup LSP(s) are successfully established.

5.3.1.2.  Proxy-Ingress Method

   The backup ingress determines the next-hops to be merged to by
   collecting the set of the pair of (IPv4/IPv6 sub-object, Label sub-
   object) from the Record Route Object of each RESV that are closest to
   the top and not the Ingress router; this should be the second to the
   top pair.  If a Label-Routes sub-object is included in the
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the included IPv4/IPv6 sub-objects are
   used to filter the set down to the specific next-hops where
   protection is desired.  A RESV message MUST have been received before
   the Backup Ingress can create or select the appropriate backup LSP.

   When the backup ingress receives a PATH message with the



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the backup ingress examines the object to
   learn what traffic associated with the LSP.  The backup ingress
   forwards the PATH message to the ingress node with the normal RSVP
   changes.

   When the backup ingress receives a RESV message with the
   INGRESS_PROTECTION object, the backup ingress records an IMPLICIT-
   NULL label in the RRO.  Then the backup ingress forwards the RESV
   message to the ingress node, which is acting for the proxy ingress.

5.3.2.  Backup Ingress Behavior in On-path Case

   An LER as the backup ingress determines that it is on-path if one of
   its addresses is a next hop of the primary ingress (and for Proxy-
   Ingress Method the primary ingress is not its next hop via checking
   the PATH message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the
   primary ingress).  The LER on-path MUST send the corresponding PATH
   messages without any INGRESS_PROTECTION object to its next hops.  It
   creates a number of backup P2P LSPs or a backup P2MP LSP from itself
   to the other next hops (i.e., the next hops other than the backup
   ingress) of the primary ingress.  The other next hops are from the
   Label-Routes sub object.

   It also creates a forwarding entry, which sends/multicasts the
   traffic from the source to the next hops of the backup ingress along
   the protected LSP when the primary ingress fails.  The traffic is
   described by the Traffic-Descriptor.

   After the forwarding entry is created, all the backup P2P LSPs or the
   backup P2MP LSP is up and associated with the protected LSP, the
   backup ingress MUST send the primary ingress the RESV message with
   the INGRESS_PROTECTION object containing the state of the local
   protection such as "local protection available" flag set to one,
   which indicates that the primary ingress is locally protected.

   When the primary ingress fails, the backup ingress sends/multicasts
   the traffic from the source to its next hops along the protected LSP
   and imports the traffic into each of the backup P2P LSPs or the
   backup P2MP LSP transmitting the traffic to the other next hops of
   the primary ingress, where the traffic is merged into protected LSP.

   During the local repair, the backup ingress MUST continue to send the
   PATH messages to its next hops as before, keep the PATH message with
   the INGRESS_PROTECTION object received from the primary ingress and
   the RESV message with the INGRESS_PROTECTION object to be sent to the
   primary ingress.  It MUST set the "local protection in use" flag in
   the RESV message.




Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


5.3.3.  Failure Detection and Refresh PATH Messages

   As described in [RFC4090], it is necessary to refresh the PATH
   messages via the backup LSP(s).  The Backup Ingress MUST wait to
   refresh the PATH messages until it can accurately detect that the
   ingress node has failed.  An example of such an accurate detection
   would be that the IGP has no bi-directional links to the ingress node
   or a BFD session to the primary ingress' loopback address has failed
   and stayed failed after the network has reconverged.

   As described in [RFC4090 Section 6.4.3], the backup ingress, acting
   as PLR, MUST modify and send any saved PATH messages associated with
   the primary LSP to the corresponding next hops through backup LSP(s).
   Any PATH message sent will not contain any INGRESS_PROTECTION object.
   The RSVP_HOP object in the message contains an IP source address
   belonging to the backup ingress.  The sender template object has the
   backup ingress address as its tunnel sender address.

5.4.  Revertive Behavior

   Upon a failure event in the (primary) ingress of a protected LSP, the
   protected LSP is locally repaired by the backup ingress.  There are a
   couple of basic strategies for restoring the LSP to a full working
   path.

    - Revert to Primary Ingress: When the primary ingress is restored,
      it re-signals each of the LSPs that start from the primary
      ingress.  The traffic for every LSP successfully re-signaled is
      switched back to the primary ingress from the backup ingress.

    - Global Repair by Backup Ingress: After determining that the
      primary ingress of an LSP has failed, the backup ingress computes
      a new optimal path, signals a new LSP along the new path, and
      switches the traffic to the new LSP.

5.4.1.  Revert to Primary Ingress

   If "Revert to Primary Ingress" is desired for a protected LSP, the
   (primary) ingress of the LSP SHOULD re-signal the LSP that starts
   from the primary ingress after the primary ingress restores.  After
   the LSP is re-signaled successfully, the traffic SHOULD be switched
   back to the primary ingress from the backup ingress on the source
   node and redirected into the LSP starting from the primary ingress.

   The primary ingress can specify the "Revert to Ingress" control-
   option in the INGRESS_PROTECTION object in the PATH messages to the
   backup ingress.  After receiving the "Revert to Ingress" control-
   option, the backup ingress MUST stop sending/refreshing PATH messages



Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   for the protected LSP.

5.4.2.  Global Repair by Backup Ingress

   When the backup ingress has determined that the primary ingress of
   the protected LSP has failed (e.g., via the IGP), it can compute a
   new path and signal a new LSP along the new path so that it no longer
   relies upon local repair.  To do this, the backup ingress MUST use
   the same tunnel sender address in the Sender Template Object and
   allocate a LSP ID different from the one of the old LSP as the LSP-ID
   of the new LSP.  This allows the new LSP to share resources with the
   old LSP.  Alternately, the Backup Ingress can create a new LSP with
   no bandwidth reservation that duplicates the path(s) of the protected
   LSP, move traffic to the new LSP, delete the protected LSP, and then
   resignal the new LSP with bandwidth.


6.  Security Considerations

   In principle this document does not introduce new security issues.
   The security considerations pertaining to RFC 4090, RFC 4875, RFC
   2205 and RFC 3209 remain relevant.


7.  Compatibility

   This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in
   RFC 2205, RFC 3209, RFC 4090 and RFC 4875 to support ingress
   protection.  One new object is defined to indicate ingress protection
   with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb.  Per RFC 2205, a node not
   supporting this extension will not recognize the new class number and
   should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error.  The error
   message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take action to
   avoid the incompatible node as a backup ingress or may simply
   terminate the session.


8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains a registry called "Class Names, Class Numbers, and
   Class Types" under "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Parameters".
   Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to assign a new
   Class Type or C-Type under Class Number 37 and Class Name PROTECTION
   located at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters/
   rsvpparameters.xhtml#rsvp-parameters-39>, as follows:






Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


     Value     Description                      Reference
     -----     -----------                      ---------
       4       Type 4 INGRESS_PROTECTION        This Document

   It is anticipated that the future document that moves the idea to the
   standard track expects IANA to create and maintain a new registry
   under PROTECTION object class, Class Number 37, C-Type 4.  Initial
   values for the registry are given below.  The future assignments are
   to be made through IETF Review.


     Value      Name                             Definition
     -----      ----                             ----------
      0         Reserved
      1         BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS      Section 4.1.1
      2         BACKUP_INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS      Section 4.1.2
      3         INGRESS_IPv4_ADDRESS             Section 4.1.3
      4         INGRESS_IPv6_ADDRESS             Section 4.1.4
      5         TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_INTERFACE     Section 4.1.5
      6         TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv4_PREFIX   Section 4.1.5
      7         TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_IPv6_PREFIX   Section 4.1.5
      8         TRAFFIC_DESCRIPTOR_APPLICATION   Section 4.1.5
      9         LABEL_ROUTES                     Section 4.1.6
      10-127    Unassigned
      128-255   Reserved


9.  Co-authors and Contributors

   1.  Co-authors


        Autumn Liu
        Ciena
        USA
        Email: hliu@ciena.com



        Zhenbin Li
        Huawei Technologies
        Email: zhenbin.li@huawei.com









Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


        Yimin Shen
        Juniper Networks
        10 Technology Park Drive
        Westford, MA 01886
        USA
        Email: yshen@juniper.net



        Tarek Saad
        Cisco Systems
        Email: tsaad@cisco.com



        Fengman Xu
        Verizon
        2400 N. Glenville Dr
        Richardson, TX 75082
        USA
        Email: fengman.xu@verizon.com


   2.  Contributors


        Ning So
        Tata Communications
        2613 Fairbourne Cir.
        Plano, TX 75082
        USA
        Email: ningso01@gmail.com



        Mehmet Toy
        Verizon
        USA
        Email: mehmet.toy@verizon.com



        Lei Liu
        USA
        Email: liulei.kddi@gmail.com






Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


        Renwei Li
        Huawei Technologies
        2330 Central Expressway
        Santa Clara, CA  95050
        USA
        Email: renwei.li@huawei.com



        Quintin Zhao
        Huawei Technologies
        Boston, MA
        USA
        Email: quintin.zhao@huawei.com



        Boris Zhang
        Telus Communications
        200 Consilium Pl Floor 15
        Toronto, ON  M1H 3J3
        Canada
        Email: Boris.Zhang@telus.com



        Markus Jork
        Juniper Networks
        10 Technology Park Drive
        Westford, MA 01886
        USA
        Email: mjork@juniper.net



10.  Acknowledgement

   The authors would like to thank Nobo Akiya, Rahul Aggarwal, Eric
   Osborne, Ross Callon, Loa Andersson, Daniel King, Michael Yue, Alia
   Atlas, Olufemi Komolafe, Rob Rennison, Neil Harrison, Kannan Sampath,
   Gregory Mirsky, and Ronhazli Adam for their valuable comments and
   suggestions on this draft.


11.  References






Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


11.1.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC3031, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4090>.

   [RFC4875]  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)", RFC 4875,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6378]  Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
              N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile
              (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/
              RFC6378, October 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.


Authors' Addresses

   Huaimo Chen (editor)
   Huawei Technologies
   Boston, MA
   USA

   Email: huaimo.chen@huawei.com





Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft           LSP Ingress Protection            February 2018


   Raveendra Torvi (editor)
   Juniper Networks
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, MA  01886
   USA

   Email: rtorvi@juniper.net












































Chen & Torvi            Expires September 1, 2018              [Page 27]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/