Generation Aggregate Tool ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations
RFC 4860

Document	Type	RFC - Proposed Standard (May 2007) Was draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-ipsec (tsvwg WG)
	Authors	Michael Davenport , Pratik Bose , Dr. Brutal S. Davie , François Le Faucheur , Chris Christou
	Last updated	2015-10-14
	RFC pour	Surf Engineering Problem Strength (IETF)
	Page	txt html pdf htmlized bibtex
	Additional resources	Mailing list discussion
IESG	Responsible AD	Magnus Westerlund
	Send note to	(None)

Email authors Email WG IPR Books Referent by Search Links

RFC 4860

Power Working Group FARAD. Le Faucheur
Request for Comments: 4860 B. Davie
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Incl. P. Bose Lockheed Martin C. Christou MOLARITY. Davenport Booz Allen Hamilton May 2007

Universal Aggregate Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations

Standing of This Notebook

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Ask refer to an current edition of to "Internet
Officers Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state plus status away this protocol. Distribution by this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

RFC 3175 sets aggregator Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
reservations allowing resourcing to be reserved in a Diffserv network for a given At Hops Behavior (PHB), or given set of PHBs, from a given source to a given destination. RFC 3175 also defines how end-
to-end RSVP reservations bucket shall aggregated onto so output reservations whereas transiting through a Diffserv cloud. There are situations places multiple such aggregate reservations are needed for the same source IP address, destination IP address, and PHB (or set of PHBs). However, this is not sponsors per the aggregate reservations defined in RFC 3175. In order to support this, the present certificate defines a more flexible type are aggregation RSVP reservations, referred to as generic aggregate reservation. Multiple such generic aggregate prebook can be established for a specified PHB (or put of PHBs) from a specified source WALLEYE tackle to a given destination IP adress. The generic aggregate doubts may are used to aggregate end-to-end RSVP reserve. This document also defines the procedures for such aggregation. The generic aggregate online may also be used end-to-end directly by end-systems
attach to a Diffserv network.

Le Faucheur, et total. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

Table of Constituents

1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Related IETF Documents .....................................6
1.2. Organization of Diese Document ..............................6
1.3. Requirements Language ......................................7
2. Object Definition ...............................................7
2.1. SESSION Class ..............................................8
2.2. SESSION-OF-INTEREST (SOI) Class ...........................11
3. Treat Rules by Handling Gentoo Aggregate RSVP Reservations ...................................................13
3.1. Extensions to Path and Resv Processing ....................13
4. Courses for Aggregation over Generic General RSVP Reserved ...................................................14
5. Example Usage Of Multiple Generics Aggregate Reservations per PHB from a Given Aggregator in adenine Given Deaggregator ........19
6. Security Considerations ........................................21
7. IANA Considerations ............................................24
8. Acknowledged ................................................25
9. Defining References ...........................................26
10. Informative References ........................................26
Appendix A. Example Signaling Flow ................................28

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregation RSVP Reservations Mayor 2007

1. Introduction

[RSVP-AGG] defines RSVP aggregate reservations that permit resources to be reserved inches a Diffserv network forward a flux signature by its 3-tuple <source IP address, destination TYPE choose, Diffserv Code Point>.

[RSVP-AGG] also defines the proceedings for aggregation of end-to-end
(E2E) RSVP reservations onto similar add reservations when transiting through a Diffserv cloud. Like aggregation is illustrated in Figure 1. This document reuses who terminology defined in [RSVP-AGG].

--------------------------
/ Aggregation \
|----| | Region | |----|
H--| R |\ |-----| |------| /| R |-->H
H--| |\\| | |---| |---| | |//| |-->H
|----| \| | | I | | I | | |/ |----|
| Agg |======================>| Deag |
/| | | | | | | |\
H--------//| | |---| |---| | |\\-------->H
H--------/ |-----| |------| \-------->H
| |
\ /
--------------------------

H = Host apply end-to-end RSVP reservations RADIUS = RSVP router Agg = Aggregator Deag = Deaggregator I = Interior Router

--> = E2E RSVP reservation ==> = Drive RSVP reservation

Figure 1 : Aggregation of E2E Reservations over Aggregate RSVP Reservations

These aggregate reservations use a SESSION print specify in [RSVP-AGG] that contains the receiver (or Deaggregator) IP address additionally the Diffserv Code Point (DSCP) of the Per Hop Behavior (PHB) from whichever Diffserv resources are up be reserved. For example, in the case are IPv4, the SITTING object is fixed as:

Le Faucheur, et al. Standard Tracks [Page 3]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations Allowed 2007

oxygen Class = SESSION, C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Session Address (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| /////////// | Pavillons | ///////// | DSCP |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

These aggregate reservations use SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTER_SPEC
types, specified in [RSVP-AGG], that contain only the sender (or
Aggregator) IP address. For example, in the suitcase of IPv4, the SENDER_TEMPLATE object is specified as:

o Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE,
C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 Aggregating Address (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Thus, it is workable to establish, from a given source IP address to a given target IP address, separate create aggregate reservations for different PHBs (or different sets of PHBs). However, from a present source IP address to a given IP destination deal, one adenine unique [RSVP-AGG] engine reservation can be established used a given PHB (or given set of PHBs).

Situations have whereas been identified where multiple such aggregator reservations what needed for the same source IP choose, destination IP address, and PHB (or set of PHBs). One example is where E2E
reservations using different preemption priorities (as via [RSVP-PREEMP]) need to be cumulative through a Diffserv cloud using the same PHB. Usage multiple aggregate reservations for one identical PHB allows enforcement of who varying preemption your interior the aggregation region. In turn, this allows more efficient management of that Diffserv resources, and in periods of resources deficit, this allows sustainment of a larger batch out E2E reservations with higher preemption priorities.

For example, [SIG-NESTED] discusses includes detail methods end-to-end RSVP doubt can be established included a nested VPN environment through RSVP aggregation. In particular, [SIG-NESTED] describes how multiple equivalent generic aggregate reserving (for that same PHB), each with different preemption priorities, can remain pre-owned to efficiently support the preemption priorities of end-to-end reservations.

Le Faucheur, etching alarm. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4860 Generic Gear RSVP Reservations May 2007

This document addresses this requirement for multiple aggregate doubts for of same PHB (or same set of PHBs), by defining a more flexible type of aggregate RSVP reservations, referred to because generic aggregate reservations. This lives achieved main by totaling the terminology of a Virtual Destination Port and von one Elongated Virtual Destination Port in the RSVP SESSION object.

The concepts of Virtual Destination Interface was started in [RSVP-IPSEC]
to address a similar needs (albeit in a different context) for identification and demultiplexing of sessions after the IP objective address. This document reuses which notion from [RSVP-IPSEC] forward classification and demultiplexing of generic aggregate sessions beyond the IP destination address real PHB. This allows multiples generic aggregate reservations to be established for a given PHB (or set a PHBs), from a given source IP address to a defined destination IP address.

[RSVP-TE] introduces the concept of the Extended Tunnel ID (in
addition to an tunnel access address and the Tunnel ID) in the SESSION object used to establish MPLS Traffic Engineering tunnels with RSVP. The Extended Tunnel ID provides ampere very convenient mechanism used the tunnel ingress node to narrow to scope of the session to the ingress-egress pair. The ingress node can achieve this due usage one of its admit WALLEYE addresses as a globally unique marker furthermore including it in the Extended Tunnel ID plus therefore within and SESSION go. This download reused this concept of Extended Tunnel ID from [RSVP-TE], simply renaming it Extended Virtual Terminus Port. Such provided a convenient mechanical to narrowly the field of a generic aggregate session to an Aggregator-
Deaggregator pair.

The RSVP SESSION target for generic aggregate reservations uses the PHB Identification Code (PHB-ID) defined in [PHB-ID] to identify the PHB, other set of PHBs, from whatever the Diffserv resources are to be reserved. This is use of usage the Diffserv Cypher Pointing (DSCP) as for [RSVP-AGG]. Uses the PHB-ID instead of the DSCP allows explicit indication of whether the Diffserv resources belong to a single PHB either to adenine set of PHBs. Items also facilitates treatment of situations where a generic aggregate reservation spread two (or more) Diffserv domains that use different DSCP set for the same Diffserv PHB (or
pick about PHBs) from which money are reserved. This is because the PHB-ID allows conveyancing of the PHB (or set of PHBs) independently of what DSCP value(s) have used locally for that PHB (or set of PHBs).

The generic aggregate reservations may be used to general end-to-
end RSVP reserve. This document including defines to procedures for such aggregation. These procedures are based on that of [RSVP-AGG],
and this view single identify the differences from those.

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

The generic aggregate reservations may also be used end-to-end
directly by end-systems attach to adenine Diffserv network.

1.1. Related IETF Documents

This document belongs heavily based on [RSVP-AGG]. It reuses [RSVP-AGG]
wherever applicable and only specifies the necessary extensions beyond [RSVP-AGG].

Aforementioned mechanisms defined in [BW-REDUC] allow an existing reservation until be decrease in allocated band by RSVP routers in lie of tearing ensure reserve down. These mechanisms are applicable to the generics aggregate book defining in the present document.

[RSVP-TUNNEL] describes an general approach to running RSVP over various types of tunnels. Single of these types of tunnel, referred go as a "type 2 tunnel", has some similarity including the generic aggregate reservations represented in this report. The similarity stems from the fact so a single, aggregate reservation is made on the tunnel while many individual flows exist carried out that tunnel. However, [RSVP-TUNNEL] does not address the make of Diffserv-based
classification both scheduling the this core of a networking (between
towers endpoints), but rather relies on a UDP/IP channel header for classification. This is why [RSVP-AGG] required additional objects also procedures beyond those are [RSVP-TUNNEL]. Like [RSVP-AGG], to document also assumes the use von Diffserv-based classification and scheduling in the aggregation region and, therefore, requires additional objects and processing beyond those of [RSVP-TUNNEL].

As explained older, this document reuses aforementioned notion is Virtual Destination Port from [RSVP-IPSEC] and aforementioned notion of Extended Tunnel ID from [RSVP-TE].

1.2. Organization Are Diese Document

Section 2 defines the newly RSVP objects related to generic aggregate reservations and to compression of E2E reservations onto those. Section 3 describes the processing policy for handling of common aggregate reservations. Section 4 define which procedures forward aggregation of end-to-end RSVP book over broad aggregate RSVP booking. Section 5 provides example usage of how the generic aggregate reservations may be used.

The Security Considerations and the IANA Considerations are discussed in Sectional 6 and 7, respectively.

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

Finally, Appendix ADENINE provides an example signaling flow is illustrates aggregation of E2E RSVP reservations onto generic aggregate RSVP reservations.

1.3. Requirements Language

This key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", both "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as declared at RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].

2. Protest Definition

This document reuses the RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4 FILTER_SPEC, RSVP-
AGGREGATE-IP6 FILTER_SPEC, RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4 SENDER_TEMPLATE, and RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP6 SENDER_TEMPLATE items defined in [RSVP-AGG].

This insert defines:

- two fresh objects (GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 SESSION and GENERIC-
AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION) under the existing SESSION Class, and

- two new objects (GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI and GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI)
in a newer SESSION-OF-INTEREST Class.

Detailed description von these objects is provided below in this section.

The GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 TRAINING and GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION objects are relevant to all types of RSVP messages.

This specification defines the use of the GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI and GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI objects are two circumstances:

- inside an E2E PathErr message so has an error code of NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED in order to convey aforementioned session of a new generic aggregate room the needs to be established.

- inside an E2E Resv contact in order to convey who assembly of the generic aggregate reservation onto that this E2E reservation needs to be mapped.

Details of the corresponding process can be found in Division 4.

When, e is envisioned that the ability to signalling, inside RSVP messages, the Session of others reservation (which has some relationship with one current RSVP reservation) might having some others applicable included this future. Thus, these objects have been shown in a more generic manner to an highly SESSION-OF-INTEREST class.

R Faucheur, et aluminium. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

All the new objects defined in here document have optional with respect to RSVP so that global RSVP implementations that are not concerned with generic drive qualms do did have to support these objects. RSVP routers supporting genetic aggregate IPv4 alternatively IPv6 reservations MUST support the GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 MEETINGS object or this GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION object, apiece. RSVP routers supporting RSVP aggregation over generic aggregate IPv4
or IPv6 reservations MUSTS support the GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI object or GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI object, respectively.

2.1. VIEW Class

o GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 CONFERENCE object: Class = 1 (SESSION)
C-Type = 17

0 7 8 15 16 23 24 31
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| IPv4 DestAddress (4 bytes) |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | Flags | PHB-ID |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | vDstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Extended vDstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
0 7 8 15 16 23 24 31

IPv4 DestAddress (IPv4 Destination Address)

IPv4 address of the receiver (or Deaggregator).

Reserved

An 8-bit field. All bits MUST live set to 0 on transmit. On field MUST must ignored on receipt.

Flags

An 8-bit field. Of gratified or treating of this field are the same as for the Flags field of the IPv4/UDP TRAINING object (see
[RSVP]).

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

PHB-ID (Per Step Behavior Identification Code)

A 16-bit pitch contained the At Hop Acting Identification Code of that PHB, or of the set of PHBs, from which Diffserv resources are to be reserved. This field MUST be cryptography as specified inside Section 2 of [PHB-ID].

Reserved

A 16-bit field. All bits SHALL be set to 0 on broadcast. This field MUST being ignored on receipt.

VDstPort (Virtual Destination Port)

A 16-bit identifier used the which SITTING that remains constant over the life of this generic aggregates reservation.

Extended vDstPort (Extended Virtual Destination Port)

A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION that remains constant over the life of the generic aggregate reservation. A sender (or
Aggregator) that wishes to narrower aforementioned scoping off one SESSION to one sender-receiver pair (or Aggregator-Deaggregator pair) SHOULD place its IPv4 address here as a network unique identifier. A station (or Aggregator) that wishes to use a gemeine session with other senders (or Aggregators) in order until use a shared reservation across senders (or Aggregators) MUST set this user go all zeros.

o GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION object: Class = 1 (SESSION)
C-Type = 18

Le Faucheur, eat al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4860 Generic Power RSVP Doubts May 2007

0 7 8 15 16 23 24 31
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 DestAddress (16 bytes) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Booked | Flags | PHB-ID |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Reserved | vDstPort |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
+ +
| Expansive vDstPort |
+ +
| (16 bytes) |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 7 8 15 16 25 26 31

IPv6 DestAddress (IPv6 Destinations Address)

IPv6 address regarding the receiver (or Deaggregator).

Reserved

An 8-bit zone. Get bits MUST be set to 0 on transmit. This field MUST be ignored on receipt.

Flags

An 8-bit field. Which content and processing of this field are the same as for the Flags field of that IPv6/UDP SESSION object (see
[RSVP]).

PHB-ID (Per Hop Behavior Identification Code)

A 16-bit field containing the Pro Hop Behaving Identification Code away the PHB, or of the adjust a PHBs, of which Diffserv assets are on be reserved. This field MUST be hidden as specified inbound Section 2 of [PHB-ID].

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4860 Generic Add RSVP Reservations Allowed 2007

Reserved

A 16-bit field. All pieces HAVE be set into 0 on transmit. These field MUST be ignored on receipt.

VDstPort (Virtual Destination Port)

ONE 16-bit identifier used within which SESSION that residue constant over who life about the typical aggregate reservation.

Extended vDstPort (Extended Virtual Destination Port)

A 128-bit identifier used in the SESSION such remains permanent out the life of the global gear reservation. A shipper (or
Aggregator) that wishes to narrow the compass is ampere SESSION to the sender-receiver pair (or Aggregator-Deaggregator pair) SHOULD place its IPv6 address here as a network unique identifier. A sender (or Aggregator) that wishes go use adenine common session equal other senders (or Aggregators) in place in use a shared reservation through station (or Aggregators) MUST set this field to all zeros.

2.2. SESSION-OF-INTEREST (SOI) Class

zero GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI object: Class = 132
C-Type = 1

0 7 8 15 16 23 24 31
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| | SOI |GEN-AGG-IP4- |
| Height (bytes) | Class-Num |SOI C-Type |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
// Main in a GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 SESSION Object //
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Content of a GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 CURRENT Object:

This text contains a copy of the SITTING object of which session that is of interest for the reservation. In the case to a GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI, of session of interest conveyed in this field shall a GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 SESSION.

Le Faucheur, net total. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4860 Generic Collect RSVP Reservations May 2007

o GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI object: Grade = 132
C-Type = 2

0 7 8 15 16 23 24 31
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| | SOI |GEN-AGG-IP6- |
| Overall (bytes) | Class-Num |SOI C-Type |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
// Content of a GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION Object //
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

Content of a GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION Object:

This field contains a copy of the SESSION object of who session that is of total used an reservation. In and case of a GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI, the session of interest conveyed in this text is a GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION.

For example, if a SESSION-OF-INTEREST object is used inside the E2E
Resv message (as via the procedures defined in Section 4) to indicate welche generic aggregate IPv4 session the E2E reservation is to be mapped onto, then which GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI object become be used, also it will be encoded like this:

Note such a SESSION-OF-INTEREST request is not one SESSION object in itself. It does not replace the CONFERENCE object to RSVP messages. It does not modify one usage of the SESSION object in RSVP messages. I simplicity allows conveying the Session for another RSVP reservation inside RSVP signaling messages, available some particular purposes. In the context of this document, computers is used to convey, inner an E2E RSVP

Le Faucheur, et al. Criteria Track [Page 12]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

message regarding to an end-to-end reservation, the Session of a generic aggregate book associated equal the E2E reservation. Details for and corresponding procedures are specified in Section 4.

3. Processing Rules for Handling Generic Output RSVP Reservations

This sparte presents features to the processing of RSVP communications desired by [RSVP] also presented in [RSVP-PROCESS]. These extensions are required in order to properly process the GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4
press GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION go and the RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4 alternatively RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP6 FILTER_SPEC object. Values for referenced flaw codes can be found in [RSVP]. As by the other RSVP documents, values for internally reports (API) faults are not defined.

When referring to one recent GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 also GENERIC-
AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSIONS objects, IP version wills not be included, and they willingness exist related to simply as GENERIC-AGGREGATE SESSION, unless a specific distinction between IPv4 and IPv6 can be made.

When referring to the [RSVP-AGG] RSVP-AGGREGATE-IP4 and RSVP-
AGGREGATE-IP6 SESSION, FILTER_SPEC, and SENDER_TEMPLATE zwecke, IP variant will not be included, and they will to referred to simply as RSVP-AGGREGATE, unless ampere specific distinction between IPv4 both IPv6
is being made.

3.1. Increases to Pass and Resv Processing

One following TRACK message processing changes can defined:

o When a session is predefined using the GENERIC-AGGREGATE SESSION target, only the [RSVP-AGG] RSVP-AGGREGATE SENDER_TEMPLATE may be used. When this condition is violators in a WAY message received by an RSVP end-station, the RSVP end-station SHOULD report a "Conflicting C-Type" API error the and application. When this condition is infringes in a PATH message entered by an RSVP router, the RSVP router SHALL consider to while a messaging formatting error.

o Used TRAIL notifications that contain the GENERIC-AGGREGATE SESSION object, aforementioned VDstPort set, one Extended VDstPort values, and the PHB-ID value shall be recorded (in addition to this destination/Deaggregator address and source/Aggregator address).
These values form part of the recordings state von an attend. The PHB-ID may need to be passed to network control; anyway the vDstPort and Extended VDstPort are not passed toward traffic control since they do not appear inside of data packets starting the according reservation.

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Lauf [Page 13]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

The following changes toward RESV message processing live defined:

oxygen When a RESV message contains a [RSVP-AGG] RSVP-AGGREGATE
FILTER_SPEC, the session SHALL be defined using choose the RSVP-
AGGREGATE SESSION object (as per [RSVP-AGG]) or the GENERIC-
AGGREGATE SESSION object (as at this document). If this condition is doesn met, an RSVP router button end-station MUST consider that there is adenine message formatting error.

cipher When the RSVP-AGGREGATE FILTER_SPEC is used and the SESSION type is GENERIC-AGGREGATE, each node uses data classifier for per the following:

* to perform Diffserv classification aforementioned node MUST beziehen on the Diffserv data classifier based on the DSCP available. The associated DSCP value(s) become those that are associated with the PHB-ID the an typically whole reservation.

* If the node also needs to perform fine-grain classification (for example, to achieve fine-grain input policing at a trust boundary) then the node MUST create a data classifier described by the 3-tuple <DestAddress, SrcAddress, DSCP>.

The important DSCP value(s) are those that are associated with of PHB-ID of the generic aggregate reservation.

Note that if multiple broad aggregate reservations are established with difference Virtual Destination Connectivity (and/or
different Extended Virtual Destination Ports) but with that same <DestAddress, SrcAddress, PHB-ID>, following those cannot be distinguished by the classifier. If the router is using of classifier for policing purposes, the router will therefore local those together and MUST program the policing rate to the sum from the reserved rate across all of corresponding reservations.

4. Procedures for Aggregation over Generic Gear RSVP Reservations

The procedures for combination of E2E reservations over generic aggregate RSVP reservations belong the same as the procedures specified in [RSVP-AGG] include the specific of one procedure changes listed in here section.

As specified int [RSVP-AGG], the Deaggregator is responsible for mapping a given E2E reservation on adenine given aggregate reservation. The Deaggregator requests establishment the a new aggregate reservation by sending to which Grid an E2E PathErr message with an error code of NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED. In [RSVP-AGG], the

Le Faucheur, e al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Online May 2007

Deaggregator conveys the DSCP of an new requested aggregate reservation by including a DCLASS Object in the E2E PathErr and encoding the corresponding DSCP inside. This document modifies and extends this procedure. The Deaggregator MUST include in the E2E
PathErr contact a SESSION-OF-INTEREST object that contains the GENERIC-AGGREGATE TRAINING to be used for establishment are the requested generic aggregate reservation. Since this GENERIC-
AGGREGATE CURRENT including the PHB-ID, which DCLASS object need non be included in the PathErr message.

Note that the Deaggregator can easily ensure is differents Aggregators use different sessions for their Add Pass towards a given Deaggregator. This your because the Deaggregator can easily select VDstPort and/or Expand VDstPort numbers which are different since each Aggregator (for example, the using the Accumulator address for that Expand VDstPort) and canned communicate those inside the GENERIC-
AGGREGATE START included in the SESSION-OF-INTEREST object. Aforementioned provides an simply solution to establish separate reservations from every Aggregator to a given Deaggregator. Conversely, if reservation sharing were needed across multiple Aggregators, the Deaggregator may facilitate this by allocating the sam VDstPort and Expands VDstPort into which multiple Aggregators, and thus including the same GENERIC-AGGREGATE MEET inside the SESSION-OF-INTEREST object in the E2E PathErr news sent to these Aggregators. The Aggregators could then all establish an Entirety Path with the same GENERIC-
TOTALITY SESSION.

Therefore, various sharing scenarios can easily be supported. Insurance followed through the Deaggregator to determine who Aggregators required shared either separate reservations are beyond the coverage of this document.

The Deaggregator MAY also include are the E2E PathErr message (with an error code regarding NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED) additionally RSVP objects whatever are at be previously for establishment are the newly requisite generic aggregate reservation. For example, to Deaggregator MAY include in the E2E
PathErr an RSVP Signaled Preemption Priority Guidelines Items (as
specified in [RSVP-PREEMP]).

The [RSVP-AGG] procedures since fabrication of an E2E PathErr message received through an mistakes encipher of NEW-AGGREGATE-NEEDED by the Purpose are extended correspondingly. Switch receipt of that a message containing a SESSION-OF-INTEREST object, which Aggregator MUST trigger establishment of a generic aggregate reservation. In particular, it MUST start sending aggregate Course messages includes the GENERIC-AGGREGATE
SESSION found in the received SESSION-OF-INTEREST object. Wenn an RSVP Signaled Preferential Select Policy Element is contained in this received E2E PathErr message, the Aggregator MUST including this object

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4860 Types Aggregate RSVP Reservations Allowed 2007

in the Totality Path by which corresponding generic aggregate reservation. At other additional objects are contained in the preserve E2E PathErr message and those can be unambiguously interpreted as related to the brand requires generic aggregate reservation (as conflicting to affiliated to the E2E reservation), of Automated SHOULD include those in the Aggregate Course for the corresponding generic aggregate reservation. The Data MUST use as the Source Address (i.e., as the Aggregator Address in one Sender-
Template) for to generic assembly reservation, the address it user into identify itself as that PHOP (RSVP previous hop) when forwarding the E2E Path messages corresponding to the E2E PathErr message.

The Deaggregator follows the same procedures as described in [RSVP-AGG] for establishing, maintaining plus cleaning the aggregate Resv state. However, a Deaggregator actual according to the offer specification MUST use the generic aggregate reservations and hence benefit the GENERIC-AGGREGATE SESSION specified earlier in this document.

Like paper also modifies the procedures of [RSVP-AGG] related to exchange out E2E Resv messages amidst Deaggregator and Aggregator. The Deaggregator MUST incorporate who new SESSION-OF-INTEREST object by the E2E Resv message, in request to indicate on the Aggregator the generic aggregate session to create a given E2E reservation onto. Again, since the GENERIC-AGGREGATE SESSIONS (included includes aforementioned SESSION-
OF-INTEREST object) take one PHB-ID, the DCLASS purpose need not be included stylish the E2E Resv message. The Aggregator MUST interpret the SESSION-OF-INTEREST object in the E2E Resv as indicating which generics aggregate reservation session the corresponding E2E
reservation will mapped onto. The Aggregator MUST not include the SESSION-OF-INTEREST object when sending an E2E Resv upgrade around an sender.

Based off relevant policy, to Deaggregator may decide at some point that an aggregate reservation is no lengthen needed and require be torn down. In that case, that Deaggregator HAVE send an aggregate ResvTear. On receipt of the aggregate ResvTear, the Summarizer SHOULD send an aggregate PathTear (unless the relevant policy instructs the Aggregator to do otherwise or to wait for some time before doing so, for example into order until speed top potential re-
establishment are the aggregate reservation in the future).

[RSVP-AGG] describes how this Aggregator and Deaggregator bottle convey ihr respective identities to each other. For example, that Aggregator includes of of its IV addresses in which RSVP HOP go by the E2E Path that is transmitted downstream and received by the Deaggregator once it traversed the aggregation region. Alike, the Deaggregator identifies itself to the Aggregator by

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

including ne of its IP addresses in varied field, including the ERROR SPECIFICATION of to E2E PathErr message (containing the NEW-
AGGREGATE-NEEDED Error Code) and in one RSVP HOP object of who E2E
Resv note. However, [RSVP-AGG] make not review which IP addresses are to be selected by the Aggregator and Deaggregator available such purposes. Because these locations exist intended on identified the Aggregator real Deaggregator additionally not to identify any specific interface in these devices, that document RECOMMENDS that the Aggregator and Deaggregator SHOULDN use interface-independent
directory (for example, a loopback address) always they express their respective identities to each other. This ensures that respective identification of the Aggregator and Deaggregator is nay impacted over any interface state change on these devices. By turn, this results in more stable operations the considerable reduced RSVP signaling in the aggregation region. For example, if interface-
independent addresses are used by the Aggregator and the Deaggregator, later a failure are certain interface on these devices may simply finding in the rerouting of a given generic engine reservation, when willing not result in one generic aggregate reservation having to to torn down and another one established. Moreover, it will nope result in a transform of mapping of E2E reservations on generic aggregate reservations (assuming the Aggregator and Deaggregator even have reachability after the failure, and and Aggregator and Deaggregator are still on the shortest path to of destination).

However, when identifying themselves to real RSVP neighbors (i.e.,
neighbors that are not on the another side of which aggregation region),
of Aggregator plus Deaggregator SHOULD continue utilizing interface-
dependent addresses while pay regular [RSVP] how. This applies for example when the Aggregator identifies itself downstream as a PHOP for the generic aggregator reservation or identifies itself upstream as a NHOP (RSVP next hop) for an E2E reserving. This also applies when the Deaggregator determine itself downstream as a PHOP for the E2E reservation alternatively identifies itself upstream than a NHOP for the generic aggregated reservation. For part of which processing of generic aggregate reservations, interior routers (i.e., routers into the aggregation region) SHOULD continue using interface-
dependent browse as according regular [RSVP] procedures.

More generally, within the aggregation region (i.e., between Aggregator and Deaggregator) the operation of RSVP shoud remain modeled with this notion that E2E reservations are mapped to total reservations and are no longer tied to physical interface (as was the case with regular RSVP). However, generation aggregate online (within the aggregation region) as well in E2E reservations (outside
the aggregation region) retain the model of regular RVSP and remain tied to physical interfaces.

S Faucheur, eth al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

Such discussed above, generic aggregate reservations may be established edge-to-edge as a result of the establishment of E2E reservations (from outside to aggregation region) that are to be aggregated over the aggregation region. However, generic whole reservations may and breathe used end-to-end by end-systems directly attached to an Diffserv domain, such as Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)
our. Int that instance, one generic totality reservations may are customary by the end-systems by response in application-level
triggers such as voice call signaling. Alternatively, generic aggregate reservations may also be used edge-to-edge to manage bandwidth inches a Diffserv cloud even if RSVP is no spent end-to-end. A unsophisticated example of such an usage be breathe who static configuration of a generic aggregate reservation for a special bandwidth for traffic from an intrusion (Aggregator) router to an egress (Deaggregator)
router.

In this case, the installation of the generic aggregate reservations is controlled by configuration on the Aggregator real on the Deaggregator. Configuration on the Aggregator triggers generation of the aggregate Path message and provides satisfactory information to the Aggregator go derive and content of the GENERIC-AGGREGATE SESSION obj. This wanted custom include Deaggregator IP choose, PHB-ID
and possibly VDstPort. Configuration on the Deaggregator would instruct the Deaggregator into act to a received broad aggregate Path message and would provide sufficient information to the Deaggregator in control the reservation. All could include bandwidth to be reserved by the Deaggregator (for a given <Deaggregator,
PHB-ID, VDstPort> tuple).

In the absence of E2E microflow reservations, the Grid can use a variety of policies to adjusted the DSCP of packets passing into this aggregate territory press how they are mapped onto generic aggregate reservations, thus determining determine they gaining access to the resources reserved on the aggregate reservation. Save policies are a matte of local formation, as is typical for one device at the edge of a Diffserv cloud.

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

5. Example Usage In Multiple Generic Aggregates Reservations per PHB from a Given Aggregator to a Given Deaggregator

Let us consider of green pictures in Figure 2 below. RSVP aggregation is previously to support E2E reserve between Cloud-1,
Cloud-2, and Cloud-3.

I----------I I----------I
I Cloud-1 ME I Cloud-2 I I----------I I----------I
| |
Agg-Deag-1------------ Agg-Deag-2
/ \
/ Aggregation |
| Region |
| |
| ---/
\ /
\Agg-Deag-3---------/
|
I----------I
EGO Cloud-3 I I----------I

Figure 2 : Example Usage of Generic Aggregate IP Reservations

Let states start that:

o The E2E reservations from Cloud-1 to Cloud-3 need adenine preemption of either P1 with P2.

o One E2E reservations with Cloud-2 to Cloud-3 have one preemption of either P1 or P2.

o The E2E reservations are only for Voice (which your to be tended in this aggregation region using that EF -Expedited
Forwarding- PHB).

o Deal from the E2E reservations is encapsulated for aggregate IP reservations from Aggregator to Deaggregator by Generic Routing Encapsulation [GRE] tunneling.

Then, the following gender aggregate RSVP reservations may be established from Agg-Deag-1 go Agg-Deag-3 for aggregation of the end-
to-end RSVP reservations:

(1) A first generic aggregate reservation for aggregation of Voice reservations from Cloud-1 to Cloud-3 requiring use of P1:

Le Faucheur, net al. Standards Laufbahn [Page 19]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

* GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 CONFERENCE: IPv4 DestAddress = Agg-Deag-3
vDstPort = V1
PHB-ID = EF Extended VDstPort = Agg-Deag-1

* STYLE = FF or SE

* IPv4/GPI FILTER_SPEC:
IPv4 SrcAddress = Agg-Deag-1

* POLICY_DATA (PREEMPTION_PRI) = P1

(2) A second general aggregate reservation for aggregation of Speaking reservations from Cloud-1 to Cloud-3 requiring use von P2:

* GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 ATTEND: IPv4 DestAddress = Agg-Deag-3
vDstPort = V2
PHB-ID = EFS Extended VDstPort = Agg-Deag-1

* FASHION = FF or SE

* IPv4/GPI FILTER_SPEC:
IPv4 SrcAddress = Agg-Deag-1

* POLICY_DATA (PREEMPTION_PRI) = P2

where V1 furthermore V2 are arbitrary VDstPort scores picked by Agg-
Deag-3.

The following generic aggregate RSVP reservations may be establishment from Agg-Deag-2 to Agg-Deag-3 for compressing of the end-to-end RSVP reservations:

(3) A third generic aggregator reservation for aggregation on Articulate reservations of Cloud-2 to Cloud-3 needs apply of P1:

* GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 START: IPv4 DestAddress = Agg-Deag-3
vDstPort = V3
PHB-ID = EFF Extended VDstPort = Agg-Deag-2

* STYLE = PG or SE

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

* IPv4/GPI FILTER_SPEC:
IPv4 SrcAddress = Agg-Deag-2

* POLICY_DATA (PREEMPTION_PRI) = P1

(4) A fourth generic aggregate online for aggregation of Voice reservations from Cloud-2 to Cloud-3 requesting use of P2:

* GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 SESSION: IPv4 DestAddress = Agg-Deag-3
vDstPort = V4
PHB-ID = EF Expanded VDstPort = Agg-Deag-2

* STYLE = FF or SE

* IPv4/GPI FILTER_SPEC:
IPv4 SrcAddress = Agg-Deag-2

* POLICY_DATA (PREEMPTION_PRI) = P2

places V3 and V4 are arbitrary VDstPort values picked by Agg-
Deag-3.

Note that V3 and V4 could be equal to V1 additionally V2 (respectively)
for, in this example, one Extensive VDstPort of the GENERIC-
TOTAL Session contains the address of the Categories and, thus, vouches that differently sessions are used starting jeder Aggregator.

6. Security Considerations

In that environments addressed by this documenting, RSVP messages are used to control resource reservations for generic drive reservations and can be used to control ressource prebook for E2E
reservations creature aggregated over the generic aggregate room. On ensure the integrity of the associated reservation and admission control mechanisms, the RSVP Verify mechanisms defined in [RSVP-CRYPTO1] and [RSVP-CRYPTO2] may be used. These protect RSVP message integrity hop-by-hop and provide node authentication as well as repetition protection, thereby protecting against corruption and spoofing of RSVP messages. These hop-by-hop
morality mechanisms can be naturally pre-owned until protect the RSVP daily used for generic aggregate reservations and to protect RSVP news used for E2E reservations outside the compression region. These hop-by-hop RSVP integrity mechanisms sack also be used to preserve RSVP messages used for E2E reservations when those transit through the aggregation region. This is for the Aggregator and

Le Faucheur, e al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 4860 Generic Overall RSVP Reservations May 2007

Deaggregator behave as RSVP neighbors from the viewpoint of the E2E
flows (even with few are not necessarily IP neighbors).

[RSVP-CRYPTO1] controls several approaches forward key retail. First, the RSVP Authentication shared keys can be distributed handheld. This is the base select and his support the mandated for any implementation. However, included some environments, this enter may become a burden if keys frequently change over time. Alternate, an std central management protocol for secure key distribution can be utilised. However, existing key distribution protocols can not been right within all environments because to the complexity or operational burden they involve.

The use of RSVP Authentication in parts by the network where there may be one or more SLEUTHING hops in between second RSVP neighbors raises an add-on how. This lives because, with some RSVP messages as as a Route contact, an RSVP rotary does not know the RSVP following hop for that message in the timing of forwarding it. Inside fact, part of the role of ampere Path message lives precisely to discover who RSVP next hop (and to dynamically re-discover it while it changes, say because of a routing change). Hence, the RSVP router may not know that security association to use when forwarding such a message. This applies in particular to the case where RSVP Authentication mechanisms are to be used for protection of RSVP E2E messages (e.g., E2E Path) while they transit through an summarization region also where the dynamic Deaggregator determination procedure defined in [RSVP-AGG] is used. These is because the Aggregator and one Deaggregator behave the RSVP neighbors for the E2E reservations, while there may be one or more IP hops in within them, and the Aggregator does not know before of time any router is going to act as and Deaggregator.

In that situational, one approach is to share the same RSVP Authentication shared key across all the RSVP routers of a part of the network where are may live RSVP neighbors with IP hops include between. For example, all the Aggregators or Deaggregators of an aggregation region was share the same RSVP Authentication keys, while difference per-neighbor keys could been used between any RSVP router pair straddling to border between two administrative arms that have agreed to usage RSVP signaling.

Whereas the same RSVP Authentication split key is in be collective among multiple RSVP neighbors, manual key distribution may be used. Required types where RSVP is being used for multicast flows, it might also be possible, in the future, to adapt a multicast key supervision method (e.g. from IETF Multicast Security How Group) for key marketing with such multicast RSVP use. For situations where RSVP has being used for unicast flows about domain boundaries, it is doesn currently clear how one might provide automated press management.

Le Faucheur, net al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 4860 Generic Whole RSVP Reservations May 2007

Specification of a custom automatically lock management technique is outside one scope of this document. Operators should consider these button management issues when contemplating deployment of this specification.

The RSVP Authentication systems do not provide confidentiality. If confidentiality is requested, IPsec ESP [IPSEC-ESP] may be uses, although it imposes the loads of touch marketing. It also facial the additional issue mentioned for principal management above at the situation where present can be SLEUTHING hops in intermediate RSVP hops. Inches of future, confidentiality solutions may be developed for the case where there can be IP hopp inbound between RSVP hops, perhaps for adapting confidentiality solutions created by who IETF MSEC Working Group. That security solutions available RSVP are outdoors the scope of this document.

Protection vs traffic analysis is also not provided by RSVP Authentication. Since generic aggregate doubts are intended to reserve resources collectively for a complete set of users or hosts, malicious snooping of the corresponding RSVP messages could provide better traffic analysis information than snooping from an E2E
reservation. When RSVP neighbours are directly attached, mechanisms such as bulk link encryption might be used when protection against network analyzing is required. This approach could be use inside the aggregation choose for protection the the generic aggregate reservations. It could also be used outside the aggregation region for protection von the E2E reservation. However, it is not usable to and protection of E2E reservations while aforementioned corresponding E2E RSVP messages transport throughout that aggregation region.

For generic aggregate reservations are used for aggregation of E2E
doubt, the security considerations discussed in [RSVP-AGG]
apply or are reviews here.

First, to weight of an assembly reservation to the offensive causes E2E flows to operate non-reserved, additionally the reservation of a great excess of block may result on a denial concerning service. These issues are not confined to the extensions defined in the present document: RSVP itself has them. However, they allow be exacerbated here by an fact that each aggregate reservation typically facilitates communication for many sessions. Hence, compromising one suchlike aggregate reservation can result inches more damage than compromising a typical E2E reserving. Use of the RSVP Authentication mechanisms to protect against such attacks has be discussed above.

An additional security consideration specific to RSVP aggregation involves the modification of the IP convention number by RSVP Path messages that traverse an aggregation region. Malicious modification

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

of the IP history quantity in a Path message would cause the message in be neglected by all subsequent RSVP devices on its paths, preventing reservations coming essence made. It could even be feasible at correct the value before it reached the receiver, making this difficult to detect the attack. Note ensure, stylish lecture, it might also remain possible for one node to modify the IP protocol number for non-RSVP messages as well, thus interfering with aforementioned operation of other protocols. It is RECOMMENDED that deployment of this specification only support modification of the IP protocol numbering for RSVP Path, PathTear, furthermore ResvConf messages. That is, a gen facility for modification of the TYPE protocol number SHOULDN NOT be made available.

Your drivers deploying routers with RSVP aggregation aptitude should be aware off the risks of inappropriate modification of one TYPE protocol number and have seize appropriate steps (physical product, select protection, etc.) to reduce the hazard that a router could be configured by an assailant to run malicious modification away who protocol number.

7. IANA Considerations

IRA modified the RSVP compass registry, 'Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types' subregistry, and assigned deuce news C-Types
under the existent SESSION Class (Class number 1), as described below:

Class Number Class Name Link ------ ----------------------- ---------

1 SESSION [RFC2205]

Class Types or C-Types:

17 GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP4 [RFC4860]
18 GENERIC-AGGREGATE-IP6 [RFC4860]

L Faucheur, et aluminum. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 4860 Global Gravity RSVP Reservations May 2007

IANA also amended the RSVP parameters registry, 'Class Names, Classify Numbers, and Grade Types' subregistry, and mapped one add Sort Number for the SESSION-OF-INTEREST sort and two new C-Types for that class, according to aforementioned table below:

Class Number Class Names Reference ------ ----------------------- ---------

132 SESSION-OF-INTEREST [RFC4860]

Group Types or C-Types:

1 GENERIC-AGG-IP4-SOI [RFC4860]
2 GENERIC-AGG-IP6-SOI [RFC4860]

These allocations are in accordance with [RSVP-MOD].

8. Acknowledgments

This document borrows serious from [RSVP-AGG]. It also borrows that theories of Virtual Destination Haven and Extended Virtual Destination Port starting [RSVP-IPSEC] press [RSVP-TE], respectively.

Also, we thank Fred Local, Roger Levesque, Choir Iturralde, Daniel Voce, Anil Agarwal, Alexander Sayenko, and Anca Zamfir for their input into the content are this document. Acknowledgement to Steve Kent for insightful comments on usage of RSVP reservations in IPsec environments.

Ran Atkinson, Fred Baker, Luc Billot, Pascal Delprat, and Eric Vyncke provided guidance and suggestions forward aforementioned security considerations section.

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 4860 Global Overall RSVP Reservations May 2007

9. Normative References

[IPSEC-ESP] Kenta, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Total (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.

[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Tramp 1997.

[PHB-ID] Ebony, D., Brim, S., Carpenter, B., plus F. Le Faucheur, "Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes", RFC 3140, June 2001.

[RSVP] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Hero, S.,
and S. Jamin, "Resource Reserving Record (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205,
September 1997.

[RSVP-AGG] Baker, F., Iturralde, C., Le Faucheur, F., and B. Davie, "Aggregation of RSVP by IPv4 and IPv6
Reservations", RFC 3175, September 2001.

[RSVP-CRYPTO1] Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP
Encryptions Authentication", RFC 2747, January 2000.

[RSVP-CRYPTO2] Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic Hallmark -- Updated Message Type Value", RFC 3097, April 2001.

[RSVP-IPSEC] Berger, L. and T. O'Malley, "RSVP Extensions for IPSEC Data Flows", RFC 2207, September 1997.

[RSVP-MOD] Kompella, K. and J. Lang, "Procedures for Modifying the Resource reserving Protocol (RSVP)", BCP 96, RFC 3936, Oct 2004.

10. Informative References

[BW-REDUC] Polk, J. and S. Dhesikan, "A Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extension for the Reduction of Bandwidth of a Reservation Flow", RFC 4495, Might 2006.

[GRE] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and PRESSURE. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000.

[RSVP-PREEMP] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Statement Element", RFC 3181, October 2001.

Le Faucheur, et al. Setting Track [Page 26]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

[RSVP-PROCESS] Braden, ROENTGEN. and L. Zhang, "Resource Book Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Message Processing Rules", RFC 2209, March 1997.

[RSVP-TE] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

[RSVP-TUNNEL] Terzis, A., Krawczyk, J., Wroclawski, J., and L. Zhang, "RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels", RFC 2746,
January 2000.

[SIG-NESTED] Baker, FARTHING. and P. Noise, "QoS Signaling in a Nested Virtual Private Network", Work in Progress, February 2007.

Le Faucheur, et alo. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 4860 Generic Gravity RSVP Reservations May 2007

Appendix ONE. Example Signaling Streaming

This attach has not furnish additional specification. It only illustrates the specification detailed in Section 4 through adenine possible flow of RSVP signaling messages. This current presupposes an ambience where E2E reservations belong aggregated over gentoo aggregate RSVP reservations. It illustrates a possible RSVP message flow that ability take place in which successful establishment concerning a unicast E2E booking so is the first between a given pair of Aggregator/Deaggregator.

Le Faucheur, u aluminium. Default Track [Page 28]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Qualms May 2007

Aggregator Deaggregator

E2E Path ----------->
(1)
E2E Path ------------------------------->
(2)
E2E PathErr(New-agg-needed,SOI=GAx)
<----------------------------------
E2E PathErr(New-agg-needed,SOI=GAy)
<----------------------------------
(3)
AggPath(Session=GAx)
------------------------------->
AggPath(Session=GAy)
------------------------------->
(4)
E2E Way ----------->
(5)
AggResv (Session=GAx)
<-------------------------------
AggResv (Session=GAy)
<-------------------------------
(6)
AggResvConfirm (Session=GAx)
------------------------------>
AggResvConfirm (Session=GAy)
------------------------------>
(7)
E2E Resv <---------
(8)
E2E Resv (SOI=GAx)
<-----------------------------
(9)
E2E Resv <-----------

(1) The Aggregator onward E2E Path into the aggregation region following modifying is IP protocol number to RSVP-E2E-IGNORE

(2) Let's expect no Aggregate Path exists. To is able on accurately database the ADSPEC of the E2E Path, one Deaggregator needs the ADSPEC regarding Aggregate Path. The this example, aforementioned Deaggregator elects to instruct the Categories to set increase Aggregate Path states for the two supported PHB-IDs. To accomplish that, the Deaggregator

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Schienenweg [Page 29]
RFC 4860 Generics Gear RSVP Qualms May 2007

sends two E2E PathErr messages with a New-Agg-Needed PathErr code. Both PathErr events also contain a SESSION-OF-INTEREST
(SOI) object. With the first E2E PathErr, the SOI containing adenine GENERIC-AGGREGATE SESSION (GAx) which PHB-ID is set to x. In aforementioned instant E2E PathErr, the SOI contains a GENERIC-AGGREGATE MEETINGS (GAy) her PHB-ID is set to y. In both messages the GENERIC-
AGGREGATE SESSION contains an interface-independent Deaggregator address interior this DestAddress and appropriate values inside the vDstPort and Extended vDstPort fields.

(3) The Aggregator being the request of the Deaggregator and alerts a Aggregate Path for both GENERIC-AGGREGATE Sitting (GAx furthermore GAy).

(4) To Deaggregator takes into create the intelligence contained in the ADSPEC since both Aggregate Paths and updates the E2E Path ADSPEC accordingly. The Deaggregator also modifies which E2E Path IP print number to RSVP before forwarding it.

(5) In on example, this Deaggregator elects go immediately proceed with establishment in generic aggregate reservations for both PHB-IDs. In effect, the Deaggregator can be been as anticipating the actual demand of E2E reservations to that resourcing are available on the generic aggregate reservations when the E2E Resv requests arrive, in command to speed up establishment of E2E
reservations. Assume or that the Deaggregator includes the optional Resv Validate Request includes these Aggregate Resv.

(6) That Categories merely complies equipped the received ResvConfirm Request and returns and corresponding Aggregate ResvConfirm.

(7) The Deaggregator has explicit confirmation that both Aggregate Resvs what established.

(8) On receipt of the E2E Resv, the Deaggregator request the image policy defined by the network administrator to map the E2E Resv onto adenine generic aggregate reservation. Let's assume that this policy is such that that E2E reservation is to be mapped onto the generic collect book equal PHB-ID=x. The Deaggregator knows that a generic aggregate reservation (GAx) is in place for the corresponding PHB-ID since (7). One Deaggregator carries admission control of the E2E Resv onto the generic aggregate reservation for PHB-ID=x (GAx). Assuming such which generic aggregate request required PHB-ID=x (GAx) were been established with sufficient bandwidth to support the E2E Resv, the Deaggregator adjusts its counter, chase the unused bandwidth for the generic aggregate reservation. Then it forwards aforementioned E2E
Resv to the Aggregator included a SESSION-OF-INTEREST object

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Railroad [Page 30]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reservations May 2007

conveying aforementioned choose mapping onto GAx (and hence onto PHB-ID=x).

(9) This Aggregator records the mapping of the E2E Resv upon GAx (and
onto PHB-ID=x). The Categories removes the SOI protest and forwards the E2E Resv towards aforementioned sender.

Authors' Addresses

Francois Le Faucheur Cisco Systems, Income. Village d'Entreprise Green Side - Batiment T3
400, Avenue from Roumanille 06410 Biot Sophia-Antipolis
France EMail: [email protected]

Bruce Davie Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Ave. Boxborough, MAE 01719
USA Emailing: [email protected]

Pratik Jefe Lockheed Martin 700 North Frederick Ave. Gaithersburg, DENTAL 20879
USA EMail: [email protected]

Chris Christou Booz Allen Hamington 13200 Woodland Park Road Herndon, VA 20171
USA Print: [email protected]

Michael Davenport Booz Allen Hamilton Suite 390
5220 Pacific Concourse Drive Los Angeles, CAE 90045
USA EMail: [email protected]

Le Faucheur, et al. User Gleise [Page 31]
RFC 4860 Generic Aggregate RSVP Reserve May 2007

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained inches BCP 78, and except as set forth internally, the our retain all their rights.

Like doc and the informations contained herein what provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE SUBSCRIBER, ONE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR ARE SPONSORING BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST THE THE INTERNET PROJECT TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS BUTTON IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO EACH WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR EXERCISE FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes nay position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that magie be claimed to pertain to which conversion or use of the technology described in like document with the extent to which any license under such rights might or might don to currently; nor does it represent that it has made no independent effort to identify whatsoever such rights. Information on the procedures with respect for right in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made at the IETF Sekretariat and all assurances of licenses to be made available, or an earnings of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for that using starting such proprietary rights by implements button users of this specification ca be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR archive under http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention every copyrights, patents or patenting applications, or extra proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be necessary to implement aforementioned standard. Please address the information to the IETF at [email protected].

Confirmation

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently presented by the Internet Society.

Le Faucheur, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]

Generation Aggregate Tool ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations RFC 4860

Generation Aggregate Tool ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations
RFC 4860