TEAS Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed. Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended Status: Standards Track H. Shah Expires: November 25, 2017 Ciena J. Whittaker Verizon May 24, 2017 Fast Reroute Procedures for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) draft-ietf-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir-frr-01 Abstract Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) association signaling can be used to bind two unidirectional LSPs into an associated bidirectional LSP. When an associated bidirectional LSP is co-routed, the reverse LSP follows the same path as its forward LSP. This document describes Fast Reroute (FRR) procedures for both single-sided and double-sided provisioned associated bidirectional LSPs. The FRR procedures can ensure that for the co-routed LSPs, traffic flows on co-routed paths in the forward and reverse directions after a failure event. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Assumptions and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Key Word Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.1. Forward Unidirectional LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2.2. Reverse Co-routed Unidirectional LSPs . . . . . . . . 4 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Fast Reroute Bypass Tunnel Assignment . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Node Protection Bypass Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Bidirectional LSP Association At Mid-Points . . . . . . . 7 4. Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Bidirectional LSP Fast Reroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1.1. Re-corouting with Node Protection Bypass Tunnels . . . 9 4.1.2. Unidirectional Link Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.3. Revertive Behavior After Fast Reroute . . . . . . . . 9 4.1.4. Bypass Tunnel Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association At Mid-points . . . . . . . 10 5. Message and Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1. Extended ASSOCIATION Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 1. Introduction The Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) (Extended) ASSOCIATION Object is specified in [RFC6780] which can be used generically to associate (G)Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). [RFC7551] defines mechanisms for binding two point-to-point unidirectional LSPs [RFC3209] into an associated bidirectional LSP. There are two models described in [RFC7551] for provisioning an associated bidirectional LSP, single-sided and double-sided. In both models, the reverse LSP of the bidirectional LSP may or may not be co-routed and follow the same path as its forward LSP. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. The Stateful PCE allows stateful control of the MPLS TE LSPs which may be initiated by the PCE or a PCC. As defined in [PCE-ASSOC- BIDIR], a Stateful PCE can be employed to initiate single-sided and double-sided associated bidirectional LSPs on PCC(s). In packet transport networks, there are requirements where the reverse LSP of a bidirectional LSP needs to follow the same path as its forward LSP [RFC6373]. The MPLS Transport Profile (TP) [RFC6370] architecture facilitates the co-routed bidirectional LSP by using the GMPLS extensions [RFC3473] to achieve congruent paths. However, the RSVP association signaling allows to enable co-routed bidirectional LSPs without having to deploy GMPLS extensions in the existing networks. The association signaling also allows to take advantage of the existing TE and Fast Reroute (FRR) mechanisms in the network. [RFC4090] defines FRR extensions for MPLS TE LSPs and those are also applicable to the associated bidirectional LSPs. [GMPLS-FRR] defines FRR procedure for GMPLS signaled bidirectional LSPs, such as, co- ordinate bypass tunnel assignments in the forward and reverse directions of the LSP. The mechanisms defined in [GMPLS-FRR] are also useful for the FRR of associated bidirectional LSPs. This document describes FRR procedures for both single-sided and double-sided provisioned associated bidirectional LSPs. The FRR procedures can ensure that for the co-routed LSPs, traffic flows on co-routed paths in the forward and reverse directions after a failure event. 1.1. Assumptions and Considerations The following assumptions and considerations apply to this document: Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 o The FRR procedure to co-ordinate the bypass tunnel assignment defined in this document may be used for non-corouted associated bidirectional protected LSPs but requires that the downstream PLR and MP pair of the forward LSP matches the upstream MP and PLR pair of the reverse LSP. o The FRR procedure when using the unidirectional bypass tunnels is defined in [RFC4090] and is not modified by this document. o This document assumes that the FRR bypass tunnels used for associated bidirectional protected LSPs are also bidirectional. o The FRR bypass tunnels used for co-routed associated bidirectional protected LSPs are assumed to be co-routed. 2. Conventions Used in This Document 2.1. Key Word Definitions The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2.2. Terminology The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology defined in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], [RFC4090], [RFC7551], and [GMPLS-FRR]. 2.2.1. Forward Unidirectional LSPs Two reverse unidirectional point-to-point (P2P) LSPs are setup in the opposite directions between a pair of source and destination nodes to form an associated bidirectional LSP. In the case of single-sided provisioned LSP, the originating LSP with REVERSE_LSP Object is identified as a forward unidirectional LSP. In the case of double- sided provisioned LSP, the LSP originating from the higher node address (as source) and terminating on the lower node address (as destination) is identified as a forward unidirectional LSP. 2.2.2. Reverse Co-routed Unidirectional LSPs Two reverse unidirectional point-to-point (P2P) LSPs are setup in the opposite directions between a pair of source and destination nodes to form an associated bidirectional LSP. A reverse unidirectional LSP originates on the same node where the forward unidirectional LSP terminates, and it terminates on the same node where the forward unidirectional LSP originates. A reverse co-routed unidirectional Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 LSP traverses along the same path as the forward direction unidirectional LSP in the opposite direction. 3. Overview As specified in [RFC7551], in the single-sided provisioning case, the RSVP TE tunnel is configured only on one endpoint node of the bidirectional LSP. An LSP for this tunnel is initiated by the originating endpoint with (Extended) ASSOCIATION Object containing Association Type set to "single-sided associated bidirectional LSP" and REVERSE_LSP Object inserted in the RSVP Path message. The remote endpoint then creates the corresponding reverse TE tunnel and signals the reverse LSP in response using the information from the REVERSE_LSP Object and other objects present in the received RSVP Path message. As specified in [RFC7551], in the double-sided provisioning case, the RSVP TE tunnel is configured on both endpoint nodes of the bidirectional LSP. Both forward and reverse LSPs are initiated independently by the two endpoints with (Extended) ASSOCIATION Object containing Association Type set to "double-sided associated bidirectional LSP". With both single-sided and double- sided provisioned bidirectional LSPs, the reverse LSP may or may not be congruent (i.e. co-routed) and follow the same path as its forward LSP. Both single-sided and double-sided associated bidirectional LSPs require solutions to the following issues for fast reroute to ensure co-routedness after a failure event. 3.1. Fast Reroute Bypass Tunnel Assignment In order to ensure that the traffic flows on a co-routed path after a link or node failure on the co-routed protected LSP path, the mid- point Point of Local Repair (PLR) nodes need to assign matching bidirectional bypass tunnels for fast reroute. Such bypass assignment requires co-ordination between the forward and reverse direction PLR nodes when more than one bypass tunnels are present on a PLR node. Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 <-- Bypass N --> +-----+ +-----+ | H +---------+ I | +--+--+ +--+--+ | | | | LSP1 --> | LSP1 --> | LSP1 --> LSP1 --> +-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+ | A +--------+ B +----X----+ C +--------+ D +--------+ E | +-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+ <-- LSP2 | <-- LSP2 | <-- LSP2 <-- LSP2 | | | | +--+--+ +--+--+ | F +---------+ G | +-----+ +-----+ <-- Bypass S --> Figure 1: Multiple Bidirectional Bypass Tunnels As shown in Figure 1, there are two bypass tunnels available, Bypass tunnel N (on path B-H-I-C) and Bypass tunnel S (on path B-F-G-C). The mid-point PLR nodes B and C need to co-ordinate bypass tunnel assignment to ensure that traffic in both directions flow through either on the Bypass tunnel N (on path B-H-I-C) or the Bypass tunnel S (on path B-F-G-C), after the link B-C failure. 3.2. Node Protection Bypass Tunnels When using a node protection bypass tunnel with a bidirectional protected LSP, after a link failure, the forward and reverse LSP traffic can flow on different node protection bypass tunnels in the upstream and downstream directions. <-- Bypass N --> +-----+ +-----+ | H +------------------------+ I | +--+--+ +--+--+ | <-- Rerouted-LSP2 | | | | | | LSP1 --> LSP1 --> | LSP1 --> LSP1 --> +--+--+ +-----+ +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+ | A +--------+ B +----X----+ C +--------+ D +--------+ E | +-----+ +--+--+ +-----+ +--+--+ +-----+ <-- LSP2 | <-- LSP2 <-- LSP2 | <-- LSP2 | | Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 6] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 | | | Rerouted-LSP1 --> | +--+--+ +--+--+ | F +------------------------+ G | +-----+ +-----+ <-- Bypass S --> Figure 2: Node Protection Bypass Tunnels As shown in Figure 2, after the link B-C failure, the downstream PLR node B reroutes the protected forward LSP1 traffic over the bypass tunnel S (on path B-F-G-D) to reach downstream MP node D whereas the upstream PLR node C reroute the protected reverse LSP2 traffic over the bypass tunnel N (on path C-I-H-A) to reach the upstream MP node A. As a result, the traffic in the forward and revere directions flows on different bypass tunnels and this can cause the co-routed bidirectional LSP to become non-corouted. However, unlike GMPLS LSPs, the asymmetry of paths in the forward and reverse directions does not result in RSVP soft-state time-out with the associated bidirectional LSPs. 3.3. Bidirectional LSP Association At Mid-Points In packet transport networks, a restoration LSP is signaled after a link failure on the protected LSP path and the protected LSP may or may not be torn down [RFC8131]. In this case, multiple forward and reverse LSPs of a co-routed bidirectional LSP may be present at mid- point nodes with identical (Extended) ASSOCIATION Objects. This creates an ambiguity at mid-point nodes to identify the correct associated LSP pair for fast reroute bypass assignment (e.g. during the recovery phase of RSVP graceful restart procedure). LSP3 --> LSP3 --> LSP3 --> LSP1 --> LSP1 --> LSP1 --> LSP1 --> +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | A +--------+ B +----X----+ C +--------+ D +--------+ E | +-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +-----+ +-----+ <-- LSP2 | <-- LSP2 | <-- LSP2 <-- LSP2 <-- LSP4 | | <-- LSP4 <-- LSP4 | | | LSP3 --> | +--+--+ +--+--+ | F +---------+ G | +-----+ +-----+ <-- Bypass S --> <-- LSP4 Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 7] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 Figure 3: Restoration LSP Set-up After Link Failure As shown in Figure 3, the protected LSPs LSP1 and LSP2 are an associated LSP pair, similarly the restoration LSPs LSP3 and LSP4 are an associated LSP pair, both pairs belong to the same associated bidirectional LSP and carry identical (Extended) ASSOCIATION Objects. In this example, the mid-point node D may mistakenly associate LSP1 with the reverse LSP4 instead of the reverse LSP3 due to the matching (Extended) ASSOCIATION Objects. This may cause the co-routed bidirectional LSP to become non-corouted. Since the bypass assignment needs to be co-ordinated between the forward and reverse LSPs, this can also lead to undesired bypass tunnel assignments. 4. Signaling Procedure 4.1. Bidirectional LSP Fast Reroute For both single-sided and double-sided associated bidirectional LSPs, the fast reroute procedure specified in [RFC4090] is used. In addition, the mechanisms defined in [GMPLS-FRR] are used as following. o The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject defined in [GMPLS-FRR] is used to co-ordinate bypass tunnel assignment between the forward and reverse direction PLR nodes (see Figure 1). The BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT and Node-ID address [RFC4561] subobjects MUST be added by the downstream PLR node in the RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO) of the RSVP Path message of the forward LSP to indicate the bypass tunnel assignment. The upstream PLR node MUST NOT add the BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject in the RRO of the RSVP Path message of the reverse LSP. o The downstream PLR node always initiates the bypass tunnel assignment for the forward LSP. The upstream PLR (forward direction LSP MP) node simply reflects the bypass tunnel assignment for the reverse direction LSP. The upstream PLR node MUST NOT initiate the bypass tunnel assignment. o If the bypass tunnel is not found, the upstream PLR SHOULD send a Notify message [RFC3473] with Error-code - "FRR Bypass Assignment Error" and Sub-code - "Bypass Tunnel Not Found" [GMPLS-FRR] to the downstream PLR. o If the bypass tunnel can not be used due to a local policy as described in Section 4.5.3 in [GMPLS-FRR], the upstream PLR SHOULD send a Notify message [RFC3473] with Error-code - "FRR Bypass Assignment Error" and Sub-code - "Bypass Assignment Cannot Be Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 8] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 Used" [GMPLS-FRR] to the downstream PLR. o After a link or node failure, the PLR nodes in both forward and reverse directions trigger fast reroute independently using the procedures defined in [RFC4090] and send the forward and reverse LSP RSVP Path messages and traffic over the bypass tunnel. 4.1.1. Re-corouting with Node Protection Bypass Tunnels After fast reroute, the downstream MP node assumes the role of upstream PLR and reroutes the reverse LSP RSVP Path messages and traffic over the bypass tunnel on which the forward LSP RSVP Path messages and traffic are received. This is defined as re-corouting procedure in [GMPLS-FRR]. This procedure is used to ensure that both forward and reverse LSP signaling and traffic flow on the same bidirectional bypass tunnel after fast reroute. As shown in Figure 2, when using a node protection bypass tunnel with co-routed protected LSPs, asymmetry of paths can occur in the forward and reverse directions after a link failure [GMPLS-FRR]. In order to restore co-routedness, the downstream MP node D (acting as an upstream PLR) SHOULD trigger re-coroute procedure and reroute the reverse protected LSP2 RSVP Path messages and traffic over the bypass tunnel S (on path D-G-F-B) to the upstream MP node B. The upstream PLR node C stops receiving the RSVP Path messages and traffic for the reverse LSP2 from node D and it stops sending the RSVP Path messages for the reverse LSP2 on the bypass tunnel N (on path C-I-H-A). 4.1.2. Unidirectional Link Failures The unidirectional link failures can cause co-routed bidirectional LSPs to become non-corouted after fast reroute with both link protection and node protection bypass tunnels. The asymmetry of forward and reverse LSP paths due to the unidirectional link failure in the downstream direction can be corrected by using the re-corouting procedure specified in Section 4.1.1 of this document. In any case, the unidirectional link failures in the upstream and/or downstream directions do not result in RSVP soft-state time-out with the associated bidirectional LSPs. 4.1.3. Revertive Behavior After Fast Reroute When the revertive behavior is desired for a protected LSP after the link is restored, the procedure defined in [RFC4090], Section 6.5.2, is followed. o The upstream and downstream PLR nodes independently start sending the RSVP Path messages and traffic flow of the protected LSP over Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 9] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 the restored link and stop sending them over the bypass tunnel [RFC4090]. o In case of node protection bypass tunnels (see Figure 2), after re-corouting, the upstream PLR node D SHOULD start sending RSVP Path messages and traffic for the reverse LSP over the original link (D-C) when it receives the RSVP Path messages and traffic for the forward LSP over it and stops sending them over the bypass tunnel S. 4.1.4. Bypass Tunnel Provisioning Fast reroute bidirectional bypass tunnels can be single-sided or double-sided associated tunnels. For both single-sided and double- sided associated bypass tunnels, the fast reroute assignment policies need to be configured on the downstream PLR nodes of the protected LSPs that initiate the bypass tunnel assignments. For single-sided associated bypass tunnels, these nodes are the originating nodes of their signaling. 4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association At Mid-points In order to associate the LSPs unambiguously at a mid-point node (see Figure 3), the endpoint node MUST signal Extended ASSOCIATION Object and add unique Extended Association ID for each associated forward and reverse LSP pair forming the bidirectional LSP. As an example, an endpoint node MAY set the Extended Association ID to the value specified in Section 5.1 of this document. o For single-sided provisioned bidirectional LSPs [RFC7551], the originating endpoint signals the Extended ASSOCIATION Object with a unique Extended Association ID. The remote endpoint copies the contents of the received Extended ASSOCIATION Object including the Extended Association ID in the RSVP Path message of the reverse LSP's Extended ASSOCIATION Object. o For double-sided provisioned bidirectional LSPs [RFC7551], both endpoints need to ensure that the bidirectional LSP has a unique Extended ASSOCIATION Object for each forward and reverse LSP pair by selecting appropriate unique Extended Association IDs signaled by them. 5. Message and Object Definitions 5.1. Extended ASSOCIATION Object Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 10] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 The Extended Association ID in the Extended ASSOCIATION Object [RFC6780] can be set to the value specified as following to uniquely identify associated forward and reverse LSP pair of a bidirectional LSP. IPv4 Extended Association ID format is shown below: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 LSP Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | LSP-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : Variable Length ID : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4: IPv4 Extended Association ID Format LSP Source Address IPv4 source address of the forward LSP [RFC3209]. LSP-ID 16-bits LSP-ID of the forward LSP [RFC3209]. Variable Length ID Variable length ID inserted by the endpoint node of the associated bidirectional LSP [RFC6780]. IPv6 Extended Association ID format is shown below: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | IPv6 LSP Source Address | + + | (16 bytes) | + + | | Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 11] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | LSP-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ : : : Variable Length ID : : : +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: IPv6 Extended Association ID Format LSP Source Address IPv6 source address of the forward LSP [RFC3209]. LSP-ID 16-bits LSP-ID of the forward LSP [RFC3209]. Variable Length ID Variable length ID inserted by the endpoint node of the associated bidirectional LSP [RFC6780]. 6. Compatibility This document describes the procedures for fast reroute for associated bidirectional LSPs. Operators wishing to use this function SHOULD ensure that it is supported on the nodes on the LSP path. 7. Security Considerations This document uses the signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC7551] and [GMPLS-FRR] and does not introduce any additional security considerations other than those already covered in [RFC7551], [GMPLS- FRR] and the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920]. 8. IANA Considerations This document does not require any IANA actions. Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 12] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997. [RFC4090] Pan, P., Ed., Swallow, G., Ed., and A. Atlas, Ed., "Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005. [RFC4561] Vasseur, J.P., Ed., Ali, Z., and S. Sivabalan, "Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object", RFC 4561, June 2006. [RFC6780] Berger, L., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "RSVP Association Object Extensions", RFC 6780, October 2012. [RFC7551] Zhang, F., Ed., Jing, R., and Gandhi, R., Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional LSPs", RFC 7551, May 2015. [GMPLS-FRR] Taillon, M., Saad, T., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Ali, Z., and M. Bhatia, "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol For Fast Reroute of Traffic Engineering GMPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute (work in progress). 9.2. Informative References [RFC3209] 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. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011. Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 13] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 [RFC6373] Andersson, L., Berger, L., Fang, L., Bitar, N., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Control Plane Framework", RFC 6373, September 2011. [RFC8131] Zhang, X., Zheng, H., Ed., Gandhi, R., Ed., Ali, Z., Brzozowski, P., "RSVP-TE Signaling Procedure for End-to- End GMPLS Restoration and Resource Sharing", RFC 8131, March 2017. [PCE-ASSOC-BIDIR] Barth, C., Gandhi, R., and B. Wen, "PCEP Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", draft-barth-pce-association-bidir (work in progress). Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 14] Internet-Draft FRR For Associated Bidirectional LSPs May 24, 2017 Acknowledgments A special thanks to the authors of [GMPLS-FRR], this document uses the mechanisms defined in that document. Authors' Addresses Rakesh Gandhi (editor) Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: rgandhi@cisco.com Himanshu Shah Ciena Email: hshah@ciena.com Jeremy Whittaker Verizon Email: jeremy.whittaker@verizon.com Gandhi, et al. Expires November 25, 2017 [Page 15]