Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                    K. Kumaki, Ed.Request for Comments: 6882                              KDDI CorporationCategory: Experimental                                          T. MuraiISSN: 2070-1721                          Furukawa Network Solution Corp.                                                                D. Cheng                                                     Huawei Technologies                                                           S. Matsushima                                                        Softbank Telecom                                                                P. Jiang                                                        KDDI Corporation                                                              March 2013Support for Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)              in Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (L3VPNs)Abstract   IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) provide connectivity between sites   across an IP/MPLS backbone.  These VPNs can be operated using   BGP/MPLS, and a single Provider Edge (PE) node may provide access to   multiple customer sites belonging to different VPNs.   The VPNs may support a number of customer services, including RSVP   and Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)   traffic.  This document describes how to support RSVP-TE between   customer sites when a single PE supports multiple VPNs and labels are   not used to identify VPNs between PEs.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for examination, experimental implementation, and   evaluation.   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet   community.  This document is a product of the Internet Engineering   Task Force (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF   community.  It has received public review and has been approved for   publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not   all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of   Internet Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6882.Kumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 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 Contents1. Introduction ....................................................31.1. Conventions ................................................32. Motivation ......................................................42.1. Network Example ............................................43. Protocol Extensions and Procedures ..............................53.1. Object Definitions .........................................5           3.1.1. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6                  SESSION Object ......................................6           3.1.2. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6                  SENDER_TEMPLATE .....................................7           3.1.3. LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6                  FILTER_SPEC Objects .................................93.1.4. VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP Objects ..............93.2. Handling the Messages ......................................93.2.1. Path Message Processing at the Ingress PE ...........93.2.2. Path Message Processing at the Egress PE ...........103.2.3. Resv Processing at the Egress PE ...................113.2.4. Resv Processing at the Ingress PE ..................113.2.5. Other RSVP Messages ................................124. Management Considerations ......................................124.1. Impact on Network Operation ...............................125. Security Considerations ........................................136. References .....................................................136.1. Normative References ......................................136.2. Informative References ....................................137. Acknowledgments ................................................148. Contributors ...................................................14Kumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 20131.  Introduction   Service Providers would like to use BGP/MPLS IP VPNs [RFC4364] to   support connections between Customer Edge (CE) sites.  As described   in [RFC5824], these connections can be MPLS Traffic Engineered (TE)   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) established using extensions to RSVP   [RFC3209] for a number of different deployment scenarios.  The   requirements for supporting MPLS-TE LSP connections across BGP/MPLS   IP VPNs are documented in [RFC5824].   In order to establish a customer MPLS-TE LSP over a BGP/MPLS IP VPN,   it is necessary for the RSVP-TE control messages, including the Path   and Resv messages described in [RFC3209], to be handled appropriately   by the Provider Edge (PE) routers.  [RFC4364] allows RSVP messages   sent within a VPN's context to be handled just like any other VPN   data.  In such a solution, the RSVP-TE component at a PE that sends   messages toward a remote PE must process the messages in the context   of the VPN and must ensure that the messages are correctly labeled.   Similarly, when a message sent across the core is received by a PE,   both labels must indicate the correct VPN context.   Implementation of the standards-based solution described in the   previous paragraph is possible, but requires proper support on the   PE.  In particular, a PE must be able to process RSVP messages within   the context of the appropriate VPN Routing and Forwarding (VRF).   This may be easy to achieve in some implementations, but in others,   it is not so easy.   This document defines experimental formats and mechanisms that follow   a different approach.  The documented approach enables the VPN   identifier to be carried in the RSVP-TE protocol message so that   there is no requirement for label-based VRF identification on the PE.   The experiment proposed by this document does not negate the label-   based approach supported by [RFC4364].  The experiment is intended to   enable research into alternate methods of supporting RSVP-TE within   VPNs.1.1.  Conventions   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 inRFC 2119 [RFC2119].Kumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 20132.  Motivation   If multiple BGP/MPLS IP VPNs are supported at the same PE, new RSVP-   TE extensions are required so that RSVP-TE control messages from the   CEs can be handled appropriately by the PE.2.1.  Network Example   Figure 1 ("Customer MPLS TE LSPs in the context of BGP/MPLS IP VPNs")   shows two VPNs supported by a core IP/MPLS network.  Both VPNs have   customer sites on the two PEs shown in the figure.  The customer   sites operate MPLS-TE LSPs.   Here, we make the following set of assumptions:   o  VPN1 and VPN2 are for different customers.   o  CE1 and CE3 are head-end routers.   o  CE2 and CE4 are tail-end routers.   o  The same address (e.g., 192.0.2.1) is assigned at CE2 and CE4.        <--------Customer MPLS-TE LSP for VPN1-------->      .......                                        .......      . --- .    ---      ---       ---      ---     . --- .      .|CE1|----|PE1|----|P1 |-----|P2 |----|PE2|-----|CE2|.      . --- .    ---      ---       ---      ---     . --- .      .......     |                           |      .......      (VPN1)      |                           |      (VPN1)                  |                           |      .......     |                           |      .......      . --- .     |                           |      . --- .      .|CE3|------+                           +-------|CE4|.      . --- .                                        . --- .      .......                                        .......      (VPN2)                                         (VPN2)        <--------Customer MPLS-TE LSP for VPN2-------->                  ^                           ^                  |                           |             VRF instance                VRF instance      <-Customer->    <---BGP/MPLS IP VPN--->   <-Customer->         network                                   network      Figure 1: Customer MPLS TE LSPs in the context of BGP/MPLS IP VPNsKumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013      Consider that customers in VPN1 and VPN2 would like to establish      customer MPLS-TE LSPs between their sites (i.e., between CE1 and      CE2, and between CE3 and CE4).  In this situation, the following      RSVP-TE Path messages would be sent:      1. CE1 would send a Path message to PE1 to establish the MPLS-TE         LSP (VPN1) between CE1 and CE2.      2. CE3 would also send a Path message to PE1 to establish the         MPLS-TE LSP (VPN2) between CE1 and CE2.   After receiving each Path message, PE1 can identify the customer   context for each Path message from the incoming interface over which   the message was received.  PE1 forwards the messages to PE2 using the   routing mechanisms described in [RFC4364] and [RFC4659].   When the Path messages are received at PE2, that node needs to   distinguish the messages and determine which applies to VPN1 and   which to VPN2 so that the right forwarding state can be established   and so that the messages can be passed on to the correct CE.   Although the messages arrive at PE2 with an MPLS label that   identifies the VPN, the messages are delivered to the RSVP-TE   component on PE2, and the context of the core VPN LSP (i.e., the   label) is lost.  Some RSVP-TE protocol mechanism is therefore needed   to embed the VPN identifier within the RSVP-TE message.   Similarly, Resv messages sent from PE2 to PE1 need an RSVP-TE   mechanism to assign them to the correct VPN.3.  Protocol Extensions and Procedures   This section defines the additional RSVP-TE objects to meet the   requirements described inSection 2.  These objects are new variants   of the SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE, and FILTERSPEC objects.  They act as   identifiers and allow PEs to distinguish Path/Resv messages per VPN   in the context of BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.Section 3.1 defines the new   object types, andSection 3.2 defines the specific procedures for   handling RSVP messages.3.1.  Object Definitions   This experiment will be carried out using the following private Class   Types.  This document identifies these Class Types as   "C-Type = EXPn".Kumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP1   Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP2   Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP3   Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP4   Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP5   Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP63.1.1.  LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION Object   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6) SESSION object   appears in RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a SESSION object   and that are sent between the ingress PE and egress PE in either   direction.  This object MUST NOT be included in any RSVP-TE message   that is sent outside of the provider's backbone.   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is analogous to the   LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 SESSION object, using a VPN-IPv6 address   ([RFC4659]) instead of a VPN-IPv4 address ([RFC4364]).   Experimenters MUST ensure that there is no conflict between the   private Class Types used for this experiment and other Class Types   used by the PEs.   The formats of the SESSION objects are as follows:     Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP1    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |            VPN-IPv4 Tunnel Endpoint Address (12 bytes)        |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |  MUST be zero                 |      Tunnel ID                |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Kumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013     Class = SESSION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP2    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +       VPN-IPv6 Tunnel Endpoint Address (24 bytes)             +   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |  MUST be zero                 |      Tunnel ID                |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +                  Extended Tunnel ID (16 bytes)                +   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   The VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6 tunnel endpoint address field contains an   address of the VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6 address family encoded as   specified in [RFC4364] or [RFC4659], respectively.   The Tunnel ID and Extended Tunnel ID are identical to the same fields   in the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SESSION objects as per   [RFC3209].3.1.2.  LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE        Objects   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6) SENDER_TEMPLATE   object appears in RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a   SENDER_TEMPLATE object and that are sent between ingress PE and   egress PE in either direction, such as Path, PathError, and PathTear   messages.  The object MUST NOT be included in any RSVP-TE messages   that are sent outside of the provider's backbone.Kumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013   The format of the object is as follows:     Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP3    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |            VPN-IPv4 Tunnel Sender Address (12 bytes)          |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |  MUST be zero                 |            LSP ID             |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     Class = SENDER_TEMPLATE, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP4    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   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +         VPN-IPv6 Tunnel Sender Address (24 bytes)             +   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +                                                               +   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |  MUST be zero                 |            LSP ID             |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   The VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6 tunnel sender address field contains an   address of the VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6 address family encoded as   specified in [RFC4364] or [RFC4659], respectively.   The LSP ID is identical to the LSP ID field in the LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4   and LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE objects as per [RFC3209].Kumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 20133.1.3.  LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 and LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC Objects   The LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 (or LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6) FILTER_SPEC object   appears in RSVP-TE messages that ordinarily contain a FILTER_SPEC   object and that are sent between ingress PE and egress PE in either   direction, such as Resv, ResvError, and ResvTear messages.  The   object MUST NOT be included in any RSVP-TE messages that are sent   outside of the provider's backbone.   Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 C-Type = EXP5      The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 FILTER_SPEC object is      identical to the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.   Class = FILTER SPECIFICATION, LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 C-Type = EXP6      The format of the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is      identical to the LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object.3.1.4.  VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP Objects   The formats of the VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6 RSVP_HOP objects are   identical to the RSVP_HOP objects described in [RFC6016].3.2.  Handling the Messages   This section describes how the RSVP-TE messages are handled.   Handling of these messages assumes that, in the context of BGP/MPLS   IP VPNs, the ingress and egress PEs have RSVP-TE capabilities.3.2.1.  Path Message Processing at the Ingress PE   When a Path message arrives at the ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1), the   PE needs to establish suitable Path state and forward the Path   message on to the egress PE (PE2 in Figure 1).  Below, we describe   the message handling process at the ingress PE.      1. CE1 sends a Path message to PE1 to establish the MPLS-TE LSP         (VPN1) between CE1 and CE2.  The Path message is addressed to         the eventual destination (the receiver at the remote customer         site) and carries the IP Router Alert option, in accordance         with [RFC2205].  The ingress PE must recognize the router         alert, intercept these messages, and process them as RSVP-TE         signaling messages.Kumaki                        Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013      2. When the ingress PE receives a Path message from a CE that is         addressed to the receiver, the VRF that is associated with the         incoming interface can be identified.  (This step does not         deviate from current behavior.)      3. The tunnel endpoint address of the receiver is looked up in the         appropriate VRF, and the BGP next hop for that tunnel endpoint         address is identified.  The next hop is the egress PE.      4. A new LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object is         constructed, containing the Route Distinguisher (RD) that is         part of the VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 route prefix for this tunnel         endpoint address, and the IPv4/IPv6 tunnel endpoint address         from the original SESSION object.      5. A new LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/IPv6 SENDER_TEMPLATE object is         constructed, with the original IPv4/IPv6 tunnel sender address         from the incoming SENDER_TEMPLATE plus the RD that is used by         the PE to advertise the prefix for the customers VPN.      6. A new Path message is sent containing all the objects from the         original Path message, replacing the original SESSION and         SENDER_TEMPLATE objects with the new         LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 type objects.  This Path message         is sent directly to the egress PE (the next hop that was         determined in Step 3) without the IP Router Alert option.3.2.2.  Path Message Processing at the Egress PE   Below, we describe the message handling process at the egress PE.      1. When a Path message arrives at the egress PE (PE2 in Figure 1),         it is addressed to the PE itself and is handed to RSVP for         processing.      2. The router extracts the RD and IPv4/IPv6 address from the         LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object and determines the         local VRF context by finding a matching VPN-IPv4 prefix with         the specified RD that has been advertised by this router into         BGP.      3. The entire incoming RSVP message, including the VRF         information, is stored as part of the Path state.Kumaki                        Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013      4. The egress PE can now construct a Path message that differs         from the Path message it received in the following ways:         a. Its tunnel endpoint address is the IP address extracted from            the SESSION object.         b. The SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE objects have been converted            back to IPv4-type/IPv6-type by discarding the attached RD.         c. The RSVP_HOP object contains the IP address of the outgoing            interface of the egress PE and a Logical Interface Handle            (LIH), as per normal RSVP processing.      5. The egress PE then sends the Path message towards its tunnel         endpoint address over the interface identified in Step 4c.         This Path message carries the IP Router Alert option, as         required by [RFC2205].3.2.3.  Resv Processing at the Egress PE   When a receiver at the customer site originates a Resv message for   the session, normal RSVP procedures apply until the Resv, making its   way back towards the sender, arrives at the "egress" PE (it is the   egress with respect to the direction of data flow, i.e., PE2 in   Figure 1).  Upon arriving at PE2, the SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects   in the Resv message, and the VRF in which the Resv was received, are   used to find the matching Path state that was stored previously.   The PE constructs a Resv message to send to the RSVP HOP stored in   the Path state, i.e., the ingress PE (PE1 in Figure 1).  The LSP   TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 SESSION object is replaced with the same   LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 SESSION object received in the Path   message.  The LSP TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object is replaced   with a LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 FILTER_SPEC object, which copies   the VPN-IPv4/VPN-IPv6 address from the LSP TUNNEL SENDER_TEMPLATE   received in the matching Path message.   The Resv message MUST be addressed to the IP address contained within   the RSVP_HOP object in the Path message.3.2.4.  Resv Processing at the Ingress PE   When the ingress PE receives a Resv message (the ingress with respect   to data flow, i.e., PE1 in Figure 1), the PE determines the local VRF   context and associated Path state for this Resv message by decoding   the received SESSION and FILTER_SPEC objects.  It is now possible to   generate a Resv message to send to the appropriate CE.  The ResvKumaki                        Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013   message sent to the ingress CE contains the LSP TUNNEL IPv4/IPv6   SESSION and LSP TUNNEL FILTER_SPEC objects, which are derived from   the appropriate Path state.3.2.5.  Other RSVP Messages   Processing of other RSVP messages (i.e., PathError, PathTear,   ResvError, ResvTear, and ResvConf) generally follows the rules   defined in [RFC2205].  The following additional rules MUST be   observed for messages transmitted within the VPN, i.e., between the   PEs:   o  The SESSION, SENDER_TEMPLATE, and FILTER_SPEC objects MUST be      converted from LSP_TUNNEL_IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 [RFC3209] to      LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv4/LSP_TUNNEL_VPN-IPv6 form, respectively, and      back again, in the same manner as described above for Path and      Resv messages.   o  The appropriate type of RSVP_HOP object (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6)      MUST be used, as described inSection 8.4 of [RFC6016].   o  Depending on the type of RSVP_HOP object received from the      neighbor, the message MUST be MPLS encapsulated or IP      encapsulated.   o  The matching state and VRF MUST be determined by decoding the      corresponding RD and IPv4 or IPv6 address in the SESSION and      FILTER_SPEC objects.   o  The message MUST be directly addressed to the appropriate PE,      without using the Router Alert Option.4.  Management Considerations   MPLS-TE-based BGP/MPLS IP VPNs are based on a peer model.  If an   operator would like to configure a new site to an existing VPN,   configuration of both the CE router and the attached PE router is   required.  The operator is not required to modify the configuration   of PE routers connected to other sites or to modify the configuration   of other VPNs.4.1.  Impact on Network Operation   It is expected that the use of the extensions specified in this   document will not significantly increase the level of operational   traffic.Kumaki                        Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013   Furthermore, the additional extensions described in this document   will have no impact on the operation of existing resiliency   mechanisms available within MPLS-TE.5.  Security Considerations   This document defines RSVP-TE extensions for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs.  The   general security issues for RSVP-TE are described in [RFC3209],   [RFC4364] addresses the specific security considerations of BGP/MPLS   VPNs.  General security considerations for MPLS are described in   [RFC5920].   In order to secure the control plane, techniques such as the TCP   Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] MAY be used authenticate BGP   messages.   To ensure the integrity of an RSVP request, the RSVP Authentication   mechanisms defined in [RFC2747], and updated by [RFC3097], SHOULD be   used.6.  References6.1.  Normative References   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [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 2001.6.2.  Informative References   [RFC2205]  Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1              Functional Specification",RFC 2205, September 1997.   [RFC2747]  Baker, F., Lindell, B., and M. Talwar, "RSVP Cryptographic              Authentication",RFC 2747, January 2000.   [RFC3097]  Braden, R. and L. Zhang, "RSVP Cryptographic              Authentication -- Updated Message Type Value",RFC 3097,              April 2001.   [RFC4364]  Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private              Networks (VPNs)",RFC 4364, February 2006.Kumaki                        Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013   [RFC4659]  De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,              "BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for              IPv6 VPN",RFC 4659, September 2006.   [RFC5824]  Kumaki, K., Ed., Zhang, R., and Y. Kamite, "Requirements              for Supporting Customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol              (RSVP) and RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) over a              BGP/MPLS IP-VPN",RFC 5824, April 2010.   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS              Networks",RFC 5920, July 2010.   [RFC5925]  Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP              Authentication Option",RFC 5925, June 2010.   [RFC6016]  Davie, B., Le Faucheur, F., and A. Narayanan, "Support for              the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) in Layer 3 VPNs",RFC 6016, October 2010.7.  Acknowledgments   The authors would like to express thanks to Makoto Nakamura and   Daniel King for their helpful and useful comments and feedback.8.  Contributors   Chikara Sasaki   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.   2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino   Saitama 356-8502   Japan   EMail: ch-sasaki@kddilabs.jp   Daisuke Tatsumi   KDDI Corporation   2-3-2 Nishishinjuku Shinjuku-ku   Tokyo 163-8003   Japan   EMail: da-tatsumi@kddi.comKumaki                        Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 6882              Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs           March 2013Authors' Addresses   Kenji Kumaki   KDDI Corporation   Garden Air Tower   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,   Tokyo 102-8460   Japan   EMail: ke-kumaki@kddi.com   Tomoki Murai   Furukawa Network Solution Corp.   5-1-9, Higashi-Yawata, Hiratsuka   Kanagawa 254-0016   Japan   EMail: murai@fnsc.co.jp   Dean Cheng   Huawei Technologies   2330 Central Expressway   Santa Clara, CA 95050   USA   EMail: dean.cheng@huawei.com   Satoru Matsushima   Softbank Telecom   1-9-1,Higashi-Shimbashi,Minato-Ku   Tokyo 105-7322   Japan   EMail: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp   Peng Jiang   KDDI Corporation   Garden Air Tower   Iidabashi, Chiyoda-ku,   Tokyo 102-8460   Japan   EMail: pe-jiang@kddi.comKumaki                        Experimental                     [Page 15]