Network Working Group L. Berger
Request for Comments: 5467 LabN
Category: Experimental A. Takacs
Ericsson
D. Caviglia
Ericsson
D. Fedyk
Nortel
J. Meuric
France Telecom
March 2009
Network Working Group L. Berger
Request for Comments: 5467 LabN
Category: Experimental A. Takacs
Ericsson
D. Caviglia
Ericsson
D. Fedyk
Nortel
J. Meuric
France Telecom
March 2009
GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
GMPLS非对称带宽双向标签交换路径（LSP）
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
这份备忘录为互联网社区定义了一个实验性协议。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。要求进行讨论并提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2009 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托在本文件出版之日生效的与IETF文件有关的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件可能包含2008年11月10日之前发布或公开的IETF文件或IETF贡献中的材料。控制某些材料版权的人员可能未授予IETF信托允许在IETF标准流程之外修改此类材料的权利。在未从控制此类材料版权的人员处获得充分许可的情况下，不得在IETF标准流程之外修改本文件，也不得在IETF标准流程之外创建其衍生作品，除了将其格式化以RFC形式发布或将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
Abstract
摘要
This document defines a method for the support of GMPLS asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The presented approach is applicable to any switching technology and builds on the original Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) model for the transport of traffic-related parameters. The procedures described in this document are experimental.
本文件定义了一种支持GMPLS非对称带宽双向标签交换路径（LSP）的方法。该方法适用于任何交换技术，并建立在原始资源预留协议（RSVP）模型的基础上，用于传输流量相关参数。本文件中描述的程序是实验性的。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Background .................................................3
1.2. Approach Overview ..........................................3
1.3. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs .............4
2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object ...................................5
2.1.1. Procedures ..........................................5
2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................5
2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................5
2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................6
2.3.1. Procedures ..........................................6
3. Packet Formats ..................................................6
4. Compatibility ...................................................7
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object ...................................8
5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................8
5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................8
6. Security Considerations .........................................8
7. References ......................................................9
7.1. Normative References .......................................9
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
Appendix A. Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object.................11
A.1. Applicability .............................................11
A.2. Overview ..................................................11
A.3. Procedures ................................................12
A.4. Compatibility .............................................13
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Background .................................................3
1.2. Approach Overview ..........................................3
1.3. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................4
2. Generalized Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs .............4
2.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object ...................................5
2.1.1. Procedures ..........................................5
2.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................5
2.2.1. Procedures ..........................................5
2.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................6
2.3.1. Procedures ..........................................6
3. Packet Formats ..................................................6
4. Compatibility ...................................................7
5. IANA Considerations .............................................8
5.1. UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Object ...................................8
5.2. UPSTREAM_TSPEC Object ......................................8
5.3. UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Object .....................................8
6. Security Considerations .........................................8
7. References ......................................................9
7.1. Normative References .......................................9
7.2. Informative References .....................................9
Appendix A. Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object.................11
A.1. Applicability .............................................11
A.2. Overview ..................................................11
A.3. Procedures ................................................12
A.4. Compatibility .............................................13
GMPLS [RFC3473] introduced explicit support for bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The defined support matched the switching technologies covered by GMPLS, notably Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) and lambdas; specifically, it only supported bidirectional LSPs with symmetric bandwidth allocation. Symmetric bandwidth requirements are conveyed using the semantics objects defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210].
GMPLS[RFC3473]引入了对双向标签交换路径（LSP）的明确支持。定义的支持与GMPLS涵盖的交换技术相匹配，特别是时分复用（TDM）和lambdas；具体来说，它只支持具有对称带宽分配的双向LSP。对称带宽要求使用[RFC2205]和[RFC2210]中定义的语义对象传达。
Recent work ([GMPLS-PBBTE] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) has looked at extending GMPLS to control Ethernet switching. In this context, there has been discussion of the support of bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth. (That is, bidirectional LSPs that have different bandwidth reservations in each direction.) This discussion motivated the extensions defined in this document, which may be used with any switching technology to signal asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs. The procedures described in this document are experimental.
最近的工作（[GMPLS-PBBTE]和[MEF-TRAFFIC]）着眼于扩展GMPLS以控制以太网交换。在这种情况下，讨论了具有不对称带宽的双向LSP的支持。（即，在每个方向上具有不同带宽保留的双向LSP。）本讨论推动了本文档中定义的扩展，该扩展可与任何交换技术一起使用，以向非对称带宽双向LSP发送信号。本文件中描述的程序是实验性的。
Bandwidth parameters are transported within RSVP ([RFC2210], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]) via several objects that are opaque to RSVP. While opaque to RSVP, these objects support a particular model for the communication of bandwidth information between an RSVP session sender (ingress) and receiver (egress). The original model of communication, defined in [RFC2205] and maintained in [RFC3209], used the SENDER_TSPEC and ADSPEC objects in Path messages and the FLOWSPEC object in Resv messages. The SENDER_TSPEC object was used to indicate a sender's data generation capabilities. The FLOWSPEC object was issued by the receiver and indicated the resources that should be allocated to the associated data traffic. The ADSPEC object was used to inform the receiver and intermediate hops of the actual resources allocated for the associated data traffic.
带宽参数通过几个对RSVP不透明的对象在RSVP（[RFC2210]、[RFC3209]和[RFC3473]）内传输。虽然对RSVP不透明，但这些对象支持RSVP会话发送方（入口）和接收方（出口）之间带宽信息通信的特定模型。[RFC2205]中定义并在[RFC3209]中维护的原始通信模型在Path消息中使用SENDER_TSPEC和ADSPEC对象，在Resv消息中使用FLOWSPEC对象。SENDER_TSPEC对象用于指示发件人的数据生成能力。FLOWSPEC对象由接收方发出，并指示应分配给相关数据通信的资源。ADSPEC对象用于通知接收器和中间跃点为相关数据流量分配的实际资源。
With the introduction of bidirectional LSPs in [RFC3473], the model of communication of bandwidth parameters was implicitly changed. In the context of [RFC3473] bidirectional LSPs, the SENDER_TSPEC object indicates the desired resources for both upstream and downstream directions. The FLOWSPEC object is simply confirmation of the allocated resources. The definition of the ADSPEC object is either unmodified and only has meaning for downstream traffic, or is implicitly or explicitly ([RFC4606] and [MEF-TRAFFIC]) irrelevant.
随着[RFC3473]中双向LSP的引入，带宽参数的通信模型发生了隐式变化。在[RFC3473]双向LSP的上下文中，发送方_TSPEC对象指示上游和下游方向的所需资源。FLOWSPEC对象只是确认分配的资源。ADSPEC对象的定义要么未修改且仅对下游流量有意义，要么隐式或显式（[RFC4606]和[MEF-traffic]）不相关。
The approach for supporting asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs defined in this document builds on the original RSVP model for the transport of traffic-related parameters and GMPLS's support for bidirectional LSPs. An alternative approach was considered and rejected in favor of the more generic approach presented below. For reference purposes only, the rejected approach is summarized in Appendix A.
本文中定义的支持非对称带宽双向LSP的方法建立在用于传输流量相关参数的原始RSVP模型和GMPLS对双向LSP的支持的基础上。考虑了一种替代方法，并拒绝了该方法，转而采用下文介绍的更为通用的方法。附录A中总结了被拒绝的方法，仅供参考。
The defined approach is generic and can be applied to any switching technology supported by GMPLS. With this approach, the existing SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects are complemented with the addition of new UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and
定义的方法是通用的，可以应用于GMPLS支持的任何交换技术。通过这种方法，现有的SENDER_TSPEC、ADSPEC和FLOWSPEC对象通过添加新的上游_TSPEC、上游_ADSPEC和
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. The existing objects are used in the original fashion defined in [RFC2205] and [RFC2210], and refer only to traffic associated with the LSP flowing in the downstream direction. The new objects are used in exactly the same fashion as the old objects, but refer to the upstream traffic flow. Figure 1 shows the bandwidth-related objects used for asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs.
上游\u FLOWSPEC对象。现有对象以[RFC2205]和[RFC2210]中定义的原始方式使用，并且仅指与在下游方向流动的LSP相关联的流量。新对象的使用方式与旧对象完全相同，但指的是上游交通流。图1显示了用于非对称带宽双向LSP的带宽相关对象。
|---| Path |---|
| I |------------------->| E |
| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
| g | -ADSPEC | r |
| r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |
| e | | s |
| s | Resv | s |
| s |<-------------------| |
| | -FLOWSPEC | |
| | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | |
| | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | |
|---| |---|
|---| Path |---|
| I |------------------->| E |
| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
| g | -ADSPEC | r |
| r | -UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC | e |
| e | | s |
| s | Resv | s |
| s |<-------------------| |
| | -FLOWSPEC | |
| | -UPSTREAM_TSPEC | |
| | -UPSTREAM_ADSPEC | |
|---| |---|
Figure 1: Generic Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs
图1：通用非对称带宽双向LSP
The extensions defined in this document are limited to Point-to-Point (P2P) LSPs. Support for Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) bidirectional LSPs is not currently defined and, as such, not covered in this document.
本文档中定义的扩展仅限于点对点（P2P）LSP。当前未定义对点对多点（P2MP）双向LSP的支持，因此，本文档未涵盖此支持。
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 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
The setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP is signaled using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with the inclusion of the new UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC, UPSTREAM_TSPEC, and UPSTREAM_ADSPEC objects.
使用[RFC3473]中定义的双向程序以及新的上游_FLOWSPEC、上游_TSPEC和上游_ADSPEC对象，向不对称带宽双向LSP的设置发送信号。
The new upstream objects carry the same information and are used in the same fashion as the existing downstream objects; they differ in that they relate to traffic flowing in the upstream direction while the existing objects relate to traffic flowing in the downstream direction. The new objects also differ in that they are used on messages in the opposite directions.
新的上游对象携带相同的信息，并以与现有下游对象相同的方式使用；它们的不同之处在于，它们与上游方向的交通流相关，而现有对象与下游方向的交通流相关。新对象的不同之处还在于它们用于相反方向的消息。
The format of an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is the same as a FLOWSPEC object. This includes the definition of class types and their formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object is 120 (of the form 0bbbbbbb).
上游_FLOWSPEC对象的格式与FLOWSPEC对象相同。这包括类类型及其格式的定义。上游_FLOWSPEC对象的类号为120（形式为0bbb）。
The Path message of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP MUST contain an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object and MUST use the bidirectional LSP formats and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the SENDER_TSPEC object used in the Path message. The contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328].
非对称带宽双向LSP的路径消息必须包含上游\u FLOWSPEC对象，并且必须使用[RFC3473]中定义的双向LSP格式和过程。上游\u FLOWSPEC对象的C类型必须与路径消息中使用的发送方\u TSPEC对象的C类型匹配。上游_FLOWSPEC对象的内容必须使用与用于构建将用于LSP的FLOWSPEC对象的格式和程序一致的格式和程序来构建，例如[RFC2210]或[RFC4328]。
Nodes processing a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST use the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object in the upstream label and the resource allocation procedure defined in Section 3.1 of [RFC3473]. Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object MUST issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.
处理包含上游\u FLOWSPEC对象的路径消息的节点必须使用上游标签中上游\u FLOWSPEC对象的内容以及[RFC3473]第3.1节中定义的资源分配过程。与[RFC3473]一致，无法根据上游\u FLOWSPEC对象的内容分配标签或内部资源的节点必须发出带有“路由问题/MPLS标签分配失败”指示的PathErr消息。
The format of an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is the same as a SENDER_TSPEC object. This includes the definition of class types and their formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is 121 (of the form 0bbbbbbb).
上游_TSPEC对象的格式与发送方_TSPEC对象的格式相同。这包括类类型及其格式的定义。上游_TSPEC对象的类号为121（形式为0bbb）。
The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object describes the traffic flow that originates at the egress. The UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be included in any Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST match the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the FLOWSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [RFC4328]. The contents of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MAY differ from contents of the UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object based on application data transmission requirements.
上游_TSPEC对象描述源自出口的交通流。上游_TSPEC对象必须包含在与包含上游_FLOWSPEC对象的路径消息相对应的任何Resv消息中。上游_TSPEC对象的C类型必须与相应上游_FLOWSPEC对象的C类型匹配。上游_TSPEC对象的内容必须使用与用于构建将用于LSP的FLOWSPEC对象的格式和程序一致的格式和程序来构建，例如[RFC2210]或[RFC4328]。基于应用程序数据传输要求，上游_TSPEC对象的内容可能不同于上游_FLOWSPEC对象的内容。
When an UPSTREAM_TSPEC object is received by an ingress, the ingress MAY determine that the original reservation is insufficient to satisfy the traffic flow. In this case, the ingress MAY issue a Path message with an updated UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object to modify the resources requested for the upstream traffic flow. This modification might require the LSP to be re-routed, and in extreme cases might result in the LSP being torn down when sufficient resources are not available.
当入口接收到上游_TSPEC对象时，入口可确定原始保留不足以满足业务流。在这种情况下，入口可以发出具有更新的上游流规范对象的路径消息，以修改为上游业务流请求的资源。这种修改可能需要重新路由LSP，在极端情况下，可能会导致LSP在资源不足时被拆除。
The format of an UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is the same as an ADSPEC object. This includes the definition of class types and their formats. The class number of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is 122 (of the form 0bbbbbbb).
上游\u ADSPEC对象的格式与ADSPEC对象相同。这包括类类型及其格式的定义。上游_ADSPEC对象的类号为122（形式为0bbb）。
The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MAY be included in any Resv message that corresponds to a Path message containing an UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The C-Type of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object MUST be consistent with the C-Type of the corresponding UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC object. The contents of the UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object MUST be constructed using a format and procedures consistent with those used to construct the ADSPEC object that will be used for the LSP, e.g., [RFC2210] or [MEF-TRAFFIC]. The UPSTREAM_ADSPEC object is processed using the same procedures as the ADSPEC object and, as such, MAY be updated or added at transit nodes.
上游_ADSPEC对象可以包括在与包含上游_FLOWSPEC对象的路径消息相对应的任何Resv消息中。上游_TSPEC对象的C类型必须与相应上游_FLOWSPEC对象的C类型一致。上游_ADSPEC对象的内容必须使用与用于构建将用于LSP的ADSPEC对象的格式和程序一致的格式和程序来构建，例如，[RFC2210]或[MEF-TRAFFIC]。上游ADSPEC对象使用与ADSPEC对象相同的过程进行处理，因此，可以在传输节点处更新或添加。
This section presents the RSVP message-related formats as modified by this section. This document modifies formats defined in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473]. See [RSVP-BNF] for the syntax used by RSVP. Unmodified formats are not listed. Three new objects are defined in this section:
本节介绍本节修改的RSVP消息相关格式。本文件修改了[RFC2205]、[RFC3209]和[RFC3473]中定义的格式。有关RSVP使用的语法，请参见[RSVP-BNF]。未修改的格式未列出。本节定义了三个新对象：
Object name Applicable RSVP messages
--------------- ------------------------
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify
(via sender descriptor)
UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
Notify (via flow descriptor list)
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
Notify (via flow descriptor list)
Object name Applicable RSVP messages
--------------- ------------------------
UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC Path, PathTear, PathErr, and Notify
(via sender descriptor)
UPSTREAM_TSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
Notify (via flow descriptor list)
UPSTREAM_ADSPEC Resv, ResvConf, ResvTear, ResvErr, and
Notify (via flow descriptor list)
The format of the sender description for bidirectional asymmetric LSPs is:
双向非对称LSP的发送方描述格式为：
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
[ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
<UPSTREAM_LABEL>
<UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>
<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
[ <ADSPEC> ]
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
[ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
[ <RECOVERY_LABEL> ]
<UPSTREAM_LABEL>
<UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC>
The format of the flow descriptor list for bidirectional asymmetric LSPs is:
双向非对称LSP的流描述符列表格式为：
<flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
| <SE flow descriptor>
<flow descriptor list> ::= <FF flow descriptor list>
| <SE flow descriptor>
<FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<FILTER_SPEC>
<LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
| <FF flow descriptor list>
<FF flow descriptor>
<FF flow descriptor list> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<FILTER_SPEC>
<LABEL> [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
| <FF flow descriptor list>
<FF flow descriptor>
<FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ]
[ <UPSTREAM_TSPEC>] [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL>
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
<FF flow descriptor> ::= [ <FLOWSPEC> ]
[ <UPSTREAM_TSPEC>] [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<FILTER_SPEC> <LABEL>
[ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]
<SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<SE filter spec list>
<SE flow descriptor> ::= <FLOWSPEC>
<UPSTREAM_TSPEC> [ <UPSTREAM_ADSPEC> ]
<SE filter spec list>
<SE filter spec list> is unmodified by this document.
<SE过滤器规范列表>未被本文档修改。
This extension reuses and extends semantics and procedures defined in [RFC2205], [RFC3209], and [RFC3473] to support bidirectional LSPs with asymmetric bandwidth. To indicate the use of asymmetric bandwidth, three new objects are defined. Each of these objects is defined with class numbers in the form 0bbbbbbb. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting this extension will not recognize the new class numbers and should respond with an "Unknown Object Class" error. The error message will propagate to the ingress, which can then take action to avoid the path with the incompatible node or may simply terminate the session.
此扩展重用并扩展了[RFC2205]、[RFC3209]和[RFC3473]中定义的语义和过程，以支持具有不对称带宽的双向LSP。为了指示不对称带宽的使用，定义了三个新对象。这些对象中的每一个都是以0bbb的形式用类号定义的。根据[RFC2205]，不支持此扩展的节点将无法识别新的类号，并应以“未知对象类”错误进行响应。错误消息将传播到入口，入口可以采取措施避免与不兼容节点的路径，也可以简单地终止会话。
IANA has assigned new values for namespaces defined in this section and reviewed in this subsection.
IANA已为本节中定义的名称空间分配了新值，并在本小节中进行了审查。
The IANA has made the assignments described below in the "Class Names, Class Numbers, and Class Types" section of the "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry.
IANA已在“RSVP参数”注册表的“类名、类号和类类型”部分进行了如下所述的分配。
A new class named UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb range (120) with the following definition:
在0bbb范围（120）中创建了一个名为UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC的新类，其定义如下：
Class Types or C-types:
类别类型或C类型：
Same values as FLOWSPEC object (C-Num 9)
与FLOWSPEC对象相同的值（C-Num 9）
A new class named UPSTREAM_TSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb range (121) with the following definition:
在0bbb范围（121）中创建了一个名为上游_TSPEC的新类，其定义如下：
Class Types or C-types:
类别类型或C类型：
Same values as SENDER_TSPEC object (C-Num 12)
与发送方_TSPEC对象相同的值（C-Num 12）
A new class named UPSTREAM_ADSPEC has been created in the 0bbbbbbb range (122) with the following definition:
在0bbb范围（122）中创建了一个名为上游_ADSPEC的新类，其定义如下：
Class Types or C-types:
类别类型或C类型：
Same values as ADSPEC object (C-Num 13)
与ADSPEC对象相同的值（C-Num 13）
This document introduces new message objects for use in GMPLS signaling [RFC3473] -- specifically the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects. These objects parallel the exiting SENDER_TSPEC, ADSPEC, and FLOWSPEC objects but are used in the opposite direction. As such, any vulnerabilities that are due to the use of the old objects now apply to messages flowing in the reverse direction.
本文档介绍了GMPLS信令[RFC3473]中使用的新消息对象，特别是上游\u TSPEC、上游\u ADSPEC和上游\u FLOWSPEC对象。这些对象与现有SENDER_TSPEC、ADSPEC和FLOWSPEC对象平行，但使用方向相反。因此，由于使用旧对象而导致的任何漏洞现在都适用于反向流动的消息。
From a message standpoint, this document does not introduce any new signaling messages or change the relationship between LSRs that are adjacent in the control plane. As such, this document introduces no additional message- or neighbor-related security considerations.
从消息的角度来看，本文档不会引入任何新的信令消息，也不会更改控制平面中相邻的LSR之间的关系。因此，本文档不引入其他与消息或邻居相关的安全注意事项。
See [RFC3473] for relevant security considerations, and [SEC-FRAMEWORK] for a more general discussion on RSVP-TE security discussions.
有关安全注意事项，请参见[RFC3473]，有关RSVP-TE安全讨论的更一般性讨论，请参见[SEC-FRAMEWORK]。
[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.
[RFC2205]Braden，R.，Ed.，Zhang，L.，Berson，S.，Herzog，S.，和S.Jamin，“资源预留协议（RSVP）——版本1功能规范”，RFC 22052997年9月。
[RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
[RFC2210]Wroclawski，J.，“RSVP与IETF集成服务的使用”，RFC 2210，1997年9月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[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.
[RFC3209]Awduche，D.，Berger，L.，Gan，D.，Li，T.，Srinivasan，V.，和G.Swallow，“RSVP-TE：LSP隧道RSVP的扩展”，RFC 3209，2001年12月。
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3473]Berger，L.，Ed.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）扩展”，RFC 3473，2003年1月。
[GMPLS-PBBTE] Fedyk, D., et al "GMPLS Control of Ethernet", Work in Progress, July 2008.
[GMPLS-PBBTE]Fedyk，D.等人，“以太网的GMPLS控制”，正在进行的工作，2008年7月。
[MEF-TRAFFIC] Papadimitriou, D., "MEF Ethernet Traffic Parameters," Work in Progress, October 2008.
[MEF-TRAFFIC]Papadimitriou，D.，“MEF以太网流量参数”，正在进行的工作，2008年10月。
[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, August 2006.
[RFC4606]Mannie，E.和D.Papadimitriou，“同步光网络（SONET）和同步数字体系（SDH）控制的通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）扩展”，RFC 4606，2006年8月。
[RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, January 2006.
[RFC4328]Papadimitriou，D.，编辑，“G.709光传输网络控制的通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令扩展”，RFC 4328，2006年1月。
[RSVP-BNF] Farrel, A. "Reduced Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) A Syntax Used in Various Protocol Specifications", Work in Progress, November 2008.
[RSVP-BNF]Farrel，A.“简化的巴科斯诺尔形式（RBNF）是各种协议规范中使用的语法”，正在进行的工作，2008年11月。
[SEC-FRAMEWORK] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", Work in Progress, November 2008.
[SEC-FRAMEWORK]Fang，L.，Ed.，“MPLS和GMPLS网络的安全框架”，正在进行的工作，2008年11月。
A. Appendix A: Alternate Approach Using ADSPEC Object
A.附录A：使用ADSPEC对象的替代方法
This section is included for historic purposes and its implementation is NOT RECOMMENDED.
本节仅用于历史目的，不建议实施。
This section presents an alternate method for the support of asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP establishment with a single RSVP-TE signaling session. This approach differs in applicability and generality from the approach presented in the main body of this document. In particular, this approach is technology-specific; it uses the ADSPEC object to carry traffic parameters for upstream data and requires the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Traffic Parameter, while the approach presented above is suitable for use with any technology.
本节介绍了一种替代方法，用于通过单个RSVP-TE信令会话支持不对称带宽双向LSP建立。该方法的适用性和通用性与本文件正文中介绍的方法不同。特别是，这种方法是特定于技术的；它使用ADSPEC对象来携带上游数据的流量参数，并需要Metro Ethernet Forum（MEF）以太网流量参数，而上述方法适用于任何技术。
The generalized asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP presented in the main body of this document has the benefit of being applicable to any switching technology, but requires support for three new types of object classes, i.e., the UPSTREAM_TSPEC, UPSTREAM_ADSPEC, and UPSTREAM_FLOWSPEC objects.
本文正文中介绍的广义非对称带宽双向LSP具有适用于任何交换技术的优点，但需要支持三种新类型的对象类，即上游_TSPEC、上游_ADSPEC和上游_FLOWSPEC对象。
The solution presented in this section is based on the Ethernet-specific ADSPEC object, and is referred to as the "ADSPEC Object" approach. This approach limits applicability to cases where the [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters are appropriate, and to switching technologies that define no use for the ADSPEC object. While ultimately it is this limited scope that has resulted in this approach being relegated to an Appendix, the semantics of this approach are quite simple in that they only require the definition of a new ADSPEC object C-Type.
本节介绍的解决方案基于以太网特定的ADSPEC对象，称为“ADSPEC对象”方法。这种方法将适用范围限制在[MEF-TRAFFIC]流量参数合适的情况下，以及定义ADSPEC对象不可用的交换技术。虽然最终正是这种有限的范围导致这种方法被归入附录，但这种方法的语义非常简单，因为它们只需要定义一个新的ADSPEC对象C类型。
In summary, the "ADSPEC Object" approach presented in this section SHOULD NOT be implemented.
总之，不应实施本节中介绍的“ADSPEC对象”方法。
The "ADSPEC Object" approach is specific to Ethernet and uses [MEF-TRAFFIC] traffic parameters. This approach is not generic and is aimed at providing asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs for just Ethernet transport. With this approach, the ADSPEC object carries the traffic parameters for the upstream data flow. SENDER_TSPEC object is used to indicate the traffic parameters for the downstream data flow. The FLOWSPEC object provides confirmation of the allocated downstream resources. Confirmation of the upstream resource allocation is a Resv message, as any resource allocation
“ADSPEC对象”方法特定于以太网，并使用[MEF-TRAFFIC]流量参数。这种方法不是通用的，旨在为以太网传输提供非对称带宽双向LSP。使用这种方法，ADSPEC对象携带上游数据流的流量参数。SENDER_TSPEC对象用于指示下游数据流的流量参数。FLOWSPEC对象提供已分配下游资源的确认。与任何资源分配一样，上游资源分配的确认也是一条Resv消息
failure for the upstream direction will always result in a PathErr message. Figure 2 shows the bandwidth-related objects used in the first approach.
上行方向失败将始终导致PathErr消息。图2显示了第一种方法中使用的带宽相关对象。
|---| Path |---|
| I |----------------->| E |
| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
| g | -ADSPEC | r |
| r | | e |
| e | Resv | s |
| s |<-----------------| s |
| s | -FLOWSPEC | |
|---| |---|
|---| Path |---|
| I |----------------->| E |
| n | -SENDER_TSPEC | g |
| g | -ADSPEC | r |
| r | | e |
| e | Resv | s |
| s |<-----------------| s |
| s | -FLOWSPEC | |
|---| |---|
Figure 2: Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional LSPs Using ADSPEC Object
图2：使用ADSPEC对象的非对称带宽双向LSP
In the "ADSPEC Object" approach, the setup of an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP would be signaled using the bidirectional procedures defined in [RFC3473] together with the inclusion of a new ADSPEC object. The new ADSPEC object would be specific to Ethernet and could be called the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object. The Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object would use the Class-Number 13 and C-Type UNASSIGNED (this approach should not be implemented). The format of the object would be the same as the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object defined in [MEF-TRAFFIC].
在“ADSPEC对象”方法中，非对称带宽双向LSP的设置将使用[RFC3473]中定义的双向过程以及新ADSPEC对象的加入发出信号。新的ADSPEC对象特定于以太网，可以称为以太网上游流量参数ADSPEC对象。以太网上游流量参数ADSPEC对象将使用类号13和C-Type UNASSIGNED（不应实现此方法）。该对象的格式将与[MEF-TRAFFIC]中定义的Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC对象相同。
This approach would not modify behavior of symmetric bandwidth LSPs. Per [MEF-TRAFFIC], such LSPs are signaled either without an ADSPEC or with an INTSERV ADSPEC.
此方法不会修改对称带宽LSP的行为。根据[MEF-TRAFFIC]，此类LSP在没有ADSPEC或INTSERV ADSPEC的情况下发出信号。
The defined approach could be reused to support asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSPs for other types of switching technologies. All that would be needed would be to define the proper ADSPEC object.
定义的方法可以重用，以支持其他类型交换技术的非对称带宽双向LSP。所需要的只是定义适当的ADSPEC对象。
Using the approach presented in this section, the process of establishing an asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP would follow the process of establishing a symmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP, as defined in Section 3 of [RFC3473], with two modifications. These modifications would be followed when an incoming Path message is received containing an Upstream_Label object and the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object.
使用本节中介绍的方法，建立非对称带宽双向LSP的过程将遵循[RFC3473]第3节中定义的建立对称带宽双向LSP的过程，并进行两次修改。当接收到包含上游标签对象和以太网上游流量参数ADSPEC对象的传入路径消息时，将遵循这些修改。
The first modification to the symmetric bandwidth process would be that when allocating the upstream label, the bandwidth associated with the upstream label would be taken from the Ethernet Upstream Traffic Parameter ADSPEC object, see Section 3.1 of [RFC3473].
对称带宽过程的第一个修改是，在分配上游标签时，与上游标签相关的带宽将取自以太网上游流量参数ADSPEC对象，参见[RFC3473]的第3.1节。
Consistent with [RFC3473], a node that is unable to allocate a label or internal resources based on the contents of the ADSPEC object, would issue a PathErr message with a "Routing problem/MPLS label allocation failure" indication.
与[RFC3473]一致，无法根据ADSPEC对象的内容分配标签或内部资源的节点将发出带有“路由问题/MPLS标签分配失败”指示的PathErr消息。
The second modification would be that the ADSPEC object would not be modified by transit nodes.
第二个修改是，传输节点不会修改ADSPEC对象。
The approach presented in this section reuses semantics and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. To indicate the use of asymmetric bandwidth, a new ADSPEC object C-type would be defined. Per [RFC2205], nodes not supporting the approach should not recognize this new C-type and respond with an "Unknown object C-Type" error.
本节介绍的方法重用了[RFC3473]中定义的语义和过程。为了指示不对称带宽的使用，将定义一个新的ADSPEC对象C-type。根据[RFC2205]，不支持该方法的节点不应识别该新的C类型，并以“未知对象C类型”错误响应。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Lou Berger LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Lou Berger LabN咨询公司，L.L.C。
EMail: lberger@labn.net
EMail: lberger@labn.net
Attila Takacs Ericsson 1. Laborc u. 1037 Budapest, Hungary
阿提拉·塔卡茨·爱立信1号。劳工大学。匈牙利布达佩斯1037
Phone: +36-1-4377044
EMail: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Phone: +36-1-4377044
EMail: attila.takacs@ericsson.com
Diego Caviglia Ericsson Via A. Negrone 1/A Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
Diego Caviglia Ericsson Via A.Negrone 1/A Genova Sestri Ponente，意大利
Phone: +390106003738
EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Phone: +390106003738
EMail: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Don Fedyk Nortel Networks 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA, USA 01821
美国马萨诸塞州比尔里卡市唐费迪克北电网络科技园大道600号01821
Phone: +1-978-288-3041
EMail: dwfedyk@nortel.com
Phone: +1-978-288-3041
EMail: dwfedyk@nortel.com
Julien Meuric France Telecom Research & Development 2, avenue Pierre Marzin 22307 Lannion Cedex - France
Julien Meuria法国电信研发2号，皮埃尔马津大街22307拉尼翁塞德斯-法国
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
EMail: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com
Phone: +33 2 96 05 28 28
EMail: julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com