Skip to main content

Mutually Exclusive Link Group (MELG)
draft-beeram-ccamp-melg-02

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision is Expired
Authors Vishnu Pavan Beeram , Igor Bryskin
Last updated 2013-10-21
Stream (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-beeram-ccamp-melg-02
CCAMP Working Group                            Vishnu Pavan Beeram (Ed) 
 Internet Draft                                         Juniper Networks 
 Intended status: Standards Track                      Igor Bryskin (Ed) 
                                                 ADVA Optical Networking 
      
 Expires: April 21, 2014                                October 21, 2013 
                                         
      
                                           
                    Mutually Exclusive Link Group (MELG) 
                       draft-beeram-ccamp-melg-02.txt 

 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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that 
    other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
    Drafts. 
         
    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." 
         
    The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 
    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 
         
    The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
         
    This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2014. 
         
 Copyright Notice 

    Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 
    document authors. All rights reserved.  
         
    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 
    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents  
    (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 
    publication of this document. Please review these documents 
    carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 
    respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this 
    document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 

      
      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 1] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

    Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 
    warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 
          
 Abstract 

    This document introduces the concept of MELG ("Mutually Exclusive 
    Link Group") and discusses its usage in the context of mutually 
    exclusive Virtual TE Links. 

 Conventions used in this document 

    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]. 
         

 Table of Contents 

         
    1. Introduction...................................................2 
    2. Virtual TE Link - Semantics....................................3 
    3. Mutually Exclusive Virtual TE Links............................3 
       3.1. Static vs Dynamic.........................................4 
    4. Static Mutual Exclusivity......................................4 
    5. Mutually Exclusive Link Group..................................7 
    6. Protocol Extensions............................................8 
       6.1. OSPF......................................................8 
       6.2. ISIS......................................................9 
    7. Security Considerations.......................................10 
    8. IANA Considerations...........................................10 
       8.1. OSPF.....................................................10 
       8.2. ISIS.....................................................10 
    9. Normative References..........................................10 
    10. Acknowledgments..............................................11 
         
 1. Introduction 

    A Virtual TE Link (as defined in [RFC6001]) advertised into a Client 
    Network Domain represents a potentiality to setup an LSP in the 
    Server Network Domain to support the advertised TE link. The Virtual 
    TE Link gets advertised like any other TE link and follows the same 
    rules that are defined for the advertising, processing and use of 
    regular TE links [RFC4202]. However, "mutual exclusivity" is one 
    attribute that is specific to Virtual TE links. This document 
    discusses the different types of mutual exclusivity (Static vs 
    Dynamic) that come into play and explains the need to advertise this 
      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 2] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

    information into the Client TEDB. It then goes onto introduce a new 
    TE construct (MELG) to carry static mutual exclusivity information.  

 2. Virtual TE Link - Semantics 

    A Virtual TE Link (as per existing definitions) represents the 
    potentiality to setup a server layer LSP, but there are currently no 
    strict guidelines imposed on how the underlying server layer LSP 
    would need to get set up. The characteristics of the underlying 
    server-path are not necessarily pinned down until the Virtual TE 
    Link gets actually committed. This means that some important 
    characteristics of the Virtual TE Link like shared-risk and delay 
    (and mutual exclusivity information) may not be known until the 
    corresponding server layer LSP is set up. This makes resource 
    planning (for example - pre-configuring network failure recovery 
    schemes) in a multi-layer network that includes Virtual TE Links a 
    very hard problem. 

    This document uses a slightly enhanced view of a Virtual TE Link. In 
    the context of this document, the Virtual TE Link (even when it is 
    uncommitted) is always aware of the key characteristics of the 
    underlying server-path. The creation and maintenance of this Virtual 
    TE Link is strictly driven by policy. Policy not only determines 
    which Virtual TE Link to create (What termination points?), but it 
    may also constrain how the corresponding underlying server layer LSP 
    (What path?) needs to get set up. The basic idea behind this 
    "enhanced view" is that it makes the "Virtual TE Link" get as close 
    as it can to representing a "Real TE Link". 

    Also, as per this document, a Virtual TE Link remains a Virtual TE 
    Link through-out its life-time (until it gets deleted by the 
    user/policy). It may get committed (underlying server LSP gets set 
    up) and uncommitted (underlying server LSP gets deleted) from time 
    to time, but it never really loses it "Virtual" property. 

 3. Mutually Exclusive Virtual TE Links 

    Mutual Exclusivity comes into play when multiple Virtual TE Links 
    are dependent on the usage of the same underlying server resource. 
    Since not all of these Virtual TE Links can get committed at the 
    same time, they are deemed to be mutually exclusive. 
         
    The existence of this "mutual exclusivity" property would need to be 
    advertised into the Client TE Domain. This is of relevance to Client 
    Path Computation engines; especially those that are capable of doing 
    concurrent computations. If this information is absent, there exists 
      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 3] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

    the risk of the Computation engine yielding erroneous concurrent 
    path computation results where only a subset of the computed paths 
    get successfully provisioned. 
      
    The "Mutual Exclusivity" property of a Virtual TE Link can be either 
    static or dynamic in nature. 
         
 3.1. Static vs Dynamic 

    Static Mutual Exclusivity: This type of mutual exclusivity exists 
    permanently within a given network configuration. It comes into play 
    when two or more Virtual TE Links depend on the usage of the same 
    non-shareable underlying server network domain resource. This 
    resource gets used up in its entirety by a single Virtual TE Link 
    when committed. Such resources exist only in the WDM layer. 
         
    Dynamic Mutual Exclusivity: This type of mutual exclusivity exists 
    temporarily within a given network configuration. It comes into play 
    when two or more Virtual TE Links depend on the usage of the same 
    shareable underlying server network domain resource. Mutual 
    Exclusivity exists when the amount of the server resource that is 
    available for sharing is limited; it ceases to exist when sufficient 
    amount of the resource is available for accommodating all 
    corresponding Virtual TE Links. Such resources exist in all layers. 
         
    Because of their inherent difference, the advertisement paradigm of 
    the TE construct required to carry static mutual exclusivity 
    information is quite different from that of the TE construct 
    required to carry dynamic mutual exclusivity information. Static 
    mutual exclusivity Information can get advertised per TE-Link using 
    a simple sub-TLV construct. There wouldn't be any scaling issues 
    with this approach because of the static nature of the information 
    that gets advertised. On the contrary, advertising dynamic mutual 
    exclusivity information per TE-Link poses serious scaling concerns 
    and hence requires a different type of construct/paradigm. 
         
    This document introduces a new TE construct for carrying static 
    mutual exclusivity information. The mechanisms to address dynamic 
    mutual exclusivity are discussed in a separate document [SRcLG].  
         
 4. Static Mutual Exclusivity 

    Consider the network topology depicted in Figure 1a. This is a 
    typical packet optical transport deployment scenario where the WDM 
    layer network domain serves as a Server Network Domain providing 

      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 4] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

    transport connectivity to the packet layer network Domain (Client 
    Network Domain).   

                               | 
                               | +---+            /-\ 
                               | |   | Router    (   ) WDM  
                               | +---+ Node       \-/  node 
                               |________________________________ 
                                    
  +---+        /-\          /-\           /-\          +---+ 
  | R1|-------( A )--------( C )---------( E )---------| R3| 
  +---+        \-/          \-/           \-/          +---+ 
                           /   \         /   \ 
                          /     \       /     \ 
                         /       \     /       \ 
                        /         \   /         \ 
                       /           \ /           \ 
      +---+          /-\           /-\           /-\          +---+ 
      | R2|---------( B )---------( D )---------( F )---------| R4| 
      +---+          \-/           \-/           \-/          +---+ 

                     Figure 1a: Sample topology 

       

      -------------                        |  [ ] Client TE Node 
      | Client TE |                        |  +++ Client TE Link 
      | DataBase  |                        |_____________________                 
      ------------- 
         [R1] ++++++++ [A]                  [E] +++++++++ [R3] 
                       
                                       
                             
         [R2] ++++++++ [B]                  [F] +++++++++ [R4]  
              

                      Figure 1b: Client TE Database 

    Nodes R1, R2, R3 and R4 are IP routers that are connected to an 
    Optical WDM transport network. A, B, C, D, E and F are WDM nodes 
    that constitute the Server Network Domain. The border nodes (A, B, E 
   
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 5] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

    and F) operate in both the server and client domains. Figure 1b 
    depicts how the Client Network Domain TE topology looks like when 
    there are no Client TE Links provisioned across the optical domain. 

      

                                | *****  B-F WDM Path                         
                                | @@@@@  B-E WDM Path  
                                |________________________________ 
                                      
  +---+        /-\          /-\ @@@@@@@@@ /-\          +---+ 
  | R1|-------( A )--------( C )---------( E )---------| R3| 
  +---+        \-/         @\-/           \-/          +---+ 
                          @/   \         /   \ 
                         @/     \       /     \ 
                        @/       \     /       \ 
                       @/         \   /         \ 
                      @/           \ /           \ 
      +---+          /-\ ********* /-\ ********* /-\          +---+ 
      | R2|---------( B )---------( D )---------( F )---------| R4| 
      +---+          \-/           \-/           \-/          +---+ 

            Figure 2a: Mutually Exclusive potential WDM paths 

                                          

       ------------   |  TE-Links B-F and B-E are mutually exclusive;   
       | Client-TE|   |  They depend on the usage of the same  
       | Database |   |  underlying non-shareable server resource    
       ------------   |_____________________________________________   
                 
         [R1] ++++++++ [A]                      [E] +++++++++ [R3] 
                                           +++++  
                                       ++++         
                                   ++++    
                               ++++      
                           ++++           
         [R2] ++++++++ [B] ++++++++++++++++++++ [F] +++++++++ [R4]  
              

   Figure 2b: Client TE Database - Mutually Exclusive Virtual TE Links 
      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 6] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

         
    Now consider augmenting the Client TE topology by creating a couple 
    of Virtual TE Links across the optical domain. The potential paths 
    in the WDM network catering to these two virtual TE links are as 
    shown in Fig 2a and the corresponding augmented Client TE topology 
    is as illustrated in Fig 2b. 
         
    In this particular example, the potential paths in the WDM layer 
    network supporting the Virtual TE Links require the usage of the 
    same source transponder (on "Node B"). Because the Virtual TE Links 
    depend on the same uncommitted network resource, only one of them 
    could get activated at any given time. In other words they are 
    mutually exclusive. This scenario is encountered when the potential 
    paths depend on any common physical resource (e.g. transponder, 
    regenerator, wavelength converter, etc.) that could be used by only 
    one Server Network Domain LSP at a time.  
         
    This document proposes the use of "Mutually Exclusive Link Group 
    (MELG)" for catering to this scenario. 
         
 5. Mutually Exclusive Link Group 

    The Mutually Exclusive Link Group (MELG) construct defined in this 
    document has 2 purposes 
         
    - To indicate via a separate network unique number (MELG ID) an 
      element or a situation that makes the advertised Virtual TE Link 
      belong to one or more Mutually Exclusive Link Groups. Path 
      computing element will be able to decide on whether two or more 
      Virtual TE Links are mutually exclusive or not by finding an 
      overlap of advertised MELGs (similar to deciding on whether two or 
      more TE links share fate or not by finding common SRLGs) 
           
    - To indicate whether the advertised Virtual TE Link is committed or 
      not at the moment of the advertising. Such information is 
      important for a path computation element: Committing new Virtual 
      TE links (vs. re-using already committed ones) has a consequence 
      of allocating more server layer resources and disabling other 
      Virtual TE Links that have common MELGs with newly committed 
      Virtual TE Links; Committing a new Virtual TE Link also means a 
      longer setup time for the Client LSP and higher risk of setup-
      failure.  
      

      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 7] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

 6. Protocol Extensions 

 6.1. OSPF 

    The MELG is a sub-TLV of the top level TE Link TLV. It may occur at 
    most once within the Link TLV. The format of the MELGs sub-TLV is 
    defined as follows: 

    Name: MELG 
    Type: TBD 
    Length: Variable 
         
                     
    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 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |            Sub-TLV Type       |            Sub-TLV Length     | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |    VTE-Flags (16 bits)     |U |  Number of MELGs (16 bits)    | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |                 MELGID1 (64 bits)                             | 
    |                 MELGID2 (64 bits)                             | 
    |                ........................                       | 
    |                 MELGIDn (64 bits)                             | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
         
    Number of MELGs:              number of MELGS advertised for the  
                                  Virtual TE Link; 
    VTE-Flags:                    Virtual TE Link specific flags; 
    MELGID1,MELGID2,...,MELGIDn:  64-bit network domain unique numbers  
                                  associated with each of the advertised  
                                  MELGs    
         
    Currently defined Virtual TE Link specific flags are: 
       U bit (bit 1): Uncommitted - if set, the Virtual TE Link is 
       uncommitted at the time of the advertising (i.e. the server layer 
       network LSP is not set up); if cleared, the Virtual TE Link is 
       committed (i.e. the server layer LSP is fully provisioned and 
       functioning). All other bits of the "VTE-Flags" field are 
       reserved for future use and MUST be cleared. 

         
    Note: A Virtual TE Link advertisement MAY include MELGs sub-TLV with 
    zero MELGs for the purpose of communicating to the TE domain whether 
    the Virtual TE Link is currently committed or not. 

      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 8] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

 6.2. ISIS 

    The MELG TLV (of type TBD) contains a data structure consisting of: 

       6        octets of System ID 
       1        octet of Pseudonode Number 
       1        octet Flag 
       4        octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link  
                Local Identifier 
       4        octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link  
                Remote Identifier 
       2        octets MELG-Flags 
       2        octets - Number of MELGs 
       variable List of MELG values, where each element in the list 
                has 8 octets 
               
    The following illustrates encoding of the value field of the MELG 
    TLV. 
         
         
     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 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |                           System ID                           | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |        System ID (cont.)      |Pseudonode num |    Flags      | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |          Ipv4 interface address/Link Local Identifier         | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |          Ipv4 neighbor address/Link Remote Identifier         | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |    VTE-Flags (16 bits)     |U |  Number of MELGs (16 bits)    | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |                 MELGID1 (64 bits)                             | 
    |                 MELGID2 (64 bits)                             | 
    |                ........................                       | 
    |                 MELGIDn (64 bits)                             | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
        
    The neighbor is identified by its System ID (6 octets), plus one  
    octet to indicate the pseudonode number if the neighbor is on a LAN 
    interface. 
         

      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                 [Page 9] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

    The least significant bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the   
    interface is numbered (set to 1) or unnumbered (set to 0). All other 
    bits are reserved and should be set to 0. 
      
    The length of the TLV is 20 + 8 * (number of MELG values). 
      
    The semantics of "VTE-Flags", "Number of MELGs" and "MELGID Values" 
    are the same as the ones defined under OSPF extensions.  
      
    The MELG TLV MAY occur more than once within the IS-IS Link State 
    Protocol Data Units. 
         
 7. Security Considerations 

    TBD 

 8. IANA Considerations 

 8.1. OSPF 

    IANA is requested to allocate a new sub-TLV type for MELG (as 
    defined in Section 6.1) under the top-level TE Link TLV. 

 8.2. ISIS 

    IANA is requested to allocate a new IS-IS TLV type for MELG (as 
    defined in Section 6.2). 

 9. Normative References 

    [RFC2119]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
         
    [RFC4202]    K.Kompella, Y.Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support 
                 of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",  
                 RFC4202, October 2005. 
         
    [RFC6001]    D.Papadimitriou, M.Vigoureax, K.Shiomoto, D.Brungard  
                 and JL. Le Roux, "GMPLS Protocol Extensions for Multi- 
                 Layer and Multi-Region Networks", RFC 6001, October  
                 2010. 
         
    [SRcLG]      Beeram, V., "Shared Resource Link Group",  
                 draft-beeram-ccamp-srclg, October 2013 
      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 10] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

         

 10. Acknowledgments 

    Chris Bowers [cbowers@juniper.net] 

         
 Authors' Addresses 

    Vishnu Pavan Beeram 
    Juniper Networks 
    Email: vbeeram@juniper.net 
         
    Igor Bryskin 
    ADVA Optical Networking 
    Email: ibryskin@advaoptical.com 
         
    John Drake 
    Juniper Networks 
    Email: jdrake@juniper.net 
         
    Gert Grammel 
    Juniper Networks 
    Email: ggrammel@juniper.net 
         
    Wes Doonan 
    Email: wddlists@gmail.com 
         
    Manuel Paul 
    Deutsche Telekom 
    Email: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de 
          
    Ruediger Kunze 
    Deutsche Telekom 
    Email: Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de 
          
    Oscar Gonzalez de Dios  
    Telefonica 
    Email: ogondio@tid.es 
         
    Cyril Margaria 
    Email: cyril.margaria@gmail.com 
         
    Friedrich Armbruster 
   
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 11] 
 

 Internet-Draft                   MELG                      October 2013 
         

    Coriant GmbH 
    Email: friedrich.armbruster@coriant.com 
          
    Daniele Ceccarelli 
    Ericsson 
    Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com 
         
    Fatai Zhang 
    Huawei Technologies 
    Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com 
         
         

      
      
      
 Beeram, et al           Expires April 21, 2014                [Page 12]