Use Cases and Requirements for MPLS-TP multi-failure protection
draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-04

Network Working Group                                             Z. Cui
Internet-Draft                                                 R. Winter
Intended status: Standards Track                                     NEC
Expires: September 10, 2015                                      H. Shah
                                                                   Ciena
                                                               S. Aldrin
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                              M. Daikoku
                                                                    KDDI
                                                           March 9, 2015

    Use Cases and Requirements for MPLS-TP multi-failure protection
           draft-cui-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements-04

Abstract

   For the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
   linear protection capable of 1+1 and 1:1 protection has already been
   defined in [RFC6378], [RFC7271] and [RFC7324].  That linear
   protection mechanism has not been designed for handling multiple,
   simultaneously occurring failures, e.g., multiple failures that
   affect the working and the protection entity during the same time
   period.  In these situations currently defined protection mechanisms
   would fail.

   This document introduces use cases and requirements for mechanisms
   that are capable of protecting against such failures.  It does not
   specify a protection mechanism itself.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2015.

Cui, et al.            Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Multi-failure protection requirements       March 2015

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Document scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology and References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  General m:n protection scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  m:1 (m > 1) protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Pre-configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.2.  On-demand configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  m:n (m, n > 1, n >= m > 1) protection . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   Today's businesses require reliable network connectivity and access
   to corporate resources.  Connections to and from business units,
   vendors and SOHOs are all equally important to keep the continuity
   when needed.  Business runs all day, every day and even in off hours.
   So, the network connectivity needs to keep all the time.  This is
   sometimes referred to five nines (99.999%) uptime in a time period.
   For this reason, ensuring survivability through careful network
   design and appropriate technical means is important.

   In MPLS-TP networks, a basic survivability technique is available as
   specified in [RFC6378], [RFC7271] and [RFC7324].  That protocol
   however is limited to 1+1 and 1:1 protection and not designed to
   handle multiple failures that affect both the working and protection
   entity at the same time.

Cui, et al.            Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    Multi-failure protection requirements       March 2015

   There are various situations where above multiple failures to be
   considered, e.g., after catastrophic events such as earthquakes or
   tsunamis.  During the period after such events, network availability
   is crucial, in particular for high-priority services such as
   emergency telephone calls.  Existing 1+1 or 1:n protection however is
   limited to cover single failures which has proven as not sufficient
   during past events.

   Beyond the natural disaster case above, when a working entity or
   protection entity was closed for maintenance or construction work,
   the network service becomes vulnerable to single failure since one
   entity is already down.  If a failure occurs during this time, an
   operator might not be able to meet service level agreements (SLA).

   [RFC5654] establishes that MPLS-TP SHOULD MUST support 1+1 protection
   and 1:n protection (including 1:1 protection).  This document
   provides an expansion of the basic requirements of MPLS-TP presented
   in [RFC5654] for supports m:1 and m:n protection for recovers user
   traffic after several failures occurred on both the working and
   protection entity at the same time.

1.1.  Document scope

   This document describes use cases and requirements for m:1 and m:n
   protection in MPLS-TP networks without the use of control plane
   protocols.  Existing solutions based on a control plane such as GMPLS
   may be able to restore user traffic when multiple failures occur.
   Some networks however do not use full control plane operation for
   reasons such as service provider preferences, certain limitations or
   the requirement for fast service restoration (faster than achievable
   with control plane mechanisms).  These networks are the focus of this
   document which defines a set of requirements for m:1 and m:n
   protection not based on control plane support.

2.  Terminology and References

   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].

   The terminology used in this document is based on the terminology
   defined in the MPLS-TP Survivability Framework document [RFC6372],
   which in turn is based on [RFC4427].

   In particular, the following protection types are made in [RFC4427].

   o  1+1 protection

Cui, et al.            Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft    Multi-failure protection requirements       March 2015

   o  1:n (n >= 1) protection

   o  m:n (m, n > 1, n >= m > 1) protection

   In this document, the following additional terminology is applied:

   o  "broadcast bridge", defined in [RFC4427].

   o  "selector bridge", defined in [RFC4427].

   o  "working entity", defined in [RFC4427].

   o  "protection entity", defined in [RFC4427].

   This document defines a new protection type:

   o  m:1 (m > 1) protection: A set of m protection entities protects a
      working entity.

3.  General m:n protection scenario

   The general underlying assumption of this work is that an m:n
   relationship between protection entity and working entity exists,
   i.e. there is no artificial limitation on the ratio between
   protection and working entities.

   This general scenario is illustrated in Figure 1 which shows a
   protection domain with n working entities and m protection entities
   between Node A and Node Z.

   At the Node A and in the absence of faults, traffic is transported
   over its respective working entity and may be simultaneously
   transported over one of its protection entities (in case of a
   broadcast bridge), or it is transported over its working entity and
   only in case of failure over one of the protection entities (in case
   of a selector bridge).  At the Node Z, the traffic is selected from
   either its working entity or one of the protection entities.

Cui, et al.            Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft    Multi-failure protection requirements       March 2015

                +------+                             +------+
                |Node A|     working entity #1       |Node Z|
                |      |=============================|      |
                |      |           ....              |      |
                |      |     working entity #n       |      |
                |      |=============================|      |
                |      |                             |      |
                |      |                             |      |
                |      |     protection entity #1    |      |
                |      |*****************************|      |
                |      |           ....              |      |
                |      |     protection entity #m    |      |
                |      |*****************************|      |
                +------+                             +------+
                    |--------Protection Domain--------|

                      Figure 1: m:n protection domain

4.  Use cases

4.1.  m:1 (m > 1) protection

   With MPLS-TP linear protection such as 1+1/1:1 protection, when a
   single failure is detected on the working entity, the service can be
   restored using the protection entity.  During this time however, the
   traffic is unprotected until the working entity is restored.

   m:1 protection can increase service availability and reduce
   operational pressure since multiple protection entities are
   available.  For any m > 1, m - 1 protection entities may fail and the
   service still would have a protection entity available.

   There are different ways to provision these alternative protection
   entities which are outlined in the following sub-sections.

4.1.1.  Pre-configuration

   The relationship between the working entity and the protection
   entities is part of the system configuration and needs to be
   configured before the working entity is being used.  The same applies
   to additional protection entities.

   Unprotected traffic can be transported over the m protection entities
   as long as these entities do not carry protected traffic.

Cui, et al.            Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft    Multi-failure protection requirements       March 2015

4.1.2.  On-demand configuration

   The protection relationship between a working entity and a protection
   entity is configured while the system is in operation.

   Additional protection entities are configured by either a control
   plane protocol or static configuration using a management system
   directly after failure detection and/or notification of either the
   working entity or the protection entity.

4.2.  m:n (m, n > 1, n >= m > 1) protection

   In order to reduce the cost of protection entities, in the m:n
   scenario, m dedicated protection transport entities are sharing
   protection resources for n working transport entities.

   The bandwidth of each protection entity should be allocated in such a
   way that it may be possible to protect any of the n working entities
   in case at least one of the m protection entities is available.  When
   a working entity is determined to be impaired, its traffic first must
   be assigned to an available protection transport entity followed by a
   transition from the working to the assigned protection entity at both
   the Node A and Node Z of the protected domain.  It is noted that when
   more than m working entities are impaired, only m working entities
   can be protected.

5.  Requirements

   A number of recovery requirements are defined in [RFC5654].  These
   requirements however are limited to cover single failure case and not
   multiple, simultaneously occurring failures.  This section extends
   the list of requirements to support multiple failures scenarios.

   R1.  MPLS-TP MUST support m:1 (m > 1) protection.

   1  An m:1 protection mechanism MUST protect against multiple failures
       that are detected on both the working path and one or more
       protection paths.

   2  Pre-configuration of protection paths SHOULD be supported.

   3  On-demand protection path configuration MAY be supported.

   4  On-demand protection resource activation MAY be supported.

   5  A priority scheme MUST be provided, since a protection path has to
       chosen out of two or more protection paths.

Cui, et al.            Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft    Multi-failure protection requirements       March 2015

   R2.  MPLS-TP MUST support m:n (m, n > 1, n >= m > 1) protection.

   1  An m:n protection mechanism MUST protect against multiple failures
       that are simultaneously detected on both a working path and
       protection path or multiple working paths.

   2  A priority scheme MUST be provided, since protection resources are
       shared by multiple working paths dynamically.

6.  Security Considerations

   General security considerations for MPLS-TP are covered in [RFC5921].
   The security considerations for the generic associated control
   channel are described in [RFC5586].

   The requirements described in this document are extensions to the
   requirements presented in [RFC5654] and does not introduce any new
   security risks.

7.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4427]  Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Recovery (Protection and
              Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol
              Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4427, March 2006.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
              Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

   [RFC5654]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N.,
              and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile",
              RFC 5654, September 2009.

   [RFC5921]  Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., Levrau, L., and L.
              Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks", RFC
              5921, July 2010.

   [RFC6372]  Sprecher, N. and A. Farrel, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
              TP) Survivability Framework", RFC 6372, September 2011.

   [RFC6378]  Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher, N., and
              A. Fulignoli, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear
              Protection", RFC 6378, October 2011.

Cui, et al.            Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft    Multi-failure protection requirements       March 2015

   [RFC7271]  Ryoo, J., Gray, E., van Helvoort, H., D'Alessandro, A.,
              Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
              TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational
              Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical
              Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
              Operators", RFC 7271, June 2014.

   [RFC7324]  Osborne, E., "Updates to MPLS Transport Profile Linear
              Protection", RFC 7324, July 2014.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhenlong Cui
   NEC

   Email: c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com

   Rolf Winter
   NEC

   Email: Rolf.Winter@neclab.eu

   Himanshu Shah
   Ciena

   Email: hshah@ciena.com

   Sam Aldrin
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com

   Masahiro Daikoku
   KDDI

   Email: ms-daikoku@kddi.com

Cui, et al.            Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 8]