A PCE-based Architecture for Application-based Network Operations
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7491.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Daniel King , Adrian Farrel | ||
| Last updated | 2013-07-14 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
OPSDIR Early review
(of
-11)
by Tina Tsou
Has issues
|
||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 7491 (Informational) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04
Internet Engineering Task Force D. King
Internet-Draft Old Dog Consulting
Intended status: Informational A. Farrel
Expires: 15 January 2014 Juniper Networks
15 July 2013
A PCE-based Architecture for Application-based Network Operations
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt
Abstract
Services such as content distribution, distributed databases, or
inter-data center connectivity place a set of new requirements on the
operation of networks. They need on-demand and application-specific
reservation of network connectivity, reliability, and resources (such
as bandwidth) in a variety of network applications (such as point-to-
point connectivity, network virtualization, or mobile back-haul) and
in a range of network technologies from packet (IP/MPLS) down to
optical. An environment that operates to meet this type of
requirement is said to have Application-Based Network Operations
(ABNO).
ABNO brings together many existing technologies for gathering
information about the resources available in a network, for
consideration of topologies and how those topologies map to
underlying network resources, for requesting path computation, and
for provisioning or reserving network resources. Thus, ABNO may be
seen as the use of a toolbox of existing components enhanced with a
few new elements. The key component within an ABNO is the Path
Computation Element (PCE), which can be used for computing paths and
is further extended to provide policy enforcement capabilities for
ABNO.
This document describes an architecture and framework for ABNO
showing how these components fit together. It provides a cookbook of
existing technologies to satisfy the architecture and meet the needs
of the applications.
King & Farrel [Page 1]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 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 Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
King & Farrel [Page 2]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 4
1.1 Scope ..................................................... 5
2. Application-based Network Operations (ABNO) .................. 5
2.1 Assumptions and Requirements .............................. 5
2.2 Implementation of the Architecture ........................ 6
2.3 Generic Architecture ...................................... 8
2.3.1 ABNO Components ........................................ 9
2.3.2 ABNO Functional Interfaces ............................ 14
3. ABNO Use Cases .............................................. 21
3.1 Inter-AS Connectivity ..................................... 21
3.2 Multi-Layer Networking .................................... 27
3.2.1 Data Center (DC) Interconnection across MLNs........... 31
3.3 Make-Before-Break ......................................... 34
3.3.1 Make-Before-Break for Re-optimization ................. 34
3.3.2 Make-Before-Break for Restoration ..................... 35
3.3.3 Make-Before-Break for Path Test and Selection ......... 36
3.4 Global Concurrent Optimization ............................ 38
3.4.1 Use Case: GCO with MPLS LSPs .......................... 39
3.5 Adaptive Network Management (ANM) ......................... 41
3.5.1. ANM Trigger ........................................ 42
3.5.2. Processing request and GCO computation ............. 42
3.5.3. Automated Provisioning Process ..................... 43
3.6 Pseudowire Operations and Management ...................... 44
3.6.1 Multi-Segment Pseudowires ........................... 44
3.6.2 Path-Diverse Pseudowires ............................ 46
3.6.3 Path-Diverse Multi-Segment Pseudowires .............. 47
3.6.4 Pseudowire Segment Protection ....................... 48
3.6.5 Applicability of ABNO to Pseudowires ................ 48
3.7 Other Potential Use Cases ................................. 49
3.7.1 Grooming and Regrooming ............................. 49
3.7.2 Bandwidth Scheduling ................................ 49
3.7.3 ALTO Server ......................................... 49
4. Survivability and Redundancy within the ABNO Architecture ... 49
5. Security Consideration ...................................... 49
6. Manageability Considerations ................................ 49
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 50
8. Acknowledgements ............................................ 50
9. References .................................................. 50
9.1 Informative References ................................... 50
10. Contributors' Addresses .................................... 54
11. Authors' Addresses ......................................... 54
A. Undefined Interfaces ........................................ 55
King & Farrel [Page 3]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
1. Introduction
Networks today integrate multiple technologies allowing network
infrastructure to deliver a variety of services to support the
different characteristics and demands of applications. There is an
increasing demand to make the network responsive to service requests
issued directly from the application layer. This differs from the
established model where services in the network are delivered in
response to management commands driven by a human user.
These application-driven requests and the services they establish
place a set of new requirements on the operation of networks. They
need on-demand and application-specific reservation of network
connectivity, reliability, and resources (such as bandwidth) in a
variety of network applications (such as point-to-point connectivity,
network virtualization, or mobile back-haul) and in a range of
network technologies from packet (IP/MPLS) down to optical. An
environment that operates to meet this type of application-aware
requirement is said to have Application-Based Network Operation
(ABNO).
The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] was developed to provide
path computation services for GMPLS and MPLS networks. The
applicability of PCE can be extended to provide path computation and
policy enforcement capabilities for ABNO platforms and services.
ABNO can provide the following types of service to applications by
coordinating the components that operate and manage the network:
- Optimization of traffic flows between applications to create an
overlay network for communication in use cases such as file
sharing, data caching or mirroring, media streaming, or real-time
communications described as Application Layer Traffic Optimization
(ALTO) [RFC5693].
- Remote control of network components allowing coordinated
programming of network resources through such techniques as
Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) [RFC3746],
OpenFlow [ONF], and the Interface to the Routing System (I2RS)
[I-D.atlas-i2rs-architecture].
- Interconnection of Content Delivery Networks (CDNi) [RFC6707]
through the establishment and resizing of connections between
content distribution networks.
- Network resource coordination to facilitate grooming and
regrooming, bandwidth scheduling, and global concurrent
optimization [RFC5557].
King & Farrel [Page 4]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
- Virtual Private Network (VPN) planning in support of deployment of
new VPN customers and to facilitate inter-data center connectivity.
This document outlines the architecture and use cases for ABNO, and
shows how the ABNO architecture can be used for co-ordinating control
system and application requests to compute paths, enforce policies,
and manage network resources for the benefit of the applications that
use the network. The examination of the use cases shows the ABNO
architecture as a toolkit comprising many existing components and
protocols and so this document looks like a cookbook.
1.1 Scope
This document describes a toolkit. It shows how existing functional
components described in a large number of separate documents can be
brought together within a single architecture to provide the function
necessary for ABNO.
In many cases, existing protocols are known to be good enough or
almost good enough to satisfy the requirements of interfaces between
the components. In these cases the protocols are called out as
suitable candidates for use within an implementation of ABNO.
In other cases it is clear that further work will be required, and in
those cases a pointer to on-going work that may be of use is
provided. Where there is no current work that can be identified by
the authors, a short description of the missing interface protocol is
given in the Appendix.
Thus, this document may be seen as providing an applicability
statement for existing protocols, and guidance for developers of new
protocols or protocol extensions.
2. Application Based Network Operations (ABNO)
2.1 Assumptions
The principal assumption underlying this document is that existing
technologies should be used where they are adequate for the task.
Furthermore, when an existing technology is almost sufficient, it is
assumed to be preferable to make minor extensions rather than to
invent a whole new technology.
Note that this document describes an architecture. Functional
components are architectural concepts and have distinct and clear
responsibilities. Pairs of functional components interact at
functional interfaces that are, themselves, architectural concepts.
King & Farrel [Page 5]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
2.2 Implementation of the Architecture
It needs to be strongly emphasized that this document describes a
functional architecture. It is not a software design. Thus, it is
not intended that this architecture constrain implementations.
However, the separation of the ABNO functions into separate
functional components with clear interfaces between them enables
implementations to choose which features to include and allows
different functions to be distributed across distinct processes or
even processors.
An implementation of this architecture may make several important
decisions about the functional components:
- Multiple functional components may be grouped together into one
software component such that all of the functions are bundled
and only the external interfaces are exposed. This may have
distinct advantages for fast paths within the software, and can
reduce inter-process communication overhead.
For example, an active, stateful PCE could be implemented as a
single server combining the ABNO components of the PCE, the
Traffic Engineering Database, and the Provisioning Manager (see
Section 2.3).
- The functional components could be distributed across separate
processes, processors, or servers so that the interfaces are
exposed as external protocols.
For example, the OAM Handler (see Section 2.3.1.6) could be
presented on a dedicated server in the network that consumes all
status reports from the network, aggregates them, correlates them,
and then dispatches notifications to other servers that need to
understand what has happened.
- There could be multiple instances of any or each of the
components. That is, the function of a functional component could
be partitioned across multiple software components with each
responsible for handling a specific feature or a partition of the
network.
For example, there may be multiple Traffic Engineering Databases
(see Section 2.3.1.8) in an implementation with each holding the
topology information of a separate network domain (such as a
network layer or an Autonomous System). Similarly there could be
multiple PCE instances each processing on a different Traffic
Engineering Database, and potentially distributed on different
servers under different management control. As a final example,
King & Farrel [Page 6]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
there could be multiple ABNO Controllers each with capability to
support different classes of application or application service.
The purpose of the description of this architecture is to facilitate
different implementations while offering interoperability between
implementations of key components and easy interaction with the
applications and with the network devices.
King & Farrel [Page 7]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
2.3 Generic ABNO Architecture
The following diagram illustrates the ABNO architecture. The
components and functional interfaces are discussed in Sections 2.3.1
2.3.2 respectively. The use cases described in Section 3 show how
different components are used selectively to provide different
services.
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| OSS / NMS / Application Service Coordinator |
+-+---+---+----+-----------+---------------------------------+---+
| | | | | |
...|...|...|....|...........|.................................|......
: | | | | +----+----------------------+ | :
: | | | +--+---+ | | +---+---+ :
: | | | |Policy+--+ ABNO Controller +------+ | :
: | | | |Agent | | +--+ | OAM | :
: | | | +-+--+-+ +-+------------+----------+-+ | |Handler| :
: | | | | | | | | | | | :
: | | +-+---++ | +----+-+ +-------+-------+ | | +---+---+ :
: | | |ALTO | +-+ VNTM |--+ | | | | :
: | | |Server| +--+-+-+ | | | +--+---+ | :
: | | +--+---+ | | | PCE | | | I2RS | | :
: | | | +-------+ | | | | |Client| | :
: | | | | | | | | +-+--+-+ | :
: | +-+----+--+-+ | | | | | | | :
: | | Databases +-------:----+ | | | | | :
: | | TED | | +-+---+----+----+ | | | | :
: | | LSP-DB + | | | | | | | | :
: | +-----+--+--+ +-+---------------+-------+-+ | | | :
: | | | | Provisioning Manager | | | | :
: | | | +-----------------+---+-----+ | | | :
...|.......|..|.................|...|....|...|.......|..|.....|......
| | | | | | | | | |
| +-+--+-----------------+--------+-----------+----+ |
+----/ Client Network Layer \--+
| +----------------------------------------------------+ |
| | | | | |
++------+-------------------------+--------+----------+-----+-+
/ Server Network Layers \
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Generic ABNO Architecture
King & Farrel [Page 8]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
2.3.1 ABNO Components
This section describes the functional components shown as boxes in
Figure 1. The interactions between those components, the functional
interfaces, are described in Section 2.3.2.
2.3.1.1 NMS and OSS
A Network Management Station (NMS) or an Operations Support System
(OSS) can be used to control, operate, and manage a network. Within
the ABNO architecture, an NMS or OSS may issue high-level service
requests to the ABNO Controller. It may also establish policies for
the activities of the components within the architecture.
The NMS and OSS can be consumers of network events reported through
the OAM Handler and can act on these reports as well as displaying
them to users and raising alarms. The NMS and OSS can also access
the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) and Label Switched Path
Database (LSP-DB) to show the users the current state of the network.
Lastly, the NMS and OSS may utilize a direct programmatic or
configuration interface to interact with the network elements within
the network.
2.3.1.2 Application Service Coordinator
In addition to the NMS and OSS, services in the ABNO architecture
may be requested by or on behalf of applications. In this context
the term "application" is very broad. An application may be a
program that runs on a host or server and that provides services to a
user, such as a video conferencing application. Alternatively, an
application may be a software tool with which a user makes requests
of the network to set up specific services such as end-to-end
connections or scheduled bandwidth reservations. Finally, an
application may be a sophisticated control system that is responsible
for arranging the provision of a more complex network service such as
a virtual private network.
For the sake of this architecture, all of these concepts of an
application are grouped together and are shown as the Application
Service Coordinator since they are all in some way responsible for
coordinating the activity of the network to provide services for use
by applications. In practice, the function of the Application
Service Coordinator may be distributed across multiple applications
or servers.
The Application Service Coordinator communicates with the ABNO
Controller to request operations on the network.
King & Farrel [Page 9]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
2.3.1.3 ABNO Controller
The ABNO Controller is the main gateway to the network for the NMS,
OSS, and Application Service Coordinator for the provision of
advanced network coordination and functions. The ABNO Controller
governs the behavior of the network in response to changing network
conditions and in accordance with application network requirements
and policies. It is the point of attachment, and invokes the right
components in the right order.
The use cases in Section 3 provide a clearer picture of how the
ABNO Controller interacts with the other components in the ABNO
architecture.
2.3.1.4 Policy Agent
Policy plays a very important role in the control and management of
the network. It is, therefore, significant in influencing how the
key components of the ANBO architecture operate.
Figure 1 shows the Policy Agent as a component that is configured
by the NMS/OSS with the policies that it applies. The Policy Agent
is responsible for propagating those policies into the other
components of the system.
Simplicity in the figure necessitates leaving out many of the policy
interactions that will take place. Although the Policy Agent is only
shown interacting with the ABNO Controller, the Alto Server, and the
Virtual Network Topology Manager (VNTM), it will also interact with a
number of other components and the network elements themselves. For
example, the Path Computation Element (PCE) will be a Policy
Enforcement Point (PEP) [RFC2753] as described in [RFC5394], and the
Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Client will also be a PEP as
noted in [I-D.atlas-i2rs-architecture].
2.3.1.5 Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Client
The Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) is described in
[I-D.atlas-i2rs-architecture]. The interface provides a programmatic
way to access (for read and write) the routing state and policy
information on routers in the network.
The I2RS Client is introduced in [I-D.atlas-i2rs-problem-statement].
Its purpose is to manage information requests across a number of
routers (each of which runs an I2RS Agent) and coordinate setting or
gathering state to/from those routers.
King & Farrel [Page 10]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
2.3.1.6 OAM Handler
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) plays a critical
role in understanding how a network is operating, detecting faults,
and taking the necessary action to react to problems in the network.
Within the ABNO architecture, the OAM Handler is responsible for
receiving notifications (often called alerts) from the network about
potential problems, for correlating them, and for triggering other
components of the system to take action to preserve or recover the
services that were established by the ABNO Controller. The OAM
Handler also reports network problems and, in particular, service-
affecting problems to the NMS, OSS, and Application Service
Coordinator.
Additionally, the OAM Handler interacts with the devices in the
network to initiate OAM actions within the data plane such as
monitoring and testing.
2.3.1.7 Path Computation Element (PCE)
The Path Computation Element (PCE) is introduced in [RFC4655]. It is
a functional component that services requests to compute paths across
a network graph. In particular, it can generate traffic engineered
routes for MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The PCE
may receive these requests from the ABNO Controller, from the Virtual
Network Topology Manager, or from network elements themselves.
The PCE operates on a view of the network topology stored in the
Traffic Engineering Database (TED). A more sophisticated computation
may be provided by a Stateful PCE that enhances the TED with
information about the LSPs that are provisioned and operational
within the network as described in [RFC4655] and
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].
Additional function in an Active PCE allows a functional component
that includes a Stateful PCE to make provisioning requests to set up
new services or to modify in-place services as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
This function may directly access the network elements, or may be
channelled through the Provisioning Manager.
Coordination between multiple PCEs operating on different TEDs can
prove useful for performing path computation in multi-domain (for
example, inter-AS) or multi-layer networks.
Since the PCE is a key component of the ABNO architecture, a better
King & Farrel [Page 11]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
view of its role can be gained by examining the use cases described
in Section 3.
2.3.1.8 Databases
The ABNO Architecture includes a number of databases that contain
information stores for use by the system. The two main databases are
the Traffic Engineering Database (TED) and the LSP Database (LSP-DB),
but there may be a number of other databases to contain information
about topology (ALTO Server), policy (Policy Agent), services (ABNO
Controller), etc.
2.3.1.8.1 Traffic Engineering Database (TED)
The Traffic Engineering Database (TED) is a data store of topology
information about a network that may be enhanced with capability
data (such as metrics or bandwidth capacity) and active status
information (such as up/down status or residual unreserved
bandwidth).
The TED may be built from information supplied by the network or
from data (such as inventory details) sourced through the NMS/OSS.
The principal use of the TED in the ABNO architecture is to provide
the raw data on which the Path Computation Element operates. But
the TED may also be inspected by users at the NMS/OSS to view the
current status of the network, and may provide information to
application services such as Application Layer Traffic Optimization
(ALTO) [RFC5693].
2.3.1.8.2 LSP Database
The LSP Database (LSP-DB) is a data store of information about LSPs
that have been set up in the network, or that could be established.
The information stored includes the paths and resource usage of the
LSPs.
The LSP-DB may be built from information generated locally . For
example, when LSPs are provisioned, the LSP-DB can be updated. The
database can also be constructed from information gathered from the
network by polling or reading the state of LSPs that have already
been set up.
The main use of the LSP-DB within the ABNO architecture is to enhance
the planning and optimization of LSPs. New LSPs can be established
to be path-disjoint from other LSPs in order to offer protected
services; LSPs can be rerouted in order to put them on more optimal
paths or to make network resources available for other LSPs; LSPs can
King & Farrel [Page 12]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
be rapidly repaired when a network failure is reported; LSPs can be
moved onto other paths in order to avoid resources that have planned
maintenance outages.
2.3.1.8.3 Other Databases
There may be other databases that are built within the ABNO system
and which are referenced when operating the network. These databases
might include information about, for example, traffic flows and
demands, predicted or scheduled traffic demands, links and node
failure and repair history, network resources such as packet labels
and physical labels (i.e., MPLS and GMPLS labels), etc.
2.3.1.9 ALTO Server
[Editor's note: The ALTO Server is a component of the architecture.
Text needs to be supplied.]
2.3.1.10 Virtual Network Topology Manager (VNTM)
A Virtual Network Topology (VNT) is defined in [RFC5212] as a set of
one or more LSPs in one or more lower-layer networks that provides
information for efficient path handling in an upper-layer network.
For instance, a set of LSPs in a wavelength division multiplexed
(WDM) network can provide connectivity as virtual links in a higher-
layer packet switched network.
The VNT enhances the physical/dedicated links that are available in
the upper-layer network and is configured by setting up or tearing
down the lower-layer LSPs and by advertising the changes into the
higher-layer network. The VNT can be adapted to traffic demands
so that capacity in the higher-layer network can be created or
released as needed. Releasing unwanted VNT resources makes them
available in the lower-layer network for other uses.
The creation of virtual topology for inclusion in a network is not a
simple task. Decisions must be made about which nodes in the upper-
layer it is best to connect, in which lower-layer network to
provision LSPs to provide the connectivity, and how to route the LSPs
in the lower-layer network. Furthermore, some specific actions have
to be taken to cause the lower-layer LSPs to be provisioned and the
connectivity in the upper-layer network to be advertised.
[RFC5623] describes how the VNTM may instantiate connections in the
server-layer in support of connectivity in the client-layer. Within
the ABNO architecture, the creation of new connections may be
delegated to the Provisioning Manager as discussed in Section
2.3.1.11.
King & Farrel [Page 13]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
All of these actions and decisions are heavily influenced by policy,
so the VNTM component that coordinates them takes input from the
Policy Agent. The VNTM is also closely associated with the PCE for
the upper-layer network and each of the PCEs for the lower-layer
networks.
2.3.1.11 Provisioning Manager
The Provisioning Manager is responsible for making or channelling
requests for the establishment of LSPs. This may be instructions to
the control plane running in the networks, or may involve the
programming of individual network devices. In the latter case, the
Provisioning Manager may act as an OpenFlow Controller [ONF].
See Section 2.3.2.6 for more details of the interactions between the
Provisioning Manager and the network.
2.3.1.12 Client and Server Network Layers
The client and server networks are shown in Figure 1 as illustrative
examples of the fact that the ABNO architecture may be used to
coordinate services across multiple networks where lower-layer
networks provide connectivity in upper-layer networks.
Section 3.2 describes a set of use cases for multi-layer networking.
2.3.2 Functional Interfaces
This section describes the interfaces between functional components
that might be externalized in an implementation allowing the
components to be distributed across platforms. Where existing
protocols might provide all or most of the necessary capabilities
they are noted. Appendix A notes the interfaces where more protocol
specification may be needed.
2.3.2.1 Configuration and Programmatic Interfaces
The network devices may be configured or programmed direct from the
NMS/OSS. Many protocols already exist to perform these functions
including:
- SNMP [RFC3412]
- Netconf [RFC6241]
- ForCES [RFC5810]
- OpenFlow [ONF].
[Editor note: need to add the correct TMF interface with a reference]
King & Farrel [Page 14]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
From the ABNO perspective, network configuration is a pass-through
function. It can be seen represented on the left hand side of
Figure 1.
2.3.2.2 TED Construction from the Networks
As described in Section 2.3.1.8, the TED provides details of the
capabilities and state of the network for use by the ABNO system and
the PCE in particular.
The TED can be constructed by participating in the IGP-TE protocols
run by the networks (for example, OSPF-TE [RFC3630] and ISIS-TE
[RFC5305]). Alternatively, the TED may be fed using link-state
distribution extensions to BGP [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
The ABNO system may maintain a single TED unified across multiple
networks, or may retain a separate TEDs for each network.
Additionally, an ALTO Server [RFC5693] may provide an abstracted
topology from a network to build an application-level TED that can
be used by a PCE to compute paths between servers and application-
layer entities for the provision of application services.
2.3.2.3 TED Enhancement
The TED may be enhanced by inventory information supplied from the
NMS/OSS. This may supplement the data collected as described in
Section 2.3.2.2 with information that is not normally distributed
within the network such as node types and capabilities, or the
characteristics of optical links.
No protocol is currently identified for this interface, but the
protocol developed or adopted to satisfy the requirements of the
Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) [I-D.atlas-i2rs-architecture]
may be a suitable candidate because it is required to be able to
distribute bulk routing state information in a well-defined encoding
language. Another candidate protocol may be Netconf [RFC6241]
passing data encoded using YANG [RFC6020].
Note that, in general, any protocol and encoding that is suitable
for presenting the TED as described in Section 2.3.2.4 will likely be
suitable (or could be made suitable) for enabling write-access to the
TED as described in this section.
2.3.2.4 TED Presentation
The TED may be presented north-bound from the ABNO system for use by
an NMS/OSS or by the Application Service Coordinator. This allows
King & Farrel [Page 15]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
users and applications to get a view of the network topology and the
status of the network resources. It also allows planning and
provisioning of application services.
There are several protocols available for exporting the TED north-
bound:
- The ALTO protocol [I-D.ietf-alto-protocol] is designed to
distribute the abstracted topology used by an ALTO Server and may
prove useful for exporting the TED.
- The same protocol used to export topology information from the
network can be used to export the topology from the TED.
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution].
- The Interface to the Routing System (I2RS)
[I-D.atlas-i2rs-architecture] will require a protocol that is
capable of handling bulk routing information exchanges that would
be suitable for exporting the TED. In this case it would make
sense to have a standardized representation of the TED in a formal
data modelling language such as YANG [RFC6020] so that an existing
protocol could be used such as Netconf [RFC6241] or XMPP [RFC6120].
Note that export from the TED can be a full dump of the content
(expressed in a suitable abstraction language) as described above, or
it could be an aggregated or filtered set of data based on policies
or specific requirements. Thus, the relationships shown in Figure 1
may be a little simplistic in that the ABNO Controller may also be
involved in preparing and presenting the TED information over a
north-bound interface.
[Editor's note: This section should include more information about the
northbound export of information from the ALTO Server. Text needs to
be supplied.]
2.3.2.5 Path Computation Requests from the Network
As originally specified in the PCE architecture [RFC4655], network
elements can make path computation requests to a PCE using the PCE
protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]. This facilitates the network setting up
LSPs in response to simple connectivity requests, and it allows the
network to re-optimize or repair LSPs.
2.3.2.6 Provisioning Manager Control of Networks
As described in Section 2.3.1.11, the Provisioning Manager makes or
channels requests to provision resources in the network. These
operations can take place at two levels: there can be requests to
King & Farrel [Page 16]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
program/configure specific resources in the data or forwarding
planes; and there can be requests to trigger a set of actions to be
programmed with the assistance of a control plane.
A number of protocols already exist to provision network resources as
follows:
- Program/configure specific network resources
- ForCES [RFC5810] defines a protocol for separation of the control
element (the Provisioning Manager) from the forwarding elements
in each node in the network.
- The Generic Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) [RFC3292] is an
asymmetric protocol that allows one or more external switch
controllers (such as the Provisioning Manager) to establish and
maintain the state of a label switch such as an MPLS switch.
- OpenFlow [ONF] is a communications protocol that gives an
OpenFlow Controller (such as the Provisioning Manager) access to
the forwarding plane of a network switch or router in the
network.
- Historically, other configuration-based mechanisms have been used
to set up the forwarding/switching state at individual nodes
within networks. Such mechanisms have ranged from non-standard
command line interfaces (CLIs) to various standards-based options
such as TL1 [TL1] and SNMP [RFC3412]. These mechanisms are not
designed for rapid operation of a network and are not easily
programmatic. They are not proposed for use by the Provisioning
Manager as part of the ABNO architecture.
- Netconf [RFC6241] provides a more active configuration protocol
that may be suitable for bulk programming of network resources.
Its use in this way is dependent on suitable YANG modules being
defined for the necessary options. Early work in the IETF's
Netmod working group is focused on a higher level of routing
function more comparable with the function discussed in Section
2.3.2.8 [I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg].
- [Editor note: need to add the correct TMF interface with a
reference]
- Trigger actions through the control plane
- LSPs can be requested using a management system interface to the
head end of the LSP using tools such as CLIs, TL1 [TL1] or SNMP
[RFC3412]. Configuration at this granularity is not as time-
King & Farrel [Page 17]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
critical as when individual network resources are programmed
because the main task of programming end-to-end connectivity is
devolved to the control plane. Nevertheless, these mechanisms
remain unsuitable for programmatic control of the network and are
not proposed for use by the Provisioning Manager as part of the
ABNO architecture.
- As noted above, Netconf [RFC6241] provides a more active
configuration protocol. This may be particularly suitable for
requesting the establishment of LSPs. Work would be needed to
complete a suitable YANG module.
- The PCE protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] has been proposed as a suitable
protocol for requesting the establishment of LSPs
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. This works well because the
protocol elements necessary are exactly the same as used to
respond to a path computation request.
The functional element that issues PCEP requests to establish
LSPs is known as an "Active PCE", however it should be noted that
the ABNO functional components responsible for requesting LSPs
is the Provisioning Manager. Other controllers like the the
VNTM and the ABNO Controller use the services of the Provisioning
Manager to isolate the twin functions of computing and requesting
paths from the provisioning mechanisms in place with any given
network.
Note that I2RS does not provide a mechanism for control of network
resources at this level as it is designed to provide control of
routing state in routers, not forwarding state in the data plane.
2.3.2.7 Auditing the Network
Once resources have been provisioned or connections established in
the network, it is important that the ABNO system can determine the
state of the network. This function falls into four categories:
- Updates to the TED are gathered as described in Section 2.3.2.2.
- Explicit notification of the successful establishment and the
subsequent state of LSP can be provided through extensions to PCEP
as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] and
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].
- OAM can be commissioned and the results inspected by the OAM
Handler as described in Section 2.3.2.13.
- A number of ABNO components may make inquiries and inspect network
King & Farrel [Page 18]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
state through a variety of techniques including I2RS, Netconf, or
SNMP.
2.3.2.8 Controlling The Routing System
As discussed in Section 2.3.1.5, the Interface to the Routing System
(I2RS) provides a programmatic way to access (for read and write) the
routing state and policy information on routers in the network. The
I2RS Client issues requests to routers in the network to establish or
retrieve routing state. Those requests utilize the I2RS protocol
which has yet to be selected/designed by the IETF.
2.3.2.9 ABNO Controller Interface to PCE
The ABNO Controller needs to be able to consult the PCE to determine
what services can be provisioned in the network. There is no reason
why this interface cannot be based on the standard PCE protocol as
defined in [RFC5440].
2.3.2.10 VNTM Interface to and from PCE
There are two interactions between the Virtual Network Topology
Manager and the PCE.
The first interaction is used when VNTM wants to determine what LSPs
can be set up in a network: in this case it uses the standard PCEP
interface [RFC5440] to make path computation requests.
The second interaction arises when a PCE determines that it cannot
compute a requested path or notices that (according to some
configured policy) a network is short of resources (for example, the
capacity on some key link is close to exhausted). In this case, the
PCE may notify the VNTM which may (again according to policy) act to
construct more virtual topology. This second interface is not
currently specified although it may be that the protocol selected or
designed to satisfy I2RS will provide suitable features (see Section
2.3.2.8).
2.3.2.11 ABNO Control Interfaces
The north-bound interface from the ABNO Controller is used by the
NMS, OSS, and Application Service Coordinator to request services in
the network in support of applications. The interface will also need
to be able to report the asynchronous completion of service requests
and convey changes in the status of services.
This interface will also need strong capabilities for security,
authentication, and policy.
King & Farrel [Page 19]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
This interface is not currently specified. It needs to be a
transactional interface that supports the specification of abstract
services with adequate flexibility to facilitate easy extension and
yet be concise and easily parsable.
It is possible that the protocol selected or designed to satisfy I2RS
will provide suitable features (see Section 2.3.2.8).
2.3.2.12 Policy Interfaces
As described in Section 2.3.1.4 and throughout this document, policy
forms a critical component of the ABNO architecture. The role of
policy will include enforcing the following rules and requirements:
- Adding resources on demand should be gated by the authorized
capability.
- Client microflows should not trigger server-layer setup or
allocation.
- Accounting capabilities should be supported.
- Security mechanisms for authorization of requests and capabilities
are required.
Other policy-related function in the system might include the policy
behavior of the routing and forwarding system such as:
- ECMP behavior
- Classification of packets onto LSPs.
Various policy-capable architectures have been defined including a
framework for using policy with a PCE-enabled system [RFC5394].
However, the take-up of the IETF's Common Open Policy Service
protocol (COPS) [RFC2748] has been poor.
New work will be needed to define all of the policy interfaces within
the ABNO architecture and to determine which are internal interfaces
and which may be external and so in need of a protocol specification.
There is some discussion that the I2RS protocol may support the
configuration and manipulation of policies.
2.3.2.13 OAM and Reporting
The OAM Handler must interact with the networks to perform several
actions:
- Enabling OAM function within the network.
King & Farrel [Page 20]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
- Performing proactive OAM operations in the network.
- Receiving notifications of network events.
Any of the configuration and programmatic interfaces described in
Section 2.3.2.1 may serve this purpose, although neither Netconf nor
OpenFlow currently supports asynchronous notifications. Additionally
Syslog [RFC5424] is a protocol for reporting events from the network,
and IPFIX [RFC5101] is designed to allow network statistics to be
aggregated and reported.
The OAM Handler also correlates events reported from the network and
reports them onward to the ABNO Controller (which can apply the
information to the recovery of services that it has provisioned) and
to the NMS, OSS, and Application Service Coordinator. The reporting
mechanism used here can be essentially the same as used when events
are reported from the network and no new protocol is needed.
3. ABNO Use Cases
This section provides a number of examples of how the ABNO
architecture can be applied to provide application-driven and
NMS/OSS-driven network operations.
3.1 Inter-AS Connectivity
The following use case describes how the ABNO framework can be used
set up an end-to-end MPLS service across multiple Autonomous Systems
(ASes). Consider the simple network topology shown in Figure 2. The
three ASes (ASa, ASb, and ASc) are connected at ASBRs a1, a2, b1
through b4, c1, and c2. A source node (s) located in ASa is to be
connected to a destination node (d) located in ASc. The optimal path
for the LSP from s to d must be computed, and then the network must
be triggered to set up the LSP.
+--------------+ +-----------------+ +--------------+
|ASa | | ASb | | ASc |
| +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | +--+ |
| |a1|-|-|-|b1| |b3|-|-|-|c1| |
| +-+ +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | +--+ +-+ |
| |s| | | | | |d| |
| +-+ +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | +--+ +-+ |
| |a2|-|-|-|b2| |b4|-|-|-|c2| |
| +--+ | | +--+ +--+ | | +--+ |
| | | | | |
+--------------+ +-----------------+ +--------------+
Figure 2: Inter-AS Domain Topology with H-PCE (Parent PCE)
King & Farrel [Page 21]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
The following steps are performed to deliver the service within the
ABNO architecture.
1. Request Management
As shown in Figure 3, the NMS/OSS issues a request to the ABNO
Controller for a path between s and d. The ABNO Controller
verifies that the NMS/OSS has sufficient rights to make the
service request.
+---------------------+
| NMS/OSS |
+----------+----------+
|
V
+--------+ +-----------+-------------+
| Policy +-->-+ ABNO Controller |
| Agent | | |
+--------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 3: ABNO Request Management
2. Service Path Computation with Hierarchical PCE
The ABNO Controller needs to determine an end-to-end path for the
LSP. Since the ASes will want to maintain a degree of
confidentiality about their internal resources and topology, they
will not share a TED and each will have its own PCE. In such a
situation, the Hierarchical PCE (H-PCE) architecture described in
[RFC6805] is applicable.
As shown in Figure 4, the ABNO Controller sends a request to the
parent PCE for an end-to-end path. As described in [RFC6805], the
parent PCE consults its TED that shows the connectivity between
ASes. This helps it understand that the end-to-end path must
cross each of ASa, ASb, and ASc, so it is sends individual path
computation requests to each of PCE a, b, and c to determine the
best options for crossing the ASes.
Each child PCE applies policy to the requests it receives to
determine whether the request is to be allowed and to select the
type of network resources that can be used in the computation
result. For confidentiality reasons, each child PCE may supply
its computation responses using a path key [RFC5520] to hide the
details of the path segment it has computed.
King & Farrel [Page 22]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+-----------------+
| ABNO Controller |
+----+-------+----+
| A
V |
+--+-------+--+ +--------+
+--------+ | | | |
| Policy +-->-+ Parent PCE +---+ AS TED |
| Agent | | | | |
+--------+ +-+----+----+-+ +--------+
/ | \
/ | \
+-----+-+ +---+---+ +-+-----+
| | | | | |
| PCE a | | PCE b | | PCE c |
| | | | | |
+---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+
| | |
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+
| TEDa| | TEDb| | TEDc|
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
Figure 4: Path Computation Request with Hierarchical PCE
The parent PCE collates the responses from the children and
applies its own policy to stitch them together into the best end-
to-end path which it returns as a response to the ABNO Controller.
3. Provisioning the End-to-End LSP
There are several options for how the end-to-end LSP gets
provisioned in the ABNO architecture. Some of these are described
below.
3a. Provisioning from the ABNO Controller With a Control Plane
Figure 5 shows how the ABNO Controller makes a request through
the Provisioning Manager to establish the end-to-end LSP. As
described in Section 2.3.2.6 these interactions can use the
Netconf protocol [RFC6241] or the extensions to PCEP described
in [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. In either case, the
provisioning request is sent to the head end Label Switching
Router (LSR) and it signals in the control plane (using a
protocol such as RSVP-TE [RFC3209]) so cause the LSP to be
established.
King & Farrel [Page 23]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+-----------------+
| ABNO Controller |
+--------+--------+
|
V
+------+-------+
| Provisioning |
| Manager |
+------+-------+
|
V
+--------------------+------------------------+
/ Network \
+-------------------------------------------------+
Figure 5: Provisioning the End-to-End LSP
3b. Provisioning through Programming Network Resources
Another option is that the LSP is provisioned hop by hop from
the Provisioning Manager using a mechanism such as ForCES
[RFC5810] or OpenFlow [ONF] as described in Section 2.3.2.6.
In this case, the picture is the same as shown in Figure 5.
The interaction between the ABNO Controller and the
Provisioning Manager will be PCEP or Netconf as described in
option 3a., and the Provisioning Manager will have the
responsibility to fan out the requests to the individual
network elements.
3c. Provisioning with an Active PCE
The active PCE is described in Section 2.3.1.7 based on the
concepts expressed in [I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. In
this approach, the process described in 3a is modified such
that the PCE issues a PCEP command to the network direct
without a response being first returned to the ABNO
Controller.
This situation is shown in Figure 6, and could be modified so
that the Provisioning Manager still programs the individual
network elements as described in 3b.
King & Farrel [Page 24]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+-----------------+
| ABNO Controller |
+----+------------+
|
V
+--+----------+ +--------------+
+--------+ | | | Provisioning |
| Policy +-->-+ Parent PCE +---->----+ Manager |
| Agent | | | | |
+--------+ +-+----+----+-+ +-----+--------+
/ | \ |
/ | \ |
+-----+-+ +---+---+ +-+-----+ V
| | | | | | |
| PCE a | | PCE b | | PCE c | |
| | | | | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |
|
+--------------------------------+------------+
/ Network \
+-------------------------------------------------+
Figure 6: LSP Provisioning with an Active PCE
3d. Provisioning with Active Child PCEs and Segment Stitching
A mixture of the approaches described in 3b and 3c can result
in a combination of mechanisms to program the network to
provide the end-to-end LSP. Figure 7 shows how each child PCE
can be an active PCE responsible for setting up an edge-to-
edge LSP segment across one of the ASes. The ABNO Controller
then uses the Provisioning Manager to program the inter-AS
connections using ForCES or OpenFlow and the LSP segments are
stitched together following the ideas described in [RFC5150].
King & Farrel [Page 25]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+-----------------+
| ABNO Controller +-------->--------+
+----+-------+----+ |
| A |
V | |
+--+-------+--+ |
+--------+ | | |
| Policy +-->-+ Parent PCE | |
| Agent | | | |
+--------+ ++-----+-----++ |
/ | \ |
/ | \ |
+---+-+ +--+--+ +-+---+ |
| | | | | | |
|PCE a| |PCE b| |PCE c| |
| | | | | | V
+--+--+ +--+--+ +---+-+ |
| | | |
V V V |
+----------+-+ +------------+ +-+----------+ |
|Provisioning| |Provisioning| |Provisioning| |
|Manager | |Manager | |Manager | |
+-+----------+ +-----+------+ +-----+------+ |
| | | |
V V V |
+--+-----+ +----+---+ +--+-----+ |
/ AS a \=====/ AS b \=====/ AS c \ |
+------------+ A +------------+ A +------------+ |
| | |
+-----+----------------+-----+ |
| Provisioning Manager +----<-------+
+----------------------------+
Figure 7: LSP Provisioning With Active Child PCEs and Stitching
4. Verification of Service
The ABNO Controller will need to ascertain that the end-to-end LSP
has been set up as requested. In the case of a control plane
being used to establish the LSP, the head end LSR may send a
notification (perhaps using PCEP) to report successful setup, but
to be sure that the LSP is up, the ABNO Controller will request
the OAM Handler to perform Continuity Check OAM in the Data Plane
and report back that the LSP is ready to carry traffic.
King & Farrel [Page 26]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
5. Notification of Service Fulfillment
Finally, when the ABNO Controller is satisfied that the requested
service is ready to carry traffic, it will notify the NMS/OSS.
The delivery of the service may be further checked through
auditing the network as described in 2.3.2.7.
3.2 Multi-Layer Networking
Networks are typically constructed using multiple layers. These
layers represent separations of administrative regions or of
technologies, and may also represent a distinction between client
and server networking roles.
It is preferable to coordinate network resource control and
utilization (i.e., consideration and control of multiple layers),
rather than controlling and optimizing resources at each layer
independently. This facilitates network efficiency and network
automation, and may be defined as inter-layer traffic engineering.
The PCE architecture supports inter-layer traffic engineering
[RFC5623] and, in combination with the ABNO architecture, provides a
suite of capabilities for network resource coordination across
multiple layers.
The following use case demonstrates ABNO used to coordinate
allocation of server-layer network resources to create virtual
topology in a client-layer network in order to satisfy a request for
end-to-end client-layer connectivity. Consider the simple multi-
layer network in Figure 8. There are six packet layer routers (P1
through P6) and three optical layer lambda switches (L1 through L3).
There is connectivity in the packet layer between routers P1, P2, and
P3, and also between routers P4, P5, and P6, but there is no packet-
layer connectivity between these two islands of routers perhaps
because of a network failure or perhaps because all existing
bandwidth between the islands has already been used up. However,
there is connectivity in the optical layer between switches L1, L2,
and L3, and the optical network is connected out to routers P3 and
P4 (they have optical line cards). In this example, a packet layer
connection (an MPLS LSP) is desired between P1 and P6.
King & Farrel [Page 27]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
|P1|---|P2|---|P3| |P4|---|P5|---|P6|
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
\ /
\ /
+--+ +--+ +--+
|L1|--|L2|--|L3|
+--+ +--+ +--+
Figure 8: A Multi-Layer Network
In the ABNO architecture, the following steps are performed to
deliver the service.
1. Request Management
As shown in Figure 9, the Application Service Coordinator issues a
request for connectivity from P1 to P6 in the packet layer
network. That is, the Application Service Coordinator requests an
MPLS LSP with a specific bandwidth to carry traffic for its
application. The ABNO Controller verifies that the Application
Service Coordinator has sufficient rights to make the service
request.
+---------------------------+
| Application Service |
| Coordinator |
+-------------+-------------+
|
V
+------+ +------------+------------+
|Policy+->-+ ABNO Controller |
|Agent | | |
+------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 9: Application Service Coordinator Request Management
2. Service Path Computation in the Packet Layer
The ABNO Controller sends a path computation request to the
packet layer PCE to compute a suitable path for the requested LSP
as shown in Figure 10. The PCE uses the appropriate policy for
the request and consults the TED for the packet layer. It
determines that no path is immediately available.
King & Farrel [Page 28]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+-----------------+
| ABNO Controller |
+----+------------+
|
V
+--------+ +--+-----------+ +--------+
| Policy +-->--+ Packet Layer +---+ Packet |
| Agent | | PCE | | TED |
+--------+ +--------------+ +--------+
Figure 10: Path Computation Request
3. Invocation of VNTM and Path Computation in the Optical Layer
After the path computation failure in step 2, instead of notifying
ABNO Controller of the failure, the PCE invokes the VNTM to see
whether it can create the necessary link in the virtual network
topology to bridge the gap.
As shown in Figure 11, the packet layer PCE reports the
connectivity problem to the VNTM, and the VNTM consults policy to
determine what it is allowed to do in this case. Assuming that
the policy allows it, VNTM asks the optical layer PCE to see
whether it can find a path across the optical network that could
be provisioned to provide a virtual link for the packet layer. In
addressing this request, the optical layer PCE consults a TED for
the optical layer network.
+------+
+--------+ | | +--------------+
| Policy +-->--+ VNTM +--<--+ Packet Layer |
| Agent | | | | PCE |
+--------+ +---+--+ +--------------+
|
V
+---------------+ +---------+
| Optical Layer +---+ Optical |
| PCE | | TED |
+---------------+ +---------+
Figure 11: Invocation of VNTM and Optical Layer Path Computation
4. Provisioning in the Optical Layer
Once a path has been found across the optical layer network it
needs to be provisioned. The options follow those in step 3 of
King & Farrel [Page 29]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
Section 3.1. That is, provisioning can be initiated by the
optical layer PCE or by its user, the VNTM. The command can be
sent to the head end of the optical LSP (P3) so that the control
plane (for example, GMPLS [RFC3473]) can be used to provision the
LSP. Alternatively, the network resources can be provisioned
direct using any of the mechanisms described in Section 2.3.2.6.
5. Creation of Virtual Topology in the Packet Layer
Once the LSP has been set up in the optical layer it can be made
available in the packet layer as a virtual link. If the GMPLS
signaling used the mechanisms described in [RFC6107] this process
can be automated within the control plane, otherwise it may
require a specific instruction to the head end router of the
optical LSP (for example, through the Interface to the Routing
System).
Once the virtual link is created as shown in Figure 12, it is
advertised in the IGP for the packet layer network and the link
will appear in the TED for the packet layer network.
+--------+
| Packet |
| TED |
+------+-+
A
|
+--+ +--+
|P3|....................|P4|
+--+ +--+
\ /
\ /
+--+ +--+ +--+
|L1|--|L2|--|L3|
+--+ +--+ +--+
Figure 12: Advertisement of a New Virtual Link
6. Path Computation Completion and Provisioning in the Packet Layer
Now there are sufficient resources in the packet layer network.
The PCE for the packet layer can complete its work and the MPLS
LSP can be provisioned as described in Section 3.1.
7. Verification and Notification of Service Fulfillment
As discussed in Section 3.1, the ABNO Controller will need to
King & Farrel [Page 30]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
verify that the end-to-end LSP has been correctly established
before reporting service fulfillment to the Application
Service Coordinator.
Furthermore, it is highly likely that service verification will be
necessary before the optical layer LSP can be put into service as
a virtual link. Thus, the VNTM will need to coordinate with the
OAM Handler to ensure that the LSP is ready for use.
3.2.1 Data Center (DC) Interconnection across MLNs
In order to support new and emerging cloud-based applications, such
as real-time data backup, virtual machine migration, server
clustering or load reorganization, the dynamic provisioning and
allocation of IT resources and the interconnection of multiple,
remote Data Centers (DC) is a growing requirement.
These operations require traffic being delivered between data
centers, and, typically, the connections providing such inter-DC
connectivity are provisioned using static circuits or dedicated
leased lines, leading to an inefficiency in terms of resource
utilization. Moreover, a basic requirement is that such a group of
remote DCs an be operated logically as one.
In such environments, the data plane technology is operator and
provider dependent. Their customers may rent LSC, PSC or TDM
services, and the application and usage of the ABNO architecture and
Controller enables the required dynamic end to end network service
provisioning, regardless of underlying service and transport layers.
Consequently, the interconnection of remote DCs may involve the
operation, control and management of heterogeneous environments,
namely, each DC site and the metro-core network segment used to
interconnect them, with regard to not only the underlying data plane
technology, but also the control plane. For example, each DC site or
domain could be controlled locally in a centralized way (e.g. via
OpenFlow [ONF]), whereas the metro-core transport infrastructure is
controlled by GMPLS. Although OpenFlow is specially adapted to
single domain intra-data center networks (packet level control, lots
of routing exceptions), a standardized GMPLS based architecture would
enable dynamic optical resources allocation and restoration in multi-
domain (e.g., multi-vendor) core networks interconnecting distributed
data centers.
The application of an ABNO architecture and related procedures would
involve the following aspects:
King & Farrel [Page 31]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
1. Request Application Service Coordinator or NMS
The ABNO Controller receives a request from the Application Service
Coordinator or from the NMS, in order to create a new end-to-end
connection between two end points. the actual addressing of these end
points is discussed in the next section. The ABNO Controller asks
the PCE for a path between these two endpoints, after considering any
applicable policy as defined by the Policy Agent (see Figure 1).
+---------------------------+
| Application Service |
| Coordinator or NMS |
+-------------+-------------+
|
V
+------+ +------------+------------+
|Policy+->-+ ABNO Controller |
|Agent | | |
+------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 14: Application Service Coordinator Request Management
2. Cross-Stratum Addressing Mapping
In order to compute an end to end path, the PCE needs to have a
unified view of the overall topology, which means that it has to
consider and identify the actual endpoints with regard to the client
network addresses. The ABNO Controller and/or the PCE may need to
translate or map addresses from different address spaces. Depending
on how the topological information is disseminated and gathered,
there are two possible scenarios:
a. The Application Layer knows Client Network Layer. Entities
belonging to the application layer may have an interface with the
TED or with an ALTO server, allowing the mapping of the high level
endpoints to network addresses. Layer may have an interface with
TEDs or with ALTO server, it may know which are the client network
layer addresses, where DCs are connected. This address
correlation can be done via manual configuration or any other
mechanism which is out of the scope of this draft. In this
scenario, request from NMS or Application layer contains addresses
in the client layer network. Therefore, when ABNO request to PCE
for a path between these two end points, PCE can compute the path
and continue the work-flow talking with the provisioning manager.
b. Application Layer knows Server Network Layer. In this case,
when ABNO asks PCE for a path, there is no route between two end
King & Farrel [Page 32]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
points. Similarly to use case in section X.X, PCE asks
to the VNTM to create a new connection between two addresses in
the Server Network Layer. As VNT can access to TED information
and this mapping have to exist, VNT can determine which are Client
Layer addresses and continue with provisioning process. [Victor
Comment] Not sure how to solve this easy statement now, I will
think about it later. The mechanism to do this is ALTO.
3. Provisioning Process
Once the path has been obtained, the provisioning manager receives a
high level provisioning request to provision the service. Since, in
the considered use case, the network elements are not necessarily
configured using the same protocol, the end to end path is split into
segments, and the ABNO Controller coordinates or orchestrates the
establishment by adapting and/or translating the abstract
provisioning request to concrete segment requests, by means of a VNTM
or PCE, which issue the corresponding commands or instructions. The
provisioning may involve configuring the data plane elements directly
or delegating the establishment of the underlying connection to a
dedicated control plane instance, responsible for that segment.
The provisioning manager needs to know which technology is used for
the actual provisioning at each segment, by ether manual
configuration or discovery. Once the technology is selected, this
configuration process can follow the steps.
+-----------------+
| ABNO Controller |
+-------+---------+
|
|
V
+------+ +------+-------+
| VNTM +--<--+ PCE |
+---+--+ +------+-------+
| |
V V
+-----+---------------+------------+
| Provisioning Manager |
+----------------------------------+
| | | | |
V | V | V
OpenFlow V ForCes V PCEP
NetConf SNMP
Figure 15: Provisioning Process
King & Farrel [Page 33]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
4. Verification and Notification of Service Fulfillment
Once the end-to-end connectivity service has been provisioned, and
after the verification of the correct operation of the service, the
ABNO Controller needs to notify the Application Service Coordinator
or NMS.
3.3 Make-Before-Break
A number of different services depend on the establishment of a new
LSP so that traffic supported by an existing LSP can be switched
without disruption. This section describes those use cases, presents
a generic model for make-before-break within the ABNO architecture,
and shows how each use case can be supported by using elements of the
generic model.
3.3.1 Make-Before-Break for Re-optimization
Make-before-break is a mechanism supported in RSVP-TE signaling where
a new LSP is set up before the LSP it replaces is torn down
[RFC3209]. This process has several benefits in situations such as
re-optimization of in-service LSPs.
The process is simple, and the example shown in Figure 16 utilizes a
stateful PCE [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]to monitor the network and
take re-optimization actions when necessary. In this process a
service request is made to the ABNO Controller by a requester such as
the OSS. The service request indicates that the LSP should be re-
optimized under specific conditions according to policy. This allows
the ABNO Controller to manage the sequence and prioritization of re-
optimizing multiple LSPs using elements of Global Concurrent
Optimization (GCO) as described in Section 3.4, and applying policies
across the network so that, for instance, LSPs for delay-sensitive
services are re-optimized first.
The ABNO Controller commissions the PCE to compute and set up the
initial path.
Over time, the PCE monitors the changes in the network as reflected
in the TED, and according to the configured policy may compute and
set up a replacement path, using make-before-break within the
network.
Once the new path has been set up and the Network reports that it is
in use correctly, PCE tears down the old path and may report the
re-optimization event to the ABNO Controller.
King & Farrel [Page 34]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+---------------------------------------------+
| OSS / NMS / Application Service Coordinator |
+----------------------+----------------------+
|
+------------+------------+
| ABNO Controller |
+------------+------------+
|
+------+ +-------+-------+ +-----+
|Policy+-----+ PCE +-----+ TED |
|Agent | +-------+-------+ +-----+
+------+ |
|
+----------------------+----------------------+
/ Network \
+-------------------------------------------------+
Figure 16: The Make-Before-Break Process
3.3.2 Make-Before-Break for Restoration
Make-before-break may also be used to repair a failed LSP where
there is a desire to retain resources along some of the path, and
where there is the potential for other LSPs to "steal" the resources
if the failed LSP is torn down first. Unlike the example in Section
3.3.1, this case is service-interrupting, but that arises from the
break in service introduced by the network failure. Obviously, in
the case of a point-to-multipoint LSP, the failure might only affect
part of the tree and the disruption will only be to a subset of the
destination leafs so that a make-before-break restoration approach
will not cause disruption to the leafs that were not affected by
the original failure.
Figure 17 shows the components that interact for this use case. A
service request is made to the ABNO Controller by a requester such as
the OSS. The service request indicates that the LSP may be restored
after failure and should attempt to reuse as much of the original
path as possible.
The ABNO Controller commissions the PCE to compute and set up the
initial path. The ABNO Controller also requests the OAM Handler to
initiate OAM on the LSP and to monitor the results.
At some point the network reports a fault to the OAM Handler which
notifies the ABNO Controller.
King & Farrel [Page 35]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
The ABNO Controller commissions the PCE to compute a new path, re-
using as much of the original path as possible, and PCE sets up the
new LSP.
Once the new path has been set up and the Network reports that it is
in use correctly, the ABNO Controller instructs the PCE to tear down
the old path.
+---------------------------------------------+
| OSS / NMS / Application Service Coordinator |
+----------------------+----------------------+
|
+------------+------------+ +-------+
| ABNO Controller +---+ OAM |
+------------+------------+ |Handler|
| +---+---+
+-------+-------+ |
| PCE | |
+-------+-------+ |
| |
+----------------------+--------------------+-+
/ Network \
+-------------------------------------------------+
Figure 17: The Make-Before-Break Restoration Process
3.3.3 Make-Before-Break for Path Test and Selection
In a more complicated use case, an LSP may be monitored for a number
of attributes such as delay and jitter. When the LSP falls below a
threshold, the traffic may be moved to another LSP that offers the
desired (or at least a better) quality of service. To achieve this,
it is necessary to establish the new LSP and test it, and because the
traffic must not be interrupted, make-before-break must be used.
Moreover, it may be the case that no new LSP can provide the desired
attributes, and that a number of LSPs need to be tested so that the
best can be selected. Furthermore, even when the original LSP is set
up, it could be desirable to test a number of LSPs before deciding
which should be used to carry the traffic.
Figure 18 shows the components that interact for this use case.
Because multiple LSPs might exist at once, a distinct action is
needed to coordinate which one carries the traffic, and this is the
job of the I2RS Client acting under the control of the ABNO
King & Farrel [Page 36]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
Controller.
The OAM Handler is responsible for initiating tests on the LSPs and
for reporting the results back to the ABNO Controller. The OAM
Handler can also check end-to-end connectivity test results across a
multi-domain network even when each domain runs a different
technology. For example, an end-to-end might be achieved by
stitching together an MPLS segment, an Ethernet/VLAN segment, and an
IP etc.
Otherwise, the process is similar to that for re-optimization
discussed in Section 3.3.1.
+---------------------------------------------+
| OSS / NMS / Application Service Coordinator |
+----------------------+----------------------+
|
+------+ +------------+------------+ +-------+
|Policy+---+ ABNO Controller +----+ OAM |
|Agent | | +--+ |Handler|
+------+ +------------+------------+ | +---+---+
| | |
+-------+-------+ +--+---+ |
| PCE | | I2RS | |
+-------+-------+ |Client| |
| +--+---+ |
| | |
+-----------------------+---------------+-----+-+
/ Network \
+---------------------------------------------------+
Figure 18: The Make-Before-Break Path Test and Selection Process
The pseudo-code that follows gives an indication of the interactions
between ABNO components.
OSS requests quality-assured service
:Label1
DoWhile not enough LSPs (ABNO Controller)
Instruct PCE to compute and provision the LSP (ABNO Controller)
Create the LSP (PCE)
EndDo
:Label2
King & Farrel [Page 37]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
DoFor each LSP (ABNO Controller)
Test LSP (OAM Handler)
Report results to ABNO Controller (OAM Handler)
EndDo
Evaluate results of all tests (ABNO Controller)
Select preferred LSP and instruct I2RS client (ABNO Controller)
Put traffic on preferred LSP (I2RS Client)
DoWhile too many LSPs (ABNO Controller)
Instruct PCE to tear down unwanted LSP (ABNO Controller)
Tear down unwanted LSP (PCE)
EndDo
DoUntil trigger (OAM controller, ABNO Controller, Policy Agent)
keep sending traffic (Network)
Test LSP (OAM Handler)
Endif
EndDo
If there is already a suitable LSP (ABNO Controller)
GoTo Label2
Else
GoTo Label1
EndIf
3.4 Global Concurrent Optimization
Global Concurrent Optimization (GCO) is defined in [RFC5557] and
represents a key technology for maximizing network efficiency by
computing a set of traffic engineered paths concurrently. A GCO path
computation request will simultaneously consider the entire topology
of the network, and the complete set of new LSPs together with their
respective constraints. Similarly, GCO may be applied to recompute
the paths of a set of existing LSPs.
GCO may be requested in a number of scenarios. These include:
o Routing of new services where the PCE should consider other
services or network topology.
o A reoptimization of existing services due to fragmented network
resources or sub-optimized placement of sequentially computed
services.
o Recovery of connectivity for bulk services in the event of a
catastrophic network failure.
King & Farrel [Page 38]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
A service provider may also want to compute and deploy new bulk
services based on a predicted traffic matrix. The GCO
functionality and capability to perform concurrent computation
provides a significant network optimization advantage, thus utilizing
network resources optimally and avoiding blocking.
The following use case shows how the ABNO architecture and components
are used to achieve concurrent optimization across a set of services.
3.4.1 Use Case: GCO with MPLS LSPs
When considering the GCO path computation problem, we can split the
GCO objective functions into three optimization categories, these
are:
o Minimize aggregate Bandwidth Consumption (MBC).
o Minimize the load of the Most Loaded Link (MLL).
o Minimize Cumulative Cost of a set of paths (MCC).
This use case assumes the GCO request will be offline and be
initiated from an NMS/OSS, that is it may take significant time to
compute the service, and the paths reported in the response may
want to be verified by the user before being provisioned within
the network.
1. Request Management
The NMS/OSS issues a request for new service connectivity for bulk
services. The ABNO Controller verifies that the NMS/OSS has
sufficient rights to make the service request and apply a GCO
attribute with a request to Minimize aggregate Bandwidth
Consumption (MBC).
+---------------------+
| NMS/OSS |
+----------+----------+
|
V
+--------+ +-----------+-------------+
| Policy +-->-+ ABNO Controller |
| Agent | | |
+--------+ +-------------------------+
Figure 19: NMS Request to ABNO Controller
King & Farrel [Page 39]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
1a. Each service request has a source, destination and bandwidth
request. These service requests are sent to the ABNO
Controller and categorized as a GCO. The PCE uses the
appropriate policy for the request and consults the TED for
the packet layer.
2. Service Path Computation in the Packet Layer
To compute a set of services for the GCO application, PCEP
supports synchronization vector (SVEC) lists for synchronized
dependent path computations as defined in [RFC5440] and described
in [RFC6007].
2a. The ABNO Controller sends the bulk service request to the
GCO-capable packet layer PCE using PCEP messaging.
The PCE uses the appropriate policy for the request
and consults the TED for the packet layer.
+-----------------+
| ABNO Controller |
+----+------------+
|
V
+--------+ +--+-----------+ +--------+
| | | | | |
| Policy +-->--+ GCO-capable +---+ Packet |
| Agent | | Packet Layer | | TED |
| | | PCE | | |
+--------+ +--------------+ +--------+
Figure 20: Path Computation Request from GCO-capable PCE
2b. Upon receipt of the bulk (GCO) service requests, the PCE
applies the MBC objective function and computes the services
concurrently.
2c. Once the requested GCO service path computation completes, the
PCE sends the resulting paths back to the ABNO Controller as a
PCEP response. The response includes a fully computed explicit
path for each service (TE LSP).
King & Farrel [Page 40]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+---------------------+
| NMS/OSS |
+----------+----------+
^
|
+----------+----------+
| ABNO Controller |
| |
+---------------------+
Figure 21: ABNO Sends Solution to the NMS/OSS
3. The concurrently computed solution received from the PCE is sent
back to the NMS/OSS by the ABNO Controller. The NMS/OSS user can
then check the candidate paths and either provision the new
services, or save the solution for deployment in the future.
3.5 Adaptive Network Management (ANM)
The ABNO architecture provides the capability for reactive network
control of resources based on classification, profiling and
prediction based on current demands and resource utilization.
Server-layer transport network resources, such as Optical Transport
Network (OTN) time-slicing [G.709], or the fine granularity grid of
wavelengths with variable spectral bandwidth (flexi-grid) [G.694.1],
can be manipulated to meet current and projected demands in a model
called Elastic Optical Networks (EON).
EON provides spectrum-efficient and scalable transport by
introducing flexible granular grooming in the optical frequency
domain. This is achieved using arbitrary contiguous
concatenation of optical spectrum that allows creation of custom-
sized bandwidth. This bandwidth is defined in slots of 12,5GHz.
Adaptive Network Management (ANM) with EON allows appropriately-
sized optical bandwidth to be allocated to an end-to-end optical
path. In flexi-grid, the allocation is performed according to the
traffic volume or following user requests, and can be achieved in a
highly spectrum-efficient and scalable manner. Similarly, OTN
provides an adaptive and elastic provisioning of bandwidth on top of
wavelength switched optical networks (WSON).
To efficiently use optical resources, a system is required which can
monitor network resources, and decide the optimal network
configuration based on the status, bandwidth availability and user
service. We call this ANM.
King & Farrel [Page 41]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
3.5.1. ANM Trigger
There are different reasons to trigger an adaptive network
management process, these include:
o Measurement: traffic measurements can be used in order to cause
spectrum allocations that fit the traffic needs as efficiently as
possible. This function may be influenced by measuring the IP
router traffic flows, by examining traffic engineering or link
state databases, by usage thresholds for critical links in the
network, or by requests from external entities. Nowadays, network
operators have active monitoring probes in the network, which
store their results in the OSS. The OSS or OAM Handler components
activate this measurement-based trigger, so the ABNO Controller
would not be directly involved in this case.
o Human: operators may request ABNO to run an adaptive network
planning process via a NMS.
o Periodic: adaptive network planning process can be run
periodically to find an optimum configuration.
An ABNO Controller would receive a request from OSS or NMS to run an
adaptive network manager process.
3.5.2. Processing request and GCO computation
Based on the human of periodic trigger requests described in the
previous Section, the OSS or NMS will send a request to the ABNO
Controller to perform EON-based GCO. The ABNO Controller will
select a set of services to be reoptimized and choose an objective
function that will deliver the best use of network resources. In
making these choices, the ABNO Controller is guided by network-wide
policy on the use of resources, the definition of optimization, and
the level of perturbation to existing services that is tolerable.
Much as in Section 3.5, this request for GCO is passed to the PCE.
The PCE could then consider the end-to-end paths and every channel's
optimal spectrum assignment in order to satisfy traffic demands and
optimize the optical spectrum consumption within the network.
The PCE will operate on the TED, but is likely to also be stateful so
that it knows which LSPs correspond to which waveband allocations on
which links in the network. Once PCE arrives at an answer, it
returns a set of potential paths to the ABNO Controller which passes
them on to the NMS or OSS to supervise/select the subsequent path
set-up/modification process.
King & Farrel [Page 42]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
This exchange is shown in Figure 22. Note that the figure does not
show the interactions used by the OSS/NMS for establishing or
modifying LSPs in the network.
+---------------------------+
| OSS or NMS |
+-----------+---+-----------+
| ^
V |
+------+ +----------+---+----------+
|Policy+->-+ ABNO Controller |
|Agent | | |
+------+ +----------+---+----------+
| ^
V |
+-----+---+----+
+ PCE |
+--------------+
Figure 22: Adaptive Network Management with human intervention
3.5.3. Automated Provisioning Process
Although most of network operations are supervised by the operator,
there are some actions, which may not require supervision, like a
simple modification of a modulation format in a Bit rate variable
transponder (BVT) (to increase the optical spectrum efficiency or
reduce energy consumption). In this processes, where human
intervention is not required, PCE sends provisioning manager new
configuration to configure the network elements.
King & Farrel [Page 43]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
+------------------------+
| OSS or NMS |
+-----------+------------+
|
V
+------+ +----------+------------+
|Policy+->-+ ABNO Controller |
|Agent | | |
+------+ +----------+------------+
|
V
+------+------+
+ PCE |
+------+------+
|
V
+----------------------------------+
| Provisioning Manager |
+----------------------------------+
Figure 23: Adaptive Network Management without human intervention
3.6 Pseudowire Operations and Management
Pseudowires in an MPLS network [RFC3985] operate as a form of layered
network over the connectivity provided by the MPLS network. The
pseudowires are carried by LSP tunnels, and planning is necessary to
determine how those tunnels are placed in the network and which
tunnels are used by any pseudowire.
This section considers four use cases: multi-segment pseudowires,
path-diverse pseudowires, path-diverse multi-segment pseudowires, and
pseudowire segment protection. Section 3.6.4 describes the
applicability of the ABNO architecture to these four use cases.
3.6.1 Multi-Segment Pseudowires
[RFC5254] described the architecture for multi-segment pseudowires.
An end-to-end service, as shown in Figure 24, can consist of a
series of stitched segments shown on the figure as AC, PW1, PW2, PW3,
and AC. Each pseudowire segment is stitched at a 'stitching PE': for
example, PW1 is stitched to PW2 at S-PE1. Each access circuit is
stitched to a pseudowire segment at a 'terminating PE': for example,
PW1 is stitched to the AC at T-PE1.
Each pseudowire segment is carried across the MPLS network in an LSP
tunnel: for example, PW1 is carried in LSP1. The LSP tunnels between
PEs may traverse different MPLS networks with the PEs as border
King & Farrel [Page 44]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
nodes, or the PEs may lie within the same network such that the LSPs
each only span part of the network.
----- ----- ----- -----
--- |T-PE1| LSP1 |S-PE1| LSP2 |S-PE3| LSP3 |T-PE2| +---+
| | AC | |=======| |=======| |=======| | AC | |
|CE1|----|........PW1........|..PW2........|..PW3........|----|CE2|
| | | |=======| |=======| |=======| | | |
--- | | | | | | | | +---+
----- ----- ----- -----
Figure 24 : Multi-Segment Pseudowire
While the topology shown in Figure 24 is easy to navigate, the
reality of a deployed network can be considerably more complex. The
topology in Figure 25 shows a small mesh of PEs. The links between
the PEs are not physical links but represent the potential of MPLS
LSPs between the PEs.
When establishing the end-to-end service between CE1 and CE2, some
choice must be made about which PEs to use. In other words, a path
computation must be made to determine the pseudowire segment 'hops',
and then the necessary LSP tunnels must be established to carry the
pseudowire segments that will be stitched together.
Of course, each LSP may itself require a path computation decision to
route it through the MPLS network between PEs.
The choice of path for the multi-segment pseudowire will depend on
such issues as:
- MPLS connectivity
- MPLS bandwidth availability
- pseudowire stitching capability and capacity at PEs
- policy and confidentiality considerations for use of PEs.
-----
|S-PE5|
/-----\
--- ----- -----/ \----- ----- ---
|CE1|----|T-PE1|-------|S-PE1|-------|S-PE3|-------|T-PE2|----|CE2|
--- -----\ -----\ ----- /----- ---
\ | ------- | /
\ ----- \----- /
-----|S-PE2|-------|S-PE4|-----
----- -----
Figure 25 : Multi-Segment Pseudowire Network Topology
King & Farrel [Page 45]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
3.6.2 Path-Diverse Pseudowires
The connectivity service provided by a pseudowire may need to be
resilient to failure. In many cases, this function is provided by
provisioning a pair of pseudowires carried by path-diverse LSPs
across the network as shown in Figure 26 (the terminology is
inherited directly from [RFC3985]). Clearly, in this case, the
challenge is to keep the two LSPs (LSP1 and LSP2) disjoint within the
MPLS network. This problem is not different from the normal MPLS
path-diversity problem.
------- -------
| PE1 | LSP1 | PE2 |
AC | |=======================| | AC
----...................PW1...................----
--- - / | |=======================| | \ -----
| |/ | | | | \| |
| CE1 + | | MPLS Network | | + CE2 |
| |\ | | | | /| |
--- - \ | |=======================| | / -----
----...................PW2...................----
AC | |=======================| | AC
| | LSP2 | |
------- -------
Figure 26 : Path-Diverse Pseudowires
The path-diverse pseudowire is developed in Figure 27 by the "dual-
homing" of each CE through more than one PE. The requirement for LSP
path diversity is exactly the same, but it is complicated by the LSPs
having distinct end points. In this case, the head-end router (e.g.,
PE1) cannot be relied upon to maintain the path diversity through the
signaling protocol because it is aware of the path of the only one of
the LSPs. Thus some form of coordinated path computation approach is
needed.
King & Farrel [Page 46]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
------- -------
| PE1 | LSP1 | PE2 |
AC | |=======================| | AC
---...................PW1...................---
/ | |=======================| | \
----- / | | | | \ -----
| |/ ------- ------- \| |
| CE1 + MPLS Network + CE2 |
| |\ ------- ------- /| |
----- \ | PE3 | | PE4 | / -----
\ | |=======================| | /
---...................PW2...................---
AC | |=======================| | AC
| | LSP2 | |
------- -------
Figure 27 : Path-Diverse Pseudowires With Disjoint PEs
3.6.3 Path-Diverse Multi-Segment Pseudowires
Figure 28 shows how the services in the previous two sections may be
combined to offer end-to-end diverse paths in a multi-segment
environment. To offer end-to-end resilience to failure, two entirely
diverse, end-to-end multi-segment pseudowires may be needed.
----- -----
|S-PE5|--------------|T-PE4|
/-----\ ----- \
----- -----/ \----- ----- \ ---
|T-PE1|-------|S-PE1|-------|S-PE3|-------|T-PE2|--|CE2|
--- / -----\ -----\ ----- /----- ---
|CE1|< ------- | ------- | /
--- \ ----- \----- \----- /
|T-PE3|-------|S-PE2|-------|S-PE4|-----
----- ----- -----
Figure 28 : Path-Diverse Multi-Segment Pseudowire Network Topology
Just as in any diverse-path computation, the selection of the first
path needs to be made with awareness of the fact that a second,
fully-diverse path is also needed. If a sequential computation was
applied to the topology in Figure 28, the first path CE1,T-PE1,S-PE1,
S-PE3,T-PE2,CE2 would make it impossible to find a second path that
was fully diverse from the first.
But the problem is complicated by the multi-layer nature of the
network. It is not enough that the PEs are chosen to diverse because
the LSP tunnels between them might share links within the MPLS
King & Farrel [Page 47]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
network. Thus, a multi-layer planning solution is needed to achieve
the desired level of service.
3.6.4 Pseudowire Segment Protection
An alternative to the end-to-end pseudowire protection service
described in Section 3.6.3 can be achieved by protecting individual
pseudowire segments or PEs. For example, in Figure 28, the
pseudowire between S-PE1 and S-PE5 may be protected by a pair of
stitched segments running between S-PE1 and S-PE5, and between S-PE5
and S-PE3. This is shown in detail in Figure 29.
------- ------- -------
| S-PE1 | LSP1 | S-PE5 | LSP3 | S-PE3 |
| |============| |============| |
| .........PW1..................PW3.......... | Outgoing
Incoming | : |============| |============| : | segment
segment | : | ------- | :..........
...........: | | : |
| : | | : |
| : |=================================| : |
| .........PW2............................... |
| |=================================| |
| | LSP2 | |
------- -------
Figure 29 : Fragment of a Segment-Protected Multi-Segment Pseudowire
The determination of pseudowire protection segments requires
coordination and planning, and just as in Section 3.6.5, this
planning must be cognizant of the paths taken by LSPs through the
underlying MPLS networks.
3.6.5 Applicability of ABNO to Pseudowires
The ABNO architecture lends itself well to the planning and control
pseudowires in the use cases described above. The user or
application needs a single point at which it requests services: the
ABNO Controller. The ANBO Controller can ask a PCE to draw on the
topology of pseudowire stiching-capable PEs, and the PCE can use a
series of TEDs or other PCEs for the underlying MPLS networks to
determine the paths of the LSP tunnels. Then a number of different
provisioning systems can be used to instantiate the LSPs and
provision the pseudowires under the control of the Provisioning
Manager. The ABNO Controller will use the I2RS Client to instruct
the network devices about what traffic should be placed on which
pseudowires, and in conjunction with the OAM Handler can ensure that
King & Farrel [Page 48]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
failure events are handled correctly, that service quality levels are
appropriate, and that service protection levels are maintained.
3.7 Other Potential Use Cases
This section serves as a place-holder for other potential use cases
that might get documented in a future revision of this document.
3.7.1 Grooming and Regrooming
This use case could cover the following scenarios:
- Nested LSPs
- Packet Classification (IP flows into LSPs at edge routers)
- Bucket Stuffing
- IP Flows into ECMP Hash Bucket
3.7.2 Bandwidth Scheduling
Bandwidth Scheduling consist of configuring LSPs based on a given
time schedule. This can be used to support maintenance or
operational schedules or to adjust network capacity based on
traffic pattern detection.
The ABNO framework provides the components to enable bandwidth
scheduling solutions.
3.7.3 ALTO Server
A use case describing the ALTO server is needed.]
4. Survivability and Redundancy within the ABNO Architecture
[Editor's note: this section to be written with consideration of how
the ABNO system survives the failure of individual components.]
5. Security Consideration
[Editor's note: this section to be written.]
6. Manageability Considerations
[Editor's note: this section to be written.]
King & Farrel [Page 49]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests for IANA action.
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks for discussions and review are due to Ken Gray, Jan Medved,
Nitin Bahadur, Diego Caviglia, Joel Halpern, Brian Field, Ori
Gerstel, Daniele Ceccarelli, Diego Caviglia Cyril Margaria, and
Jonathan Hardwick.
This work was supported in part by the FP-7 IDEALIST project under
grant agreement number 317999.
9. References
9.1. Informative References
[I-D.atlas-i2rs-architecture]
Ward, D., Halpern, J., and S. Hares, An Architecture for
the Interface to the Routing System",
draft-atlas-i2rs-architecture, work in progress.
[I-D.atlas-i2rs-problem-statement]
Atlas, A., Nadeau, T., and D. Ward, "Interface to the
Routing System Problem Statement",
draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement, work in progress.
[I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile]
Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, c., and N. Wang, "IP/MPLS
Connectivity Provisioning Profile",
draft-boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile, work in
progress.
[I-D.crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and Varga, R., "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp, work in
progress.
[I-D.ietf-alto-protocol]
Alimi, R., Penno, R., and Yang, Y., "ALTO Protocol",
draft-ietf-alto-protocol, work in progress.
King & Farrel [Page 50]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
[I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution]
Gredler, H., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
Ray, S., "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and TE
Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution,
work in progress.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-routing-cfg]
Lhotka, L., "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management",
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg, work in progress.
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Minei, I., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce,
work in progress.
[ONF] Open Networking Foundation, "OpenFlow Switch Specification
Version 1.1.0 Implemented (Wire Protocol 0x02)", February
2011.
[RFC2748] Durham, D., Ed., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzog, S., Rajan,
R., and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.
[RFC2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. Guerin, "A
Framework for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC2753,
January 2000.
[RFC3209] D. Awduche et al., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3292] Doria, A., Hellstrand, F., Sundell, K., and Worster, T.,
"General Switch Management Protocol (GSMP) V3", RFC 3292,
June 2002.
[RFC3412] Case, J., Harrington, D., Preshun, R., and Wijnen, B.,
"Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 3412, December 2002.
[RFC3473] L. Berger et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
January 2003.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kmpella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
King & Farrel [Page 51]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
[RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., and Gopal, R.,
"Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
Framework", RFC 3746, April 2004.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and Ash, J., "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
August 2006.
[RFC5101] B. Claise, "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export
(IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow
Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
[RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP. and Farrel, A.,
"Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS
TE)", RFC 5150, February 2008.
[RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
M., and Brungard, D., "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212, July
2008.
[RFC5254] Bitar, N., Bocci, M. and L. Martini, "Requirements for
Multi-Segment Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3)",
RFC 5254, October 2008
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L. and Ash, J.,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
December 2008.
[RFC5424] R. Gerhards, "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, March 2009.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Vasseur, JP., and Farrel, A., "Preserving
Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation
Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RC 5520, April 2009.
King & Farrel [Page 52]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
[RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and Oki, E., "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global
Concurrent Optimization", RFC 5557, July 2009.
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and Farrel, A.,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5623, September 2009.
[RFC5693] Seedorf, J., and Burger, E., "Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (ALTO) Problem Statement", RFC 5693, October
2009.
[RFC5810] A. Doria, et al., "Forwarding and Control Element
Separation (ForCES) Protocol Specification", RFC 5810,
March 2010.
[RFC6007] I. Nishioka. and D. King., "Use of the Synchronization
VECtor (SVEC) List for Synchronized Dependent Path
Computations", RFC 6007, September 2010.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[RFC6107] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Procedures for Dynamically
Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths", RFC 6107,
February 2011.
[RFC6120] P. Saint-Andre, "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
(XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, March 2011.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and Bierman,
A., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241,
June 2011.
[RFC6707] Niven-Jenkins, B., Le Faucheur, F., and Bitar, N., "Content
Distribution Network Interconnection (CDNI) Problem
Statement", RFC 6707, September 2012.
[RFC6805] King, D. and Farrel, A., "The Application of the Path
Computation Element Architecture to the Determination of a
Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, November
2012.
[TL1] Telcorida, "Operations Application Messages - Language For
Operations Application", GR-831, November 1996.
King & Farrel [Page 53]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
[G.694.2] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, "Spectral grids for WDM
applications: CWDM wavelength grid", December 2003.
[G.709] ITU-T, "Interface for the Optical Transport Network
(OTN)", G.709 Recommendation, October 2009.
10. Contributors' Addresses
Quintin Zhao
Huawei Technology
125 Nagog Technology Park
Acton, MA 01719
US
Email: qzhao@huawei.com
Victor Lopez Alvarez
Telefonica I+D
Email: vlopez@tid.es
Ramon Casellas
CTTC
Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Yuji Kamite
NTT Communications Corporation
Email: y.kamite@ntt.com
Yosuke Tanaka
NTT Communications Corporation
Email: yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com
Ina Minei
Juniper Networks
ina@juniper.net
11. Authors' Addresses
Daniel King
Old Dog Consulting
Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
King & Farrel [Page 54]
draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-04.txt July 2013
Appendix A. Undefined Interfaces
This Appendix provides a brief list of interfaces that are not yet
defined at the time of writing. Interfaces where there is a choice
of existing protocols are not listed.
- An interface for adding additional information to the Treaffic
Engineering Database is described in Section 2.3.2.3. No protocol
is currently identified for this interface, but candidates include:
- The protocol developed or adopted to satisfy the requirements of
I2RS [I-D.atlas-i2rs-architecture]
- Netconf [RFC6241]
- The protocol or protocols to be used by the Interface to the
Routing System described in Section 2.3.2.8 have yet to be
determined. The I2RS working group will make this decision after
use cases and protocol requirements have been agreed. Various
candidate protocols have been identified although none appears to
be suitable without some extensions to the currently-specified
protocol elements. The list of protocols supplied here is
illustrative and not intended to constrain the work of the I2RS
working group. The order of the list is not significant.
- OpenFlow [ONF]
- Netconf [RFC6241]
- ForCES [RFC3746]
- As described in Section 2.3.2.10, the Virtual Network Topology
Manager needs an interface that can be used by a PCE or the ABNO
Controller to inform it that a client layer needs more virtual
topology. It is possible that the protocol identified for use
with I2RS will satisfy this requirement.
- The north-bound interface from the ABNO Controller is used by the
NMS, OSS, and Application Service Coordinator to request services
in the network in support of applications as described in Section
2.3.2.11.
- It is possible that the protocol selected or designed to satisfy
I2RS.
- A potential approach for this tyoe of interface is described in
[I-D.boucadair-connectivity-provisioning-profile] for a simple
use case.
King & Farrel [Page 55]