RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Bandwidth availability
draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-01

Network Working Group                                           H. Long 
Internet Draft                                                     M.Ye 
Intended status: Standards Track           Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 
                                                              G. Mirsky 
                                                               Ericsson 
                                                           A Alessandro 
                                                   Telecom Italia S.p.A 
Expires: January 2014                                      July 3, 2013  

                                      
           RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Bandwidth availability 
           draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-01.txt 

Abstract 

   Packet switching network usually contains links with variable 
   bandwidth, e.g., copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such link is 
   sensitive to external environment. Availability is typically used 
   for describing the link during network planning. This document 
   describes an extension for RSVP-TE signaling for setting up a label 
   switching path (LSP) in a Packet Switched Network (PSN) network 
   which contains variable bandwidth link by introducing an optional 
   availability field in RSVP-TE signaling. 

Status of this Memo 

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.  

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that 
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts. 

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2009. 

 
 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 1] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability           July 2013 
    

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. 

Table of Contents 

   1. Introduction ................................................ 3 
   2. Overview .................................................... 4 
   3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling............................... 4 
      3.1. SENDER_TSPEC Object..................................... 4 
         3.1.1. Bandwidth Profile TLV.............................. 5 
      3.2. FLOWSPEC Object......................................... 6 
      3.3. Signaling Process....................................... 6 
   4. Security Considerations...................................... 7 
   5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7 
   6. References .................................................. 7 
      6.1. Normative References.................................... 7 
      6.2. Informative References.................................. 8 
   7. Acknowledgments ............................................. 8 
 
Conventions used in this document 

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 

   The following acronyms are used in this draft: 

   RSVP-TE  Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering 

   LSP      Label Switched Path 

   PSN      Packet Switched Network 

   SNR      Signal-to-noise Ratio 

 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 7, 2014                [Page 2] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability           July 2013 
    

   TLV      Type Length Value 

   PE       Provider Edge 

   LSA      Link State Advertisement 

1. Introduction 

   The RSVP-TE specification [RFC3209] and GMPLS extensions [RFC3473] 
   specify the signaling message including the bandwidth request for 
   setting up a label switching path in a PSN network. 

   There are some data communication technologies that allow seamless 
   change of maximum physical bandwidth. For example, in mobile 
   backhaul network, microwave links are very popular for providing 
   connection of last hops. In case of heavy rain, to maintain the link 
   connectivity, the microwave link will lower the modulation level 
   since demodulating lower modulation level need lower signal-to-noise 
   ratio (SNR). This is called adaptive modulation technology [EN 302 
   217]. However, lower modulation level also means lower link 
   bandwidth. When link bandwidth reduces by modulation down-shifting, 
   high priority traffic can be maintained, while lower priority 
   traffic is dropped. Similarly the cooper links may change their link 
   bandwidth due to external interference.  

   The parameter, availability [G.827, F.1703, P.530], is often used to 
   describe the link capacity during network planning. Assigning 
   different availability classes to different types of service over 
   such kind of links provides more efficient planning of link capacity. 
   To set up a LSP across these links, availability information is 
   required for the nodes to verify bandwidth satisfaction and make 
   bandwidth reservation. The availability information should be 
   inherited from the availability requirements of the services 
   expected to be carried on the LSP, voice service usually needs ''five 
   nines'' availability, while non-real time data packets may needs four 
   or three nines availability. Since different service types may need 
   different availabilities guarantee, multiple <availability, 
   bandwidth> pairs may be required when signaling.  

   To fulfill LSP setup by signaling in these scenarios, this document 
   specifies the following extension: 

 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 7, 2014                [Page 3] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability           July 2013 
    

     o A new SENDER_TSPEC object is defined which includes multiple 
        bandwidth profiles with different availability. This object is 
        an extension on the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC defined by [RFC6003] 
        which support multiple bandwidth profile TLVs, but limited in 
        the scope of Ethernet. The extension uses the object 
        generically, and amends availability information in the 
        bandwidth profile TLV. 

         

2. Overview 

   A PSN tunnel may span one or more links in a network. To setup a 
   label switching path (LSP), a PE node may collect link information 
   which is spread in routing message, e.g., OSPF TE LSA message, by 
   network nodes to get know about the network topology, and calculate 
   out a LSP route based on the network topology, and send the 
   calculated LSP route to signaling to initiate a PATH/RESV message 
   for setting up the LSP. 

   In case that there is(are) link(s) with variable bandwidth in a 
   network, a <bandwidth, availability> requirement list should be 
   specified for a LSP. Each <bandwidth, availability> pair in the list 
   means a bandwidth with specified availability is required. The list 
   could be inherited from the result of service planning for the LSP. 

   When a PE node initiates a PATH/RESV signaling for setting up the 
   LSP, the PATH message should carry the <bandwidth, availability> 
   requirement list as bandwidth request, and the intermediate node(s) 
   will allocate the bandwidth resource for each availability 
   requirement from the remaining bandwidth with corresponding 
   availability. An error message may be returned if any <bandwidth, 
   availability> request cannot be satisfied. 

3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling 

3.1. SENDER_TSPEC Object 

   The SENDER_TSPEC object (Class-Num = 12) has the following format: 

 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 7, 2014                [Page 4] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability           July 2013 
    

       0                   1                   2                   3 
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |            Length             | Class-Num (12)|     C-Type    | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |             Class-Specific Information (Optional)             | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |                                                               | 
      ~                              TLVs                             ~ 
      |                                                               | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    

   Class-Specific Information: 32 bits 

      This field indicates the specific information for each C-Type.  

   TLV (Type-Length-Value): 

      The SENDER_TSPEC object MUST include at least one TLV and MAY 
       include more than one TLV. 

3.1.1. Bandwidth Profile TLV 

   The Bandwidth Profile TLV has the following format. 

       0                   1                   2                   3 
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |              Type             |          Length               | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |    Profile    |     Index     |          Reserved             | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |                            ... ...                            | 
      ~                      Traffic Parameters                       ~ 
      |                            ... ...                            | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
     

      Type: TBD, 16 bits; 

      Length: 16 bits; 

      Profile: 8 bits 

         This field is defined as a bit vector of binary flags.  The      
         following flags are defined: 
 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 7, 2014                [Page 5] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability           July 2013 
    

            Flag 3 (bit 2): Availability Flag (AF) 

         When The Flag 3 is set to value 1, there is an availability 
         sub-TLV included in this Bandwidth Profile TLV. The 
         availability sub-TLV has the following format: 

       0                   1                   2                   3 
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |               Type            |               Length          | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |                          Availability                         | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

           Type (2 octets): TBD 
           Length (2 octets): 4 
           Availability (4 octets): a 32-bit floating number describes 
           availability requirement for this bandwidth request. The 
           value must be less than 1. 
      

     Index: 8 bits 

       See [RFC6003] section 4.1. 

     Traffic Parameters: 

       This field includes the traffic parameters information. The 
         format is different for different C-Type. 

         C-Type = IntServ: See [RFC2210]; 
         C-Type = Ethernet: See [RFC6003]; 
    

3.2. FLOWSPEC Object 

   The FLOWSPEC object (Class-Num = 9, Class-Type = TBD) has the same 
   format as the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. 

3.3. Signaling Process 

   The source node initiates PATH messages including one or more 
   Bandwidth Profile TLVs with different availability value in the 
   SENDER_TSPEC object. Each Bandwidth Profile TLV specifies the 
   portion of bandwidth request with referred availability requirement. 

 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 7, 2014                [Page 6] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability           July 2013 
    

   The destination nodes check whether it can satisfy the bandwidth 
   requirement by comparing each bandwidth requirement inside the 
   SENDER_TSPEC objects with the remaining link sub-bandwidth resource 
   with respective availability guarantee when received the PATH 
   message.  

     o   If all bandwidth requirements can be satisfied, it should 
        reserve the bandwidth resource from each remaining sub-
        bandwidth portion to set up this LSP. Optionally, the higher 
        availability bandwidth can be allocated to lower availability 
        request when the lower availability bandwidth cannot satisfy 
        the request. 

     o   If at least one bandwidth requirement cannot be satisfied, it 
        should generate PathErr message with the error code "Traffic 
        Control Error" and the error value "Bad Tspec value" (see 
        [RFC2205]). 

4. Security Considerations 

   This document does not introduce new security considerations to the    
   existing RSVP-TE signaling protocol. 

5. IANA Considerations 

   TBD 

6. References 

6.1. Normative References 

   [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., ''The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated 
             Services'', RFC 2210, September 1997. 

   [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, 
             V.,and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP 
             Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 

   [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching            
             (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic            
             Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. 

    [RFC6003] Papadimitriou, D. ''Ethernet Traffic Parameters'', RFC 
             6003, October 2010. 

 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 7, 2014                [Page 7] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability           July 2013 
    

   [G.827]  ITU-T Recommendation, ''Availability performance parameters 
             and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit-
             rate digital paths'', September, 2003. 

   [F.1703]  ITU-R Recommendation, ''Availability objectives for real 
             digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km 
             hypothetical reference paths and connections'', January, 
             2005. 

   [P.530]   ITU-R Recommendation,'' Propagation data and prediction 
             methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of-
             sight systems'', February, 2012 

   [EN 302 217] ETSI standard, ''Fixed Radio Systems; Characteristics 
             and requirements for point-to-point equipment and 
             antennas'', April, 2009 

6.2. Informative References 

   [MCOS]    Minei, I., Gan, D., Kompella, K., and X. Li, "Extensions           
             for Differentiated Services-aware Traffic Engineered              
             LSPs", Work in Progress, June 2006. 

7. Acknowledgments 

    

    

   Authors' Addresses 

 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 7, 2014                [Page 8] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability           July 2013 
    

   Hao Long 
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 
   No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District 
   Chengdu 611731, P.R.China 
    
   Phone: +86-18615778750 
   Email: longhao@huawei.com 
    
    
   Min Ye 
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 
   No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District 
   Chengdu 611731, P.R.China 
 
   Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com 
    
   Greg Mirsky 
   Ericsson 
    
   Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com 
    
   Alessandro D'Alessandro 
   Telecom Italia S.p.A 
    
   Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it 
    
    

 

 
 
Long, et al.           Expires January 7, 2014                [Page 9]