Skip to main content

RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth
draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-04

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
Authors Hao Long , Min Ye , Greg Mirsky , Himanshu C. Shah , Alessandro D'Alessandro
Last updated 2014-04-28
Replaced by draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability, draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability, RFC 8625
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-04
Network Working Group                                    H. Long, M. Ye 
Internet Draft                             Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd         
Intended status: Standards Track                              G. Mirsky  
                                                               Ericsson 
                                                           A Alessandro 
                                                   Telecom Italia S.p.A 
                                                                H. Shah 
                                                                  Ciena         
Expires: October 2014                                    April 25, 2014  
 
                                      
        RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Links with Variable Discrete 
                                Bandwidth 
           draft-long-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability-04.txt 

Abstract 

   Packet switching network MAY contain 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 
   links with discretely variable bandwidth 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 

 
 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 25, 2014                [Page 1] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 26, 2014. 

Copyright Notice 

   Copyright (c) 2014 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............................... 5 
         3.1.1. Availability sub-TLV............................... 5 
      3.2. FLOWSPEC Object......................................... 6 
      3.3. Signaling Process....................................... 6 
   4. Security Considerations...................................... 7 
   5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7 
      5.1  Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV ......................... 7 
   6. References .................................................. 8 
      6.1. Normative References.................................... 8 
      6.2. Informative References.................................. 8 
   7. Acknowledgments ............................................. 9 
   Appendix A ..................................................... 9 
 
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 
 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014                [Page 2] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

   SNR      Signal-to-noise Ratio 

   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. 

   Some data communication technologies allow seamless change of 
   maximum physical bandwidth through a set of known discrete values. 
   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 MAY 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 reduced because 
   of 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. A more detailed 
   example on the bandwidth availability can be found in Appendix A. 
   Assigning different availability classes to different types of 
   service over such kind of links provides more efficient planning of 
   link capacity. To set up an 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. For example, 
   voice service usually needs "five nines" availability, while non-
   real time services MAY adequately perform at four or three nines 
   availability. Since different service types MAY need different 
   availabilities guarantee, multiple <availability, bandwidth> pairs 
   MAY be required when signaling.  

   If the availability requirement is not specified in the signaling 
   message, the bandwidth will be reserved as the highest availability. 
   For example, the bandwidth with 99.999% availability of a link is 
   100Mbps; the bandwidth with 99.99% availability is 200Mbps. When a 
 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014                [Page 3] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

   video application requests for 120Mbps without availability 
   requirement, the system will compare 120Mbps with 100Mbps, therefore 
   cannot set up the LSP path. But in fact, video application doesn't 
   need 99.999% availability, 99.99% availability is enough. In this 
   case, the LSP could be set up if availability is specified in the 
   signaling message.    

   To fulfill LSP setup by signaling in these scenarios, this document 
   specifies a new Availability sub-TLV as the sub-TLV of Ethernet 
   bandwidth profiles [RFC6003]. The Availability sub-TLV can be 
   applicable to any kind of physical links with variable discrete 
   bandwidth, such as microwave or DSL. Multiple bandwidth profiles 
   with different availability can be carried in the SENDER_TSPEC 
   object. 

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 to know about the network topology, and 
   calculate out an 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 discrete bandwidth 
   in a network, a <bandwidth, availability> requirement list SHOULD be 
   specified for an LSP. Each <bandwidth, availability> pair in the 
   list means that listed bandwidth with specified availability is 
   required. The list could be inherited from the results of service 
   planning for the LSP.  

   A node which has link(s) with variable discrete bandwidth attached 
   SHOULD contain a <bandwidth, availability> information list in its 
   OSPF TE LSA messages. The list provides the information that how 
   much bandwidth a link can support for a specified availability. This 
   information is used for path calculation by the PE node(s). The 
   routing extension for availability can be found in [ARTE]. 

   When a PE node initiates a PATH/RESV signaling to set up an LSP, the 
   PATH message SHOULD carry the <bandwidth, availability> requirement 
   list as bandwidth request.  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. 

 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014                [Page 4] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

3. Extension to RSVP-TE Signaling 

   The RSVP-TE signaling extension in this document is based on RFC6003: 
   a new sub-TLV for Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV is defined.   

3.1.1. Availability sub-TLV 

   The Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV in RFC6003 has the following 
   format. A new filed is defined in this document as shown in Figure 1. 

       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               | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |Pro|A|         |     Index     |          Reserved             | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |                              CIR                              |  
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |                              CBS                              | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |                              EIR                              | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |                              EBS                              | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      Figure 1: A new "AF" filed in Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV 

   A new filed is defined in this document: 

     AF filed (bit 2): Availability Field (AF) 

   If the AF filed is set to 1, Availability sub-TLV MUST be included 
   in the Bandwidth Profile TLV. If the AF field is set to value 0, 
   then an Availability sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be included. 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                         | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 

                        Figure 2: Availability sub-TLV 

      Type (2 octets): TBD 
 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014                [Page 5] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

      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. 

   As the Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV can be carried for one or more 
   times in the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object, the Availability sub-TLV 
   can also be present for one or more times. 

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. 

   The intermediate and destination nodes checks whether they can 
   satisfy the bandwidth requirements 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, availability> 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, availability> requirement cannot 
        be satisfied, it SHOULD generate PathErr message with the error 
        code "Admission Control Error" and the error value "Requested 
        Bandwidth Unavailable" (see [RFC2205]). 

   If two LSPs request for the bandwidth with the same availability 
   requirement, a way to resolve the contention is comparing the node 
   ID, the node with the higher node ID will win the contention. More 
   details can be found in [RFC3473]. 

   If a node does not support the Availability sub-TLV, it SHOULD 
   ignore the availability requirement in the Availability sub-TLV, and 
 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014                [Page 6] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

   SHOULD only use the bandwidth request in the Ethernet Bandwidth 
   Profile TLV. The RFC6003[RFC6003] states that a node that does not 
   support a flag SHOULD ignore it. Thus a legacy implementation SHOULD 
   ignore the Availability Flag.    

4. Security Considerations 

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

5. IANA Considerations 

   IANA maintains registries and sub-registries for RSVP-TE used by 
   GMPLS. IANA is requested to make allocations from these registries 
   as set out in the following sections.  

5.1 Ethernet Bandwidth Profile TLV 

   IANA maintains a registry of GMPLS parameters called "Generalized 
   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters". 

   IANA has created a new sub-registry called "Ethernet Bandwidth 
   Profiles" to contain bit flags carried in the Ethernet Bandwidth 
   Profile TLV of the Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object. 

   Bits are to be allocated by IETF Standards Action. Bits are numbered 
   from bit 0 as the low order bit. A new bit field is as follow: 

   Bit     Hex               Description              Reference 

   ---     ----              ------------------       ----------- 

   2       0x03              Availability Field (AF)   [This ID] 

   Sub-TLV types for Ethernet Bandwidth Profiles are to be allocated by 
   IETF Standard Action. Initial values are as follows: 

   Type    Length            Format                   Description 

   ---     ----              ------------------       ----------- 

   0        -                Reserved                 Reserved value 

   TBD      4                see Section 3.1          Availability sub-
                                                     TLV 

 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014                [Page 7] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

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. 

   [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 

   [ARTE]    H., Long, M., Ye, Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H., 
             "OSPF Routing Extension for Links with Variable Discrete 
             Bandwidth", Work in Progress, February, 2014 

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. 

 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014                [Page 8] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

7. Acknowledgments 

   The authors would like to thank Khuzema Pithewan, Lou Berger, Yuji 
   Tochio, Dieter Beller, and Autumn Liu for their comments on the 
   document. 

   Appendix A 

   Presuming that a link has three discrete bandwidth levels:  

   The link bandwidth under modulation level 1, e.g., QPSK, is 100Mbps; 

   The link bandwidth under modulation level 2, e.g., 16QAM, is 200Mbps; 

   The link bandwidth under modulation level 3, e.g., 256QAM, is 
   400Mbps. 

   In sunny day, the modulation level 3 can be used to achieve 400Mbps 
   link bandwidth. 

   A light rain with X mm/h rate triggers the system to change the 
   modulation level from level 3 to level 2, with bandwidth changing 
   from 400Mbps to 200Mbps. The probability of X mm/h rain in the local 
   area is 52 minutes in a year. Then the dropped 200Mbps bandwidth has 
   99.99% availability. 

   A heavy rain with Y(Y>X) mm/h rate triggers the system to change the 
   modulation level from level 2 to level 1, with bandwidth changing 
   from 200Mbps to 100Mbps. The probability of Y mm/h rain in the local 
   area is 26 minutes in a year. Then the dropped 100Mbps bandwidth has 
   99.995% availability. 

   For the 100M bandwidth of the modulation level 1, only the extreme 
   weather condition can cause the whole system unavailable, which only 
   happens for 5 minutes in a year. So the 100Mbps bandwidth of the 
   modulation level 1 owns the availability of 99.999%. 

   In a word, the maximum bandwidth is 400Mbps. According to the 
   weather condition, the sub-bandwidth and its availability are shown 
   as follows: 

   Sub-bandwidth(Mbps)    Availability                       

   ------------------     ------------          

   200                    99.99%                 

 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014                [Page 9] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

   100                    99.995%                

   100                    99.999%                

    

    

    

 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014               [Page 10] 


Internet-Draft    RSVP-TE - Bandwidth Availability          April 2014 
    

   Authors' Addresses 

   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 (editor) 
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 
   No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District 
   Chengdu 611731, P.R.China 
 
   Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com 
    
   Greg Mirsky (editor) 
   Ericsson 
    
   Email: gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com 
    
   Alessandro D'Alessandro 
   Telecom Italia S.p.A 
    
   Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it 
    
    
   Himanshu Shah 
   Ciena Corp. 
   3939 North First Street 
   San Jose, CA 95134 
   US 
    
   Email: hshah@ciena.com 
    

 

 
 
Long, et al.          Expires October 26, 2014               [Page 11]