Network Working Group Yuanlin Bao
Internet-Draft Faming Yang
Intended status: Informational Xihua Fu
Expires: September 1, 2010 ZTE Corporation
February 28, 2010
Requirements For Path Ownership Transfer Between Management Plane And
Control Plane In A MPLS-TP Network
draft-bao-mpls-tp-path-transfer-reqs-00.txt
Abstract
From a carrier perspective, the possibility of transferring the
ownership and control of an existing and in-use path between the
management plane and the control plane, without actually affecting
data plane traffic being carried over it, is a valuable option. This
memo sets out the requirements for such procedures.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 September 1, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements for MPLS-TP Path Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. General Requirements for LSP and PW . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Special Requirements for LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010
1. Introduction
As described in the architecture for Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [MPLS-TP-Fwk], the overall architecture
framework for MPLS-TP is based on a profile of the MPLS and
Pseudowire (PW) procedures as specified for the MPLS and (MS-)PW
architectures defined in [RFC3031], [RFC3985] and [RFC5085]. Thus
MPLS-TP path includes LSP and PW which is beared in LSP. MPLS-TP
path can be configured and controlled by means of a Network
Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Plane (MP).
NMS/MP is the owner of MPLS-TP path, being responsible of it's set
up, tear down and maintenance.
The adoption of control plane in a MPLS-TP network that is already in
service - controlled by NMS at MP level - introduces the need for a
procedure able to coordinate a controlled transfer of PW from MP to
CP. In addition, the control transfer in the opposite direction,
from CP to MP should be possible as well.
This memo considers the requirements of MPLS-TP path ownership
transfer between management plane and control plane. Note, some
aspects of a control-plane-initiated connection must be capable of
being queried/controlled by the management plane. These aspects
should be independent of how the connection was established.
1.1. 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 [RFC2119].
2. Requirements for MPLS-TP Path Transfer
[RFC5493] describes the requirements for the conversion between
permanent connection (PC) and switched connection (SC) in a GMPLS
Network. However, MPLS-TP network supports unidirectional,
associated bidirectional, co-routed bidirectional point-to-point
transport paths and unidirectional point-to-multipoint transport
paths. So, some requirements listed in [RFC5493] also apply to
MPLS-TP path transfer. However, due to the particularity of MPLS-TP
path including LSP and PW, there are still some different
requirements. This section will lists all the requirements for the
MPLS-TP path transfer.
Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010
2.1. General Requirements for LSP and PW
This section lists the general requirements for LSP and PW.
1) No disruption of user traffic
The MPLS-TP path transfer process MUST NOT cause any disruption
of user traffic flowing over the path whose control is being
transferred or over any other path in the network. If transfer
fails, it's affection SHOULD be limited to the control plane or
management plane, and the data plane MUST not be affected.
The MPLS-TP path ownership transfer SHALL occur without
generating alarms towards the end users or the NMS.
2) Data Plane PW Consistency
The MPLS-TP transport path MUST stay in place throughout the
whole control transfer process. That is to say, LSP and PW MUST
follow the same transport path through the network and MUST use
the same network resources.
3) Synchronization of State among Nodes during Conversion
It MUST be assured that the state of the LSP and PW is
synchronized among all nodes traversed by it before the
conversion is considered complete.
4) Transfer between Management Plane and Control Plane
It MUST be possible to transfer the ownership of a MPLS-TP path
from the management plane to the control plane. It SHOULD be
possible to transfer the ownership of a MPLS-TP path from the
control plane to the management plane.
5) Revertion after Transfer Failure
It's possible that PW transfer may fail. If PW fails to transfer
from one plane to the other, a revertion mechnism MUST be
possible to ensure LSP and PW status revert to the initial one
before the transfer process starts.
2.2. Special Requirements for LSP
For associated bidirectional LSP, it is comprised of two independent
unidirectional LSP. The edge nodes and transit nodes belonging to
the same associated bidirectional transport path, must be aware about
the pairing relationship of the forward and the backward directions
Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010
belonging to the same associated bidirectional transport path. So,
the pairing relationship MUST be created in CP when the associated
bidirectional LSP from management transfers from MP to CP. s
3. Security Considerations
TBD.
4. Acknowledgements
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5493] Caviglia, D., Bramanti, D., Li, D., and D. McDysan,
"Requirements for the Conversion between Permanent
Connections and Switched Connections in a Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Network", RFC 5493,
April 2009.
5.2. Informative References
[DYNAMIC-MS-PW]
Luca Martini, Matthew Bocci, and Florin Balus, "Dynamic
Placement of Multi Segment Pseudo Wires",
draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-10.txt .
[MPLS-TP-CP]
Loa Andersson, Lou Berger, and Luyuan Fang, "MPLS-TP
Control Plane Framework",
Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Reqs for PW Transfer February 2010
draft-abfb-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework-01.txt .
[SEG-PW] Luca Martini and Chris Metz, "Segmented Pseudowire",
draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-13.txt .
Authors' Addresses
Yuanlin Bao
ZTE Corporation
5F, R&D Building 3, ZTE Industrial Park, XiLi LiuXian Road
Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055
P.R.China
Phone: +86 755 26773731
Email: bao.yuanlin@zte.com.cn
URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/
Faming Yang
ZTE Corporation
4F, R&D Building 3, ZTE Industrial Park, XiLi LiuXian Road
Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055
P.R.China
Phone: +86 755 26773731
Email: yang.faming@zte.com.cn
URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/
Xihua Fu
ZTE Corporation
West District,ZTE Plaza,No.10,Tangyan South Road,Gaoxin District
Xi An 710065
P.R.China
Phone: +8613798412242
Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn
URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/
Yuanlin Bao, et al. Expires September 1, 2010 [Page 6]