[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03                                                   
CCAMP Working Group                            Vishnu Pavan Beeram (Ed)
Internet Draft                                         Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                      Igor Bryskin (Ed)
                                                ADVA Optical Networking

Expires: August 18, 2013                              February 18, 2013



                   Mutually Exclusive Link Group (MELG)
                      draft-beeram-ccamp-melg-00.txt


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 August 18, 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





Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013


   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Abstract

   This document introduces the concept of MELG ("Mutually Exclusive
   Link Group") and discusses its usage in the context of mutually
   exclusive Virtual TE Links.

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].


Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................2
   2. Mutually Exclusive Virtual TE Links............................3
   3. Mutually Exclusive Link Group..................................5
   4. Protocol Extensions............................................6
      4.1. OSPF......................................................6
      4.2. ISIS......................................................7
   5. Security Considerations........................................8
   6. IANA Considerations............................................8
      6.1. OSPF......................................................8
      6.2. ISIS......................................................8
   7. Normative References...........................................8
   8. Acknowledgments................................................9

1. Introduction

   A Virtual TE Link (as defined in [RFC6001]) advertised into a Client
   Network Domain represents a potentiality to setup an LSP in the
   Server Network Domain to support the advertised TE link. The Virtual
   TE Link gets advertised like any other TE link and follows exactly
   the same rules that are defined for the advertising, processing and
   use of regular TE links [RFC4202]. However, "mutual exclusivity" is
   one attribute that is specific to Virtual TE links. This document
   discusses the need to advertise this information and the means to do
   so.




Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013


2. Mutually Exclusive Virtual TE Links

   Consider the network topology depicted in Figure 1a. This is a
   typical packet optical transport deployment scenario where the WDM
   layer network domain serves as a Server Network Domain providing
   transport connectivity to the packet layer network Domain (Client
   Network Domain).

                              |
                              | +---+            /-\
                              | |   | Router    (   ) WDM
                              | +---+ Node       \-/  node
                              |________________________________

 +---+        /-\          /-\           /-\          +---+
 | B |-------( E )--------( G )---------( J )---------| C |
 +---+        \-/          \-/           \-/          +---+
                          /   \         /   \
                         /     \       /     \
                        /       \     /       \
                       /         \   /         \
                      /           \ /           \
     +---+          /-\           /-\           /-\          +---+
     | A |---------( F )---------( H )---------( I )---------| D |
     +---+          \-/           \-/           \-/          +---+

                    Figure 1a: Sample topology

     -------------                        |  [ ] Client TE Node
     | Client TE |                        |  +++ Client TE Link
     | DataBase  |                        |_____________________
     -------------
        [B] ++++++++ [E]                  [J] +++++++++ [C]



        [A] ++++++++ [F]                  [I] +++++++++ [D]


                     Figure 1b: Client TE Database




Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013


   Nodes A, B, C and D are IP routers that are connected to an Optical
   WDM transport network. E, F, G, H, I and J are WDM nodes that
   constitute the Server Network Domain. The border nodes (E, F, I and
   J) operate in both the server and client domains. Figure 1b depicts
   how the Client Network Domain TE topology looks like when there are
   no Client TE Links provisioned across the optical domain.

                              | *****  F-J WDM Path (lambda 192000)
                              | @@@@@  E-I WDM Path (lambda 192000)
                              |________________________________

 +---+        /-\ @@@@@@@@ /-\           /-\          +---+
 | B |-------( E )--------( G )---------( J )---------| C |
 +---+        \-/         *\-/*@       @*\-/@         +---+
                         */   \*@     @*/   \@
                        */     \*@   @*/     \@
                       */       \*@ @*/       \@
                      */         \*@*/         \@
                     */           \*/           \@
     +---+          /-\           /-\           /-\          +---+
     | A |---------( F )---------( H )---------( I )---------| D |
     +---+          \-/           \-/           \-/          +---+

           Figure 2a: Mutually Exclusive potential WDM paths

      ------------   |  TE-Links E-I and F-J are mutually exclusive
      | Client-TE|   |  Advertised with MELG-ID - 25/192000
      | Database |   |  [SRLG-ID 25; Shared Resource ID 192000]
      ------------   |_____________________________________________

        [B] ++++++++ [E]                      [J] +++++++++ [C]
                         ++++            +++++
                             +++      +++
                                ++++++
                             +++      +++
                         ++++            +++++
        [A] ++++++++ [F]                      [I] +++++++++ [D]


  Figure 2b: Client TE Database - Mutually Exclusive Virtual TE Links




Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013


   Now consider augmenting the Client TE topology by creating a couple
   of Virtual TE Links across the optical domain. The potential paths
   in the WDM network catering to these two virtual TE links are as
   shown in Fig 2a and the corresponding augmented Client TE topology
   is as illustrated in Fig 2b.

   In this particular example, the potential paths in the WDM layer
   network supporting the Virtual TE Links not only intersect, but also
   require the usage of the same resource (lambda channel 192000) on
   the intersection. Because the Virtual TE Links depend on the same
   uncommitted network resource, only one of them could get activated
   at any given time. In other words they are mutually exclusive. The
   same scenario is encountered when the potential paths depend on a
   common physical resource (e.g. transponder, regenerator, wavelength
   converter, etc.) that could be used by only one Server Network
   Domain LSP at a time.

   For a Client Network Domain path computation function (especially a
   centralized one capable of concurrent computation of multiple paths)
   it is important to know the existence of such mutually exclusive
   relationship between Virtual TE Links. Absent this information,
   there exists the risk of yielding erroneous concurrent path
   computation results where only a subset of the computed paths can
   get successfully provisioned. This document introduces the concept
   of Mutually Exclusive Link Group to address this problem.

3. Mutually Exclusive Link Group

   The Mutually Exclusive Link Group (MELG) construct defined in this
   document has 2 purposes

   - To indicate via a separate network unique number (MELG ID) an
     element or a situation that makes the advertised Virtual TE Link
     belong to one or more Mutually Exclusive Link Groups. Path
     computing element will be able to decide on whether two or more
     Virtual TE Links are mutually exclusive or not by finding an
     overlap of advertised MELGs (similar to deciding on whether two or
     more TE links share fate or not by finding common SRLGs)

   - To indicate whether the advertised Virtual TE Link is committed or
     not at the moment of the advertising. Such information is
     important for a path computation element: Committing new Virtual
     TE links (vs. re-using already committed ones) has a consequence
     of allocating more server layer resources and disabling other
     Virtual TE Links that have common MELGs with newly committed
     Virtual TE Links; Committing a new Virtual TE Link also means a



Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013


     longer setup time for the Client LSP and higher risk of setup-
     failure.

4. Protocol Extensions

4.1. OSPF

   The MELG is a sub-TLV of the top level TE Link TLV. It may occur at
   most once within the Link TLV. The format of the MELGs sub-TLV is
   defined as follows:

   Name: MELG
   Type: TBD
   Length: Variable

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Sub-TLV Type       |            Sub-TLV Length     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    VTE-Flags (16 bits)     |U |  Number of MELGs (16 bits)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MELGID1 (64 bits)                             |
   |                 MELGID2 (64 bits)                             |
   |                ........................                       |
   |                 MELGIDn (64 bits)                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Number of MELGs:              number of MELGS advertised for the
                                 Virtual TE Link;
   VTE-Flags:                    Virtual TE Link specific flags;
   MELGID1,MELGID2,...,MELGIDn:  64-bit network domain unique numbers
                                 associated with each of the advertised
                                 MELGs

   Currently defined Virtual TE Link specific flags are:
      U bit (bit 1): Uncommitted - if set, the Virtual TE Link is
      uncommitted at the time of the advertising (i.e. the server layer
      network LSP is not set up); if cleared, the Virtual TE Link is
      committed (i.e. the server layer LSP is fully provisioned and
      functioning). All other bits of the "VTE-Flags" field are
      reserved for future use and MUST be cleared.







Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013


   Note: A Virtual TE Link advertisement MAY include MELGs sub-TLV with
   zero MELGs for the purpose of communicating to the TE domain whether
   the Virtual TE Link is currently committed or not.

4.2. ISIS

   The MELG TLV (of type TBD) contains a data structure consisting of:

      6        octets of System ID
      1        octet of Pseudonode Number
      1        octet Flag
      4        octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link
               Local Identifier
      4        octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link
               Remote Identifier
      2        octets MELG-Flags
      2        octets - Number of MELGs
      variable List of MELG values, where each element in the list
               has 8 octets

   The following illustrates encoding of the value field of the MELG
   TLV.


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           System ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        System ID (cont.)      |Pseudonode num |    Flags      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Ipv4 interface address/Link Local Identifier         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Ipv4 neighbor address/Link Remote Identifier         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    VTE-Flags (16 bits)     |U |  Number of MELGs (16 bits)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 MELGID1 (64 bits)                             |
   |                 MELGID2 (64 bits)                             |
   |                ........................                       |
   |                 MELGIDn (64 bits)                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013


The neighbor is identified by its System ID (6 octets), plus one octet
to indicate the pseudonode number if the neighbor is on a LAN
interface.

The least significant bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the
interface is numbered (set to 1) or unnumbered (set to 0). All other
bits are reserved and should be set to 0.

The length of the TLV is 20 + 8 * (number of MELG values).

The semantics of "VTE-Flags", "Number of MELGs" and "MELGID Values" are
the same as the ones defined under OSPF extensions.

The MELG TLV MAY occur more than once within the IS-IS Link State
Protocol Data Units.

5. Security Considerations

   TBD

6. IANA Considerations

6.1. OSPF

   IANA is requested to allocate a new sub-TLV type for MELG (as
   defined in Section 4.1) under the top-level TE Link TLV.

6.2. ISIS

   IANA is requested to allocate a new IS-IS TLV type for MELG (as
   defined in Section 4.2).

7. Normative References

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

   [RFC4202]    K.Kompella, Y.Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support
                of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
                RFC4202, October 2005.

   [RFC6001]    D.Papadimitriou, M.Vigoureax, K.Shiomoto, D.Brungard
                and JL. Le Roux, "GMPLS Protocol Extensions for Multi-




Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013


                Layer and Multi-Region Networks", RFC 6001, October
                2010.

8. Acknowledgments

   Chris Bowers [cbowers@juniper.net]

Authors' Addresses

   Vishnu Pavan Beeram
   Juniper Networks
   Email: vbeeram@juniper.net

   Igor Bryskin
   ADVA Optical Networking
   Email: ibryskin@advaoptical.com

   John Drake
   Juniper Networks
   Email: jdrake@juniper.net

   Gert Grammel
   Juniper Networks
   Email: ggrammel@juniper.net

   Wes Doonan
   ADVA Optical Networking
   Email: wdoonan@advaoptical.com

   Manuel Paul
   Deutsche Telekom
   Email: Manuel.Paul@telekom.de

   Ruediger Kunze
   Deutsche Telekom
   Email: Ruediger.Kunze@telekom.de

   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
   Telefonica
   Email: ogondio@tid.es

   Cyril Margaria
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Email: cyril.margaria@nsn.com



Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                   MELG                     February 2013



   Friedrich Armbruster
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Email: friedrich.armbruster@nsn.com

   Daniele Ceccarelli
   Ericsson
   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com








































Beeram, et al          Expires August 18, 2013                [Page 10]