CCAMP Working Group D. Ceccarelli
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational O. Gonzalez de Dios
Expires: May 9, 2014 Telefonica I+D
F. Zhang
X. Zhang
Huawei Technologies
November 5, 2013
Use cases for operating networks in the overlay model context
draft-ceccadedios-ccamp-overlay-use-cases-04
Abstract
This document defines a set of use cases for operating networks in
the overlay model context through the Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) overlay interfaces.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 9, 2014.
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
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Client domain to server domain connectivity . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Single homing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Adjacent dual homing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Remote dual homing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. UC 1 - Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. UC 2 - Provisioning with optimization . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. UC 3 - Provisioning with constraints . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. UC 4 - Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. UC 5 - Concurrent provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. UC 6 - Reoptimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.7. UC 7 - Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8. UC 8 - Availability check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.9. UC 9 - P2MP services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.10. UC 10 - Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.11. UC 12 - Stacking of overlay interfaces . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.12. UC 13 - Resiliency parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Appendix I - Colored overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
1. Introduction
The GMPLS overlay model [RFC 4208] specifies a client-server
relationship between networks where client and server domains are
managed as separate domains because of trustiness, scalability and
operational issue. By means of procedures from the GMPLS protocol
suite it is possible to build a topology in the client (overlay)
network from Traffic Engineering paths in the server network. In
this context, the UNI (User to Network Interface) is the demarcation
point between networks. It is a boundary where policies,
administrative and confidentiality issues apply that limit the
exchange of information.
This GMPLS overlay model supports a wide variety of network
scenarios. The packet over optical scenario is probably the most
popular example where the overlay model applies.
In order to exploit the full potential of client/server network
interworking in the overlay model, it may be desirable to know in
advance whether is it feasible or not to connect two client network
nodes [INTERCON-TE]. This requires having a certain amount of TE
information of the server network in the client network. This need
not be the full set of TE information available within each network,
but does need to express the potential of providing TE connectivity.
This subset of TE information is called TE reachability information.
The goal of this document is to define a set of solution independent
use cases applicable to the overlay model. In particular it focuses
on the network scenarios where the overlay model applies and analyzes
the most interesting aspects of provisioning, recovery and path
computation.
2. Terminology
The following terms are used within the document:
- Edge node [RFC4208]: node of the client domain belonging to the
overlay network, i.e. nodes with at least one interface connected
to the server domain.
- Core node [RFC4208]: node of the server domain.
- Access link: link between core node and edge node. It is the
link where the UNI is usually implemented.
- Remote node: node in the client domain which has no direct
access to the server domain but can reach it through an edge node
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
in its same administrative domain.
- Local trigger: LSP setup request issued to an edge node. It
triggers the setup of a client domain FA through the server domain
via a UNI interface.
- Remote trigger: LSP setup request issued to a remote node. It
triggers the setup of a client domain LSP which, upon reaching an
edge node, will use connectivity in the server domain dynamically
provided via an UNI interface.
All the use cases listed in the sections below can be applied to any
combination of, unless otherwise specified:
* Local trigger or remote signaling
* Administrative boundary or administrative plus technological
boundary
* Layer transition on edge node or on core node (applicable to
administrative plus technological boundary case)
With local trigger we mean the case in which a trigger for the
provisioning of a service over the overlay interface is issued to one
of the edge nodes belonging to the overlay network, i.e. directly
connected to the UNI.
1.Trigger
| 2. Setup
V -------------------->
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|****( A )-----( B )---( C )*****|R5|---|R6|---|R7|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ +--+ / | \ | \ | \ +--+/
|R4| | / \ | \| |R8|
+--+ /-\ / \/-\ /-\ +--+
3.Advertisement ( D )-----( E )---( F ) 3.Advertisement
\-/ \-/ \-/
*** = overlay interfaces
Figure 1: Local trigger
As it is possible to see in the figure above, a trigger is issued on
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
R3 (edge node) for starting the setup request procedure over the
overlay interface (R3-A). Once the LSP in the server domain is setup
and an adjacency in the packet domain between R3 and R5 is created,
it can be advertised in the rest of the client domain and used by the
signaling protocol (e.g. LDP) for setting up end-to-end (e.g. from
R1 to R7) client domain LSPs.
On the other hand, the remote signaling consists on the utilization
of a connection oriented signaling protocol in the client domain that
allows issuing the end to end service setup trigger directly on the
end nodes of the client domain. The signaling message, upon reaching
the edge node (R3), will trigger the setup of the service in the
server domain via the overlay interface.
1.Trigger
| 2. Signaling 3. Trigger
V -------------> |------------>|
|------>----------------->------->|
|<-----<-----------------<--------|
<----------------|---------------------------------|-------------|
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|****( A )-----( B )---( C )*****|R5|---|R6|---|R7|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ +--+ / | \ | \ | \ +--+/
|R4| | / \ | \| |R8|
+--+ /-\ / \/-\ /-\ +--+
( D )-----( E )---( F )
\-/ \-/ \-/
Figure 2: Remote Signaling
The utilization of the remote trigger allows for a strict control of
the resources that will be used for the setup of the end to end
service. In order to have a correct setup of the end to end service
the trigger issued to R1 must include the overlay nodes to be used
for the setup of the service in the server domain (R3 and R5). The
network operator is supposed to know that the edge nodes to be used
are R3 and R5.
The second bullet above speaks about administrative boundaries and
administrative plus technological boundaries. Since the overlay is
an administrative boundary between a client and a server domain, it
is possible to configure it between a client and a server domain with
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
the same switching capabilities (e.g., IP over IP) or between domains
with different switching capabilities (e.g., OTN over WDM). In the
former case the boundary is referred to as administrative domain,
while in the latter, it is referred to as both administrative and
technological boundary.
In the case of boundary which is both administrative and
technological a further distinction is needed and regards the node
where the technological transition occurs, i.e., on the edge or on
the core node.
One of the most common cases of administrative and technological
boundary is the IP over WDM, where we speak about grey and colored
overlay interfaces. In other words, in the case of grey interface
the transponder and the domain transition are on the core node, while
in the case of colored interface they are on the edge node. The
physical impairments to be considered are different in the two cases
(for further details please see Appendix A) but the behavior of the
interface does not change and all use cases depicted below can be
applied both to the grey and colored interfaces.
Generalizing what said above for the IP over WDM case, when the layer
transition occurs on the edge node, the edge node is equipped with at
least one interface with the switching capability of the client
domain and one interface with the switching capability of the server
domain. Viceversa, when layer transition occurs on the core node, it
is the core node the one with at least two different interfaces with
different switching capabilities.
Editor note: Actually path computation is assumed to be performed
tipically at the server domain. The client domain can request the
server domain for computing a path or select among a set of paths
computed by the server domain and exported to the client domain as
virtual/abstract topology.
3. Client domain to server domain connectivity
A further distinction criterion, which is applicable to most of the
use cases below, is the degree of connectivity between the client
domain and the server domain. Three scenarios are identified:
* Single homing
* Dual homing
* Multiple single homing(editor note: better name is welcome)
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
3.1. Single homing
In the case of single homing we consider an end to end tunnel with a
single LSP in the client domain and one or more LSPs in the server
domain but a single overlay interface connecting them. The scenario
is shown in figure below, where an end to end circuit between R1 and
R7 is built over a tunnel between R3 and R5 composed by a single LSP
restorable between A and C or more (possibly restorable) LSPs between
A and C.
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|****( A )-----( B )---( C )*****|R5|---|R6|---|R7|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ +--+ / | \ | \ | \ +--+/
|R4| | / \ | \| |R8|
+--+ /-\ / \/-\ /-\ +--+
( D )-----( E )---( F )
\-/ \-/ \-/
*** = overlay interfaces
Figure 3: Single homing
Typical examples of single restorable LSP between A and C is the case
of IP over WDM with single transponder on A and single transponder of
C with restoration capability in the WDM domain. A common case of
multiple LSPs between A and C, on the other side, it the splitting of
the electical signal between a couple of transponders on A creating a
1+1 protection terminated on a couple of transponders of C.
3.2. Adjacent dual homing
The term adjacent dual homing is used to indicate two (or more)
access links between the edge node and one or more core nodes. In
this case we have an end to end tunnel with a single LSP in the
client domain and one or more LSPs in the server domain with two or
more overlay interface connecting them. The scenario is shown in
figure below, where an end to end circuit between R1 and R7 is built
over a tunnel between R3 and R5 composed by two LSPs between
different pairs of ingress/egress nodes (A-C and D-F).
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|*X**( A )--X--( B )-X-( C )**X**|R5|---|R6|---|R7|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
* | \ / | \ | *
* | \ / | \ | *
Y | \ / | \ | Y
* | \ | \ | *
* | / \ | \| * *X*=LSP X
* /-\ / \/-\ /-\* *Y*=LSP Y
( D )--Y--( E )-Y-( F )
\-/ \-/ \-/
Figure 4: Adjacent dual homing
This network setup typically allows for fast client domain protection
mechanisms, e.g., Fast ReRoute (FRR).
3.3. Remote dual homing
The remote dual homing scenario is based on an end to end tunnel with
two (or more) LSPs in the client domain each of which relies on one
(or more) LSPs in the server domain. This scenario is based on
multiple independent single homing scenarios and is typically used to
provide end to end diversity between two or more services. In figure
below it is possible to see an end to end circuit between R1 and R7
composed by two services (A and B) which are built over two
independent tunnels between R3 and R6 and between R5 and R9
respectively.
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|****( A )*****( B )***( C )*****|R6|---|R7|---|R8|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
\ | \ / | \ | /
\ | \ / | \ | /
\ | \ / | \ | /
\ | \ | \ | /
\ | / \ | \| /
+--+ +--+ /-\ / \/-\ /-\ +--+ +---+
|R4|---|R5|####( D )#####( E )###( F )#####|R9|---|R10|
+--+ +--+ \-/ \-/ \-/ +--+ +---+
***=Service A
###=Service B
Figure 5: Remote dual homing
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
Typical usage of this network scenario consists on the combination of
fast client domain protection mechaninsms (e.g.,1+1 protection) and
server domain restoration mechanisms.
4. Use Cases
4.1. UC 1 - Provisioning
Requirement: The network operator must be able to setup an
unprotected end to end service between two client domain nodes.
This use case simply consists on providing an operator with the
capability of setting up a service in the client domain either by
means or local trigger or remote signaling. The operator does not
put any constraint over the path computation in the server domain.
4.2. UC 2 - Provisioning with optimization
Requirement: The network operator must be able to setup a service
expressing which parameter must be optimized when computing the path.
This use case applies both to the local trigger and the remote
signaling scenarios. In both cases the path computation function in
the server domain (being it centralized or distributed) is demanded
to provide a path between R3 and R5 which minimizes a given parameter
(e.g. delay, jitter, TE metric).
1.Trigger(param min)
| 2. Setup(param min) 3.Path computation(param min)
V ------>
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|****( A )-----( B )---( C )*****|R5|---|R6|---|R7|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ +--+ / | \ | \ | \ +--+/
|R4| | / \ | \| |R8|
+--+ /-\ / \/-\ /-\ +--+
( D )-----( E )---( F )
\-/ \-/ \-/
*** = overlay interfaces
Figure 6: Provisioning with optimization
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
In the figure above the case of local trigger with specified
parameter to be minimized is depicted, but same considerations apply
to the remoe signaling (trigger on R1). In that case the parameter
to be minized needs to be conveyed from R1 to R3 so that the setup
request over the overlay interface can be issued taking into account
the OF.
4.3. UC 3 - Provisioning with constraints
Requirement: The network operator must be able to setup a service
imposing upper bounds for a set of parameters during the path
computation.
This use cases is extremely similar to the provisioning with
Optimization one. This time, instead of/in addition to giving the
possibility of specifying which parameter needs to be optimized
during the path computation, the network operator is also able to
indicate and upper bound for a set of parameters which is not being
minimized in the path computation.
1.Trigger(constraint)
| 2.Setup(const) 3.Path computation(const)
V ------>
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|****( A )-----( B )---( C )*****|R5|---|R6|---|R7|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ / | \ / | \ | \ /
\ +--+ / | \ | \ | \ +--+/
|R4| | / \ | \| |R8|
+--+ /-\ / \/-\ /-\ +--+
( D )-----( E )---( F )
\-/ \-/ \-/
*** = overlay interfaces
Figure 7: Provisioning with constraints
It is possible for example to ask for a path between R3 and R5 which,
in addition to minimizing a given OF, does not introduce a delay
higher than 10ms or where the jitter is not more than 3ms.
As per the optimization use case, when remote signaling is used
(trigger on R1) a mean to convey the path computation constraints
till the edge node (R3) is needed.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
4.4. UC 4 - Diversity
Requirement: The network operator must be able to setup a services in
the server domain in diversity with respect to server domain
resources or not sharing the same fate with other server domain
services. The network operator must also be able to decide whehther
such diversity degree must be automatically kept by the network upon
failures and optimization procedures.
This scenario is extremely common in those cases where different
services in the server domain are used to provision protected
services in the client domain. The services in the server domain can
be computed/provisioned sequentially or in parallel but in both cases
the requirement is to have them totally disjoint, so that a single
failure in the server domain does not impact two or more services in
the client domain which are supposed to be in a protection
relationship between each other (e.g. 1+1 protection).
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|*X**( A )--X--( B )-X-( C )**X**|R5|---|R6|---|R7|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
* | \ / | \ | *
* | \ / | \ | *
Y | \ / | \ | Y
* | \ | \ | *
* | / \ | \| * *X*=Service X
* /-\ / \/-\ /-\* *Y*=Service Y
( D )--Y--( E )-Y-( F )
\-/ \-/ \-/
Figure 8: Diversity
In a scenario like the one depicted above, it is possible to use
Service X and Service Y for the setup of a protected service in the
client domain as a fault in the server domain would not impact both
of them. In the case of parallel request, R3 asks the path
computation in the server domain to provide two totally disjoint
paths. On the other side, when sequential requests are issued, an
identifier for Service X (or a set of identifiers indicating its
resources) is needed so that the request for the setup of Service Y
can be issued with the constraint of avoiding the resources related
to such identifier.
Another case of provisioning with diversity is the one where the
operator in the client domains wants the server domain PCE to exclude
some resources from the path computation because of e.g. trustness
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
reasons. In such a case, supposing that such resources are known to
the operator, it must be possible to indicate them as path
computation constraint in the service setup request.
In addition to the provisioning of services with given diversity (and
inclusion/exclusion) constraints, it must be possible to ask the
server domain to at least keep such constraints also upon restoration
or optimization procedures. It would be desirable to ask the server
domain to relax constraints to be kept. The relaxation can be needed
depending on resources availability, e.g., restoration of service X
in partial diversity with service Y is total diverisity is not
possible).
4.5. UC 5 - Concurrent provisioning
Requirement: The network operator must be able to setup a plurality
of services not necessarily between the same pair of edge nodes.
Here is another case particularly interesting from a protection point
of view. In the case above the same edge node was asking for
different services in the server domain, but in order to have end to
end diversity (i.e. from R1 to R8 in figure below), there is the need
to be able to provide disjoint services between different pairs of
edge nodes.
+--+ +--+ +--+ /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+ +--+ +--+
|R1|---|R2|---|R3|****( A )*****( B )***( C )*****|R6|---|R7|---|R8|
+--+ +--+ +--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+ +--+ +--+
\ | \ / | \ | /
\ | \ / | \ | /
\ | \ / | \ | /
\ | \ | \ | /
\ | / \ | \| /
+--+ +--+ /-\ / \/-\ /-\ +--+ +---+
|R4|---|R5|####( D )#####( E )###( F )#####|R9|---|R10|
+--+ +--+ \-/ \-/ \-/ +--+ +---+
***=Service A
###=Service B
Figure 9: Concurrent provisioning
In this example Service A is provided between R3 and R6 and Service B
between R5 and R9. Some sort of coordination is needed between R3
and R5 (directly between them or via R1) so that the requests to the
server domain can be conveniently issued.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
4.6. UC 6 - Reoptimization
Requirement: The network operator must be able to setup a plurality
of services so that the overall cost of the network is minimized and
not the cost of a single service.
TBD
4.7. UC 7 - Query
Requirement: The server network must be able to tell the network
operator the actual parameters characterizing an existing service.
The capability of retrieving from the server domain some parameters
qualifying a service can be estremely useful in different cases. One
of them is the case o sequential provisioning with diversity
requirements. In the case the operator wants to set-up a service in
diversity from an existing one, hence it must be possible for the
server domain to export some parameters univocally identifying the
resources (e.g. SRLGs).
4.8. UC 8 - Availability check
Requirement: The network operator must be able to check if in the
server domain there are enough resources to setup a service with
given parameters.
TBD
4.9. UC 9 - P2MP services
Requirement: If allowed by the technology, the network operator must
be able to setup a P2MP service with given parameters.
TBD
4.10. UC 10 - Privacy
Requirement: The network operator must be able to provision different
groups of users with independent addressing spaces.
This is a particularly useful functionality for those cases where the
resources of the service provider are leased and shared among several
other service providers or customers.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
4.11. UC 12 - Stacking of overlay interfaces
Requirement: The network operator must be able manage a network with
an arbitrarily high number of administrative boundaries (i.e.,>2).
Operators might want to split their overlay networks in a number of
administrative domains for several reasons, among which simplifying
network operations and improving scalability. In order to do so it
must be possible to create a stack of overlay interfaces between the
different domains as shown in figure below:
+--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
|A1|--|A2|* *|A4|--|A5|
+--+ +--+ * /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ * +--+ +--+
\ +--+ / *( B1)--( B2) ( B3)---( B4)* \ +--+ /
\|A3|/ \-/ \-/ \-/ \-/ \|A6|/
+--+ * * +--+
* ==== ==== ==== *
*|C1|---|C2|---|C3|*
==== ==== ====
*** = overlay interfaces
Figure 10: Stacking of interfaces
Nodes "Ax" belong to a domain which is client to the domain composed
by nodes "Bx". The domain composed by nodes Bx is hence server
domain to the "Ax" nodes domain but client to the "Cx" nodes domain.
A pretty common deployment of this scenario consists of IP over OTN
over WDM layers, where the OTN digital layer is used for the grooming
of IP traffic over high bit rate lambdas. In figure 8, Node Bx can
be assumed to be digital layer, which is interfacing with packet
layer nodes (Ax) across overlay interface. Digital layer nodes Bx
are interfacing with DWDM layer nodes Cx. If OTN (Bx) and DWDM (Cx)
node belong to same IGP, then this becomes multi-layer path
computation and signaling case, and it is out of scope of this
document.
However, as already shown in the intro of this memo, the three
different domains of the example could have the same switching
capability (e.g., IP) and be kept separate just for administrative
reasons.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
4.12. UC 13 - Resiliency parameters
Requirement: The network operator must be able to request an LSP in
the server domain with resilience parameters. The minimum set of
such parameters includes 1+1 protection and restoration. Moreover,
it must be possible for the operator to change the resilience level
after the path is established in the network.
This functionality is interesting in a scenario like the one in
Figure 6 with two concurrent paths. Let us assume service A and B
are requested without any resilience requirements. If there is a
failure in service A, the operator can request for protection in
service B once this situation is detected.
These parameters can be used both in the case of single homing (UC1)
and concurrent paths (UC6). The aim of this section is to highlight
two sub-cases for every resilience case:
(1) during the provisioning the client domain can request to the
server domain for resilience parameters.
(2) Once a failure occurs, the client domain has to be notified
via the overlay interface thus carrying information about the
situation in the server domain, so the client domain can take its
own decisions.
For the different sub-use cases, the provisioning use case already
highlights which is the workflow and the requirements for each
scenario. This section does not include an example for each of them.
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. IANA Considerations
TBD
7. Contributors
Diego Caviglia, Ericsson
Via E.Melen, 77 - Genova - Italy
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Jeff Tantsura, Ericsson
300 Holger Way, San Jose, CA 95134 - USA
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
Khuzema Pithewan, Infinera Corporation
140 Caspian CT., Sunnyvale - CA - USA
Email: kpithewan@infinera.com
Cyril Margaria, Wandl
Email: cyril.margaria@googlemail.com
John Drake, Juniper
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Sergio Belotti, Alcatel-Lucent
Email: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com
Victor Lopez, Telefonica I+D
Email: vlopez@tid.es
Appendix A. Appendix I - Colored overlay
This use case applies to networks where the server domain is a WDM
network. In those cases it is possible to either have a grey
interface between client and server domains (i.e. transponder on the
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
border core node) or a colored interface between them (i.e.
transponder on the edge node).
All the previous use cases assume the case of grey interface, but
there are particular network scenarios in which it is possible to
move the transponders from the core to the edge nodes and hence save
on hardware cost.
The issue with this solution is that the PCE in the server domain,
being either centralized or distributed, has only visibility of what
is inside the server domain and hence has not all the info needed to
perform the validation of a path. The edge node must provide the PCE
in the server domain with a set of info needed for a correct path
computation and path validation from transponder to transponder (i.e.
between edge nodes) all along the server domain.
The type of information needed for this scenario can be classified
into three categories:
- Feasibility: Parameters like the output power of the transponder
are needed in order to state e.g. the amount of km that can be
reached without regeneration.
- Compatibility: The egress transponder must be compatible with
the ingress one. Parameters that influence the level of
compatibility can be for example the type of FEC (Forward Error
Correction) used or the modulation format (which also impacts the
feasibility together with the bit rate).
- Availability: Transponders can be tunable within a range of
lambdas or even locked to a single lambda. This impacts the path
computation as not every path in the network might have such
lambda(s) supported or available at the time the path computation
is performed.
In figure below it is possible to see that the PCE is aware of all
the info between A and C (i.e. within the server domain scope) but
what is missing is info related to the transponders on R1 and on R2
and of the access links. (i.e. R1-A and C-R2).
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
-Feasibility
-Compatibility |=====|
-Availability | PCE |
/---------->|=====|
/
/
+--+ / /-\ /-\ /-\ +--+
|R1|*******( A )-----( B )---( C )********|R2|
+--+ \-/ \-/\ \-/ +--+
| \ / | \ |
| \ / | \ |
| \ / | \ |
| \ | \ |
| / \ | \|
/-\ / \/-\ /-\
( D )-----( E )---( F )
\-/ \-/ \-/
*** = colored overlay interfaces
Figure 11: PCE feeding for colored UNI
There is not yet a standard set of parameters that is needed for path
computation in WDM networks but an example of some of them is
provided in the following list:
o Modulation format
o FEC (type or gain)
o Minimum transponder output power
o Bitrate
o Dispersion tolerance
o OSNR (minimum required)
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Overlay model use cases November 2013
8.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Via E. Melen 77
Genova - Erzelli
Italy
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84
Madrid 28045
Spain
Email: ogondio@tid.es
Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Bantian, Longgang District
Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Bantian, Longgang District
Phone: +86-755-28972913
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Ceccarelli, et al. Expires May 9, 2014 [Page 19]