[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03                                                   
Network Working Group                                              X. Fu
Internet-Draft                                                   Q. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Y. Bao
Expires: April 28, 2011                                  ZTE Corporation
                                                                 R. Jing
                                                                  X. Huo
                                                           China Telecom
                                                        October 25, 2010


 RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Explicit Control of LSP Boundary in A
      GMPLS-Based Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)
           draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-01

Abstract

   [RFC5212] defines a Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN).
   [RFC4206] introduces a region boundary determination algorithm and a
   Hierarchy LSP (H-LSP) creation method.  However, in some scenarios,
   some attributes have to be attached with the boundary nodes in order
   to explicit control the hierarchy LSP creation.  This document
   extends GMPLS signaling protocol for the requirement of explicit
   control the hierarchy LSP creation.

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 April 28, 2011.

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
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents



Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


   (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
     1.1.  Conventions Used In This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Requirement of Explicit Control of Hierarchy LSP Creation  . .  3
     2.1.  Selection of Server Layer/Sub-Layer  . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Selection/Creation of FA-LSP based on characteristics
           of server layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Configuration of Multi Stages Multipelxing Hierarchy . . .  5
   3.  Explicit Route Boundary Object (ERBO)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1.  Server Layer/Sub-Layer Attributes TLV  . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Multiplexing Hierarchy Attribute TLV . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.3.  Latency Attribute TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Signaling Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13






















Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


1.  Introduction

   [RFC5212] defines a Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN).
   [RFC4206] introduces a region boundary determination algorithm and a
   Hierarchy LSP (H-LSP) creation method.  However, in some scenarios,
   some attributes have to be attached with the boundary nodes in order
   to explicitly control the hierarchy LSP creation.  This document
   extends GMPLS signaling protocol for the requirement of explicit
   control the hierarchy LSP creation.

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.  Requirement of Explicit Control of Hierarchy LSP Creation

2.1.  Selection of Server Layer/Sub-Layer

   [RFC4206] describes a region boundary determination algorithm and a
   hierarchical LSP creation method.  This region boundary determination
   algorithm and LSP creation method are well applied to Multi-Region
   Network.  However it isn't fully applied to Multi-Layer Network.  In
   the following figure, three LSPs belong to the same TDM region and
   different latyers, but the sub-layer boundary node could not
   determine which lower layer should be triggered according to the
   region boundary determination algorithm defined in [RFC4206].  Thus
   the higher layer (VC4 in figure 1) signaling can't trigger the lower
   layer (STM-N in figure 1) LSP creation.  It needs to explicitly
   describe which sub-layer should be triggered in the signaling
   message.


     A           B           C           D            E           F
   +---+ STM-N +---+ STM-N +----+ OTUk +----+ STM-N +---+ STM-N +---+
   |VC4|-------|VC4|-------|ODUk|------|ODUk|-------|VC4|-------|VC4|
   +---+       +---+       +----+      +----+       +---+       +---+

    |<-------------------------- VC4 LSP ------------------------->|

                |<------------- STM-N LSP ------------>|

                            |<--ODUk LSP-->|

           Figure 1: Example of Server Layer/Sub-Layer Selection




Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


2.2.  Selection/Creation of FA-LSP based on characteristics of server
      layer

   ITU-T G.800 defines Composite Link.  Individual component links in a
   composite link may be supported by different transport technologies
   such as OTN, MPLS-TP or SDH/SONET.  Even if the transport technology
   implementing the component links is identical, the characteristics
   (e.g., latency) of the component links may differ.  Operator may
   prefer its traffic to be transported over a specific transport
   technology server layer.  Further more, operator may prefer its
   traffic to be transported over a specific transport technology
   component link with some specific characteristics (e.g.,latency).  So
   it desires to explicitly control the component link selection based
   on the attributes (e.g., switching capability and latency) attached
   with the boundary nodes during the signaling.

   Latency is a key requirement for service provider.  Restoration
   and/or protection can impact "provisioned" latency.  The key driver
   for this is stock/commodity trading applications that use data base
   mirroring.  A few delicacy can impact a transaction.  Therefore
   latency and latency SLA is one of the key parameters that these "high
   value" customers use to select a private pipe line provider.  So it
   desires to explicitly convey latency SLA to the boundary nodes where
   the hierarchy LSP will be triggered.


                    ___                           ___
   MPLS-based LSP  |   |                         |   |
 o-----o-----o-----|-o |                         | o-|-----o-----o-----o
                   |   |                         |   |
                   |   |OTN FA-LSP with latency 1|   |
                   | o-|-------------------------|-o |
                   |   |                         |   |
                   |   |OTN FA-LSP with latency 2|   |
                   | o-|-------------------------|-o |
                   | . |            .            | . |
                   | . |            .            | . |
                   | . |            .            | . |
                   |   |OTN FA-LSP with latency n|   |
                   | o-|-------------------------|-o |
                   |___|                         |___|


      Figure 2: Example of FA-LSP Selection/Creation based on Latency

   In Figure 2, a LSP traffic is over a composite link whose component
   links with different latency characteristic are supported by OTN.  In
   order to meet the latency SLA, it needs to explicitly limit the



Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


   latency between boundary nodes to create an OTN tunnel.

2.3.  Configuration of Multi Stages Multipelxing Hierarchy

   In Figure 3, node B and C in the OTN network are connected to 2.5G TS
   network by two OTU3 link.  They can support flexible multi stages
   multiplexing hierarchies.  There are two multi stages multiplexing
   hierarchies for ODU0 being mapped into OTU3 link in B and C of Figure
   1 (i.e., ODU0-ODU1-ODU3 and ODU0-ODU2-ODU3).  So path computation
   entity has to determine which kind of multi stages multiplexing
   hierarchies should be used for the end-to-end ODU0 service and the
   type of tunnel (FA-LSP).  In Figure 3, if path computation entity
   select the ODU0-ODU2-ODU3 multi stages multiplexing hierarch in Node
   B and C for one end-to-end ODU0 service from A to Z, there has to be
   an ODU2 tunnel between B and C. The selection of multi stages
   multiplexing hierarchies is based on the operator policy and the
   equipment capability.  How to select the multiplexing hierarchies is
   the internal behavior of path computation entity.


                                         ODU1-ODU3
                                         ODU2-ODU3
               ODU0-ODU2            ODU0-ODU1-ODU3
               ODU1-ODU2            ODU0-ODU2-ODU3
            ODUflex-ODU2         ODUflex-ODU2-ODU3
                     |            _______        |
    ___             _|_____      /       \      _|_____             ___
   | A |           | | B   |    |   40G   |    | | C   |           | Z |
   | o-|-----------|-o   o-|----| Network |----|-o   o-|-----------|-o |
   |___| OTU2 Link |_____|_|    |(2.5G TS)|    |_____|_| OTU2 Link |___|
         (1.25G TS)      |       \_______/           |   (1.25G TS)
                         |                           |
                         ODU0-ODU1-ODU3              ODU0-ODU2
                         ODU0-ODU2-ODU3              ODU1-ODU2
                         ODUflex-ODU2-ODU3           ODUflex-ODU2
                         ODU1-ODU2-ODU3
                         ODU1-ODU3
                         ODU2-ODU3

     Figure 3 Example of Multi-Stages Multiplexing Hierarchy Selection

   If path computation entity select the ODU0-ODU2-ODU3 for ODU0 being
   mapped into OTU3 Link, the multi stages multiplexing hierarchy has to
   be carried in signaling message to node B and C. After B receives the
   signaling message, it will triggered a creation of and ODU2 FA-LSP
   base on [RFC4206] and the selection of multi stages multiplexing
   hierarchy.  Node B and C must config this kind of multi stages
   multiplexing hierarchy (i.e., ODU0-ODU2-ODU3) to its data plane.  So



Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


   data plane can multplex and demultiplex the ODU0 signal from/to ODU3
   for a special end-to-end ODU0 service in terms of the control plane's
   configuration.

   In Figure 4, the switching capability (e.g., TDM), switching
   granuality (i.e., ODU3) and multi stages multiplexing hierarchy
   (ODU0-ODU1-ODU3-ODU4) must be specified during signaling.  Because
   the switching capability (TDM) and switching granuality (ODU3)
   information is not enough for data plane to know ODU0 is mapped into
   ODU3 tunnel by ODU0-ODU1-ODU3 then ODU4.  In order to explicit
   specify multi stages multiplexing hierarchy, the switching
   capability, switching granuality and multi stages multiplexing
   hierarchy (ODU0-ODU1-ODU3) must be carried in the signaling message.


  2|0   0|2     2|0  0|1|3|4   4|3    3|4   4|3|1|0   0|2     2|0   0|2
   _______        _______        _______        _______        _______
  |   A   |      |   B   |      |   C   |      |   E   |      |   F   |
 -|-o   o-|------|-o   o-|------|-o   o-|------|-o   o-|------|-o   o-|-
  |_______|      |_______|      |_______|      |_______|      |_______|

                                ODU3 Tunnel
 ODU0 Service            -----------------------
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         -----------------------


     Figure 4 Example of Multi-Stages Multiplexing Hierarchy Selection


3.  Explicit Route Boundary Object (ERBO)

   In order to explicitly control hierarchy LSP creation, this document
   introduce a new object (ERBO- Explicit Route Boundary Object) carried
   in RSVP-TE message.  The format of ERBO object is the same as ERO.
   The ERBO including the region boundaries information and some
   specific attributes (e.g., latency) can be carried in Path message.
   One pairs or multiple pairs of nodes within the ERBO can belong to
   the same layer or different layers.

   This document introduce a new sub-object (BOUNDARY_ATTRIBUTES) carry
   the attributes of the associated hop specified in the ERBO.  It
   allows the specification and reporting of attributes relevant to a
   particular hop of the signaled LSP.  It follows an IPv4 or IPv6
   prefix or unnumbered Interface ID sub-object in ERBO.  A list of
   attribute TLV can be inserted into ERBO.





Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0|    Type     |     Length    |           Reserved            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     ~                         Attribute TLVs                        ~
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Figure 5 Format of BOUNDARY_ATTRIBUTES

   -  This field indicates different attribute TLV sub-objects.

   -  The total length of the sub-object in bytes, including the Type
      and Length fields.  The value of this field is always a multiple
      of 4.

   -  Attribute TLVs: This field carries different TLV according to the
      Type filed.

   A list of attributes TLV can be inserted into ERBO.  These attributes
   may represent the following information.  It can be further extended
   to carry other specific requirement in the future.

   -  Server Layer (e.g., PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC, FSC) or Sub-Layer (e.g.,
      VC4, VC11, VC4-4c, VC4-16c, VC4-64c, ODU0, ODU1, ODU2, ODU3, ODU4)
      used for boundary node to trigger one specific corresponding
      server layer or Sub-Layer FA-LSP creation.  The region boundary
      node may support multiple interface switching capabilities and
      multiple switching granularities.  It is very useful to indicate
      which server layer and/or sub-layer to be used at the region
      boundary node.

   -  Multiplexing hierarchy (e.g., ODU0-ODU1-ODU3-ODU4) used for
      boundary node to configure it to the data plane and trigger one
      specific corresponding tunnel creation.

   -  Server Layer and/or Sub-Layer's LSP Latency SLA (e.g., minimum
      latency value, maximum latency value, average latency value and
      latency variation value).  Boundary node select a FA or create a
      FA-LSP based on the latency limitation.

   The format of the Attributes TLV is as follows:







Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


      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(IANA)          |           Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     //               Attribute Specific Information                //
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The following types are supported.

      Type  |  Information
      ------+-------------------------------
      TBD   |  server layer/sub-layer
      TBD   |  server layer/sub-layer characteristics (e.g., latency)
      TBD   |  multi stage multiplexing hierarchy

3.1.  Server Layer/Sub-Layer Attributes TLV

   Switching capabilities and switching granularities of the region
   boundary can be carried in Attribute TLV.  With these information
   carried in the RSVP-TE path message, the region boundary node can
   directly trigger one corresponding server layer or sub-layer FA-LSP
   creation which is defined in the Attribute TLV.  The format of the
   Attribute TLV is shown below.

      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(IANA)            |           Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Server Layer  |   Sub-Layer   |           Reserve             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Type: indicates different values of Attribute TLV.

   o  Length: indicates the total length of this Attribute TLV value.

   o  Server Layer: Indicates which corresponding server layer should be
      triggered by the boundary node.  The value of server layer is the
      same as the switching capability [RFC3471].

   o  Sub-Layer: If there are several sub-layers within one server
      layer, it can further indicates which sub-layer should be
      triggered by the boundary node.





Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


      *  SDH/SONET: VC4, VC11, VC12, VC4-4c, VC4-16c, VC4-64c.

      *  OTN: ODU0, ODU1, ODU2, ODU3, ODU2e, ODU4, and so on

3.2.  Multiplexing Hierarchy Attribute TLV

   Multiplexing Hierarchy Attribute TLV indicates the multiplexing
   hierarchies (e.g., ODU0-ODU2-ODU3) used for boundary node to
   configure it to the data plane and trigger one specific corresponding
   tunnel creation.  The type of this sub-TLV will be assigned by IANA,
   and length is eight octets.  The value field of this sub-TLV contains
   multi stages multiplexing hierachies constraint information of the
   link port.


    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 (IANA)        |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | F |     Number    |  Reserve  |MSMH 1 |     ...MSMC 1...      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |MSMH 2 |     ...MSMC 2...      |            ...                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |MSMH M |        ...MSMC M...       |           padding         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  F (2 bits): Indicates the multi stages multiplexing hierarchies
      are included or excluded.

      *  0 - Inclusive Multiplexing Hierarchies:Indicates that the
         object/TLV contains one or more multi stages multiplexing
         hierarchies which can be supported.

      *  1 - Exclusive Multiplexing Hierarchies:Indicates that the
         object/TLV contains one or more multi stages multiplexing
         hierarchies which can't be supported.

   o  Number (8 bits): Indicates the total nunmber of multi stages
      multiplexing hierarchies which are supported or prohibited by the
      link port.

   o  Reserve (8 bits): for future use.

   o  (MSMH 1, MSMC 1), (MSMH 2, MSMC 2), ... ,(MSMH M, MSMC M):
      Indicates each multi stages multiplexing capability detailed
      information.




Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


      *  MSMH 1, MSMH2, ... , MSMH M (4 bits): Indicates the numbers of
         Multi Stages Multiplexing Hierarchies (MSMH).

         +  MSMH = 1: It indicates ODUi is mapped into ODUk (k > i) by
            single stage multiplexing (e.g., ODU0-ODU3).

         +  MSMH > 1: It indicates ODUi is mapped into ODUk (k > i) by
            multi stages multiplexing (e.g., ODU0-ODU1-ODU3).

      *  MSMC 1, MSMC 2, ... ,MSMC M: Indicates the detailed information
         of multi stages multiplexing capability.  The length of Multi
         Stages Multiplexing Capability (MSMC) information depends on
         the multi stages multiplexing hierarchies (MSMH).  The length
         of MSMC is (MSMH+1) * 4.  Each ODUk (k=1, 2, 3, 4, 2e, flex) is
         indicated by 4 bits.  Following is the Signal Type for G.709
         Amendment 3.


         Value   Type
         -----   ----
         0000    ODU0
         0001    ODU1
         0010    ODU2
         0011    ODU3
         0100    ODU4
         0101    ODU2e
         0110    ODUflex
         7-15    Reserved (for future use)

   o  The padding is used to make the Multi Stages Multiplexing
      Capability Descriptor sub-TLV 32-bits aligned.

3.3.  Latency Attribute 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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            Type(IANA)         |           Length              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Minimum Latency Value                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Maximum Latency Value                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Average Latency Value                     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                     Latency Variation Value                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


   -  Minimum Latency Value: a minimum value indicates the latency
      performance parameters which server layer/sub-layer LSP must meet.

   -  Maximum Latency Value: a maximum value indicates the latency
      performance parameters which server layer/sub-layer LSP must meet.

   -  Average Latency Value: a average value indicates the latency
      performance parameters which server layer/sub-layer LSP must meet.

   -  Latency Variation Value: a variation value indicates the latency
      performance parameters which server layer/sub-layer LSP must meet.


4.  Signaling Procedure

   In order to signal an end-to-end LSP across multi layer, the LSP
   source node sends the RSVP-TE PATH message with ERO which indicates
   LSP route and ERBO which indicates the LSP route boundary.  When a
   interim node receives a PATH message, it will check ERBO to see if it
   is the layer boundary node.  If a interim node isn't a layer
   boundary, it will process the PATH message as the normal one of
   single layer LSP.  If a interim node finds its address is in ERBO, it
   is a layer boundary node.  So it will directly extract another
   boundary egress node and other detail Attribute TLV infomration
   (e.g., Latency) from ERBO.  If it is necessary, it will also extract
   the server layer/sub-layer routing information from ERO based on a
   pair of boundary node.  Then the layer boundary node holds the PATH
   message and selects or creates a server layer/sub-layer LSP based on
   the detailed information of Attribute TLV (e.g., Latency) carried in
   ERBO.

   On reception of a Path message containing BOUNDARY_ATTRIBUTES whose
   type of Attributes TLV is Multi States Multiplexing Hierarchy Sub-
   TLV, The interim node checks the local data plane capability to see
   if this kind of multi stages multiplexing/demultiplexing hierarchy is
   acceptable on specific interface.  As there is an acceptable kind of
   multi stages multiplexing/demultiplexing, it must determin an ODUk
   tunnel must be created between a pair of boundary node.  The kind of
   multi stages multiplexing/demultiplexing hierarchy must be configed
   into the data plane.


5.  Security Considerations

   TBD






Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


6.  IANA Considerations

   TBD


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
              January 2003.

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

   [RFC4203]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
              of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
              RFC 4203, October 2005.

   [RFC4206]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
              Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.

   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
              Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.

   [RFC5212]  Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux,
              M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-
              Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212,
              July 2008.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element
              (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              March 2009.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions]
              Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,



Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


              D., and J. Roux, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and
              Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)",
              draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-12 (work in
              progress), February 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement]
              Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., JOUNAY, F.,
              and Y. Kamite, "Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite
              Link", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-00 (work in
              progress), February 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   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://wwwen.zte.com.cn/


   Qilei Wang
   ZTE Corporation
   No.68 ZiJingHua Road,Yuhuatai District
   Nanjing  210012
   P.R.China

   Phone: +8613585171890
   Email: wang.qilei@zte.com.cn
   URI:   http://www.zte.com.cn/


   Yuanlin Bao
   ZTE Corporation
   5/F, R.D. Building 3, ZTE Industrial Park, Liuxian Road
   Shenzhen  518055
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86 755 26773731
   Email: bao.yuanlin@zte.com.cn
   URI:   http://www.zte.com.cn/





Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control        October 2010


   Ruiquan Jing
   China Telecom

   Email: jingrq@ctbri.com.cn


   Xiaoli Huo
   China Telecom

   Email: huoxl@ctbri.com.cn









































Fu, et al.               Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 14]