Network Working Group X. Fu
Internet-Draft Q. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Bao
Expires: September 30, 2011 ZTE Corporation
R. Jing
X. Huo
China Telecom
March 29, 2011
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-02
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 September 30, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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 September 30, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
(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. Explicit Route Boundary Object (ERBO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Switching Capability subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Encoding Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Signal Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. XRO Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Encoding Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Signal Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
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. 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 Path message. The format of ERBO object is the same as ERO. It
looks more like the SERO defined in rfc4873.
One or more ERBOs may be carried in Path message. Multiple ERBOs
could support cascading of FA easy. An ERBO must contain at least
two subobjects. The first and final one indicate the source and sink
node of a FA-LSP or Composite Link. Other subobjects may be inserted
into ERBO between source and sink node to indicates how to select the
FA/Component Link or create them.
2.1. Switching Capability subobject
A new subobject, called the switching capability subobject, is
defined for use in the ERBO. The format of the switching capability
subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | Switching Cap |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Switching Capability subobject in ERBO
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Switching Capability (SC): Indicates which corresponding server
layer should be triggered by the boundary node. The value of
switching capability is the same as the one in [RFC3471].
2.2. Encoding Type subobject
A new subobject, called the encoding type subobject, is defined for
use in the ERBO. The format of the encoding type subobject is
defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | Encoding Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5 Encoding Type subobject in ERBO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Encoding Type: It may need to further indicate which encoding type
(e.g., SDH/SONET or G.709 in TDM) should be triggered. It is the
same as the one in [RFC3471].
2.3. Signal Type subobject
A new subobject, called the signal type subobject, is defined for use
in the ERBO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined as
follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | Signal Type |
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6 Signal Type subobject in ERBO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Signal Type: If there are several sub-layers within one server
layer, it can further indicates which sub-layer should be
triggered by the boundary node. Following is the signal type in
OTN.
Value Type
----- ----
0 Not significant
1 ODU1
2 ODU2
3 ODU3
4 ODU4
5 ODU0
6 ODUflex
7 ODUflex(G.hao)
8 ODU2e
9-255 Reserved (for future use)
2.4. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject
A new subobject, called the Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH) subobject, is
defined for use in the ERBO. The format of the multiplexing
hierarchy subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Reserved | MH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7 Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject in ERBO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included.
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH): It explicitly indicates the
multiplexing hierarchy used for boundary node to configure it to
the data plane and trigger one specific corresponding tunnel
creation. Following is the multiplexing hierarchy in current OTN.
Value Type
----- ------
0 ODU1-ODU0
1 ODU2-ODU0
2 ODU2-ODU1
3 ODU2-ODU1-ODU0
4 ODU2-ODUflex
5 ODU3-ODU0
6 ODU3-ODU1
7 ODU3-ODU1-ODU0
8 ODU3-ODU2
9 ODU3-ODU2-ODU0
10 ODU3-ODU2-ODU1
11 ODU3-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0
12 ODU3-ODU2-ODUflex
13 ODU3-ODUflex
14 ODU3-ODU2e
15 ODU4-ODU0
16 ODU4-ODU1
17 ODU4-ODU1-ODU0
18 ODU4-ODU2
19 ODU4-ODU2-ODU0
20 ODU4-ODU2-ODU1
21 ODU4-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0
22 ODU4-ODU2-ODUflex
23 ODU4-ODU3
24 ODU4-ODU3-ODU0
25 ODU4-ODU3-ODU1
26 ODU4-ODU3-ODU1-ODU0
27 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2
28 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU0
29 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU1
30 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0
31 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODUflex
32 ODU4-ODU3-ODUflex
33 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2e
34 ODU4-ODUflex
35 ODU4-ODU2e
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
2.5. 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. The first
and final address of node in ERBO SHOULD also be listed in the ERO.
This ensures that they are along the LSP path. 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 subobject 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
subobject carried in ERBO.
3. XRO Subobjects
3.1. Encoding Type subobject
A new subobject, called the encoding type subobject, is defined for
use in the XRO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined
as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Attribute | Encoding Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8 Encoding Type subobject in XRO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified
encoding type SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect to the
preceding numbered or unnumbered interface subobject.
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
o Encoding Type: It may need to further indicate which encoding type
have to excluded. It is the same as the one in [RFC3471].
3.2. Signal Type subobject
A new subobject, called the signal type subobject, is defined for use
in the XRO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined as
follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Attribute | Signal Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9 Signal Type subobject in XRO
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified signal
type SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect to the preceding
numbered or unnumbered interface subobject.
o Signal Type: It indicates which sub-layers have to be excluded.
The value of ST is the same as the one in ERBO.
3.3. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject
A new subobject, called the Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH) subobject, is
defined for use in the XRO. The format of the multiplexing hierarchy
subobject is defined as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Attribute | MH |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject in XRO
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded.
1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided.
o Type: To be defined.
o Length: It is always 4.
o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified
multiplexing hierarchy SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect
to the preceding numbered or unnumbered interface subobject.
o Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH): It explicitly indicates which MHs
have to be excluded over a specified TE link, The value of
multiplexing hierarchy is the same as the one in ERBO.
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. IANA Considerations
TBD
6. References
6.1. 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.
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
[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.
6.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions]
Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard,
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/
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011
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/
Ruiquan Jing
China Telecom
Email: jingrq@ctbri.com.cn
Xiaoli Huo
China Telecom
Email: huoxl@ctbri.com.cn
Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 11]