Network Working Group W. Imajuku, Ed., NTT
Internet-Draft Otani, Ed., KDDI
Intended status: Informational N. Bitar, Ed., Verizon
Expires: June 13, 2009
December 10, 2008
Service Provider Requirements for Ethernet control with GMPLS
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 June 13, 2009.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
Abstract
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is applicable to
Ethernet switches supporting Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic
Engineering (PBB-TE) networks. The GMPLS controlled Ethernet label
switch network not only automates creation of Ethernet Label Switched
Paths(Eth-LSPs), it also provides sophisticated Eth-LSP recovery
Mechanisms such as protection and restoration of an Eth-LSP. This
document describes the requirements for the set of solutions of GMPLS
controlled Ethernet label switch networks.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Reference model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Single Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Multi Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Control plane architecture and functionality . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. In-band control channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.2. Neighbor discovery mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.3. Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Ethernet LSP control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.1. Prevention of Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.2. Service control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.3. P2MP and MP2MP requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4. Asymmetric bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.5. QoS control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. OA&M related functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Protection and Restoration related functionality . . . . . 8
4.5. Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality . . . . 9
4.5.1. Failure or deletion of LAG member link . . . . . . . . 9
4.5.2. Recovery or addition of LAG member link . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Inter-domain Ethernet LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.7. Multi-layer network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7.1. Dynamic formation of LAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.7.2. Other requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.8. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 19
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
1. Introduction
Scalability and manageability of Ethernet switch networks has
continuously improved, and the deployment of Ethernet switches
supporting Provider Bridging (PB) [IEEE802.1ad] has became one of the
solutions for service providers to provide enterprise WAN/LAN
services. IEEE standardization activities of Provider Backbone
Bridge(PBB) [IEEE802.1ah] and PBB for Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE)
[IEEE802.1Qay] provide an opportunity not only for enhancing the
scalability, manageability, and controllability of the Ethernet
service networks, but also for more efficiently deploying access/
metro access networks.
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides the
framework for handling and controlling various types of switching
technologies, namely packet switching with various label formats TDM
switching, and wavelength switching [RFC3945]. Therefore, the
combined use of GMPLS and PBB-TE is a fairly suitable "use case" that
contributes to enhancing the flexibility of Ethernet Label Switched
Path (Eth-LSP) over Ethernet switch networks without defining
additional connection layers.
This document describes requirements for GMPLS protocols to control
Ethernet label switch networks and comprises mainly two parts. The
first one is the requirements for GMPLS extension for controlling
Ethernet layer. The second one includes the requirements for GMPLS
extensions to support multi-layer operation. Although a large
portion of requirements in the second scope coincides with the
description in [RFC5145] and [RFC5146], some of important
requirements are also described in this document.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
2. 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].
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
3. Reference model
3.1. Single Layer
This document describes requirements based on the reference model
depicted in Fig.1. The first reference model is an intra-domain and
single layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching network in
which Eth-LSPs traverse over between Back Bone Core Bridges (BCBs) or
Back Bone Edge Bridges (BEBs).
--------
| LSR3 |__ P-based IF
-------- ----- _____|(IB-BEB)|__ S-tagged IF
P-based IF | LSR1 |____|LSR2 | | |__ I-tagged IF
S-tagged IF |(IB-BEB)| |(BCB)| --------
I-tagged IF | | | |_____ --------
-------- ----- | LSR4 |
| (B-BEB)|
| |__ I-tagged IF
--------
| GMPLS Eth-LSP |
| (BVID/BMAC) |
|<---------------|
Figure 1 Single layer GMPLS controlled PBB-TE network
The BEBs provide mainly three types of service interfaces, namely
Port based service interface (P-based IF), S-tagged service interface
(S-tagged IF), and I-tagged service Interface (I-tagged IF)
[IEEE802.1ah]. The "P-based IF" and "S-tagged IF" are connected to
the I-component of a BEB (I-BEB), while the I-tagged IF is connected
to the B-component of a BEB (B-BEB). "S-tagged IF" can perform
various types of mapping between Service VLAN ID (S-VID) and Backbone
instance Service Identifier (I-SID). Here, S-VID is assigned within
customer network domain or Provider Bridge (PB) domain. On the other
hand, I-SID is defined between I-components of BEBs.
3.2. Multi Layer
The second reference model is Ethernet and L1 (such as TDM, OTN, etc)
multi-layer network. Each Ethernet switch node behaves as a border
node between the Ethernet layer and optical Layers. Each BCB or BEB
terminates Optical Label Switched Path (O-LSPs) with Ethernet
encoding type and some O-LSPs dynamically form LAG. Thus, some Eth-
LSPs traverse over multiple O-LSPs, while other Eth-LSPs traverse
over single O-LSPs.
Also, it is technically possible to form multiple layer Ethernet
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
switch networks. Namely, the reference model is defined as the case
that Ethernet switch network substitutes L1 network in Fig.2, and
realizes MAC in MAC Ethernet transport. The routing information of
optical layer may be isolated (overlay model), shuffled (peer model),
or virtualized with FA-LSPs (augmented model) for Ethernet switch
layer.
-------- ------ --------
P-based IF __| LSR1 | | LSR2 | | LSR3 |__ P-based IF
S-tagged IF __|(IB-BEB)| | (BCB)| |(IB-BEB)|__ S-tagged IF
I-tagged IF __| | | | | |__ I-tagged IF
-------- ------ --------
| | ||LAG LAG||
..................|...........|..||..........||...................
| | || ||
---+---- ------ ------
| LSR A |_____|LSR B |_____|LSR C |
| (LSC) | |(LSC) | WDM |(LSC) |
-------- ------ ------
| GMPLS Eth-LSP (BVID/BMAC)|
|<------------------------>|
| O-LSP | | O-LSP |
|<--------->| |<-------->|
Figure 2 Multi-layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switched network
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
4. Requirements
4.1. Control plane architecture and functionality
4.1.1. In-band control channel
The solution should be able to establish in-band control channel,
while preserving the solution of out-band control channel. The
solution should include negotiation mechanism to specify bandwidth
and priority of control-channel between peer Ethernet switches.
4.1.2. Neighbor discovery mechanism
The solution MUST be able to realize automatic neighbor discover as
realized in current PB or PBB networks. Namely, the solution MUST
support an automatic negotiation mechanism to exchange information of
Node ID, TE-Link ID, Data-link ID (in the case of link Bundling), and
IP address of the control channel. On the other hand, the extension
should be minimized by making use of [IEEE802.1AB].
4.1.3. Addressing
TBD
4.2. Ethernet LSP control
4.2.1. Prevention of Loops
The solution should have reliability to prevent creating loops of
Eth-LSPs. Specifically if the solution supports numbered TE-Link
addressing, the solution should define a methodology and protocol
extensions if needed to detect or prevent loops.
4.2.2. Service control
The solution should control various types of service interfaces
defined in [IEEE802.1ah]. The service types of Egress port
1) Port based service interface
2) S-tagged service interface
a) one-to-one mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs
b) bundled mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs such as many-to-one, all-to-
one, transparent mapping
Also, the solution should be flexible to following operational
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
scenarios,
1) Any change of mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs
2) Flexibility to nest or stitch higher layer Eth-LSPs.
3) Any change of bandwidth of Eth-LSPs. Here, the solution of
bandwidth modification scenario may include bundling of multiple Eth-
LSPs.
4.2.3. P2MP and MP2MP requirements
To provide the service such as a content distribution, the creation
of uni-directional P2MP Eth-LSPs should be supported. Also, to
provide E-tree type services with multicast traffic, the creation of
bi-directional P2MP/MP2P Eth-LSPs should be supported. The MP2MP
requirement is under discussion.
4.2.4. Asymmetric bandwidth
To provide the service which has asymmetric traffic pattern such as a
kind of E-tree type services, the creation of asymmetric bandwidth
bi-directional Eth-LSPs should be supported. The bandwidth
modification of Eth-LSPs in operation should be also supported.
4.2.5. QoS control
The routing and signaling extensions to control QoS based on Ethernet
traffic parameters defined in [MEF10.1] should be supported. Unused
bandwidth per CoS should be exhanged by routing extensions like
[RFC4124] and the CoS and bandwidth profile such as CIR, CBS, EIR and
EBS for a requested LSP should be carried by signaling extensions for
bandwidth accounting and traffic control at a local level.
4.3. OA&M related functionality
OAM mechanisms must be defined for GMPLS controlled E-LSPs. Since
the data plane is still Ethernet based, the mechanisms should
capitalize on existing [IEEE802.1ag] and [Y.1731] mechanisms.
Also, the solution should provide admin status control mechanism to
coordinate with Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) functionality
[IEEE802.1ag].
4.4. Protection and Restoration related functionality
1:1 protection, Shared protection and dynamic restoration should be
supported. Protection and Restoration may be triggered by Ethernet
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
OA&M function such as CC, AIS and RDI [IEEE802.1ag] , [Y.1731].
4.5. Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality
Link Aggregation is beneficial functionality to realize reliable
Ethernet label switched networks. The availability of connection
between peer Ethernet switches can be enhanced in the case of single
link failure, if member links of the LAG are diversely routed. In
this operational scenario, LAG provides for link protection
functionality.
The solution should include methodology to explicitly assign the
links forming LAG a desired link type (which is similar sense to
assign link protection type described in [RFC3471]).
4.5.1. Failure or deletion of LAG member link
The solution should include functionality to prioritize Eth-LSPs,
specifically when total bandwidth of Eth-LSPs exceeds total bandwidth
of healthy LAG members after the failure of one or more LAG member
links.
The solution should provide for rerouting an Eth-LSP setup over a
failed member link in a LAG to another member link in the LAG.
4.5.2. Recovery or addition of LAG member link
The solution should include functionality to re-optimize Eth-LSP
paths after the addition of a LAG member link, i.e. reversion of
failed Eth-LSPs after the failure of the LAG member link, or
reallocation of other Eth-LSPs traversing congested Links after the
addition of LAG member link.
4.6. Inter-domain Ethernet LSP
The solution should take into account possible future extension to
control inter-domain Eth-LSPs. Here, the possible extensions are
Eth-LSPs traverse over
1) I-tagged service interfaces
2) S-tagged service interfaces, and
3) C-tagged service interfaces.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
4.7. Multi-layer network
4.7.1. Dynamic formation of LAG
The solution should include dynamic formation of a LAG after the
creation or deletion of optical LSPs which interconnect ports of
Ethernet switches.
4.7.2. Other requirements
The architecture and requirements for MPLS-GMPLS inter-working are
described in [RFC5145] and [RFC5146]. Some of the requirements
described in [RFC5146] are valid even for the case of GMPLS-GMPLS
interworking between Ethernet label switched network and L1 network.
In other words,
1) End-to-End signaling of Eth-LSPs
2) Triggered establishment of L1 LSPs
3) Avoiding complexity and risks.
should be satisfied even for GMPLS control plane for Ethernet. For
more details, see [Interwk-req] and MPLS-TE client network written in
the document should be understood as Ethernet client network.
Regarding to routing issue,
1) Advertisement of Ethernet label switch network information via L1
GMPLS networks
2) Selective Advertisement of Ethernet label switched network
information via a Border node
should be satisfied even in the case of GMPLS-GMPLS inter-working.
Note that there is significant difference between MPLS-TE and GMPLS
controlled Ethernet from the view point of methodology to create
control channel.
4.8. Scalability
The solution MUST be designed to scale according to following
metrics.
- Number of nodes
- Number of TE-Links
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
- Number of LSPs
- Number of service ports
- Number of bundled S-VLANs mapped to I-SID and Eth-LSPs.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
5. Security Considerations
The extension for GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching should be
considered under the same security as current work. This extension
will not change the underlying security issues.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mr. Allan McGuire, Mr. Jullien
Meuric, Mr. Lou Berger and Mr. Don Fedyk for their valuable comments.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[IEEE802.1AB]
IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks,
Station and Media Access Control Connectivity
Discovery
[IEEE802.1Qay]
"IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic
Engineering", work in progress.
[IEEE802.1ad]
IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks - Amendment 4 : Provider Bridges", P802.1ad/D6.0,
Draft, Work in Progress.
[IEEE802.1ag]
IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
Networks - Amendment 5 : Connectivity Fault Management",
P802.1ag/D5.2, Draft, Work in Progress.
[IEEE802.1ah]
"IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges", work in
progress.
[IEEE802.3]
IEEE Computer Society, "Amendment to Carrier Sense
Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CAMS/CD) Access
Method and Physical Layer Specifications.
[MEF10.1] MEF, "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase2(MEF10.1)," http
://www.metroethernetforum.org/PDF_Documents/MEF10-1.pdf,
Nov. 2006.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[Y.1731] "ITU-T Y.1731".
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
June 2005.
[RFC5145] Shiomoto, K., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS Migration",
RFC 5145, March 2008.
[RFC5146] Kumaki, K., "Interworking Requirements to Support
Operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks", RFC 5146,
March 2008.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
Authors' Addresses
Wataru Imajuku (editor)
NTT Network Innovation Labs
1-1 Hikari-no-oka
Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Japan
Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315
Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp
Yoshiaki Sone
NTT Network Innovation Labs
1-1 Hikari-no-oka
Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Japan
Phone: +81-(46) 859-2456
Email: sone.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp
Muneyoshi Suzuki
NTT Access Service System Labs
1-6 Nakase
Mihama-ku, Chiba
Japan
Phone: (43) 211-8282
Email: suzuki.muneyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp
Kazuhiro Matsuda
NTT Network Innovation Labs
1-1 Hikari-no-oka
Yokosuka, Kanagawa
Japan
Phone: (46) 859-3177
Email: matsuda.kazuhiro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
Tomohiro Otani (editor)
KDDI Corporation
2-3-2 Nishi-shinjukuOhara
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8003
Japan
Phone: +81-(3) 3347-6006
Email: tm-otani@kddi.com
Kenichi Ogaki
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara
Kamifukuoka, Saitama 356-8502
Japan
Phone: +81-(49) 278-7897
Email: ogaki@kddilabs.jp
Nabil Bitar (editor)
Verizon
40 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451
USA
Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Service Provider Requirements December 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Imajuku, et al. Expires June 13, 2009 [Page 19]
