Network Working Group G. Swallow
Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: April 2004
J. Drake
Calient Networks, Inc
H. Ishimatsu
Japan Telecom
Y. Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc
October 2003
GMPLS UNI: RSVP Support for the Overlay Model
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) defines both
routing and signaling protocols for the creation of Label Switched
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
Paths (LSPs) in various transport technologies. These protocols can
be used to support a number of deployment scenarios. This memo
addresses the application of GMPLS to the overlay model.
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................... 3
1.1 GMPLS User-to-Network Interface ........................ 4
2 Addressing ............................................. 5
3 ERO Processing ......................................... 6
3.1 Path Message without ERO ............................... 6
3.2 Path Message with ERO .................................. 6
3.3 Explicit Label Control ................................. 7
4 RRO Processing ......................................... 7
5 Notification ........................................... 7
6 Connection Deletion .................................... 7
7 VPN Connections ........................................ 8
8 Security Considerations ................................ 9
9 Acknowledgments ........................................ 9
10 References ............................................. 9
10.1 Normative References ................................... 9
10.2 Informative References ................................. 9
11 Authors' Addresses ..................................... 10
12 Full Copyright Statement ............................... 10
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
1. Introduction
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) defines both
routing and signaling protocols for the creation of Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) in various transport technologies. These protocols can
be used to support a number of deployment scenarios. In a peer
model, edge-nodes support both a routing and a signaling protocol.
The protocol interactions between an edge-node and a core node are
the same as between two core-nodes. In the overlay model, the core-
nodes act more as a closed system. The edge nodes do not participate
in the routing protocol instance that runs among the core nodes; in
particular, the edge nodes are unaware of the topology of the core
nodes. There may, however, be a routing protocol interaction between
a core node and an edge node for the exchange of reachability
information to other edge nodes.
Overlay Overlay
Network +----------------------------------+ Network
+---------+ | | +---------+
| +----+ | | +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| -+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN +----+ CN +----+ CN +---+-----+-+ EN +- |
| | | | +--+--| | | | | | | | | | |
| +----+ | | | +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ | | +----+ |
| | | | | | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | | |
+---------+ | | | | | | +---------+
| | | | +--+--+ | +--+--+ | | |
| +----+ | | | | | +-------+ | | | +----+ |
| | +-+--+ | | CN +---------------+ CN | | | | | |
| -+ EN +-+-----+--+ | | +---+-----+-+ EN +- |
| | | | | +-----+ +-----+ | | | | |
| +----+ | | | | +----+ |
| | +----------------------------------+ | |
+---------+ Core Network +---------+
Overlay Overlay
Network Network
Legend: EN - Edge Node
CN - Core Node
Figure 1: Overlay Reference Model
Figure 1 shows a reference network. The core network is represented
by the large box in the center. It contains five core-nodes marked
'CN'. The four boxes around the edge marked "Overlay Network"
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
represent four islands of a single network overlaid network. Only
the nodes of this network with TE links into the core network are
shown. These nodes are called edge-nodes; the terminology is in
respect to the core network, not the overlay network. Note that each
box marked "Overlay Network" could contain many other nodes. Such
nodes are not shown; they do not participate in the signaling
described in this document. Only he edge-nodes can signal to set up
links across the core to other edge-nodes. Once a link is
established, presumably the edge-node will inform the other nodes of
the overlay network of its existence. How this is accomplished is
beyond the scope of this document. However, one possible means is
using a forwarding adjacency as described in [MPLS-HIER].
In the overlay model there may be restrictions on what may be
signaled between an edge-node and a core-node. This memo addresses
the application of GMPLS to the overlay model. Specifically it
addresses RSVP procedures between an edge-node and a core-node in the
overlay model. All RSVP procedures are assumed to be identical to
[RFC3473] except as noted in this document.
This document primarily addresses interactions between an edge-node
and it's adjacent (at the data plane) core-node. Except where noted,
the term core-node refers to the node which is immediately adjacent
to an edge-node across a particular data plane interface. The term
core-nodes, however, refers to all nodes in the core.
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].
1.1. GMPLS User-to-Network Interface
One can apply the GMPLS Overlay model at the User-to-Network
Interface (UNI) reference point defined in the Automatically Switched
Optical Network (ASON) [G.8080]. Consider the case where the 'Core
Network' in Figure 1 is a Service Provider network, and the Edge
Nodes are 'user' devices. The interface between EN and CN is the UNI
reference point, and to support the ASON model, one must define
signaling across the UNI.
The extensions described in this memo provide mechanisms for UNI
signaling that are compatible with GMPLS signaling [RFC3471,
RFC3473]. Moreover, these mechanisms for UNI signaling are in line
with the RSVP model, namely, there is a single end-to-end RSVP
session for the user connection. The first and last hops constitute
the UNI, and the RSVP session carries the user parameters end-to-end.
This obviates the need to map (or carry) user parameters to (in) the
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
format expected by the network-to-network interface (NNI) used within
the Service Provider network. This in turn means that the UNI and
NNI can be independent of one another, which is a requirement of the
ASON architecture. However, in the case that the UNI and NNI are
both GMPLS RSVP-based, the methodology specified in this memo allows
for a single RSVP session to instantiate both UNI and NNI signaling,
if so desired, and if allowed by Service Provider policy.
2. Addressing
Addresses for edge-nodes in the overlay model are drawn from the same
address space as the edge-nodes use to address their adjacent core-
nodes. This may be the same address space as used by the core-nodes
to communicate among themselves or it may be a VPN space supported by
the core-nodes as an overlay.
To be more specific, an edge-node and its attached core-node must
share the same address space which is used by GMPLS. A set of
<edge-node, core-node> tuples share the same address space if the
edge-nodes in the set could establish LSPs (through the core-nodes)
among themselves (note that edge-nodes in the set may be a subset of
all the edge-nodes). The address space used by the core-nodes to
communicate among themselves may, but need not be shared with the
address space used by any of the <edge-node, core-node> tuples.
An edge-node is identified by either a single IP address representing
its Node-ID, or by one or more numbered TE links that connect the
edge-node to the core-nodes. Core-nodes are assumed to be ignorant
of any other addresses associated with an edge-node (i.e. addresses
which are not used in signaling connections through the GMPLS core).
An edge-node need only know its own address, an address of the
adjacent core-node, and know (or be able to resolve) the address of
any other edge-node to which it wishes to connect.
A core-node need only know (and track) the addresses on interfaces
between that core-node and its attached edge-nodes, as well as the
Node IDs of those edge-nodes. In addition, a core-node needs to know
the interface addresses and Node IDs of other edge-nodes to which an
attached edge-node is permitted to connect.
When forming a SENDER_TEMPLATE the ingress edge-node includes either
its Node-ID or the address of one of its numbered TE links. In the
latter case the connection will only be made over this interface.
When forming a SESSION_OBJECT, the ingress edge-node includes either
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
the Node-ID of the egress edge-device or the address of one of the
egress' numbered TE links. In the latter case the connection will
only be made over this interface. The Extended_Tunnel_ID of the
SESSION Object is set to either zero or to an address of the ingress
edge-device.
Links may be either numbered or unnumbered. Further, links may be
bundled or unbundled. See [GMPLS-ARCH], [RFC3471], [BUNDLE], and
[RFC3477].
3. ERO Processing
An edge-node MAY include an ERO. A core-node MAY reject a Path
message that contains an ERO. Such behavior is controlled by
(hopefully consistent) configuration. If a core-node rejects a Path
message due to the presence of an ERO it SHOULD return an PathErr
message with an error code of "Unknown object class" toward the
sender. This causes the path setup to fail.
Further a core-node MAY accept EROs which only include the ingress
edge-node, the ingress core-node, the egress core-node and the egress
edge-node. This is to support explicit label control on the edge-
node interface, see below. If a core-node rejects a Path message due
to the presence of an ERO not of the permitted format it SHOULD
return an PathErr message with an error code of Bad Explicit Route
Object as defined in [RFC3209].
3.1. Path Message without ERO
When a core-node receives a Path message from an edge-node that
contains no ERO, it MUST calculate a route to the destination and
include that route in a ERO, before forwarding the PATH message. One
exception would be if the egress edge-node were also adjacent to this
core-node. If no route can be found, the core-node SHOULD return a
PathErr message with an error code and value of 24,5 - "No route
available toward destination".
3.2. Path Message with ERO
When a core-node receives a Path message from an edge-node that
contains an ERO, it SHOULD verify the route against its topology
database before forwarding the PATH message. If the route is not
viable, then a PathErr message with an error code and value of 24,5 -
"No route available toward destination" should be returned.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
3.3. Explicit Label Control
In order to support explicit label control and full identification of
the egress link an ingress edge-node may include an ERO that consists
of only the last hop. This is signaled by setting the first
subobject of the ERO to the node-ID of the egress core-node with the
L-bit set. Following this subobject are all other subobjects
necessary to identify the link and labels as they would normally
appear.
4. RRO Processing
An edge-node MAY include an RRO. A core-node MAY remove the RRO from
the Path message before forwarding it. Further the core-node may
remove the RRO from a Resv message before forwarding it to the edge-
node. Such behavior is controlled by (hopefully consistent)
configuration.
Further a core-node MAY edit the RRO in a Resv message such that it
includes only the subobjects from the egress core-node through the
egress edge-node. This is to allow the ingress node to be aware of
the selected link and labels on at the far end of the connection.
5. Notification
An edge-node MAY include a NOTIFY_REQUEST object in both the Path and
Resv messages it generates. A core-node MAY remove the
NOTIFY_REQUEST object from the Path or Resv message before forwarding
it. Core-nodes may send Notification messages to edge-nodes which
have included the NOTIFY_REQUEST object.
Further if no NOTIFY_REQUEST object is present in the Path or Resv
message (either because it was not included or because it was
removed) then the core-node adjacent to the edge-node may include a
NOTIFY_REQUEST object to set its value to its own address.
6. Connection Deletion
RSVP currently deletes connections using either a single pass
PathTear message, or a ResvTear and PathTear message combination.
Upon receipt of the PathTear message, a node deletes the connection
state and forwards the message. In optical networks, however, it is
possible that the deletion of a connection (e.g., removal of the
cross-connect) in a node may cause the connection to be perceived as
failed in downstream nodes (e.g., loss of frame, loss of light,
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
etc.). This may in turn lead to management alarms and perhaps the
triggering of restoration/protection for the connection.
To address this issue, the graceful connection deletion procedure
SHOULD be followed. Under this procedure, an ADMIN_STATUS object MUST
be sent in Path or Resv message along the connection's path to inform
all nodes enroute of the intended deletion, prior to the actual
deletion of the connection. The procedure is described in [RFC3473].
7. VPN Connections
As stated in the addressing section above, the extensions in this
document are designed to be compatible with the support of VPNs.
Since the core network may be some technology other than GMPLS, no
mandatory means of mapping core connections to access connections is
specified. However, when GMPLS is used for the core network, we
RECOMMEND the following procedure which is based on [LSP-HIER].
The VPN connection is modeled as being three hops. One for each
access link and one hop across the core network.
The VPN connection is established using a two step procedure. When a
Path message is received at a core node on an interface which is part
of a VPN, the Path message is held until a core connection is
established.
The connection across the core is setup as a separate signaling
exchange between the core nodes, using the address space of the core
nodes. While this exchange is in progress, the original Path message
is held at the ingress core node. Once the exchange for the core
connection is complete, this connection is used in the VPN connection
as if it were a single link. This is signaled by including an IF_ID
RSVP_HOP object (defined in [RFC3473]) using the procedures defined
in [LSP-HIER].
The original Path message is then forwarded within the VPN addressing
realm to the core node attached to the destination edge node. Many
ways of accomplishing this are available, including IP and GRE
tunnels and BGP/MPLS VPNs. Specifying a particular means is beyond
the scope of this document.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
8. Security Considerations
This draft imposes no new security risks over [RFC3473]. In fact it
represents a lower trust model between the core and edge-nodes as the
core is permitted to hide its topology from the edge-nodes. The core
is also permitted to restrict the actions of edge-nodes by filtering
out specific RSVP objects.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kireeti Kompella, Jonathan Lang,
Dimitri Papadimitriou, Dimitrios Pendarakis and Bala Rajagopalan for
their comments and input.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized MPLS Signaling Functional
Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized MPLS Signaling RSVP-TE
Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3209] Awduche, et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
10.2. Informative References
[GMPLS-ARCH] Mannie, E, et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-04.txt, Feb., 2003.
[MPLS-HIER] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
MPLS TE", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt, Sep., 2001.
[BUNDLE] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link
Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Internet Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt, July, 2002.
[RFC3477] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Signaling Unnumbered
Links in RSVP-TE", RFC 3477, January 2003.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),"
November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003).
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119.
11. Authors' Addresses
John Drake
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972 3720
Email: jdrake@calient.net
Hirokazu Ishimatsu
Japan Telecom Co., Ltd.
2-9-1 Hatchobori, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0032, Japan
Tel: +81 3 5540 8493
Email: hirokazu.ishimatsu@japan-telecom.co.jp
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Email: yakov@juniper.net
George Swallow
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave,
Boxborough, MA 01719
Phone: +1 978 936 1398
Email: swallow@cisco.com
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
Internet Draft draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt October 2003
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Swallow, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]