Network Working Group Kwang-koog Lee
Internet Draft KT
Intended status: Informational
Expires December 2014
June 4, 2014
ACTN Use-case for On-demand E2E Connectivity Services in Multiple
Vendor Domain Transport Networks
draft-klee-actn-connectivity-multi-vendor-domains-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and 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 December 4, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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.
K. Lee Expires December 4, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ACTN Multiple Vendor Domains June 2014
Abstract
This document provides a use-case that addresses the need for
facilitating the application of virtual network abstractions and the
control and management of on-demand end-to-end provisioning of
connections that traverse multiple vendor domain transport networks.
These abstractions shall help create a virtualized environment
supporting operators in viewing and controlling different vendor
domains, especially for on-demand network connectivity service for a
single operator.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..................................................2
2. On-demand End-to-end Connectivity in Multi-vendor Domain
Transport Networks................................................3
3. Requirements...................................................4
4. References.....................................................6
5. Contributors...................................................7
Intellectual Property Statement...................................7
Disclaimer of Validity............................................7
1. Introduction
Network operators build and operate their network using multiple
domains in different dimensions. Domains may be defined by a
collection of links and nodes (each of a different technology),
administrative zones under the concern of a particular business
entity, or vendor-specific "islands" where specific control
mechanisms have to be applied. Establishing end-to-end connections
spanning several of these domains is a perpetual problem for
operators, which need to address both interoperability and
operational concerns at the control and data planes.
The introduction of new services, often requiring connections that
traverse multiple domains, needs significant planning, and several
manual operations to interface multiple vendor-specific domains in
which specific control/management mechanisms of the vendor equipment
have to be applied (e.g., EMS/NMS, OSS/BSS, control plane, SDN
controller, etc.).
This document provides a use-case that addresses the need for
creating a virtualized environment supporting operators in viewing
and controlling different vendor domains, especially for on-demand
network connectivity service for a single operator. This will
accelerate rapid service deployment of new services, including more
K. Lee Expires December 4, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ACTN Multiple Vendor Domains June 2014
dynamic and elastic services, and improve overall network operations
and scaling of existing services.
This use-case is a part of the overarching work, called Abstraction
and Control of Transport Networks (ACTN). Related documents are the
ACTN-framework [ACTN-Frame] and the problem statement [ACTN-PS].
2. On-demand End-to-end Connectivity in Multi-vendor Domain Transport
Networks
This section provides an architecture example to illustrate the
context of the current challenges and issues operators face in
delivering on-demand end-to-end connectivity services in operators'
multi-vendor domain transport networks.
|
| / End-to-End Connection \ |
|/-----------------------------------------------------------\|
|\-----------------------------------------------------------/|
| \ / |
| |
| +----------------+ |
| | | |
| | Converged | |
| | Packet-Optical| |
| +-------------+ | Core Domain | +-------------+ |
| | |--| (Vendor A) |--| | |
+----+ | Access | +----------------+ | Access | +----+
| CE1|--| Domain 1 | | | | Domain 3 |--| CE2|
+----+ | (Vendor B) |----- -----| (Vendor C) | +----+
+-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 1. Multi-vendor Domains
As an illustrative example, consider a multi-domain transport
network consisting of three domains: One Core Converged Packet-
Optical Domain (Vendor A) and two access domains (Vendors B and C).
Each access domain is managed by its domain control/management
mechanism which is often a proprietary vendor-specific scheme. The
core domain is also managed by Vendor A's proprietary
control/management mechanism (e.g., EMS/NMS, OSS/BSS, ASON/GMPLS
Control Plane, SDN Controller, or any combination of these entities,
etc.) that may not interoperate with access domain
control/management mechanisms or at best partially interoperate if
Vendor A is same as Vendor B or Vendor C.
K. Lee Expires December 4, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ACTN Multiple Vendor Domains June 2014
Due to these domain boundaries, facilitating on-demand end-to-end
connections (e.g., Ethernet Virtual Connections, etc.) that traverse
multi-domains is not readily achieved. These domain controls are
optimized for its local operation and in most cases not suited for
controlling the end-to-end connectivity services. For instance, the
discovery of the Client Ends (CE) that belong to other domains is
hard to achieve partly because of the lack of the common API and its
information model and control mechanisms thereof to disseminate the
relevant information.
Moreover, the path computation for any on-demand end-to-end
connection would need abstraction of dynamic network resources and
ways to find an optimal path that meets the connection's service
requirements. This would require knowledge of both the domain level
dynamic network resource information and the inter-domain
connectivity information including domain gateway/peering points and
the local domain policy.
From an on-demand connection provisioning perspective, in order to
facilitate a fast and reliable end-to-end signaling, each domain
operation and management elements should ideally speak the same
control protocols to its neighboring domains. However, this is not
possible for the current network context unless a folk-lift green
field technology deployment with a single vendor solution would be
done.
From a network connectivity management perspective, it would require
a mechanism to disseminate any connectivity issues from the local
domain to the other domains whenever the local domain cannot resolve
a connectivity issues. This is hard to achieve due to the lack of
the common API and its agreed-upon information model and control
mechanisms thereof to disseminate the relevant information.
From an operation's perspective, the current network environments
are not conducive to offering on-demand end-to-end connectivity
services in multi-vendor domain transport networks.
3. Requirements
In the previous section, we discussed the current challenges and
issues that prevent operators from offering on-demand end-to-end
connectivity services in multi-vendor domain transport networks.
This section provides a high-level requirement for enabling on-
demand end-to-end connectivity services in multi-vendor domain
transport networks in a single operator environment.
Figure 1 shows information flow requirements of the aforementioned
context.
K. Lee Expires December 4, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ACTN Multiple Vendor Domains June 2014
+-------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Customer On-demand Network Service |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------+
/|\
|
\|/
+-------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Abstracted Global View |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------+
/|\
|
\|/
+-------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Single Integrated E2E Network View |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------+
/|\ /|\ /|\
| | |
\|/ \|/ \|/
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| | | | | |
| Domain A | | Domain B | | Domain C |
| Control | | Control | | Control |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
Figure 2. Information Flow Requirements for Enabling On-demand
Network Connectivity Service in Multi-vendor Domain Networks
There are a number of key requirements from Figure 2.
- A single integrated end-to-end network view is necessary to be
able to compute paths and provision the end-to-end paths that
traverse multiple vendor domains.
- The entity responsible to collect domain-level data and create an
integrated end-to-end view should support push/pull model with
respect to all its interfaces.
- The same entity should coordinate a signaling flow for an end-to-
end connections to each domain involved. (This entity to domain
control is analogous to an NMS to EMS relationship)
K. Lee Expires December 4, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ACTN Multiple Vendor Domains June 2014
- The entity responsible to create abstract global view should
support push/pull model with respect to all its interfaces. (Note
that the two entities (an entity to create an integrated end-to-
end view and an entity to create an abstracted global view) can be
assumed by the same entity, which is an implementation issue.
- There is a need for a common API between each domain control to
the entity that is responsible for creating a single integrated
end-to-end network view. At the minimum, the following items are
required on the API:
o Programmability of the API.
o The multiple levels/granularities of the abstraction of
network resource (which is subject to policy and service
need).
o The abstraction of network resource should include customer
end points and inter-domain gateway nodes/links.
o Any physical network constraints (such as SRLG, link
distance, etc.) should be reflected in abstraction.
o Domain preference and local policy (such as preferred peering
point(s), preferred route, etc.)
o Domain network capability (e.g., support of push/pull model).
- The entity responsible for abstraction of a global view into a
customer view should provide a programmable API to allow the
flexibility.
o Abstraction of a global view into a customer view should be
provided to allow customer to dynamically request network on-
demand services including connectivity services.
o What level of details customer should be allowed to view
network is subject to negotiation between the customer and
the operator.
4. References
[ACTN-Frame] D. Ceccarelli, L. Fang, Y. Lee and D. Lopez, "Framework
for Abstraction and Control of Transport Networks," draft-
ceccarelli-actn-framework, work in progress.
K. Lee Expires December 4, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ACTN Multiple Vendor Domains June 2014
[ACTN-PS] Y. Lee, D. King, M. Boucadair, R. Jing, and L. Murillo,
"Problem Statement for the Abstraction and Control of
Transport Networks," draft-leeking-actn-problem-statement,
work in progress.
5. Contributors
Authors' Addresses
Kwang-koog Lee
KT
Email: kwangkoog.lee@kt.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF Trust 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 any IETF 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.
Copies of Intellectual Property 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
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein 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 THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
K. Lee Expires December 4, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ACTN Multiple Vendor Domains June 2014
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
K. Lee Expires December 4, 2014 [Page 8]