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

Versions: 00 01                                                         
Internet Draft                                             G. Li (AT&T)
Expiration Date: May 2002                             C. Kalmanek(AT&T)
                                                        J. Yates (AT&T)
Document: draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt  G. Bernstein (Ciena)
                                                      F. Liaw (Zaffire)
                                                   V. Sharma (Matanoia)

                                                              Nov. 2001

RSVP-TE Extensions For Shared-Mesh Restoration in Transport Networks

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].

   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
   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   Efficient techniques for rapid restoration must be addressed within
   GMPLS. This document describes extensions to RSVP-TE signaling in
   support of shared mesh restoration. Shared mesh restoration
   describes restoration plans in which restoration capacity is shared
   across multiple independent failures. In particular, this document
   proposes extensions enabling reservation of restoration capacity,
   LSP restoration, LSP reversion and LSP deletion.

1. Introduction

   Rapid recovery (restoration) from network failures is a crucial
   aspect of current and future transport networks. Rapid restoration
   is required by transport network providers to support stringent
   Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that dictate high reliability and
   availability for customer connectivity.

   The choice of a restoration policy is a tradeoff between network
   resource utilization (cost) and service interruption time. Clearly,
   minimized service interruption time is desirable, but schemes

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 1]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   achieving this usually do so at the expense of network resource
   utilization, resulting in increased cost to the provider. Different
   restoration schemes operate with different tradeoffs mainly among
   spare capacity requirements and service interruption time as well as
   complexity, robustness, etc.

   In light of these tradeoffs, transport providers are expected to
   support a range of different service offerings, with a strong
   differentiating factor between these service offerings being service
   interruption time in the event of network failures. For example, a
   providerÆs highest offered service level would generally ensure the
   most rapid recovery from network failures. However, such schemes
   (e.g., 1+1, 1:1 protection) generally use a large amount of spare
   restoration capacity, and are thus not cost effective for most
   customer applications. Significant reductions in spare capacity can
   be achieved by instead sharing this capacity across multiple
   independent failures.

   GMPLS signaling proposals have primarily focused on the development
   of methods for label switched path (LSP) establishment and removal
   [1,2,3] with some fault recovery capabilities. Recent Internet
   drafts [4,9] examine how to realize some different restoration
   schemes for transport networks using GMPLS signaling. Other LSP
   restoration-related contributions [5,6,7,8,16,17,18] mainly focus on
   MPLS networks. This contribution motivates the need for path-based
   shared mesh restoration in transport networks, and defines
   extensions to support it. The proposal here primarily focuses on
   restoration within a single control domain.

   Shared mesh restoration for transport networks was proposed in [13].
   The basic functionality discussed within [13] is enabled using the
   GMPLS extensions proposed within this draft. Kini et al. have
   recently proposed shared mesh restoration for MPLS networks [5,6].
   The fundamental difference between transport networks and packet
   networks (where MPLS applies) is that in packet networks we can
   establish an LSP without using any bandwidth. However, in transport
   networks, if an LSP is established, then by definition the full
   bandwidth requested by the LSP is consumed, independent of whether
   traffic is transmitted over this LSP or not. A LSP can be
   established before failure in MPLS, but not used until after
   failure, whereas this is not possible in transport networks. This
   contribution addresses the GMPLS-specific extensions required to
   support shared mesh restoration in transport networks.

   The current GMPLS signaling specification is based on extensions to
   existing protocols û namely RSVP-TE [8] and CR-LDP [15]. The
   introduction of new signaling protocols for restoration [9] is
   likely to significantly complicate the standardization process and
   future implementations. Instead, we propose extending the existing
   signaling protocols to provide the necessary network failure
   restoration functionality. We demonstrated a reference
   implementation of the extensions to RSVP-TE described here for
   shared-mesh restoration in [10], and have successfully demonstrated

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 2]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   that rapid end-to-end restoration signaling can be achieved using
   these extensions. Similar extensions are required for CR-LDP.

2. Restoration methods

   We classify restoration techniques into path-based and link-based
   [16]. Path-based schemes are implemented via an alternate or backup
   path that may traverse multiple nodes. Failure recovery is typically
   provided on a per LSP basis between a pair of nodes. Different LSPs
   on a failed link, segment or path may use different restoration
   techniques and traverse different restoration routes. In contrast,
   link-based techniques are provided on a per link basis. Traffic on
   the failed link usually traverses on the same restoration route.
   Note that by ôlinkö in this document we mean a ôlogicalö link in the
   network layer of interest (e.g., one or more similar-routed channels
   between a pair of optical cross-connects).

   In general, path-based schemes may protect an end-to-end path, a
   segment or a single link / node. The extensions proposed here are
   applicable to all of these cases, although we focus primarily on
   end-to-end path-based restoration. Depending on the degree to which
   a service provider wishes to protect LSPs, the service and
   restoration paths may be link-disjoint, node-disjoint or Shared Risk
   Link Group (SRLG)[1,2,13]-disjoint. SRLG-disjoint routes are
   important as they cover several common types of failure that must be
   protected against, including link failures, conduit cuts, etc.

   There are a number of possible path-based restoration techniques for
   transport networks. The interested reader is referred to [16] for a
   complete taxonomy of MPLS-based restoration schemes. If the network
   pre-establishes a restoration path for a given service path, then
   restoration of the service path in the event of service path failure
   simply involves cross-connecting the add/drop ports at the source
   and destination from the failed path onto the restoration path. This
   is referred to as dedicated path protection. Dedicated path
   protection provides very rapid failure recovery, but is expensive in
   terms of the spare capacity requirements.

   Alternatively, if the network searches for restoration capacity and
   establishes the restoration path only after service path failure,
   then the restoration scheme is referred to as dynamic restoration.
   Dynamic restoration may utilize techniques such as crankback [11] to
   successively try different paths until a path with sufficient
   resources is found. Dynamic restoration does not require pre-
   planning on a per LSP basis and as such may be more robust to
   (unanticipated) failures. The disadvantages of dynamic restoration
   schemes include long worst-case restoration times, lack of
   predictability and no guarantee of successful failure recovery.
   Dynamic restoration may be particularly useful as a backup
   restoration technique when other pre-established or pre-calculated
   restoration routes are not available (e.g., for multiple failure
   events in which insufficient restoration capacity has been
   established / reserved).

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 3]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   Another path-based restoration technique is instead based on pre-
   calculating restoration routes, with cross-connection performed
   after failure [10,12]. This approach allows efficient use of spare
   restoration capacity by sharing this capacity across multiple
   independent failures. In this scheme, when the service path for a
   LSP is established, resources may be reserved along the restoration
   path without allocating the resources to a specific LSP and
   configuring the cross-connects on the restoration path. The
   resources reserved for a particular restoration path can be shared
   with other restoration paths if their service paths do not have any
   (single) failure in common. In another words, if the service paths
   of two LSPs are failure disjoint, (e.g., they fail independently),
   the resources reserved for restoration can be shared on the common
   links of their restoration paths. We refer to this technique as
   shared mesh restoration. Note that for all-optical networks without
   wavelength conversion, restoration resources may have to be shared
   on a per-wavelength basis.

   To implement shared mesh restoration, we require new extensions to
   the existing GMPLS signaling specifications [8,15] for bandwidth
   reservation, LSP restoration, LSP reversion and LSP deletion. These
   signaling procedures are discussed in the following section.

3. Shared mesh restoration

3.1 Resource reservation for restoration

   A restorable LSP in a transport network supporting shared mesh
   restoration has both a service (primary) path and a restoration
   (secondary) path. During normal network operation (without
   failures), the LSP is established along the service path, with
   resources (optionally) reserved along the restoration path.

   In implementing shared mesh restoration, capacity may be reserved
   along the restoration path during LSP provisioning [10,13]. The
   resources reserved on each link along a restoration path may be
   shared across different service LSPs that are not expected to fail
   simultaneously. The restoration capacity might be either idle or
   used for pre-emptable LSPs.

   The amount of restoration capacity reserved on the restoration paths
   determines the robustness of the restoration scheme to failures. For
   example, a network operator may choose to reserve sufficient
   capacity to ensure that all shared mesh restorable LSPs can be
   recovered in the event of any single failure event (e.g., a conduit
   being cut). A network operator may instead reserve more or less
   capacity than that required to handle any single failure event, or
   may alternatively choose to reserve only a fixed pool independent of
   the number of LSPs requiring this capacity.

   The sharing of restoration bandwidth across multiple independent
   failures can be simply illustrated using the topology depicted in

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 4]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   Figure 1. We consider an LSP established between A and C, and
   another between F and H.  The service and restoration paths for the
   LSP between A and C are A-B-C and A-D-E-C, respectively, whilst the
   service and restoration paths for the LSP between F and H are F-G-H
   and F-D-E-H, respectively. Thus, the link between D and E has
   capacity reserved for the failure of both the service LSPs. If the
   service provider wishes to guarantee recovery from any single
   failure event, and if the links along the two service paths do not
   share any common failure (e.g., SRLG), then a single unit of
   capacity may be reserved on the D-E link for the restoration of
   either of the service LSPs. An example is provided in Section 6 that
   illustrates the reservation of restoration capacity when
   guaranteeing recovery from a single SRLG failure.

                            \                           /
                             \                         /
                             /                         \
                            /                           \

                           Figure 1. Example network topology.

   When the amount of reserved capacity is a function of the number of
   LSPs that are to be restored on each link, signaling is required to
   reserve this capacity along the restoration path.  Details of
   resource reservation are described in Section 4.1

   In general, depending on the network operatorÆs desired
   functionality, channel selection may be performed either during the
   reservation stage, or after failure. If channels are pre-selected,
   the channel selection is stored during the resource reservation
   phase as part of the reservation state along the LSPÆs restoration
   path. Importantly, although the channels are pre-selected, the
   cross-connect is not established until after a failure. If channels
   are pre-selected during the reservation phase, then restoration
   message processing during restoration may be faster. However, if the
   pre-selected channels are dependent on the failure scenario, channel
   pre-selection may necessitate that fault isolation be performed
   before connectivity can be restored.

   Alternatively, channel selection may be performed after failure on
   receipt of a signaling message for restoration. In this case, since
   restoration capacity along the restoration path is only reserved but
   not allocated, handling a fault translates into allocating the
   restoration LSP after failure. This requires efficient mechanisms
   for triggering and allocating the restoration LSP to meet the tight
   restoration timing constraints. The LSP restoration time will depend
   on the time to detect the failure, (possibly) localize the failure,
   notify the node(s) responsible for restoration, and finally activate
   the restoration LSP. Internet draft [16] shows a complete

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 5]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   specification of the various cycle times involved in different
   recovery scenarios.

3.2 Interaction with failure detection and localization

   Both failure detection and failure localization are technology and
   implementation dependent. In general, failures are detected by lower
   layer mechanisms (e.g., SONET/SDH, Loss-of-Light (LOL)). When a node
   detects a failure, an alarm may be passed up to a GMPLS entity,
   which will take appropriate action. This section discusses models
   for how failure detection interacts with and triggers end-to-end
   path-based restoration.

   One model generates alarms upon failure detection and uses IP
   signaling to propagate a failure notification to the node(s)
   responsible for initiating restoration. Fault localization is
   important in this model to avoid having numerous alarms and IP
   messages generated for each failed LSP. Where hardware-based (e.g.,
   SONET/SDH) fault localization techniques are not available, fault
   localization can be performed using IP-based protocols, such as the
   Link Management Protocol (LMP) [14]. Once the fault has been
   localized, the node(s) adjacent to the failure send a failure
   notification message to the node(s) responsible for restoring the
   failed LSP, which initiates restoration. In RSVP, the failure
   notification (NOTIFY) message is sent via normal IP forwarding with
   optional end-to-end reliable transmission.

   Using this approach, restoration may be delayed due to the fact that
   failure localization needs to complete first. Additional delays may
   be incurred when sending failure notifications if normal IP routing
   has not converged. If the notification message is generated by a
   node downstream (upstream) of the failure and sent to a node
   upstream (downstream) of the failure, then normal IP forwarding may
   result in the message following a route that is broken as a result
   of the failure. The failure notification will thus not reach the
   node responsible for initiating restoration until IP routing has

   Another option is to trigger restoration based on failure detection
   at the nodes terminating the LSP. Failure localization is now
   targeted at the task of repairing the fault and becomes a background
   task that can be performed on a much slower time scale.  However, it
   is important that valid signaling actions for planned events (e.g.,
   LSP deletion) do not trigger failure notification and restoration
   actions along the path. For example, if LSPs are deleted in an all-
   optical network by sending a single deletion message, LOL resulting
   from disconnection at a node will propagate down the path faster
   than the LSP deletion message, potentially triggering restoration.
   Thus, for planned events that could result in LOL along the path,
   such as LSP deletion, all nodes must be informed of the upcoming
   event so that they may turn off alarms corresponding to the desired
   LSP so as not to initiate restoration.

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 6]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   For uni-directional LSPs, failures will be detected at the
   destination. For bi-directional LSPs, failures may be detected at
   either the source, the destination or both, depending on whether
   there is a uni-directional or bi-directional failure. Restoration
   should then be initiated by either the source, the destination or
   both. If restoration is initiated by the source (destination) and
   only the destination (source) detects the failure, then a failure
   notification must be propagated to the other end of the LSP. For
   all-optical networks, this failure notification may be done using IP
   messages, as above. However, most framing schemes in O-E-O networks
   will be capable of hardware level notification upstream of the
   failure, such as using SONETÆs Path AIS. Alternatively, restoration
   can be initiated by both the source and the destination, with
   restoration signaling meeting at an intermediate node along the pre-
   calculated restoration route.

   All the above are potential implementations and therefore the
   extensions proposed herein are intended to work independent of the
   mechanism used for failure localization and notification.

4. Operations overview

   The following discusses how shared-mesh restoration may be supported
   using extensions to RSVP-TE signaling.

4.1 Restoration path reservation

   When a LSP requesting path-based restoration is established, the
   source node calculates the service and restoration paths for the
   LSP. To satisfy SLAs, the network may reserve resources along the
   chosen restoration path. To achieve this, the source node sends a
   PATH message along the restoration path with a new  öshared
   reservationö flag (see Section 5.2) requesting a shared reservation
   along the path. The PATH message sent along the pre-calculated
   restoration path reserves the required restoration resources and
   establishes shared reservation state relating to the LSP without
   cross-connecting the channels (see the example in Section 6). A RESV
   message with the same flag is returned to acknowledge the resource
   reservation along the restoration path, but without establishing the
   restoration LSP.

   In general, many carriers will want to protect their network against
   at least any single failure event, such as a fiber cut, or a conduit
   cut. If we generalize the SRLG concept, it may be used to represent
   different failure-prone network components, such as a fiber span, a
   node, a DWDM system or a conduit. Thus, for simplicity in the
   following description, we assume that we are protecting against SRLG

   The nodes along the restoration path need to know the path taken by
   the service LSP so that reservations can be shared among SRLG-
   disjoint failures along the service path. Thus, the PATH message
   sent along the restoration path includes information about the

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 7]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   service path.  Two options for service path information are
   discussed in Section 5.3. The information can contain either a list
   of the links along the service LSP, or a list of the SRLGs traversed
   by the service LSP.

4.2 Restoration path setup operation

   As described in Section 3.2, restoration path setup can be triggered
   in several ways. Path-based restoration may be triggered at either
   the source or destination node, or both [12].

   If the restoration signaling is initiated by the source, the source
   node sends a PATH message along the restoration path with the
   ôshared reservationö flag not set, indicating that the LSP should
   now be established.  Since nodes along the path retained reservation
   state for the restoration LSP, this state can be used to ensure that
   restoration LSPs allocate resources out of the capacity reserved for
   restoration. Upon receipt of the PATH message, the nodes along the
   restoration path should check the cross-connect state for this LSP.
   (This is needed in case restoration triggered from the destination
   node has already performed the cross-connection.)  If the cross-
   connection has not been performed for this LSP, the node should
   select channels for the LSP (if not already pre-selected), and
   perform the required cross-connections. In nodes with potentially
   slower cross-connect switching times (e.g., MEMS cross-connects) it
   is important to have the PATH message be forwarded without waiting
   for the cross-connection to be completed. The destination node sends
   a RESV message to the source to acknowledge the successful
   establishment of the restoration path.

   If the signaling is initiated by the destination, then a RESV
   message is sent along the restoration path with the ôshared
   reservationö flag not set. Upon receipt of the RESV message, the
   nodes along the restoration path should check the cross-connection
   states for this LSP. If the cross-connection has not been performed
   for this LSP, the node should select channels for the LSP (if not
   already pre-selected), and perform the required cross-connections.
   In nodes with potentially slower cross-connect switching times
   (e.g., MEMS cross-connects) it is important to have the RESV message
   forwarded without waiting for the cross-connection to be completed.
   The source node sends a RESV_CONF message to the destination to
   acknowledge the successful establishment of the restoration path.

   If both ends initiate restoration, the PATH and RESV messages for
   the same LSP may meet at an intermediate node. This may result in
   label contention. For a uni-directional LSP, the contention is
   resolved using downstream label assignment. For a bi-directional
   LSP, the contention is resolved based on higher node-ID label
   assignment, as proposed for GMPLS [1,8]. When signaling messages
   from the two ends meet at an intermediate node, the node sends a
   RESV message to the source and RESV_CONF to the destination in
   response to the establishment of the restoration path.

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 8]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   When restoration is triggered from both source and destination, and
   PATH/RESV messages are forwarded without waiting for cross-
   connection as described above, the receipt of the RESV or RESV_CONF
   does not guarantee the success of restoration path establishment. In
   this case, a subsequent error message may override the
   acknowledgment. This behavior must be evaluated further.

   One issue in establishing a restoration path using GMPLS LSP setup
   signaling is the contention resolution method. GMPLS allows upstream
   suggested label and resolves the contention via master/slave node
   relationship. During restoration process, two LSPs from different
   clients may be mis-connected when contention occurs.  This may occur
   between two restoration LSPs or between a restoration LSP and a
   service LSP if they share the same label pool. One possible solution
   may be to only do label assignment from the master node, but this
   method may affect the restoration time. The detailed behavior must
   be evaluated further.

4.3 Error handling

   In shared mesh restoration schemes, the reserved restoration
   resources may be limited. During a restoration path establishment,
   there may be scenarios in which the restoration path canÆt be setup,
   for example, if there arenÆt adequate reserved restoration resources
   due to any reason or if there is a failure along the restoration
   path. In this case, PATHERR and RESVERR messages may be used to
   report the failure of restoration path establishment. It is
   important that any resources allocated by the incomplete restoration
   path establishment be immediately released such that these resources
   can be used for other restoration paths.

   In the RSVP-TE extensions proposed for GMPLS, the PATHERR message
   was extended to carry a ôstate_removeö flag to release the resources
   consumed by incomplete LSP establishment. In shared mesh restoration
   schemes, we may borrow the same idea and define a new flag
   ôallocation_removeö, which could be carried in both PATHERR and
   RESVERR messages. Upon receipt of PATHERR or RESVERR messages with
   this ôallocation_removeö flag, the node does not remove all local
   state but instead frees the cross-connect resources and releases the
   channels to the reserved capacity pool.

4.4 LSP reversion operation

   After service path repair, most carriers prefer to cause the LSP to
   revert back to its original service path. Often, the routing of the
   restoration LSP may not be as efficient as the original service LSP.
   Additionally, once a restoration LSP is established, there is no
   guarantee that other service paths that were sharing its resources
   are protected, unless the other restoration routes are re-

   Reverting back to the service path after a failure is repaired
   requires that the service LSPÆs resources remain allocated during

G. Li et al                                                   [Page 9]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   the time that the LSP uses restoration resources. For RSVP,
   techniques must be developed that allow service path resources to
   remain allocated even though refreshes may be affected by failed
   signaling channels.

   It is important to have mechanisms that allow LSP reversion to be
   performed without disrupting service to the customer. This can be
   achieved if LSP reversion is implemented using a ôbridge and rollö
   approach. The source node commences the process by ôbridgingö the
   customer signal onto both the service and restoration paths. Once
   the bridge process has completed, the source node sends a
   Notification message to the destination, requesting that the

   destination ôbridge and rollö the service and restoration paths. In
   this case, the ôrollö function causes the destination to select the
   service path signal. Upon finishing the bridge and roll at the
   destination, the destination sends a Notification message to the
   source confirming the completion of the bridge and roll operation.
   When the source receives this Notification, it stops transmitting
   traffic along the restoration route, and sends another Notification
   message to the destination confirming that the LSP is reversed. Once
   the destination receives this Notification message, it issues a
   RESVTEAR message along the restoration path and stops transmitting
   along the restoration route. Additional mechanisms may be required
   in some cases (e.g., all-optical networks) to ensure that
   intermediate nodes do not alarm due to LOL during the teardown
   procedure (see Section 3.2). The RESVTEAR message informs the nodes
   along the restoration route to release the restoration resources if
   shared restoration is used for this LSP.  This procedure achieves
   the ômake-before-breakö feature, that is, minimal service traffic
   interruption during the reversion process. Note that the RESVTEAR
   removes the cross-connection for the restoration path (and frees the
   resources to be used for restoring other failures), but does not
   delete the Path state along the restoration path.  In this case, the
   RESVTEAR should not trigger a PATHTEAR message from the source since
   we want resources to continue to be reserved for this LSP.  This
   allows the termination node to quickly re-establish the restoration
   path by sending either a RESV or PATH message if the service path
   fails again in the future.  The protection object with ôshared
   reservationö flag is carried in the RESVTEAR message to suppress the
   PATHTEAR. If the restoration paths are reoptimized periodically, the
   original restoration reservation state should be cleared and new
   restoration reservation state must be created.

4.5 LSP deletion operation

   Once an LSP is no longer required, the LSP service path and its
   restoration resources should be released for future traffic. If the
   source node initiates the LSP deletion, it should send two PATHTEAR
   messages to the destination node: one along the service path and the
   other along the restoration path. The PATHTEAR along the restoration
   path should include information about the service path. The
   information can contain either a list of the links along the service
   LSP, or a list of the SRLGs traversed by the service LSP. If the

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 10]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   destination initiates the LSP deletion, it should send two RESVTEAR
   messages to the source. The RESVTEAR along the restoration path
   should include the information about the service path. Again,
   additional mechanisms may be required in some cases (e.g., all-
   optical networks) to ensure that nodes do not alarm due to LOL
   during the teardown procedure (see Section 3.2).

5. RSVP-TE restoration extensions

5.1 Current GMPLS fault restoration capabilities

   The GMPLS signaling specifications [1] currently define protection
   information used in the LSP setup procedure. This protection
   information is carried in a new object/TLV that includes a bit flag
   that indicates whether the LSP is a primary (service) or a secondary
   (restoration) LSP.

   GMPLS also specifies a Link Flags field in the protection
   information object. The Link Flags field indicates the link
   protection type desired by the LSP. If a particular type is
   requested, a new LSP request is processed only if the desired link
   protection type can be honored.

5.2 Shared reservation/allocation request

   To implement restoration resource reservation for shared mesh
   restoration, a new mechanism must be introduced into PATH messages to
   distinguish between normal LSP establishment, reservation of shared
   resources, and allocation of shared resources to a particular LSP.
   The S (secondary) bit in the protection information object may be
   used to indicate that an LSP is a restoration/secondary path, not a
   service LSP.

   The shared resource reservation and shared resource allocation can be
   explicitly indicated through a new Shared Reservation flag in the
   protection information object.  The protection information object
   would be used in the PATH/RESV message forwarded along the
   restoration route during LSP resource reservation and resource

       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
      |S|R|                     Reserved                  | Link Flags|
                  Figure 3. Protection information object.

   The Shared Reservation (R) flag described above may be encoded as

   0 allocation
   1 reservation

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 11]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   If other flags are needed to support path-based restoration, the
   shared reservation flag can be included in a Path Flags field.

5.3 Service path information

   To support shared reservations, intermediate nodes must compute the
   total resources that must be reserved to support service paths that
   are not subject to simultaneous failures. This requires
   identification of the specific failure events that are to be
   protected. If we wish to protect against link failures, then we must
   know the set of links used along the service path when reserving
   capacity on the restoration path. Alternatively, if we wish to
   protect (more generally) against SRLG failures, when a restoration
   LSP is reserved, the setup message must convey information about the
   SRLGs that are associated with the service LSP that it is
   protecting. Since a single restoration channel on a common link of
   multiple restoration paths can be shared by non-simultaneous fiber
   span failures.

   This information is communicated by introducing a new object, the
   service path information object, in the PATH message.  We propose
   two alternatives for information that might be conveyed:


   The LINK_LIST SERVICE_PATH INFORMATION object denotes the set of TE
   links [2,2] that are used along the service path. This information
   can be used directly when restoration bandwidth reservation accounts
   for link failures only. If we account for SRLG failures in our
   restoration reservations, then the use of the LINK_LIST requires the
   nodes along the restoration path to map from links to SRLGs.


   If we account for SRLG failures in the restoration reservations,
   then transmitting the list of links along the restoration route
   would require that every node duplicate the calculation of the
   associated set of SRLGs for the primary links. This calculation
   could instead be performed only at the source node, with the set of
   SRLGs then carried in the PATH message. We thus propose a SRLG_LIST

   The SRLG_LIST carries the list of SRLGs that are used by the service
   path. Each SRLG is defined as a 32-bit unsigned number [2,3]. In
   this SRLG list, the order of specific SRLGs is not significant.

   The information carried in the SRLG_LIST would be:

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 12]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

    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
   |                         SRLG 1                                |
   |                         SRLG 2                                |
   |                         ......                                |
   |                         SRLG n                                |
                       Figure 4. SRLG list.

   The use of the SRLG_LIST is more straightforward and requires less
   processing at each node than the LINK_LIST.  However, the LINK_LIST
   is more generic and, in some realistic topologies, may be
   significantly shorter.

5.4 Path message format

   The new proposed format for the PATH message is:
   <PATH Message> ::== <Common Header>
                       [ <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK> ]
                       [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
                       [ <EXPLICITE_ROUTE> ]
                       <LABEL_REQUEST >
                       [ <SERVICE_PATH_INFORMATION> ]
                       [ <PROTECTION> ]
                       [ <LABEL_SET> ]
                       [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
                       [ <NOTIFY_REQUEST> ]
                       [ <POLICY_DATA>    ]
                       <sender descriptor>

   Shared restoration resource reservation is done if and only if the
   PATH message includes the <SERVICE_PATH_INFORMATION> and the
   <PROTECTION> objects with S and R (shared reservation) bits set.
   Otherwise, the <SERVICE_PATH_INFORMATION> is ignored and message
   processing is performed as usual. Shared restoration resource
   allocation is done if and only if the PATH/RESV message includes the
   <PROTECTION> object with S bit set and the R bit not set.
5.5 LSP establishment after failure

   When a service path fails, the restoration LSP should be established
   along the restoration path using the reserved restoration bandwidth
   on each link. The LSP establishment along the restoration path may
   be signaled from the source and/or the destination. A PATH message
   is sent from the source including the <PROTECTION> object with S bit
   set and the R bit not set, and/or a RESV message is sent from the

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 13]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   destination including the <PROTECTION> object with S bit set and the
   R bit not set.

5.6 LSP reversion extension

   It is proposed that LSP reversion be handled using the RSVP
   Notification message. The NOTIFICATION message should be extended to
   include a status field describing each of the different steps in the
   reversion process. The NOTIFY message includes the <ERROR_SPEC>
   object, which has four fields:  node address, flags, code, and
   value. The node address represents the address of the node
   generating the notification. New codes/values in the <ERROR_SPEC>
   object could be reserved to support reversion. Three new
   codes/values are needed:

   + Bridging completed
   + Roll/bridge completed
   + Roll completed

5.7 Deletion extension

   A PATHTEAR message or RESVTEAR message as defined in the GMPLS
   signaling specification [8] is used to remove (de-allocate) the
   service path. Additional mechanisms required to ensure that nodes do
   not alarm due to LOL during the teardown procedure are being
   developed for some network applications û such as all-optical
   networks. Once a restoration LSP is no longer required, we must also
   release the reserved restoration resources and any allocated
   resources along the restoration path. To achieve this, the source
   sends a PATHTEAR message along the restoration path, including the
   <SERVICE_PATH_INFORMATION> object. Upon receipt of this message, each
   node along the restoration path should de-allocate any resources
   allocated to this LSP (e.g., if the LSP is currently using the
   restoration path) and decrement the reserved resources accordingly.

   The new proposed format for the PATHTEAR message is:
   <PATHTEAR Message> ::== <Common Header>
                       [ <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> | <MESSAGE_ID_NACK> ]
                       [ <MESSAGE_ID> ]
                       [ <EXPLICITE_ROUTE> ]
                       [ <SERVICE_PATH_INFORMATION> ]
                       [ <PROTECTION> ]
                       [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
                       <sender descriptor>

6. Example

   We illustrate here how the above RSVP signaling messages can be used
   to implement resource reservation for shared mesh restoration in a
   network that aims to guarantee recovery from any single SRLG

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 14]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   failure. We also assume here that channels are selected after
   failure and that full wavelength conversion capabilities exist if we
   are considering an all-optical network.

   With the GMPLS routing enhancements [2,3], each node will have a
   representation of the transport network topology, including the
   available bandwidth, and the list of SRLGs for each optical link.

   When a new LSP request arrives in the network, the source node is
   responsible for computing two SRLG diverse paths. An RSVP PATH
   message is sent along the calculated service path to establish the
   service LSP. An RSVP PATH message containing a Protection
   information object with the S and R (shared reservation) bits set
   should also be forwarded along the restoration path with information
   that identifies the SRLGs of the service path. This information may
   be conveyed using either the LINK_LIST or the SRLG_LIST. Upon
   receipt of this message, each node should then update the
   restoration bandwidth reserved on the outgoing links of the
   restoration path. Assume that each link has a Reservation array
   R[i], i=1,2,...,K, where K is the maximum SRLG index. There are
   various techniques on how these arrays for each link can be
   maintained among the nodes. These methods are not specified here.
   R[i] indicates the bandwidth required on the link if the i-th SRLG
   in the network fails.  The total reserved restoration capacity
   should be calculated as the maximum over all SRLGs (i.e., max R[i],
   i=1,2,...,K ). When a node receives a new reservation message, it
   saves state relating to the LSP and updates the Reservation array on
   its link(s) in the following way: R[i]=R[i] + reservation bandwidth
   if the i-th SRLG is in the SRLGs associated with the
   <SERVICE_PATH_INFORMATION> object. Once R[i] has been re-calculated
   for all SRLGs associated with the service path, a new required
   reserved capacity is calculated (i.e., max R[i]=1,2,...,K). If
   inadequate capacity is available to support this new resource
   reservation, the LSP reservation process may be abandoned, with an
   error message (PATHERR) being returned to the source. The already
   reserved resources must then be removed. However, if the reservation
   is successful and the reserved capacity has changed as a result of
   this new LSP, then updated link resource information may be flooded
   to other nodes in the network for the purpose of path computation.
   For example, the reserved capacity may reduce the available
   bandwidth information that is flooded.  If the GMPLS routing
   extensions were further extended to explicitly flood the bandwidth
   reserved on each link, some additional improvement in network
   utilization may be possible.

   Similarly, when a node receives a message requesting the removal of
   reservations for an existing restoration LSP, the restoration
   capacity is updated for each of the SRLGs along the primary path:
   R[i] = R[i] - reservation bandwidth if the i-th SRLG is in the set
   of SRLGs along the service path. Again, this update may result in a
   change in the link information that is flooded throughout the

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 15]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

7. Discussion

7.1 Interaction with other restoration schemes

   An operational transport network is expected to support multiple
   restoration schemes to satisfy different clients requirements. For
   example, a service provider may offer four different services based
   on dedicated protection (1:1, 1+1), shared mesh restoration, dynamic
   restoration, and no restoration. In fact, our shared mesh restoration
   can co-exist with dedicated protection, dynamic restoration, and
   other restoration schemes. Our RSVP-TE extensions can also be re-used
   for these schemes. For example, restoration path reversion messages
   and procedures can be used for 1:1 protection whilst dynamic
   restoration can re-use the restoration path creation message for
   purposes of bandwidth accounting, path reversion, and deletion.

7.2 Multi-domain restoration

   This contribution focuses on shared mesh restoration within a single
   control domain, area, or sub-network. Realistically, each domain may
   implement different restoration schemes. If a LSP is routed over
   multiple domains, domain-by-domain restoration may be applied to
   recover from failures internal to each domain. External links between
   domains may be protected via link protection (e.g., 1:1 or 1+1
   protection). In this way, the shared mesh restoration procedures
   proposed here are able to interoperate with other protection schemes
   crossing network-to-network interfaces.

   Alternatively, the shared mesh restoration procedure proposed here
   may also be executed across multiple domains.

7.3 Restoration priority and pre-emption

   The shared mesh restoration extensions proposed within this draft can
   support restoration priority and pre-emption using setup priority and
   holding priority. Our restoration messages are extended from RSVP-TE
   provisioning messages and inherit the pre-emption functionalities.

8. Security considerations

   This draft introduces no new security considerations to [1,8].

9. References
   [1] P. Ashwood-Smith et al., "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
   Functional Description," Internet draft, draft-ietf-mpls-
   generalized-signaling-04.txt, May 2001.
   [2] K. Kompella et al., "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized
   MPLS," Internet draft, draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01.txt,
   Feb. 2001.
   [3] K. Kompella et al., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized
   MPLS," Internet draft, draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-02.txt, Feb.

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 16]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   [4] J. Lang et al. "Generalized MPLS Recovery Mechanisms," Internet
   draft, draft-lang-ccamp-recovery-00.txt, Feb. 2001.
   [5] S. Kini et al. "Shared backup Label Switched Path restoration,"
   Internet draft, draft-kini-restoration-shared-backup-01.txt, May
   [6] S. Kini et al. "ReSerVation Protocol with Traffic Engineering
   extensions: extension for label switched path restoration," Nov.
   [7] D. Gan et al. "A Method for MPLS LSP Fast-Reroute Using RSVP
   Detours," Internet draft, draft-gan-fast-reroute-00.txt, Feb. 2001.
   [8] P. Ashwood-Smith et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE
   Extensions," Internet draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-
   03.txt, May 2001.
   [9] B. Rajagopalan et al. "Signaling for Fast Restoration in Optical
   Mesh Networks," Internet draft, draft-bala-restoration-signaling-
   00.txt, Feb. 2001.
   [10] G. Li, J. Yates, R. Doverspike and D. Wang, "Experiments in
   Fast Restoration using GMPLS in Optical / Electronic Mesh Networks,"
   Postdeadline Papers Digest, Optical Fiber Commun. Conf., March 2001.
   [11] A. Iwata et al., "Crankback Routing Extensions for MPLS
   Signaling," IETF draft, draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-00.txt, November
   [12] R. Doverspike, G. Sahin, J. Strand and R. Tkach, "Fast
   Restoration in a Mesh Network of Optical Cross-connects," Optical
   Fiber Commun. Conf., 1999.

   [13] S. Chaudhuri, G. Hjßlmt²sson and J. Yates, "Control of
   Lightpaths in an Optical Network," OIF contribution OIF2000.04, Jan.
   [14] J. Lang et al., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)," Internet
   draft, draft-lang-mpls-lmp-02.txt, July 2000.
   [15] P. Ashwood-Smith et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling û CR-LDP
   Extensions," Internet draft, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-
   03.txt, May 2001.
   [16] V. Sharma and F. Hellstrand (Editors), "A Framework for MPLS-
   based Recovery," Internet Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-
   02.txt, March 2001.
   [17] Owens, K., Makam, V., Sharma, V., Mack-Crane, B., and Haung,
   C., "A Path Protection/Restoration Mechanism for MPLS Networks,"
   Internet Draft, draft-chang-mpls-path-protection-02.txt, Work in
   Progress November 2000.
   [18] Owens, K. et al, "Extensions to RSVP-TE for MPLS Path
   Protection," Internet Draft, draft-chang-mpls-rsvpte-path-
   protection-ext-01.txt, November 2000.

10. Author's Addresses

   Guangzhi Li                           Charles Kalmanek
   AT&T                                  AT&T
   180 Park avenue                       180 Park avenue
   Florham Park, NJ 07932                Florham park, NJ 07932
   973-360-7376                          973-360-8720
   gli@research.att.com                  crk@research.att.com

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 17]

draft-li-shared-mesh-restoration-01.txt              Expires: May 2002

   Jennifer Yates                        Greg Bernstein
   AT&T                                  Ciena Corporation
   180 park avenue                       10480 Ridgeview Court
   Florham Park, NJ 07932                Cupertino, CA 94014
   973-360-7036                          Phone: (408) 366-4713
   jyates@research.att.com               greg@ciena.com

                                         Fong Liaw
   Vishal Sharma
   Metanoia, Inc,                        Zaffire/Centerpoint Inc.
   305 Elan Village Lane, Unit 121       2630 Orchard Parkway,
   San Jose, CA 95134                    San Jose, CA 95134
   Email: V.Sharma@ieee.org

G. Li et al                                                  [Page 18]