INTERNET-DRAFT A. Malis, ed.
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Verizon Communications
Expires: December 27, 2010 A. Lindem, ed.
Ericsson
June 25, 2010
Updates to ASON Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols (RFC 5787bis)
draft-malis-ccamp-rfc5787bis-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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
Abstract
The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating
an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).
The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite
is designed to provide a control plane for a range of network
technologies including optical networks such as time division
multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport
Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.
The requirements for GMPLS routing to satisfy the requirements of
ASON routing, and an evaluation of existing GMPLS routing protocols
are provided in other documents. This document defines extensions to
the OSPFv2 Link State Routing Protocol to meet the requirements for
routing in an ASON.
Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation
expressed in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 and the ITU-T Recommendations
current when those documents were written. Future extensions of
revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations
are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of
RFC 4258.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Routing Areas, OSPF Areas, and Protocol Instances . . . . . . . 5
3. Terminology and Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Link Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Local Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Bandwidth Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Routing Information Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID
Sub-TLV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV) . 9
7. Routing Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1 Import/Export Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2 Loop Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2.1 Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLVs . . . . . . 11
7.2.2 Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLV Processing . 12
8. OSPFv2 Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Sub-TLVs of the Link TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
10.2. Sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute TLV . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.3. Sub-TLVs of the Router Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. ASON Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. ASON Routing Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
1. Introduction
The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945]
protocol suite is designed to provide a control plane for a range of
network technologies including optical networks such as time division
multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport
Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.
The ITU-T defines the architecture of the Automatically Switched
Optical Network (ASON) in [G.8080].
[RFC4258] details the routing requirements for the GMPLS suite of
routing protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of
ASON control planes identified in [G.7715] and in [G.7715.1].
[RFC4652] evaluates the IETF Link State routing protocols against the
requirements identified in [RFC4258]. Section 7.1 of [RFC4652]
summarizes the capabilities to be provided by OSPFv2 [RFC2328] in
support of ASON routing. This document details the OSPFv2 specifics
for ASON routing.
Multi-layer transport networks are constructed from multiple networks
of different technologies operating in a client-server relationship.
The ASON routing model includes the definition of routing levels that
provide scaling and confidentiality benefits. In multi-level
routing, domains called routing areas (RAs) are arranged in a
hierarchical relationship. Note that as described in [RFC4652],
there is no implied relationship between multi-layer transport
networks and multi-level routing. The multi-level routing mechanisms
described in this document work for both single-layer and multi-layer
networks.
Implementations may support a hierarchical routing topology (multi-
level) for multiple transport network layers and/or a hierarchical
routing topology for a single transport network layer.
This document details the processing of the generic (technology-
independent) link attributes that are defined in [RFC3630],
[RFC4202], and [RFC4203] and that are extended in this document. As
detailed in Section 5.2, technology-specific traffic engineering
attributes and their processing may be defined in other documents
that complement this document.
Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation
expressed in [RFC4258] and [RFC4652] and the ITU-T Recommendations
current when those documents were written. Future extensions of
revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations
are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
[RFC4258].
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology and
requirements developed in [RFC4258] and the evaluation outcomes
detailed in [RFC4652].
General ASON terminology is provided in Appendix A. ASON routing
terminology is described in Appendix B.
2. Routing Areas, OSPF Areas, and Protocol Instances
An ASON routing area (RA) represents a partition of the data plane,
and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
representation of this partition.
RAs are arranged in hierarchical levels such that any one RA may
contain multiple other RAs, and is wholly contained by a single RA.
Thus, an RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The
limit of the subdivision results in an RA that contains just two sub-
networks interconnected by a single link.
An ASON RA can be mapped to an OSPF area, but the hierarchy of ASON
RA levels does not map to the hierarchy of OSPF areas. Instead,
successive hierarchical levels of RAs MUST be represented by separate
instances of the protocol. Thus, inter-level routing information
exchange (as described in Section 7) involves the export and import
of routing information between protocol instances.
An ASON RA may therefore be identified by the combination of its OSPF
instance identifier and its OSPF area identifier. With proper and
careful network-wide configuration, this can be achieved using just
the OSPF area identifier, and this process is RECOMMENDED in this
document. These concepts are discussed in Section 7.
3. Terminology and Identification
The definition of short-hand terminology introduced in [RFC4652] is
repeated here for clarity.
- Pi is a physical (bearer/data/transport plane) node.
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
- Li is a logical control plane entity that is associated to a single
data plane (abstract) node. Each Li is identified by a unique TE
Router ID. The latter is a control plane identifier, defined as
the Router Address top-level TLV (Type 1) of the Traffic
Engineering (TE) Link State Advertisement (LSA) [RFC3630].
Note: The Router Address top-level TLV definition, processing, and
usage remain per [RFC3630]. This TLV specifies a stable IP address
of the advertising router (Ri) that is always reachable if there is
any IP connectivity to it (e.g., via the Data Communication
Network). Moreover, each advertising router advertises a unique,
reachable IP address for each Pi on behalf of which it advertises
topology information.
- Ri is a logical control plane entity that is associated to an OSPF
control plane router. The latter is the source for topology
information that it generates and shares with other OSPF control
plane routers. The Ri is identified by the advertising Router ID
as defined in [RFC2328].
The Router ID, which is represented by Ri and which corresponds to
the RC-ID [RFC4258], does not enter into the identification of the
logical entities representing the data plane resources such as
links. The Routing Database (RDB) is associated with the Ri.
Note: Aside from the Li/Pi mappings, these identifiers are not
assumed to be in a particular entity relationship except that the Ri
may have multiple Li's in its scope. The relationship between Ri and
Li is simple at any moment in time: an Li may be advertised by only
one Ri at any time. However, an Ri may advertise a set of one or
more Li's. Hence, the OSPFv2 routing protocol must support a single
Ri advertising on behalf of more than one Li.
4. Reachability
In order to advertise blocks of reachable address prefixes, a
summarization mechanism is introduced that is based on the techniques
described in [RFC5786]. For ASON reachability advertisement, blocks
of reachable address prefixes are advertised together with the
associated data plane node. The data plane node is identified in the
control plane by its TE Router ID, as discussed in section 6.
In order to support ASON reachability advertisement, the Node
Attribute TLV defined in [RFC5786] is used to advertise the
combination of a TE Router ID and its set of associated reachable
address prefixes. The Node Attribute TLV can contain the following
sub-TLVs:
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
- TE Router ID sub-TLV: Length: 4; Defined in Section 6.2
- Node IPv4 Local Address sub-TLV: Length: variable; [RFC5786]
- Node IPv6 Local Address sub-TLV: Length: variable; [RFC5786]
A router may support multiple data plane nodes as discussed in
section 5, and as a result may be required to advertise reachability
separately for multiple TE Router ID values. As a consequence, it
MUST be possible for the router to originate more than one TE LSA
containing the Node Attribute TLV when used for ASON reachability
advertisement.
Hence, the Node Attribute TLV [RFC5786] advertisement rules must be
relaxed for ASON. A Node Attribute TLV MAY appear in more than one TE
LSA originated by the RC when the RC is advertising reachability
information for a different logical control plane entity (Li)
identified by the Local TE Router Sub-TLV (refer to section 6.1).
5. Link Attribute
[RFC4652] provides a map between link attributes and characteristics
and their representation in sub-TLVs of the top-level Link TLV
advertised in TE LSAs [RFC3630] and [RFC4203], with the exception of
the local adaptation (refer to Section 5.1). Advertisement of this
information SHOULD be supported on a per-layer basis, i.e., one TE
LSA per switching capability (and per bandwidth granularity, e.g.,
low-order virtual container and high-order virtual container).
5.1. Local Adaptation
Local adaptation is defined as a TE link attribute (i.e., sub-TLV)
that describes the cross/inter-layer relationships.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) TE Attribute
[RFC4202] identifies the ability of the TE link to support cross-
connection to another link within the same layer, and the ability to
use a locally terminated connection that belongs to one layer as a
data link for another layer (adaptation capability). However, the
information associated with the ability to terminate connections
within that layer (referred to as the termination capability) is
embedded with the adaptation capability.
For instance, a link between two optical cross-connects will contain
at least one ISCD attribute describing the lambda switching capable
(LSC) switching capability; whereas a link between an optical cross-
connect and an IP/MPLS Label Switch Router (LSR) will contain at
least two ISCD attributes:
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
one for the description of the LSC termination capability and one for
the packet switching capable (PSC) adaptation capability.
In OSPFv2, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) is a
sub-TLV (type 15) of the top-level Link TLV (type 2) [RFC4203].
The adaptation and termination capabilities are advertised using two
separate ISCD sub-TLVs within the same top-level Link TLV.
Per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203], an interface MAY have more than one ISCD
sub-TLV. Hence, the corresponding advertisements should not result
in any compatibility issues. However, some link types may support
several different signal types that are modeled as separate layers in
the G.805 model [G.805] (e.g., SDH links may simultaneously support
VC-3, VC-4, VC-4-4c, VC-4-16c and VC-4-64c signals). Optimization
refinements to reduce the overhead of advertising link
characteristics separately for each signal type may be defined.
Further refinement of the ISCD sub-TLV for multi-layer networks is
outside the scope of this document.
5.2. Bandwidth Accounting
GMPLS routing defines an Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
(ISCD) that delivers, among other things, information about the
(maximum/minimum) bandwidth per priority that a Label Switched Path
(LSP) can use. Per [RFC4202] and [RFC4203], one or more ISCD sub-TLVs
can be associated with an interface. This information, combined with
the Unreserved Bandwidth (sub-TLV defined in [RFC3630], Section
2.5.8), provides the basis for bandwidth accounting.
In the ASON context, additional information may be included when the
representation and information in the other advertised fields are not
sufficient for a specific technology (e.g., SDH). The definition of
technology-specific information elements is beyond the scope of this
document. Some technologies will not require additional information
beyond what is already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and
[RFC4203].
6. Routing Information Scope
6.1. Link Advertisement (Local and Remote TE Router ID Sub-TLV)
A Router ID (Ri) advertising on behalf multiple TE Router IDs (Li's)
creates a 1:N relationship between the Router ID and the TE Router
ID. As the link local and link remote (unnumbered) ID association is
not unique per node (per Li), the advertisement needs to indicate the
remote Lj value and rely on the initial discovery process to retrieve
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
the [Li;Lj] relationship. In brief, as unnumbered links have their
ID defined on a per-Li basis, the remote Lj needs to be identified to
scope the link remote ID to the local Li. Therefore, the routing
protocol MUST be able to disambiguate the advertised TE links so that
they can be associated with the correct TE Router ID.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 TE LSA top-level Link
TLV is introduced that defines the Local and Remote TE Router ID.
The Type field of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is
assigned a value TBD. The Length field takes the value 8. The Value
field of this sub-TLV contains 4 octets of the Local TE Router
Identifier followed by 4 octets of the Remote TE Router Identifier.
The value of the Local and Remote TE Router Identifier SHOULD NOT be
set to 0.
The format of the Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length (8) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV MUST be included as a sub-TLV of the top-level Link TLV
if the Router ID is advertising on behalf of more than one TE Router
ID. This sub-TLV SHOULD be omitted if the Ri is only advertising on
behalf of a single Li.
Note: The Link ID sub-TLV that identifies the other end of the link
(i.e., Router ID of the neighbor for point-to-point links) MUST
appear exactly once per Link TLV. This sub-TLV MUST be processed as
defined in [RFC3630].
6.2. Reachability Advertisement (Local TE Router ID sub-TLV)
When the Router ID is advertised on behalf of multiple TE Router IDs
(Li's), the routing protocol MUST be able to associate the advertised
reachability information with the correct TE Router ID.
For this purpose, a new sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 TE LSA top-level Node
Attribute TLV is introduced. This TLV associates the local prefixes
(see above) to a given TE Router ID.
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
The Type field of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is assigned a value
TBD. The Length field takes the value 4. The Value field of this
sub-TLV contains the Local TE Router Identifier [RFC3630] encoded
over 4 octets.
The format of the Local TE Router ID sub-TLV is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local TE Router Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-TLV is only required to be included as part of the Node
Attribute TLV if the Router ID is advertising on behalf of more than
one TE Router ID. In any other case, this sub-TLV SHOULD be omitted.
7. Routing Information Dissemination
An ASON routing area (RA) represents a partition of the data plane,
and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
representation of this partition. An RA may contain smaller RAs
inter-connected by links. ASON RA levels do not map directly to OSPF
areas. Rather, hierarchical levels of RAs are represented by separate
OSPF protocol instances.
Routing controllers (RCs) supporting RAs disseminate information
downward and upward in this ASON hierarchy. The vertical routing
information dissemination mechanisms described in this section do not
introduce or imply hierarchical OSPF areas. RCs supporting RAs at
multiple levels are structured as separate OSPF instances with
routing information exchange between levels described by import and
export rules between these instances. The functionality described
herein does not pertain to OSPF areas or OSPF Area Border Router
(ABR) functionality.
7.1 Import/Export Rules
RCs supporting RAs disseminate information upward and downward in the
hierarchy by importing/exporting routing information as TE LSAs. TE
LSAs are area-scoped opaque LSAs with opaque type 1 [RFC3630]. The
information that MAY be exchanged between adjacent levels includes
the Router Address, Link, and Node Attribute top-level TLVs.
The imported/exported routing information content MAY be transformed,
e.g., filtered or aggregated, as long as the resulting routing
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
information is consistent. In particular, when more than one RC is
bound to adjacent levels and both are allowed to import/export
routing information, it is expected that these transformations are
performed in a consistent manner. Definition of these policy-based
mechanisms is outside the scope of this document.
In practice, and in order to avoid scalability and processing
overhead, routing information imported/exported downward/upward in
the hierarchy is expected to include reachability information (see
Section 4) and, upon strict policy control, link topology
information.
7.2 Loop Prevention
When more than one RC is bound to an adjacent level of the ASON
hierarchy, and is configured to export routing information upward or
downward, a specific mechanism is required to avoid looping of
routing information. Looping is the re-advertisement of routing
information into an RA that had previously advertised that routing
information upward or downward into an upper or lower level RA in the
ASON hierarchy. For example, without loop prevention mechanisms, this
could happen when the RC advertising routing information downward in
the hierarchy is not the same one that advertises routing upward in
the hierarchy.
7.2.1 Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLVs
The Inter-RA Export Sub-TLVs can be used to prevent the re-
advertisement of OSPF TE routing information into an RA which
previously advertised that information. The type value TBD will
indicate that the associated routing information has been exported
downward. The type value TBD will indicate that the associated
routing information has been exported upward. While it is not
required for routing information exported downward, both Sub-TLVs
will include the Routing Area (RA) ID from the which the routing
information was exported. This RA is not necessarily the RA
originating the routing information but RA from which the information
was immediately exported.
These additional Sub-TLVs MAY be carried in TE LSAs that include any
of the following top-level TLVs:
- Router Address top-level TLV
- Link top-level TLV
- Node Attribute top-level TLV
The Type field of the Inter-RA Export Upward and Inter-RA Export
Downward sub-TLVs are respectively assigned the values TBD1 and TBD2.
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
The Length of the Associated RA ID TLV is 4 octets. The Value field
in these sub-TLVs contains the associated RA ID. The RA ID value must
be a unique identifier for the RA within the ASON routing domain.
The format of the Inter-RA Export Upward and Inter-RA Export Downward
Sub-TLVs is graphically depicted below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Upward/Downward Type | Length (4) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Associated RA ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
7.2.2 Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLV Processing
TE LSAs MAY be imported or exported downward or upward in the ASON
routing hierarchy. The direction and advertising RA ID are advertised
in an Inter-RA Export Upward/Downward Sub-TLV. They MUST be retained
by the receiving RA with the associated routing information.
When exporting routing information upward in the ASON routing
hierarchy, any information received from a level above, i.e., tagged
with an Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV, MUST NOT be exported
upward. Since an RA at level N is contained by a single RA at level
N+1, this is the only checking that is necessary and the associated
RA ID is used solely for informational purposes.
When exporting routing information downward in the ASON routing
hierarchy, any information received from a level below, i.e., tagged
with an Inter-RA Expert Upward Sub-TLV MUST NOT be exported downward
if the target RA ID matches the RA ID associated with the routing
information. This additional checking is required for routing
information exported downward since a single RA at level N+1 may
contain multiple RAs at level N in the ASON routing hierarchy. In
order words, routing information MUST NOT be exported downward into
the RA from which it was received.
8. OSPFv2 Scalability
The extensions described herein are only applicable to ASON routing
domains and it is not expected that the attendant Ri/Li reachability
and link information will ever be mixed with global or local IP
routing information. If there ever were a requirement for a given RC
to participate in both domains, separate OSPFv2 instances would be
utilized. However, in a multi-level ASON hierarchy, the potential
volume of information could be quite large and the recommendations in
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
this section SHOULD be followed by RC implementing this
specification.
- Routing information exchange upward/downward in the hierarchy
between adjacent RAs SHOULD, by default, be limited to reachability
information. In addition, several transformations such as prefix
aggregation are RECOMMENDED to reduce the amount of information
imported/exported by a given RC when such transformations will not
impact consistency.
- Routing information exchange upward/downward in the ASON hierarchy
involving TE attributes MUST be under strict policy control.
Pacing and min/max thresholds for triggered updates are strongly
RECOMMENDED.
- The number of routing levels MUST be maintained under strict policy
control.
9. Security Considerations
This document specifies the contents and processing of OSPFv2 TE LSAs
[RFC3630] and [RFC4202]. The TE LSA extensions defined in this
document are not used for SPF computation, and have no direct effect
on IP routing. Additionally, ASON routing domains are delimited by
the usual administrative domain boundaries.
Any mechanisms used for securing the exchange of normal OSPF LSAs can
be applied equally to all TE LSAs used in the ASON context.
Authentication of OSPFv2 LSA exchanges (such as OSPF cryptographic
authentication [RFC2328] and [RFC5709]) can be used to secure against
passive attacks and provide significant protection against active
attacks. [RFC5709] defines a mechanism for authenticating OSPFv2
packets by making use of the HMAC algorithm in conjunction with the
SHA family of cryptographic hash functions.
If a stronger authentication were believed to be required, then the
use of a full digital signature [RFC2154] would be an approach that
should be seriously considered. Use of full digital signatures would
enable precise authentication of the OSPF router originating each
OSPF link-state advertisement, and thereby provide much stronger
integrity protection for the OSPF routing domain.
10. IANA Considerations
This document is classified as Standards Track. It defines new sub-
TLVs for inclusion in OSPF TE LSAs. According to the assignment
policies for the registries of code points for these sub-TLVs, values
must be assigned by IANA [RFC3630].
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
The following subsections summarize the required sub-TLVs.
10.1. Sub-TLVs of the Link TLV
This document defines the following sub-TLVs of the Link TLV
advertised in the OSPF TE LSA:
- Local and Remote TE Router ID sub-TLV
- Associated RA ID sub-TLV
- Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV
- Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV
Codepoints for these Sub-TLVs should be allocated from the "Types for
sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)" registry standards action range (0
- 32767) [RFC3630].
Note that the same values for the Associated RA ID sub-TLV, Inter-RA
Export Upward sub-TLV, and Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV MUST be
used when they appear in the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router
Address TLV.
10.2. Sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute TLV
This document defines the following sub-TLVs of the Node Attribute
TLV advertised in the OSPF TE LSA:
- Local TE Router ID sub-TLV
- Associated RA ID sub-TLV
- Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV
- Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV
Codepoints for these Sub-TLVs should be assigned from the "Types for
sub-TLVs of TE Node Attribute TLV (Value 5)" registry standards
action range (0 - 32767) [RFC5786].
Note that the same values for the Associated RA ID sub-TLV, Inter-RA
Export Upward sub-TLV, and Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV MUST be
used when they appear in the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router
Address TLV.
10.3. Sub-TLVs of the Router Address TLV
The Router Address TLV is advertised in the OSPF TE LSA [RFC3630].
Since this TLV currently has no Sub-TLVs defined, a "Types for sub-
TLVs of Router Address TLV (Value 1)" registry must be defined.
The registry guidelines for the assignment of types for sub-TLVs of
the Router Address TLV are as follows:
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
o Types in the range 0-32767 are to be assigned via Standards
Action.
o Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these
will not be registered with IANA, and MUST NOT be mentioned by
RFCs.
o Types in the range 32778-65535 are not to be assigned at this
time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there
MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA
Considerations that covers the range being assigned.
This document defines the following sub-TLVs for inclusion in the
Router Address TLV:
- Associated RA ID sub-TLV
- Inter-RA Export Upward sub-TLV
- Inter-RA Export Downward sub-TLV
Codepoints for these Sub-TLVs should be allocated from the "Types for
sub-TLVs of Router Address TLV (Value 1)" registry standards action
range (0 - 32767).
Note that the same values for the Associated RA ID sub-TLV, Inter-RA
Export Upward sub-TLV, and Inter-RA Export Downward Sub-TLV MUST be
used when they appear in the Link TLV, Node Attribute TLV, and Router
Address TLV.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC
3630, September 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC5786] Aggarwal, R. and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's
Local Addresses in OSPF TE Extensions", RFC 5786, March
2010.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2154] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", RFC 2154, June 1997.
[RFC4258] Brungard, D., Ed., "Requirements for Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", RFC
4258, November 2005.
[RFC4652] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., Ong, L., Sadler, J., Shew, S.,
and D. Ward, "Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols
against Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Routing Requirements", RFC 4652, October 2006.
[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes,
M., Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA
Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5709, October 2009.
For information on the availability of ITU Documents, please see
http://www.itu.int.
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and Requirements
for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)",
June 2002.
[G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing
Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols",
November 2003.
[G.805] ITU-T Rec. G.805, "Generic functional architecture of
transport networks)", March 2000.
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)," November
2001 (and Revision, January 2003).
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
12. Acknowledgements
The editors would like to thank Dimitri Papadimitriou for editing RFC
5787, from which this document is derived, and Lyndon Ong and Remi
Theillaud for their useful comments and suggestions.
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
Appendix A. ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain: (See Recommendation [G.805].) For the
purposes of [G7715.1], an administrative domain represents the
extent of resources that belong to a single player such as a
network operator, a service provider, or an end-user.
Administrative domains of different players do not overlap amongst
themselves.
Control plane: performs the call control and connection control
functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and
releases connections, and may restore a connection in case of a
failure.
(Control) Domain: represents a collection of (control) entities that
are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is
subdivided into domains matching administrative domains. Within
an administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control
plane are recursively applied. A routing control domain is an
abstract entity that hides the details of the RC distribution.
External NNI (E-NNI): interfaces located between protocol controllers
between control domains.
Internal NNI (I-NNI): interfaces located between protocol controllers
within control domains.
Link: (See Recommendation G.805.) A "topological component" that
describes a fixed relationship between a "subnetwork" or "access
group" and another "subnetwork" or "access group". Links are not
limited to being provided by a single server trail.
Management plane: performs management functions for the transport
plane, the control plane, and the system as a whole. It also
provides coordination between all the planes. The following
management functional areas are performed in the management plane:
performance, fault, configuration, accounting, and security
management.
Management domain: (See Recommendation G.805.) A management domain
defines a collection of managed objects that are grouped to meet
organizational requirements according to geography, technology,
policy, or other structure, and for a number of functional areas
such as configuration, security, (FCAPS), for the purpose of
providing control in a consistent manner. Management domains can
be disjoint, contained, or overlapping. As such, the resources
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
within an administrative domain can be distributed into several
possible overlapping management domains. The same resource can
therefore
belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a
management domain shall not cross the border of an administrative
domain.
Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that
represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs
(in different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same
transport resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be
assumed.
Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together
for the purposes of routing.
Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a
Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination
Sink function.
Transport plane: provides bidirectional or unidirectional transfer of
user information, from one location to another. It can also
provide transfer of some control and network management
information. The transport plane is layered; it is equivalent to
the Transport Network defined in Recommendation G.805.
User Network Interface (UNI): interfaces are located between protocol
controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: There is
no routing function associated with a UNI reference point.
Appendix B. ASON Routing Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Routing Area (RA): an RA represents a partition of the data plane,
and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
representation of this partition. Per [G.8080], an RA is defined
by a set of sub-networks, the links that interconnect them, and
the interfaces representing the ends of the links exiting that RA.
An RA may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The
limit of subdivision results in an RA that contains two sub-
networks interconnected by a single link.
Routing Database (RDB): a repository for the local topology, network
topology, reachability, and other routing information that is
updated as part of the routing information exchange and may
additionally contain information that is configured. The RDB may
contain routing information for more than one routing area (RA).
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT RFC5787bis June 25, 2010
Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These
functions can be classified as protocol independent (Link Resource
Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) or protocol specific
(Protocol Controller or PC).
Routing Controller (RC): handles (abstract) information needed for
routing and the routing information exchange with peering RCs by
operating on the RDB. The RC has access to a view of the RDB.
The RC is protocol independent.
Note: Since the RDB may contain routing information pertaining to
multiple RAs (and possibly to multiple layer networks), the RCs
accessing the RDB may share the routing information.
Link Resource Manager (LRM): supplies all the relevant component and
TE link information to the RC. It informs the RC about any state
changes of the link resources it controls.
Protocol Controller (PC): handles protocol-specific message exchanges
according to the reference point over which the information is
exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the
RC. The PC function is protocol dependent.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew G. Malis
Verizon Communications
117 West St.
Waltham MA 02451 USA
EMail: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com
Acee Lindem
Ericsson
102 Carric Bend Court
Cary, NC 27519
EMail: acee.lindem@ericsson.com
Malis Expires December 27, 2010 [Page 20]