IETF Internet Draft T. Otani
Proposed status: Informational KDDI R&D Labs
Expires: May 2005 K. Kumaki
KDDI
S. Okamoto
NTT
Oct. 2004
GMPLS Inter-domain Traffic Engineering Requirements
Document: draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be
disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. "This document is an
Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This draft provides requirements for the support of generalized
multi-protocol label switching (GMPLS) inter-domain traffic
engineering (TE). Its main objective is to present the differences
between MPLS inter-domain TE and GMPLS inter-domain TE. This draft
covers not only GMPLS Inter-domain architecture but also functional
requirements in terms of GMPLS signaling and routing in order to
specify these in a GMPLS Inter-domain environment.
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo................................................1
Abstract...........................................................1
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 1
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
1. Introduction....................................................3
2. Conventions used in this document...............................3
3. Assumed network model...........................................3
4. Requirement of exchanging TE information across AS boundaries...6
5. Requirement for GMPLS Inter-AS TE signaling, routing and
management.........................................................9
6. Security consideration.........................................13
7. Acknowledgement................................................13
8. Intellectual property considerations...........................13
9. Informative references.........................................13
Author's Addresses................................................14
Document expiration...............................................15
Copyright statement...............................................15
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 2
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
1. Introduction
Initial efforts of MPLS/GMPLS traffic engineering mechanism were
focused on solving the problem within an Autonomous System (AS).
Service Providers have come up with requirements for extending TE
mechanisms across the domains (ASes as well as areas) [Inter-domain].
It discusses requirements for inter-domain Traffic Engineering
mechanism with focus on packet MPLS networks and GMPLS packet switch
capable (hereinafter MPLS). This document complements [Inter-domain]
by providing some consideration for non-packet switch capable GMPLS
networks (hereinafter GMPLS) scalability and operational efficiency
in such a networking environment.
TE information exchanged over domains for signaling and routing GMPLS
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) is more stringent than that of MPLS LSPs
[MPLS-AS] from the point of an effective operation. This is because
in order to dynamically or statically establish GMPLS LSPs, the
additional TE information, e.g., interface switching capability, link
encoding, protection, and so forth must be considered. Operators may
usually use different switching capable nodes and TE links with
different encoding type and bandwidth, decided by their business
strategy and such TE information exchange is expected to improve
operational efficiency in GMPLS-controlled networks.
In terms of signaling, GMPLS signaling must operate over multiple
domains using exchanged TE information or a statistically configured
AS route. This signaling request should take into account bi-
directionality, switching capability, encoding type, SRLG, and
protection attributes of the TE links spanned by the path, as well as
LSP encoding type and switching type for the end points. Furthermore,
GMPLS LSP nesting may be applicable at the GMPLS domain borders and
should be considered accordingly.
This document provides the requirements for the support of GMPLS
inter-domain TE, investigates the necessity of dynamic or static TE
information exchange between GMPLS-controlled domains and describes
the TE link parameters for this routing operation. This document
also outlines GMPLS Inter-domain architecture, and provides
functional requirements in terms of GMPLS signaling and routing in
order to specify these in a GMPLS Inter-domain environment.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
3. Assumed network model
3.1 GMPLS Inter-AS network model
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 3
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
Figure 1 depicts a typical network, consisting of several GMPLS ASes,
assumed in this document. AS1, AS2, AS3 and AS4 have multiple GMPLS
inter-AS connections, and AS5 has only one GMPLS inter-AS connection.
These ASes are an example of domains used without losing generality,
and may be replaced by words such as others defined in [inter-domain].
+---------+
+---------|GMPLS AS2|----------+
| +----+----+ |
+----+----+ | +----+----+ +---------+
|GMPLS AS1| | |GMPLS AS4|---|GMPLS AS5|
+----+----+ | +----+----+ +---------+
| +----+----+ |
+---------|GMPLS AS3|----------+
+---------+
Figure 1: GMPLS Inter-AS network model
Each AS is configured using various switching and link technologies
defined in [Arch] and an end-to-end route needs to respect TE link
attributes like multiplexing type, encoding type, etc., making the
problem a bit different from the case of classical (packet) MPLS. In
order to route from one GMPLS AS to another GMPLS AS appropriately,
each AS needs to advertise additional TE information, while
concealing its internal topology information. In addition, a
signaling mechanism is required to specify a route consisting of
multiple ASes, while respecting the end-pointÆs encoding, switching
and payload type. Section 4 describes the TE link attributes that
need to be exchanged across the AS boundary in detail.
3.2 Comparison between a GMPLS inter-AS and a MPLS inter-AS
(1) GMPLS network model
To investigate the difference between a GMPLS inter-AS and an MPLS
inter-AS network, we assume the network model shown in Fig. 2.
Without loss of generality, this network model consists of two GMPLS
ASes. The GMPLS AS border routers (A3, A4, B1, B2) are connected via
traffic engineering (TE) links (A3-B1 and A4-B2). These inter-AS TE
links are assumed to have a certain amount of bandwidth (bw), e.g.,
2.5Gbit/s, 10Gbit/s, etc. Moreover, each nodes in both AS 1 and AS 2
can support x and y switching capabilities (e.g., x or y means TDM,
Lambda or fiber). The edge node of the network (possibly A1, A2, B3,
and B4) may also have the switching capability of packet (PSC1-4).
Moreover, each TE link has a z or w encoding type (z or w means
SONET/SDH, Lambda, Ethernet, etc.).
|
+-------+ z-enc. +-------+ z-enc. +-------+ z-enc. +-------+
|A1,x-SC|----//----|A3,x-SC|-----------|B1,y-SC|----//----|B3,y-SC|
+-------+ bw-1 +-------+ bw-1 +-------+ bw-1 +-------+
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 4
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
| | | | |
=bw-1 =bw-1 | =bw-1 =bw-1
|z-enc. |z-enc. | |z-enc. |z-enc.
| | | | |
+-------+ w-enc. +-------+ w-enc. +-------+ w-enc. +-------+
|A2,x-SC|----//----|A4,x-SC|-----------|B2,y-SC|----//----|B4,y-SC|
+-------+ bw-2 +-------+ bw-2 +-------+ bw-2 +-------+
|
GMPLS AS 1 | GMPLS AS 2
Figure 2: GMPLS Inter-AS network model (1)
Between GMPLS AS border nodes, the routing information is statically
or dynamically exchanged. Link management protocol (LMP) [LMP] may be
applied to maintain and manage TE links between GMPLS AS border nodes.
In general, the attributes of two TE-Links (A1-B3 and A4-B2) between
AS border nodes as well as switching capability of each border node
shall not be always same. Therefore, GMPLS nodes shall need to
identify the attributes of these TE-Links and border nodes in order
to create LSP over multiple ASes. At present, GMPLS/ MPLS technology
does not provide the functionality to discriminate such attributes.
Furthermore, these GMPLS specific requirements for inter-area/ AS
traffic engineering are not described in [Inter-domain].
(2) MPLS network model
In the packet MPLS network, we can assume the MPLS Inter-AS network
model as shown in Figure 3. There are no routing constraints such as
switching capability and encoding type, compared to the GMPLS Inter-
AS network model. All nodes have the same switching capability of
packet.
|
+----+ +----+ | +----+ +----+
| A1 |----//----| A3 |---------| B1 |----//----| B3 |
+----+ 2.5G +----+ 2.5G +----+ 2.5G +----+
| | | | |
=2.5G =2.5G | =2.5G =2.5G
| | | | |
+----+ +----+ | +----+ +----+
| A2 |----//----| A4 |---------| B2 |----//----| B4 |
+----+ 10G +----+ 10G +----+ 10G +----+
|
MPLS AS 1 | MPLS AS 2
Figure 3: MPLS Inter-AS network model
In the following section, we consider an MPLS or GMPLS path setup
from an edge node in AS 1 to an edge node in AS2.
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 5
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
4. Requirement of exchanging TE information across AS boundaries
In this section, we describe the TE attributes that needs to be
exchanged across the AS boundaries for computation of GMPLS Path.
4.1 Interface Switching Capability
A constraint of bandwidth in a GMPLS controlled network is different
from that in an IP/MPLS network. In Figure 3, two TE links with
different values of bandwidth such as 2.5Gbit/s and 10Gbit/s are
assumed. If an MPLS LSP with 2.5Gbit/s bandwidth is established from
A2 to B4 in Figure 3, two sets of TE links (that is two possible
paths) can be selected (A2-A4-B2-B4 and A2-A1-A3-B1-B3-B4).
In the case of GMPLS inter-ASes, the ingress node needs to know the
switching capabilities supported in each AS, while computing a route
for a GMPLS-LSP across multiple ASes. If the switching capabilities
are exchanged across the AS boundaries, the ingress node can
determine the appropriate next-hop AS that is capable of supporting
the requesting switching capability.
In the example of Figure 4, we assume a switching capability as
lambda and an encoding type as lambda. The bandwidth of each TE link
is, for example, corresponding to the transponderÆs bit rate of each
DWDM channel. In this case, both inter-AS links may be acceptable
from A2 to B4 if only TE information within each AS is considered.
However, a GMPLS LSP with 2.5Gbit/s bandwidth can not be established
over a set of TE links (A2-A4-B2-B4) because all nodes support only
LSC which can not deal with sub-rate switching, and the 10Gbit/s TE
link can only support a GMPLS LSP with 10Gbit/s. The set of TE links
(A2-A1-A3-B1-B3-B4) must be used instead so as to route it over the
inter AS-link of A3-B1.
If multiple GMPLS routes exist for a given destination via different
ASes, a path should be selected satisfying these routing constraints,
in addition to the conventional EGP attributes. Although an operator
may want to specify the AS border node explicitly for such a
destination, this TE information exchange will improve operational
efficiency in GMPLS-controlled networks. Therefore, not only IGP
[GMPLS-Routing] but also EGP needs to advertise some TE parameters.
|
+------+ 2.5G +------+ 2.5G +------+ 2.5G +------+
|A1,LSC|----//----|A3,LSC|-----------|B1,LSC|----//----|B3,LSC|
+------+ Lambda +------+ Lambda +------+ Lambda +------+
| | | | |
2.5G=Lambda 2.5G=Lambda | 10G=Lambda 2.5G=Lambda
| | | | |
+------+ 10G +------+ 2.5G +------+ 10G +------+
|A2,LSC|----//----|A4,LSC|-----------|B2,LSC|----//----|B4,LSC|
+------+ Lambda +------+ Lambda +------+ Lambda +------+
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 6
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
|
GMPLS AS 1 | GMPLS AS 2
Figure 4: GMPLS Inter-AS network model (2)
4.2 Bandwidth Policy
The advertisement of the bandwidth for traversing non-local ASes is
strongly dependent on the operational policy in each GMPLS AS. The
resource available for different ASes may be advertised over GMPLS
inter-ASes, although the actual local bandwidth is more than that for
different ASes. The GMPLS Border nodes have the functionality to
control the advertised resource bandwidth to reach a destination. For
example, even if 4 times OC-48 bandwidth exists to a destination in
one GMPLS AS, the AS may advertise only twice OC-48 bandwidth to
another GMPLS AS, following the mutual policy between these two ASes.
Thus, inter-AS reachability information needs to be enhanced to
include bandwidth information.
4.3 Encoding type
In addition of the link switching type, an end-to-end GMPLS LSP needs
to have same encoding type at all intermediate hops. In this section,
we discuss the need for exchanging link encoding types across the AS
boundaries.
The example depicted in Figure 5 is considered where TE links with a
different encoding type in a GMPLS Inter-AS network are assumed. In
this case, differing from the case of a packet MPLS inter-AS network,
a GMPLS LSP with a specific encoding type must be established to
satisfy this constraint. Since physical layer technologies used to
form TE links limit the signal encoding type to be transported, the
ingress node should consider this by obtaining TE parameters
exchanged between GMPLS-controlled inter-ASes. In this case, both
inter-AS links may be acceptable for routing from A2 to B4 if only TE
information within each AS is considered. The set of TE links (A2-A1-
A3-B1-B3-B4) must be used instead so as to route over the inter AS-
link of A3-B1, satisfying the constraint of the encoding type.
Therefore, inter-AS reachability information needs to be enhanced to
include encoding type information.
|
+------+ +------+ | +------+ +------+
|A1,LSC|----//----|A3,LSC|-----------|B1,LSC|----//----|B3,LSC|
+------+ SONET +------+ SONET +------+ SONET +------+
| | | | |
=SONET =SONET | =lambda =SONET
| | | | |
+------+ +------+ | +------+ +------+
|A2,LSC|----//----|A4,LSC|-----------|B2,LSC|----//----|B4,LSC|
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 7
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
+------+ lambda +------+ SONET +------+ lambda +------+
|
GMPLS AS 1 | GMPLS AS 2
Figure 5: GMPLS Inter-AS network model (3)
4.4 Hybrid case
In Figure 6, we consider a mixed case of 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, and assume
two ASes: AS 1 consisting of GMPLS nodes with TDM-SC and TE links
with SONET/SDH encoding type, and AS 2 consisting of GMPLS nodes with
LSC and TE links with lambda encoding type. GMPLS nodes in AS 2
support sub-rate switching, for example, of 2.5Gbit/s.
|
+------+ 2.5G +------+ 2.5G +------+ 2.5G +------+
|A1,TSC|----//----|A3,TSC|-----------|B1,LSC|----//----|B3,LSC|
+------+ SONET +------+ SONET +------+ Lambda +------+
| | | | |
2.5G=SONET 2.5G=SONET | 10G=Lambda 2.5G=Lambda
| | | | |
+------+ 10G +------+ 2.5G +------+ 10G +------+
|A2,TSC|----//----|A4,TSC|-----------|B2,LSC|----//----|B4,LSC|
+------+ SONET +------+ SONET +------+ Lambda +------+
|
GMPLS AS 1 | GMPLS AS 2
Figure 6: GMPLS Inter-AS network model (4)
If a GMPLS LSP with 2.5Gbit/s is established from A2 to B4, the
ingress node should know not only the reachability of B4 in AS 2 but
also the switching capability of nodes in AS 2. In this case, both
inter-AS links may be acceptable for routing from A2 to B4 if only TE
information within each AS is considered. However, since the
switching capability supported in each AS is different, the set of TE
links (A2-A1-A3-B1-B3-B4) must be used so as to route over the inter
AS-link of A3-B1. Therefore, an end-point (reachability) list
consisting of node IDs, interface addresses, interface IDs per
switching capability is very useful and may be advertised over GMPLS
ASes.
4.5 SRLG
To configure a secondary LSP in addition to a primary LSP over
multiple GMPLS ASes, the parameter of Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
is very significant. By introducing this parameter, the source node
can route these LSPs so as to across the different AS border node as
well as satisfy a SRLG constraint. Although this SRLG is supported
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 8
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
and defined within an ASes, the mechanism to maintain consistency of
SRLG must be considered in a GMPLS inter-domain TE environment.
There are cases where two different SPs may be sharing the same fate
(facility) for TE links within the ASes administrated by them.
However, presently there is no mechanism to allow SRLG to have global
significance; SRLG administration is completely up to interconnected
SPs.
In this document we identify that, in order to guarantee the SRLG
diversity requirement, the SRLGs in an inter-domain TE environment
are required to be globally unique.
4.6 Protection Type
To guarantee the GMPLS LSP's resiliency over multiple GMPLS ASes, the
protection type in each AS should be carefully selected so as to
satisfy resilient requirement of the LSP as an end-to-end manner.
This enables us to establish a LSP with a protection mechanism per
AS-basis, such as link or node protection. Each GMPLS AS will provide
a type of the protection to a destination within itself. Otherwise,
an end-to-end recovery may be provided by calculating at the source
node with the consideration of SRLG. As the same with SRLG case,
protection type administration is also up to interconnected SPs.
Therefore, inter-AS reachability information needs to be enhanced to
include protection type information.
5. Requirement for GMPLS Inter-AS TE signaling, routing and management
5.1 EGP extensions for GMPLS
In IP/MPLS networks, the EGP such as BGP-4 is well-defined and widely
deployed. However, the need for EGP extension for MPLS TE does not
exist at present. Nonetheless, EGP extensions are required to support
multiple GMPLS ASes as well as for layer 1 VPN [L1VPN]. GMPLS
extension for multi-AS TE is required for guaranteeing inter-AS GMPLS
constraints, when attempts are made to establish GMPLS LSPs over
multiple domains as discussed in section 4.
The EGP scalability should be considered in designing GMPLS
extensions to allow exchange of some TE information in addition to
reachability information. Furthermore, the GMPLS EGP must be designed
to achieve such operation that defects in an AS do not affect the
scalability of the IGP in a different AS, although the GMPLS EGP must
promptly advertise the failure within the AS, ensuring the GMPLS
inter-AS connection establishment.
The EGP extensions for GMPLS must basically follow the GMPLS
architecture [Arch], including the support of its exchange over out
of band control channel.
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 9
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
The EGP must have the functionality to consider any policies for
controlling TE routing information to be flooded, which will be
defined between ASes on a business or operational strategy basis.
This EGP routing policy should be able to be changed and configured
on a per AS basis. This policy control especially in terms of
switching capability may be applicable to the extensions of
hierarchical routing. Each AS should control the advertisement of the
switching capability or re-advertisement of received switching
capability.
5.1.1 TE parameters to be supported in EGP
Coinciding with MPLS Inter-AS work, the TE parameters for GMPLS
Inter-AS are considered to be added.
A GMPLS AS border node is required to announce the following
parameters in terms of node IDs, interface addresses and interface
IDs, of which reachability is advertised via EGP.
(1) Interface switching capability
(1-1)Bandwidth
A. Total link bandwidth
B. Max./Min. Reservable bandwidth
C. Maximum LSP bandwidth
D. minimum LSP Bandwidth
C. Unreserved bandwidth
(1-2)Switching capability: PSC1-4, L2SC, TDM, lambda, LSC, FSC
(2) Bandwidth Encoding type: As defined in [RFC3471], e.g., Ethernet,
SONET/SDH, Lambda.
(3) SRLG (Global view)
(4) Protection type
As mentioned in section 4.4, an end-point (reachability) list
consisting of node IDs, interface addresses, interface IDs per
switching capability is formed in order to be advertised over GMPLS
ASes.
For stitched, nested and contiguous GMPLS LSPs over multiple domains,
a GMPLS LSP created within an AS will be announced as a (transit)
link resource exposed to different ASes with appropriate TE
parameters, while concealing intermediate nodes or interface
addresses. The GMPLS EGP must support this functionality and locally
configure this on the AS border nodes.
To ensure future interworking operation between GMPLS and MPLS, the
GMPLS EGP should be also applicable to MPLS inter-AS TE (bandwidth)
information exchange.
5.1.2 EGP redistribution requirement
GMPLS EGP redistribution mechanisms within the domain should be
provided in a scalable manner. These GMPLS EGP redistribution
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 10
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
mechanisms must be designed to achieve such operation that a defect
in an AS does not affect the scalability of IGP in a different AS,
although the GMPLS EGP must promptly advertise the failure within the
AS, ensuring the GMPLS inter-AS connection establishment.
Mechanisms for redistributing GMPLS TE information within the GMPLS
domain can be a path computation element (PCE), I-BGP session, or re-
injection to IGP. Especially, it is useful to adopt GMPLS end-to-end
basis path calculation. PCE based requirement may be incorporated
with the PCE Architecture document [PCE].
5.2 Requirement for GMPLS Inter-AS signaling for the support of TE
GMPLS Inter-AS signaling must establish GMPLS LSPs over GMPLS
multiple domains with a dynamic calculation of the AS route and GMPLS
AS border nodes. It also must support to explicitly specify AS routes,
AS border nodes and GMPLS nodes. Moreover, specifying loose GMPLS
nodes including GMPLS AS border nodes must be supported in GMPLS
signaling. The AS border node received GMPLS signaling message from a
source node in a different AS should support recalculation mechanisms
to specify the route within its domain, such as RSVP route expansion
technique, followed by GMPLS Inter-AS path computation.
5.2.1 GMPLS per-AS basis path calculation support
Firstly, GMPLS per-AS basis path calculation is described. In this
path calculation model, a GMPLS LSP head-end specifies GMPLS AS
border nodes as loose hops to tail-end statically or dynamically
[Path-comp]. The route information may be learned from the GMPLS EGP.
The source node also calculates the intermediate nodes to reach the
selected egress AS border node.
Once the GMPLS path message has traversed to the connecting AS border
node in the adjacent AS, another path calculation is conducted, for
example, by RSVP-TE expansion to reach its destination, otherwise to
reach an egress border node transiting to another AS. This path
calculation will not necessarily guarantee the AS path optimality.
5.2.2 GMPLS end-to-end basis path calculation support
GMPLS end-to-end basis path calculation is indicated next. In this
path calculation, the GMPLS LSP head-end specifies an AS path route
(for example, AS1-AS2-AS4-AS5 in Figure 1) as well as the
intermediate nodes to the egress AS border node in its belonging AS.
The AS border node in an adjacent AS will determine intermediate
nodes followed by the specified AS path route. This path calculation
will guarantee the AS path optimality, however, not necessarily
guarantee end-to-end path optimality.
5.2.3 Fast Recovery support
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 11
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
Fast recovery operation based on the end-to-end [e2e] and segment
[SEG-RECOVERY] based approach should be supported over multiple GMPLS
domains, considering inter-AS link, SRLG and node diversity. These
types of operation SHOULD interoperate with GMPLS intra-AS TE fast
recovery mechanism. The AS border node may respond indicating a path
setup error if it does not support the protection/restoration
mechanism which is requested by the signaling messages generated from
the source node in the different AS.
Depending on the recovery mode, re-optimization or revertive
operations should be supported.
5.2.4 Policy Control
Depending on the policy between ASes, the AS border GMPLS nodes may
reject GMPLS inter-AS signaling messages if the unapproved objects
are included.
5.3 GMPLS Inter-domain TE Management
5.3.1 GMPLS Inter-domain TE Fault Management
To maintain the control channel session as well as to provide fault
isolation mechanism, link management mechanisms such as [LMP] should
be applied to TE links between GMPLS AS border nodes. To validate
LSPs created over multiple domains, a generic tunnel tracing protocol
(GTTP) may be applied [GTTP].
5.3.2 GMPLS Inter-AS TE MIB Requirements
GMPLS inter-AS TE Management Information Bases must be supported to
manage and configure GMPLS inter-AS TE in terms of GMPLS LSPs,
routing, TE links and so forth. These MIBs should extend the
existing series of MIBs [GMPLS-TEMIB] to accommodate following
functionalities;
- To manage GMPLS LSP characteristics at the tunnel head-end as well
as any other points of the TE tunnel.
- To include both IPv4/v6 and AS number, or only AS number in the
subobjects of GMPLS RSVP ERO. A label may be included in it. The
example of the object is as follows;
EXPLICIT_ROUTE class object:
Address1 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS1)
Address2 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS1)
AS2 (AS number)
Address3 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS3)
Address4 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS3)-destination
Or
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 12
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
Address1 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS1)
Address2 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS1)
Address3 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS2)
Address4 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS2)
Address5 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS3)
Address6 (loose IPv4 address prefix,label, /AS3)-destination
- Inclusion of recording subobjects such as interface IPv4/v6
addresses, AS number, a label, a node-id and so on in the RRO of
the RESV message, considering the established policies between
GMPLS ASes.
6. Security consideration
GMPLS Inter-domain TE should be implemented under a certain security
consideration such as authentication of signaling and routing on the
control plane as well as a data plane itself. Indeed, this will not
change the underlying security issues.
7. Acknowledgement
The author would like to express the thanks to Noaki Yamanaka, Kohei
Shiomoto, Wataru Imajuku, Michiaki Hayashi, Zafar Ali and Adrian
Farrel for their comments.
8. Intellectual property considerations
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
9. Informative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 13
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
[Inter-domain] A. Farrel, et al, "A framework for inter-domain MPLS
traffic engineering", draft-farrel-ccamp-inter-
fomain-framework-00.txt, April 2004.
[MPLS-AS] R. Zhan, et al, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic Engineering
requirements", draft-ietf-tewg-interas-mpls-te-req-
09.txt, September 2004 (work in progress).
[LMP] J. P. Lang, et al, "Link Management Protocol (LMP)",
draft-ietf-lmp-10.txtö, October 2003.
[GMPLS-Routing] K. Kompella, et al, "Routing Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", draft-
ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt, October 2003.
[L1VPN] T. Takeda, et al, "Framework for Layer 1 Virtual
Private Networks", draft-takeda-l1vpn-framework-
01.txt, July 2004.
[PCE] A. Farrel,et al, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Architecture", draft-ash-pce-architecture-00.txt,
September 2004.
[Arch] E. Mannie, et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching Architecture", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-
architecture-07.txt, May, 2003.
[Path-comp] J. P. Vasseur, et al, "Inter-domain Traffic
Engineering LSP path computation methods", draft-
vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-path-comp-00.txt, July
2004.
[GMPLS-ROUTING] K. Kompella, et al, "Routing Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", draft-
ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt.
[e2e] J. P. Lang, et al, "RSVP-TE Extensions in support of
End-to-End GMPLS-based Recovery", draft-ietf-ccamp-
gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-01.txt, May, 2004.
[SEG-RECOVERY] L. Berger, et al, "GMPLS Based Segment Recovery",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-00.txt, March
2004.
[GTTP] R. Bonica, et al, "Generic Tunnel Tracing Protocol
(GTTP) Specification", draft-ietf-ccamp-tunproto-
01.txt, Sept. 2004.
[GMPLS-TEMIB] T. Nadeau, et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching Traffic Engineering Management Information
Base", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-06.txt, Oct 2004.
Author's Addresses
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Phone: +81-49-278-7357
Saitama, 356-8502. Japan Email: otani@kddilabs.jp
Kenji Kumaki
KDDI Corporation
GARDEN AIR TOWER,3-10-10,Iidabshi Phone: +81-3-6678-3103
Chiyoda-ku,Tokyo, 102-8460. Japan Email: ke-kumaki@kddi.com
Satoru Okamoto
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 14
Internet Drafts draft-otani-ccamp-interas-GMPLS-TE-00.txtOctober 2004
NTT Network Service System Laboratory
3-9-11 Midori-cho, Musashino-shi, Phone: +81-422-59-4353
Tokyo, 180-8585. Japan Email: okamoto.satoru@lab.ntt.co.jp
Document expiration
This document will be expired in May 2005, unless it is updated.
Copyright statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (year). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights."
"This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
T. Otani et al. Informational - Expires January 2005 15