Network Working Group E. Roch
Internet Draft Ciena
Intended status: Informational T. Marcot
Expires: April 2011 France Telecom
L. Ong
Ciena
October 18, 2010
Extensions to Hierarchical LSPs for ASON identifiers support
draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-ason-00.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2011.
Copyright 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.
Roch, Marcot & Ong Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-ason October 2010
Abstract
A set of requirements and a proposed solution for the control of
hierarchical Label Switched Paths (LSPs) is found in [HIER].
However, support of address separation as allowed by the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) architecture [G.8080]
is not covered by [HIER]. This internet draft describes additional
requirements to consider for the use of LSP hierarchy in ASON
networks and proposes extensions to address those requirements.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Problem Statement.............................2
1.1. Separate control plane instances at different layers......3
1.2. Address and identifier separation within a layer..........3
2. Requirements...................................................4
2.1. Routing Controller Identification.........................4
2.2. Signaling Controller Identification.......................4
3. Mechanisms and Protocol Extensions.............................4
3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID sub-TLVs..........................4
3.1.1. Routing Controller Protocol Controller (RC PC)
Identifier..................................................5
3.1.2. Routing Controller Protocol Controller (RC PC)
Reachable Address...........................................5
3.1.3. Signaling Controller Protocol Controller (SC PC)
Identifier..................................................5
3.1.4. Signaling Controller Protocol Controller (SC PC)
Reachable Address...........................................5
4. Security Considerations........................................6
5. IANA Considerations............................................6
6. References.....................................................6
6.1. Normative References......................................6
6.2. Informative References....................................6
7. Acknowledgments................................................6
1. Introduction and Problem Statement
This problem statement applies to the operation of multilayer
networks according to the ASON architecture.
[HIER] defines a set of extensions for the control of hierarchical
Label Switched Paths (LSPs). This internet draft describes
additional requirements for the use of LSP Hierarchy in ASON
networks.
Roch, Marcot & Ong Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-ason October 2010
1.1. Separate control plane instances at different layers
In ASON architecture, the control plane instance in a client layer
may be a separate instance than the control plane instance for the
client layer. This requires that when a server layer link is
created, sufficient information must be passed to allow a new
control (signaling and optionally routing) association to be created
between the client control instances at the ends of the new link.
This includes identification and addressing information for both the
signaling control instance and routing control instance at each end.
The ASON architecture [G.8080] allows for separate control plane
instances for each controlled layer. In a real deployment, this can
be seen in a few scenarios. For example, in networks mixing legacy
equipment and emerging technologies, existing legacy control plane
for some layers and new control plane for other layers may be based
on different protocols, requiring different instances.
Additionally, some equipment may be entirely under management plane
control whereas other is under control plane. There might also be
business boundaries due to mergers and acquisitions or due to
internal company organization. In these cases, the result is
multiple instances of control plane.
Another scenario is that different instances may be used to solve
scalability problems.
1.2. Address and identifier separation within a layer
Separate identification of routing controller instances, signaling
controller instances and resource identifiers is required in order
to support ASON signaling and routing. Separation of routing
controller and resource identifier is already addressed as a
requirement in [RFC4652], as referenced by the terms ''Li'' and ''Pi''
for the logical control plane entity and physical node identifiers,
respectively. This allows 1:n relationships between the control
entity and the physical resources being controlled, for example.
Separation of routing and signaling controller identifiers and their
respective reachable addresses allows the routing and signaling
controller identifiers to be independent of the specific network
address by which they are reached. This allows the operator to
modify the signaling communications network addressing scheme
without impacting the control plane protocols. Routing controller
addressing is further discussed in [RFC4258].
Roch, Marcot & Ong Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-ason October 2010
2. Requirements
2.1. Routing Controller Identification
In ASON architecture, a routing controller possesses two
identifiers. The first is the Routing Controller Protocol Controller
Identifier (RC PC ID). The second is the IPv4 address at which the
routing controller can be reached, the Routing Controller Protocol
Controller Signaling Control Network address (RC PC SCN address).
New requirement: It must be possible to exchange RC PC IDs and RC PC
SCN addresses for the establishment of a routing adjacency in the
client layer.
2.2. Signaling Controller Identification
In ASON architecture, signaling controller identifiers cannot be
automatically derived from routing controller identifiers. In order
to establish an RSVP-TE signaling adjacency between two client
signaling controllers, a signaling mechanism is required in the
server layer to identify the signaling controller. Each signaling
controller requires two identifiers. The first is the Signaling
Controller Protocol Controller Identifier (SC PC ID). The second is
the IPv4 address at which the signaling controller can be reached,
the Signaling Controller Protocol Controller Signaling Control
Network address (SC PC SCN address).
New Requirement: It must be possible to exchange SC PC IDs and SC PC
SCN addresses for the establishment of a signaling adjacency in the
client layer.
3. Mechanisms and Protocol Extensions
This section defines protocol extensions to address the requirements
described in the previous section.
3.1. LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID sub-TLVs
The following sub-TLVs are optional sub-TLVs of the
LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID, in addition to already defined Target IGP
Identifier and Component Link Identifier TLV. These sub-TLVs allow
the client layer to use separate routing and signaling controller
identifiers and reachable addresses.
Roch, Marcot & Ong Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-ason October 2010
3.1.1. Routing Controller Protocol Controller (RC PC) Identifier
The following sub-TLV is included to identify the RC PC associated
with the client layer. The TLV is formatted as described in Section
3.1.2 of [HIER]. The Type field has the value 4 (TBD), and the Value
field has the following content:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Routing Controller Protocol Controller Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.1.2. Routing Controller Protocol Controller (RC PC) SCN Address
The following sub-TLV is included to provide the SCN reachable
address for the RC PC associated with the client layer. The TLV is
formatted as described in Section 3.1.2 of [HIER]. The Type field
has the value 5 (TBD), and the Value field has the following
content:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Routing Controller Protocol Controller SCN IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.1.3. Signaling Controller Protocol Controller (SC PC) Identifier
The following sub-TLV is included to identify the SC PC associated
with the client layer. The TLV is formatted as described in Section
3.1.2 of [HIER]. The Type field has the value 6 (TBD), and the Value
field has the following content:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Signaling Controller Protocol Controller Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.1.4. Signaling Controller Protocol Controller (SC PC) SCN Address
The following sub-TLV is included to provide the reachable SCN
address for the RC PC associated with the client layer. The TLV is
Roch, Marcot & Ong Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-ason October 2010
formatted as described in Section 3.1.2 of [HIER]. The Type field
has the value 7 (TBD), and the Value field has the following
content:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Routing Controller Protocol Controller SCN IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. IANA Considerations
TBD
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[HIER] Shiomoto, K., and Farrel, A. (Editors), ''Procedures for
Dynamically Signaled Hierarchical Label Switched Paths'',
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-08.txt, February 2010
[RFC4258] Brungard, D, Ed. ''Requirements for Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)'', RFC4258,
November 2005
[RFC4652] Papadimitriou, D., Ed. ''Evaluation of Existing Routing
Protocols against Automatic Switched Optical Network
(ASON) Routing Requirements'', RFC4652, October 2006
6.2. Informative References
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec G.8080/Y.1304 ''Architecture for the Automatically
Switched Optical Network (ASON)'', June 2006
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Vishnu Shukla (Verizon) for his
contribution and comments to this document.
Roch, Marcot & Ong Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-ason October 2010
Authors' Addresses
Evelyne Roch
Ciena
Email: eroch@ciena.com
Thierry Marcot
France Telecom
Email: thierry.marcot@orange-ftgroup.com
Lyndon Ong
Ciena
Email: lyong@ciena.com
Roch, Marcot & Ong Expires April 18, 2011 [Page 7]