[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00                                                            
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 Multi-Client Support
             draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-multi-client-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-multi-client     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 multiple client layer networks are not covered
   by [HIER]. This internet draft describes additional requirements and
   proposes a solution to support multiple client layer networks.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction and Problem Statement.............................2
   2. Requirements...................................................2
   3. Mechanisms and Protocol Extensions.............................2
   4. Security Considerations........................................3
   5. IANA Considerations............................................3
   6. References.....................................................3
      6.1. Normative References......................................3
      6.2. Informative References.........Error! Bookmark not defined.
   7. Acknowledgments................................................4

1. Introduction and Problem Statement

   [HIER] defines a set of extensions for the control of hierarchical
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs).It allows an LSP created in one network,
   i.e. server network, to be used in another network, i.e. client
   network. The LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID is used during server network
   LSP establishment to exchange information about how to identify and
   optionally advertise the link in the client network.

2. Requirements

   In order to support flexible adaptation where a server network LSP
   provides services to multiple client networks, it is necessary to
   identify to which layer the information carried in the
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID applies to. For example, an OTN LSP is
   established and is available to carry Ethernet or SDH client
   traffic.

   New Requirement: For each client network supported, it should be
   possible to exchange both the layer identification and a separate
   set of control plane identifiers associated with the client layer.

3. Mechanisms and Protocol Extensions

   The extension continues to use the current format for
   LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object as defined in [HIER], and just adds a


Roch, Marcot & Ong      Expires April 18, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-multi-client     October 2010


   new sub-TLV that identifies the specific client layer(s) that should
   use the information exchanged in the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID. This
   allows a single LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID to carry information for
   multiple client layers if they share common control information.
   Several LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID objects are required when there are
   client layers with different control plane identifier information.

   A new CLIENT_LAYER_ID_SUB_TLV Object is defined to indicate to which
   client layer(s) the LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID is applicable. The TLV
   is formatted as described in Section 3.1.2 of [HIER]. The Type field
   has the value 3 (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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Encoding Type | Switching Type| Signal Type   |   Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             ...                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Encoding Type | Switching Type| Signal Type   |   Reserved    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

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


Roch, Marcot & Ong      Expires April 18, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-multi-client     October 2010


7. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Vishnu Shukla (Verizon) and Fatai Zhang
(Huawei) for their contribution and comments to this document.













































Roch, Marcot & Ong      Expires April 18, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  draft-roch-ccamp-lsp-hier-multi-client     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 5]