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

Versions: 00                                                            
Internet Engineering Task Force                                J. Jiang
Internet Draft                                                D. Walker
Document: draft-walker-ccamp-req-00.txt                         J. Wang
Expires: August 2001                                   SS8 Networks Inc
                                                          February 2001


                  Common Control and Measurement Plane
                       Framework and Requirements

                    <draft-walker-ccamp-req-00.txt>


Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in 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 document describes architectural and protocol requirements for
   the Common Control and Measurement Plane.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction....................................................3
   2. Definitions.....................................................4
   3. Conventions used in this document...............................5
   4. Common Control and Measurement Plane............................5
   4.1. Functions of the Control and Measurement Plane................5
   4.2. Centralized Architecture......................................6
   4.3. Distributed Architecture......................................9
   5. Architectural Requirements......................................9
   5.1. Independence from Underlying Transport Networks...............9
   5.2. Scalable to Very Large Networks..............................10
   5.3. Flexibility..................................................10

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    1

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   5.4. Steady State Operation.......................................10
   5.5. Minimized Overhead...........................................11
   5.6. Minimized Impact on Real-Time Performance....................11
   5.7. Simplicity...................................................11
   5.8. Survivability................................................11
   5.9. Interoperability.............................................11
   6. Proposed High Level Architecture...............................12
   6.1. Architecture Overview........................................12
   6.2. Single Protocol or Separate Protocols........................13
   6.3. Reference Points.............................................14
   7. TE Functional Requirements.....................................15
   8. CE Functional Requirements.....................................16
   8.1. Association Establishment and Management.....................16
   8.2. Tunnel Management............................................16
   8.3. Resource Management..........................................17
   8.4. QoS policy capability........................................17
   8.5. Service provisioning and control.............................18
   8.6. OAM&P........................................................18
   8.7. Robustness...................................................19
   9. General Protocol Requirements..................................19
   9.1. Transport Network Assumptions................................19
   9.2. Association requirements.....................................19
   9.3. Protocol performance requirements............................20
   9.4. Transport Requirements.......................................20
   9.5. Security requirements........................................21
   9.6. Other Requirements...........................................21
   10. Control Protocol Requirements.................................22
   10.1. Resource requirements.......................................23
   10.2. Tunnel Requirements.........................................23
   10.3. Event Processing and Scripting..............................24
   10.4. Policy Requirements.........................................25
   10.5. Media transformation Requirements...........................25
   10.6. Operation/management Requirements...........................25
   10.7. Error Control...............................................26
   10.8. Management Requirements.....................................26
   11. Measurement Protocol Requirements.............................26
   11.1. Topology and resource information...........................26
   11.2. TE Capability Information...................................27
   11.3. Status Information..........................................27
   11.4. Tunnel Information..........................................28
   11.5. Performance Information.....................................28
   11.6. Statistics Information......................................28
   11.7. Accounting Requirements.....................................28
   11.8. Event Processing and Scripting..............................29
   11.9. Operation/Management Requirements...........................29
   11.10. Error Control..............................................29
   12. Inter-CE Protocol Requirements................................30
   12.1. Common requirements.........................................30
   12.2. Internal capability.........................................30
   12.3. External capability.........................................31
   13. Security Considerations.......................................31
   14. References....................................................31
   15. Author's Addresses............................................32

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    2

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


1. Introduction

   As networking technology continues to evolve, there is an ever-
   increasing number of transport layer protocols that one is likely to
   encounter in developing end-to-end solutions.  Along with the
   growing stringency of Service Level Specifications (SLS), there is
   both a need to be able to provide a finer level of control over
   network traffic in terms of the level of service that can be
   delivered by the various technologies, as well as a need to ensure
   that the network is providing the required level of service.

   The various network technologies, such as MPLS label switching, ATM,
   Diffserv, optical switching, and more, frequently come with a unique
   set of mechanisms that offer ISPs the tools they need to control and
   monitor technology-specific or even vendor-specific islands.  The
   unique nature of these islands creates complex problems when larger
   networks are created by interconnecting such islands.

   This draft presents a framework and set of generic requirements that
   are independent of the underlying technology and which can be used
   to ensure that the network can be monitored and controlled to
   provide specific levels of policy, security, and quality of service
   characterics.

   Networks can be functionally divided into three planes of activity:
   a data or transport plane, a control plane, and a management plane.

   The control plane consists of logical entities (Control Elements)
   which perform network level coordination functions such as: state
   information management (acquisition, representation, dissemination),
   decision making (e.g. path selection), and action invocation (e.g.
   signalling).

   The transport plane provides consists of entities (such as layer 2
   and layer 3 switches, routers, and others, collectively referred to
   in this document as Transport Elements) which primarily switch or
   forward data (bearer or signalling) traffic.  These entities may be
   statically or dynamically configured in order to determine how
   particular traffic is to be treated.

   The measurement plane provides transport level resource status
   information to interested parties in order that appropriate policies
   may be applied (e.g. allowing routers to determine the appropriate
   next hop destination for outgoing packets).

   The framework proposed in this draft suggests that Control Elements
   are able to control and monitor one or more Transport Elements.
   While the document presents a discussion on the relative merits of
   centralized and distributed control networks, it should be
   emphasized that CEs are logical entities which may or may not be co-
   located with TEs in actual implementations.



Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    3

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   It must be noted that the requirements set out in this draft may be
   partially satisfied by extending existing protocols, such as COPS
   [7], MEGACO [2], OSPF [3], and others.


2. Definitions

   Service domain: Service domain defines a portion of the network
   under one service providerÆs administration. All the network
   elements within a service domain have consistent view of the network
   and policy.

   Clearing House (CH): Given the large number of access networks
   belonging to different service domains, it is not possible to have
   SLS between all domains on the Internet. A clearinghouse facilitates
   the authorization and logging or accounting between service domains
   for premium services. This does not preclude however some domains to
   have direct bilateral agreements, so as not to use any clearinghouse
   service when exchanging traffic.

   Control and Measurement Plane: The control and measurement plane is
   a functional layer which is built on top of transport network to
   control the transport elements to perform service management,
   traffic engineering, policy control, and QoS control functions. The
   control and measurement plane is one of the three dimensions of a
   service providerÆs network, which includes transport plane (data
   plane), control and measurement plane and management plane.

   Control Element (CE): The network components providing control
   capability for traffic engineering, service management,
   protection/restoration, policy control and end-to-end QoS control.
   These components communicate with TEs to collect network status and
   resource information, compute source route or perform path
   provisioning for tunnel management, execute policy logic, update its
   policy information base, and exchange this information with other
   CEs.

   Transport Element (TE): The network components providing transport
   function to switch or forward bearer traffic. Examples of TEs
   include MPLS LSRs, ATM switches, Lambda switches, DiffServ capable
   routers, PSTN-IP gateways, etc. A TE communicates with CE to report
   network resource and status information, receive and execute policy
   decisions from CE for traffic engineering, service management,
   protection/restoration, policy control and end-to-end QoS control.

   Peer: CEs are connected to each other via a logical link, or an
   association. The two CEs that have associations form a peer
   relationship. This peer relationship is abbreviated to as peer in
   this draft.

   Internal peer: An internal peer is a peer relationship between two
   CEs in the same service domain.


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    4

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   External peer: An external peer is a peer relationship between two
   CEs in two different service domains.

   Internal CE: An internal CE is a CE that has no external peer.

   Border CE: A border CE is a CE that has at least one external peer.


3. 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 [4].


4. Common Control and Measurement Plane

   A network can be functionally divided into three planes: a data or
   transport plane, a control plane, and a management plane. The
   control plane consists of network control elements. The network
   control plane elements perform network level coordination functions
   including: state information management (acquisition,
   representation, dissemination), decision making (e.g., path
   selection), and action invocation (e.g., signalling). In order to
   manage state information of the network, measuring and monitoring
   the network resource and status is the key function. To emphasize
   this function, the control plane is referred to as control and
   measurement plane in this draft.


4.1. Functions of the Control and Measurement Plane

   This plane is designed to perform the following functions:

   - Traffic engineering

     It is able to control the traffic flows in the network so that the
     network resource is utilized in a most efficient fashion. With
     this feature, this plane must be able to handle various types of
     traffic in terms of their QoS requirements including delay, packet
     loss, bandwidth requirements, etc over a mixed underlying
     transport networks. This feature requires the CEs to collect
     traffic and resource information in the network, to compute the
     best path for each flow, and to issue control commands to TEs.
     This plane must support both time-dependent and state-dependent
     traffic engineering.

   - Support end-to-end QoS

     This plane needs to support end-to-end QoS for its customers. For
     this purpose, the CE must have not only the network resource
     knowledge of its own service domain, but also access to the
     performance measurements of the other service domains a particular

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    5

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


     flow is to transverse. These performance measurements are
     collected by TEs and CEs in a service domain and may be exchanged
     with CEs in other domains.

   - Support policy

     Various levels of policy need to be supported by this plane. These
     include service policy, customer policy, resource policy, network
     functional policy, and network element policy. This plane must
     support policy creation, modification, and deletion. It must also
     support service policy advertisement among service domains. It
     must support three types of policy: QoS policy, service policy and
     traffic engineering policy. The framework must be such that is
     easily extended to support other policies.

   - Support service provisioning and management

     For a service provider, the traffic engineering and QoS control is
     based on the customerÆs service profile and its service policy.
     The control plane must support customer service provisioning and
     management. This include communication with Service Management
     System (SMS) for Local Service Level Agreements (SLA)
     specification, SLA negotiation, service creation, modification and
     deletion. It should also be able to perform SLA advertisement
     among the CEs within the same service domain and LSA exchange
     among CEs in different service domains. It should also be able to
     allocate service to specific customer flows as required by SMS.

   In addition to the generic management function as described above,
   this plane must also support management of particular services, such
   as VPN service.


4.2. Centralized Architecture

   The control and measurement plane can be deployed in two different
   architectures: the control function is separate from the TEs or
   control integrated with the TEs. The former is referred to as
   centralized control and the latter is referred to as distributed
   control.  Neither model should necessarily rule out the other, so
   that it is possible to have a centralized architecture with some CEs
   just happening to be co-resident with TEs, and on the other hand it
   is also possible to have a distributed architecture where the TE
   function on some physical entities is null.

   With centralized architecture, the control function is allocated in
   one or a few centralized CEs that are physically separated from the
   TEs. The interaction between the CE and the TEs is via a set of
   protocols as defined and discussed in this draft. These protocols
   must be independent of the underlying transport network. It is each
   TEÆs responsibility to translate its technology sub-network specific
   resource representation into the abstracted common representation.


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    6

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   All the CEs form a control network. The control network may consist
   of one or more CEs depending on the size of the network and capacity
   of the CE. In case of multiple CEs, a mechanism must be defined for
   these CEs to communicate and synchronize policy, resource and
   traffic information, and provisioned service.

   The centralized architecture has the following advantages:

   - Easier to benefit from management information continuously
     collected by NMS (Network Management System)

     This information, such as performance alarms, failure alarms, and
     traps can be used with other information for the control elements
     to make control decisions.

     With distributed architecture, a distributed routing protocol
     relies mainly on timers and missing PDUs to detect a failure
     between two adjacent switching nodes.

   - Easier for policy control

     Policy control consists of policy creation, installation,
     modification, deletion advertisement, and policy decision making.
     In reality, policy is usually service provider based (service
     policy, customer policy, accounting policy) or network based
     (network function specific and network element policy). To be able
     to provide end-to-end QoS, one service domain needs to exchange
     service level policy with its neighboring domains. With a
     centralized architecture, it is easier to maintain policy
     consistency because the policy control is performed at one (or a
     few) central place(s).

     With distributed approach, the policy creation needs to be done
     repeatedly on every transport elements. The policy advertisement
     between different domains are even more difficult with distributed
     architecture.

   - Easier for traffic engineering of mixed underlying transport
     network

     A service providerÆs network may consist of mixed types of sub-
     networks. For example, a GMPLS network may consist of two Packet
     Switched Capable (PSC) MPLS sub-networks connected by one Lambda
     Switched Capable (LSC) MPLS sub-network [5]. With centralized
     architecture, a centralized decision can be easily made based on
     its consistent and complete view of the underlying network.

     On the other hand, with distributed architecture, the routing
     protocol are used to build and maintain a logical model of the
     network. Because not all routing entities have the same view of
     the overall network (e.g., two ATM label switching networks
     connected with one lambda switching network, the ATM switch in an
     MPLS-ATM network has different view from Lambda switch in an MPLS-

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    7

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


     optical network in terms of network topology, network resource and
     congestion status), a best decision based on entire network is
     difficult to make.

   - Easier to operate

     With centralized architecture, new features or policies can be
     introduced with a simple upgrade.

     With distributed architecture, upgrading every switch with new
     routing software is difficult.

   - Better flexibility

     With centralized architecture, a set of protocols between CE and
     TE must be well defined. This provides a flexibility where the
     control and measurement function can be allocated. It also allows
     separate TE and CE development to optimize their functionality.

   - Better information consistency

     With centralized architecture, information is stored in a few
     central places. The possibility of session setup failure due to
     inconsistent information is lower than that in distributed
     architecture.

   - Offload LSRs

     With centralized architecture, the separate control and
     measurement plane takes care of all the control and measurement
     tasks. LSRs can concentrate on real time traffic switching.

     With distributed architecture, some non-real-time tasks (topology
     synchronization, policy advertisement, etc.) must also be executed
     at TEs and compete with real time tasks for CPU time.

   - Easier for end-to-end QoS control

     For end-to-end QoS control, a decision maker needs to have
     knowledge not only the traffic and resource in its own network,
     but also those in other domains. It introduces a lot of overhead
     to make the information available to every switch rather than to
     only a few central control elements.

   - Easier to extend for control of other networks

     In the future, when new types of networks are included into
     service providerÆs network, it is easier to accommodate them into
     a centralized control and measurement plane because the this plane
     is an abstract and common plane and all the transport technology
     specific function is kept by each TE.



Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    8

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


4.3. Distributed Architecture

   In a distributed architecture, each TE communicates with other TEs
   to collect network topology, resource, and traffic information and
   performs route computation by itself. Each switch maintains the
   policy and service profile for all its customers. The advantage of
   distributed architecture over centralized one are as follows:

   - Better survivability

     With distributed architecture, if one TE fails, only the traffic
     handled by this LSR is affected. The rest of the network will
     continue to work.

     On the other hand, with centralized architecture, if a CE fails,
     all the services on the switches under the control of that CE will
     be impacted.

   - Easier to make use of existing routing protocols

     Distributed IP routing (OSPF, IS-IS) has been deployed on TEs;
     suggestions have been made to extend these protocols to support
     traffic engineering and QoS [6]. These are fully distributed
     protocols.

   - Complex overall architecture

     With centralized architecture, because the number of network
     elements that can be managed by one control element is limited by
     its capacity, multiple control elements may need to be deployed in
     parallel. Then another centralized component on top of the control
     elements must be deployed to take care of end-to-end on-demand
     services. That makes the overall architecture complicated. With
     distributed architecture, each transport element takes care of its
     own for all the control capability. No complicated hierarchy is
     involved.

   - Better session setup latency

     With a distributed approach, a tunnel setup message does not have
     to go CE so the session setup latency is reduced. The same
     reasoning applies for protection/restoration.


5. Architectural Requirements

   The objective is to build a common plane for various underlying
   transport networks. This plane has a common interface to the
   underlying transport elements. The high level architectural
   requirements are described below.


5.1. Independence from Underlying Transport Networks

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                    9

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001



   The underlying transport network can be based on any type of
   transport technology. The interface between control elements and
   transport elements must be generic. It must be suitable for any type
   of networks. The parameters passed at the interface must be abstract
   and suitable for carrying topology, resource, traffic, and policy
   decision information for any type of networks. It is up to the
   transport element to map its technology specific presentation of
   above to the standard interface.

   The architecture must be extensible to support more functions and
   other network transport elements.


5.2. Scalable to Very Large Networks

   Contemporary public networks are growing very fast with respect to
   network size and traffic volume. The architecture must be designed
   to work with small network consisting a few tens of TEs to a big
   network consisting of a few thousands TEs.


5.3. Flexibility

   With different transport networks, and at different stages of
   deployment of the architecture, there may be different solutions to
   the same issue. The architecture must be flexible in adopting
   different mechanisms.

   For example, the measurement results can be obtained in different
   ways: using the measurement protocol as discussed in this draft,
   using OSPF-TE when it is widely deployed in the network, or using
   MIBs uploading. The architecture must be flexible to allow different
   mechanisms to be easily plugged in.

   In another example, a particular MPLS subnet may have its own built-
   in traffic engineering mechanism. The architecture must allow the
   transport elements to choose which mechanism (at control element or
   of its own) to use.

   In another scenario, a third party policy engine is already deployed
   in the service providerÆs network, this architecture must allow the
   policy engine to be plugged into the control plane.

   Another example is that at the early deployment stage, some network
   parameters (e.g., CE to TE association) may be statically
   provisioned and at advanced stage they may be obtained by protocol
   (e.g., auto-discovery). As for provisioning, the plane should also
   provide sufficient configuration options so that a network
   administrator can tailor the system to a particular environment.


5.4. Steady State Operation

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   10

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001



   The architecture must be such that the entire control system can
   reach steady state fast. For example, this requires the routing
   computation be relatively independent of dynamically changeable
   parameters.


5.5. Minimized Overhead

   This architecture should not introduce significant transport and
   processing overhead. For this purpose, the control protocols should
   be as simple as possible. The amount of information should be
   minimized and the format to represent the information should be
   efficient.


5.6. Minimized Impact on Real-Time Performance

   With more functionality introduced into the control plane, session
   setup latency will be degraded. The architecture must be designed so
   that this impact is minimized.


5.7. Simplicity

   The system should be as simple as possible, consistent with the
   intended applications. The system should be relatively easy to use
   (i.e., clean, convenient, and intuitive user interfaces).

   Simplicity in user interface does not necessarily imply that the TE
   system will use naive algorithms. Even when complex algorithms and
   internal structures are used, such complexities should be hidden as
   much as possible from the network administrator through the user
   interface.


5.8. Survivability

   It is critical for an operational network to recover promptly from
   network failures and to maintain the required QoS for existing
   services.  Survivability generally mandates introducing redundancy
   into the architecture, design, and operation of networks.

   Survivability can be addressed at the device level by developing
   network elements that are more reliable; and at the network level by
   incorporating redundancy into the architecture, design, and
   operation of networks. This draft requires that a philosophy of
   robustness and survivability should be adopted in the architecture,
   design, and operation of control and measurement plane.


5.9. Interoperability


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   11

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   Whenever feasible, control and measurement systems and their
   components should be developed with open standards based interfaces
   to allow interoperation with other systems and components.


6. Proposed High Level Architecture

   Based on the functions described in Sections 4 and 5, the proposed
   architecture for the control plane is described in this section.


6.1. Architecture Overview

   As illustrated in Figure 1, the control and measurement plane is
   separated from and built on top of the transport network. The entire
   controlled network is divided into service domains. One domain is
   under management of a single service provider and the network
   elements within one domain share consistent network view and policy
   view. The entire controlled service domain consists of one or more
   CEs and multiple TEs. Each TE is under the control of one CE. One CE
   can control multiple TEs.

                                      +------------------+
                                      |      Clearing    |
                                      |       House      |
                                      +------------------+
                                        A              A
                                        |              |
                                        |(R5)          |(R5)
    +-----------------------------------|----+    +----|-------------+
    |                                   |    |    |    |             |
    |                                   V    |    |    V             |
    |  +-------------+      +-------------+  |    | +-------------+  |
    |  |   Control   |<---->|   Control   |<------->|   Control   |  |
    |  |   Element   | (R3) |   Element   |  |(R4)| |   Element   |  |
    |  +-------------+      +-------------+  |    | +-------------+  |
    |       A   A                A   A       |    |      A   A       |
    |       |   |                |   |       |    |      |   |       |
    |   (R1)|   |(R2)        (R1)|   |(R2)   |    |  (R1)|   |(R2)   |
    |       |   |                |   |       |    |      |   |       |
    |       V   V                V   V       |    |      V   V       |
    |  +-------------+      +-------------+  |    | +-------------+  |
    |  |  Transport  |      |  Transport  |  |    | |  Transport  |  |
   ....|   Element   |......|   Element   |.........|   Element   |....
    |  +-------------+      +-------------+  |    | +-------------+  |
    |                                        |    |                  |
    |               (domain 1)               |    |    (domain 2)    |
    +----------------------------------------+    +------------------+

              Figure 1: CCAMP Architecture & Reference Points




Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   12

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   If there is more than one CE in the network, the CEs are connected
   via associations in either a partial or full mesh. The CEs and their
   associations together form a CE network. The links between CEs are
   logical links, or associations. These CEs and their associations are
   provisioned so that reachability (directly or indirectly) exists
   between any pair of CEs.

   In case of multiple CEs, each CE is responsible for managing a
   number of TEs. Any TE is controlled by only one CE at any time. One
   TE may have associations with more than one controller for
   protection purpose.

   Each TE communicates with its CE using two protocols: a control
   protocol and a measurement protocol. The control protocol is used
   for the CE to send policy decisions, tunnel setup information (e.g.,
   source routing path), and traffic filters for mapping incoming
   traffic to the tunnel to be setup. The measurement protocol is used
   for TEs to report network status and resource information to the CE.

   Because multiple CEs may be deployed in one service domain, these
   CEs need to communicate to each other so that they have the
   consistent view about the service profiles of customers, policies,
   network resource and status. For this purpose, these CEs need to
   speak another protocol with its peers: inter-CE protocol.

   The inter-CE protocol consists of two parts: intra-domain part and
   inter-domain part. For the intra-domain part, the protocol allows
   the CEs to share all policy and network information with each other.
   No security check or policy filtering logic is required. While for
   the inter-domain part, only the customer level policy and service
   capability is exchanged. Security mechanisms must be applied to
   inter-domain communication. Only the border CE needs to support both
   intra-domain part and inter-domain part. The internal CEs only need
   to support inter-domain part.

   In this architecture, we propose direct communication between CEs
   for inter-domain communication. Another alternative is to exchange
   policy information between service domains via a Clearing House.
   This alternative, however, is not addressed in this draft.


6.2. Single Protocol or Separate Protocols

   From a functional point of view, the system requires two protocols,
   control protocol and measurement protocol. These two protocols can
   be kept separate or combined together.

   With a single protocol, only one association needs to be established
   and maintained between each TE and its CE. The messages exchanged
   can be reduced because some information of two protocols can be
   carried in a single message. This reduces the protocol overhead.



Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   13

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   With separate protocols, it is easy to develop each protocol
   independently and to incorporate other protocols into the
   architecture. For example, when TE-OSPF is widely deployed, it can
   be used for measurement and reporting purpose, and therefore no new
   measurement protocol is needed.

   Although more investigation is required before reaching an agreement
   on single protocol or separate protocol, in this draft, we describe
   the requirements separately.


6.3. Reference Points

   In this architecture illustrated in Figure 1, the following
   reference points are defined.

   - Reference Point R1

     Policy control information flow between CE and TE is captured in
     R1. The information across this point communicates policy-based
     session setup request and decision, traffic filter decision, and
     policy installation request between CE and TE. This protocol is a
     client-server protocol with the TE as client and the CE as the
     server.


   - Reference Point R2

     Transport Elements uploading information and/or measurement
     information flow between CE and TE is captured in this reference
     point. The information across this reference point communicates TE
     topology, resource, network status and measurement information.
     The protocol used at this interface is client-server protocol with
     TE as client and CE as server.

   - Reference Point R3

     Information flowing between two internal CEs is captured in this
     point. The information across this reference point communicates
     network topology, resource, and status information of the portion
     of the network and TEs under its control. It also communicates
     policy information and service capability information learned from
     other domains. The protocol used at this point is a peer protocol.

   - Reference Point R4

     Information flowing between two border CEs in different domains is
     captured in this point. The information across this reference
     point communicates pricing, authorization, usage, policy, and
     service capability information. The policy information flowing at
     this point includes customer specific policy, service specific
     policy, and resource policy. It is used for advertising,
     negotiating and notifying policy information. The policy
     information across this point can be either both globally


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   14

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


     available policy information and peer domain specific policy
     information (if clearing house is not available) or only peer
     domain specific policy (if clearing house is used for global
     available policy information). This protocol is a peer protocol.

   - Reference Point R5

     The information flowing between CE and Clearinghouse is captured
     in this reference point. The information flowing across this
     reference point is inter-domain pricing, authorization, and usage
     information as well as customer, service, and resource specific
     policy. The protocol used at this point is client-server protocol
     with CE as client and CH as server.


7. TE Functional Requirements

   The underlying network could be MPLS network, ATM network, optical
   switching network, etc. or any combination of the above. However,
   the following assumptions are made about the network and the TE:

   - The TEs are connected to each other in a arbitrary topology
     (meshed, star, tree, etc)

   - One TE can have different types of interfaces: different MPLS
     capable interfaces, or non-MPLS interfaces.

   - Every MPLS capable interface has IP address, implemented IP stack,
     running IP routing, running MPLS signaling (e.g., LDP and CR-LDP)

   - TEs that have both MPLS and non-MPLS interfaces are able to do
     traffic mapping between non-MPLS traffic (packets, time slots,
     lambdas, physical interfaces) and MPLS traffic according to a
     traffic classifier

   - TEs that have different types of MPLS interface are able to map
     between those interfaces

   - Every TE is able to perform resource reservation and release

   - Every TE is able to collect network topology and status
     information and report it to CE

   - Every TE is able to perform performance measurement and report the
     results to CE.

   - Every TE is able to collect and report network resource usage
     information and report it to CE

   - Every TE supports the control protocol and measurement protocol as
     described in this draft, including establishing and maintaining
     association with CE, generating, receiving, and processing


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   15

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


     protocol messages, switchover to a backup CE in case that the
     primary CE failure is detected, etc.

   - Every TE must support either provisioned CE assignment or CE auto-
     discovery.

   - Every TE is able to enforce policy decision it received from CE


8. CE Functional Requirements

   The CE is the core component of this architecture. It must provide
   the following capabilities.


8.1. Association Establishment and Management

   These requirements for a CE to establish and maintain associations
   with TEs and its CE peers are addressed by each protocol in
   seubsequent sections. For the purpose of completion, they are also
   listed here.

   - It is able to establish and maintain association with its intra-
     domain peers and inter-domain peers

   - It is able to monitor whether its peers are alive

   - It is able to delete the association with a peer when the peer
     fails or the peer relationship is removed by operator

   - It must support auto-discovery of CE by TE

   - When a new TE added into the network, the CE is able to coordinate
     with other CEs to decide which CE is to control the new TE.

   - It is able to establish and maintain associations with the TEs
     under its control

   - It is able to reassign a TE under its control to another CE and
     communicate this reassignment with TE and CE.

   - It is able to detect its peerÆs failure or its TEÆs failure and
     close the association


8.2. Tunnel Management

   - Tunnel routing involves the selection of a path from the
     originating node to the destination node in a network. CE should
     support time-dependent routing and state-dependent routing.

   - The architecture also allows other routing engine or routing
     mechanisms to be plugged in. In this case, the CE must also be

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   16

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


     able to decide which routing mechanism to be used for a particular
     tunnel setup request according to its local policy.

   - It is able to compute and setup a path according to the traffic
     and QoS requirements.

   - It is able to manage routing table from different route mechanisms
     and perform route lookup based on its local policy.

   - It is able to instruct TEs to establish tunnels according to the
     path it specified

   - It is able to maintain all the information related to each tunnel
     originating from the controlled TE. The tunnel could be any type
     of point-to-point, point-to-multipoint or multipoint-to-point.

   - It is able to instruct TEs to modify an established tunnel without
     affecting existing traffic

   - It is able to delete a tunnel upon request or due to network
     failure


8.3. Resource Management

   - It is able to store the network topology and resource formation in
     a way that it is easy to be advertised and easy to be used for
     route computation

   - It must maintain the network resources information for any type of
     interfaces

   - It is able to perform admission control upon a request for tunnel
     establishment based on resource availability, setup requirements
     and its local policy

   - It must be able to update the resource utilization of the
     underlying network upon tunnel setup or release

   - It must be able to update its resource utilization information
     upon report from TE or other CEs

   - It must be able to advertise any topology change reported by TEs
     under its control to other CEs within the same domain

   - It must be able to advertise any resource utilization change
     calculated by itself or reported by TEs to other CEs within the
     same domain


8.4. QoS policy capability



Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   17

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   - It must be able to make Policy Decision upon the request from TE,
     other network components such as SIP proxy server, or provision

   - It must support QoS policy management. It is able to create and
     maintain a policy database in a format that is easy to update and
     easy to apply.

   - It must be able to communicate with a separate policy repository
     using a standard protocol

   - It must support both policy provisioning and policy outsourcing
     modes as defined in COPS [7]. For provisioning mode, it is able to
     install polices to the TEs that are under its control.

   - It must support policy management so that the service provider is
     able to create, modify or delete policy via a standard user
     interface (CLI, GUI).

   - It must be able to distribute new policy items to its intra-domain
     peers. The new policy could be created by an operator, or learned
     from its neighbor domain peers.

   - It must be able to advertise its policy to other service domains
     according to its filtering policy.

   - It must be able to negotiate the service, pricing, and customer
     policy with other service domains.

   - It must support various types of policies.

   - The policy framework must be extensible to include other policy in
     addition to QoS policy


8.5. Service provisioning and control

   - It must be able to interact with Service Management System (SMS)
     to create, modify, and delete services

   - It must be able to interact with SMS to provision services

   - It must able to provision services based on Service Level
     Specification (SLS) with its access customers

   - It must be able to provision services based on Service Level
     Agreement (SLA) with its peer service providers

   - It should be able to exchange SLA with other service domains


8.6. OAM&P

   A CE must be able to perform the following standard OAMP functions:

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   18

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001



   - Operation management: load/boot, software/hardware upgrade,
     capability to enable or disable resource and/or features.

   - Configuration management: provisioning and configuring components
     and applications

   - Performance management: performance monitoring, data collecting
     and analysis

   - Accounting management: gathering statistics and usage information
     for accounting or billing purposes

   - Fault management: problems/symptoms report and handling


8.7. Robustness

   The control architecture must provide three level protections:

   - Network level protection: When one CE fails, other CEs will
     automatically take care of all the TEs under failed CEÆs control.

   - Link level protection: Physical or logical link failure should not
     cause the association termination.


9. General Protocol Requirements

   In the control architecture described in Section 6, three protocols
   have been defined. They are control protocol, measurement protocol,
   and inter-CE protocol. The inter-CE protocol is divided into two
   portions: intra-domain part and inter-domain part. This section
   discusses general protocol requirements that apply to all three
   protocols.


9.1. Transport Network Assumptions

   The protocols must assume that the underlying network:

   - May be over large shared networks.

   - Assures reliable delivery of messages.

   - Does not guarantee message delivery delay.

   - Does not guarantee ordering of messages: sequenced delivery of
     messages associated with the same source of events is not assumed.


9.2. Association requirements


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   19

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   For any of the three protocols to function, an association must be
   established between two parties. The following are association
   related requirements.

   Each protocol must

   - be able to establish, maintain and terminate association between
     two communication parties (between CE and TE or between two CEs)

   - allow the association to be specified by provisioning

   - allow the association between CE and TE to be established by auto-
     discovery

     Each TE is able to discover and registered with CE automatically.
     CEs should be able to decide which CE should control the
     discovered TE.

   - provide a method for the TE to inform a CE that the it received a
     command that is under the control of a different CE

   - support a method for the TE to inform a CE that it cannot handle
     any more requests

   - allow a CE to terminate an association and redirect a TE to
     another CE


9.3. Protocol performance requirements

   Each of the three protocols:

   - should minimize message exchanges between TE and CE and between
     CEs

   - should make efficient use of the underlying transport mechanism

     For example, protocol PDU sizes vs. transport MTU sizes needs to
     be considered in designing the protocols.

   - must not contain inherent architectural or signaling constraints
     that would limit peak throughput rates or the number of TEs a CE
     can control

   - should allow for default/provisioned settings so that commands
     need only contain non-default parameters


9.4. Transport Requirements

   Each of the three protocols:



Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   20

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   - must provide the ability to abort delivery of obsolete messages at
     the sending end if their transmission has not been successfully
     completed

     For example, aborting a command that has been overtaken by events.

   - should support priority messages

     The protocol should allow a command precedence to allow priority
     messages to supercede non-priority messages.

   - should support large fan-out at the CE

   - must provide a way for one entity to correlate commands and
     responses with the other entity

   - must provide a reason for any command failure

   - must assure that loss of a packet not stall messages not related
     to the message(s) contained in the packet lost


9.5. Security requirements

   Security mechanisms may be specified as provided in underlying
   transport mechanisms, such as IPSEC.  The protocol, or such
   mechanisms, must:

   - allow for mutual authentication at the start of a CE-TE
     association, especially for inter-domain associations

   - allow for preservation of the control messages once the
     association has been established

   - allow for optional confidentiality protection of control messages

   - allow a choice in the algorithm to be used

   - across untrusted domains in a secure fashion

   - define mechanisms to mitigate denial of service attacks

   In addition, it may be desirable for the protocol to be able to pass
   through commonly used firewalls.


9.6. Other Requirements

   Each of the three protocols must:

   - support multiple operations to be invoked in one message and
     treated as a single transaction


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   21

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   - be both modular and extensible

     Not all implementations may wish to support all of the possible
     extensions for the protocol. This will permit lightweight
     implementations for specialized tasks where processing resources
     are constrained. This could be accomplished by defining particular
     profiles for particular uses of the protocol.

   - be flexible in allocation of intelligence between CE and TE

     For example, an CE may want to allow the TE to assign particular
     TE resources in some implementations, while in others, the CE may
     want to be the one to assign TE resources for use. In another
     example, CE may allow TE to do path computation in some
     implementations, while in others, the CE does the path computation
     by itself and the TE must take that path.

   - support scalability from very small to very large TEs

     The protocol must support TEs with capacity ranging from one to
     millions of connections.

   - support scalability from very small to very large CE span of
     control (i.e. The protocol should allow CEs to control from one to
     a few thousands of TEs)

   - support the needs of an edge TE that supports small number of
     tunnels, and the needs of large TEs supporting tens of thousands
     of tunnels

     Protocol mechanisms favoring one extreme or the other should be
     minimized in favor of more general-purpose mechanism applicable to
     a wide range of TEs. Where special purpose mechanisms are proposed
     to optimize a subset of implementations, such mechanisms should be
     defined as optional, and should have minimal impact on the rest of
     the protocol.

   - facilitate TE and CE version upgrades independently of one another
     (the protocol must include a version identifier in the initial
     message exchange)

   - facilitate the discovery of the protocol capabilities of the one
     entity to the other

   - specify commands as optional (can be ignored) or mandatory (must
     be accepted or rejected)

   - within a command, specify parameters as optional (can be ignored)
     or mandatory (must be accepted or rejected).


10. Control Protocol Requirements


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   22

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   The control protocol is running between CE and controlled TEs. In
   addition to the general protocol requirements listed in Section 9,
   this protocol must meet the following requirements.


10.1. Resource requirements

   The control protocol must

   - support resource allocation for use by a particular tunnel and
     support its subsequent release at various granularities

   - allow modification of resource reservation without affecting
     existing services

   - allow release in a single exchange of messages, of all resources
     associated with a particular set of connectivity and/or
     association between a given number of terminations

   - not require the TE to maintain a sense of future time: a resource
     allocation/reservation remains in effect until explicitly released
     by the CE

   - provide a method for the CE to request that the TE to release all
     resources currently in use, or reserved, for any or all tunnels

   - provide a way for the TE to indicate that it was unable to perform
     a requested action because of resource exhaustion, or because of
     temporary resource unavailability


10.2. Tunnel Requirements

   The control protocol must:

   - support establishment, modification and deletion of connections
     involving any types of layer 1 and layer 2 networks and any
     combinations

   - support establishment, modification and deletion of tunnels
     involving any amount of resource reservation

   - support unidirectional, symmetric bi-directional, and asymmetric
     bi-directional tunnels

   - support point-to-point, point-to-multiple, and multiple-to-point
     tunnels

   - allow TE to request CE for a tunnel setup (including admission
     control, policy control, path computation, etc.)

   - allow CE to specify the entire path or partial path for a tunnel


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   23

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   - allow the specification of traffic filter (classifier) for the
     tunnel with the granularity of the traffic filter as following:

     PQ (Port Quadruples): same IP source address prefix, destination
     address prefix, TTL, IP, protocol and TCP/UDP source/destination
     ports

     PQT (Port Quadruples with TOS): same IP source address prefix,
     destination address prefix, TTL, IP, protocol and TCP/UDP
     source/destination ports, and same IP header TOS field (including
     precedence and TOS bits)

     HP (Host Pair): same specific IP source and destination addresses

     HPT (Host Pair with TOS): same specific IP source and destination
     addresses with same IP header ToS field

     NP (Network Pair): same IP source and destination address prefix
     (variable length)

     DN (Destination Network): same IP destination network address
     prefix (variable length)

     ER (Egress Router): same egress router ID

     NAS (Next-hop AS): same next-hop AS number

     DAS (Destination AS): same destination AS number

     SST (Source Specific Tree): same source address and multicast
     group

     SMT (shared multicast Tree): same multicast group address

     Same source and destination IP address with same DiffServ PHB

     Same source and destination IP address with same RSVP flow ID

   - allow dynamic modification of traffic filter to add or remove any
     flows to/from the tunnel without affecting existing service

   - support rerouting of an existing tunnel to a different path

   - allow CE to specify the priority of the tunnel

   - allow the TE to report events such as resource reservation and
     tunnel setup completion


10.3. Event Processing and Scripting

   The control protocol must allow CE to enable/disable monitoring for
   specific supervision events

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   24

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001




10.4. Policy Requirements

   The control protocol must:

   - allow TE to communicate policy request (usually together with
     tunnel setup request) to CE

   - allow CE to communicate policy decision information to TE (usually
     together with explicit path information for the tunnel)

   - allow CE to install policy to TE

   - allow CE to modify the installed policy at TE


10.5. Media transformation Requirements

   The control protocol must allow CE to instruct TE about
   mediation/adaptation (or traffic mapping) of flows between different
   types of transport interfaces.


10.6. Operation/management Requirements

   The control protocol must:

   - support detection and recovery from loss of contact due to
     failure/congestion of communication links or due to CE or TE
     failure

   - support detection and recovery from loss of synchronized view of
     resource and tunnel states between CE and TEs (e.g. through the
     use of audits)

   - provide a means for CE and TE to provide each other with booting
     and reboot indications, and what the TE's configuration is

   - permit more than one backup CE and provide an orderly way for the
     TE to contact one of its backup CEs

   - provide for an orderly switch back to the primary CE after it
     recovers

   - provide a mechanism so that when a CE fails, tunnels already
     established can be maintained

     The protocol does not have to provide a capability to maintain
     tunnels in the process of being connected, but not actually
     connected when the failure occurs.



Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   25

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


10.7. Error Control

   The control protocol must:

   - allow for the TE to report reasons for abnormal failure of lower
     layer tunnels

   - allow the TE to notify the CE that an interface was terminated and
     communicate a reason when an interface is taken out-of-service
     unilaterally by the TE due to abnormal events.

   - allow the CE to acknowledge that some resource has been taken out-
     of-service.

   - allow the TE to request the CE to release some resource and
     communicate a reason.

   - allow the CE to specify its decision to take resource down, leave
     it as is or modify it.


10.8. Management Requirements

   The control protocol must:

   - provide information on:

     . mapping between resources and supporting physical entities

     . statistics on quality of service on the control and signaling
       interfaces

     . statistics required for traffic engineering within the TE

   - allow the TE to provide to the CE all information the CE needs to
     provide in its MIB

   - allow the TE to provide the number of policy query, execution, and
     advertisements


11. Measurement Protocol Requirements

   The measurement protocol also runs between CE and TEs. In addition
   to the general protocol requirements listed in Section 9, this
   protocol must meet the following requirements.


11.1. Topology and resource information

   The following information must be reported to the CE immediately
   after a CE-TE association is established, whenever a network


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   26

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   topology changed (node or link added into or removed from the
   network), and upon the request from CE:

   - TE must report underlying network topology information. Each TE is
     only responsible for reporting its own interfaces.

   - For each interface TE reports interface type (e.g., pure IP, RSVP,
     DiffServ, PSC, TDM, LSC, or FSC), local and remote IP addresses,
     and total network resource allocated to be used by this Control
     System in both directions.

   - For each interface, TE reports bandwidth reservation granularity
     (e.g., number of bytes, slot rate, lambda capacity).

   - For each interface, TE reports performance parameters including
     propagation delay and packet loss rate.

   The following information must be reported upon request from CE or
   whenever a pre-specified network resource threshold is crossed due
   to establishment of new tunnels or release or modification of an
   existing tunnels:

   - For a successfully established tunnel, the originating TE reports
     the committed resource reservation.

   - For tunnel release not triggered by CE, TE reports resource
     release by indicating to CE the tunnel ID of the tunnel that has
     been released.


11.2. TE Capability Information

   The protocol must allow TE to indicate to CE its capabilities as
   listed below.

   - Whether it is an internal TE or border TE

   - Whether it is able to perform tunnel merge

   - What kinds of traffic mapping it supports

   - Whether it is able to setup uni-directional, synchronous bi-
     directional, or asynchronous bi-directional tunnels


11.3. Status Information

   The measurement protocol must allow the CE to request and the TE to
   report the following:
   - status and all information about the interface when a new
     interface is added or activated.

   - link failure or deactivation

Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   27

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001



   - congestion status in the network


11.4. Tunnel Information

   In most cases, CE will keep all the tunnel related information.
   There may be cases CE needs to request that information from the TE.
   The protocol must allow:

   - CE to request and TE to report tunnel related information (source
     and destination IP address, traffic filter, merge point, etc.)

   - CE to request and TE to report all tunnels associated with a
     particular interface.


11.5. Performance Information

   The protocol must allow the CE to request and TE to report
   performance information such as round-trip delay, packet loss rate,
   etc. for a particular tunnel or a particular interface.


11.6. Statistics Information

   In most cases, the CE keeps all the statistics information for all
   the TEs under its control. However, there may be cases that CE needs
   to request the information from each a particular TE. So the
   protocol must allow the CE to request and TE to report the following
   statistics information:

   - the number of tunnels that meet certain requirements (on the node,
     on a particular interface, to a particular IP address, duration
     exceeding 10 min, etc.)

   - the duration of a particular tunnel

   - the whole profile of a particular tunnel


11.7. Accounting Requirements

   The measurement protocol must:

   - support a common identifier to mark resources related to one
     tunnel

   - support collection of specified accounting information from TEs

   - provide the mechanism for the CE to specify that the TE report
     accounting information automatically at end of a session, in mid-


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   28

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


     session upon request, at specific time intervals as specified by
     the TEs and at unit usage thresholds as specified by the CE

   - specifically support collection of:

     . Start and stop time, by media flow

     . Volume of content carried (e.g. number of packets/cells
       transmitted, number received with and without error, inter-
       arrival jitter), by media flow

   - allow the CE to have some control over which statistics are
     reported, to enable it to manage the amount of information
     transferred


11.8. Event Processing and Scripting

   The measurement protocol must allow CE to enable/disable monitoring
   for specific supervision events.


11.9. Operation/Management Requirements

   The measurement protocol must:

   - Support detection and recovery from loss of contact due to
     failure/congestion of communication links or due to CE or TE
     failure.

   - Support detection and recovery from loss of synchronized view of
     resource and connection states between CE and TEs (e.g. through
     the use of audits).

   - Provide a means for CE and TE to provide each other with booting
     and reboot indications, and what the TE's configuration is.

   - Permit more than one backup CE and provide an orderly way for the
     TE to contact one of its backups.

   - Provide for an orderly switch back to the primary CE after it
     recovers.

   - Provide a mechanism so that when a CE fails, tunnels already
     established can be maintained. The protocol does not have to
     provide a capability to maintain tunnels in the process of being
     connected, but not actually connected when the failure occurs.


11.10. Error Control

   The measurement protocol must


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   29

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   - allow for the TE to report reasons for abnormal failure of lower
     layer tunnels

   - allow the TE to notify the CE that an interface was terminated and
     communicate a reason when an interface is taken out-of-service
     unilaterally by the TE due to abnormal events

   - allow the CE to acknowledge that some resource has been taken out-
     of-service


12. Inter-CE Protocol Requirements

   This protocol consists of two portions: internal part and external
   portion. There are some common requirements that apply to both
   internal and external portion. Some other requirements are specific
   for internal portion or external portion.


12.1. Common requirements

   The following requirements apply for both internal portion and
   external portion.  Both inter-CE protocol must CEs, both in the same
   domain and in different domains, to:

   - support arbitrary network topology of Controllers (meshed, star,
     tree, etc.)

   - allow the Controller peer relationship be provisioned

   - support automatic peer discovery

   - support detection and recovery from loss of contact due to
     failure/congestion of communication links or due to Controller
     failure

   - support detection and recovery from loss of synchronized view of
     resource and connection states between Controllers

   - provide a mechanism so that when a Controller fails, connections
     already established can be maintained

     The protocol does not have to provide a capability to maintain
     connections in the process of being connected, but not actually
     connected when the failure occurs.


12.2. Internal capability

   The following information is exchange between CEs so that all the
   CEs within a domain have a consistent view of the network. The
   inter-CE protocol must allow CEs in the same domain to:


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   30

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   - exchange topology information

   - exchange network resource information

   - exchange network status information

   - exchange tunnel and its allocated resource information

   - advertise policy information within the service domain

   - negotiate the new assignment of TEs from one CE to another


12.3. External capability

   The inter-CE protocol must allow CEs in different domains to:

   - exchange service level policy

   - exchange pricing and usage information

   - exchange performance measurements of their service domain

   - exchange Service Level Agreement (SLA)


13. Security Considerations

   Security requirements for the protocols are listed in Section 10.5.


14. References

   1  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
      9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   2  Cuervo, F., et al, "Megaco Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 3015,
      November 2000.

   3  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

   4  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
      Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   5  Ashwood-Smith, P., et al, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
      Functional Description," Internet Draft, <draft-ietf-mpls-
      generalized-signaling-01.txt>, work in progress.

   6  Katz, D., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
      OSPF," Internet Draft, <draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-03.txt>,
      work in progress.




Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   31

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001



   7  Durham, D., et al, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
      Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.


15. Author's Addresses

   Jianping Jiang
   SS8 Networks Inc.
   55 Commerce Valley Drive West
   Toronto, ON  L3T 7B9
   Canada
   Phone: +1 905 889 5900
   Email: jainping@ss8.com

   Dave Walker
   SS8 Networks Inc.
   495 March Road
   Ottawa, ON  K2K 3G1
   Canada
   Phone: +1 613 592 2100
   Email: drwalker@ss8.com

   Jianli Wang
   SS8 Networks Inc.
   495 March Road
   Ottawa, ON  K2K 3G1
   Canada
   Phone: +1 613 592 2100
   Email: jianli@ss8.com


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.


Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   32

Internet Draft      CCAMP Framework & Requirements       February 2001


   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
















































Jiang/Walker/Wang                                                   33