Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
RFC 4258
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (November 2005) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-alanqar-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 4258 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Alex D. Zinin | ||
| Send notices to | kireeti@juniper.net, adrian@olddog.co.uk |
RFC 4258
Network Working Group D. Brungard, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4258 ATT
Category: Informational November 2005
Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) suite of
protocols has been defined to control different switching
technologies as well as different applications. These include
support for requesting Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) connections
including Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital
Hierarchy (SDH) and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs).
This document concentrates on the routing requirements placed on the
GMPLS suite of protocols in order to support the capabilities and
functionalities of an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)
as defined by the ITU-T.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................4
3. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements ......................4
3.1. Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs) ...5
3.2. Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination .............6
3.3. Configuration ..............................................8
3.3.1. Configuring the Multi-Level Hierarchy ...............8
3.3.2. Configuring RC Adjacencies ..........................8
3.4. Evolution ..................................................8
3.5. Routing Attributes .........................................8
3.5.1. Taxonomy of Routing Attributes ......................9
3.5.2. Commonly Advertised Information .....................9
3.5.3. Node Attributes ....................................10
3.5.4. Link Attributes ....................................11
4. Security Considerations ........................................12
5. Conclusions ....................................................12
6. Contributors ...................................................15
7. Acknowledgements ...............................................15
8. References .....................................................16
8.1. Normative References ......................................16
8.2. Informative References ....................................16
1. Introduction
The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) suite of
protocols provides, among other capabilities, support for controlling
different switching technologies. These include support for
requesting TDM connections utilizing SONET/SDH (see [T1.105] and
[G.707], respectively) as well as Optical Transport Networks (OTNs,
see [G.709]). However, there are certain capabilities that are
needed to support the ITU-T G.8080 control plane architecture for an
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON). Therefore, it is
desirable to understand the corresponding requirements for the GMPLS
protocol suite. The ASON control plane architecture is defined in
[G.8080]; ASON routing requirements are identified in [G.7715] and in
[G.7715.1] for ASON link state protocols. These Recommendations
apply to all [G.805] layer networks (e.g., SDH and OTN), and provide
protocol-neutral functional requirements and architecture.
This document focuses on the routing requirements for the GMPLS suite
of protocols to support the capabilities and functionality of ASON
control planes. This document summarizes the ASON requirements using
ASON terminology. This document does not address GMPLS applicability
or GMPLS capabilities. Any protocol (in particular, routing)
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
applicability, design, or suggested extensions are strictly outside
the scope of this document. ASON (Routing) terminology sections are
provided in Appendixes 1 and 2.
The ASON routing architecture is based on the following assumptions:
- A network is subdivided based on operator decision and criteria
(e.g., geography, administration, and/or technology); the network
subdivisions are defined in ASON as Routing Areas (RAs).
- The routing architecture and protocols applied after the network
is subdivided are an operator's choice. A multi-level hierarchy
of RAs, as defined in ITU-T [G.7715] and [G.7715.1], provides for
a hierarchical relationship of RAs based on containment; i.e.,
child RAs are always contained within a parent RA. The
hierarchical containment relationship of RAs provides for routing
information abstraction, thereby enabling scalable routing
information representation. The maximum number of hierarchical RA
levels to be supported is not specified (outside the scope of this
document).
- Within an ASON RA and for each level of the routing hierarchy,
multiple routing paradigms (hierarchical, step-by-step, source-
based), centralized or distributed path computation, and multiple
different routing protocols MAY be supported. The architecture
does not assume a one-to-one correspondence between a routing
protocol and an RA level, and allows the routing protocol(s) used
within different RAs (including child and parent RAs) to be
different. The realization of the routing paradigm(s) to support
the hierarchical levels of RAs is not specified.
- The routing adjacency topology (i.e., the associated Protocol
Controller (PC) connectivity) and transport topology are NOT
assumed to be congruent.
- The requirements support architectural evolution, e.g., a change
in the number of RA levels, as well as aggregation and
segmentation of RAs.
The description of the ASON routing architecture provides for a
conceptual reference architecture, with definition of functional
components and common information elements to enable end-to-end
routing in the case of protocol heterogeneity and facilitate
management of ASON networks. This description is only conceptual: no
physical partitioning of these functions is implied.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Although [RFC2119] describes interpretations of these key words in
terms of protocol specifications and implementations, they are used
in this document to describe design requirements for protocol
extensions.
3. ASON Routing Architecture and Requirements
The fundamental architectural concept is the RA and its related
functional components (see Appendix 2 on terminology). The routing
services offered by an RA are provided by a Routing Performer (RP).
An RP is responsible for a single RA, and it MAY be functionally
realized using distributed Routing Controllers (RCs). The RC,
itself, MAY be implemented as a cluster of distributed entities (ASON
refers to the cluster as a Routing Control Domain (RCD)). The RC
components for an RA receive routing topology information from their
associated Link Resource Manager(s) (LRMs) and store this information
in the Routing Information Database (RDB). The RDB is replicated at
each RC bounded to the same RA, and MAY contain information about
multiple transport plane network layers. Whenever the routing
topology changes, the LRM informs the corresponding RC, which in turn
updates its associated RDB. In order to ensure RDB synchronization,
the RCs cooperate and exchange routing information. Path computation
functions MAY exist in each RC, MAY exist on selected RCs within the
same RA, or MAY be centralized for the RA.
In this context, communication between RCs within the same RA is
realized using a particular routing protocol (or multiple protocols).
In ASON, the communication component is represented by the protocol
controller (PC) component(s) and the protocol messages are conveyed
over the ASON control plane's Signaling Control Network (SCN). The
PC MAY convey information for one or more transport network layers
(refer to the note in Section 3.2). The RC is protocol independent,
and RC communications MAY be realized by multiple, different PCs
within an RA.
The ASON routing architecture defines a multi-level routing hierarchy
of RAs based on a containment model to support routing information
abstraction. [G.7715.1] defines the ASON hierarchical link state
routing protocol requirements for communication of routing
information within an RA (one level) to support hierarchical routing
information dissemination (including summarized routing information
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
for other levels). The communication between any of the other
functional component(s) (e.g., SCN, LRM, and between RCDs (RC-RC
communication between RAs)) is outside the scope of [G.7715.1]
protocol requirements and, thus, is also outside the scope of this
document.
ASON routing components are identified by identifiers that are drawn
from different name spaces (see [G.7715.1]). These are control plane
identifiers for transport resources, components, and SCN addresses.
The formats of those identifiers in a routing protocol realization
SHALL be implementation specific and outside the scope of this
document.
The failure of an RC, or the failure of communications between RCs,
and the subsequent recovery from the failure condition MUST NOT
disrupt calls in progress (i.e., already established) and their
associated connections. Calls being set up MAY fail to complete, and
the call setup service MAY be unavailable during recovery actions.
3.1. Multiple Hierarchical Levels of ASON Routing Areas (RAs)
[G.8080] introduces the concept of a Routing Area (RA) in reference
to a network subdivision. RAs provide for routing information
abstraction. Except for the single RA case, RAs are hierarchically
contained: a higher-level (parent) RA contains lower-level (child)
RAs that in turn MAY also contain RAs, etc. Thus, RAs contain RAs
that recursively define successive hierarchical RA levels.
However, the RA containment relationship describes only an
architectural hierarchical organization of RAs. It does not restrict
a specific routing protocol's realization (e.g., OSPF multi-areas,
path computation, etc.). Moreover, the realization of the routing
paradigm to support a hierarchical organization of RAs and the number
of hierarchical RA levels to be supported is routing protocol
specific and outside the scope of this document.
In a multi-level hierarchy of RAs, it is necessary to distinguish
among RCs for the different levels of the RA hierarchy. Before any
pair of RCs establishes communication, they MUST verify that they are
bound to the same parent RA (see Section 3.2). An RA identifier (RA
ID) is required to provide the scope within which the RCs can
communicate. To distinguish between RCs bound to the same RA, an RC
identifier (RC ID) is required; the RC ID MUST be unique within its
containing RA.
An RA represents a partition of the data plane, and its identifier
(i.e., RA ID) is used within the control plane as a reference to the
data plane partition. Each RA within a carrier's network SHALL be
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
uniquely identifiable. RA IDs MAY be associated with a transport
plane name space, whereas RC IDs are associated with a control plane
name space.
3.2. Hierarchical Routing Information Dissemination
Routing information can be exchanged between RCs bound to adjacent
levels of the RA hierarchy, i.e., Level N+1 and N, where Level N
represents the RAs contained by Level N+1. The links connecting RAs
may be viewed as external links (inter-RA links), and the links
representing connectivity within an RA may be viewed as internal
links (intra-RA links). The external links to an RA at one level of
the hierarchy may be internal links in the parent RA. Intra-RA links
of a child RA MAY be hidden from the parent RA's view.
The physical location of RCs for adjacent RA levels, their
relationship, and their communication protocol(s) are outside the
scope of this document. No assumption is made regarding how RCs
communicate between adjacent RA levels. If routing information is
exchanged between an RC, its parent, and its child RCs, it SHOULD
include reachability (see Section 3.5.3) and MAY include, upon policy
decision, node and link topology. Communication between RAs only
takes place between RCs with a parent/child relationship. RCs of one
RA never communicate with RCs of another RA at the same level. There
SHOULD not be any dependencies on the different routing protocols
used within an RA or in different RAs.
Multiple RCs bound to the same RA MAY transform (filter, summarize,
etc.) and then forward information to RCs at different levels.
However, in this case, the resulting information at the receiving
level must be self-consistent (i.e., ensure consistency between
transform operations performed on routing information at different
levels to ensure proper information processing). This MAY be
achieved using a number of mechanisms.
Note: There is no implied relationship between multi-layer transport
networks and multi-level routing. Implementations MAY support a
hierarchical routing topology (multi-level) with a single routing
protocol instance for multiple transport switching layers or a
hierarchical routing topology for one transport switching layer.
1. Type of Information Exchanged
The type of information flowing upward (i.e., Level N to Level
N+1) and the information flowing downward (i.e., Level N+1 to
Level N) are used for similar purposes, namely, the exchange of
reachability information and summarized topology information to
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
allow routing across multiple RAs. The summarization of topology
information may impact the accuracy of routing and may require
additional path calculation.
The following information exchanges are expected:
- Level N+1 visibility to Level N reachability and topology (or
upward information communication) allowing RC(s) at Level N+1
to determine the reachable endpoints from Level N.
- Level N visibility to Level N+1 reachability and topology (or
downward information communication) allowing RC(s) bounded to
an RA at Level N to develop paths to reachable endpoints
outside of the RA.
2. Interactions between Upward and Downward Communication
When both upward and downward information exchanges contain
endpoint reachability information, a feedback loop could
potentially be created. Consequently, the routing protocol MUST
include a method to:
- prevent information propagated from a Level N+1 RA's RC into
the Level N RA's RC from being re-introduced into the Level N+1
RA's RC, and
- prevent information propagated from a Level N-1 RA's RC into
the Level N RA's RC from being re-introduced into the Level N-1
RA's RC.
The routing protocol SHALL differentiate the routing information
originated at a given-level RA from derived routing information
(received from external RAs), even when this information is
forwarded by another RC at the same level. This is a necessary
condition to be fulfilled by routing protocols to be loop free.
3. Method of Communication
Two approaches exist for communication between Level N and N+1:
- The first approach places an instance of a Level N routing
function and an instance of a Level N+1 routing function in the
same system. The communications interface is within a single
system and is thus not an open interface subject to
standardization. However, information re-advertisement or
leaking MUST be performed in a consistent manner to ensure
interoperability and basic routing protocol correctness (e.g.,
cost/metric value).
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
- The second approach places the Level N routing function on a
separate system from the Level N+1 routing function. In this
case, a communication interface must be used between the
systems containing the routing functions for different levels.
This communication interface and mechanisms are outside the
scope of this document.
3.3. Configuration
3.3.1. Configuring the Multi-Level Hierarchy
The RC MUST support static (i.e., operator assisted) and MAY support
automated configuration of the information describing its
relationship to its parent and its child within the hierarchical
structure (including RA ID and RC ID). When applied recursively, the
whole hierarchy is thus configured.
3.3.2. Configuring RC Adjacencies
The RC MUST support static (i.e., operator assisted) and MAY support
automated configuration of the information describing its associated
adjacencies to other RCs within an RA. The routing protocol SHOULD
support all the types of RC adjacencies described in Section 9 of
[G.7715]. The latter includes congruent topology (with distributed
RC) and hubbed topology (e.g., note that the latter does not
automatically imply a designated RC).
3.4. Evolution
The containment relationships of RAs may change, motivated by events
such as mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures.
The routing protocol SHOULD be capable of supporting architectural
evolution in terms of the number of hierarchical levels of RAs, as
well as the aggregation and segmentation of RAs. RA ID uniqueness
within an administrative domain may facilitate these operations. The
routing protocol is not expected to automatically initiate and/or
execute these operations. Reconfiguration of the RA hierarchy may
not disrupt calls in progress, though calls being set up may fail to
complete, and the call setup service may be unavailable during
reconfiguration actions.
3.5. Routing Attributes
Routing for transport networks is performed on a per-layer basis,
where the routing paradigms MAY differ among layers and within a
layer. Not all equipment supports the same set of transport layers
or the same degree of connection flexibility at any given layer. A
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
server layer trail may support various clients, involving different
adaptation functions. In addition, equipment may support variable
adaptation functionality, whereby a single server layer trail
dynamically supports different multiplexing structures. As a result,
routing information MAY include layer-specific, layer-independent,
and client/server adaptation information.
3.5.1. Taxonomy of Routing Attributes
Attributes can be organized according to the following categories:
- Node related or link related
- Provisioned, negotiated, or automatically configured
- Inherited or layer specific (client layers can inherit some
attributes from the server layer, while other attributes such as
Link Capacity are specified by layer)
(Component) link attributes MAY be statically or automatically
configured for each transport network layer. This may lead to
unnecessary repetition. Hence, the inheritance property of
attributes MAY also be used to optimize the configuration process.
ASON uses the term SubNetwork Point (SNP) for the control plane
representation of a transport plane resource. The control plane
representation and transport plane topology are NOT assumed to be
congruent; the control plane representation SHALL not be restricted
by the physical topology. The relational grouping of SNPs for
routing is termed an SNP Pool (SNPP). The routing function
understands topology in terms of SNPP links. Grouping MAY be based
on different link attributes (e.g., SRLG information, link weight,
etc).
Two RAs may be linked by one or more SNPP links. Multiple SNPP links
may be required when component links are not equivalent for routing
purposes with respect to the RAs to which they are attached, to the
containing RA, or when smaller groupings are required.
3.5.2. Commonly Advertised Information
Advertisements MAY contain the following common set of information
regardless of whether they are link or node related:
- RA ID of the RA to which the advertisement is bounded
- RC ID of the entity generating the advertisement
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
- Information to uniquely identify advertisements
- Information to determine whether an advertisement has been updated
- Information to indicate when an advertisement has been derived
from a different level RA
3.5.3. Node Attributes
All nodes belong to an RA; hence, the RA ID can be considered an
attribute of all nodes. Given that no distinction is made between
abstract nodes and those that cannot be decomposed any further, the
same attributes MAY be used for their advertisement. In the
following tables, Capability refers to the level of support required
in the realization of a link state routing protocol, whereas Usage
refers to the degree of operational control that SHOULD be available
to the operator.
The following Node Attributes are defined:
Attribute Capability Usage
----------- ----------- ---------
Node ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
Reachability REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Table 1. Node Attributes
Reachability information describes the set of endpoints that are
reachable by the associated node. It MAY be advertised as a set of
associated external (e.g., User Network Interface (UNI))
address/address prefixes or a set of associated SNPP link IDs/SNPP ID
prefixes, the selection of which MUST be consistent within the
applicable scope. These are control plane identifiers; the formats
of these identifiers in a protocol realization are implementation
specific and outside the scope of this document.
Note: No distinction is made between nodes that may have further
internal details (i.e., abstract nodes) and those that cannot be
decomposed any further. Hence, the attributes of a node are not
considered as only single-switch attributes but MAY apply to a node
at a higher level of the hierarchy that represents a subnetwork.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
3.5.4. Link Attributes
The following Link Attributes are defined:
Link Attribute Capability Usage
--------------- ----------- ---------
Local SNPP link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
Remote SNPP link ID REQUIRED REQUIRED
Layer Specific Characteristics see Table 3
Table 2. Link Attributes
The SNPP link ID MUST be sufficient to uniquely identify (within the
Node ID scope) the corresponding transport plane resource, taking
into account the separation of data and control planes (see Section
3.5.1; the control plane representation and transport plane topology
are not assumed to be congruent). The SNPP link ID format is routing
protocol specific.
Note: When the remote end of an SNPP link is located outside of the
RA, the remote SNPP link ID is OPTIONAL.
The following link characteristic attributes are defined:
- Signal Type: This identifies the characteristic information of the
layer network.
- Link Weight: This is the metric indicating the relative
desirability of a particular link over another, e.g., during path
computation.
- Resource Class: This corresponds to the set of administrative
groups assigned by the operator to this link. A link MAY belong
to zero, one, or more administrative groups.
- Local Connection Types: This attribute identifies whether the
local SNP represents a Termination Connection Point (CP), a
Connection Point (CP), or can be flexibly configured as a TCP.
- Link Capacity: This provides the sum of the available and
potential bandwidth capacity for a particular network transport
layer. Other capacity measures MAY be further considered.
- Link Availability: This represents the survivability capability
such as the protection type associated with the link.
- Diversity Support: This represents diversity information such as
the SRLG information associated with the link.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
- Local Adaptation Support: This indicates the set of client layer
adaptations supported by the TCP associated with the local SNPP.
This is applicable only when the local SNP represents a TCP or can
be flexibly configured as a TCP.
Link Characteristics Capability Usage
----------------------- ---------- ---------
Signal Type REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Link Weight REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Resource Class REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Local Connection Types REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Link Capacity REQUIRED OPTIONAL
Link Availability OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Diversity Support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Local Adaptation Support OPTIONAL OPTIONAL
Table 3. Link Characteristics
Note: Separate advertisements of layer-specific attributes MAY be
chosen. However, this may lead to unnecessary duplication. This can
be avoided using the inheritance property, so that the attributes
derivable from the local adaptation information do not need to be
advertised. Thus, an optimization MAY be used when several layers
are present by indicating when an attribute is inheritable from a
server layer.
4. Security Considerations
The ASON routing protocol MUST deliver the operational security
objectives where required. The overall security objectives (defined
in ITU-T Recommendation [M.3016]) of confidentiality, integrity, and
accountability may take on varying levels of importance. These
objectives do not necessarily imply requirements on the routing
protocol itself, and MAY be met by other established means.
Note: A threat analysis of a proposed routing protocol SHOULD address
masquerade, eavesdropping, unauthorized access, loss or corruption of
information (including replay attacks), repudiation, forgery, and
denial of service attacks.
5. Conclusions
The description of the ASON routing architecture and components is
provided in terms of routing functionality. This description is only
conceptual: no physical partitioning of these functions is implied.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
In summary, the ASON routing architecture assumes:
- A network is subdivided into ASON RAs, which MAY support multiple
routing protocols; no one-to-one relationship SHALL be assumed.
- Routing Controllers (RCs) provide for the exchange of routing
information (primitives) for the RA. The RC is protocol
independent and MAY be realized by multiple, different protocol
controllers within an RA. The routing information exchanged
between RCs SHALL be subject to policy constraints imposed at
reference points (External- and Internal-NNI).
- In a multi-level RA hierarchy based on containment, communication
between RCs of different RAs happens only when there is a
parent/child relationship between the RAs. RCs of child RAs never
communicate with the RCs of other child RAs. There SHOULD not be
any dependencies on the different routing protocols used within a
child RA and that of its parent. The routing information
exchanged within the parent RA SHALL be independent of both the
routing protocol operating within a child RA and any control
distribution choice(s), e.g., centralized, fully distributed.
- For an RA, the set of RCs is referred to as an ASON routing
(control) domain. The routing information exchanged between
routing domains (inter-RA, i.e., inter-domain) SHALL be
independent of both the intra-domain routing protocol(s) and the
intra-domain control distribution choice(s), e.g., centralized,
fully distributed. RCs bounded to different RA levels MAY be
collocated within the same physical element or physically
distributed.
- The routing adjacency topology (i.e., the associated PC
connectivity topology) and the transport network topology SHALL
NOT be assumed to be congruent.
- The routing topology SHALL support multiple links between nodes
and RAs.
In summary, the following functionality is expected from GMPLS
routing to instantiate the ASON hierarchical routing architecture
realization (see [G.7715] and [G.7715.1]):
- RAs SHALL be uniquely identifiable within a carrier's network,
each having a unique RA ID within the carrier's network.
- Within an RA (one level), the routing protocol SHALL support
dissemination of hierarchical routing information (including
summarized routing information for other levels) in support of an
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
architecture of multiple hierarchical levels of RAs; the number of
hierarchical RA levels to be supported by a routing protocol is
implementation specific.
- The routing protocol SHALL support routing information based on a
common set of information elements as defined in [G.7715] and
[G.7715.1], divided between attributes pertaining to links and
abstract nodes (each representing either a subnetwork or simply a
node). [G.7715] recognizes that the manner in which the routing
information is represented and exchanged will vary with the
routing protocol used.
- The routing protocol SHALL converge such that the distributed RDBs
become synchronized after a period of time.
To support hierarchical routing information dissemination within an
RA, the routing protocol MUST deliver:
- Processing of routing information exchanged between adjacent
levels of the hierarchy (i.e., Level N+1 and N) including
reachability and, upon policy, decision summarized topology
information.
- Self-consistent information at the receiving level resulting from
any transformation (filter, summarize, etc.) and forwarding of
information from one RC to RC(s) at different levels when multiple
RCs are bound to a single RA.
- A mechanism to prevent the re-introduction of information
propagated into the Level N RA's RC back to the adjacent level
RA's RC from which this information has been initially received.
In order to support operator-assisted changes in the containment
relationships of RAs, the routing protocol SHALL support evolution in
terms of the number of hierarchical levels of RAs. For example:
support of non-disruptive operations such as adding and removing RAs
at the top/bottom of the hierarchy, adding or removing a hierarchical
level of RAs in or from the middle of the hierarchy, as well as
aggregation and segmentation of RAs. The number of hierarchical
levels to be supported is routing protocol specific and reflects a
containment relationship; e.g., an RA insertion involves supporting a
different routing protocol domain in a portion of the network.
Reachability information (see Section 3.5.3) of the set of endpoints
reachable by a node may be advertised either as a set of UNI
Transport Resource addresses/address prefixes or a set of associated
SNPP link IDs/SNPP link ID prefixes, assigned and selected
consistently in their applicability scope. The formats of the
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
control plane identifiers in a protocol realization are
implementation specific. Use of a routing protocol within an RA
should not restrict the choice of routing protocols for use in other
RAs (child or parent).
As ASON does not restrict the control plane architecture choice used,
either a collocated architecture or a physically separated
architecture may be used. A collection of links and nodes such as a
subnetwork or RA MUST be able to represent itself to the wider
network as a single logical entity with only its external links
visible to the topology database.
6. Contributors
This document is the result of the CCAMP Working Group ASON Routing
Requirements design team joint effort. The following are the design
team member authors who contributed to the present document:
Wesam Alanqar (Sprint)
Deborah Brungard (ATT)
David Meyer (Cisco Systems)
Lyndon Ong (Ciena)
Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
Jonathan Sadler (Tellabs)
Stephen Shew (Nortel)
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Kireeti Kompella for having initiated
the proposal of an ASON Routing Requirement Design Team and the ITU-T
SG15/Q14 for their careful review and input.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
For information on the availability of the following documents,
please see http://www.itu.int:
[G.707] ITU-T Rec. G.707/Y.1322, "Network Node Interface for the
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)", December 2003.
[G.709] ITU-T Rec. G.709/Y.1331, "Interfaces for the Optical
Transport Network (OTN)", March 2003.
[G.7715] ITU-T Rec. G.7715/Y.1306, "Architecture and Requirements
for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)",
June 2002.
[G.7715.1] ITU-T Draft Rec. G.7715.1/Y.1706.1, "ASON Routing
Architecture and Requirements for Link State Protocols",
November 2003.
[G.805] ITU-T Rec. G.805, "Generic Functional Architecture of
Transport Networks", March 2000.
[G.8080] ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)", November
2001 (and Revision, January 2003).
[M.3016] ITU-T Rec. M.3016.0, "Security for the Management Plane:
Overview", May 2005.
[T1.105] ANSI T1.105, "Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) - Basic
Description including Multiplex Structure, Rates, and
Formats", 2001.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
Appendix 1: ASON Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Administrative domain (see Recommendation [G.805]): For the purposes
of [G.7715.1], an administrative domain represents the extent of
resources that belong to a single player such as a network operator,
a service provider, or an end-user. Administrative domains of
different players do not overlap amongst themselves.
Adaptation function (see Recommendation [G.805]): A "transport
processing function" that processes the client layer information for
transfer over a server layer trail.
Client/Server relationship: The association between layer networks
that is performed by an "adaptation" function to allow the link
connection in the client layer network to be supported by a trail in
the server layer network.
Control plane: Performs the call control and connection control
functions. Through signaling, the control plane sets up and releases
connections and may restore a connection in case of a failure.
(Control) Domain: Represents a collection of (control) entities that
are grouped for a particular purpose. The control plane is
subdivided into domains matching administrative domains. Within an
administrative domain, further subdivisions of the control plane are
recursively applied. A routing control domain is an abstract entity
that hides the details of the RC distribution.
External NNI (E-NNI): Interfaces are located between protocol
controllers between control domains.
Internal NNI (I-NNI): Interfaces are located between protocol
controllers within control domains.
Link (see Recommendation [G.805]): A "topological component" that
describes a fixed relationship between a "subnetwork" or "access
group" and another "subnetwork" or "access group". Links are not
limited to being provided by a single server trail.
Management plane: Performs management functions for the transport
plane, the control plane, and the system as a whole. It also
provides coordination between all the planes. The following
management functional areas are performed in the management plane:
performance, fault, configuration, accounting, and security
management.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
Management domain (see Recommendation [G.805]): A management domain
defines a collection of managed objects that are grouped to meet
organizational requirements according to geography, technology,
policy, or other structure, and for a number of functional areas such
as configuration, security, (FCAPS), for the purpose of providing
control in a consistent manner. Management domains can be disjoint,
contained, or overlapping. As such, the resources within an
administrative domain can be distributed into several possible
overlapping management domains. The same resource can therefore
belong to several management domains simultaneously, but a management
domain shall not cross the border of an administrative domain.
Multiplexing (see Recommendation [G.805]): Multiplexing techniques
are used to combine client layer signals. The many-to-one
relationship represents the case of several link connections of
client layer networks supported by one server layer trail at the same
time.
Subnetwork Point (SNP): The SNP is a control plane abstraction that
represents an actual or potential transport plane resource. SNPs (in
different subnetwork partitions) may represent the same transport
resource. A one-to-one correspondence should not be assumed.
Subnetwork Point Pool (SNPP): A set of SNPs that are grouped together
for the purposes of routing.
Termination Connection Point (TCP): A TCP represents the output of a
Trail Termination function or the input to a Trail Termination Sink
function.
Trail (see Recommendation [G.805]): A "transport entity" that
consists of an associated pair of "unidirectional trails" capable of
simultaneously transferring information in opposite directions
between their respective inputs and outputs.
Transport plane: Provides bi-directional or unidirectional transfer
of user information, from one location to another. It can also
provide transfer of some control and network management information.
The transport plane is layered; it is equivalent to the Transport
Network defined in the [G.805] Recommendation.
User Network Interface (UNI): Interfaces are located between protocol
controllers between a user and a control domain. Note: there is no
routing function associated with a UNI reference point.
Variable adaptation function: A single server layer trail may
dynamically support different multiplexing structures, i.e., link
connections for multiple client layer networks.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
Appendix 2: ASON Routing Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Routing Area (RA): An RA represents a partition of the data plane,
and its identifier is used within the control plane as the
representation of this partition. Per [G.8080], an RA is defined by
a set of subnetworks, the links that interconnect them, and the
interfaces representing the ends of the links exiting that RA. An RA
may contain smaller RAs inter-connected by links. The limit of
subdivision results in an RA that contains two subnetworks
interconnected by a single link.
Routing Database (RDB): Repository for the local topology, network
topology, reachability, and other routing information that is updated
as part of the routing information exchange and may additionally
contain information that is configured. The RDB may contain routing
information for more than one Routing Area (RA).
Routing Components: ASON routing architecture functions. These
functions can be classified as protocol independent (Link Resource
Manager or LRM, Routing Controller or RC) and protocol specific
(Protocol Controller or PC).
Routing Controller (RC): Handles (abstract) information needed for
routing and the routing information exchange with peering RCs by
operating on the RDB. The RC has access to a view of the RDB. The
RC is protocol independent.
Note: Since the RDB may contain routing information pertaining to
multiple RAs (and possibly to multiple layer networks), the RCs
accessing the RDB may share the routing information.
Link Resource Manager (LRM): Supplies all the relevant component and
Traffic Engineering (TE) link information to the RC. It informs the
RC about any state changes of the link resources it controls.
Protocol Controller (PC): Handles protocol-specific message exchanges
according to the reference point over which the information is
exchanged (e.g., E-NNI, I-NNI), and internal exchanges with the RC.
The PC function is protocol dependent.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
Authors' Addresses
Wesam Alanqar
Sprint
EMail: wesam.alanqar@mail.sprint.com
Deborah Brungard, Ed.
AT&T
Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
Phone: +1 732 4201573
EMail: dbrungard@att.com
David Meyer
Cisco Systems
EMail: dmm@1-4-5.net
Lyndon Ong
Ciena Corporation
5965 Silver Creek Valley Rd,
San Jose, CA 95128, USA
Phone: +1 408 8347894
EMail: lyong@ciena.com
Dimitri Papadimitriou
Alcatel
Francis Wellensplein 1,
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: +32 3 2408491
EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Jonathan Sadler
1415 W. Diehl Rd
Naperville, IL 60563
EMail: jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
Stephen Shew
Nortel Networks
PO Box 3511 Station C
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1Y 4H7
Phone: +1 613 7632462
EMail: sdshew@nortelnetworks.com
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 4258 GMPLS Routing for ASON November 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Brungard, Ed. Informational [Page 22]