GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
RFC 7688
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (November 2015; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Young Lee , Greg Bernstein | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 | ||
| Replaces | draft-lee-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Lou Berger | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2014-09-30) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7688 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Deborah Brungard | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Lee, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7688 Huawei
Category: Standards Track G. Bernstein, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Grotto Networking
November 2015
GMPLS OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility
for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
Abstract
This document provides Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing enhancements to
support signal compatibility constraints associated with Wavelength
Switched Optical Network (WSON) elements. These routing enhancements
are applicable in common optical or hybrid electro-optical networks
where not all the optical signals in the network are compatible with
all network elements participating in the network.
This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
or hybrid electro-optical systems such as optical-electronic-optical
(OEO) switches, regenerators, and wavelength converters, since such
systems can be limited to processing only certain types of WSON
signals.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7688.
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. The Optical Node Property TLV ...................................3
2.1. Resource Block Information .................................4
2.2. Resource Accessibility .....................................5
2.3. Resource Wavelength Constraints ............................5
2.4. Resource Block Pool State ..................................5
2.5. Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability .......5
3. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) Format
Extensions ......................................................5
3.1. Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI) ...........6
4. WSON-Specific Scalability and Timeliness ........................7
5. Security Considerations .........................................8
6. IANA Considerations .............................................8
6.1. Optical Node Property TLV ..................................8
6.1.1. Optical Node Property Sub-TLV .......................8
6.2. WSON-LSC Switching Type TLV ................................9
6.2.1. WSON-LSC SCSI Sub-TLVs ..............................9
7. References .....................................................10
7.1. Normative References ......................................10
7.2. Informative References ....................................10
Authors' Addresses ................................................12
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
1. Introduction
The documents [RFC6163], [RFC7446], and [RFC7581] explain how to
extend the Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) control plane
to support both multiple WSON signal types and common hybrid electro-
optical systems as well hybrid systems containing optical switching
and electro-optical resources. In WSON, not all the optical signals
in the network are compatible with all network elements participating
in the network. Therefore, signal compatibility is an important
constraint in path computation in a WSON.
This document provides GMPLS OSPF routing enhancements to support
signal compatibility constraints associated with general WSON network
elements. These routing enhancements are applicable in common
optical or hybrid electro-optical networks where not all optical
signals in the network are compatible with all network elements
participating in the network.
This compatibility constraint model is applicable to common optical
or hybrid electro-optical systems such as OEO switches, regenerators,
and wavelength converters, since such systems can be limited to
processing only certain types of WSON signals.
Related to this document is [RFC7580], which provides GMPLS OSPF
routing enhancements to support the generic routing and label
assignment process that can be applicable to a wider range of
technologies beyond WSON.
1.1. 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 [RFC2119].
2. The Optical Node Property TLV
[RFC3630] defines OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Link State
Advertisement (LSA) using an opaque LSA. This document adds a new
top-level TLV for use in the OSPF TE LSA: the Optical Node Property
TLV. The Optical Node Property TLV describes a single node. It is
comprised of a set of optional sub-TLVs. There are no ordering
requirements for the sub-TLVs.
When using the extensions defined in this document, at least one
Optical Node Property TLV MUST be advertised in each LSA. To allow
for fine-grained changes in topology, more than one Optical Node
Property TLV MAY be advertised in a single LSA. Implementations MUST
support receiving multiple Optical Node Property TLVs in an LSA.
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
The Optical Node Property TLV contains all WSON-specific node
properties and signal compatibility constraints. The detailed
encodings of these properties are defined in [RFC7581].
The following sub-TLVs of the Optical Node Property TLV are defined:
Value Length Sub-TLV Type
1 variable Resource Block Information
2 variable Resource Accessibility
3 variable Resource Wavelength Constraints
4 variable Resource Block Pool State
5 variable Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength
Availability
The detailed encodings of these sub-TLVs are found in [RFC7581] as
indicated in the table below.
Sub-TLV Type Section from [RFC7581]
Resource Block Information 4
Resource Accessibility 3.1
Resource Wavelength Constraints 3.2
Resource Block Pool State 3.3
Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability 3.4
All sub-TLVs defined here may occur at most once in any given Optical
Node TLV under one TE LSA. If more than one copy of the sub-TLV is
received in the same LSA, the redundant sub-TLV SHOULD be ignored.
If the same sub-TLV is advertised in a different TE LSA (which would
only occur if there was a packaging error), then the sub-TLV with the
largest LSA ID (Section 2.2 of RFC 3630) SHOULD be picked. These
restrictions need not apply to future sub-TLVs. Unrecognized sub-
TLVs are ignored.
Among the sub-TLVs defined above, the Resource Block Pool State sub-
TLV and Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability are
dynamic in nature, while the rest are static. As such, they can be
separated out from the rest and be advertised with multiple TE LSAs
per OSPF router, as described in [RFC3630] and [RFC5250].
2.1. Resource Block Information
As defined in [RFC7446], this sub-TLV is used to represent resource
signal constraints and processing capabilities of a node.
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
2.2. Resource Accessibility
This sub-TLV describes the structure of the resource pool in relation
to the switching device. In particular, it indicates the ability of
an ingress port to reach a resource block and of a resource block to
reach a particular egress port.
2.3. Resource Wavelength Constraints
Resources, such as wavelength converters, etc., may have limited
input or output wavelength ranges. Additionally, due to the
structure of the optical system, not all wavelengths can necessarily
reach or leave all the resources. The Resource Wavelength
Constraints sub-TLV describes these properties.
2.4. Resource Block Pool State
This sub-TLV describes the usage state of a resource that can be
encoded as either a list of integer values or a bitmap indicating
whether a single resource is available or in use. This information
can be relatively dynamic, i.e., can change when a connection is
established or torn down.
2.5. Resource Block Shared Access Wavelength Availability
Resource blocks may be accessed via a shared fiber. If this is the
case, then wavelength availability on these shared fibers is needed
to understand resource availability.
3. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (ISCD) Format Extensions
The ISCD describes the switching capability of an interface
[RFC4202]. This document defines a new Switching Capability value
for WSON as follows:
Value Type
----- ----
151 WSON-LSC
Switching Capability and Encoding values MUST be used as follows:
Switching Capability = WSON-LSC
Encoding Type = Lambda (as defined in [RFC3471])
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
When Switching Capability and Encoding fields are set to values as
stated above, the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor MUST be
interpreted as in [RFC4203] with the optional inclusion of one or
more Switching Capability Specific Information sub-TLVs.
3.1. Switching Capability Specific Information (SCSI)
The technology-specific part of the WSON ISCD may include a variable
number of sub-TLVs called Bandwidth sub-TLVs. Two types of Bandwidth
sub-TLV are defined:
- Type 1: Available Labels
- Type 2: Shared Backup Labels
A SCSI may contain multiple Available Label sub-TLVs and multiple
Shared Backup Label sub-TLVs. The following figure shows the format
for a SCSI that contains these sub-TLVs, where the Available Label
Sub-TLV and Shared Backup Label sub-TLV are as defined in [RFC7579].
The order of the sub-TLVs in the SCSI is arbitrary.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 (Available) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Available Label Sub-TLV |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 (Shared backup) | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Shared Backup Label Sub-TLV |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SCSI Format
If duplicated sub-TLVs are advertised, the router/node will ignore
the duplicated labels that are identified by the Label format defined
in [RFC6205].
The label format defined in [RFC6205] MUST be used when advertising
interfaces with a WSON-LSC type Switching Capability.
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
4. WSON-Specific Scalability and Timeliness
This document has defined five sub-TLVs specific to WSON. The
examples given in [RFC7581] show that very large systems, in terms of
channel count, ports, or resources, can be very efficiently encoded.
There has been concern expressed that some possible systems may
produce LSAs that exceed the IP Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU). In
a typical node configuration, the Optical Node Property TLV will not
exceed the IP MTU. A typical node configuration refers to a system
with several hundreds of channels with an OEO element in the node.
This would give the Optical Node Property TLV less than 350 bytes.
In addition, [RFC7581] provides mechanisms to compactly encode
required information elements. In a rare case where the TLV exceeds
the IP MTU, IP fragmentation/reassembly can be used, which is an
acceptable method. For IPv6, a node may use the IPv6 Fragment header
to fragment the packet at the source and have it reassembled at the
destination(s).
If the size of this LSA is greater than the MTU, then these sub-TLVs
can be packed into separate LSAs. From the point of view of path
computation, the presence of the Resource Block Information sub-TLV
indicates that resources exist in the system and may have signal
compatibility or other constraints. The other four sub-TLVs indicate
constraints on access to and availability of those resources.
Hence, the "synchronization" procedure is quite simple from the point
of view of path computation. Until a Resource Block Information sub-
TLV is received for a system, path computation cannot make use of the
other four sub-TLVs since it does not know the nature of the
resources, e.g., whether the resources are wavelength converters,
regenerators, or something else. Once this sub-TLV is received, path
computation can proceed with whatever sub-TLVs it may have received
(their use is dependent upon the system type).
If path computation proceeds with out-of-date or missing information
from these sub-TLVs, then there is the possibility of either (a) path
computation yielding a path that does not exist in the network, (b)
path computation failing to find a path through the network that
actually exists. Both situations are currently encountered with
GMPLS, i.e., out-of-date information on constraints or resource
availability.
If the new sub-TLVs or their attendant encodings are malformed, a
proper implementation SHOULD log the problem and MUST stop sending
the LSA that contains malformed TLVs or sub-TLVs.
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
Errors of this nature SHOULD be logged for the local operator.
Implementations MUST provide a rate limit on such logs, and that rate
limit SHOULD be configurable.
Note that the connection establishment mechanism (signaling or
management) is ultimately responsible for the establishment of the
connection, and this implies that such mechanisms must ensure signal
compatibility.
5. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce security issues other than those
discussed in [RFC3630] and [RFC4203].
As with [RFC4203], it specifies the contents of Opaque LSAs in
OSPFv2. As Opaque LSAs are not used for Shortest Path First (SPF)
computation or normal routing, the extensions specified here have no
direct effect on IP routing. Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have
an effect on the underlying transport. [RFC3630] notes that the
security mechanisms described in [RFC2328] apply to Opaque LSAs
carried in OSPFv2.
For general security aspects relevant to GMPLS-controlled networks,
please refer to [RFC5920].
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Optical Node Property TLV
This document introduces a new Top-Level Node TLV (Optical Node
Property TLV) under the OSPF TE LSA defined in [RFC3630]. IANA has
registered a new TLV for "Optical Node Property". The new TLV is in
the "Top Level Types in TE LSAs" registry in "Open Shortest Path
First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs>, and is as
follows:
Value TLV Type Reference
6 Optical Node Property RFC 7688
6.1.1. Optical Node Property Sub-TLV
Additionally, a new IANA registry has been created named "Types for
sub-TLVs of Optical Node Property (Value 6)" in the "Open Shortest
Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs>. New sub-
TLVs and their values have been assigned as follows:
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
Value Length Sub-TLV Reference
0 Reserved
1 variable Resource Block Information RFC 7688
2 variable Resource Accessibility RFC 7688
3 variable Resource Wavelength
Constraints RFC 7688
4 variable Resource Block Pool State RFC 7688
5 variable Resource Block Shared
Access Wavelength Availability RFC 7688
6-65535 Unassigned
The registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as
defined in [RFC5226].
6.2. WSON-LSC Switching Type TLV
IANA has registered a new switching type in the "Switching Types"
registry in "GMPLS Signaling Parameters", located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters>, as follows:
Value Description Reference
151 WSON-LSC RFC 7688
Also, IANA has added the following entry to the
IANAGmplsSwitchingTypeTC MIB:
wsonlsc(151), -- WSON-LSC
6.2.1. WSON-LSC SCSI Sub-TLVs
Additionally, a new IANA registry has been created for sub-TLVs of
the WSON-LSC SCSI sub-TLV. It is named "Types for sub-TLVs of
WSON-LSC SCSI (Switching Capability Specific Information)" and is in
the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs"
registry. It contains the following sub-TLVs:
Value Sub-TLV Reference
0 Reserved
1 Available Labels RFC 7688
2 Shared Backup Labels RFC 7688
3-65535 Unassigned
The registration procedure for this registry is Standards Action as
defined in [RFC5226].
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed., and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC
6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205>.
[RFC7579] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for
GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7579, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7579>.
[RFC7580] Zhang, F., Lee, Y., Han, J., Bernstein, G., and Y. Xu,
"OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element
Constraints", RFC 7580, DOI 10.17487/RFC7580, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7580>.
[RFC7581] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and
J. Han, "Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information
Encoding for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC
7581, DOI 10.17487/RFC7581, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7581>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC
3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471>.
[RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202,
October 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5250] Berger, L., Bryskin, I., Zinin, A., and R. Coltun, "The
OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 5250, DOI 10.17487/RFC5250,
July 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5250>.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920>.
[RFC6163] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., and W. Imajuku,
"Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE)
Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)",
RFC 6163, DOI 10.17487/RFC6163, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163>.
[RFC7446] Lee, Y., Ed., Bernstein, G., Ed., Li, D., and W. Imajuku,
"Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", RFC 7446,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7446, February 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7446>.
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7688 OSPF Enhancement for WSON November 2015
Authors' Addresses
Young Lee (editor)
Huawei Technologies
5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3
Plano, TX 75024
United States
Phone: (469) 277-5838
Email: leeyoung@huawei.com
Greg M. Bernstein (editor)
Grotto Networking
Fremont, CA
United States
Phone: (510) 573-2237
Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Lee & Bernstein Standards Track [Page 12]