Network Working Group X. Fu Internet-Draft Q. Wang Intended status: Standards Track Y. Bao Expires: September 30, 2011 ZTE Corporation R. Jing X. Huo China Telecom March 29, 2011 RSVP-TE Signaling Extension for Explicit Control of LSP Boundary in A GMPLS-Based Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN) draft-fuxh-ccamp-boundary-explicit-control-ext-02 Abstract [RFC5212] defines a Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN). [RFC4206] introduces a region boundary determination algorithm and a Hierarchy LSP (H-LSP) creation method. However, in some scenarios, some attributes have to be attached with the boundary nodes in order to explicit control the hierarchy LSP creation. This document extends GMPLS signaling protocol for the requirement of explicit control the hierarchy LSP creation. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 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 Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 (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. Explicit Route Boundary Object (ERBO) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Switching Capability subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2. Encoding Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3. Signal Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.5. Signaling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. XRO Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Encoding Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Signal Type subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 1. Introduction [RFC5212] defines a Multi-Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN). [RFC4206] introduces a region boundary determination algorithm and a Hierarchy LSP (H-LSP) creation method. However, in some scenarios, some attributes have to be attached with the boundary nodes in order to explicitly control the hierarchy LSP creation. This document extends GMPLS signaling protocol for the requirement of explicit control the hierarchy LSP creation. 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. Explicit Route Boundary Object (ERBO) In order to explicitly control hierarchy LSP creation, this document introduce a new object (ERBO-Explicit Route Boundary Object) carried in Path message. The format of ERBO object is the same as ERO. It looks more like the SERO defined in rfc4873. One or more ERBOs may be carried in Path message. Multiple ERBOs could support cascading of FA easy. An ERBO must contain at least two subobjects. The first and final one indicate the source and sink node of a FA-LSP or Composite Link. Other subobjects may be inserted into ERBO between source and sink node to indicates how to select the FA/Component Link or create them. 2.1. Switching Capability subobject A new subobject, called the switching capability subobject, is defined for use in the ERBO. The format of the switching capability subobject is defined as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | Length | Reserved | Switching Cap | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 4 Switching Capability subobject in ERBO Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included. 1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included. o Type: To be defined. o Length: It is always 4. o Switching Capability (SC): Indicates which corresponding server layer should be triggered by the boundary node. The value of switching capability is the same as the one in [RFC3471]. 2.2. Encoding Type subobject A new subobject, called the encoding type subobject, is defined for use in the ERBO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | Length | Reserved | Encoding Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5 Encoding Type subobject in ERBO o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included. 1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included. o Type: To be defined. o Length: It is always 4. o Encoding Type: It may need to further indicate which encoding type (e.g., SDH/SONET or G.709 in TDM) should be triggered. It is the same as the one in [RFC3471]. 2.3. Signal Type subobject A new subobject, called the signal type subobject, is defined for use in the ERBO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | Length | Reserved | Signal Type | Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 6 Signal Type subobject in ERBO o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included. 1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included. o Type: To be defined. o Length: It is always 4. o Signal Type: If there are several sub-layers within one server layer, it can further indicates which sub-layer should be triggered by the boundary node. Following is the signal type in OTN. Value Type ----- ---- 0 Not significant 1 ODU1 2 ODU2 3 ODU3 4 ODU4 5 ODU0 6 ODUflex 7 ODUflex(G.hao) 8 ODU2e 9-255 Reserved (for future use) 2.4. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject A new subobject, called the Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH) subobject, is defined for use in the ERBO. The format of the multiplexing hierarchy subobject is defined as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | Length | Reserved | MH | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 7 Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject in ERBO o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be included. 1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be included. Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 o Type: To be defined. o Length: It is always 4. o Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH): It explicitly indicates the multiplexing hierarchy used for boundary node to configure it to the data plane and trigger one specific corresponding tunnel creation. Following is the multiplexing hierarchy in current OTN. Value Type ----- ------ 0 ODU1-ODU0 1 ODU2-ODU0 2 ODU2-ODU1 3 ODU2-ODU1-ODU0 4 ODU2-ODUflex 5 ODU3-ODU0 6 ODU3-ODU1 7 ODU3-ODU1-ODU0 8 ODU3-ODU2 9 ODU3-ODU2-ODU0 10 ODU3-ODU2-ODU1 11 ODU3-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0 12 ODU3-ODU2-ODUflex 13 ODU3-ODUflex 14 ODU3-ODU2e 15 ODU4-ODU0 16 ODU4-ODU1 17 ODU4-ODU1-ODU0 18 ODU4-ODU2 19 ODU4-ODU2-ODU0 20 ODU4-ODU2-ODU1 21 ODU4-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0 22 ODU4-ODU2-ODUflex 23 ODU4-ODU3 24 ODU4-ODU3-ODU0 25 ODU4-ODU3-ODU1 26 ODU4-ODU3-ODU1-ODU0 27 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2 28 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU0 29 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU1 30 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODU1-ODU0 31 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2-ODUflex 32 ODU4-ODU3-ODUflex 33 ODU4-ODU3-ODU2e 34 ODU4-ODUflex 35 ODU4-ODU2e Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 2.5. Signaling Procedure In order to signal an end-to-end LSP across multi layer, the LSP source node sends the RSVP-TE PATH message with ERO which indicates LSP route and ERBO which indicates the LSP route boundary. The first and final address of node in ERBO SHOULD also be listed in the ERO. This ensures that they are along the LSP path. When a interim node receives a PATH message, it will check ERBO to see if it is the layer boundary node. If a interim node isn't a layer boundary, it will process the PATH message as the normal one of single layer LSP. If a interim node finds its address is in ERBO, it is a layer boundary node. So it will directly extract another boundary egress node and other detail subobject infomration (e.g., Latency) from ERBO. If it is necessary, it will also extract the server layer/sub-layer routing information from ERO based on a pair of boundary node. Then the layer boundary node holds the PATH message and selects or creates a server layer/sub-layer LSP based on the detailed information of subobject carried in ERBO. 3. XRO Subobjects 3.1. Encoding Type subobject A new subobject, called the encoding type subobject, is defined for use in the XRO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | Length | Attribute | Encoding Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 8 Encoding Type subobject in XRO o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded. 1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided. o Type: To be defined. o Length: It is always 4. o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified encoding type SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect to the preceding numbered or unnumbered interface subobject. Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 o Encoding Type: It may need to further indicate which encoding type have to excluded. It is the same as the one in [RFC3471]. 3.2. Signal Type subobject A new subobject, called the signal type subobject, is defined for use in the XRO. The format of the encoding type subobject is defined as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | Length | Attribute | Signal Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 9 Signal Type subobject in XRO o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded. 1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided. o Type: To be defined. o Length: It is always 4. o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified signal type SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect to the preceding numbered or unnumbered interface subobject. o Signal Type: It indicates which sub-layers have to be excluded. The value of ST is the same as the one in ERBO. 3.3. Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject A new subobject, called the Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH) subobject, is defined for use in the XRO. The format of the multiplexing hierarchy subobject is defined as follows: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L| Type | Length | Attribute | MH | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure Multiplexing Hierarchy subobject in XRO Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 o L-bit: 0 indicates that the attribute specified MUST be excluded. 1 indicates that the attribute specified SHOULD be avoided. o Type: To be defined. o Length: It is always 4. o Attribute: 0 reserved value. 1 indicates that the specified multiplexing hierarchy SHOULD be excluded or avoided with respect to the preceding numbered or unnumbered interface subobject. o Multiplexing Hierarchy (MH): It explicitly indicates which MHs have to be excluded over a specified TE link, The value of multiplexing hierarchy is the same as the one in ERBO. 4. Security Considerations TBD 5. IANA Considerations TBD 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 [RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005. [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [RFC5212] Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, JL., Vigoureux, M., and D. Brungard, "Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi- Region and Multi-Layer Networks (MRN/MLN)", RFC 5212, July 2008. [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP. and JL. Le Roux, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, March 2009. 6.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, D., and J. Roux, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN)", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-extensions-12 (work in progress), February 2010. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement] Ning, S., Malis, A., McDysan, D., Yong, L., JOUNAY, F., and Y. Kamite, "Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link", draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-00 (work in progress), February 2010. Authors' Addresses Xihua Fu ZTE Corporation West District,ZTE Plaza,No.10,Tangyan South Road,Gaoxin District Xi An 710065 P.R.China Phone: +8613798412242 Email: fu.xihua@zte.com.cn URI: http://wwwen.zte.com.cn/ Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE for LSP Boundary Control March 2011 Qilei Wang ZTE Corporation No.68 ZiJingHua Road,Yuhuatai District Nanjing 210012 P.R.China Phone: +8613585171890 Email: wang.qilei@zte.com.cn URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/ Yuanlin Bao ZTE Corporation 5/F, R.D. Building 3, ZTE Industrial Park, Liuxian Road Shenzhen 518055 P.R.China Phone: +86 755 26773731 Email: bao.yuanlin@zte.com.cn URI: http://www.zte.com.cn/ Ruiquan Jing China Telecom Email: jingrq@ctbri.com.cn Xiaoli Huo China Telecom Email: huoxl@ctbri.com.cn Fu, et al. Expires September 30, 2011 [Page 11]