Internet DRAFT - draft-amenyo-consion-sigint-optnet
draft-amenyo-consion-sigint-optnet
Internet Draft John-Thones Amenyo
Working Group: FORCES Rhustone Corporation
draft-amenyo-consion-sigint-optnet-00.txt
Expires February 2002 August 2001
ConSION: Control & Signaling Intelligence Overlay Networks for
Optical Networking
1 Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
2 Abstract
When one extrapolates from the ongoing evolutionary trends of IP
router / switch development and its role in the build-out of optical
core, edge, access and enterprise networks, it is reasonable to
reach the almost inescapable conclusion that within a few years,
there will be a complete physical separation of the commercial
equipment embodying various concerns, aspects, roles and functions
of data communications, Namely,
1. Separate equipment for transport (transmission, switching and
multiplexing) and traffic forwarding.
2. Separate equipment concerned with control, signaling, traffic
engineering, provisioning, protection and restoration control, as
well as, traffic and flow management, (generalized "softswitches").
3. Separate equipment for network management, operations support,
measurement & metering, OAMP, inter-OSS, engineering management
(including performance management, availability management, security
management, accounting management), as well as life cycle support.
In essence, the prediction is that the future optical network
infrastructure is likely to be made up of at least four physically
separate and distinct but inter-connected overlay networks,
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 1]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
variously concerned with a) Transport and Traffic Forwarding, b)
Control and Signaling, c) Management & Administration, and d)
Service Engineering Support.
The CoSION proposal is that the transport/forwarding,
control/signaling, and management/service engineering "planes" of
optical networking ought to be designed, implemented, embodied and
deployed in four physically separate (but co-joined) overlay
networks. Furthermore, the design of supporting protocols ought to
explicitly take into account in their specifications, this physical
separation of aspects and roles. Also, the protocol engineering and
designs should be fashioned in way that allows the four networks to
evolve semi-autonomously. This can be achieved by defining and
supporting open interfaces between and within the various overlay
networks.
Commercially, different equipment suppliers and vendors are likely
to be interested in producing network elements for the four overlay
network types.
This report proposes that this outcome of physical separation of
aspects and roles be explicitly acknowledged and taken into account
within the IETF in the future evolution of the MPLS and GMPLS
protocol suites, as well as those of other protocol suites for
control, traffic engineering, management and measurement that will
constitute the core of the Control and Signaling overlay networks
for optically-based next generation networks.
The most direct impact on the protocol engineering in the IETF will
be a re-packaging via a careful separation of aspects of protocols
in some existing protocol suites, (such as MPLS, GMPLS), into well-
defined and standardized open interfaces. All these protocols are
concerned with transport/forwarding support, management &
administration support and "true" control and signaling and
feedback. This will then be followed by future protocol extensions
in each overlay network plane.
3 Table of Contents
1. Status of this Memo____________________________________________1
2. Abstract_______________________________________________________1
3. Table of Contents______________________________________________2
4. Introduction___________________________________________________3
5. ConSION Architectural Model____________________________________4
6. Practical Transport and Forwarding Overlay Networks____________7
6.1. Basic Transport & Forwarding (_Switching_) Types____________8
6.2 Hybrid Transport & Forwarding Types_________________________10
6.3. Metaphor of a Distinct Central Nervous System______________10
7. The Overlay Networks and Logical SOCAR_________________________11
7.1. Control & Signaling Overlay Network________________________11
7.2. Management & Administration Overlay Network________________11
7.3. Service Engineering Overlay Network________________________12
8. Security Considerations________________________________________12
9. Summary and Conclusions________________________________________12
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 2]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
10. References____________________________________________________13
11. Author's Address______________________________________________14
12. Full Copyright Statement______________________________________14
4 Introduction
We start with a definition of an acronym that helps to explain the
essence of the ConSION proposal.
SOCAR stands for Separation Of Concerns, Aspects and Roles. Now that
it has been given a pronounceable acronym, it is clear that the
SOCAR principle has indeed been applied numerous times in
communications protocol design and engineering in the IETF and other
bodies.
The most familiar examples of its application include the protocol
"layer" concept in the OSI 7-layer model and the related layering
concepts in other protocol suites such as TCP/IP, SNA, DECnet, WAP,
etc. Over the years, several groups have found it necessary to
introduce "sub-layers" and "shim" layers such as those for SNAP/LLC
and for G/MPLS [RFC3031], [RFC3034], [RFC3035], [RFC3036],
[GMPLSx01], [GMPLSx02].
The Broadband-ISDN and ATM community expanded this layer separation
by introducing the concept of protocol "planes" orthogonal to the
layers. Thus, one can talk about the User/Data plane (U-plane), the
Control plane (C-plane) and the Management plane (M-plane). The
protocol layers and the planes together form a matrix space.
All of the above applications of the SOCAR principle are to be
considered the use of "logical" SOCAR in that each is focused on the
conceptual and abstract separation of aspects, roles and functions
in data communications.
There is a related, but less familiar concept called "physical"
SOCAR. It is physical SOCAR that is being advocated by the ConSION
proposal to be systematically applied to future protocol suites
development, particularly for intelligent optical networks (I.O.N.).
Physical SOCAR states that aspects, roles and functions that are
logically separated can be and should also be embodied and
implemented in physically separate network elements, variously
termed engines, servers, gateways, devices and units. Furthermore,
it should be acknowledged from the start that different vendors and
manufacturers can supply these physically separate devices.
Therefore, the physically separate embodiment and the potential
multi-vendor situation should be explicitly taken into account in
the protocol engineering. In particular, open interfaces should be
specified at SOCAR separation boundaries.
One example of the application of the physical SOCAR principle in
protocol engineering is the SS7 standard for common channel
signaling (CCS)[ITUQ7xx]. The POTS/PSTN/ISDN network is physically
separate from the controlling signaling network (the SS7 network). A
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 3]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
second example is the ongoing work on Softswitch for the convergence
of traditional POTS/Voice with the newer VOIP / Internet telephony
[SOFTSWCH]. The media gateways are physically separate from the
media gateway controllers, together with open protocol suites being
defined for the interface between them (for example, SIP [RFC2543],
Megaco/MGCP [RFC2805], [RFC3015] or H.248/H.323).
Optical networking will play very significant roles in the
development, deployment, operation and management of next generation
data communication networks and infrastructures. Already the logical
SOCAR principle has started to be applied to the specification of
these networks. An example is the ASON (Automatic Switched Optical
Networks) concept [ASONx01] that logically separates the O.N
architecture into the Transport/Forwarding (T&F) plane, Control &
Signaling (C&S) plane, and the Management & Administration (M&A)
plane.
The ConSION proposal advocates that the physical SOCAR principle
should also be applied systematically to the future development of
protocol suites for I.O.N.
According to the ConSION concept, the logical separation planes
advocated by the ASON model should also be extended in the following
manner. Its logical planes will be implemented as physically
separate (but interconnected) overlay networks.
Therefore, the CoSION model recognizes at least four overlay
networks that together constitute a next generation I.O.N.:
1. Transport & Forwarding (T&F) Overlay Network.
2. Control & Signaling (C&S) Overlay Network.
3. Management & Administration (M&A) Overlay Network.
4. Service Engineering (S&E) Overlay Network.
5 ConSION Architectural Model
The choice that there are only four overlay networks in the ConSION
proposal is completely arbitrary, but it is both necessary and
sufficient for the development a set of protocol suites for
intelligently controlled, next generation optical networks and
infrastructures.
Furthermore, the ConSION proposal advocates that open interfaces
should be defined between each pair of the overlay networks,
together with the specification of open protocol suites that
implement these interfaces.
Figure 1 shows at a high level, the collection of inter-overlay
network open interfaces that need to be defined and specified as
protocol suites (TF<---->CS, TF<---->MA, TF<---->SE, CS<---->MA,
CS<---->SE and MA<---->SE). These open interfaces are labeled
In.TF.CS, In.TF.MA, In.TF.SE, In.CS.MA, In.CS.SE and In.MA.SE,
respectively. The prefix In stands for interface or "intelligence".
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 4]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
+----------+ +----------+
| | | |
| MA | In.MA.SE | SE |
| Overlay |<--------------->| Overlay |
| Network | | Network |
| | | |
| | +-------->| |
+----------+ | +----------+
^ ^ | ^
| | | In.CS.SE |
| | In.CS.MA | |
| | v |
| | +-------------+ |
| | | | | In.TF.SE
| | | | |
| +------>| CS | |
| | Overlay | |
In.TF.MA | | Network | |
| | | |
| | | |
| +-------------+ |
| ^ |
| | |
| | In.TF.CS |
| | |
v v v
+---------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| TF Overlay Network |
| |
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------+
Figure [1]: ConSION Architectural Model
In a graybox approach (in contrast to a blackbox or a whitebox
approach), the proposal also advocates that open interfaces should
be specified between (some) of the network elements and components
inside each overlay network. These intra-overlay network interfaces
(endo-interfaces) can be labeled: In.TF.TF, In.CS.CS, In.MA.MA and
In.SE.SE.
This systematic use of open interfaces will allow different vendors
to produce network elements for different overlay networks and for
the different parts of the overlay networks.
One implication for IETF protocol engineering is that open
interfaces and associated protocol suites should be specified so
that IP forwarding can physically separated from IP control &
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 5]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
signaling (mainly route calculations by routing protocols).
Similarly, G/MPLS forwarding should be allowed to become physically
separate from G/MPLS control & signaling. Currently, all these
aspects and roles are inter-mixed and conflated in the protocol
proposals, specifications and documents from IETF and the other
bodies.
At another more detailed level, it should be explicitly recognized
and accommodated (in the protocol engineering efforts) that each
overlay network is actually an internet (an infrastructure
consisting of a network of networks.) More importantly, the
governing principle is that in actual operational deployment, each
overlay network will be partitioned or tessellated into separate
Administrative Domains (AD). The AD-networks are then co-joined via
bilateral peering and/or via inter-exchange or inter-connect points
(called inter-AD domains). Examples of inter-AD domains include
NAPs, MAEs, ISP IXs and carrier hotels.
Of course the principle of segmentation by AD domains is well
recognized in the IETF community and has been applied to great
effect in the definition of IGP (intra-domain) and EGP (inter-
domain) routing protocols such as OSPF [RFC2328] and BGP4 [RFC1771].
The ConSION proposal is merely advocating that the principle be
adopted and systematically applied in all future development of
protocol suites that are meant to control and manage optically-based
networking infrastructures.
Therefore, in the spirit of applying the physical SOCAR within each
overlay network (In.TF.TF, In.CS.CS, In.MA.MA and In.SE.SE), open
interfaces and accompanying protocol suites are required for all of
the following cases. For each overlay network,
1. Open interfaces between network elements belonging to the same
AD in the overlay network (ADi.NE1 <----> ADi.NE2). These are the
so-called "private NNIs_. In the CoSION model and architecture,
there are four types: private TF.NNI, private CS.NNI, private MA.NNI
and private SE.NNI.
2. Open interfaces between network elements belonging to
different ADs (or to different inter-ADs) in the overlay network
(ADi.NE1 <----> ADj.NE2). These are the so-called "public NNIs_
(network-to-network interfaces). Again in CoSION, there will be four
types: public TF.NNI, public CS.NNI, public MA.NNI and public
SE.NNI.
3. Open interfaces between network elements belonging to an AD
and network elements belonging to an inter-AD in the overlay
network: (ADi.NE1 <----> inter-ADk.NE2). These are termed "public"
inter-NNI (iNNIs). Again the four types are: public TF.iNNI, public
CS.iNNI, public MA.iNNI and public SE.iNNI.
4. Open interfaces between network elements in an AD and network
element in an outside, external or "access" (AC) exo-network:
(ACj.NE1 <----> ADi.NE2). These are termed (public) _UNIs_ (user-to-
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 6]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
network interfaces), with the following four types: TF.UNI, CS.UNI,
MA.UNI and SE.UNI.
In summary, the ConSION model is advocating that all the IETF
protocol suites relevant to the deployment, operation and management
of optical networking infrastructures be re-organized and re-
packaged to explicitly support all of the following open interfaces
and their associated collections of protocol suites.
A) Inter-overlay network interfaces
1. In.TF.CS: (TF.ADx.NE1::CS.ADz.NE2).
2. In.TF.MA: (TF.ADx.NE1::MA.ADy.NE3).
3. In.TF.SE: (TF.ADx.NE1::SE.ADw.NE4).
4. In.CS.MA: (CS.ADz.NE2::MA.ADy.NE3).
5. In.CS.SE: (CS.ADz.NE2::SE.ADw.NE4)
6. In.MA.SE: (MA.ADy.NE3::SE.ADw.NE4).
B) Intra-overlay network interfaces
7. In.TF.TF:
(TF.UNI, public TF.NNI, private TF.NNI, public TF.iNNI)
8. In.CS.CS:
(CS.UNI, public CS.NNI, private CS.NNI, public CS.iNNI)
9. In.MA.MA:
(MA.UNI, public MA.NNI, private MA.NNI, public MA.iNNI)
10. In.SE.SE:
(SE.UNI, public SE.NNI, private SE.NNI, public SE.iNNI)
This protocol "re-engineering" will affect the future efforts of
several IETF WGs such as forces, ipo, iporpr, ccamp, mpls, gsmp and
the routing protocols WGs.
6 Practical Transport and Forwarding Overlay Networks
The T&F overlay networks to be controlled are expected to be built
out of such network elements as Optical cross-connects (OXCs or
OCXs); Optical Add-Drop multiplexers (OADMs); Optical switches;
Optical gateways and bandwidth managers; Wavelength routers or
wavelength switching routers; Optical waveband and fiber-level
switches; SONET/SDH (digital) cross-connects (DCS); SONET/SDH Add-
Drop multiplexers (ADMs); DWDM transport equipment as well as CWDM
and OFDM variants; Free space optics (FSO) equipment; Photonic
packet switches (under research and development); multi-service
provisioning platforms (MSPPs); Passive Optical Networking (PON)
equipment; FTTx equipment (where x stands for Home (H), Curb (C),
Building (B)); Broadband access equipment (xDSL, Cable data,
Wireless Local Loop (WLL)); ATM switches and Frame Relay switches,
Integrated Access Devices (IADs); venerable switches, multiplexers
and concentrators for PDH transport; Ethernet switches and hubs
(Fast (100MbE), Gigabit (1GbE) and 10Gigabit (10GbE)); Metro-
Ethernet and optical Ethernet (OpE) equipment; IP routers and router
switches (Multi-megabit, Gigabit, Terabit and even Petabit routers);
MPLS routers or switch routers, etc., etc.
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 7]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
On the surface, the variety of devices that can be devoted to
transport and forwarding (T&F) in modern communications networks is
bewilderingly staggering. However, there are some organizing
principles that can be used to guide the design of the overlay
networks that will be used to intelligently control, manage and
operate T&F overlay networks.
1. Any viable and practical optical network is likely to include
more than just optical "processing" (transmission, switching,
multiplexing and routing) network elements. Pure optical networks
are likely to be inter-worked and integrated with other
infrastructures based on broadband networking, both fixed and mobile
wireless networking, as well as the venerable PSTN/ISDN networking.
2. For the purposes of control, signaling, network management,
service creation and administration, distinctions pertaining to
geographical scale are not particularly relevant. Thus, such
categorizations of optical networks for WAN, MAN, LAN, DAN, SAN,
HAN, PAN, long-haul, metro, premise, campus, core, backbone, edge,
access, distribution scales are mere "surface" conceptual structures
in the Chomskian sense for this purpose.
3. The really "deep" structure is the acceptance that different
parts of most transport and forwarding (T&F) infrastructures will be
under the control of different "administrative domains" (ADs), which
would nevertheless still need to inter-operate to support end-to-end
applications and services for distributed communications, messaging,
computing, remote and tele-operations, and content, media/multi-
media access. However, this need to accommodate ADs is already built
into the ConSION model and architecture, right from the beginning.
6.1 Basic Transport & Forwarding (_Switching_) Types
The detailed specifications of what constitute the SOCAR aspects and
roles for transport and forwarding are for future documents and
beyond the scope of this report. However, it would seem that despite
the stupendous diversity of plausible T&F equipment, one could
classify the various ways of transport and forwarding according to a
small number of basic types of extant technologies for transmission,
multiplexing, relay and switching. Thus, for the further development
of the ConSION oriented protocol suites, one can identify parts of
the T&F overlay network that deal the following basic types of relay
modes or "switching", considering the current state of the art.
a. IPv4 forwarding (IP packet switching type 1)
b. IPv6 forwarding (IP packet switching type 2)
c. MPLS forwarding (Label switching or tag switching)
d. ATM Virtual Path (VP) transport (digital switching type 1)
e. ATM Virtual Circuit or FR Virtual Circuit (VC) T&F (type 2)
f. SONET transport (TDM forwarding type 1)
g. SDH transport (TDM forwarding type 2)
h. PDH transport (T1, E1, T3, E3, ISDN, etc.) (TDM T&F type 3)
i. DTR transport (TDM forwarding type 4)
j. WDM (DWDM, CWDM) wavelength switching, incl. conversion
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 8]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
k. WDM waveband switching (type 2)
l. WDM sub-wavelength switching (type 3)
m. WDM fiber strand switching (type 4)
n. WDM fiber (multi-strand) switching (type 5)
o. WDM fiber bundle or cable (multi-fiber) switching (type 6)
p. OFDM switching (type 7)
q. Photonic packet switching (IP packet switching type 3)
r. Other forwarding, transport and switching types.
One can think of the overall T&F overlay network as a multi-colored
network made up of a collection of multiple overlay sub-networks.
Each overlay sub-network using a particular basic switching (or
forwarding and transport) type is given a separate color. So
according to the above classification, a comprehensive I.O.N T&F
overlay network is likely to be at least an 18-color sub-overlay
network.
Each of the above basic forwarding, transport and switching types
will need specific open interfaces that define how to explicitly
control and manage a _pure_ sub-overlay network built using just the
basic type. Thus, there are corresponding colored sub-overlay sub-
networks composing the C&S and M&A overlay networks.
The work to define the detailed open interfaces and supporting
protocol suites is not as overwhelming as a comprehensive
enumeration of the basic T&F (switching) types would suggest. It is
clear that the C&S and M&A of the several cases share many similar
features. Therefore, one can rely on concepts that the software
object orientation community has labeled reuse, inheritance and
polymorphism in protocol specifications.
The application the reuse principle in protocol specifications is
quite pervasive in the IETF community. However, it has never been
systematically elevated to an engineering principle, and
systematically applied and supported by automation tools for the
(visual) assembly of protocol specifications and definitions.
Furthermore, other concepts from distributed components and object
orientation are not only useful for organizing protocol software but
also for protocol specifications. Namely,
a. DISTRIBUTED (protocol entities): with attendant focus on
inter-operation; operation on different and multiple
platforms; collaboration and cooperation of component; and
co-existence via translation, adaptation, wrapping and
encapsulation.
b. REUSE (of protocol definitions, specifications, details and
attribute frames): mainly via translation, adaptation,
encapsulation, augmentation, extension and supplementation.
c. INHERITANCE (of protocol abstractions, prototypes, classes,
instances, components' properties, attributes, relationships
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 9]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
and inter-dependencies): focusing on sub-classes,
abstraction, customization and _personalization_.
d. POLYMORPHISM (of manipulations of protocol and interface
representations): focusing on functionals, operators and
combinators, parameterization.
e. IDL and CRL: Interface Definition Languages and (protocol)
Component Representation Languages.
f. META-DATA: introspection, self-describing, self-managing
protocol entities.
Thinking in this direction also points to the future of protocol
engineering as involving extensive automated protocol development.
6.2 Hybrid Transport & Forwarding Types
There are also hybrid "switching" types formed by inter-working
pairs of the basic types, such as those listed above:
a:b, a:c, a:d,..., a:q, a:r _
p:a, p:b, p:c,..., p:o, p:q, p:r
For example, the designation (a:k) means that a particular transport
and forwarding scenario starts as IPv4 packet forwarding which then
gets inter-worked (mapped) into DWDM wavelength routing via
translation, adaptation, wrapping, "tunneling", etc., or vice versa.
The hybrid switching types do not result in an increase in the open
interfaces required. The control and management of a hybrid relay
type can be achieved by controlling and managing the underlying
basic types as well as the inter-working scheme mediating that
particular combination.
6.3 Metaphor of a Distinct Central Nervous System
The discussion above on the control and management of basic
switching types (as the essential elements of the transport and
forwarding overlay networks) indicates that the current debate in
the industry and protocol engineering and architecture community
concerning "overlay" vs. "peer" approaches to controlling optical
networks is in fact a red herring. One short summary of the debate
is whether the control "intelligence" should reside in the
optical/photonic layer or at the IP/data/electronic layer or both
[IPOVON].
The physical SOCAR based ConSION proposal indicates that this is a
false distinction. The T&F aspects and overlay networks for next
generation networks are likely to involve both Optical elements and
IP-based networking elements. Faster progress will be made if the
controlling and management intelligences are implemented as
physically separate overlay networks. In each case, each overlay
network will also include both optical/photonic and electronic/IP
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 10]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
network elements. Therefore, the "intelligence" does not really
reside in the optical nor in the electronic layer.
According to the CoSION programme, each optical network in the
future will have its own distinct and physically separate digital
"central nervous system" that controls and manages it, complete with
central pattern generators (CPGs) and C&S plus M&A transaction
coordinators.
7 The Overlay Networks and Logical SOCAR
A detailed discussion of the aspects and roles that fall into each
SOCAR plane are for future documents. Nonetheless, ongoing work in
the IETF and other bodies indicates the general outline of how the
concerns, aspects and roles are likely to be logically separated and
eventually also physically separated.
7.1 Control & Signaling Overlay Network
For the C&S overlay network, the aspects and concerns are likely to
include:
a. Automated Provisioning of bandwidth and mapping of traffic
flows onto bandwidth channels.
b. Restoration (based on pre-engineered protection schemes and
architectures), as well as other Fault Tolerance concerns.
c. Traffic Engineering. The satisficing and optimal use of T&F
resources, subject to service constraints and requirements.
d. IP (best-effort) route calculations and IP routing table
management.
e. LSP path calculations and LIB management for G/MPLS.
7.2 Management & Administration Overlay Network
The aspects to be implemented in this overlay network are likely to
include:
a. Operations support and OSS inter-working.
b. Network management, using schemes such as TNM (Total Network
Management), GSMP [GSMPx01], SNMP and MIB management.
c. The various types of "engineering management", including
performance management, availability management, security
management, accounting management (metering, measurements,
mediation, etc.)
d. Facilities management, assets and inventory management.
e. Management inter-working.
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 11]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
f. Life cycle support (LCS) aspects and concerns, including
Installation, Testing and Cutover (ITC); Operational Control
Administration (OCA); Operations Administration and Management
(OAM); Maintenance and Repair Operations (MRO); and Upgrades,
Transitions and (tech) Migrations (UTM).
g. Various analytics in support of network management, concerned
involving networking oriented data warehousing and data mining.
7.3 Service Engineering Overlay Network
The aspects and concerns to be implemented in this overlay network
are likely to include:
a. Service provisioning for various classes of flows. These
classes will include differentiated, integrated and convergent
services and media, as well as traditional voice, data and video.
b. Issues of billing, billing mediation and inter-AD billing
presentment.
c. Customer care and support (CCS) and customer relationship
management (CRM)
d. Service-oriented business development and inter-working
e. Customer or user education, training and learning (ETL),
regarding I.O.N.
8 Security Considerations
Security management will be implemented primarily in the Management
& Administration Overlay Network. Furthermore, for each overlay
network, whenever flows and interactions cross AD boundaries,
security issues of identification, authentication, authorization,
delegation and gate-keeping functions will become very important.
ConSION based protocol suites will need to make ample provisions for
security and security fault tolerance.
9 Summary and Conclusions
This memo proposes that the physical SOCAR (separation of concerns,
aspects and roles) principle be explicitly applied to the future
development of protocols for optical networking (including UNI, NNI,
MPLS, GMPLS, "optical" MPLS, etc.) This will be in line with the
emergence of the physical overlay network approach to the
operational deployment of optical networking infrastructures and a
significant role for "softswitch"-like control & signaling engines
and servers.
The start of the CoSION approach to protocol development will merely
require the careful separation of the aspects transport &
forwarding, control & signaling, management & administration, and
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 12]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
service creation & engineering, which are all intermixed and
conflated in the existing protocols from the IETF, ODSI, OIF and ITU
(for example, for G/MPLS, UNIs and NNIs). Afterwards, the protocol
suites for the various overlay networks can proceed semi-
autonomously, except for their inter-dependent touch points.
The ConSION proposal is advocating that the ideas involved in
logical SOCAR be taken to the ultimate conclusion by explicitly
formulating next generation network control and management protocol
suites to also support physical SOCAR. The current trend in the
industry shows that such physical separation is inevitable in the
near future, so it can be acknowledged, accommodated and used
systematically to drive all further relevant protocol suite
development in a body such as the IETF.
Once the principle of physical separation and embodiment is
accepted, the proposal is also advocating that open interfaces
should be defined within and between the overlay networks, so as to
allow multiple vendors to focus on their core competencies and
strengths so that monolithic solutions and products (both hardware
and software) are no longer what drive the industry.
The outlines of the general ideas of what aspects and roles belong
to which overlay network have also been identified. Further work is
needed to re-package existing protocol suites so that they allow the
application of the physical SOCAR principle.
With the ConSION approach each future optical networking
infrastructure will have its own distinct "central nervous system"
to coordinate, control and manage it. Furthermore the CNS of the
various networks will be readily and collectively inter-worked to
form network societies or a distributed, cooperatively intelligent
super-organism.
10 References
[ASONx01] Aboul-Magd, O., Mayer, M., Benjamin, D., Jamoussi, B.,
Prattico, L. and Shew, S., Automatic Switched Optical Network
(ASON): Architecture and Its Related Protocols, IETF, Internet
Draft, Work In Progress, (July 2001).
[GMPLSx01] Mannie, E., et al., Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture, IETF, Internet Draft, Work In
Progress, (February 2001).
[GMPLSx02] Ashwood-Smith, P., et al., Generalized MPLS - Signaling
Functional Description, IETF, Internet Draft, Work In Progress,
(November 2000).
[GSMPx01] Doria, A., Sundell, K. and Worster, T, General Switch
Management Protocol V3, IETF, Internet Draft, Work In Progress,
(November 2000).
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 13]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
[IPOVON] Rajagopalan, B., Luciani, J., Awduche, D., Cain, B,
Jamoussi, B. and Saha, D., IP Over Optical Networks: A Framework,
IETF, Internet Draft, Work In Progress, (June 2001).
[ITUQ7xx] ITU-T Recommendations Q.700 - Q.775, Signaling System No.
7.
[RFC1771] Rekhter, Y. and Li, T., A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-
4), IETF, RFC 1771, (March 1995).
[RFC2328] Moy, J., OSPF Version 2, IETF, RFC 2328, (April 1998)
[RFC2543] Handley, H., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E. and Rosenberg,
J, SIP: Session Initiation Protocol, IETF, RFC 2543, (March 1999).
[RFC 2805] Greene, N., Ramalho, M. and Rosen, B., Media Gateway
Control Protocol Architecture and Requirements, IETF, RFC 2805,
(April 2000).
[RFC3015] Cuervo, F., Greene, N., Rayhan, A., Huitema, C., Rosen, B.
and Segers, J., Megaco Protocol Version 1.0, IETF, RFC 3015
(November 2000).
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Visawanathan, A. and Callon, R., Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture, IETF, RFC 3031, (January 2001).
[RFC3034] Conta, A., Doolan, P. and Malis, A., Use of Label
Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification, IETF, RFC 3034,
(January 2001).
[RFC3035] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, M., Rosen, E.,
Swallow, G., Rekhter, Y. and Doolan, P., MPLS Using LDP and ATM VC
Switching, IETF, RFC 3035, (January 2001).
[RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
Thomas, B., LDP Specification, IETF, RFC 3036, (January 2001).
[SOFTSWCH] International Softswitch Consortium,
http://www.sofswitch.org/
11 Author's Address
John-Thones Amenyo
Rhustone Corporation
66 Cochrane Avenue, Suite A.
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
Phone: (212) 749-4541
Fax: (212) 749-9663
Email: optiq@juno.com
12 Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). 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
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 14]
ConSION Control & Signaling Intelligence for O.N.August 2001
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 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 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.
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.
draft-amenyo-forces-consion_00.txt Expires February 2002 [Page 15]
