Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-teas-fast-lsps-requirements
draft-ietf-teas-fast-lsps-requirements
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Malis, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational B. Wilson
Expires: April 7, 2016 Applied Communication Sciences
G. Clapp
AT&T Labs Research
V. Shukla
Verizon Communications
October 5, 2015
Requirements for Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs
draft-ietf-teas-fast-lsps-requirements-02
Abstract
Establishment and control of Label Switch Paths (LSPs) have become
mainstream tools of commercial and government network providers. One
of the elements of further evolving such networks is scaling their
performance in terms of LSP bandwidth and traffic loads, LSP
intensity (e.g., rate of LSP creation, deletion, and modification),
LSP set up delay, quality of service differentiation, and different
levels of resilience.
The goal of this document is to present target scaling objectives and
the related protocol requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS).
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 April 7, 2016.
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs October 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Driving Applications and Their Requirements . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Key Application Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Requirements for Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Protocol and Procedure Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3471]
[RFC3945] includes an architecture and a set of control plane
protocols that can be used to operate data networks ranging from
packet-switch-capable networks, through those networks that use Time
Division Multiplexing, to WDM networks. The Path Computation Element
(PCE) architecture [RFC4655] defines functional components that can
be used to compute and suggest appropriate paths in connection-
oriented traffic-engineered networks. Additional wavelength switched
optical networks (WSON) considerations were defined in [RFC6163].
This document refers to the same general framework and technologies,
but adds requirements related to expediting LSP setup under heavy
connection churn scenarios, while achieving low blocking under an
overall distributed control plane. This document focuses on a
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs October 2015
specific problem space - high capacity and highly dynamic connection
request scenarios - that may require clarification and or extensions
to current GMPLS protocols and procedures. In particular, the
purpose of this document is to address the potential need for
protocols and procedures that enable expediting the setup of LSPs in
high churn scenarios. Both single-domain and multi-domain network
scenarios are considered.
This document focuses on the following two topics: 1) the driving
applications and main characteristics and requirements of this
problem space, and 2) the key requirements which may be novel with
respect to current GMPLS protocols.
This document presents the objectives and related requirements for
GMPLS to provide the control for networks operating with such
performance requirements. While specific deployment scenarios are
considered as part of the presentation of objectives, the stated
requirements are aimed at ensuring the control protocols are not the
limiting factor in achieving a particular network's performance.
Implementation dependencies are out of scope of this document.
It is envisioned that other documents may be needed to define how
GMPLS protocols meet the requirements laid out in this document.
Such future documents may define extensions, or simply clarify how
existing mechanisms may be used to address the key requirements of
highly dynamic networks.
2. Background
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Core Optical
Networks (CORONET) program [Chiu], is an example target environment
that includes IP and optical commercial and government networks, with
a focus on highly dynamic and resilient multi-terabit core networks.
It anticipates the need for rapid (sub-second) setup and SONET/SDH-
like restoration times for high-churn (up to tens of requests per
second network-wide and holding times as short as one second) on-
demand wavelength, sub-wavelength, and packet services for a variety
of applications (e.g., grid computing, cloud computing, data
visualization, fast data transfer, etc.). This must be done while
meeting stringent call blocking requirements and while minimizing the
use of resources such as time slots, switch ports, wavelength
conversion, etc.
3. Motivation
The motivation for this document, and envisioned related future
documents, is two-fold:
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs October 2015
1. The anticipated need for rapid setup, while maintaining low
blocking, of large bandwidth and highly churned on-demand
connections (in the form of sub-wavelengths, e.g., OTN ODUx, and
wavelengths, e.g., OTN OCh) for a variety of applications
including grid computing, cloud computing, data visualization,
and intra- and inter-datacenter communications.
2. The ability to set up circuit-like LSPs for large bandwidth flows
with low setup delays provides an alternative to packet-based
solutions implemented over static circuits that may require tying
up more expensive and power-consuming resources (e.g., router
ports). Reducing the LSP setup delay will reduce the minimum
bandwidth threshold at which a GMPLS circuit approach is
preferred over a layer 3 (e.g., IP) approach. Dynamic circuit
and virtual circuit switching intrinsically provide guaranteed
bandwidth, guaranteed low-latency and jitter, and faster
restoration, all of which are very hard to provide in packet-only
networks. Again, a key element in achieving these benefits is
enabling the fastest possible circuit setup times.
Future applications are expected to require setup times as fast as
100 ms in highly dynamic, national-scale network environments while
meeting stringent blocking requirements and minimizing the use of
resources such as switch ports, wavelength converters/regenerators,
and other network design parameters. Of course, the benefits of low
setup delay diminish for connections with long holding times. The
need for rapid setup for specific applications may override and thus
get traded off, for these specific applications, against some other
features currently provided in GMPLS, e.g., robustness against setup
errors.
With the advent of data centers, cloud computing, video, gaming,
mobile and other broadband applications, it is anticipated that
connection request rates may increase, even for connections with
longer holding times, either during limited time periods (such as
during the restoration from a data center failure) or over the longer
term, to the point where the current GMPLS procedures of path
computation/selection and resource allocation may not be timely, thus
leading to increased blocking or increased resource cost. Thus,
extensions of GMPLS signaling and routing protocols (e.g., OSPF-TE)
may also be needed to address heavy churn of connection requests
(i.e., high connection request arrival rate) in networks with high
traffic loads, even for connections with relatively longer holding
times.
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs October 2015
4. Driving Applications and Their Requirements
There are several emerging applications that fall under the problem
space addressed here in several service areas such as provided by
telecommunication carriers, government networks, enterprise networks,
content providers, and cloud providers. Such applications include
research and education networks/grid computing, and cloud computing.
Detailing and standardizing protocols to address these applications
will expedite the transition to commercial deployment.
In the target environment there are multiple Bandwidth-on-Demand
service requests per second, such as might arise as cloud services
proliferate. It includes dynamic services with connection setup
requirements that range from seconds to milliseconds. The aggregate
traffic demand, which is composed of both packet (IP) and circuit
(wavelength and sub-wavelength) services, represents a five to
twenty-fold increase over today's traffic levels for the largest of
any individual carrier. Thus, the aggressive requirements must be
met with solutions that are scalable, cost effective, and power
efficient, while providing the desired quality of service (QoS).
4.1. Key Application Requirements
There are two key performance-scaling requirements in the target
environment that are the main drivers behind this draft:
1. Connection request rates ranging from a few requests per second
for high capacity (e.g., 40 Gb/s , 100 Gb/s) wavelength-based
LSPs to around 100 requests per second for sub-wavelength LSPs
(e.g., OTN ODU0, ODU1, and ODU2).
2. Connection setup delay of around 100 ms across a national or
regional network. To meet this target, and assuming pipelined
cross-connection, and worst case propagation delay and hop count,
it is estimated that the maximum processing delay per hop is
around 700 microseconds [Lehmen]. Optimal path selection and
resource allocation may require somewhat longer processing (up to
5 milliseconds) in either the destination or source nodes and
possibly tighter processing delays (around 500 microseconds) in
intermediate nodes.
The model for a national network is that of the continental US with
up to 100 nodes and LSPs distances up to ~3000 km and up to 15 hops.
A connection setup delay is defined here as the time between the
arrival of a connection request at an ingress edge switch - or more
generally a Label Switch Router (LSR) - and the time at which
information can start flowing from that ingress switch over that
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs October 2015
connection. Note that this definition is more inclusive than the LSP
setup time defined in [RFC5814] and [RFC6777], which do not include
PCE path computation delays.
5. Requirements for Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs
This section lists the protocol requirements for very fast setup of
GMPLS LSPs in order to adequately support the service characteristics
described in the previous sections. These requirements may be the
basis for future documents, some of which may be simply
informational, while others may describe specific GMPLS protocol
extensions. While some of these requirements may have implications
on implementations, the intent is for the requirements to apply to
GMPLS protocols and their standardized mechanisms.
5.1. Protocol and Procedure Requirements
R1 The protocol processing related portion of the LSP establishment
time should scale linearly based on number of traversed nodes.
R2 End-to-end LSP data path availability should be bounded by the
worst case single node data path establishment time. In other
words, pipelined cross-connect processing as discussed in
[RFC6383] should be enabled.
R3 LSP Establishment time shall depend on the number of nodes
supporting an LSP and link propagation delays and not any off
(control) path transactions, e.g., PCC-PCE and PCC-PCC
communications at the time of connection setup, even when PCE-
based approaches are used.
R4 Must support LSP holding times as short as one second.
R5 The protocol aspects of LSP signaling must not preclude LSP
request rates of tens per second.
R6 The above requirements should be met even when there are failures
in connection establishment, i.e., LSPs should be established
faster than when crank-back is used.
R7 These requirements are applicable even when an LSP crosses one or
more administrative domains/boundaries.
R8 The above are additional requirements and do not replace existing
requirements, e.g., alarm free setup and teardown, Recovery, or
inter-domain confidentiality.
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs October 2015
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no requests to IANA.
7. Security Considerations
Being able to support very fast setup and a high churn rate of GMPLS
LSPs is not expected to adversely affect the underlying security
issues associated with existing GMPLS signaling. If encryption that
requires key exchange is intended to be used on the signaled LSPs,
then this requirement needs to be included as a part of the protocol
design process, as the usual extra round trip time (RTT) for key
exchange will have an effect on the setup and churn rate of the GMPLS
LSPs. It is possible to amortize the costs of key exchange over
multiple exchanges (if those occur between the same peers) so that
some exchanges need not cost a full RTT and operate in so-called
zero-RTT mode.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ann Von Lehmen, Joe Gannett, Ron
Skoog, and Haim Kobrinski of Applied Communication Sciences for their
comments and assistance on this document. Lou Berger provided
editorial comments on this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5814] Sun, W., Ed. and G. Zhang, Ed., "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Dynamic Provisioning Performance Metrics in Generalized
MPLS Networks", RFC 5814, DOI 10.17487/RFC5814, March
2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5814>.
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs October 2015
[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>.
[RFC6383] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Advice on When It Is Safe to
Start Sending Data on Label Switched Paths Established
Using RSVP-TE", RFC 6383, DOI 10.17487/RFC6383, September
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6383>.
[RFC6777] Sun, W., Ed., Zhang, G., Ed., Gao, J., Xie, G., and R.
Papneja, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay
Metrics in Generalized MPLS and MPLS Traffic Engineering
(MPLS-TE) Networks", RFC 6777, DOI 10.17487/RFC6777,
November 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6777>.
9.2. Informative References
[Chiu] A. Chiu, et al, "Architectures and Protocols for Capacity
Efficient, Highly Dynamic and Highly Resilient Core
Networks", Journal of Optical Communications and
Networking vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-14, January 2012,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOCN.4.000001>.
[Lehmen] A. Von Lehmen, et al, "CORONET: Testbeds, Demonstration
and Lessons Learned", Journal of Optical Communications
and Networking Vol. 7, Issue 3, pp. A447-A458, March 2015,
<http://www.osapublishing.org/jocn/
abstract.cfm?uri=jocn-7-3-A447>.
Authors' Addresses
Andrew G. Malis (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Brian J. Wilson
Applied Communication Sciences
Email: bwilson@appcomsci.com
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Very Fast Setup of GMPLS LSPs October 2015
George Clapp
AT&T Labs Research
Email: clapp@research.att.com
Vishnu Shukla
Verizon Communications
Email: vishnu.shukla@verizon.com
Malis, et al. Expires April 7, 2016 [Page 9]
