Internet DRAFT - draft-okamoto-ccamp-midori-gmpls-extension-reqs

draft-okamoto-ccamp-midori-gmpls-extension-reqs











     
     
    Network Working Group                                      S. Okamoto 
    Internet Draft                                         Keio University 
    Intended status: Informational                          March 15, 2013 
    Expires: September 2013 
                                       
     
                                          
           Requirements of GMPLS Extensions for Energy Efficient Traffic 
                                    Engineering 
               draft-okamoto-ccamp-midori-gmpls-extension-reqs-02.txt 


    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), 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 

       This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2013. 

    Copyright Notice 

       Copyright (c) 2013 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.  

    Abstract 

     
     
     
    Okamoto              Expires September 15, 2013               [Page 1] 
     
    Internet-Draft   Energy Efficient Traffic Engineering       March 2013 
        

       This document discusses some of extensions required in existing GMPLS 
       OSPF routing protocol, RSVP signaling protocol, and LMP to support 
       the energy efficient traffic engineering technology. 

    Table of Contents 

        
       1. Introduction ................................................ 2 
          1.1. Conventions used in this document ....................... 3 
       2. Energy efficient traffic engineering extensions .............. 3 
          2.1. TE link status ......................................... 3 
          2.2. LSP status ............................................. 4 
          2.3. Link power on/off control 
                                        ............................... 4 
          2.4. Notify control ......................................... 5 
       3. Security Considerations 
                                 ...................................... 5 
       4. IANA Considerations ......................................... 5 
       5. References .................................................. 5 
          5.1. Normative References 
                                   .................................... 5 
          5.2. Informative References 
                                     .................................. 6 
       6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 7 
        
    1. Introduction 

       The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [RFC3945] 
       protocol suite is designed to provide a control plane for a range of 
       network technologies including packet/frame switching networks 
       including MPLS routers and Ethernet switches, optical networks such 
       as time division multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and 
       Optical Transport Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical 
       networks. 

       In GMPLS controlled networks, the network is described by label 
       switch routers (LSRs) and traffic engineering (TE) links. A TE link 
       is advertised as an adjunct to a "physical" link. When the link is up, 
       both the regular Internal Gateway Protocol (IGP) properties of the 
       link (basically, the Shortest Path First (SPF) metric) and the TE 
       properties of the link (such as bandwidth and switching capability) 
       are then advertised. Therefore, basically, if the link is down then 
       the TE link is also down. A TE link is not only defined between IGP 
       neighbors but also defined on a Forwarding Adjacency (FA) label 
       switched path (LSP). An LSP is composed with cross-connection of TE 
       links. Therefore, if the composed TE link is down then the LSP is 
       also down. 

       An energy efficient Internet [I-D.winter-energy-effcient-internet], a 
       power aware networking (PANET) [I-D.dong-panet-requirements], and an 
       energy aware control plane [I-D.retana-rtgwg-eacp] are discussed. 
     
     
    Okamoto              Expires September 15, 2013               [Page 2] 
        
    Internet-Draft   Energy Efficient Traffic Engineering       March 2013 
        

       Energy efficient traffic engineering technology is also discussed in 
       [Yonezu][Cerutiti.ECOC][Cerutiti.JLT]. Under the energy efficient 
       traffic engineering, LSPs are rerouted to use lest number of links, 
       then some links are physically shutdown to reduce power consumption 
       of equipment. In traditional GMPLS networks, TE links associated in 
       shutdown links are also down. Therefore, when emergency occurred, 
       such as traffic explosion and link/equipment failure, downed TE links 
       are not able to use for calculating protection LSP and LSP rerouting. 

       This document defines requirements for extending GMPLS protocols to 
       support the energy efficient traffic engineering features.  

    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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].  

    2. Energy efficient traffic engineering extensions 

       Protocol extensions of OSPF, RSVP, and Link Management Protocol (LMP) 
       are required to support new TE link status, new LSP status, link 
       power on/off capability, and new notify control feature. 

    2.1. TE link status 

       [RFC2328] defines Interface states for describing "Interface State 
       changes" and "Interface State Machine". A link status "Up" and "Down" 
       can be get from the Interface states. 

       [RFC3630] defines the Traffic Engineering properties of TE links and 
       defines Link Type/Length/Value (TLV) for TE link properties 
       advertisement. A Link-TLV has some sub-TLVs, however, there is no TE 
       link status information. [RFC4203] adds some sub-TLVs to the Link-TLV 
       in support of GMPLS. 

       As a conclusion, a TE link does not have any status indication. If 
       Link becomes down then value(s) of the Traffic Engineering Metric 
       sub-TLV, and/or the Maximum bandwidth sub-TLV, and/or the Maximum 
       Reservable Bandwidth sub-TLV in associated TE links are changed 
       according with the network operator's policy.  

       Under the energy efficient TE environment, the link down by 
       administrative operation or link failure, and link power down by the 
       energy efficient TE should be distinguished in the route calculation 
       system such as Constraint Shortest Path First (CSPF) and Path 
       Computation Entity (PCE). 
     
     
    Okamoto              Expires September 15, 2013               [Page 3] 
        
    Internet-Draft   Energy Efficient Traffic Engineering       March 2013 
        

       A TE link state sub-TLV which indicates power off state of the TE 
       link is required. 

    2.2. LSP status 

       [RFC3471], [RFC3473], and [RFC4974] defines the Administrative Status 
       Information in the Admin_Status object. The defined status bits are 
       Reflect (R), Testing (T), Administratively down (A), Deletion in 
       progress (D), and Call Management (C).  

       In the energy efficient TE environment, an LSP which includes power 
       off TE link(s) as LSP component can be defined. This LSP can be 
       assigned as a backup LSP. The backup LSP which does not contain power 
       of link(s) can be used as 1+1 protection, 1:N protection w/wo extra 
       traffic, shared protection, and restoration. On the other hand, the 
       backup LSP which contains power off link(s) can be used as 1:N 
       protection wo extra traffic, shared protection, and restoration. When 
       activating the LSP, power up of link(s) is required.  

       To distinguish the backup LSP which contains the power off link(s) or 
       not, new LSP status should be defined in the Admin_Status object. 

    2.3. Link power on/off control 

       The energy efficient TE requires link power on/off control function. 
       There are two possible implementation, one is using LMP the other is 
       using RSVP.  

       When using LMP, power on (or off) initiator LSR sends power on (or 
       off) request to the neighbor LSR. The neighbor LSR sends Ack to the 
       initiator LSR and power on (or off) the link and changes the TE link 
       status. Then the initiator LSR receives Ack and power on (or off) the 
       link and changes the TE link status.  

       The power control should be included to the LMP. 

       Note: to apply the power on procedure, IP control channel (IPCC) 
       should be always up. Therefore, a dedicated IPCC is required to apply 
       the LMP control. 

       When using RSVP, sequentially concatenated TE links can be controlled. 
       There are two procedure candidates in the power off procedure. 

       [Power On] All TE links along with the LSP are power on. 

       [Power Off] 

     
     
    Okamoto              Expires September 15, 2013               [Page 4] 
        
    Internet-Draft   Energy Efficient Traffic Engineering       March 2013 
        

       1. All TE links along with the LSP are power off. If other LSPs share 
          the TE links then the LSPs should be rerouted. 

       2. All TE links but not shared by other LSPs are power off. 

       Both procedures are used according with the network operator's policy. 

       It may be required with LSP graceful shutdown procedure to notify the 
       link power off completion to the initiator. 

       Power control request may be implemented in the Admin_Status object. 

        

    2.4. Notify control 

       The power off procedure option #1 described in 2.3 can be applicable 
       not only to a single layer network but also to a multi-layer network. 
       If the server layer TE-link becomes the "power off" state, upper 
       layer LSP segment detects the status change and sends NOTIFY message 
       to an LSP ingress node. The ingress node reroutes the LSP or changes 
       the LSP status to "power off". 

        

    3. Security Considerations 

       TBD 

    4. IANA Considerations 

       TBD 

    5. References 

    5.1. Normative References 

       [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 

       [RFC3945] Mannie, E. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
                 Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 

       [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. 



     
     
    Okamoto              Expires September 15, 2013               [Page 5] 
        
    Internet-Draft   Energy Efficient Traffic Engineering       March 2013 
        

       [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., Yeung, D., "Traffic Enginnering 
                 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 
                 2003. 

       [RFC4203] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "OSPF Extensions 
                 in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
                 (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. 

       [RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
                 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 
                 3471, January 2003. 

       [RFC3473] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 
                 Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
                 Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, 
                 January 2003. 

       [RFC4974] Papadimitriou, D., and Farrel, A., "Generalized MPLS 
                 (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions", RFC 4974, August 
                 2007. 

    5.2. Informative References 

       [I-D.winter-energy-efficient-internet] Winter, R., Jeong, S., Choi, 
             JH., "Towards an Energy-Efficient Internet", draft-winter-
             energy-efficient-internet-01.txt (work in progress), October 
             2012. 

       [I-D.dong-panet-requirements] Dong, J., Zhang, M., Zhang, B., 
             Boucadair, M., "Requirements for Power Aware Network", draft-
             dong-panet-requirements-01.txt (work in progress), February 
             2013. 

       [I-D.retana-rtgwg-eacp] Retana, A., White, R., Paul, M., "A Framework 
             and Requirements for Energy Aware Control Planes", draft-
             retana-rtgwg-eacp-01.txt (work in progress), February 2013. 

       [Yonezu] Yonezu, H., Kikuta, K., Ishii, D., Okamoto, S., Oki, E., and 
             Yamanaka, N., "QoS Aware Energy Optimal Network Topology Design 
             and Dynamic Link Power Management", Proc. ECOC 2010 Tu.3.D.4. 

       [Cerutiti.ECOC] 
                      Cerutiti I., Sambo, N., and Castoldi, P., "Distributed 
             support of link sleep mode foe energy efficient GMPLS networks", 
             Proc. ECOC 2010 P5.11. 



     
     
    Okamoto              Expires September 15, 2013               [Page 6] 
        
    Internet-Draft   Energy Efficient Traffic Engineering       March 2013 
        

       [Cerutiti.JLT] Cerutiti I., Sambo, N., and Castoldi, P., "Sleeping 
             Link Selection for Energy-Efficient GMPLS Networks", IEEE 
             Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 29, No. 15, pp.2292-2298, 
             Aug. 2011. 

    6. Acknowledgments 

       The author would like to thank Prof. Naoaki Yamanaka and all members 
       of the Interoperability Working Group, Kei-han-na Open Laboratories 
       for their useful comments and suggestions. 

    Author's Addresses 

       Satoru Okamoto 
       Keio University 
       3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku 
       Yokohama, Kanagawa 223-8522 Japan 
       Email: okamoto@ieee.org 
     



























     
     
    Okamoto              Expires September 15, 2013               [Page 7]