idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-11.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (October 24, 2017) is 2373 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'This ID' is mentioned on line 283, but not defined -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE754-2008' Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group H. Long, M.Ye 2 Internet Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 3 Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky 4 ZTE 5 A.D'Alessandro 6 Telecom Italia S.p.A 7 H. Shah 8 Ciena 9 Expires: April 2018 October 24, 2017 11 OSPF-Traffic Engineering Link Availability Extension for Links with 12 Variable Discrete Bandwidth 13 draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-11.txt 15 Abstract 17 A network may contain links with variable discrete bandwidth, e.g., 18 copper, radio, etc. The bandwidth of such links may change 19 discretely in reaction to changing external environment. 20 Availability is typically used for describing such links during 21 network planning. This document defines a new type of the 22 Generalized Switching Capability-specific information (SCSI) TLV to 23 extend the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Open 24 Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol. The extension can be 25 used for route computation in a network that contains links with 26 variable discrete bandwidth. Note, this document only covers the 27 mechanisms by which the availability information is distributed. The 28 mechanisms by which availability information of a link is determined 29 and the use of the distributed information for route computation are 30 outside the scope of this document. It is intended that technology- 31 specific documents will reference this document to describe specific 32 uses. 34 Status of this Memo 36 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 37 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 39 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 40 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 41 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 42 Drafts. 44 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 45 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents 46 at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as 47 reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 49 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 50 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 52 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 53 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 55 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2018. 57 Copyright Notice 59 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 60 document authors. All rights reserved. 62 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 63 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 64 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 65 publication of this document. Please review these documents 66 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 67 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 68 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 69 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 70 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 72 Table of Contents 74 1. Introduction ................................................ 3 75 2. Acronyms .................................................... 3 76 3. Overview .................................................... 4 77 4. TE Metric Extension to OSPF-TE............................... 4 78 4.1. Availability SCSI-TLV................................... 4 79 4.2. Processing Procedures................................... 5 80 5. Security Considerations...................................... 6 81 6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6 82 7. References .................................................. 7 83 7.1. Normative References.................................... 7 84 7.2. Informative References.................................. 7 85 8. Acknowledgments ............................................. 8 87 Conventions used in this document 88 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 89 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED","MAY", and 90 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 91 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 92 capitals, as shown here. 94 1. Introduction 96 Some data plane technologies, e.g., microwave, and copper, allow 97 seamless change of maximum physical bandwidth through a set of known 98 discrete values. The parameter, availability, as described in 99 [G.827], [F.1703] and [P.530] is often used to describe the link 100 capacity. The availability is a time scale, representing a proportion 101 of the operating time that the requested bandwidth is ensured. To 102 set up an LSP across these links, availability information is 103 required by the nodes to verify the bandwidth before making a 104 bandwidth reservation. Assigning different availability classes 105 over such links provides for a more efficient planning of link 106 capacity to support different types of services. The link 107 availability information will be determined by the operator and 108 statically configured. It will usually be determined from the 109 availability requirements of the services expected to be carried on 110 the LSP. For example, voice service usually needs "five nines" 111 availability, while non-real time services may adequately perform at 112 four or three nines availability. For the route computation, both 113 the availability information and the bandwidth resource information 114 are needed. Since different service types may need different 115 availability guarantees, multiple pairs 116 may be required to be associated with a link. 118 In this document, a new type of the Generalized SCSI TLV, 119 Availability TLV is defined. It is intended that technology-specific 120 documents will reference this document to describe specific uses. 121 The signaling extension to support links with discrete bandwidth is 122 defined in [I-D. ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability]. 124 2. Acronyms 126 The following acronyms are used in this draft: 128 GMPLS Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 130 LSA Link State Advertisement 132 ISCD Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 133 LSP Label Switched Path 135 OSPF Open Shortest Path First 137 PSN Packet Switched Network 139 SCSI Switching Capability-specific information 141 SNR Signal-to-noise Ratio 143 SONET-SDH Synchronous Optical Network - Synchronous Digital 144 Hierarchy 146 SPF Shortest Path First 148 TE Traffic Engineering 150 TLV Type Length Value 152 3. Overview 154 A node which has link(s) with variable bandwidth attached should 155 include < availability, bandwidth> information list in its OSPF 156 Traffic Engineering (TE) LSA messages. The list provides the mapping 157 between the link nominal bandwidth and its availability level. This 158 information is used for path calculation by the node(s). The setup 159 of a Label Switched Path requires this information to be flooded in 160 the network and used by the nodes or the PCE for the path 161 computation. In this document, a new type of the Generalized SCSI 162 TLV, Availability TLV is defined. The computed path can then be 163 provisioned via the signaling protocol [I-D. ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te- 164 bandwidth-availability]. 166 Note, the mechanisms described in this document only distribute 167 availability information. The methods for measuring the information 168 or using the information for route computation are outside the scope 169 of this document. 171 4. TE Metric Extension to OSPF-TE 173 4.1. Availability SCSI-TLV 175 The Generalized SCSI is defined in [I-D. ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi]. The 176 Availability TLV defined in this document is a new type of 177 Generalized SCSI-TLV. The Availability SCSI-TLV can be included for 178 one or more times. The Availability SCSI-TLV has the following 179 format: 181 0 1 2 3 182 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 1 183 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 184 | Type | Length | 185 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 186 | Availability level | 187 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 188 | LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n | 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 190 Type: 0x0001, 16 bits. 192 Length: 2 octets, 16 bits. 194 Availability level: 32 bits 196 This field is a binary32-format floating point number as defined by 197 [IEEE754-2008]. The bytes are transmitted in network order; that is, 198 the byte containing the sign bit is transmitted first. This field 199 describes the decimal value of availability guarantee of the 200 switching capability in the Interface Switching Capability 201 Descriptor (ISCD) [RFC4202] object. The value MUST be less than 1. 202 The Availability level is usually expressed in the value of 203 0.99/0.999/0.9999/0.99999. 205 LSP Bandwidth at Availability level n: 32 bits 207 This field is a 32-bit IEEE floating point number which describes 208 the LSP Bandwidth for the Availability level represented in the 209 Availability field. The units are bytes per second. 211 4.2. Processing Procedures 213 The ISCD allows routing protocols such as OSPF to carry technology 214 specific information in the Switching Capability-specific 215 information (SCSI) field, see [RFC4203]. A node advertising an 216 interface with a Switching Capability which supports variable 217 bandwidth attached SHOULD contain one or more Availability SCSI-TLVs 218 in its OSPF TE LSA messages. Each Availability SCSI-TLV provides the 219 information about how much bandwidth a link can support for a 220 specified availability. This information may be used for path 221 calculation by the node(s). 223 The Availability SCSI-TLV MUST NOT be sent in ISCDs with Switching 224 Capability field values that have not been defined to support the 225 Availability SCSI-TLV. Non-supporting nodes would see such as a 226 malformed ISCD/LSA. 228 Absence of the Availability SCSI-TLV in an ISCD containing Switching 229 Capability field values that have been defined to support the 230 Availability SCSI-TLV, SHALL be interpreted as representing fixed- 231 bandwidth link with the highest availability value. 233 Only one Availability SCSI-TLV for the specific availability level 234 SHOULD be sent. If multiple are present, the Availability SCSI-TLV 235 with the lowest bandwidth value SHALL be processed. If an 236 Availability SCSI-TLV with an invalid value (e.g., large than 1) is 237 received, the Availability SCSI-TLV will be ignored. 239 5. Security Considerations 241 This document does not introduce security issues beyond those 242 discussed in [RFC4203]. As with [RFC4203], it specifies the content 243 of an Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2. As Opaque LSAs are not used for 244 Shortest Path First (SPF) computation or normal routing, the 245 extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing. 246 Tampering with GMPLS TE LSAs may have an impact on the ability to 247 set up connections in the underlying data plane network. As the 248 additional availability information may represent information that 249 an operator may wish to keep private, consideration should be given 250 to securing this information. [RFC3630] notes that the security 251 mechanisms described in [RFC2328] apply to Opaque LSAs carried in 252 OSPFv2. An analysis of the security of OSPF is provided in 253 [RFC6863] and applies to the extensions to OSPF as described in this 254 document. Any new mechanisms developed to protect the transmission 255 of information carried in Opaque LSAs will also automatically 256 protect the extensions defined in this document. 258 Please refer to [RFC5920] for details on security threats; defensive 259 techniques; monitoring, detection, and reporting of security 260 attacks; and requirements. 262 6. IANA Considerations 264 This document introduces a new type for availability of the 265 Generalized SCSI-TLV of the TE Link TLV in the TE Opaque LSA for 266 OSPF v2. Technology-specific documents will reference this document 267 to describe specific use of this Availability SCSI-TLV. 269 IANA has created a registry called the "Generalized SCSI (Switching 270 Capability Specific Information) TLVs Types" registry. The registry 271 is needed to be updated to include the Availability SCSI-TLV. This 272 document proposes a suggested value for the Availability SCSI-TLV; 273 it is requested that the suggested value be granted by IANA. 275 Note (Please REMOVE this note before publication): the registry will 276 be created by draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi. The requested value should 277 be added to it when it is created. 279 Type Description Reference 281 --- ------------------ ----------- 283 0x01 Availability [This ID] 285 7. References 287 7.1. Normative References 289 [I-D. ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi] Ceccarelli, D. and Berger, L., 290 "Generalized Routing Interface Switching Capability 291 Descriptor Switching Capability Specific Information", 292 Work in Progress, August, 2017. 294 [RFC4202] Kompella, K. and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing 295 Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label 296 Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. 298 [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions 299 in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 300 (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. 302 [IEEE754-2008] IEEE standards, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point 303 Arithmetic", IEEE Standard 754, August 2008 305 7.2. Informative References 307 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 308 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 310 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. 312 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering 313 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 314 2003. 316 [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS 317 Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. 319 [RFC6863] Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security 320 According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing 321 Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863, March 2013. 323 [G.827] ITU-T Recommendation, "Availability performance parameters 324 and objectives for end-to-end international constant bit- 325 rate digital paths", September, 2003. 327 [F.1703] ITU-R Recommendation, "Availability objectives for real 328 digital fixed wireless links used in 27 500 km 329 hypothetical reference paths and connections", January, 330 2005. 332 [P.530] ITU-R Recommendation," Propagation data and prediction 333 methods required for the design of terrestrial line-of- 334 sight systems", February, 2012 336 [I-D. ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-bandwidth-availability] H., Long, M., Ye, 337 Mirsky, G., Alessandro, A., Shah, H., "Ethernet Traffic 338 Parameters with Availability Information", Work in 339 Progress, August, 2017 341 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 342 2119 Key Words", RFC 8174, May 2017. 344 8. Acknowledgments 346 The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Daniele Ceccarelli, Lou 347 Berger for their comments on the document. 349 Authors' Addresses 350 Hao Long 351 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 352 No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District 353 Chengdu 611731, P.R.China 355 Phone: +86-18615778750 356 Email: longhao@huawei.com 358 Min Ye 359 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 360 No.1899, Xiyuan Avenue, Hi-tech Western District 361 Chengdu 611731, P.R.China 363 Email: amy.yemin@huawei.com 365 Greg Mirsky 366 ZTE 368 Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com 370 Alessandro D'Alessandro 371 Telecom Italia S.p.A 373 Email: alessandro.dalessandro@telecomitalia.it 375 Himanshu Shah 376 Ciena Corp. 377 3939 North First Street 378 San Jose, CA 95134 379 US 381 Email: hshah@ciena.com