idnits 2.17.1 draft-zhang-ccamp-general-constraints-ospf-ext-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 9 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 10, 2010) is 4971 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: 'RFC 3630' is mentioned on line 287, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 4203' is mentioned on line 287, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 325, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3945' is defined on line 341, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4655' is defined on line 344, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RWA-Encode' is defined on line 371, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4655 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2370 (Obsoleted by RFC 5250) == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-07 -- No information found for draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-WSON-Framework - is the name correct? -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'WSON-Frame' == Outdated reference: A later version (-24) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-09 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info (ref. 'WSON-Info') == Outdated reference: A later version (-28) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-02 Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network work group Fatai Zhang 2 Internet Draft Young Lee 3 Intended status: Standards Track Jianrui Han 4 Huawei 5 G. Bernstein 6 Grotto Networking 7 Yunbin Xu 8 CATR 9 Expires: March 10, 2011 September 10, 2010 11 OSPF-TE Extensions for General Network Element Constraints 13 draft-zhang-ccamp-general-constraints-ospf-ext-00.txt 15 Status of this Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with 18 the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 10, 2011. 38 Abstract 40 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching can be used to control a 41 wide variety of technologies including packet switching (e.g., MPLS), 42 time-division (e.g., SONET/SDH, OTN), wavelength (lambdas), and 43 spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or 44 fiber). In some of these technologies network elements and links may 45 impose additional routing constraints such as asymmetric switch 46 connectivity, non-local label assignment, and label range limitations 47 on links. This document describes OSPF routing protocol extensions to 48 support these kinds of constraints under the control of Generalized 49 MPLS (GMPLS). 51 Conventions used in this document 53 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 54 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 55 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction.................................................2 60 2. Node Information.............................................3 61 2.1. Connectivity Matrix.....................................4 62 3. Link Information.............................................4 63 3.1. Port Label Restrictions.................................5 64 3.2. Available Labels........................................5 65 3.3. Shared Backup Labels....................................6 66 4. Routing Procedures...........................................6 67 5. Security Considerations......................................7 68 6. IANA Considerations..........................................7 69 6.1. Node Information........................................7 70 6.2. Link Information........................................7 71 7. References...................................................8 72 8. Authors' Addresses...........................................9 73 Acknowledgment.................................................11 75 1. Introduction 77 Some data plane technologies that wish to make use of a GMPLS control 78 plane contain additional constraints on switching capability and 79 label assignment. In addition, some of these technologies should be 80 capable of performing non-local label assignment based on the nature 81 of the technology, e.g., wavelength continuity constraint in WSON 82 [WSON-Frame]. Such constraints can lead to the requirement for link 83 by link label availability in path computation and label assignment. 85 [GEN-Encode] provides efficient encodings of information needed by 86 the routing and label assignment process in technologies such as WSON 87 and are potentially applicable to a wider range of technologies. 89 This document defines extensions to the OSPF routing protocol based 90 on [GEN-Encode] to enhance the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of 91 GMPLS TE which are defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4202], and [RFC4203]. 92 The enhancements to the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS 93 TE links can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The TE LSA, which is an 94 opaque LSA with area flooding scope [RFC3630], has only one top-level 95 Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has one or more nested sub-TLVs 96 for extensibility. The top-level TLV can take one of three values (1) 97 Router Address [RFC3630], (2) Link [RFC3630], (3) Node Attribute 98 [RFC5786]. In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV 99 and Node Attribute TLV in support of the general network element 100 constraints under the control of GMPLS. 102 The detailed encoding of OSPF extensions are not defined in this 103 document. [GEN-Encode] provides encoding detail. 105 2. Node Information 107 According to [GEN-Encode], the additional node information 108 representing node switching asymmetry constraints includes Node ID, 109 connectivity matrix. Except for the Node ID which should comply with 110 Routing Address described in [RFC3630], the other pieces of 111 information are defined in this document. 113 [RFC5786] defines a new top TLV named the Node Attribute TLV which 114 carries attributes related to a router/node. This Node Attribute TLV 115 contains one or more sub-TLVs. 117 Per [GEN-Encode], we have identified the following new Sub-TLVs to 118 the Node Attribute TLV. Detail description for each newly defined 119 Sub-TLV is provided in subsequent sections: 121 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 123 TBD variable Connectivity Matrix 125 In some specific technologies, e.g., WSON networks, Connectivity 126 Matrix sub-TLV may be optional, which depends on the control plane 127 implementations. Usually, for example, in WSON networks, Connectivity 128 Matrix sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs because WSON switches are 129 asymmetric at present. It is assumed that the switches are symmetric 130 switching, if there is no Connectivity Matrix sub-TLV in the LSAs. 132 2.1. Connectivity Matrix 134 It is necessary to identify which ingress ports and labels can be 135 switched to some specific labels on a specific egress port, if the 136 switching devices in some technology are highly asymmetric. 138 The Connectivity Matrix is used to identify these restrictions, which 139 can represent either the potential connectivity matrix for asymmetric 140 switches (e.g. ROADMs and such) or fixed connectivity for an 141 asymmetric device such as a multiplexer as defined in [WSON-Info]. 143 The Connectivity Matrix is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of the 144 Node Attribute TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. 145 The meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.3 of 146 [GEN-Encode]. One sub-TLV contains one matrix. The Connectivity 147 Matrix sub-TLV may occur more than once to contain multi-matrices 148 within the Node Attribute TLV. 150 3. Link Information 152 The most common link sub-TLVs nested to link top-level TLV are 153 already defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203]. For example, Link ID, 154 Administrative Group, Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 155 (ISCD), Link Protection Type, Shared Risk Link Group Information 156 (SRLG), and Traffic Engineering Metric are among the typical link 157 sub-TLVs. 159 Per [GEN-Encode], we add the following additional link sub-TLVs to 160 the link-TLV in this document. 162 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 164 TBD variable Port Label Restrictions 166 TBD variable Available Labels 168 TBD variable Shared Backup Labels 170 Generally all the sub-TLVs above are optional, which depends on the 171 control plane implementations. If it is default no restrictions on 172 labels, Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may not appear in the LSAs. 173 In order to be able to compute label assignment, Available Labels 174 sub-TLV may appear in the LSAs. For example, in WSON networks, 175 without available wavelength information, path computation need guess 176 what lambdas may be available (high blocking probability or 177 distributed wavelength assignment may be used). 179 3.1. Port Label Restrictions 181 Port label restrictions describe the label restrictions that the 182 network element (node) and link may impose on a port. These 183 restrictions represent what labels may or may not be used on a link 184 and are intended to be relatively static. More dynamic information is 185 contained in the information on available labels. Port label 186 restrictions are specified relative to the port in general or to a 187 specific connectivity matrix for increased modeling flexibility. 189 For example, Port Label Restrictions describes the wavelength 190 restrictions that the link and various optical devices such as OXCs, 191 ROADMs, and waveband multiplexers may impose on a port in WSON. These 192 restrictions represent what wavelength may or may not be used on a 193 link and are relatively static. The detailed information about Port 194 label restrictions is described in [WSON-Info]. 196 The Port Label Restrictions is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of 197 the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The 198 meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.4 of 199 [GEN-Encode]. The Port Label Restrictions sub-TLV may occur more than 200 once to specify a complex port constraint within the link TLV. 202 3.2. Available Labels 204 Available Labels indicates the labels available for use on a link as 205 described in [GEN-Encode]. The Available Labels is a sub-TLV (the 206 type is TBD by IANA) of the Link TLV. The length is the length of 207 value field in octets. The meaning and format of this sub-TLV are 208 defined in Section 5.1 of [GEN-Encode]. The Available Labels sub-TLV 209 may occur at most once within the link TLV. 211 Note that there are five approaches for Label Set which is used to 212 represent the Available Labels described in [GEN-Encode]. Usually, it 213 depends on the implementation to one of the approaches. In WSON 214 networks, considering that the continuity of the available or 215 unavailable wavelength set can be scattered for the dynamic 216 wavelength availability, so it may burden the routing to reorganize 217 the wavelength set information when the Inclusive (/Exclusive) List 218 (/Range) approaches are used to represent Available Wavelengths 219 information. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that only the Bitmap Set be 220 used for representation Available Wavelengths information. 222 The "Base Label" and "Last Label" in label set defined in [GEN-Encode] 223 corresponds to base wavelength label and last wavelength label in 224 WSON, the format of which is described as follows: 226 0 1 2 3 227 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 1 228 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 229 |Grid | C.S. | Reserved | n | 230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 232 The detailed information related to wavelength label can be referred 233 to [Lambda-Labels]. 235 3.3. Shared Backup Labels 237 Shared Backup Labels indicates the labels available for shared backup 238 use on a link as described in [GEN-Encode]. 240 The Shared Backup Labels is a sub-TLV (the type is TBD by IANA) of 241 the Link TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The 242 meaning and format of this sub-TLV are defined in Section 5.2 of 243 [GEN-Encode]. The Shared Backup Labels sub-TLV may occur at most once 244 within the link TLV. 246 4. Routing Procedures 248 All the sub-TLVs are nested to top-level TLV(s) and contained in 249 Opaque LSAs. The flooding of Opaque LSAs must follow the rules 250 specified in [RFC2328], [RFC2370], [RFC3630], [RFC4203] and [RFC5786]. 252 Considering the routing scalability issues in some cases, the routing 253 protocol should be capable of supporting the separation of dynamic 254 information from relatively static information. 256 In the WSON networks, the node information and link information can 257 be classified as two kinds: one is relatively static information such 258 as Node ID, Connectivity Matrix information; the other is dynamic 259 information such as Available Wavelengths information. [GEN-Encode] 260 give recommendations of typical usage of previously defined sub-TLVs 261 which contain relatively static information and dynamic information. 262 An implementation SHOULD take measures to avoid frequent updates of 263 relatively static information when the relatively static information 264 is not changed. 266 For node information, since the Connectivity Matrix information is 267 static, the LSA containing the Node Attribute TLV can be updated with 268 a lower frequency to avoid unnecessary updates. 270 For link information, a mechanism MAY be applied such that static 271 information and dynamic information of one TE link are contained in 272 separate Opaque LSAs, which are updated with different frequencies, 273 to avoid unnecessary updates of static information when dynamic 274 information is changed. 276 Note that as with other TE information, an implementation SHOULD take 277 measures to avoid rapid and frequent updates of routing information 278 that could cause the routing network to become swamped. A threshold 279 mechanism MAY be applied such that updates are only flooded when a 280 number of changes have been made to the label availability (e.g., 281 wavelength availability) information within a specific time. Such 282 mechanisms MUST be configurable if they are implemented. 284 5. Security Considerations 286 This document does not introduce any further security issues other 287 than those discussed in [RFC 3630], [RFC 4203]. 289 6. IANA Considerations 291 [RFC3630] says that the top level Types in a TE LSA and Types for 292 sub-TLVs for each top level Types must be assigned by Expert Review, 293 and must be registered with IANA. 295 IANA is requested to allocate new Types for the sub-TLVs as defined 296 in Sections 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 as follows: 298 6.1. Node Information 300 This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of Node Attribute TLV 301 (Value TBD, see [RFC5786]): 303 Type sub-TLV 305 TBD Connectivity Matrix 307 6.2. Link Information 309 This document introduces the following sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 310 2): 312 Type sub-TLV 314 TBD Port Label Restrictions 316 TBD Available Labels 318 TBD Shared Backup Labels 320 7. References 322 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 323 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 325 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 326 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 327 January 2003. 329 [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering 330 (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September 331 2003. 333 [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions 334 in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 335 (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005 337 [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in 338 Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 339 (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, October 2005. 341 [RFC3945] E. Mannie, Ed., "OGeneralized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 342 Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 344 [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation 345 Element (PCE)-Based Architecture ", RFC 4655, August 2006. 347 [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. 349 [RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July 350 1998. 352 [RFC5786] R. Aggarwal and K. Kompella, "Advertising a Router's Local 353 Addresses in OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions", RFC 354 5786, March 2010. 356 [Lambda-Labels] T. Otani, H. Guo, K. Miyazaki, D. Caviglia, " 357 Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switching Capable Label 358 Switching Routers", work in progress: draft-ietf- 359 ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-07.txt, April 2010. 361 [WSON-Frame] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, W. Imajuku, "Framework for GMPLS 362 and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks 363 (WSON)", work in progress: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-WSON- 364 Framework-06.txt, April 2010. 366 [WSON-Info] Y. Lee, G. Bernstein, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and 367 Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength 368 Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: draft- 369 ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-09.txt, September 2010. 371 [RWA-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, "Routing and 372 Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for 373 Wavelength Switched Optical Networks", work in progress: 374 draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-05.txt, July 2010. 376 [GEN-Encode] G. Bernstein, Y. Lee, D. Li, W. Imajuku, " General 377 Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS 378 Controlled Networks", work in progress: draft-ietf- 379 ccamp-general-constraint-encode-02.txt, June 2010. 381 8. Authors' Addresses 383 Fatai Zhang 384 Huawei Technologies 385 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 386 Bantian, Longgang District 387 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 389 Phone: +86-755-28972912 390 Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com 392 Young Lee 393 Huawei Technologies 394 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 395 Plano, TX 75075 396 USA 397 Phone: (972) 509-5599 (x2240) 398 Email: ylee@huawei.com 400 Jianrui Han 401 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 402 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 403 Bantian, Longgang District 404 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 406 Phone: +86-755-28972913 407 Email: hanjianrui@huawei.com 409 Greg Bernstein 410 Grotto Networking 411 Fremont CA, USA 413 Phone: (510) 573-2237 414 Email: gregb@grotto-networking.com 416 Yunbin Xu 417 China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII 418 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 419 Phone: +86-10-68094134 420 Email: xuyunbin@mail.ritt.com.cn 422 Guoying Zhang 423 China Academy of Telecommunication Research of MII 424 11 Yue Tan Nan Jie Beijing, P.R.China 425 Phone: +86-10-68094272 426 Email: zhangguoying@mail.ritt.com.cn 428 Dan Li 429 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 430 F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 431 Bantian, Longgang District 432 Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 433 Phone: +86-755-28973237 434 Email: danli@huawei.com 436 Ming Chen 437 European Research Center 438 Huawei Technologies 439 Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munchen, Germany 441 Phone: 0049-89158834072 442 Email: minc@huawei.com 444 Yabin Ye 445 European Research Center 446 Huawei Technologies 447 Riesstr. 25, 80992 Munchen, Germany 449 Phone: 0049-89158834074 450 Email: yabin.ye@huawei.com 452 Acknowledgment 454 We thank Ming Chen and Yabin Ye from DICONNET Project who provided 455 valuable information for this document. 457 Intellectual Property 459 The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of 460 any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be 461 claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology 462 described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license 463 under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it 464 represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any 465 such rights. 467 Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF 468 Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or 469 the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or 470 permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or 471 users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR 472 repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr 474 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 475 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 476 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 477 any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please 478 address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 480 The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or 481 under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are 482 published by third parties, including those that are translated into 483 other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions 484 of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions 485 is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of 486 these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including 487 those that are translated into other languages, should not be 488 considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. 490 For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards 491 Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of 492 the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the 493 provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, 494 conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the 495 rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and 496 shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such 497 Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. 499 Disclaimer of Validity 501 All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided 502 on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 503 REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE 504 IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL 505 WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY 506 WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE 507 ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS 508 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 510 Full Copyright Statement 512 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 513 document authors. All rights reserved. 515 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 516 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 517 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 518 publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, 519 as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this 520 document. Code Components extracted from this document must include 521 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust 522 Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in 523 the Simplified BSD License.