[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 4208

Network Working Group                                         G. Swallow
Internet Draft                                        Cisco Systems, Inc
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: April 2004
                                                                J. Drake
                                                   Calient Networks, Inc

                                                            H. Ishimatsu
                                                           Japan Telecom

                                                              Y. Rekhter
                                                   Juniper Networks, Inc

                                                            October 2003


             GMPLS UNI: RSVP Support for the Overlay Model


                    draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt

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/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) defines both
   routing and signaling protocols for the creation of Label Switched



Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


   Paths (LSPs) in various transport technologies.  These protocols can
   be used to support a number of deployment scenarios.  This memo
   addresses the application of GMPLS to the overlay model.


Contents

    1      Introduction  ...........................................   3
    1.1    GMPLS User-to-Network Interface  ........................   4
    2      Addressing  .............................................   5
    3      ERO Processing  .........................................   6
    3.1    Path Message without ERO  ...............................   6
    3.2    Path Message with ERO  ..................................   6
    3.3    Explicit Label Control  .................................   7
    4      RRO Processing  .........................................   7
    5      Notification  ...........................................   7
    6      Connection Deletion  ....................................   7
    7      VPN Connections  ........................................   8
    8      Security Considerations  ................................   9
    9      Acknowledgments  ........................................   9
   10      References  .............................................   9
   10.1    Normative References  ...................................   9
   10.2    Informative References  .................................   9
   11      Authors' Addresses  .....................................  10
   12      Full Copyright Statement  ...............................  10


























Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 2]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


1. Introduction

   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) defines both
   routing and signaling protocols for the creation of Label Switched
   Paths (LSPs) in various transport technologies.  These protocols can
   be used to support a number of deployment scenarios.  In a peer
   model, edge-nodes support both a routing and a signaling protocol.
   The protocol interactions between an edge-node and a core node are
   the same as between two core-nodes.  In the overlay model, the core-
   nodes act more as a closed system.  The edge nodes do not participate
   in the routing protocol instance that runs among the core nodes; in
   particular, the edge nodes are unaware of the topology of the core
   nodes.  There may, however, be a routing protocol interaction between
   a core node and an edge node for the exchange of reachability
   information to other edge nodes.


     Overlay                                                  Overlay
     Network       +----------------------------------+       Network
   +---------+     |                                  |     +---------+
   |  +----+ |     |  +-----+    +-----+    +-----+   |     | +----+  |
   |  |    | |     |  |     |    |     |    |     |   |     | |    |  |
   | -+ EN +-+-----+--+ CN  +----+ CN  +----+  CN +---+-----+-+ EN +- |
   |  |    | |  +--+--|     |    |     |    |     |   |     | |    |  |
   |  +----+ |  |  |  +--+--+    +--+--+    +--+--+   |     | +----+  |
   |         |  |  |     |          |          |      |     |         |
   +---------+  |  |     |          |          |      |     +---------+
                |  |     |          |          |      |
   +---------+  |  |     |          |          |      |     +---------+
   |         |  |  |  +--+--+       |       +--+--+   |     |         |
   |  +----+ |  |  |  |     |       +-------+     |   |     | +----+  |
   |  |    +-+--+  |  | CN  +---------------+ CN  |   |     | |    |  |
   | -+ EN +-+-----+--+     |               |     +---+-----+-+ EN +- |
   |  |    | |     |  +-----+               +-----+   |     | |    |  |
   |  +----+ |     |                                  |     | +----+  |
   |         |     +----------------------------------+     |         |
   +---------+                Core Network                  +---------+
     Overlay                                                  Overlay
     Network                                                  Network

                                             Legend:   EN  -  Edge Node
                                                       CN  -  Core Node

                    Figure 1:  Overlay Reference Model

   Figure 1 shows a reference network.  The core network is represented
   by the large box in the center.  It contains five core-nodes marked
   'CN'.  The four boxes around the edge marked "Overlay Network"



Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 3]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


   represent four islands of a single network overlaid network.  Only
   the nodes of this network with TE links into the core network are
   shown.  These nodes are called edge-nodes; the terminology is in
   respect to the core network, not the overlay network.  Note that each
   box marked "Overlay Network" could contain many other nodes.  Such
   nodes are not shown; they do not participate in the signaling
   described in this document.  Only he edge-nodes can signal to set up
   links across the core to other edge-nodes.  Once a link is
   established, presumably the edge-node will inform the other nodes of
   the overlay network of its existence.  How this is accomplished is
   beyond the scope of this document.  However, one possible means is
   using a forwarding adjacency as described in [MPLS-HIER].

   In the overlay model there may be restrictions on what may be
   signaled between an edge-node and a core-node.  This memo addresses
   the application of GMPLS to the overlay model.  Specifically it
   addresses RSVP procedures between an edge-node and a core-node in the
   overlay model.  All RSVP procedures are assumed to be identical to
   [RFC3473] except as noted in this document.

   This document primarily addresses interactions between an edge-node
   and it's adjacent (at the data plane) core-node.  Except where noted,
   the term core-node refers to the node which is immediately adjacent
   to an edge-node across a particular data plane interface.  The term
   core-nodes, however, refers to all nodes in the core.

   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 [RFC2119].


1.1. GMPLS User-to-Network Interface

   One can apply the GMPLS Overlay model at the User-to-Network
   Interface (UNI) reference point defined in the Automatically Switched
   Optical Network (ASON) [G.8080].  Consider the case where the 'Core
   Network' in Figure 1 is a Service Provider network, and the Edge
   Nodes are 'user' devices.  The interface between EN and CN is the UNI
   reference point, and to support the ASON model, one must define
   signaling across the UNI.

   The extensions described in this memo provide mechanisms for UNI
   signaling that are compatible with GMPLS signaling [RFC3471,
   RFC3473].  Moreover, these mechanisms for UNI signaling are in line
   with the RSVP model, namely, there is a single end-to-end RSVP
   session for the user connection.  The first and last hops constitute
   the UNI, and the RSVP session carries the user parameters end-to-end.
   This obviates the need to map (or carry) user parameters to (in) the



Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 4]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


   format expected by the network-to-network interface (NNI) used within
   the Service Provider network.  This in turn means that the UNI and
   NNI can be independent of one another, which is a requirement of the
   ASON architecture.  However, in the case that the UNI and NNI are
   both GMPLS RSVP-based, the methodology specified in this memo allows
   for a single RSVP session to instantiate both UNI and NNI signaling,
   if so desired, and if allowed by Service Provider policy.



2. Addressing

   Addresses for edge-nodes in the overlay model are drawn from the same
   address space as the edge-nodes use to address their adjacent core-
   nodes.  This may be the same address space as used by the core-nodes
   to communicate among themselves or it may be a VPN space supported by
   the core-nodes as an overlay.

   To be more specific, an edge-node and its attached core-node must
   share the same address space which is used by GMPLS.  A set of
   <edge-node, core-node> tuples share the same address space if the
   edge-nodes in the set could establish LSPs (through the core-nodes)
   among themselves (note that edge-nodes in the set may be a subset of
   all the edge-nodes). The address space used by the core-nodes to
   communicate among themselves may, but need not be shared with the
   address space used by any of the <edge-node, core-node> tuples.

   An edge-node is identified by either a single IP address representing
   its Node-ID, or by one or more numbered TE links that connect the
   edge-node to the core-nodes.  Core-nodes are assumed to be ignorant
   of any other addresses associated with an edge-node (i.e. addresses
   which are not used in signaling connections through the GMPLS core).

   An edge-node need only know its own address, an address of the
   adjacent core-node, and know (or be able to resolve) the address of
   any other edge-node to which it wishes to connect.

   A core-node need only know (and track) the addresses on interfaces
   between that core-node and its attached edge-nodes, as well as the
   Node IDs of those edge-nodes.  In addition, a core-node needs to know
   the interface addresses and Node IDs of other edge-nodes to which an
   attached edge-node is permitted to connect.

   When forming a SENDER_TEMPLATE the ingress edge-node includes either
   its Node-ID or the address of one of its numbered TE links.  In the
   latter case the connection will only be made over this interface.

   When forming a SESSION_OBJECT, the ingress edge-node includes either



Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 5]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


   the Node-ID of the egress edge-device or the address of one of the
   egress' numbered TE links.  In the latter case the connection will
   only be made over this interface.  The Extended_Tunnel_ID of the
   SESSION Object is set to either zero or to an address of the ingress
   edge-device.

   Links may be either numbered or unnumbered.  Further, links may be
   bundled or unbundled.  See [GMPLS-ARCH], [RFC3471], [BUNDLE], and
   [RFC3477].


3. ERO Processing

   An edge-node MAY include an ERO.  A core-node MAY reject a Path
   message that contains an ERO.  Such behavior is controlled by
   (hopefully consistent) configuration.  If a core-node rejects a Path
   message due to the presence of an ERO it SHOULD return an PathErr
   message with an error code of "Unknown object class" toward the
   sender. This causes the path setup to fail.

   Further a core-node MAY accept EROs which only include the ingress
   edge-node, the ingress core-node, the egress core-node and the egress
   edge-node.  This is to support explicit label control on the edge-
   node interface, see below.  If a core-node rejects a Path message due
   to the presence of an ERO not of the permitted format it SHOULD
   return an PathErr message with an error code of Bad Explicit Route
   Object as defined in [RFC3209].


3.1. Path Message without ERO

   When a core-node receives a Path message from an edge-node that
   contains no ERO, it MUST calculate a route to the destination and
   include that route in a ERO, before forwarding the PATH message.  One
   exception would be if the egress edge-node were also adjacent to this
   core-node.  If no route can be found, the core-node SHOULD return a
   PathErr message with an error code and value of 24,5 - "No route
   available toward destination".


3.2. Path Message with ERO

   When a core-node receives a Path message from an edge-node that
   contains an ERO, it SHOULD verify the route against its topology
   database before forwarding the PATH message.  If the route is not
   viable, then a PathErr message with an error code and value of 24,5 -
   "No route available toward destination" should be returned.




Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 6]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


3.3. Explicit Label Control

   In order to support explicit label control and full identification of
   the egress link an ingress edge-node may include an ERO that consists
   of only the last hop.  This is signaled by setting the first
   subobject of the ERO to the node-ID of the egress core-node with the
   L-bit set.  Following this subobject are all other subobjects
   necessary to identify the link and labels as they would normally
   appear.


4. RRO Processing

   An edge-node MAY include an RRO.  A core-node MAY remove the RRO from
   the Path message before forwarding it.  Further the core-node may
   remove the RRO from a Resv message before forwarding it to the edge-
   node.  Such behavior is controlled by (hopefully consistent)
   configuration.

   Further a core-node MAY edit the RRO in a Resv message such that it
   includes only the subobjects from the egress core-node through the
   egress edge-node.  This is to allow the ingress node to be aware of
   the selected link and labels on at the far end of the connection.


5. Notification

   An edge-node MAY include a NOTIFY_REQUEST object in both the Path and
   Resv messages it generates.  A core-node MAY remove the
   NOTIFY_REQUEST object from the Path or Resv message before forwarding
   it.  Core-nodes may send Notification messages to edge-nodes which
   have included the NOTIFY_REQUEST object.

   Further if no NOTIFY_REQUEST object is present in the Path or Resv
   message (either because it was not included or because it was
   removed) then the core-node adjacent to the edge-node may include a
   NOTIFY_REQUEST object to set its value to its own address.


6. Connection Deletion

   RSVP currently deletes connections using either a single pass
   PathTear message, or a ResvTear and PathTear message combination.
   Upon receipt of the PathTear message, a node deletes the connection
   state and forwards the message. In optical networks, however, it is
   possible that the deletion of a connection (e.g., removal of the
   cross-connect) in a node may cause the connection to be perceived as
   failed in downstream nodes (e.g., loss of frame, loss of light,



Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 7]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


   etc.). This may in turn lead to management alarms and perhaps the
   triggering of restoration/protection for the connection.

   To address this issue, the graceful connection deletion procedure
   SHOULD be followed. Under this procedure, an ADMIN_STATUS object MUST
   be sent in Path or Resv message along the connection's path to inform
   all nodes enroute of the intended deletion, prior to the actual
   deletion of the connection. The procedure is described in [RFC3473].


7. VPN Connections

   As stated in the addressing section above, the extensions in this
   document are designed to be compatible with the support of VPNs.
   Since the core network may be some technology other than GMPLS, no
   mandatory means of mapping core connections to access connections is
   specified.  However, when GMPLS is used for the core network, we
   RECOMMEND the following procedure which is based on [LSP-HIER].

   The VPN connection is modeled as being three hops.  One for each
   access link and one hop across the core network.

   The VPN connection is established using a two step procedure.  When a
   Path message is received at a core node on an interface which is part
   of a VPN, the Path message is held until a core connection is
   established.

   The connection across the core is setup as a separate signaling
   exchange between the core nodes, using the address space of the core
   nodes.  While this exchange is in progress, the original Path message
   is held at the ingress core node.  Once the exchange for the core
   connection is complete, this connection is used in the VPN connection
   as if it were a single link.  This is signaled by including an IF_ID
   RSVP_HOP object (defined in [RFC3473]) using the procedures defined
   in [LSP-HIER].

   The original Path message is then forwarded within the VPN addressing
   realm to the core node attached to the destination edge node.  Many
   ways of accomplishing this are available, including IP and GRE
   tunnels and BGP/MPLS VPNs.  Specifying a particular means is beyond
   the scope of this document.










Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 8]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


8. Security Considerations

   This draft imposes no new security risks over [RFC3473].  In fact it
   represents a lower trust model between the core and edge-nodes as the
   core is permitted to hide its topology from the edge-nodes.  The core
   is also permitted to restrict the actions of edge-nodes by filtering
   out specific RSVP objects.



9. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Kireeti Kompella, Jonathan Lang,
   Dimitri Papadimitriou, Dimitrios Pendarakis and Bala Rajagopalan for
   their comments and input.



10. References

10.1. Normative References

[RFC3471]    Berger, L., "Generalized MPLS Signaling Functional
             Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.

[RFC3473]    Berger, L., "Generalized MPLS Signaling RSVP-TE
             Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

[RFC3209]    Awduche, et al, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for
             LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.


10.2. Informative References

[GMPLS-ARCH] Mannie, E, et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
             Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", Internet Draft,
             draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-04.txt, Feb., 2003.

[MPLS-HIER]  Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
             MPLS TE", Internet Draft,
             draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt, Sep., 2001.

[BUNDLE]     Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and Berger, L., "Link
             Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Internet Draft,
             draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt,  July, 2002.

[RFC3477]    Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "Signaling Unnumbered
             Links in RSVP-TE", RFC 3477, January 2003.



Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 9]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


[G.8080]     ITU-T Rec. G.8080/Y.1304, "Architecture for the
             Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON),"
             November 2001 (and Revision, January 2003).

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

11. Authors' Addresses

   John Drake
   Calient Networks
   5853 Rue Ferrari
   San Jose, CA 95138
   Phone:  +1 408 972 3720
   Email:  jdrake@calient.net

   Hirokazu Ishimatsu
   Japan Telecom Co., Ltd.
   2-9-1 Hatchobori, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0032, Japan
   Tel: +81 3 5540 8493
   Email: hirokazu.ishimatsu@japan-telecom.co.jp

   Yakov Rekhter
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Email:  yakov@juniper.net

   George Swallow
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Ave,
   Boxborough, MA 01719
   Phone:  +1 978 936 1398
   Email:  swallow@cisco.com



12. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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
   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 of



Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 10]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-02.txt        October 2003


   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 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.





































Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/