[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: October 2004
                                                                J. Drake
                                                   Calient Networks, Inc

                                                            H. Ishimatsu
                                                           Japan Telecom

                                                              Y. Rekhter
                                                   Juniper Networks, Inc

                                                              April 2004


             GMPLS UNI: RSVP Support for the Overlay Model


                 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.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 (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   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.  This memo
   addresses the application of GMPLS to the overlay model.



Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

Contents

    1      Introduction  ...........................................   3
    1.1    GMPLS User-Network Interface (GMPLS UNI)  ...............   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  .................................   6
    4      RRO Processing  .........................................   7
    5      Notification  ...........................................   7
    6      Connection Deletion  ....................................   7
    6.1    Alarm-Free Connection Deletion  .........................   7
    6.2    Connection Deletion with PathErr  .......................   8
    7      VPN Connections  ........................................   8
    8      Security Considerations  ................................   9
    9      Acknowledgments  ........................................   9
   10      References  .............................................   9
   10.1    Normative References  ...................................   9
   10.2    Informative References  .................................  10
   11      Authors' Addresses  .....................................  10
   12      Intellectual Property Notice  ...........................  11
   12.1    IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement  .........................  11
   13      Full Copyright Statement  ...............................  12





























Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 2]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

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"
   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

Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 3]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

   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 the 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-Network Interface (GMPLS UNI)

   One can apply the GMPLS Overlay model at the User-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
   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.

Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 4]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

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
   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].





Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 5]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

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.

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.

   This process is described in [RFC3473] and [EXPLICIT].






Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 6]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

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.  Core-nodes may send Notification
   messages to edge-nodes which have included the NOTIFY_REQUEST object.

   A core-node MAY remove a NOTIFY_REQUEST object from a Path or Resv
   message received from an edge-node before forwarding it.

   If no NOTIFY_REQUEST object is present in the Path or Resv received
   from an edge-node, the core-node adjacent to the edge-node may
   include a NOTIFY_REQUEST object and set its value to its own address.

   In either of the above cases, the a core-node SHOULD NOT send Notify
   messages to the edge-node.

   When a core-node receives a NOTIFY_REQUEST object from an edge-node,
   it MAY update the Notify Node Address with its own address before
   forwarding it.  In this case, when NOTIFY messages are received, they
   MAY be selectively (based on local policy) forwarded to the edge-
   node.

6. Connection Deletion

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




Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 7]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

   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].

   An ingress core-node receiving a PathTear without having first seen
   an ADMIN_STATUS object informing it that the connection is about to
   be deleted MAY pause the PathTear and first send a Path message with
   an ADMIN_STATUS object to inform all downstream LSRs that the
   connection is about to be deleted. When the Resv is received echoing
   the ADMIN_STATUS or using a timer as described in [RFC3473], the
   ingress core-node MUST forward the PathTear.

6.2. Connection Deletion with PathErr

   [RFC3473] introduces the Path_State_Removed flag to a PathErr message
   to indicate that the sender has removed all state associated with the
   LSP and does not need to see a PathTear. A code-node next to an edge-
   node MAY map between teardown using ResvTear/PathTear and PathErr
   with Path_state_Removed.

   - A core-node next to an edge-node receiving a ResvTear from its
     downstream neighbor MAY respond with a PathTear and send a
     PathErr with Path_State_Removed further upstream.

   - A core-node next to an edge-node receiving a PathErr with
     Path_State_Removed from its downstream neighbor MAY retain Path
     state and send a ResvTear further upstream.

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.






Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 8]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

   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.

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, Bala Rajagopalan, and
   Adrian Farrel 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.

   [RFC3667]    Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78,
                RFC 3667, February 2004.

   [RFC3668]    Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
                Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004.





Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 9]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

10.2. Informative References

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

   [MPLS-HIER]  Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y., "LSP Hierarchy with
                MPLS TE", draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt,
                September 2001, work in progress.

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

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

   [EXPLICIT]   Berger, L., "GMPLS Signaling Procedure For Egress
                Control", draft-ccamp-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt,
                March 2004, work in progress.

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





Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 10]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

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

12. Intellectual Property Notice

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
   to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
   described in this document or the extent to which any license
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
   such rights.  Information on the procedures with respect to rights
   in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
   of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
   at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
   any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
   proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
   to implement this standard.  Please address the information to the
   IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

12.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.















Swallow, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 11]

Internet Draft      draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-04.txt          April 2004

13. Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is
   subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP
   78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their
   rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/