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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 4426

Network Working Group                             Jonathan P. Lang, Ed.
Internet Draft                                    Bala Rajagopalan, Ed.
Category: Standards Track                    Dimitri Papadimitriou, Ed.
Expiration Date: October 2005

                                                             April 2005



      Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery
                        Functional Specification

           draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt



Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

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

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.


Abstract

   This document presents a functional description of the protocol
   extensions needed to support Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
   Switching (GMPLS)-based recovery (i.e. protection and restoration).
   Protocol specific formats and mechanisms will be described in
   companion documents.


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   1
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

Table of Content

   Status of this Memo .............................................. 1
   Abstract ......................................................... 1
   Table of Content ................................................. 2
   Contributors ..................................................... 2
   1. Conventions ................................................... 3
   2. Introduction .................................................. 3
   3. Span Protection ............................................... 4
   3.1 Unidirectional 1+1 dedicated protection ...................... 5
   3.2 Bi-directional 1+1 dedicated protection ...................... 6
   3.3 Dedicated 1:1 protection with Extra Traffic .................. 6
   3.4 Shared M:N protection ........................................ 8
   3.5 Messages .................................................... 10
   3.5.1 Failure Indication Message ................................ 11
   3.5.2 Switchover Request Message ................................ 11
   3.5.3 Switchover Response Message ............................... 12
   3.6 Preventing Unintended Connections ........................... 12
   4. End-to-End (Path) Protection and Restoration ................. 12
   4.1 Unidirectional 1+1 Protection ............................... 12
   4.2 Bi-directional 1+1 Protection ............................... 12
   4.2.1 Identifiers ............................................... 13
   4.2.2 Nodal Information ......................................... 13
   4.2.3 End-to-End Failure Indication Message ..................... 14
   4.2.4 End-to-End Failure Acknowledgment Message ................. 14
   4.2.5 End-to-End Switchover Request Message ..................... 15
   4.2.6 End-to-End Switchover Response Message .................... 15
   4.3 Shared Mesh Restoration ..................................... 15
   4.3.1 End-to-End Failure Indication and Acknowledgment .......... 16
   4.3.2 End-to-End Switchover Request Message ..................... 16
   4.3.3 End-to-End Switchover Response Message .................... 16
   5. Reversion and other Administrative Procedures ................ 16
   6. Discussion ................................................... 17
   6.1 LSP Priorities During Protection ............................ 17
   7. Security Considerations ...................................... 18
   8. IANA Considerations .......................................... 19
   9. Editor's Addresses ........................................... 19
   10. References .................................................. 19
   10.1 Normative References ....................................... 19
   10.2 Informative References ..................................... 20
   Intellectual Property Statement ................................. 21
   Disclaimer of Validity .......................................... 21
   Copyright Statement ............................................. 21

Contributors

   This document was the product of many individuals working together
   in the CCAMP WG Protection and Restoration design team. The
   following are the authors that contributed to this document:

   Deborah Brungard (AT&T)
   200 S. Laurel Ave.
   Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
   EMail: dbrungard@att.com

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   2
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005


   Sudheer Dharanikota
   EMail: sudheer@ieee.org

   Jonathan P. Lang (Sonos)
   506 Chapala Street
   Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA
   EMail: jplang@ieee.org

   Guangzhi Li (AT&T)
   180 Park Avenue,
   Florham Park, NJ 07932, USA
   E-mail: gli@research.att.com

   Eric Mannie
   EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com

   Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
   Francis Wellesplein, 1
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

   Bala Rajagopalan (Intel Broadband Wireless Division)
   2111 NE 25th Ave.
   Hillsboro, OR 97124, USA
   EMail: bala.rajagopalan@intel.com

   Yakov Rekhter (Juniper)
   1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA
   EMail: yakov@juniper.net

1. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   In addition, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the
   terminology used in [GMPLS-ARCH], [RFC3471] and referenced as well
   as [TERM].

2. Introduction

   A requirement for the development of a common control plane for both
   optical and electronic switching equipment is that there must be
   signaling, routing, and link management mechanisms that support data
   plane fault recovery. In this document, the term "recovery" is
   generically used to denote both protection and restoration; the
   specific terms "protection" and "restoration" are only used when
   differentiation is required. The subtle distinction between
   protection and restoration is made based on the resource allocation
   done during the recovery period (see [TERM]).


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   3
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   A label-switched path (LSP) may be subject to local (span), segment,
   and/or end-to-end recovery. Local span protection refers to the
   protection of the link (and hence all the LSPs marked as required
   for span protection and routed over the link) between two
   neighboring switches. Segment protection refers to the recovery of
   an LSP segment (i.e., an SNC in the ITU-T terminology) between two
   nodes, i.e. the boundary nodes of the segment. End-to-end protection
   refers to the protection of an entire LSP from the ingress to the
   egress port. The end-to-end recovery models discussed in this
   document apply to segment protection where the source and
   destination refer to the protected segment rather than the entire
   LSP. Multiple recovery levels may be used concurrently by a single
   LSP for added resiliency; however, the interaction between levels
   becomes affecting any one direction of the LSP results in both
   directions of the LSP being switched to a new span, segment, or end-
   to-end path.

   Unless otherwise stated, all references to "link" in this document
   indicate a bi-directional link (which may be realized as a pair of
   unidirectional links).

   Consider the control plane message flow during the establishment of
   an LSP. This message flow proceeds from an initiating (or source)
   node to a terminating (or destination) node, via a sequence of
   intermediate nodes. A node along the LSP is said to be "upstream"
   from another node if the former occurs first in the sequence. The
   latter node is said to be "downstream" from the former node. That
   is, an "upstream" node is closer to the initiating node than a node
   further "downstream". Unless otherwise stated, all references to
   "upstream" and "downstream" are in terms of the control plane
   message flow.

   The flow of the data traffic is defined from ingress (source node)
   to egress (destination node). Note that for bi-directional LSPs
   there are two different data plane flows, one for each direction of
   the LSP. This document presents a protocol functional description to
   support Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based
   recovery (i.e., protection and restoration). Protocol specific
   formats, encoding and mechanisms will be described in companion
   documents.

3. Span Protection

   Consider a (working) link i between two nodes A and B. There are two
   fundamental models for span protection. The first is referred to as
   1+1 protection. Under this model, a dedicated link j is pre-assigned
   to protect link i. LSP traffic is permanently bridged onto both
   links i and j at the ingress node and the egress node selects the
   signal (i.e., normal traffic) from i or j, based on a selection
   function (e.g., signal quality). Under unidirectional 1+1 span
   protection (Section 3.1), each node A and B acts autonomously to
   select the signal from the working link (i) or the protection link
   (j). Under bi-directional 1+1 span protection (Section 3.2) the two


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   4
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   nodes A and B coordinate the selection function such that they
   select the signal from the same link, i or j.

   Under the second model, a set of N working links are protected by a
   set of M protection links, usually with M =< N.  A failure in any of
   the N working links results in traffic being switched to one of the
   M protection links that is available. This is typically a three-step
   process: first the data plane failure is detected at the egress node
   and reported (notification), then a protection link is selected, and
   finally, the LSPs on the failed link are moved to the protection
   link. If reversion is supported, a fourth step is included, i.e.
   return of the traffic to the working link (when the working link has
   recovered from the failure). In Section 3.3, 1:1 span protection is
   described. In Section 3.4, M:N span protection is described, where M
   =< N.

3.1  Unidirectional 1+1 dedicated protection

   Suppose a bi-directional LSP is routed over link i between two nodes
   A and B. Under unidirectional 1+1 protection, a dedicated link j is
   pre-assigned to protect the working link i. LSP traffic is
   permanently bridged on both links at the ingress node and the egress
   node selects the normal traffic from one of the links, i or j. If a
   node (A or B) detects a failure of a span, it autonomously invokes a
   process to receive the traffic from the protection span. Thus, it is
   possible that node A selects the signal from link i in the B to A
   direction of the LSP, and node B selects the signal from link j in
   the A to B direction.

   The following functionality is required for 1+1 unidirectional span
   protection:

        o  Routing: A single TE link encompassing both working and
           protection links SHOULD be announced with Link Protection
           Type "Dedicated 1+1" along with the bandwidth parameters for
           the working link. As the resources are consumed/released,
           the bandwidth parameters of the TE link are adjusted
           accordingly. Encoding of the Link Protection Type and
           bandwidth parameters in IS-IS is specified in [GMPLS-ISIS].
           Encoding of this information in OSPF is specified in [GMPLS-
           OSPF].

        o  Signaling: The Link Protection object/TLV SHOULD be used to
           request "Dedicated 1+1" link protection for that LSP. This
           object/TLV is defined in [RFC3471]. If the Link Protection
           object/TLV is not used, link selection is a matter of local
           policy. No additional signaling is required when a fail-over
           occurs.

        o  Link management: Both nodes MUST have a consistent view of
           the link protection association for the spans. This can be
           done using the Link Management Protocol (LMP) [LMP], or if
           LMP is not used, this MUST be configured manually.


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   5
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

3.2  Bi-directional 1+1 dedicated protection

   Suppose a bi-directional LSP is routed over link i between two nodes
   A and B. Under bi-directional 1+1 protection, a dedicated link j is
   pre-assigned to protect the working link i. LSP traffic is
   permanently duplicated on both links and under normal conditions,
   the traffic from link i is received by nodes A and B (in the
   appropriate directions). A failure affecting link i results in both
   A and B switching to the traffic on link j in the respective
   directions. Note that some form of signaling is required to ensure
   that both A and B start receiving from the protection link.

   The basic steps in 1+1 bi-directional span protection are as
   follows:

        1. If a node (A or B) detects the failure of the working link
           (or a degradation of signal quality over the working link),
           it SHOULD begin receiving on the protection link and send a
           switchover request message reliably to the other node (B or
           A, respectively). This message SHOULD indicate the identity
           of the failed working link and other relevant information.

        2. Upon receipt of the switchover request message, a node MUST
           begin receiving from the protection link and send a
           switchover response message to the other node (A or B,
           respectively). Since both the working/protect spans are
           exposed to routing and signaling as a single link, the
           switchover SHOULD be transparent to routing and signaling.

   The following functionality is required for 1+1 bi-directional span
   protection:

        o  The routing procedures are the same as in 1+1
           unidirectional.

        o  The signaling procedures are the same as in 1+1
           unidirectional.

        o  In addition to the procedures described in 1+1
           (unidirectional), a switchover request message MUST be used
           to signal the switchover request. This can be done using LMP
           [LMP]. Note that GMPLS-based mechanisms MAY not be necessary
           when the underlying span (transport) technology provides
           such a mechanism.

3.3  Dedicated 1:1 protection with Extra Traffic

   Consider two adjacent nodes A and B. Under 1:1 protection, a
   dedicated link j between A and B is pre-assigned to protect working
   link i. Link j may be carrying (preemptable) Extra Traffic. A
   failure affecting link i results in the corresponding LSP(s) being
   restored to link j. Extra Traffic being routed over link j may need
   to be preempted to accommodate the LSPs that have to be restored.


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   6
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   Once a fault is isolated/localized, the affected LSP(s) must be
   moved to the protection link. The process of moving an LSP from a
   failed (working) link to a protection link must be initiated by one
   of the nodes, A or B. This node is referred to as the "master". The
   other node is called the "slave". The determination of the master
   and the slave may be based on configured information or protocol
   specific requirements.

   The basic steps in dedicated 1:1 span protection (ignoring
   reversion) are as follows:

        1. If the master detects/localizes a link failure event, it
           invokes a process to allocate the protection link to the
           affected LSP(s).
        2. If the slave detects a link failure event, it informs the
           master of the failure using a failure indication message.
           The master then invokes the same procedure as (1) to move
           the LSPs to the protection link. If the protection link is
           carrying Extra Traffic, the slave stops using the span for
           the Extra Traffic.
        3. Once the span protection procedure is invoked in the master,
           it requests the slave to switch the affected LSP(s) to the
           protection link. Prior to this, if the protection link is
           carrying Extra Traffic, the master stops using the span for
           this traffic (i.e., the traffic is dropped by the master and
           not forwarded into or out of the protection link).
        4. The slave sends an acknowledgement to the master. Prior to
           this, the slave stops using the link for Extra Traffic (i.e.
           the traffic is dropped by the slave and not forwarded into
           or out of the protection link). It then starts sending the
           normal traffic on the selected protection link.
        5. When the master receives the acknowledgement, it starts
           sending and receiving the normal traffic over the new link.
           The switchover of the LSPs is thus completed.

        Note: though this mechanism implies more traffic dropped than
        necessary, it is preferred over possible misconnections during
        the recovery process.

   From the description above, it is clear that 1:1 span protection may
   require up to three signaling messages for each failed span: a
   failure indication message, an LSP switchover request message, and
   an LSP switchover response message. Furthermore, it may be possible
   to switch multiple LSPs from the working span to the protection span
   simultaneously.

   The following functionality is required for dedicated 1:1 span
   protection:

        o  Pre-emption MUST be supported to accommodate Extra Traffic.

        o  Routing: A single TE link encompassing both working and
           protection links is announced with Link Protection Type
           "Dedicated 1:1". If Extra Traffic is supported over the

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   7
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

           protection link, then the bandwidth parameters for the
           protection link MUST also be announced. The differentiation
           between bandwidth for working and protect links is made
           using priority mechanisms. In other words, the network MUST
           be configured such that bandwidth at priority X or lower is
           considered Extra Traffic.

           If there is a failure on the working link, then the normal
           traffic is switched to the protection link, preempting Extra
           Traffic if necessary. The bandwidth for the protection link
           MUST be adjusted accordingly.

        o  Signaling: To establish an LSP on the working link, the Link
           Protection object/TLV indicating "Dedicated 1:1" SHOULD be
           included in the signaling request message for that LSP. To
           establish an LSP on the protection link, the appropriate
           priority (indicating Extra Traffic) SHOULD be used for that
           LSP. These objects/TLVs are defined in [RFC3471]. If the
           Link Protection object/TLV is not used, link selection is a
           matter of local policy.

        o  Link management: Both nodes MUST have a consistent view of
           the link protection association for the spans. This can be
           done using LMP [LMP] or via manual configuration.

        o  When a link failure is detected at the slave, a failure
           indication message MUST be sent to the master informing the
           node of the link failure.

3.4  Shared M:N protection

   Shared M:N protection is described with respect to two neighboring
   nodes A and B. The scenario considered is as follows:

        o  At any point in time, there are two sets of links between A
           and B, i.e., a working set of N (bi-directional) links
           carrying traffic subject to protection and a protection set
           of M (bi-directional) links. A protection link may be
           carrying Extra Traffic. There is no a priori relationship
           between the two sets of links, but the value of M and N MAY
           be pre-configured. The specific links in the protection set
           MAY be pre-configured to be physically diverse to avoid the
           possibility that failure events affect a large proportion of
           protection links (along with working links).

        o  When a link in the working set is affected by a failure, the
           normal traffic is diverted to a link in the protection set,
           if such a link is available. Note that such a link might be
           carrying more than one LSP, e.g., an OC-192 link carrying
           four STS-48 LSPs.

        o  More than one link in the working set may be affected by the
           same failure event. In this case, there may not be an
           adequate number of protection links to accommodate all of

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   8
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

           the affected traffic carried by failed working links. The
           set of affected working links that are actually restored
           over available protection links is then subject to policies
           (e.g., based on relative priority of working traffic). These
           policies are not specified in this document.

        o  When normal traffic must be diverted from a failed link in
           the working set to a protection link, the decision as to
           which protection link is chosen is always made by one of the
           nodes, A or B. This node is considered the "master" and it
           is required to both apply any policies and select specific
           protection links to divert working traffic. The other node
           is considered the "slave". The determination of the master
           and the slave MAY be based on configured information,
           protocol specific requirements, or as a result of running a
           neighbor discovery procedure.

        o  Failure events themselves are detected by transport layer
           mechanisms if available (e.g., SONET Alarm Indication Signal
           (AIS)/ Remote Defect Indication (RDI)). Since the bi-
           directional links are formed by a pair of unidirectional
           links, a failure in the link from A to B is typically
           detected by B and a failure in the opposite direction is
           detected by A. It is possible that a failure simultaneously
           affects both directions of the bi-directional link. In this
           case, A and B will concurrently detect failures, in the B-
           to-A direction and in the A-to-B direction, respectively.

   The basic steps in M:N protection (ignoring reversion) are as
   follows:

        1. If the master detects a failure of a working link, it
           autonomously invokes a process to allocate a protection link
           to the affected traffic.

        2. If the slave detects a failure of a working link, it MUST
           inform the master of the failure using a failure indication
           message. The master then invokes the same procedure as above
           to allocate a protection link. (It is possible that the
           master has itself detected the same failure, for example, a
           failure simultaneously affecting both directions of a link).

        3. Once the master has determined the identity of the
           protection link, it indicates this to the slave and requests
           the switchover of the traffic (using a "switchover request"
           message). Prior to this, if the protection link is carrying
           Extra Traffic, the master stops using the link for this
           traffic (i.e., the traffic is dropped by the master and not
           forwarded into or out of the protection link).

        4. The slave sends a "switchover response" message back to the
           master. Prior to this, if the selected protection link is
           carrying traffic that could be preempted, the slave stops
           using the link for this traffic (i.e., the traffic is

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                   9
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

           dropped by the slave and not forwarded into or out of the
           protection link). It then starts sending the normal traffic
           on the selected protection link.

        5. When the master receives the switchover response, it starts
           sending and receiving the traffic that was previously
           carried on the now-failed link over the new link.

        Note: though this mechanism implies more traffic dropped than
        necessary, it is preferred over possible misconnections during
        the recovery process.

   From the description above, it is clear that M:N span restoration
   (involving LSP local recovery) MAY require up to three messages for
   each working link being switched: a failure indication message, a
   switchover request message and a switchover response message.

   The following functionality is required for M:N span restoration:

        o  Pre-emption MUST be supported to accommodate Extra Traffic.

        o  Routing: A single TE link encompassing both sets of working
           and protect links should be announced with Link Protection
           Type "Shared M:N". If Extra Traffic is supported over set of
           the protection links, then the bandwidth parameters for the
           set of protection links MUST also be announced. The
           differentiation between bandwidth for working and protect
           links is made using priority mechanisms.

           If there is a failure on a working link, then the affected
           LSP(s) MUST be switched to a protection link, preempting
           Extra Traffic if necessary. The bandwidth for the protection
           link MUST be adjusted accordingly.

        o  Signaling: To establish an LSP on the working link, the Link
           Protection object/TLV indicating "Shared M:N" SHOULD be
           included in the signaling request message for that LSP. To
           establish an LSP on the protection link, the appropriate
           priority (indicating Extra Traffic) SHOULD be used for that.
           These objects/TLVs are defined in [RFC3471]. If the Link
           Protection object/TLV is not used, link selection is a
           matter of local policy.

        o  For link management, both nodes MUST have a consistent view
           of the link protection association for the links. This can
           be done using LMP [LMP] or via manual configuration.

3.5  Messages

   The following messages are used in local span protection procedures.

   These messages SHOULD be delivered reliably. Therefore, the protocol
   mechanisms used to deliver these messages SHOULD provide sequencing,


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  10
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   acknowledgment and retransmission. The protocol SHOULD also handle
   situations where the message(s) can not be delivered.

   The messages described in the following subsections are abstract,
   their format and encoding will be described in separate documents.

3.5.1    Failure Indication Message

   This message is sent from the slave to the master to indicate the
   identities of one or more failed working links. This message MAY not
   be necessary when the transport plane technology itself provides for
   such a notification.

   The number of links included in the message would depend on the
   number of failures detected within a window of time by the sending
   node. A node MAY choose to send separate failure indication messages
   in the interest of completing the recovery for a given link within
   an implementation-dependent time constraint.

3.5.2    Switchover Request Message

   Under bi-directional 1+1 span protection, this message is used to
   coordinate the selecting function at both nodes. This message is
   originated at the node that detected the failure.

   Under dedicated 1:1 and shared M:N span protection, this message is
   used as an LSP switchover request. This message is sent from the
   master node to the slave node (reliably) to indicate that the LSP(s)
   on the (failed) working link can be switched to an available
   protection link. If so, the ID of the protection link as well as the
   LSP labels (if necessary) MUST be indicated. These identifiers used
   MUST be consistent with those used in GMPLS signaling.

   A working link may carry multiple LSPs. Since the normal traffic
   carried over the working link is switched to the protection link, it
   MAY be possible for the LSPs on the working link to be mapped to the
   protection link without re-signaling each individual LSP. For
   example, if link bundling [BUNDLE] is used where the working and
   protect links are mapped to component links, and the labels are the
   same on the working and protection links, it MAY be possible to
   change the component links without needing to re-signal each
   individual LSP. Optionally, the labels MAY need to be explicitly
   coordinated between the two nodes. In this case, the switchover
   request message SHOULD carry the new label mappings.

   The master may not be able to find protection links to accommodate
   all failed working links. Thus, if this message is generated in
   response to a Failure Indication message from the slave then the set
   of failed links in the message MAY be a sub-set of the links
   received in the Failure Indication message. Depending on time
   constraints, the master may switch the normal traffic from the set
   of failed links in smaller batches. Thus, a single failure
   indication message MAY result in the master sending more than one
   Switchover Request message to the same slave node.

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  11
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005


3.5.3   Switchover Response Message

   This message is sent from the slave to the master (reliably) to
   indicate the completion (or failure) of switchover at the slave.  In
   this message, the slave MAY indicate that it cannot switch over to
   the corresponding free link for some reason. The master and slave in
   this case notify the user (operator) of the failed switchover. A
   notification of the failure MAY also be used as a trigger in an end-
   to-end recovery.

3.6  Preventing Unintended Connections

   An unintended connection occurs when traffic from the wrong source
   is delivered to a receiver. This MUST be prevented during protection
   switching. This is primarily a concern when the protection link is
   being used to carry Extra Traffic. In this case, it MUST be ensured
   that the LSP traffic being switched from the (failed) working link
   to the protection link is not delivered to the receiver of the
   preempted traffic. Thus, in the message flow described above, the
   master node MUST disconnect (any) preempted traffic on the selected
   protection link before sending the Switchover Request. The slave
   node MUST also disconnect preempted traffic before sending the
   Switchover Response. In addition, the master node SHOULD start
   receiving traffic for the protected LSP from the protection link.
   Finally, the master node SHOULD start sending protected traffic on
   the protection link upon receipt of the Switchover Response.

4. End-to-End (Path) Protection and Restoration

   End-to-end path protection and restoration refer to the recovery of
   an entire LSP from the initiator to the terminator. Suppose the
   primary path of an LSP is routed from the initiator (Node A) to the
   terminator (Node B) through a set of intermediate nodes.

   The following subsections describe three previously proposed end-to-
   end protection schemes and the functional steps needed to implement
   them.

4.1  Unidirectional 1+1 Protection

   A dedicated, resource-disjoint alternate path is pre-established to
   protect the LSP. Traffic is simultaneously sent on both paths and
   received from one of the functional paths by the end nodes A and B.

   There is no explicit signaling involved with this mode of
   protection.

4.2  Bi-directional 1+1 Protection

   A dedicated, resource-disjoint alternate path is pre-established to
   protect the LSP. Traffic is simultaneously sent on both paths; under
   normal conditions, the traffic from the working path is received by
   nodes A and B (in the appropriate directions). A failure affecting

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  12
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   the working path results in both A and B switching to the traffic on
   the protection path in the respective directions.

   Note that this requires coordination between the end nodes to switch
   to the protection path.

   The basic steps in bi-directional 1+1 path protection are as
   follows:

        o  Failure detection: There are two possibilities for this.

             1. A node in the working path detects a failure event.
                Such a node MUST send a failure indication message
                towards the upstream or/and downstream end node of the
                LSP (node A or B). This message MAY be forwarded along
                the working path, or routed over a different path if
                the network has general routing intelligence.

                Mechanisms provided by the data transport plane MAY
                also be used for this, if available.

             2. The end nodes (A or B) detect the failure themselves
                (e.g., loss of signal).

        o  Switchover: The action when an end node detects a failure in
           the working path is as follows: Start receiving from the
           protection path; at the same time, send a switchover request
           message to the other end node to enable switching at the
           other end.

           The action when an end node receives a switchover request
           message is as follows:

             -  Start receiving from the protection path; at the same
                time, send a switchover response message to the other
                end node.

   GMPLS signaling mechanisms MAY be used to (reliably) signal the
   failure indication message, as well as the switchover request and
   response message. These messages MAY be forwarded along the
   protection path if no other routing intelligence is available in the
   network.

4.2.1   Identifiers

   LSP Identifier: A unique identifier for each LSP. The LSP Identifier
   is within the scope of the Source ID and Destination ID.

   Source ID: ID of the source (e.g., IP address).

   Destination ID: ID of the destination (e.g., IP address).

4.2.2   Nodal Information


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  13
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   Each node that is on the working or protection path of an LSP MUST
   have knowledge of the LSP identifier. If the network does not
   provide routing intelligence, nodal information MAY also include
   previous and next nodes in the LSP so that restoration-related
   messages can be forwarded properly. When, the network provides
   general routing intelligence, messages MAY be forwarded along paths
   different than that of the LSP.

   At the end-point nodes, the working and protection paths MUST be
   associated. The association of these paths MAY be either provisioned
   using signaling, or MAY be configured when LSP provisioning does not
   involve signaling (e.g., provisioning through a management system).
   The related association information MUST remain until the LSP is
   explicitly de-provisioned.

4.2.3   End-to-End Failure Indication Message

   This message is sent (reliably) by an intermediate node towards the
   source of an LSP. For instance, such a node might have attempted
   local span protection and failed. This message MAY not be necessary
   if the data transport layer provides mechanisms for the notification
   of LSP failure by the endpoints (i.e. if LSP endpoints are co-
   located with a corresponding data (transport) maintenance/recovery
   domain).

   Consider a node that detects a link failure. The node MUST determine
   the identities of all LSPs that are affected by the failure of the
   link, and send an end-to-end failure indication message to the
   source of each LSP. For scalability reasons, failure indication
   messages MAY contain the identity and the status of multiple LSPs
   rather than a single one. Each intermediate node receiving such a
   message MUST forward the message to the appropriate next node such
   that the message would ultimately reach the LSP source. However,
   there is no requirement that this message flows towards the source
   along the same path as the failed LSP. Furthermore, if an
   intermediate node is itself generating a failure indication message,
   there SHOULD be a mechanism to suppress all but one source of
   failure indication messages. Finally, the failure indication message
   MUST be sent reliably from the node detecting the failure to the LSP
   source. Reliability MAY be achieved, for example, by re-transmitting
   the message until an acknowledgement is received. However,
   retransmission of failure indication messages SHOULD not cause
   further message drops. This MAY be achieved through the appropriate
   configuration and use of congestion and flow control mechanisms.

4.2.4   End-to-End Failure Acknowledgment Message

   This message is sent by the source node to acknowledge the receipt
   of an End-to-End failure indication message. This message is sent to
   the originator of the failure indication message. The acknowledge
   message SHOULD be sent for each failure indication message received.
   Each intermediate node receiving the failure acknowledgment message
   MUST forward it towards the destination of the message. However,


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  14
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   there is no requirement that this message flows towards the
   destination along the same path as the failed LSP.

   This message MAY not be required if other means of ensuring reliable
   message delivery are used.

4.2.5   End-to-End Switchover Request Message

   This message is generated by the source node receiving an indication
   of failure in an LSP. It is sent to the LSP destination, and it
   carries the identifier of LSP being restored. The End-to-End
   Switchover Request message MUST be sent reliably from the source to
   the destination of the LSP.

4.2.6   End-to-End Switchover Response Message

   This message is sent by the destination node receiving an End-to-End
   Switchover Request message towards the source of the LSP. This
   message SHOULD identify the LSP being switched over. This message
   MUST be transmitted in response to each End-to-End Switchover
   Request message received and MAY indicate either a positive or
   negative outcome.

4.3  Shared Mesh Restoration

   Shared mesh restoration refers to schemes under which protection
   paths for multiple LSPs share common link and node resources. Under
   these schemes, the protection capacity is pre-reserved, i.e., link
   capacity is allocated to protect one or more LSPs but explicit
   action is required to instantiate a specific protection LSP. This
   requires restoration signaling along the protection path. Typically,
   the protection capacity is shared only amongst LSPs whose working
   paths are physically diverse. This criterion can be enforced when
   provisioning the protection path. Specifically, provisioning-related
   signaling messages may carry information about the working path to
   nodes along the protection path. This can be used as call admission
   control to accept/reject connections along the protection path based
   on the identification of the resources used for the primary path.

   Thus, shared mesh restoration is designed to protect an LSP after a
   single failure event, i.e., a failure that affects the working path
   of at most one LSP sharing the protection capacity. It is possible
   that a protection path may not be successfully activated when
   multiple, concurrent failure events occur. In this case, shared mesh
   restoration capacity may be claimed for more than one failed LSP and
   the protection path can be activated only for one of them (at most).

   For implementing shared mesh restoration, the identifier and nodal
   information related to signaling along the control path are as
   defined for 1+1 protection in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. In addition,
   each node MUST also keep (local) information needed to establish the
   data plane of the protection path. This information MUST indicate
   the local resources to be allocated, the fabric cross-connect to be
   established to activate the path, etc. The precise nature of this

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  15
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   information would depend on the type of node and LSP (the GMPLS
   signaling document describes different type of switches [RFC3471]).
   It would also depend on whether the information is fine or coarse-
   grained. For example, fine-grained information would indicate pre-
   selection of all details pertaining to protection path activation,
   such as outgoing link, labels, etc. Coarse-grained information, on
   the other hand, would allow some details to be determined during
   protection path activation. For example, protection resources may be
   pre-selected at the level of a TE link, while the selection of the
   specific component link and label occurs during protection path
   activation.

   While the coarser specification allows some flexibility in selection
   of the precise resource to activate, it also brings in more
   complexity in decision making and signaling during the time-critical
   restoration phase. Furthermore, the procedures for the assignment of
   bandwidth to protection paths MUST take into account the total
   resources in a TE link so that single-failure survivability
   requirements are satisfied.

4.3.1   End-to-End Failure Indication and Acknowledgment Message

   The End-to-End failure indication and acknowledgement procedures and
   messages are as defined in Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.

4.3.2   End-to-End Switchover Request Message

   This message is generated by the source node receiving an indication
   of failure in an LSP. It is sent to the LSP destination along the
   protection path, and it identifies the LSP being restored. If any
   intermediate node is unable to establish cross-connects for the
   protection path, then it is desirable that no other node in the path
   establishes cross-connects for the path. This would allow shared
   mesh restoration paths to be efficiently utilized.

   The End-to-End Switchover message MUST be sent reliably from the
   source to the destination of the LSP along the protection path.

4.3.3   End-to-End Switchover Response Message

   This message is sent by the destination node receiving an End-to-End
   Switchover Request message towards the source of the LSP, along the
   protection path. This message SHOULD identify the LSP that is being
   switched over. Prior to activating the secondary bandwidth at each
   hop along the path, Extra Traffic (if used) MUST be dropped and not
   forwarded

   This message MUST be transmitted in response to each End-to-End
   Switchover Request message received.

5. Reversion and other Administrative Procedures

   Reversion refers to the process of moving an LSP back to the
   original working path after a failure is cleared and the path is

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  16
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   repaired. Reversion applies both to local span and end-to-end path
   protected LSPs. Reversion is desired for the following reasons.
   First, the protection path may not be optimal as compared to the
   working path from a routing and resource consumption point of view.
   Second, moving an LSP to its working path allows the protection
   resources to be used to protect other LSPs. Reversion has the
   disadvantage of causing a second service disruption. Use of
   reversion is at the option of the operator. Reversion implies that a
   working path remains allocated to the LSP that was originally routed
   over it even after a failure. It is important to have mechanisms
   that allow reversion to be performed with minimal service disruption
   to the customer. This can be achieved using a "bridge-and-switch"
   approach (often referred to as make-before-break).

   The basic steps involved in bridge-and-switch are:

        1. The source node commences the process by "bridging" the
           normal traffic onto both the working and the protection
           paths (or links in the case of span protection).
        2. Once the bridging process is complete, the source node sends
           a Bridge and Switch Request message to the destination,
           identifying the LSP and other information necessary to
           perform reversion. Upon receipt of this message, the
           destination selects the traffic from the working path. At
           the same time, it bridges the transmitted traffic onto both
           the working and protection paths.
        3. The destination then sends a Bridge and Switch Response
           message to the source confirming the completion of the
           operation.
        4. When the source receives this message, it switches to
           receive from the working path, and stops transmitting
           traffic on the protection path. The source then sends a
           Bridge and Switch Completed message to the destination
           confirming that the LSP has been reverted.
        5. Upon receipt of this message, the destination stops
           transmitting along the protection path and de-activates the
           LSP along this path. The de-activation procedure should
           remove the crossed connections along the protection path
           (and frees the resources to be used for restoring other
           failures.

   Administrative procedures other than reversion include the ability
   to force a switchover (from working to protection or vice versa),
   and locking out switchover, i.e., preventing an LSP from moving from
   working to protection administratively. These administrative
   conditions have to be supported by signaling.

6. Discussion

6.1  LSP Priorities During Protection

   Under span protection, a failure event could affect more than one
   working link and there could be fewer protection links than the
   number of failed working links. Furthermore, a working link may

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  17
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   contain multiple LSPs of varying priority. Under this scenario, a
   decision must be made as to which working links (and therefore LSPs)
   should be protected. This decision MAY be based on LSP priorities.

   In general, a node might detect failures sequentially, i.e., all
   failed working links may not be detected simultaneously, but only
   sequentially. In this case, as per the proposed signaling
   procedures, LSPs on a working link MAY be switched over to a given
   protection link, but another failure (of a working link carrying
   higher priority LSPs) may be detected soon afterwards. In this case,
   the new LSPs may bump the ones previously switched over the
   protection link.

   In the case of end-to-end shared mesh restoration, priorities MAY be
   implemented for allocating shared link resources under multiple
   failure scenarios. As described in Section 4.3, more than one LSP
   can claim shared resources under multiple failure scenarios. If such
   resources are first allocated to a lower priority LSP, they MAY have
   to be reclaimed and allocated to a higher priority LSP.

7. Security Considerations

   There are number of security threats that MAY be experienced due to
   the exchange of messages and information as detailed in this
   document. Some examples include interception, spoofing, modification
   and replay of control messages. Therefore, following security
   requirements are applicable to the mechanisms of this document.
        o Signaling MUST be able to provide authentication, integrity,
          and protect against replay attacks.
        o Privacy and confidentiality is not required. Only
          authentication is required to ensure that the signaling
          messages are originating from the right place and have not
          been modified in transit.
        o Protection of the identity of the data plane end-points (in
          failure indication messages) is not required

   The consequences of poorly secured protection may increase the risk
   of triggering recovery actions under false failure indication
   messages including LSP identifiers that are not under failure. Such
   information could subsequently trigger initiation of "false"
   recovery actions while there are no reasons to do so. Additionally,
   if the identification of the LSP is tampered from a failure
   indication message recovery actions will involve nodes for which the
   LSPs do not indicate any failure condition or for which no failure
   indication message has been received. The consequences of such
   actions is unpredictable and MAY lead to de-synchronisation between
   the control and the data plane but also increase the risk of
   misconnections. Moreover, the consequences of poorly applied
   protection may increase the risk of misconnection. In particular,
   when Extra Traffic is involved, it is easily possible to deliver the
   wrong traffic to wrong destination. Similarly, an intrusion that
   sets up what appears to be a valid protection LSP and then causes a
   fault may be able to divert traffic.


Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  18
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

   Moreover, tampering with routing information exchange may also have
   an effect on traffic engineering. Therefore, any mechanisms used for
   securing and authenticating the transmission of routing information
   SHOULD be applied in the present context.

8. IANA Considerations

   This document defines no new code points and requires no action by
   IANA.

9. Editors' Addresses

   Jonathan P. Lang
   Sonos, Inc.
   506 Chapala Street
   Santa Barbara, CA 93101
   EMail: jplang@ieee.org

   Bala Rajagopalan
   Intel Broadband Wireless Div.
   2111 NE 25th Ave.
   Hillsboro, OR 97124
   Phone: +1 503 712-9291
   EMail: bala.rajagopalan@intel.com

   Dimitri Papadimitriou
   Alcatel
   Francis Wellesplein, 1
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   Phone: +32 3 240-8491
   EMail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

10. References

10.1 Normative References

   [BUNDLE]     Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y. and Berger, L., "Link
                Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-mpls-
                bundle-06.txt (work in progress).

   [GMPLS-ISIS] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "IS-IS
                Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-
                isis-gmpls-extensions-16.txt (work in progress).

   [GMPLS-OSPF] Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., Banerjee, A. et al, "OSPF
                Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", draft-ietf-
                ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt (work in progress).

   [LMP]        Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP) v1.0",
                Internet Draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-10.txt (work in
                progress).

   [RFC2026]    Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
                Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  19
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005


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

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

   [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.

10.2 Informative References

   [TERM]       Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Recovery
                (Protection Internet Draft, draft-ietf-gmpls-recovery-
                terminology-06.txt, (work in progress).




































Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  20
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-04.txt           April 2005

Intellectual Property Statement

   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.

Disclaimer of Validity

   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.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.











Lang, J., Rajagopalan, B., et al - Standards Track                  21


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