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

Versions: (draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5493

CCAMP Working Group                                          D. Caviglia
Internet-Draft                                               D. Bramanti
Intended status: Informational                                  Ericsson
Expires: March 19, 2009                                            D. Li
                                           Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
                                                              D. McDysan
                                                                 Verizon
                                                      September 15, 2008


   Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent Connections and
  Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
                            (GMPLS) Network

                 draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt

Status of this Memo

   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 becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2009.

Abstract

   From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent
   Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice
   versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried
   over it, is a valuable option.  In other terms, such operation can be
   seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an
   existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management



Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


   Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched.

   This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a
   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network.

   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].


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Label Switched Path Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  LSP within GMPLS Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Resource Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.2.  Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network  . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Typical Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  PC to SC/SPC Conversion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  SC to PC Conversion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Data Plane LSP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.2.  No Disruption of User Traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.3.  Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane  . . . . .  7
     5.4.  Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane  . . . . .  7
     5.5.  Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion . .  7
     5.6.  Support of Soft Permanent Connections  . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.7.  Failure of transfer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11












Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


1.  Introduction

   In a typical, traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane
   connections between two end-points are controlled by means of a
   Network Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Plane
   (MP).  The NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being
   responsible of their setup, teardown, and maintenance.  Provisioned
   connections of this type, initiated and managed by the Management
   Plane, are known as Permanent Connections (PCs) [G.8081].

   When the setup, teardown, and maintenance of connections are achieved
   by means of a signaling protocol owned by the Control Plane, such
   connections are known as Switched Connections (SCs) [G.8081].

   In many deployments, a hybrid connection type will be used.  A Soft
   Permanent Connection (SPC) is a combination of a permanent connection
   segment at the source user-to-network side, a permanent connection
   segment at the destination user-to-network side, and a switched
   connection segment within the core network.  The permanent parts of
   the SPC are owned by the Management Plane, and the switched parts are
   owned by the Control Plane [G.8081].

   Note, some aspects of a control plane initiated connection must be
   capable of being queried/controlled by the Management Plane.  These
   aspects should be independent of how the connection was established.


2.  Label Switched Path Terminology

   A Label Switched Path (LSP) has different semantics depending on the
   plane in which the term is used.

   In the Data Plane, an LSP indicates the Data Plane forwarding path.
   It defines the forwarding or switching operations at each network
   entity.  It is the sequence of Data Plane resources (links, labels,
   cross-connects) that achieves end-to-end data transport.

   In the Management Plane, an LSP is the management state information
   (such as the connection attributes and path information) associated
   with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane
   connection.

   In the Control Plane, an LSP is the Control Plane state information
   (such as RSVP-TE [RFC3473] Path and Resv state) associated with and
   necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane
   connection.

   A Permanent Connection has an LSP presence in the Data Plane and the



Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


   Management Plane.  A Switched Connection has an LSP presence in the
   Data Plane and the Control Plane.  An SPC has LSP presence in the
   Data Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence
   for part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its
   length.

   In this document, when we discuss the LSP conversion between
   Management Plane and Control Plane, we mainly focus on the conversion
   of Control Plane state information and Management Plane state
   information.


3.  LSP within GMPLS Control Plane

   Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) ([RFC3471],
   [RFC3473], and [RFC3945]) defines a Control Plane architecture for
   transport networks.  This includes both routing and signaling
   protocols for the creation and maintenance of Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) in networks whose Data Plane is based on different
   technologies such as TDM (SDH/SONET, G.709 at ODUk level) transport
   and WDM (G.709 OCh level).

3.1.  Resource Ownership

   A resource used by an LSP is said to be 'owned' by the plane that was
   used to set up the LSP through that part of the network.  Thus,all
   the resources used by a Permanent Connection are owned by the
   Management Plane, and all the resources used by a Switched Connection
   are owned by the Control Plane.  The resources used by an SPC are
   divided between the Management Plane (for the resources used by the
   permanent connection segments at the edge of the network) and the
   Control Plane (for the resources used by the switched segments in the
   middle of the network).

   The division of resources available for ownership by the Management
   and Control Planes is an architectural issue.  A carrier may decide
   to pre-partition the resources at a network entity so that LSPs under
   Management Plane control use one set of resources and LSPs under
   Control Plane control use another set of resources.  Other carriers
   may choose to make this distinction resource-by-resource as LSPs are
   established.

   It should be noted, however, that even when a resource is owned by
   the Control Plane it will usually be the case that the Management
   Plane has a controlling interest in the resource.  For example, the
   basic safety requirements that management commands must be able to
   set a laser out of service.




Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


3.2.  Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network

   The implementation of a new network using a Generalized Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Plane may be considered as a green
   field deployment.  But in many cases it is desirable to introduce a
   GMPLS Control Plane into an existing transport network that is
   already populated with permanent connections under Management Plane
   control.

   In a mixed scenario, Permanent Connections owned by the Management
   Plane and Switched Connections owned by the Control Plane have to
   coexist within the network.

   It is also desirable to transfer the control of connections from the
   Management Plane to the Control Plane so that connections that were
   originally under the control of an NMS are now under the control of
   the GMPLS protocols.  In case such connections are in service, such
   conversion must be performed in a way that does not affect traffic.

   Since attempts to move a LSP under GMPLS control might fail due to a
   number of reasons outside the scope of this draft, it is also highly
   desirable to have a mechanism to convert the control of an LSP back
   to the Management Plane.

   Note that a Permanent Connection may be converted to a Switched
   Connection or to an SPC, and an SPC may be converted to a Switched
   Connection as well (PC to SC, PC to SPC, and SPC to SC).  So the
   reverse mappings may be also needed (SC to PC, SC to SPC, and SPC to
   PC).

   Conversion to/from control/management will occur in MIBs or
   information (e.g., cross-connect, label assignment, label stacking,
   etc.) is identified as either a specific control protocol, or manual
   (i.e., NMS).  When converting, this hop-level owner information needs
   to be completed for all hops.  If conversion cannot be done for all
   hops, then the conversion must be done for no hops and the state of
   the hop level information restored to that before the conversion was
   attempted, and an error condition reported to the management system.

   In either case of conversion, the Management Plane shall initiate the
   change.  When converting from a PC to an SC, the management system
   must indicate to each hop that a control protocol is now to be used,
   and then configure the data needed by the control protocol at the
   connection endpoints.  When converting from an SC to a PC, the
   Management Plane must change the owner of each hop.  Then the
   instance in the Control Plane must be removed without affecting the
   Data Plane.




Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


   The case where the CP and/or MP fail at one or more nodes during the
   conversion procedure must be handled in the solution.  If the network
   is viewed as the database of record (including data, control and
   Management Plane elements), then a solution that has procedures
   similar to those of a two-phase database commit process may be needed
   to ensure integrity and support the need to revert to the state prior
   to the conversion attempt if there is a CP and/or MP failure during
   the attempted conversion.


4.  Typical Use Cases

4.1.  PC to SC/SPC Conversion

   A typical scenario where a PC to SC (or SPC) procedure can be a
   useful option is at the initial stage of Control Plane deployment in
   an existing network.  In such a case, all the network connections,
   possibly carrying traffic, are already set up as PCs and are owned by
   the Management Plane.

   At a latter stage, when the network is partially controlled by the
   Management Plane and partially controlled by the Control Plane (PCs
   and SCs/SPCs coexist) and it is desired to extend the control plane,
   a PC to SC procedure can be used to transfer a PC or SPC to a SC.

   In both cases, a connection, set up and owned by the Management
   Plane, needs to be transferred to Control Plane control.  If a
   connection is carrying traffic, its control transfer has to be done
   without any disruption to the Data Plane traffic.

4.2.  SC to PC Conversion

   The main need for a SC to PC conversion is to give an operator the
   capability of undoing the action of the above introduced PC to SC
   conversion.

   In other words, the SC to PC conversion is a back-out procedure and
   as such is not specified as mandatory in this document, but it is
   still a highly desirable function.

   Again it is worth stressing the requirement that such 'SPC to PC'
   conversion needs to be achieved without any effect on the associated
   Data Plane state so that the connection continues to be operational
   and to carry traffic during the transition.







Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


5.  Requirements

   This section sets out the basic requirements for procedures and
   processes that are used to perform the functions of this document.
   Notation from [RFC2119] is used to clarify the level of each
   requirement.

5.1.  Data Plane LSP Consistency

   The Data Plane LSP MUST stay in place throughout the whole control
   transfer process.  It MUST follow the same path through the network
   and MUST use the same network resources.

5.2.  No Disruption of User Traffic

   The transfer process MUST NOT cause any disruption of user traffic
   flowing over the LSP whose control is being transferred or any other
   LSP in the network.

   SC to PC conversion and vice-versa SHALL occur without generating
   alarms towards the end users or the NMS.

5.3.  Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane

   It MUST be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the
   Management Plane to the Control Plane.

5.4.  Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane

   It SHOULD be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the
   Control Plane to the Management Plane.

5.5.  Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion

   It MUST be assured that the state of the LSP is synchronized among
   all nodes traversed by it before the conversion is considered
   complete.

5.6.  Support of Soft Permanent Connections

   It MUST be possible to segment an LSP such that it can be converted
   to or from an SPC.

5.7.  Failure of transfer

   It MUST be possible for a transfer from one plane to the other to
   fail in a non-destructive way leaving the ownership unchanged and
   without impacting traffic.



Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


   If during the transfer procedure issues arise causing an unsuccessful
   or unexpected result, it MUST be assured:

   1.  Traffic over Data Plane is not affected

   2.  The LSP status is consistent in all the network nodes involved in
   the procedure

   Point 2, above, assures that even in case of some failure during the
   transfer, the state of the affected LSP is brought back to the
   initial one and it is fully under control of the owning entity.


6.  Security Considerations

   Allowing control of an LSP to be taken away from a plane introduces a
   possible way in which services may be disrupted by malicious
   intervention.

   A solution to the requirements in this document will utilize the
   security mechanisms supported by the Management Plane and GMPLS
   Control Plane protocols, and no new security requirements over the
   general requirements described in [RFC3945] are introduced.  It is
   expected that solution documents will include an analysis of the
   security issues introduced by any new protocol extensions.

   If SNMP MIBs are used for configuration, then the Management Plane
   should support authentication for PC-SC configuration changes as
   specified in [RFC3414].

   Note also that implementations may support policy components to
   determine whether individual LSPs may be transferred between planes.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This requirements document makes no requests for IANA action.


8.  Contributors











Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


      Nicola Ciulli
      NextWorks
      Corso Italia 116
      56125 Pisa, Italy
      Email: n.ciulli@nextworks.it

      Han Li
      China Mobile Communications Co.
      53 A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District
      Deijing 100053 P.R. China
      Phone: 10-66006688 ext.3092
      Email: lihan@chinamobile.com

      Daniele Ceccarelli
      Ericsson
      Via A. Negrone 1/A
      Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
      Phone: +390106002515
      Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com


9.  Acknowledgements

   We wish to thank the following people (listed randomly): Adrian
   Farrel for his editorial assistance to prepare this draft for
   publication, Dean Cheng, Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
   Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake and
   Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP list.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC3414]  Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
              (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
              Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.

10.2.  Informational References

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

   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching



Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


              (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC3945]  Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

   [G.8081]   International Telecommunications Union, "Terms and
              definitions for Automatically Switched Optical Networks
              (ASON)", Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353, June 2004.


Authors' Addresses

   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova - Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com


   Dino Bramanti
   Ericsson
   Via Moruzzi 1 C/O Area Ricerca CNR
   Pisa
   Italy

   Email: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com


   Dan Li
   Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
   Shenzhen 518129
   Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang
   China

   Email: dan.li@huawei.com


   Dave McDysan
   Verizon
   Ashburn, VA
   USA

   Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com





Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt   September 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Intellectual Property

   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.











Caviglia, et al.         Expires March 19, 2009                [Page 11]


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