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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection

Network Working Group                                           W. Cheng
Internet-Draft                                                   L. Wang
Intended status: Standards Track                                   H. Li
Expires: February 12, 2016                                  China Mobile
                                                             H. Helvoort
                                                          Hai Gaoming BV
                                                                  K. Liu
                                                                 J. Dong
                                                                   J. He
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                   F. Li
               China Academy of Telecommunication Research, MIIT., China
                                                                 J. Yang
                                               ZTE Corporation P.R.China
                                                                 J. Wang
                      Fiberhome Telecommunication Technologies Co., LTD.
                                                         August 11, 2015


   MPLS-TP Shared-Ring protection (MSRP) mechanism for ring topology
             draft-cheng-mpls-tp-shared-ring-protection-06

Abstract

   This document describes requirements, architecture and solutions for
   MPLS-TP Shared Ring Protection (MSRP) in the ring topology for point-
   to-point (P2P) services.  The mechanism of MSRP is illustrated and
   how it satisfies the requirements for optimized ring protection in
   RFC 5654 is analyzed.  This document also defines the Ring Protection
   Switch (RPS) Protocol which is used to coordinate the protection
   behavior of the nodes on MPLS ring.

Requirements Language

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 12, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements for MPLS-TP Ring Protection  . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Recovery of Multiple Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Smooth Upgrade from Linear Protection to Ring Protection    4
     2.3.  Configuration Complexity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Terminology and Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Shared Ring Protection Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Ring Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.1.  Establishment of Ring Tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       4.1.2.  Label Assignment and Distribution . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.1.3.  Forwarding Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Failure Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Ring Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.1.  Wrapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       4.3.2.  Short Wrapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.3.3.  Steering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.4.  Interconnected Ring Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.4.1.  Interconnected Ring Topology  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.4.2.  Interconnected Ring Protection Mechanisms . . . . . .  18
       4.4.3.  Ring Tunnels in Interconnected Rings  . . . . . . . .  19
       4.4.4.  Interconnected Ring Switching Procedure . . . . . . .  21
       4.4.5.  Interconnected Ring Detection Mechanism . . . . . . .  22
   5.  Ring Protection Coordination Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     5.1.  RPS Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


       5.1.1.  Transmission and Acceptance of RPS Requests . . . . .  26
       5.1.2.  RPS PDU Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       5.1.3.  Ring Node RPS States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       5.1.4.  RPS State Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     5.2.  RPS State Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       5.2.1.  Initial States  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       5.2.2.  State transitions When Local Request is Applied . . .  32
       5.2.3.  State Transitions When Remote Request is Applied  . .  36
       5.2.4.  State Transitions When Request Addresses to Another
               Node is Received  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
     5.3.  RPS and PSC Comparison on Ring Topology . . . . . . . . .  41
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     6.1.  G-ACh Channel Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     6.2.  RSP Request Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   8.  Contributing Authors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45

1.  Introduction

   As described in 2.5.6.1 of [RFC5654], Ring Protection of MPLS-TP
   requirements , several service providers have expressed much interest
   in operating MPLS-TP in ring topologies and require a high-level
   survivability function in these topologies.  In operational transport
   network deployment, MPLS-TP networks are often constructed with ring
   topologies.  It calls for an efficient and optimized ring protection
   mechanism to achieve simple operation and fast, sub 50 ms, recovery
   performance.

   The requirements for MPLS-TP [RFC5654] state that recovery mechanisms
   which are optimized for ring topologies could be further developed if
   it can provide the following features:

   a.  Minimize the number of OAM entities for protection

   b.  Minimize the number of elements of recovery

   c.  Minimize the required label number

   d.  Minimize the amount of control and management-plane transactions
       during maintenance operation

   e.  Minimize the impact on information exchange during protection if
       a control plane is supported



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   This document specifies MPLS-TP Shared-Ring Protection mechanisms
   that can meet all those requirements on ring protection listed in
   [RFC5654].

   The basic concepts and architecture of Shared-Ring protection
   mechanism are specified in this document.  This document focuses on
   the solutions for point-to-point transport paths.  While the basic
   concepts may also apply to point-to-multipoint transport paths, the
   solution for point-to-multipoint transport paths is under study and
   will be presented in a separate document.

2.  Requirements for MPLS-TP Ring Protection

   The requirements for MPLS-TP ring protection are specified in
   [RFC5654].  This document elaborates on the requirements in detail.

2.1.  Recovery of Multiple Failures

   MPLS-TP is expected to be used in carrier grade metro networks and
   backbone transport networks to provide mobile backhaul, business
   services etc., in which the network survivability is very important.
   According to R106 B in [RFC5654], MPLS-TP recovery mechanisms in a
   ring SHOULD protect against multiple failures.  The following text
   provides some more detailed illustration about "multiple failures".
   In metro and backbone networks, a single risk factor often affects
   multiple links or nodes.  Some examples of risk factors are given as
   follows:

   o  multiple links use fibers in one cable or pipeline

   o  Several nodes share one power supply system

   o  Weather sensitive micro-wave system

   Once one of the above risk factors happens, multiple links or nodes
   failures may occur simultaneously and those failed links or nodes may
   be located on a single ring as well as on interconnected rings.  Ring
   protection against multiple failures should cover both multiple
   failures on a single ring and multiple failures on interconnected
   rings, as long as the connectivity between the ingress and egress
   node of the ring still exists.

2.2.  Smooth Upgrade from Linear Protection to Ring Protection

   It is beneficial for service providers to upgrade the protection
   scheme from linear protection to ring protection in their MPLS-TP
   network without service interruption.  In-service insertion and
   removal of a node on the ring should also be supported.  Therefore,



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   the MPLS-TP ring protection mechanism is supposed to be developed and
   optimized for compliance with this smooth upgrading principle.

2.3.  Configuration Complexity

   Ring protection can reduce the dependency of configuration on the
   quantity of services, thus will simplify the network protection
   configuration and operation effort.  This is because the ring
   protection makes use of the characteristics of ring topology and
   mechanisms on the section layer.  While in the application scenarios
   of deploying linear protection in ring topology MPLS-TP network, the
   configuration of protection has a close relationship with the
   quantities of services carried.  Especially in some large metro
   networks with more than ten thousands of services in the access
   nodes, the LSP linear protection capabilities of the metro core nodes
   needs to be large enough to meet the network planning requirements,
   which also leads to the complexity of network protection
   configurations and operations.

3.  Terminology and Notation

   The following syntax will be used to describe the contents of the
   label stack:

   1.  The label stack will be enclosed in square brackets ("[]").

   2.  Each level in the stack will be separated by the '|' character.
   It should be noted that the label stack may contain additional
   layers.  However, we only present the layers that are related to the
   protection mechanism.

   3.  If the Label is assigned by Node X, the Node Name is enclosed in
   bracket ("()")

4.  Shared Ring Protection Architecture

4.1.  Ring Tunnel

   This document introduces a new logical layer of the ring for shared
   ring protection in MPLS-TP networks.  As shown in Figure 1, the new
   logical layer consists of ring tunnels which provides a server layer
   for the LSPs traverse the ring.  Once a ring tunnel is established,
   the configuration, management and protection of the ring are all
   performed at the ring tunnel level.  One port can carry multiple ring
   tunnels, while one ring tunnel can carry multiple LSPs.






Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                                                   +-------------
                                     +-------------|
                       +-------------|             |
         =====PW1======|             |             |
                       |             |   Ring      |  Physical
         =====PW2======|    LSP      |  Tunnel     |  Port
                       |             |             |
         =====PW3======|             |             |
                       +-------------|             |
                                     +-------------|
                                                   +-------------
              Figure 1. The logical layers of the ring

   The label stack used in MPLS-TP Shared Ring Protection mechanism is
   shown as below:

                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |           Ring tunnel Label         |
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |               LSP Label             |
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |                PW Label             |
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   |                Payload              |
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        Figure 2. Label stack used in MPLS-TP Shared Ring Protection

4.1.1.  Establishment of Ring Tunnel

   The Ring tunnels are established based on the egress node.  The
   egress node is the node where traffic leaves the ring.  LSPs which
   have the same egress node on the ring share the same ring tunnels.
   In other words, all the LSPs that traverse the ring and exit from the
   same node share the same working ring tunnel and protection ring
   tunnel.  For each egress node, four ring tunnels are established:

   o  one clockwise working ring tunnel, which is protected by the
      anticlockwise protection ring tunnel

   o  one anticlockwise protection ring tunnel

   o  one anticlockwise working ring tunnel, which is protected by the
      clockwise protection ring tunnel

   o  one clockwise protection ring tunnel






Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   The structure of the protection tunnels are determined by the
   selected protection mechanism.  This will be detailed in subsequent
   sections.

   As shown in Figure 3, LSP1, LSP2 and LSP3 enter the ring from Node E,
   Node A and Node B, respectively, and all leave the ring at Node D.
   To protect these LSPs that traverse the ring, a clockwise working
   ring tunnel (RcW_D) via E->F->A->B->C->D, and its anticlockwise
   protection ring tunnel (RaP_D) via D->C->B->A->F->E->D are
   established, Also, an anti-clockwise working ring tunnel (RaW_D) via
   C->B->A->F->E->D, and its clockwise protection ring tunnel (RcP_D)
   via D->E->F->A->B->C->D are established.  For simplicity Figure 3
   only shows RcW_D and RaP_D.  A similar provisioning should be applied
   for any other node on the ring.  In summary, for each node in
   Figure 3 when acting as egress node, the ring tunnels are created as
   follows:

   o  To Node A: RcW_A, RaW_A, RcP_A, RaP_A

   o  To Node B: RcW_B, RaW_B, RcP_B, RaP_B

   o  To Node C: RcW_C, RaW_C, RcP_C, RaP_C

   o  To Node D: RcW_D, RaW_D, RcP_D, RaP_D

   o  To Node E: RcW_E, RaW_E, RcP_E, RaP_E

   o  To Node F: RcW_F, RaW_F, RcP_F, RaP_F























Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                       +---+#############+---+
                       | F |-------------| A | +-- LSP2
                       +---+*************+---+
                       #/*                   *\#
                      #/*                     *\#
                     #/*                       *\#
                   +---+                     +---+
            LSP1-+ | E |                     | B |+-- LSP3
                   +---+                     +---+
                     #\                       */#
                      #\                     */#
                       #\                   */#
                       +---+*************+---+
             LSP1   +--| D |-------------| C |
             LSP2      +---+#############+---+
             LSP3

                      ---- physical links
                      **** RcW_D
                      #### RaP_D

                  Figure 3. Ring tunnels in MSRP

   Through these working and protection ring tunnels, LSPs which enter
   the ring from any node can reach any egress nodes on the ring, and
   are protected from failures on the ring.

4.1.2.  Label Assignment and Distribution

   The ring tunnel labels are downstream-assigned labels as defined in
   [RFC3031].  The ring tunnel labels can be either configured
   statically, provisioned by a controller, or distributed dynamically
   via a control protocol.

4.1.3.  Forwarding Operation

   When an MPLS-TP transport path, such as an LSP, enters the ring, the
   ingress node on the ring pushes the working ring tunnel label
   according to the egress node and sends the traffic to the next hop.
   The transit nodes on the working ring tunnel swap the ring tunnel
   labels and forward the packets to the next hop.  When the packet
   arrives at the egress node, the egress node pops the ring tunnel
   label and forwards the packets based on the inner LSP label and PW
   label.  Figure 4 shows the label operation in the MPLS-TP shared ring
   protection mechanism.  Assume that LSP1 enters the ring at Node A and
   exits from Node D, and the following label operations are executed.





Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   1.  Ingress node: Packets of LSP1 arrive at Node A with a label stack
       [LSP1] and is supposed to be forwarded in the clockwise direction
       of the ring.  The clockwise working ring tunnel label RcW_D will
       be pushed at Node A, the label stack for the forwarded packet at
       Node A is changed to [RcW_D(B)|LSP1].

   2.  Transit nodes: In this case, Node B and Node C forward the
       packets by swapping the working ring tunnel labels.  For example,
       the label [RcW_D(B)|LSP1] is swapped to [RcW_D(C)|LSP1] at Node
       B.

   3.  Egress node: When the packet arrives at Node D (i.e. the egress
       node) with label stack [RcW_D(D)|LSP1], Node D pops RcW_D(D), and
       subsequently deals with the inner labels of LSP1.

                      +---+#####[RaP_D(F)]######+---+
                      | F |---------------------| A | +-- LSP1
                      +---+*****[RcW_D(A)]******+---+
                       #/*                        *\#
            [RaP_D(E)]#/*[RcW_D(F)]      [RcW_D(B)]*\#[RaP_D(A)]
                     #/*                            *\#
                   +---+                          +---+
                   | E |                          | B |
                   +---+                          +---+
                     #\                            */#
            [RaP_D(D)]#\                [RxW_D(C)]*/#[RaP_D(B)]
                       #\                        */#
                       +---+*****[RcW_D(D)]****+---+
             LSP1  +-- | D |-------------------| C |
                       +---+#####[RaP_D(C)]####+---+

             -----physical links      ****** RcW_D    ###### RaP_D

                     Figure 4. Label operation of MSRP

4.2.  Failure Detection

   The MPLS-TP section layer OAM is used to monitor the connectivity
   between each two adjacent nodes on the ring using the mechanisms
   defined in [RFC6371].  Protection switching is triggered by the
   failure detected on the ring by the OAM mechanisms.

   Two end ports of a link form a Maintenance Entity Group (MEG), and an
   MEG end point (MEP) function is installed in each ring port.  CC OAM
   packets are periodically exchanged between each pair of MEPs to
   monitor the link health.  Three consecutive CC packets losses will be
   interpreted as a link failure.




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   A node failure is regarded as the failure of two links attached to
   that node.  The two nodes adjacent to the failed node detect the
   failure in the links that are connected to the failed node.

4.3.  Ring Protection

   This section specifies the ring protection mechanisms in detail.  In
   general, the description uses the clockwise working ring tunnel and
   the corresponding anti-clockwise protection ring tunnel as example,
   but the mechanism is applicable in the same way to the anti-clockwise
   working and clockwise protection ring tunnels.

   Taking the topology in Figure 4 as example, the LSP1 enters the ring
   at Node A and leaves the ring at Node D.  In normal state, LSP1 is
   carried by clockwise working ring tunnel (RcW_D) through the path
   A->B->C->D, the label operation is:

   [LSP1](original data traffic carried by LSP1) ->
   [RCW_D(B)|LSP1](NodeA) -> [RCW_D(C)|LSP1](NodeB) -> [RCW_D(D)|
   LSP1](NodeC) -> [LSP1](data traffic carried by LSP1).  Then at node D
   the packet will be forwarded based on label stack of LSP1.

   The following sections describes the protection mechanisms used in
   ring topology.

4.3.1.  Wrapping

   With the wrapping mechanism, the protection ring tunnel is a closed
   ring identified by the egress node.  As shown in Figure 4, the RaP_D
   is the anticlockwise protection ring tunnel for the clockwise working
   ring tunnel RcW_D.  As specified in the following sections, the
   closed ring protection tunnel can protect both the link failure and
   the node failure.

4.3.1.1.  Wrapping for Link Failure

   When a link failure between Node B and Node C occurs, if it is a bi-
   directional failure, both Node B and Node C can detect the failure
   via OAM mechanism; if it is a uni-directional failure, one of the two
   nodes would detect the failure and it would inform the other node via
   the Ring Protection Switch Protocol (RPS) which is specified in
   section 5.  Then Node B switches the clockwise working ring tunnel
   (RcW_D) to the anticlockwise protection ring tunnel (RaP_D) and Node
   C switches anticlockwise protection ring tunnel(RaP_D) to the
   clockwise working ring tunnel(RcW_D).  The data traffic which enters
   the ring at Node A and leaves the ring at Node D follows the path
   A->B->A->F->E->D->C->D.  The label operation is:




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   [LSP1](Original data traffic) -> [RcW_D(B)|LSP1](Node A) ->
   [RaP_D(A)|LSP1](Node B) -> [RaP_D(F)|LSP1](Node A) -> [RaP_D(E)|LSP1]
   (Node F) -> [RaP_D(D)|LSP1] (Node E) -> [RaP_D(C)|LSP1] (Node D) ->
   [RcW_D(D)|LSP1](Node C) -> [LSP1](data traffic leaves the ring).

                         +---+#####[RaP_D(F)]######+---+
                         | F |---------------------| A | +-- LSP1
                         +---+*****[RcW_D(A)]******+---+
                         #/*                        *\#
              [RaP_D(E)]#/*[RcW_D(F)]      [RcW_D(B)]*\#RaP_D(A)
                       #/*                            *\#
                     +---+                          +---+
                     | E |                          | B |
                     +---+                          +---+
                       #\                            *x#
              [RaP_D(D)]#\                [RcW_D(C)]*x#RaP_D(B)
                         #\                        *x#
                         +---+*****[RcW_D(D)]****+---+
               LSP1  +-- | D |-------------------| C |
                         +---+#####[RaP_D(C)]####+---+

                 -----physical links    xxxx Failure Link
                 ****** RcW_D           ###### RaP_D

                      Figure 5.Wrapping for link failure

4.3.1.2.  Wrapping for Node Failure

   As shown in Figure 6, when Node B fails, Node A detects the failure
   between A and B and switches the clockwise work ring tunnel (RcW_D)
   to the anticlockwise protection ring tunnel (RaP_D), Node C detects
   the failure between C and B and switches the anticlockwise protection
   ring tunnel (RaP_D) to the clockwise working ring tunnel (RcW_D).
   The data traffic which enters the ring at Node A and exits at Node D
   follows the path A->F->E->D->C->D.  The label operation is:

   [LSP1](original data traffic carried by LSP1) ->
   [RaP_D(F)|LSP1](NodeA) -> [RaP_D(E)|LSP1](NodeF) ->
   [RaP_D(D)|LSP1](NodeE) -> [RaP_D(C)|LSP1] (NodeD) -> [RcW_D(D)|LSP1]
   (NodeC) -> [LSP1](data traffic carried by LSP1).

   In one special case where node D fails, all the ring tunnels with
   node D as egress will become unusable.  However, before the failure
   location is propagated to all the ring nodes, the wrapping protection
   mechanism may cause temporary traffic loop: node C detects the
   failure and switches the traffic from the clockwise work ring tunnel
   (RcW_D) to the anticlockwise protection ring tunnel (RaP_D), node E
   also detects the failure and would switch the traffic from



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   anticlockwise protection ring tunnel (RaP_D) back to the clockwise
   work ring tunnel (RcW_D).  A possible mechanism to mitigate the
   temporary loop problem is: the TTL of the ring tunnel label is set to
   2*N by the ingress ring node of the traffic, where N is the number of
   nodes on the ring.

                         +---+#####[RaP_D(F)]######+---+
                         | F |---------------------| A | +-- LSP1
                         +---+*****[RcW_D(A)]******+---+
                         #/*                        *\#
              [RaP_D(E)]#/*[RcW_D(F)]      [RcW_D(B)]*\#RaP_D(A)
                       #/*                            *\#
                     +---+                          xxxxx
                     | E |                          x B x
                     +---+                          xxxxx
                       #\                            */#
              [RaP_D(D)]#\                [RcW_D(C)]*/#RaP_D(B)
                         #\                       */#
                         +---+*****[RcW_D(D)]****+---+
               LSP1  +-- | D |-------------------| C |
                         +---+#####[RaP_D(C)]####+---+

                 -----physical links     xxxxxx  Failure Node
                 *****RcW_D              ######  RaP_D

                    Figure 6. Wrapping for node failure

4.3.2.  Short Wrapping

   With the traditional wrapping protection scheme, Protection switching
   is executed at both nodes detecting the failure, consequently the
   traffic will be wrapped twice.  This mechanism will cause additional
   latency and bandwidth consumption when traffic is switched to the
   protection path.

   With short wrapping protection, data traffic switching is executed
   only at the upstream node detecting the failure, and data traffic
   leaves the ring in the protection ring tunnel at the egress node.
   This scheme can reduce the additional latency and bandwidth
   consumption when traffic is switched to the protection path.

   In the traditional wrapping solution, the protection ring tunnel is a
   closed ring in normal state, while in the short wrapping solution,
   the protection ring tunnel is ended at the egress node, which is
   similar to the working ring tunnel.  Short wrapping is easy to
   implement in shared ring protection because both the working and
   protection ring tunnels are terminated on the egress nodes.  Figure 7




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   shows the clockwise working ring tunnel and the anticlockwise
   protection ring tunnel with node D as the egress node.

4.3.2.1.  Short Wrapping for Link Failure

   As shown in Figure 7, in normal state, LSP1 is carried by the
   clockwise working ring tunnel (RcW_D) through the path A->B->C->D.
   When a link failure between Node B and Node C occurs, Node B switches
   The working ring tunnel RcW_D to the protection ring tunnel RaP_D in
   the opposite direction.  The difference occurs in the protection ring
   tunnel at egress node.  In short wrapping protection, Rap_D ends in
   Node D and then traffic will be forwarded based on the LSP labels.
   Thus with short wrapping mechanism, LSP1 will follow the path
   A->B->A->F->E->D when link failure between Node B and Node C happens.
   For node failure, the protection with short wrapping is similar to
   the mechanism with link failure.

                         +---+#####[RaP_D(F)]######+---+
                         | F |---------------------| A | +-- LSP1
                         +---+*****[RcW_D(A)]******+---+
                         #/*                        *\#
              [RaP_D(E)]#/*[RcW_D(F)]      [RcW_D(B)]*\#RaP_D(A)
                       #/*                            *\#
                     +---+                           +---+
                     | E |                           | B |
                     +---+                           +---+
                       #\                            *x#
              [RaP_D(D)]#\                [RcW_D(C)]*x#RaP_D(B)
                         #\                        *x#
                         +---+*****[RcW_D(D)]****+---+
               LSP1  +-- | D |-------------------| C |
                         +---+                   +---+

                 ----- physical links    xxxxx Failure Link
                 ****** RcW_D           ###### RaP_D

                 Figure 7. Short wrapping for link failure

4.3.2.2.  Short Wrapping for Node Failure

   For the failure scenarios which happen on a non-egress node, short
   wrapping protection switching is similar to the link failure as
   described in the previous section.  This section specifies the
   scenario of egress node failure.

   As shown in Figure 8, LSP1 enters the ring on node A, and leaves the
   ring on node D. in normal state, LSP1 is carried by the clockwise
   working ring tunnel (RcW_D) through the path A->B->C->D.  When node D



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   fails, traffic of LSP1 cannot be protected by any ring tunnels which
   use node D as the egress node.  However, before the failure location
   is propagated to all the ring nodes, node C switches all the traffic
   on the working ring tunnel RcW_D to the protection ring tunnel RaP_D
   in the opposite direction.  When the traffic arrives at node E which
   also detects the failure of node D, the protection ring tunnel RaP_D
   cannot be used to forward traffic to node D.  Since with short
   wrapping mechanism, protection switching can only be performed once
   from the working ring tunnel to the protection ring tunnel, thus node
   E MUST NOT switch the traffic which is already carried on the
   protection ring tunnel back to the working ring tunnel in the
   opposite direction.  Instead, node E will discard the traffic
   received on RaP_D locally.  This can avoid the temporary traffic loop
   when the faiulre happens on the egress node of the ring tunnel.  This
   also illustrates one of the benefits of having separate working and
   protection ring tunnels in each ring direction.

                         +---+#####[RaP_D(F)]######+---+
                         | F |---------------------| A | +-- LSP1
                         +---+*****[RcW_D(A)]******+---+
                         #/*                        *\#
              [RaP_D(E)]#/*[RcW_D(F)]      [RcW_D(B)]*\#RaP_D(A)
                       #/*                            *\#
                     +---+                          +---+
                     | E |                          | B |
                     +---+                          +---+
                       #\                            */#
              [RaP_D(D)]#\                [RcW_D(C)]*/#RaP_D(B)
                         #\                       */#
                         xxxxx*****[RcW_D(D)]****+---+
               LSP1  +-- x D x-------------------| C |
                         xxxxx                   +---+

                 -----physical links     xxxxxx  Failure Node
                 *****RcW_D              ######  RaP_D

                    Figure 8. Short Wrapping for egress node failure

4.3.3.  Steering

   In ring topology, each working ring tunnel is associated with a
   protection ring tunnel in the opposite direction, and every node can
   obtain the ring topology either by configuration or via some topology
   discovery mechanism.  The ring topology and the connectivity (Intact
   or Severed) between the adjacent ring nodes form the ring map.  Every
   ring node maintains its ring map.  When a failure occurs in the ring,
   the nodes that detect the failure via OAM mechanism will transmit the
   failure information in the opposite direction of the failure hop by



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   hop along the ring.  When a node receives the message that identifies
   a failure, it can quickly determine the location of the fault by
   using the topology information that is maintained by the node and
   upate the ring map accordingly, then it can determine whether the
   LSPs entering the ring locally need to switchover or not.  For LSPs
   that needs to switchover, it will switch the LSPs from the working
   ring tunnels to its corresponding protection ring tunnels.

   Ring map of F                                            +--LSPl
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     +---+ ###[RaP_D(F)]### +---/  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |F|A|B|C|D|E|F|     | F | ---------------- | A |  |A|B|C|D|E|F|A|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     +---+ ***[RcW_D(A)]*** +---+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |I|I|I|S|I|I|                                     |I|I|S|I|I|I|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+      #/*                     *\#    +-+-+-+-+-+-+
         [RaP_D(E)]  #/*           [RcW_D(B)]  *\# [RaP_D(A)]
                    #/* [RcW_D(F)]              *\#
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   #/*                           *\#
 |E|F|A|B|C|D|E| +---+                            +---+ +-- LSP2
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | E |                            | B |  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |I|I|I|I|S|I|  +---+                            +---+  |B|C|D|E|F|A|B|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+     #\*                            */#   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     #\* [RcW_D(E)]    [RcW_D(C)] */#     |I|S|I|I|I|I|
         [RaP_D(D)]   #\*                        */#      +-+-+-+-+-+-+
                       #\*                      */# [RaP_D(B)]
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       +---+     [RcW_D(D)]    +---+    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |D|E|F|A|B|C|D|  +--  | D | xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | C |    |C|D|E|F|A|B|C|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ LSP1  +---+     [RaP_D(C)]    +---+    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |I|I|I|I|I|S|  LSP2                                    |S|I|I|I|I|I|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+                                          +-+-+-+-+-+-+

        ----- physical links  ***** RcW_D  ##### RaP_D
           I: Intact   S: Severed
       Figure 9. Steering operation and protection switching

   As shown in Figure 9, LSP1 enters the ring from Node A while LSP2
   enters the ring from Node B, and both of them have the same
   destination node D.

   In the normal state, LSP1 is carried by the clockwise working ring
   tunnel (RcW_D) through the path A->B->C->D, the label operation is:
   [LSP1] -> [RcW_D(B)|LSP1](NodeA) -> [RcW_D(C)| LSP1](NodeB) ->
   [RcW_D(D)|LSP1](NodeC) -> [LSP1] (data traffic carried by LSP1) .

   LSP2 is carried by the clockwise working ring tunnel (RcW_D) throught
   the path B->C->D, the label operation is: [LSP2] ->
   [RcW_D(C)|LSP2](NodeB) -> [RcW_D(D)|LSP2](NodeC) -> [LSP2] (data
   traffic carried by LSP2) .




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   If the link between nodes C and D fails, according to the fault
   detection and distribution mechanisms, Node D will find out that
   there is a failure in the link between C and D, and it will update
   the link state of its ring topology, changing the link between C and
   D from normal to fault.  In the direction that opposite to the
   failure position, Node D will send the state report message to Node
   E, informing Node E of the fault between C and D, and E will update
   the link state of its ring topology accordingly, changing the link
   between C and D from normal to fault.  In this way, the state report
   message is sent hop by hop in the clockwise direction.  Similar to
   Node D, Node C will send the failure information in the anti-
   clockwise direction.

   When Node A receives the failure report message and updates the link
   state of its ring topology, it is aware that there is a fault on the
   clockwise working ring tunnel to node D (RcW_D), and LSP1 enters the
   ring locally and is carried by this ring tunnel, thus Node A will
   decide to switch the LSP1 onto the anticlockwise protection ring
   tunnel to node D (RaP_D).  After the switchover, LSP1 will follow the
   path A->F->E->D, the label operation is: [LSP1] -> [RaP_D(F)|
   LSP1](NodeA) -> [RaP_D(E)|LSP1](NodeF) -> [RaP_D(D)|LSP1](NodeE) ->
   [LSP1] (data traffic carried by LSP1).

   The same also apply to the operation of LSP2.  When Node B updates
   the link state of its ring topology, and finds out that the working
   ring tunnel RcW_D has failed, it will switch the LSP2 to the
   anticlockwise protection tunnel RaP_D.  After the switchover, LSP2
   goes through the path B->A->F->E->D, and the label operation is:
   [LSP2] -> [RaP_D(A)|LSP2](NodeB) -> [RaP_D(F)|LSP2](NodeA) ->
   [RaP_D(E)|LSP2](NodeF) -> [RaP_D(D)|LSP2](NodeE) -> [LSP2](data
   traffic carried by LSP2).

   Then assume the link between nodes A and B breaks down, as shown in
   Figure 10.  Similar to the above failure case, Node B will detect a
   fault in the link between A and B, and it will update the link state
   of its ring topology, changing the link state between A and B from
   normal to fault.  The state report message is sent hop by hop in the
   clockwise direction, notifying every node that there is a fault
   between node A and B, and every node updates the link state of its
   ring topology.  As a result, Node A will detect a fault in the
   working ring tunnel to node D, and switch LSP1 to the protection ring
   tunnel, while Node B determine that the working ring tunnel for LSP2
   still works fine, and will not perform the switchover.








Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                                                    /-- LSPl
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+      +---+ ###[RaP_D(F)]####  +---/  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |F|A|B|C|D|E|F|      | F | -----------------  | A |  |A|B|C|D|E|F|A|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+      +---+ ***[RcW_D(A)]****  +---+  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |I|S|I|I|I|I|       #/*                       x      |S|I|I|I|I|I|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+      #/*                         x     +-+-+-+-+-+-+
        [RaP_D(E)]  #/*[RcW_D(F)]       [RcW_D(B)]x [RaP_D(A)]
                   #/*                             x    +-- LSP2
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +---+                             +---++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |E|F|A|B|C|D|E|  | E |                             | B ||B|C|D|E|F|A|B|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +---+                             +---++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |I|I|S|I|I|I|     #\*                            */#    |I|I|I|I|I|S|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+      #\*[RcW_D(E)]    [RcW_D(C)]  */#     +-+-+-+-+-+-+
          [RaP_D(D)]  #\*                        */# [RaP_D(B)]
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+       #\*                      */#     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |D|E|F|A|B|C|D|       +---+ ***[RcW_D(D)]*** +---+     |C|D|E|F|A|B|C|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+  +--  | D | ---------------- | C |     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |I|I|I|S|I|I|   LSP1 +---+ ###[RaP_D(C)]### +---+      |I|I|I|I|S|I|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+   LSP2                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+

           ----- physical links  ***** RcW_D  ##### RaP_D

     Figure 10. Steering operation and protection switching (2)

4.4.  Interconnected Ring Protection

4.4.1.  Interconnected Ring Topology

   Interconnected ring topology is often used in MPLS-TP networks.  This
   document will discuss two typical interconnected ring topologies:

   1.  Single-node interconnected rings

          In single-node interconnected rings, the connection between
          the two rings is through a single node.  Because the
          interconnection node is in fact a single point of failure,
          this topology should be avoided in real transport networks.
          Figure 10 shows the topology of single-node interconnected
          rings.  Node C is the interconnection node between Ring1 and
          Ring2.

   2.  Dual-node interconnected rings

          In dual-node interconnected rings, the connection between the
          two rings is through two nodes.  The two interconnection nodes
          belong to both interconnected rings.  This topology can
          recover from one interconnection node failure.




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   Figure 11 shows the topology of single-node interconnected rings.
   Node C is the interconnection node between Ring1 and Ring2.

          +---+      +---+                        +---+      +---+
          | A |------| B |-----              -----| G |------| H |
          +---+      +---+      \           /     +---+      +---+
            |                    \         /                   |
            |                     \ +---+ /                    |
            |        Ring1          | C |         Ring2        |
            |                     / +---+ \                    |
            |                    /         \                   |
          +---+      +---+      /           \     +---+      +---+
          | F |------| E |-----              -----| J |------| I |
          +---+      +---+                        +---+      +---+

              Figure 11. Single-node interconnected rings

   Figure 12 shows the topology of dual-node interconnected rings.
   Nodes C and Node D are the interconnection nodes between Ring1 and
   Ring2.

             +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+
             | A |------| B |------| C |------| G |------| H |
             +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+
               |                    | |                    |
               |                    | |                    |
               |        Ring1       | |       Ring2        |
               |                    | |                    |
               |                    | |                    |
             +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+
             | F |------| E |------| D |------| J |------| I |
             +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+

               Figure 12. Dual-node interconnected rings

4.4.2.  Interconnected Ring Protection Mechanisms

   Interconnected rings can be treated as two independent rings.  Ring
   protection switching (RPS) protocol operates on each ring
   independently.  Failure in one ring only triggers protection
   switching on the ring itself and does not affect the other ring.
   This way, protection switching on each ring is the same as the
   mechanisms described in section 4.3.

   The service LSPs that traverse the interconnected rings via the
   interconnection nodes MUST use different ring tunnels in different
   rings, and the service LSPs traversing the interconnected rings are
   stitched by the interconnection node.  On the interconnection node,



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   the ring tunnel label used in the source ring will be popped, the
   service LSP label will be swapped, and the ring tunnel label of the
   destination ring will be pushed.

   In the dual-node interconnected ring scenario, the two
   interconnection nodes can be managed as a virtual interconnection
   node group.  Each ring should assign working and protection ring
   tunnels for the virtual interconnection node group.  Both the
   interconnection nodes in the virtual interconnection node group can
   terminate the working ring tunnel of each ring.  The protection ring
   tunnel is used to protect the working ring tunnel of each ring and
   can be terminated by any node in the virtual interconnection node
   group.

   On the nodes in the virtual interconnection node group of the dual-
   node interconnected ring, the same label is allocated for each
   service LSP.  This way any interconnection node in the virtual node
   group can stitch the service LSPs between the source ring tunnel and
   the destination ring tunnel.

   When the service traffic passes through the interconnection node, the
   direction of the working ring tunnels in each ring for this service
   traffic should be the same.  For example, if the working ring tunnel
   follows the clockwise direction in Ring1, the working ring tunnel for
   the same service traffic in Ring2 SHOULD also follow the clockwise
   direction when the service leaves Ring1 and enters Ring2.

4.4.3.  Ring Tunnels in Interconnected Rings

   The same ring tunnels as described in section 4.1 are used in each
   ring of the interconnected rings.  Note that ring tunnels to the
   virtual interconnection node group will be established by each ring
   of the interconnected rings, i.e.:

   o  one clockwise working ring tunnel to the virtual interconnection
      node group

   o  one anticlockwise protection ring tunnel to the virtual
      interconnection node group

   o  one anticlockwise working ring tunnel to the virtual
      interconnection node group

   o  one clockwise protection ring tunnel to the virtual
      interconnection node group

   These ring tunnels will terminated at all nodes in the virtual
   interconnection node group.



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   For example, all the ring tunnels on Ring1 of Figure 12 are
   established as follows:

   o  To Node A: R1cW_A, R1aW_A, R1cP_A, R1aP_A

   o  To Node B: R1cW_B, R1aW_B, R1cP_B, R1aP_B

   o  To Node C: R1cW_C, R1aW_C, R1cP_C, R1aP_C

   o  To Node D: R1cW_D, R1aW_D, R1cP_D, R1aP_D

   o  To Node E: R1cW_E, R1aW_E, R1cP_E, R1aP_E

   o  To Node F: R1cW_F, R1aW_F, R1cP_F, R1aP_F

   o  To the virtual interconnection node group (including Node F and
      Node A): R1cW_F&A, R1aW_F&A, R1cP_F&A, R1aP_F&A

   All the ring tunnels established in Ring2 in Figure 13 are
   provisioned as follows:

   o  To Node A: R2cW_A, R2aW_A, R2cP_A, R2aP_A

   o  To Node F: R2cW_F, R2aW_F, R2cP_F, R2aP_F

   o  To Node G: R2cW_G, R2aW_G, R2cP_G, R2aP_G

   o  To Node H: R2cW_H, R2aW_H, R2cP_H, R2aP_H

   o  To Node I: R2cW_I, R2aW_I, R2cP_I, R2aP_I

   o  To Node J: R2cW_J, R2aW_J, R2cP_J, R2aP_J

   o  To the virtual interconnection node group(including Node F and
      Node A): R2cW_FandA, R2aW_FandA, R2cP_FandA, R2aP_FandA
















Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                          +---+cccccccccccc +---+
                          | H |-------------| I |--->LSP1
                          +---+             +---+
                          c/a                   a\
                         c/a                     a\
                        c/a                       a\
                      +---+                     +---+
                      | G |        Ring2        | J |
                      +---+                     +---+
                        c\a                      a/c
                         c\a                    a/c
                          c\a  aaaaaaaaaaaaa   a/c
                          +---+ccccccccccccc+---+
                          | F |-------------| A |
                          +---+ccccccccccccc+---+
                          c/aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a\
                         c/                      a\
                        c/                        a\
                      +---+                     +---+
                      | E |        Ring1        | B |
                      +---+                     +---+
                        c\a                      a/c
                         c\a                    a/c
                          c\a                  a/c
                          +---+aaaaaaaaaaaa +---+
                  LSP1--->| D |-------------| C |
                          +---+ccccccccccccc+---+

                           ccccccccccc  R1cW_F&A
                           aaaaaaaaaaa  R1aP_F&A
                           ccccccccccc  R2cW_I
                           aaaaaaaaaaa  R2aP_I
            Figure 13. Ring tunnels for the interconnected rings

4.4.4.  Interconnected Ring Switching Procedure

   As shown in Figure 13, for the service traffic LSP1 which enters
   Ring1 at Node D and leaves Ring1 at Node F and continues to enter
   Ring2 at Node F and leaves Ring2 at Node I, the protection scheme is
   described as below.

   In normal state, LSP1 follows R1cW_F&A in Ring1 and R2CW_I in Ring2.
   The label used for the working ring tunnel R1cW_F&A in Ring1 is
   popped and the label used for the working ring tunnel R2cW_I will be
   pushed based the inner label lookup at the interconnection node F.
   The working path that the service traffic LSP1 follows is:
   LSP1->R1cW_F&A (D->E->F)->R2cW_I(F->G->H->I)->LSP1.




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   In case of link failure, for example, when a failure occurs on the
   link between Node F and Node E, Nodes F and E will detect the failure
   and execute protection switching as described in 4.3.1.1.  The path
   that the service traffic LSP1 follows after switching change to
   LSP1->R1cW_F&A(D->E)->R1aP_F&A(E->D->C->B->A->F)->R1cW_F(F)
   ->R2cW_I(F->G->H->I)->LSP1.

   In case of a non interconnection node failure, for example, when the
   failure occurs at Node E in Ring1, Nodes F and D will detect the
   failure and execute protection switching as described in 4.3.1.2.
   The path that the service traffic LSP1 follows after switching
   becomes: LSP1->R1cW_F&A(D)->R1aP_F&A(D->C->B->A->F)->
   R1cW_F(F)->R2cW_I(F->G->H->I).

   In case of an interconnection node failure, for example, when the
   failure occurs at the interconnection Node F.  Nodes E and A in Ring1
   will detect the failure, and execute protection switching as
   described in 4.3.1.2.  Nodes G and A in Ring2 will also detects the
   failure, and execute protection switching.  The path that the service
   traffic LSP1 follows after switching is:
   LSP1->R1cW_F&A(D->E)->R1aP_F&A(E->D->C->B->A)->R1cW_A(A)
   ->R2aP_I(A->J->I)->LSP1.

4.4.5.  Interconnected Ring Detection Mechanism

   As show in Figure 14, the service traffic LSP1 traverses A->B->C in
   Ring1 and C->G->H->I in Ring2.  Node C and Node D are the
   interconnection nodes.  When both the link between Node C and Node G
   and the link between Node C and Node D fail, the ring tunnel from
   Node C to Node I in Ring2 becomes unreachable.  However, Node D is
   still available, and LSP1 can still reach Node I.




















Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


      +---+ *********+---+**********+---+          +---+**********+---+
LSP1->| A |----------| B |----------| C |XXXXXXXXXX| G |----------| H |
      +---+##########+---+##########+---+          +---+##########+---+
        |#                            X                            #|*
        |#                            X                            #|*
        |#           Ring1            X           Ring2            #|*
        |#                            X                            #|*
        |#                            X                            #|*
      +---+##########+---+##########+---+######### +---+##########+---+
      | F |----------| E |----------| D |----------| J |----------| I | ->LSP1
      +---+          +---+          +---+          +---+          +---+

                        ***********  R1cW_C&D
                        ###########  R1aP_C&D
                        ***********  R2cW_I
                        ###########  R2aP_I

                    Figure 14. Interconnected ring

   In order to achieve this, the interconnection nodes need to know the
   ring topology of each ring so that they can judge whether a node is
   reachable.  This judgment is based on the knowledge of each ring
   topology and the fault location as described in section 3.4.  The
   ring topology can be obtained from the NMS or topology discovery
   mechanisms.  The fault location can be obtained by transmitting the
   fault information around the ring.  The nodes that detect the failure
   will transmit the fault information in the opposite direction node by
   node in the ring.  When the interconnection node receives the message
   that informs the failure, it will quickly calculate the location of
   the fault by the topology information that is maintained by itself
   and determines whether the LSPs entering the ring at itself can reach
   the destination.  If the destination node is reachable, the LSP will
   leave the source ring and enter the destination ring.  If the
   destination node is not reachable, the LSP will switch to the
   anticlockwise protection ring tunnel.

   In Figure 14, Node C determines that the ring tunnel to Node I is
   unreachable, the service traffic LSP1 for which the destination node
   on the ring tunnel is Node I should switch to the protection LSP
   (R1aP_C&D) and consequently the service traffic LSP1 traverses the
   interconnected rings at Node D.  Node D will remove the ring tunnel
   label of Ring1 and add the ring tunnel label of Ring2.

5.  Ring Protection Coordination Protocol







Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


5.1.  RPS Protocol

   The MSRP protection operation MUST be controlled with the help of the
   Ring Protection Switch Protocol (RPS).  The RPS processes in each of
   the individual ring nodes that form the ring SHOULD communicate using
   the G-ACh channel.

   The RPS protocol MUST carry the ring status information and RPS
   requests, i.e., automatically initiated and externally initiated,
   between the ring nodes.

   Each node on the ring MUST be uniquely identified by assigning it a
   node ID.  The node ID MUST be unique on each ring.  The maximum
   number of nodes on the ring supported by the RPS protocol is 127.
   The node ID SHOULD be independent of the order in which the nodes
   appear on the ring.  The node ID is used to identity the source and
   destination nodes of each RPS request.

   Every node obtains the ring topology either by configuration or via
   some topology discovery mechanism.  The ring map consists of the ring
   topology information, and connectivity status (Intact or Severed)
   between the adjacent ring nodes, which is determined via the OAM
   message exchange between the adjacent nodes.  The ring map is used by
   every ring node to determine the switchover behavoir of the ring
   tunnels.

   When no protection switching is active on the ring, each node MUST
   dispatch periodically RPS requests to the two adjacent nodes,
   indicating No Request (NR).  When a node determines that a protection
   switching is required, it MUST send the appropriate RPS request in
   both directions.

                   +---+ A->B(NR)    +---+ B->C(NR)    +---+ C->D(NR)
            -------| A |-------------| B |-------------| C |-------
          (NR)F<-A +---+    (NR)A<-B +---+    (NR)B<-C +---+

       Figure 15. RPS communication between the ring nodes in case of
                            no failures in the ring

   A destination node is a node that is adjacent to a node that
   identified a failed span.  When a node that is not the destination
   node receives an RPS request and it has no higher priority local
   request, it MUST transfer in the same direction the RPS request as
   received.  In this way, the switching nodes can maintain direct RPS
   protocol communication in the ring.






Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                    +---+ C->B(SF)    +---+ B->C(SF)    +---+ C->B(SF)
             -------| A |-------------| B |----- X -----| C |-------
           (SF)C<-B +---+    (SF)C<-B +---+    (SF)B<-C +---+

        Figure 16. RPS communication between the ring nodes in case of
                         failure between nodes B and C

   Note that in the case of a bidirectional failure such as a cable cut,
   the two adjacent nodes detect the failure and send each other an RPS
   request in opposite directions.

   o  In rings utilizing the wrapping protection.  When the destination
      node receives the RPS request it MUST perform the switch from/to
      the working ring tunnels to/from the protection ring tunnels if it
      has no higher priority active RPS request.

   o  In rings utilizing the steering protection.  When a ring switch is
      required, any node MUST perform the switches if its added/dropped
      traffic is affected by the failure.  Determination of the affected
      traffic SHOULD be performed by examining the RPS requests
      (indicating the nodes adjacent to the failure or failures) and the
      stored ring maps (indicating the relative position of the failure
      and the added traffic destined towards that failure).

   When the failure has cleared and the Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer has
   expired, the nodes sourcing RPS requests MUST drop their respective
   switches (tail end) and MUST source an RPS request carrying the NR
   code.  The node receiving from both directions such RPS request (head
   end) MUST drop its protection switches.

   A protection switch MUST be initiated by one of the criteria
   specified in Section 3.2.  A failure of the RPS protocol or
   controller MUST NOT trigger a protection switch.

   Ring switches MUST be preempted by higher priority RPS requests.  For
   example, consider a protection switch that is active due to a manual
   switch request on the given span, and another protection switch is
   required due to a failure on another span.  Then an RPS request MUST
   be generated, the former protection switch MUST be dropped, and the
   latter protection switch established.

   MSRP mechanism SHOULD support multiple protection switches in the
   ring, resulting the ring being segmented into two or more separate
   segments.  This may happen when several RPS requests of the same
   priority exist in the ring due to multiple failures or external
   switch commands.





Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   Proper operation of the MSRP mechanism relies on all nodes having
   knowledge of the state of the ring (nodes and spans) so that nodes do
   not preempt existing RPS request unless they have a higher-priority
   RPS request.  In order to accommodate ring state knowledge, during a
   protection switch the RPS requests MUST be sent in both directions.

5.1.1.  Transmission and Acceptance of RPS Requests

   A new RPS request MUST be transmitted immediately when a change in
   the transmitted status occurs.

   The first three RPS protocol messages carrying new RPS request SHOULD
   be transmitted as fast as possible.  For fast protection switching
   within 50 ms, the interval of the first three RPS protocol messages
   SHOULD be 3.3 ms.  The successive RPS requests SHOULD be transmitted
   with the interval of 5 seconds.

5.1.2.  RPS PDU Format

   Figure 17 depicts the format of an RPS packet that is sent on the
   G-ACh.  The Channel Type field is set to indicate that the message is
   an RPS message.  The ACH MUST NOT include the ACH TLV Header
   [RFC5586] meaning that no ACH TLVs can be included in the message.

        0                   1                   2                   3
        0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |0 0 0 1|0 0 0 0|0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|    RPS Channel Type (TBD)     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Dest Node ID  | Src Node ID   |   Request     |   Reserved    |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                         Figure 17. G-ACh RPS Packet Format

   The following fields MUST be provided:

   o  Destination Node ID: The destination node ID MUST always be set to
      value of the node ID of the adjacent node.  The Node ID MUST be
      unique on each ring.  Valid destination node ID values are 1-127.

   o  Source node ID: The source node ID MUST always be set to the ID
      value of the node generating the RPS request.  The Node ID MUST be
      unique on each ring.  Valid source node ID values are 1-127.

   o  RPS request code: A code consisting of eight bits as specified
      below:






Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


       +------------------+-----------------------------+----------+
       |      Bits        |   Condition, State          | Priority |
       |    (MSB - LSB)   |  or external Request        |          |
       +------------------+-----------------------------+----------+
       | 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1  |  Lockout of Protection (LP) |  highest |
       | 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1  |  Forced Switch (FS)         |          |
       | 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1  |  Signal Fail (SF)           |          |
       | 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0  |  Manual Switch (MS)         |          |
       | 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1  |  Wait-To-Restore (WTR)      |          |
       | 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1  |  Exercise (EXER)            |          |
       | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1  |  Reverse Request (RR)       |          |
       | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  |  No Request (NR)            |  lowest  |
       +------------------+-----------------------------+----------+


5.1.3.  Ring Node RPS States

   Idle state: A node is in the idle state when it has no RPS request
   and is sourcing and receiving NR code to/from both directions.

   Switching state: A node not in the idle or pass-through states is in
   the switching state.

   Pass-through state: A node is in the pass-through state when its
   highest priority RPS request is a request not destined to it or
   sourced by it.  The pass-through is bidirectional.

5.1.3.1.  Idle State

   A node in the idle state MUST source the NR request in both
   directions.

   A node in the idle state MUST terminate RPS requests flow in both
   directions.

   A node in the idle state MUST block the traffic flow on protection
   LSPs/tunnels in both directions.

5.1.3.2.  Switching State

   A node in the switching state MUST source RPS request to adjacent
   node with its highest RPS request code in both directions when it
   detects a failure or receives an external command.

   A node in the switching state MUST terminate RPS requests flow in
   both directions.





Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   As soon as it receives an RPS request from the short path, the node
   to which it is addressed MUST acknowledge the RPS request by replying
   with the RR code on the short path, and with the received RPS request
   code on the long path.  Here the short path refers to the shorter
   span on the ring between the source and destination node of the RPS
   request, and the long path refers to the longer span on the ring
   between the source and destination node of the RPS request.

   This rule refers to the unidirectional failure detection: the RR
   SHOULD be issued only when the node does not detect the failure
   condition (i.e., the node is a head end), that is, it is not
   applicable when a bidirectional failure is detected, because, in this
   case, both nodes adjacent to the failure will send an RPS request for
   the failure on both paths (short and long).

   The following switches MUST be allowed to coexist:

   o  LP and LP

   o  FS and FS

   o  SF and SF

   o  FS and SF

   When multiple MS RPS requests over different spans exist at the same
   time, no switch SHOULD be executed and existing switches MUST be
   dropped.  The nodes MUST signal, anyway, the MS RPS request code.

   Multiple EXER requests MUST be allowed to coexist in the ring.

   A node in a ring switching state that receives the external command
   LP for the affected span MUST drop its switch and MUST signal NR for
   the locked span if there is no other RPS request on another span.
   Node still SHOULD signal relevant RPS request for another span.

5.1.3.3.  Pass-through State

   When a node is in a pass-through state, it MUST transfer the received
   RPS Request in the same direction.

   When a node is in a pass-through state, it MUST enable the traffic
   flow on protection ring tunnels in both directions.








Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


5.1.4.  RPS State Transitions

   All state transitions are triggered by an incoming RPS request
   change, a WTR expiration, an externally initiated command, or locally
   detected MPLS-TP section failure conditions.

   RPS requests due to a locally detected failure, an externally
   initiated command, or received RPS request shall pre-empt existing
   RPS requests in the prioritized order given in Section 3.1.2, unless
   the requests are allowed to coexist.

5.1.4.1.  Transitions Between Idle and Pass-through States

   The transition from the idle state to pass-through state MUST be
   triggered by a valid RPS request change, in any direction, from the
   NR code to any other code, as long as the new request is not destined
   to the node itself.  Both directions move then into a pass-through
   state, so that, traffic entering the node through the protection Ring
   tunnels are transferred transparently through the node.

   A node MUST revert from pass-through state to the idle state when it
   detects NR codes incoming from both directions.  Both directions
   revert simultaneously from the pass-through state to the idle state.

5.1.4.2.  Transitions Between Idle and Switching States

   Transition of a node from the idle state to the switching state MUST
   be triggered by one of the following conditions:

   o  A valid RPS request change from the NR code to any code received
      on either the long or the short path and destined to this node

   o  An externally initiated command for this node

   o  The detection of an MPLS-TP section layer failure at this node

   Actions taken at a node in the idle state upon transition to
   switching state are:

   o  For all protection switch requests, except EXER and LP, the node
      MUST execute the switch

   o  For EXER, and LP, the node MUST signal appropriate request but not
      execute the switch

   A node MUST revert from the switching state to the idle state when it
   detects NR codes received from both directions.




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   o  At the tail end: When a WTR time expires or an externally
      initiated command is cleared at a node, the node MUST drop its
      switch, transit to the Idle State and signal the NR code in both
      directions.

   o  At the head end: Upon reception of the NR code, from both
      directions, the head-end node MUST drop its switch, transition to
      Idle State and signal the NR code in both directions.

5.1.4.3.  Transitions Between Switching States

   When a node that is currently executing any protection switch
   receives a higher priority RPS request (due to a locally detected
   failure, an externally initiated command, or a ring protection switch
   request destined to it) for the same span, it MUST update the
   priority of the switch it is executing to the priority of the
   received RPS request.

   When a failure condition clears at a node, the node MUST enter WTR
   condition and remain in it for the appropriate time-out interval,
   unless:

   o  A different RPS request with a higher priority than WTR is
      received

   o  Another failure is detected

   o  An externally initiated command becomes active

   The node MUST send out a WTR code on both the long and short paths.

   When a node that is executing a switch in response to incoming SF RPS
   request (not due to a locally detected failure) receives a WTR code
   (unidirectional failure case), it MUST send out RR code on the short
   path and the WTR on the long path.

5.1.4.4.  Transitions Between Switching and Pass-through States

   When a node that is currently executing a switch receives an RPS
   request for a non-adjacent span of higher priority than the switch it
   is executing, it MUST drop its switch immediately and enter the pass-
   through state.

   The transition of a node from pass-through to switching state MUST be
   triggered by:

   o  An equal priority, a higher priority, or an allowed coexisting
      externally initiated command



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   o  The detection of an equal priority, a higher priority, or an
      allowed coexisting automatic initiated command

   o  The receipt of an equal, a higher priority, or an allowed
      coexisting RPS request destined to this node

5.2.  RPS State Machine

5.2.1.  Initial States










































Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


            +-----------------------------------+----------------+
            |        State                      |  Signaled RPS  |
            +-----------------------------------+----------------+
            |  A  |  Idle                       |  NR            |
            |     |  Working: no switch         |                |
            |     |  Protection: no switch      |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+
            |  B  |  Pass-trough                |  N/A           |
            |     |   Working: no switch        |                |
            |     |   Protection: pass through  |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+
            |  C  |  Switching - LP             |  LP            |
            |     |  Working: no switch         |                |
            |     |  Protection: no switch      |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+
            |  D  |  Idle - LW                  |  NR            |
            |     |  Working: no switch         |                |
            |     |  Protection: no switch      |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+
            |  E  |  Switching - FS             |  FS            |
            |     |  Working: switched          |                |
            |     |  Protection: switched       |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+
            |  F  |  Switching - SF             |  SF            |
            |     |  Working: switched          |                |
            |     |  Protection: switched       |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+
            |  G  |  Switching - MS             |  MS            |
            |     |  Working: switched          |                |
            |     |  Protection: switched       |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+
            |  H  |  Switching - WTR            |  WTR           |
            |     |  Working: switched          |                |
            |     |  Protection: switched       |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+
            |  I  |  Switching - EXER           |  EXER          |
            |     |  Working: no switch         |                |
            |     |  Protection: no switch      |                |
            +-----+-----------------------------+----------------+

5.2.2.  State transitions When Local Request is Applied

   In the state description below 'O' means that new local request will
   be rejected because of exiting request.

   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   A (Idle)             LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        LW                D (Idle - LW)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        Recover from SF   N/A
                        MS                G (Switching - MS)
                        Clear             N/A
                        WTR expires       N/A
                        EXER              I (Switching - EXER)
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   B (Pass-trough)      LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        LW                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                O - if current state is due to
                                              LP sent by another node
                                          E (Switching - FS) - otherwise
                        SF                O - if current state is due to
                                              LP sent by another node
                                          F (Switching - SF) - otherwise
                        Recover from SF   N/A
                        MS                O - if current state is due to
                                              LP, SF or FS sent by
                                              another node
                                          G (Switching - MS) - otherwise
                        Clear             N/A
                        WTR expires       N/A
                        EXER              O
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   C (Switching - LP)   LP                N/A
                        LW                O
                        FS                O
                        SF                O
                        Recover from SF   N/A
                        MS                O
                        Clear             A (Idle) - if there is no
                                             failure in the ring
                                          F (Switching - SF) - if there
                                             is a failure at this node
                                          B (Pass-trough) - if there is
                                             a failure at another node
                        WTR expires       N/A
                        EXER              O
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   D (Idle - LW)        LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        LW                N/A - if on the same span
                                          D (Idle - LW) - if on another
                                             span
                        FS                O - if on the same span
                                          E (Switching - FS) - if on
                                             another span
                        SF                O - if on the addressed span
                                          F (Switching - SF) - if on
                                             another span
                        Recover from SF   N/A
                        MS                O - if on the same span
                                          G (Switching - MS) - if on
                                             another span
                        Clear             A (Idle) - if there is no
                                             failure on addressed span
                                          F (Switching - SF) - if there
                                             is a failure on this span
                        WTR expires       N/A
                        EXER              O
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   E (Switching - FS)   LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        LW                O - if on another span
                                          D (Idle - LW) - if on the same
                                             span
                        FS                N/A - if on the same span
                                          E (Switching - FS) - if on
                                             another span
                        SF                O - if on the addressed span
                                          E (Switching - FS) - if on
                                             another span
                        Recover from SF   N/A
                        MS                O
                        Clear             A (Idle) - if there is no
                                             failure in the ring
                                          F (Switching - SF) - if there
                                             is a failure at this node
                                          B (Pass-trough) - if there is
                                             a failure at another node
                        WTR expires       N/A
                        EXER              O
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   F (Switching - SF)   LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        LW                O - if on another span



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                                          D (Idle - LW) - if on the same
                                             span
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                N/A - if on the same span
                                          F (Switching - SF) - if on
                                             another span
                        Recover from SF   H (Switching - WTR)
                        MS                O
                        Clear             N/A
                        WTR expires       N/A
                        EXER              O
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   G (Switching - MS)   LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        LW                O - if on another span
                                          D (Idle - LW) - if on the same
                                             span
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        Recover from SF   N/A
                        MS                N/A - if on the same span
                                          G (Switching - MS) - if on
                                             another span release the
                                             switches but signal MS
                        Clear             A
                        WTR expires       N/A
                        EXER              O
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   H (Switching - WTR)  LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        LW                D (Idle - W)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        Recover from SF   N/A
                        MS                G (Switching - MS)
                        Clear             A
                        WTR expires       A
                        EXER              O
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   I (Switching - EXER) LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        LW                D (idle - W)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        Recover from SF   N/A



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                        MS                G (Switching - MS)
                        Clear             A
                        WTR expires       N/A
                        EXER              N/A - if on the same span
                                          I (Switching - EXER)
   =====================================================================


5.2.3.  State Transitions When Remote Request is Applied

   The priority of a remote request does not depend on the side from
   which the request is received.

   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   A (Idle)             LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        MS                G (Switching - MS)
                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              I (Switching - EXER)
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                A (Idle)
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   B (Pass-trough)      LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                                          E (Switching - FS) - otherwise
                        SF                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                                          F (Switching - SF) - otherwise
                        MS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                                is LP, FS or SF request
                                                in the ring
                                          G (Switching - MS) - otherwise
                        WTR               N/A - cannot happen when there
                                                is LP, FS, SF or MS
                                                request in the ring
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                                is LP, FS, SF, MS or WTR
                                                request in the ring
                                          I (Switching - EXER) -
                                                otherwise
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                A (Idle) - if received from



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                                                     both sides
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   C (Switching - LP)   LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                        SF                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                        MS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                        RR                C (Switching - LP)
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   D (Idle - LW)        LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        MS                G (Switching - MS)
                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              I (Switching - EXER)
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                D (Idle - LW)
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   E (Switching - FS)   LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                E (Switching - FS)
                        MS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is FS request in the ring
                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is FS request in the ring
                        RR                E (Switching - FS)
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   F (Switching - SF)   LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                F (Switching - SF)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        MS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is SF request in the ring



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is SF request in the ring
                        RR                F (Switching - SF)
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   G (Switching - MS)   LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        MS                G (Switching - MS) - release
                                             the switches but signal MS
                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is MS request in the ring
                        RR                G (Switching - MS)
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   H (Switching - WTR)  LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        MS                G (Switching - MS)
                        WTR               H (Switching - WTR)
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                              is WTR request in the ring
                        RR                H (Switching - WTR)
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   I (Switching - EXER) LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        MS                G (Switching - MS)
                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              I (Switching - EXER)
                        RR                I (Switching - EXER)
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================









Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


5.2.4.  State Transitions When Request Addresses to Another Node is
        Received

   The priority of a remote request does not depend on the side from
   which the request is received.

   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   A (Idle)             LP                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                B (Pass-trough)
                        SF                B (Pass-trough)
                        MS                B (Pass-trough)
                        WTR               B (Pass-trough)
                        EXER              B (Pass-trough)
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   B (Pass-trough)      LP                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                                          B (Pass-trough) - otherwise
                        SF                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                                          B (Pass-trough) - otherwise
                        MS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                                is LP, FS or SF request
                                                in the ring
                                          B (Pass-trough) - otherwise
                        WTR               N/A - cannot happen when there
                                                is LP, FS, SF or MS
                                                request in the ring
                                          B (Pass-trough) - otherwise
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                                is LP, FS, SF, MS or WTR
                                                request in the ring
                                          B (Pass-trough) - otherwise
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                B (Pass-trough)
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   C (Switching - LP)   LP                C (Switching - LP)
                        FS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                        SF                N/A - cannot happen when there



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 39]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


                                               is LP request in the ring
                        MS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                        WTR               N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP in the ring
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is LP request in the ring
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   D (Idle - LW)        LP                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                B (Pass-trough)
                        SF                B (Pass-trough)
                        MS                B (Pass-trough)
                        WTR               B (Pass-trough)
                        EXER              B (Pass-trough)
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   E (Switching - FS)   LP                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                E (Switching - FS)
                        SF                E (Switching - FS)
                        MS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is FS request in the ring
                        WTR               N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is FS request in the ring
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is FS request in the ring
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   F (Switching - SF)   LP                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                F (Switching - SF)
                        SF                F (Switching - SF)
                        MS                N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is SF request in the ring
                        WTR               N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is SF request in the ring
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is SF request in the ring
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                N/A



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 40]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   G (Switching - MS)   LP                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                B (Pass-trough)
                        SF                B (Pass-trough)
                        MS                G (Switching - MS) - release
                                             the switches but signal MS
                        WTR               N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is MS request in the ring
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                               is MS request in the ring
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   -------------        -----------       ---------
   H (Switching - WTR)  LP                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                B (Pass-trough)
                        SF                B (Pass-trough)
                        MS                B (Pass-trough)
                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              N/A - cannot happen when there
                                              is WTR request in the ring
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================
   Initial state        New request       New state
   I (Switching - EXER) LP                B (Pass-trough)
                        FS                B (Pass-trough)
                        SF                B (Pass-trough)
                        MS                B (Pass-trough)
                        WTR               N/A
                        EXER              I (Switching - EXER)
                        RR                N/A
                        NR                N/A
   =====================================================================


5.3.  RPS and PSC Comparison on Ring Topology

   This section provides comparison between RPS and PSC [RFC6378]
   [RFC6974] on ring topologies.  This can be helpful to explain the
   reason of defining a new protocol for ring protection switching.

   The PSC protocol [RFC6378] is designed for point-to-point LSPs, on
   which the protection switching can only be performed on one or both
   of the end points of the LSP.  While RPS is designed for ring



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 41]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   tunnels, which consist of multiple ring nodes, and the failure could
   happen on any segment of the ring, thus RPS SHOULD be capable of
   identifying and handling the different failures on the ring, and
   coordinating the protection switching behavior of all the nodes on
   the ring.  As specified in section 5, this is achieved with the
   introduction of the "Pass-Through" state for the ring nodes, and the
   location of the protection request is identified via the Node IDs in
   the RPS Request message.

   Taking a ring topology with N nodes as example:

   With the mechanism specified in RFC6974, on every ring-node, a linear
   protection configuration has to be provisioned with every other node
   in the ring, i.e. with (N-1) other nodes.  This means that on every
   ring node there will be (N-1) instances of the PSC protocol.  And in
   order to detect faults and to transport the PSC message, each
   instance shall have a MEP on the working path and a MEP on the
   protection path respectively.  This means that every node on the ring
   needs to be configured with (N-1) * 2 MEPs.

   With the mechanism defined in this document, on every ring node there
   will only be a single instance of the RPS protocol.  In order to
   detect faults and to transport the RPS message, each node only needs
   to have a MEP on the section to its adjacent nodes respectively.  In
   this way, every ring-node only needs to be configured with 2 MEPs.

   As shown in the above example, RPS is designed for ring topologies
   and can achieve ring protection efficiently with minimum protection
   instances and OAM entities, which meets the requirements on topology
   specific recovery mechanisms as specified in [RFC5654].

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to administer the assignment of new values defined
   in this document and summarized in this section.

6.1.  G-ACh Channel Type

   The Channel Types for the Generic Associated Channel (GACH) are
   allocated from the IANA PW Associated Channel Type registry defined
   in [RFC4446] and updated by [RFC5586].

   IANA is requested to allocate a new GACH Channel Type as follows:

       Value          Description       Reference
      ------ -------------------------- ---------------
       TBD   Ring Protection Switching   this document
                  Protocol (RPS)



Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 42]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


6.2.  RSP Request Codes

   IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry under the
   "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Operations, Administration, and
   Management (OAM) Parameters" registry called the "MPLS RPS Request
   Code Registry".  All code points within this registry shall be
   allocated according to the "Standards Action" procedure as specified
   in [RFC5226].

   The RPS Request Field is 8 bits, the allocated values are as follows:

       Value       Description               Reference
      -------  --------------------------- ---------------
         0     No Request (NR)             this document
         1     Reverse Request (RR)        this document
         2     not assigned
         3     Exercise (EXER)             this document
         4     not assigned
         5     Wait-To-Restore (WTR)       this document
         6     Manual Switch (MS)          this document
        7-10   not assigned
        11     Signal Fail (SF)            this document
        12     not assigned
        13     Forced Switch (FS)          this document
        14     not assigned
        15     Lockout of Protection (LP)  this document
      16-255   not assigned

7.  Security Considerations

   The RPS protocol defined in this document is carried in the G-ACh
   [RFC5586], which is a generalization of the Associated Channel
   defined in [RFC4385].  The security considerations specified in these
   documents apply to the proposed RPS mechanism.

8.  Contributing Authors

   Wen Ye, Minxue Wang, Sheng Liu (China Mobile)

   Guanghui Sun (Huawei)

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Gregory Mirsky, Yimin Shen, Eric
   Osborne and Spencer Jackson for their valuable comments and
   suggestions.





Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 43]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
              February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.

   [RFC4446]  Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
              Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
              "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.

   [RFC5654]  Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
              Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
              Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
              September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.

   [RFC6371]  Busi, I., Ed. and D. Allan, Ed., "Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based
              Transport Networks", RFC 6371, DOI 10.17487/RFC6371,
              September 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6371>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.






Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 44]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   [RFC6378]  Weingarten, Y., Ed., Bryant, S., Osborne, E., Sprecher,
              N., and A. Fulignoli, Ed., "MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
              TP) Linear Protection", RFC 6378, DOI 10.17487/RFC6378,
              October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6378>.

   [RFC6974]  Weingarten, Y., Bryant, S., Ceccarelli, D., Caviglia, D.,
              Fondelli, F., Corsi, M., Wu, B., and X. Dai,
              "Applicability of MPLS Transport Profile for Ring
              Topologies", RFC 6974, DOI 10.17487/RFC6974, July 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6974>.

Authors' Addresses

   Weiqiang Cheng
   China Mobile

   Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com


   Lei Wang
   China Mobile

   Email: wangleiyj@chinamobile.com


   Han Li
   China Mobile

   Email: lihan@chinamobile.com


   Huub van Helvoort
   Hai Gaoming BV

   Email: huubatwork@gmail.com


   Kai Liu
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: alex.liukai@huawei.com


   Jie Dong
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: jie.dong@huawei.com




Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 45]


Internet-Draft                    MSRP                       August 2015


   Jia He
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: hejia@huawei.com


   Fang Li
   China Academy of Telecommunication Research, MIIT., China

   Email: lifang@ritt.cn


   Jian Yang
   ZTE Corporation P.R.China

   Email: yang.jian90@zte.com.cn


   Junfang Wang
   Fiberhome Telecommunication Technologies Co., LTD.

   Email: wjf@fiberhome.com.cn





























Cheng, et al.           Expires February 12, 2016              [Page 46]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/