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

Versions: 00 01 02

Network working Group                              W. Imajuku (ed.)  NTT
Internet-Draft                             T. Otani (ed.) KDDI R&D Labs.
Category: Informational                           N. Bitar (ed.) Verizon
Expires December 2008                                       June 11 2008




       Service Provider Requirements for Ethernet control with GMPLS
            draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 10, 2008.


Abstract

   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) is applicable to
   Ethernet switches supporting Provider Backbone Bridge Traffic
   Engineering (PBB-TE) networks. The GMPLS controlled Ethernet label
   switch network not only automates creation of Ethernet Label Switched
   Paths(Eth-LSPs), it also provides sophisticated Eth-LSP recovery
   Mechanisms such as protection and restoration of an Eth-LSP. This
   document describes the requirements for the set of solutions of GMPLS
   controlled Ethernet label switch networks.





Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 1]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2.  Conventions used in this document  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Reference model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.1.  Single-layer network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     3.2.  Multi-layer network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Requirements for Ethernet layer control  . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.   Control plane architecture and functionality  . . . . . .  5
     4.1.1. In-band control plane channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.2  Neighbor discovery mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.   Ethernet LSP control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.1. Prevention of Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.2. Service Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.3  P2MP and MP2MP LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.   OA&M related functionality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.4.   Protection and restoration Related functionalities  . . .  6
     4.5.   Link Aggregation Group related functionalities  . . . . .  6
     4.5.1  Failure or deletion of LAG member link  . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.5.2  Recovery or addition of LAG member link . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.6.   Inter-domain Ethernet LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.7.   Multi-layer network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.7.1. Dynamic formation of LAG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.7.2. Other requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.8    Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.1.  Normative references   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.2.  Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  Acknowledgements   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11




1.  Introduction

   Scalability and manageability of Ethernet switch networks has
   continuously improved, and the deployment of Ethernet switches
   supporting Provider Bridging (PB) [IEEE802.1ad] has became one of the
   solutions for service providers to provide enterprise WAN/LAN services.
   IEEE standardization activities of Provider Backbone Bridge(PBB)
   [IEEE 802.1ah] and PBB for Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE) [IEEE802.1Qay]
   provide an opportunity not only for enhancing the scalability,
   manageability, and controllability of the Ethernet service networks,
   but also for more efficiently deploying access/metro access networks.



Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 2]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) provides the
   framework for handling and controlling various types of switching
   technologies, namely packet switching with various label formats TDM
   switching, and wavelength switching [RFC3945]. Therefore, the combined
   use of GMPLS and PBB-TE is a fairly suitable "use case" that
   contributes to enhancing the flexibility of Ethernet Label Switched
   Path (Eth-LSP) over Ethernet switch networks without defining
   additional connection layers.

   This document describes requirements for GMPLS protocols to control
   Ethernet label switch networks and comprises mainly two parts.
   The first one is the requirements for GMPLS extension for
   controlling Ethernet layer. The second one includes the requirements
   for GMPLS extensions to support multi-layer operation. Although a
   large portion of requirements in the second scope coincides with the
   description in [Interwk-fwk] and [Interwk-req], some of important
   requirements are also described in this document.


2.  Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
   [RFC2119].


3.  Reference model

3.1 Single Layer

   This document describes requirements based on the reference model
   depicted in Fig. 1. The first reference model is an intra-domain
   and single layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switching network
   in which Eth-LSPs traverse over between Back Bone Core Bridges
   (BCBs) or Back Bone Edge Bridges (BEBs).
                                            --------
                                            |  LSR3  |__ P-based IF
                   --------      ----- _____|(IB-BEB)|__ S-tagged IF
    P-based IF    |  LSR1  |____|LSR2 |     |        |__ I-tagged IF
    S-tagged IF   |(IB-BEB)|    |(BCB)|      --------
    I-tagged IF   |        |    |     |_____ --------
                   --------      -----      |  LSR4  |
                                            | (B-BEB)|
                                            |        |__ I-tagged IF
                                             --------
                           |  GMPLS Eth-LSP |
                           |   (BVID/BMAC)  |
                           |<---------------|
       Figure 1 Single layer GMPLS controlled PBB-TE network


Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 3]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


   The BEBs provide mainly three types of service interfaces, namely
   Port based service interface (P-based IF), S-tagged service interface
   (S-tagged IF), and I-tagged service Interface (I-tagged IF)
   [IEEE802.1ah]. The "P-based IF" and "S-tagged IF" are connected to the
   I-component of a BEB (I-BEB), while the I-tagged IF is connected to
   the B-component of a BEB (B-BEB). "S-tagged IF" can perform various
   types of mapping between Service VLAN ID (S-VID) and Backbone
   instance Service Identifier (I-SID). Here, S-VID is assigned within
   customer network domain or Provider Bridge (PB) domain. On the other
   hand, I-SID is defined between I-components of BEBs.


3.2 Multi-layer

   The second reference model is Ethernet and L1 (such as TDM, OTN,
   etc) multi-layer network. Each Ethernet switch node behaves as
   a border node between the Ethernet layer and optical Layers.
   Each BCB or BEB terminates Optical Label Switched Path (O-LSPs)
   with Ethernet encoding type and some O-LSPs dynamically form LAG.
   Thus, some Eth-LSPs traverse over multiple O-LSPs, while other
   Eth-LSPs traverse over single O-LSPs.

   Also, it is technically possible to form multiple layer Ethernet
   switch networks. Namely, the reference model is defined as the case
   that Ethernet switch network substitutes L1 network in Fig.2, and
   realizes MAC in MAC Ethernet transport.
   The routing information of optical layer may be isolated (overlay
   model), shuffled (peer model), or virtualized with FA-LSPs
   (augmented model) for Ethernet switch layer.


                   --------       ------       --------
    P-based IF  __|  LSR1  |     | LSR2 |     |  LSR3  |__ P-based IF
    S-tagged IF __|(IB-BEB)|     | (BCB)|     |(IB-BEB)|__ S-tagged IF
    I-tagged IF __|        |     |      |     |        |__ I-tagged IF
                   --------       ------       --------
                      |           |  ||LAG    LAG||
......................|...........|..||..........||...................
                      |           |  ||          ||
                   ---+----       ------        ------
                  | LSR A  |_____|LSR B |_____|LSR C |
                  |  (LSC) |     |(LSC) | WDM |(LSC) |
                   --------       ------       ------
                      | GMPLS Eth-LSP (BVID/BMAC)|
                      |<------------------------>|
                      |   O-LSP   |   |  O-LSP   |
                      |<--------->|   |<-------->|


 Figure 2 Multi-layer GMPLS controlled Ethernet label switched network


Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 4]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


4.  Requirements

   Section 4.1 to 4.6 describe requirements for single layer Ethernet
   label swicth network based on the reference model from Fig.1.
   In addition, section 4.7 describes requirements for multiple
   layer network with Ethernet layer and circuit switch layer (such as
   wavelength switched layer and so on). Finally, section 4.8 describes
   generic requirements applicable to single and multiple layer
   networks.


4.1 Control plane architecture and functionality

4.1.1 In-band control plane channel

   The solution should be able to establish in-band control channel,
   while preserving the solution of out-band control channel.
   The solution should include negotiation mechanism to specify bandwidth
   and priority of control-channel between peer Ethernet switches.

4.1.2 Neighbor discovery mechanism

   The solution MUST be able to realize automatic neighbor discovery
   as realized in current PB or PBB networks.
   Namely, the solution MUST support an automatic negotiation mechanism
   to exchange information of Node ID, TE-Link ID, Data-link ID
   (in the case of link Bundling), and IP address of the control channel.
   On the other hand, the extension should be minimized by making use
   of [IEEE 802.1AB].


4.2 Ethernet LSP control

4.2.1 Prevention of Loops

   The solution should have reliability to prevent creating loops of
   Eth-LSPs. Specifically if the solution supports numbered TE-Link
   addressing, the solution should define a methodology and protocol
   extensions if needed to detect or prevent loops.


4.2.2 Service control

   The solution should control various types of service interfaces
   defined in [IEEE802.1ah]. The service types of Egress port
      1) Port based service interface
      2) S-tagged service interface
            a) one-to-one mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs
            b) bundled mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs
               such as many-to-one, all-to-one, transparent mapping


Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 5]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


        3) I-tagged service interface
   should be controllable in addition to assignment of Egress port
   itself.

   Also, the solution should be flexible to following operational
   scenarios,
      1) Any change of mapping of S-VIDs to I-SIDs
      2) Flexibility to nest or stitch higher layer Eth-LSPs.
      3) Any change of bandwidth of Eth-LSPs. Here, the solution
         of bandwidth modification scenario may include bundling
         of multiple Eth-LSPs.


4.2.3 P2MP and MP2MP requirements

   Detail requirements will be described in future version.


4.3 OA&M related functionality

   OAM mechanisms must be defined for GMPLS controlled E-LSPs.
   Since the data plane is still Ethernet based, the mechanisms
   should capitalize on existing IEEE802.1ad and Y.1731 mechanisms.

   Also, the solution should provide admin status control mechanism
   to coordinate with Connectivity Fault Management (CFM)
   functionality [IEEE802.1ag].


4.4 Protection and Restoration related functionality

   Detail requirements will be described in future version.


4.5 Link Aggregation Group (LAG) related functionality

   Link Aggregation is beneficial functionality to realize reliable
   Ethernet label switched networks. The availability of connection
   between peer Ethernet switches can be enhanced in the case of
   single link failure, if member links of the LAG are diversely
   routed. In this operational scenario, LAG provides for link protection
   functionality.

   The solution should include methodology to explicitly assign
   the links forming LAG a desired link type (which is similar sense to
   assign link protection type described in [RFC3471]).

4.5.1 Failure or deletion of LAG member link

   The solution should include functionality to prioritize Eth-LSPs,
   specifically when total bandwidth of Eth-LSPs exceeds total bandwidth

Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 6]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008

   of healthy LAG members after the failure of one or more LAG member
   links.

   The solution should provide for rerouting an Eth-LSP setup over a
   failed member link in a LAG to another member link in the LAG.

4.5.2 Recovery or addition of LAG member link

   The solution should include functionality to re-optimize Eth-LSP
   paths after the addition of a LAG member link, i.e. reversion of
   failed Eth-LSPs after the failure of the LAG member link, or
   reallocation of other Eth-LSPs traversing congested Links after
   the addition of LAG member link.


4.6 Inter-domain Ethernet LSP

   The solution should take into account possible future extension
   to control inter-domain Eth-LSPs. Here, the possible extensions are
   Eth-LSPs traverse over
        1) I-tagged service interfaces
2) S-tagged service interfaces, and
3) C-tagged service interfaces.


4.7 Multi-layer network

4.7.1 Dynamic formation of LAG

    The solution should include dynamic formation of a LAG after the
    creation or deletion of optical LSPs which interconnect ports of
    Ethernet switches.

4.7.2 Other requirements

   The architecture and requirements for MPLS-GMPLS inter-working are
   described in [Interwk-fwk] and [Interwk-req]. Some of the requirements
   described in [Interwk-req] are valid even for the case of GMPLS-GMPLS
   interworking between Ethernet label switched network and L1 network.
   In other words,
     1) End-to-End signaling of Eth-LSPs
     2) Triggered establishment of L1 LSPs
     3) Avoiding complexity and risks.
   should be satisfied even for GMPLS control plane for Ethernet. For
   more details, see [Interwk-req] and MPLS-TE client network written
   in the document should be understood as Ethernet client network.

   Regarding to routing issue,
     1) Advertisement of Ethernet label switch network information
        via L1 GMPLS networks
     2) Selective Advertisement of Ethernet label switched network
        information via a Border node

Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 7]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


   should be satisfied even in the case of GMPLS-GMPLS inter-working.
   Note that there is significant difference between MPLS-TE and GMPLS
   controlled Ethernet from the view point of methodology to create
   control channel.


4.8 Scalability

   The solution MUST be designed to scale according to following metrics.
     - Number of nodes
     - Number of TE-Links
     - Number of LSPs
     - Number of service ports
     - Number of bundled S-VLANs mapped to I-SID and Eth-LSPs.


5.  Security considerations

   TBD


6.  IANA considerations

   TBD


7.  References

7.1 Normative References


   [IEEE802.1ad] IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
              Networks - Amendment 4 : Provider Bridges", P802.1ad/D6.0,
              Draft, Work in Progress

   [IEEE802.1ah] "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges", work in
              progress.

   [IEEE802.1Qay] "IEEE standard for Provider Backbone Bridges Traffic
              Engineering", work in progress.

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

   [IEEE 802.1AB] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks, Station and Media Access Control Connectivity
              Discovery".

   [IEEE802.3] IEEE Computer Society, "Amendment to Carrier Sense
              Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CAMS/CD)
              Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications ?

Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 8]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


              Aggregation of Multiple Link Segements, " P802.3ad,
              March 2000.

   [IEEE802.1ag] IEEE Computer Society, "Virtual Bridged Local Area
              Networks - Amendment 5 : Connectivity Fault Management",
              P802.1ag/D5.2, Draft, Work in Progress

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


7.2 Informative References

   [Interwk-frw]    Shiomoto, K., Papadimitriou, D., Le Roux, J.L.,
             Brungard, D., Kumaki, K., Ali, Z., Oki, E., Inoue, I.,
             Otani, T., "Framework for MPLS-TE to GMPLS migration",
             draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk, work in
             progress.

   [Interwk-req]     Kumaki, K., Otani, T., Okamoto, S., Fujihara,
             K., Ikejiri, Y., "Interworking Requirements to Support
             operation of MPLS-TE over GMPLS Networks", draft-ietf-
             ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs, work in progress.


8. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Mr. Allan McGuire, Mr. Jullien
   Meuric, Mr. Lou Berger and Mr. Don Fedyk for their valuable
   comments.






9. Authors' Addresses

   Wataru Imajuku (ed.)
   NTT Network Innovation Labs
   1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa
   Japan

   Phone: +81-(46) 859-4315
   Email: imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Yoshiaki Sone
   NTT Network Innovation Labs

Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 9]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


   1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa
   Japan

   Phone: +81-(46) 859-2456
   Email: sone.yoshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Muneyoshi Suzuki
   NTT Access Service System Labs
   1-6 Nakase, Mihama-ku, Chiba
   Japan

   Phone: +81-(43) 211-8282
   Email: suzuki.muneyoshi@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Kazuhiro Matsuda
   NTT Network Innovation Labs
   1-1 Hikari-no-oka, Yokosuka, Kanagawa
   Japan

   Phone: +81-(46) 859-3177
   Email: matsuda.kazuhiro@lab.ntt.co.jp


   Nabil Bitar (ed.)
   Verizon
   40 Sylvan Road
   Waltham, MA 02451

   Email: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com


   Kenichi Ogaki
   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
   2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi
   Saitama, 356-8502 Japan
   Phone: +81-49-278-7897
   Email: ogaki@kddilabs.jp


   Tomohiro Otani (ed.)
   KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
   2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi
   Saitama, 356-8502 Japan

   Phone: +81-49-278-7357
   Email: otani@kddilabs.jp




Providers             Expires December 2008                     [Page 10]


draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs-00.txt          June  2008


Intellectual Property Statement

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

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

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


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.
   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.














Providers             Expires December 2008                      [Page 11]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/