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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 4203

CCAMP Working Group                       K. Kompella (Juniper Networks)
Internet Draft                            Y. Rekhter  (Juniper Networks)
Expiration Date: March 2002               A. Banerjee (Calient Networks)
                                          J. Drake    (Calient Networks)
                                          G. Bernstein (Ciena)
                                          D. Fedyk    (Nortel Networks)
                                          E. Mannie   (GTS Network)
                                          D. Saha     (Tellium)
                                          V. Sharma   (Metanoia, Inc.)

             OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS

                draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt


1. Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

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

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

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

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
















draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 1]


Internet Draft  draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt  September 2001


2. Abstract

   This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
   protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS).  The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
   ROUTING].


3. Summary for Sub-IP Area


3.1. Summary

   This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
   protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS).  The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
   ROUTING].


3.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work

   This work fits squarely in either the CCAMP or OSPF box.


3.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG

   This draft is targeted at the CCAMP or the OSPF WG, because this
   draft specifies the extensions to the OSPF routing protocols in
   support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of the CCAMP WG,
   and because OSPF is within the scope of the OSPF WG.


3.4. Justification

   The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions
   to the OSPF routing protocols in support of GMPLS.















draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 2]


Internet Draft  draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt  September 2001


4. Introduction

   This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in
   support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to
   OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].


5. OSPF Routing Enhancements

   In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of
   GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs.  The Traffic
   Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope
   [3], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and has
   one or more nested TLVs for extensibility.  The top-level TLV can
   take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link.  In this
   document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of
   GMPLS.  Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs:

      1. Outgoing Interface Identifier,
      2. Incoming Interface Identifier,
      3. Interface MTU
      4. Link Protection Type,
      5. Shared Risk Link Group, and
      6. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor.

   This brings the list of sub-TLVs of the TE Link TLV to:

      Sub-TLV Type      Length    Name
                 1           1    Link type
                 2           4    Link ID
                 3           4    Local interface IP address
                 4           4    Remote interface IP address
                 5           4    Traffic engineering metric
                 6           4    Maximum bandwidth
                 7           4    Maximum reservable bandwidth
                 8          32    Unreserved bandwidth
                 9           4    Resource class/color
                10           2    Interface MTU
                11           4    Outgoing Interface Identifier
                12           4    Incoming Interface Identifier
                14           4    Link Protection Type
                16    variable    Shared Risk Link Group
                15    variable    Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
       32768-32772           -    Reserved for Cisco-specific extensions






draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 3]


Internet Draft  draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt  September 2001


5.1. Interface MTU

   The Interface MTU is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 10, length
   2, and value equal to the maximum size of an IP packet that can be
   transmitted on this interface without being fragmented.


5.2. Outgoing Interface Identifier

   An Outgoing Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with
   type 11, length 4, and value equal to the assigned identifier.


5.3. Incoming Interface Identifier

   An Incoming Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with
   type 12, length 4, and value equal to the assigned identifier.


5.4. Link Protection Type

   The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV, with type 14,
   and length of four octets, the first of which is a bit vector
   describing the protection capabilities of the link. They are:

      0x01  Extra Traffic

      0x02  Unprotected

      0x04  Shared

      0x08  Dedicated 1:1

      0x10  Dedicated 1+1

      0x20  Enhanced

      0x40  Reserved

      0x80  Reserved


5.5. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)

   The SRLG is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 16. The length is the
   length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 32
   bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The format
   is as shown below:



draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 4]


Internet Draft  draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt  September 2001


       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              16               |   4 * No. of SRLGs in link    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Shared Risk Link Group Value                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        ............                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Shared Risk Link Group Value                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



5.6. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor

   The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV of the
   Link TLV with type 15. The length is the length of value field in
   octets. The format of the value field is as shown below:



       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |           Reserved            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Switching Capability-specific information              |
      |                  (variable)                                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 5]


Internet Draft  draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt  September 2001


   The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the
   following values:


           1     Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)
           2     Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
           3     Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
           4     Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
           51    Layer-2 Switch Capable  (L2SC)
           100   Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
           150   Lambda-Switch Capable   (LSC)
           200   Fiber-Switch Capable    (FSC)


   The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
   3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].

   Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
   the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7
   last.

   The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
   depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.

   When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, PSC-4, or
   L2SC, there is no specific information.

   When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the specific information
   includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, which is is encoded in a 4 octets
   field in the IEEE floating point format.

   When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific
   information.


6. Security Considerations

   The sub-TLVs proposed in this document does not raise any new
   security concerns.












draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 6]


Internet Draft  draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt  September 2001


7. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and
   Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft.


8. References

   [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
   OSPF",
       draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-04.txt (work in progress)

   [GMPLS-SIG] "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional
       Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work
       in progress)

   [GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS",
       draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt



9. Authors' Information


Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net



Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: yakov@juniper.net



Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1.408.972.3645
Email: abanerjee@calient.net





draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 7]


Internet Draft  draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt  September 2001


John Drake
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: (408) 972-3720
Email: jdrake@calient.net



Greg Bernstein
Ciena Corporation
10480 Ridgeview Court
Cupertino, CA 94014
Phone: (408) 366-4713
Email: greg@ciena.com



Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Corp.
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1-978-288-4506
Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com



Eric Mannie
GTS Network Services
RDI Department, Core Network Technology Group
Terhulpsesteenweg, 6A
1560 Hoeilaart, Belgium
Phone: +32-2-658.56.52
E-mail: eric.mannie@gtsgroup.com



Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: (732) 923-4264
Email: dsaha@tellium.com







draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 8]


Internet Draft  draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt  September 2001



Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203
San Jose, CA 95134-2539
Phone: +1 408-943-1794
Email: v.sharma@ieee.org












































draft-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt                        [Page 9]


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