[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5493
CCAMP Working Group D. Caviglia
Internet-Draft D. Bramanti
Intended status: Informational Ericsson
Expires: March 19, 2009 D. Li
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
D. McDysan
Verizon
September 15, 2008
Requirements for the Conversion Between Permanent Connections and
Switched Connections in a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Network
draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2009.
Abstract
From a Carrier perspective, the possibility of turning a Permanent
Connection (PC) into a Soft Permanent Connection (SPC) and vice
versa, without actually affecting Data Plane traffic being carried
over it, is a valuable option. In other terms, such operation can be
seen as a way of transferring the ownership and control of an
existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
Plane and the Control Plane, leaving its Data Plane state untouched.
This memo sets out the requirements for such procedures within a
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) network.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Label Switched Path Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Resource Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Typical Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. SC to PC Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane . . . . . 7
5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane . . . . . 7
5.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion . . 7
5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.7. Failure of transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
1. Introduction
In a typical, traditional transport network scenario, Data Plane
connections between two end-points are controlled by means of a
Network Management System (NMS) operating within the Management Plane
(MP). The NMS/MP is the owner of such transport connections, being
responsible of their setup, teardown, and maintenance. Provisioned
connections of this type, initiated and managed by the Management
Plane, are known as Permanent Connections (PCs) [G.8081].
When the setup, teardown, and maintenance of connections are achieved
by means of a signaling protocol owned by the Control Plane, such
connections are known as Switched Connections (SCs) [G.8081].
In many deployments, a hybrid connection type will be used. A Soft
Permanent Connection (SPC) is a combination of a permanent connection
segment at the source user-to-network side, a permanent connection
segment at the destination user-to-network side, and a switched
connection segment within the core network. The permanent parts of
the SPC are owned by the Management Plane, and the switched parts are
owned by the Control Plane [G.8081].
Note, some aspects of a control plane initiated connection must be
capable of being queried/controlled by the Management Plane. These
aspects should be independent of how the connection was established.
2. Label Switched Path Terminology
A Label Switched Path (LSP) has different semantics depending on the
plane in which the term is used.
In the Data Plane, an LSP indicates the Data Plane forwarding path.
It defines the forwarding or switching operations at each network
entity. It is the sequence of Data Plane resources (links, labels,
cross-connects) that achieves end-to-end data transport.
In the Management Plane, an LSP is the management state information
(such as the connection attributes and path information) associated
with and necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane
connection.
In the Control Plane, an LSP is the Control Plane state information
(such as RSVP-TE [RFC3473] Path and Resv state) associated with and
necessary for the creation and maintenance of a Data Plane
connection.
A Permanent Connection has an LSP presence in the Data Plane and the
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
Management Plane. A Switched Connection has an LSP presence in the
Data Plane and the Control Plane. An SPC has LSP presence in the
Data Plane for its entire length, but has Management Plane presence
for part of its length and Control Plane presence for part of its
length.
In this document, when we discuss the LSP conversion between
Management Plane and Control Plane, we mainly focus on the conversion
of Control Plane state information and Management Plane state
information.
3. LSP within GMPLS Control Plane
Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) ([RFC3471],
[RFC3473], and [RFC3945]) defines a Control Plane architecture for
transport networks. This includes both routing and signaling
protocols for the creation and maintenance of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) in networks whose Data Plane is based on different
technologies such as TDM (SDH/SONET, G.709 at ODUk level) transport
and WDM (G.709 OCh level).
3.1. Resource Ownership
A resource used by an LSP is said to be 'owned' by the plane that was
used to set up the LSP through that part of the network. Thus,all
the resources used by a Permanent Connection are owned by the
Management Plane, and all the resources used by a Switched Connection
are owned by the Control Plane. The resources used by an SPC are
divided between the Management Plane (for the resources used by the
permanent connection segments at the edge of the network) and the
Control Plane (for the resources used by the switched segments in the
middle of the network).
The division of resources available for ownership by the Management
and Control Planes is an architectural issue. A carrier may decide
to pre-partition the resources at a network entity so that LSPs under
Management Plane control use one set of resources and LSPs under
Control Plane control use another set of resources. Other carriers
may choose to make this distinction resource-by-resource as LSPs are
established.
It should be noted, however, that even when a resource is owned by
the Control Plane it will usually be the case that the Management
Plane has a controlling interest in the resource. For example, the
basic safety requirements that management commands must be able to
set a laser out of service.
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
3.2. Setting Up a GMPLS Controlled Network
The implementation of a new network using a Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Plane may be considered as a green
field deployment. But in many cases it is desirable to introduce a
GMPLS Control Plane into an existing transport network that is
already populated with permanent connections under Management Plane
control.
In a mixed scenario, Permanent Connections owned by the Management
Plane and Switched Connections owned by the Control Plane have to
coexist within the network.
It is also desirable to transfer the control of connections from the
Management Plane to the Control Plane so that connections that were
originally under the control of an NMS are now under the control of
the GMPLS protocols. In case such connections are in service, such
conversion must be performed in a way that does not affect traffic.
Since attempts to move a LSP under GMPLS control might fail due to a
number of reasons outside the scope of this draft, it is also highly
desirable to have a mechanism to convert the control of an LSP back
to the Management Plane.
Note that a Permanent Connection may be converted to a Switched
Connection or to an SPC, and an SPC may be converted to a Switched
Connection as well (PC to SC, PC to SPC, and SPC to SC). So the
reverse mappings may be also needed (SC to PC, SC to SPC, and SPC to
PC).
Conversion to/from control/management will occur in MIBs or
information (e.g., cross-connect, label assignment, label stacking,
etc.) is identified as either a specific control protocol, or manual
(i.e., NMS). When converting, this hop-level owner information needs
to be completed for all hops. If conversion cannot be done for all
hops, then the conversion must be done for no hops and the state of
the hop level information restored to that before the conversion was
attempted, and an error condition reported to the management system.
In either case of conversion, the Management Plane shall initiate the
change. When converting from a PC to an SC, the management system
must indicate to each hop that a control protocol is now to be used,
and then configure the data needed by the control protocol at the
connection endpoints. When converting from an SC to a PC, the
Management Plane must change the owner of each hop. Then the
instance in the Control Plane must be removed without affecting the
Data Plane.
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
The case where the CP and/or MP fail at one or more nodes during the
conversion procedure must be handled in the solution. If the network
is viewed as the database of record (including data, control and
Management Plane elements), then a solution that has procedures
similar to those of a two-phase database commit process may be needed
to ensure integrity and support the need to revert to the state prior
to the conversion attempt if there is a CP and/or MP failure during
the attempted conversion.
4. Typical Use Cases
4.1. PC to SC/SPC Conversion
A typical scenario where a PC to SC (or SPC) procedure can be a
useful option is at the initial stage of Control Plane deployment in
an existing network. In such a case, all the network connections,
possibly carrying traffic, are already set up as PCs and are owned by
the Management Plane.
At a latter stage, when the network is partially controlled by the
Management Plane and partially controlled by the Control Plane (PCs
and SCs/SPCs coexist) and it is desired to extend the control plane,
a PC to SC procedure can be used to transfer a PC or SPC to a SC.
In both cases, a connection, set up and owned by the Management
Plane, needs to be transferred to Control Plane control. If a
connection is carrying traffic, its control transfer has to be done
without any disruption to the Data Plane traffic.
4.2. SC to PC Conversion
The main need for a SC to PC conversion is to give an operator the
capability of undoing the action of the above introduced PC to SC
conversion.
In other words, the SC to PC conversion is a back-out procedure and
as such is not specified as mandatory in this document, but it is
still a highly desirable function.
Again it is worth stressing the requirement that such 'SPC to PC'
conversion needs to be achieved without any effect on the associated
Data Plane state so that the connection continues to be operational
and to carry traffic during the transition.
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
5. Requirements
This section sets out the basic requirements for procedures and
processes that are used to perform the functions of this document.
Notation from [RFC2119] is used to clarify the level of each
requirement.
5.1. Data Plane LSP Consistency
The Data Plane LSP MUST stay in place throughout the whole control
transfer process. It MUST follow the same path through the network
and MUST use the same network resources.
5.2. No Disruption of User Traffic
The transfer process MUST NOT cause any disruption of user traffic
flowing over the LSP whose control is being transferred or any other
LSP in the network.
SC to PC conversion and vice-versa SHALL occur without generating
alarms towards the end users or the NMS.
5.3. Transfer from Management Plane to Control Plane
It MUST be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the
Management Plane to the Control Plane.
5.4. Transfer from Control Plane to Management Plane
It SHOULD be possible to transfer the ownership of an LSP from the
Control Plane to the Management Plane.
5.5. Synchronization of State Among Nodes During Conversion
It MUST be assured that the state of the LSP is synchronized among
all nodes traversed by it before the conversion is considered
complete.
5.6. Support of Soft Permanent Connections
It MUST be possible to segment an LSP such that it can be converted
to or from an SPC.
5.7. Failure of transfer
It MUST be possible for a transfer from one plane to the other to
fail in a non-destructive way leaving the ownership unchanged and
without impacting traffic.
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
If during the transfer procedure issues arise causing an unsuccessful
or unexpected result, it MUST be assured:
1. Traffic over Data Plane is not affected
2. The LSP status is consistent in all the network nodes involved in
the procedure
Point 2, above, assures that even in case of some failure during the
transfer, the state of the affected LSP is brought back to the
initial one and it is fully under control of the owning entity.
6. Security Considerations
Allowing control of an LSP to be taken away from a plane introduces a
possible way in which services may be disrupted by malicious
intervention.
A solution to the requirements in this document will utilize the
security mechanisms supported by the Management Plane and GMPLS
Control Plane protocols, and no new security requirements over the
general requirements described in [RFC3945] are introduced. It is
expected that solution documents will include an analysis of the
security issues introduced by any new protocol extensions.
If SNMP MIBs are used for configuration, then the Management Plane
should support authentication for PC-SC configuration changes as
specified in [RFC3414].
Note also that implementations may support policy components to
determine whether individual LSPs may be transferred between planes.
7. IANA Considerations
This requirements document makes no requests for IANA action.
8. Contributors
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
Nicola Ciulli
NextWorks
Corso Italia 116
56125 Pisa, Italy
Email: n.ciulli@nextworks.it
Han Li
China Mobile Communications Co.
53 A Xibianmennei Ave. Xuanwu District
Deijing 100053 P.R. China
Phone: 10-66006688 ext.3092
Email: lihan@chinamobile.com
Daniele Ceccarelli
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova-Sestri Ponente, Italy
Phone: +390106002515
Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
9. Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the following people (listed randomly): Adrian
Farrel for his editorial assistance to prepare this draft for
publication, Dean Cheng, Julien Meuric, Dimitri Papadimitriou,
Deborah Brungard, Igor Bryskin, Lou Berger, Don Fedyk, John Drake and
Vijay Pandian for their suggestions and comments on the CCAMP list.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model
(USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.
10.2. Informational References
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.
[G.8081] International Telecommunications Union, "Terms and
definitions for Automatically Switched Optical Networks
(ASON)", Recommendation G.8081/Y.1353, June 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Diego Caviglia
Ericsson
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genova - Sestri Ponente
Italy
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Dino Bramanti
Ericsson
Via Moruzzi 1 C/O Area Ricerca CNR
Pisa
Italy
Email: dino.bramanti@ericsson.com
Dan Li
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Shenzhen 518129
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang
China
Email: dan.li@huawei.com
Dave McDysan
Verizon
Ashburn, VA
USA
Email: dave.mcdysan@verizon.com
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-06.txt September 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Caviglia, et al. Expires March 19, 2009 [Page 11]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/