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

Versions: (draft-he-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp) 00 01

TEAS Working Group                                                 J. He
Internet-Draft                                                   I. Busi
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 6, 2020                                         J. Ryoo
                                                                 B. Yoon
                                                                    ETRI
                                                                 P. Park
                                                                      KT
                                                            July 5, 2019


         GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Shared Mesh Protection
                 draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp-01

Abstract

   ITU-T Recommendation G.808.3 [G808.3] defines the generic aspects of
   a Shared Mesh Protection (SMP) mechanism, where the difference
   between SMP and Shared Mesh Restoration (SMR) is also identified.
   ITU-T Recommendation G.873.3 [G873.3] defines the protection
   switching operation and associated protocol for SMP at the Optical
   Data Unit (ODU) layer.  RFC 7412 [RFC7412] provides requirements for
   any mechanism that would be used to implement SMP in a Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching - Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) network.

   This document updates RFC 4872 [RFC4872] to provide the extensions to
   the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to
   support the control of the shared mesh protection.

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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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 January 6, 2020.






He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  SMP Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  GMPLS Signaling Extension for SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Signaling Primary LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Signaling Secondary LSPs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  SMP APS Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  Updates to PROTECTION Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  New Protection Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  Other Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   RFC 4872 [RFC4872] defines extension of Resource Reservation Protocol
   - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) to support Shared Mesh Restoration
   (SMR) mechanism.  SMR can be seen as a particular case of pre-planned
   Label Switched Path (LSP) rerouting that reduces the recovery
   resource requirements by allowing multiple protecting LSPs to share
   common link and node resources.  The recovery resources for the
   protecting LSPs are pre-reserved during the provisioning phase, and
   an explicit restoration signaling is required to activate (i.e.,
   commit resource allocation at the data plane) a specific protecting
   LSP instantiated during the provisioning phase.



He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


   ITU-T Recommendation G.808.3 [G808.3] defines the generic aspects of
   a shared mesh protection (SMP) mechanism.  ITU-T Recommendation
   G.873.3 [G873.3] defines the protection switching operation and
   associated protocol for SMP at the Optical Data Unit (ODU) layer.
   RFC 7412 [RFC7412] provides requirements for any mechanism that would
   be used to implement SMP in a Multi-Protocol Label Switching -
   Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) network.

   SMP differs from SMR in the activation/protection switching
   operation.  The former activates a protecting LSP via the automatic
   protection switching (APS) protocol in the data plane when the
   working LSP fails, while the latter does it via the control plane
   signaling.  It is therefore necessary to distinguish SMP from SMR
   during provisioning so that each node involved behaves appropriately
   in the recovery phase when activation of a protecting LSP is done.

   This document updates [RFC4872] to provide the extensions to the
   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling to
   support the control of the SMP mechanism.  Only the generic aspects
   for signaling SMP are addressed by this document.  The technology-
   specific aspects are expected to be addressed by other drafts.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   In addition, the reader is assumed to be familiar with the
   terminology used in [RFC4872] and RFC 4426 [RFC4426].

3.  SMP Definition

   [G808.3] defines the generic aspects of a SMP mechanism.  [G873.3]
   defines the protection switching operation and associated protocol
   for SMP at the ODU layer.  [RFC7412] provides requirements for any
   mechanism that would be used to implement SMP in a MPLS-TP network.

   The SMP mechanism is based on pre-computed protection transport
   entities that are pre-configured into the network elements.  Pre-
   configuration here means pre-reserving resources for the protecting
   LSPs without activating a particular protecting LSP (e.g. in circuit
   networks, the cross-connects in the intermediate nodes of the
   protecting LSP are not pre-established).  Pre-configuring but not
   activating the protecting LSP allows the common link and node
   resources in a protecting LSP to be shared by multiple working LSPs



He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


   that are physically (i.e., link, node, Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG),
   etc.) disjoint.  Protecting LSPs are activated in response to
   failures of working LSPs or operator's commands by means of the APS
   protocol that operates in the data plane.  The APS protocol messages
   are exchanged along the protecting LSP.  SMP is always revertive.

   SMP has a lot of similarity to SMR except that the activation in case
   of SMR is achieved by control plan signaling during the recovery
   operation while SMP is done by APS protocol in the data plane.  SMP
   has advantages with regard to the recovery speed compared with SMR.

4.  GMPLS Signaling Extension for SMP

   Consider the following network topology:

                             A---B---C---D
                              \         /
                               E---F---G
                              /         \
                             H---I---J---K

                   Figure 1: An example of SMP topology

   The working LSPs [A,B,C,D] and [H,I,J,K] could be protected by
   [A,E,F,G,D] and [H,E,F,G,K], respectively.  Per RFC 3209 [RFC3209],
   in order to achieve resource sharing during the signaling of these
   protecting LSPs, they must have the same Tunnel Endpoint Address (as
   part of their SESSION object).  However, these addresses are not the
   same in this example.  Similar to SMR, a new LSP Protection Type of
   the secondary LSP is defined as "Shared Mesh Protection" (see
   PROTECTION object defined in [RFC4872]) to allow resource sharing
   along nodes E, F, and G.  In this case, the protecting LSPs are not
   merged (which is useful since the paths diverge at G), but the
   resources along E, F, G can be shared.

   When a failure, such as Signal Fail (SF) and Signal Degrade (SD),
   occurs on one of the working LSPs (say working LSP [A,B,C,D]), the
   end-node (say node A) that detects the failure initiates the
   protection switching operation.  The end-node A will send a
   protection switching request APS message (for example SF) to its
   adjacent (downstream) intermediate node (say node E) to activate
   setting up the corresponding protecting LSP and will wait for a
   confirmation message from node E.  If the protection resource is
   available, node E will send the confirmation APS message to the end-
   node A and forward the switching request APS message to its adjacent
   (downstream) node (say node F).  When the confirmation APS message is
   received by node A, the cross-connection on node A is established.
   At this time the traffic is bridged to and selected from the



He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


   protecting LSP at node A.  After forwarding the switching request APS
   message, node E will wait for a confirmation APS message from node F,
   which triggers node E to set up the cross-connection for the
   protecting LSP being activated.  If the protection resource is not
   available (due to failure or being used by higher priority
   connections), the switching will not be successful; the intermediate
   node may send a message to notify the end node, or may keep trying
   until the resource is available or the switching request is
   cancelled.  If the resource is in use by a lower priority protecting
   LSP, the lower priority service will be removed and then the
   intermediate node will follow the procedure as described for the case
   when the protection resource is available for the higher priority
   protecting LSP.

   The following subsections detail how LSPs using SMP can be signaled
   in an interoperable fashion using GMPLS RSVP-TE extensions (see RFC
   3473 [RFC3473]).  This includes;

      (1) the ability to identify a "secondary protecting LSP" (hereby
      called the "secondary LSP") used to recover another primary
      working LSP (hereby called the "protected LSP"),

      (2) the ability to associate the secondary LSP with the protected
      LSP,

      (3) the capability to include information about the resources used
      by the protected LSP while instantiating the secondary LSP,

      (4) the capability to instantiate during the provisioning phase
      several secondary LSPs in an efficient manner, and

      (5) the capability to support activation of a secondary LSP after
      failure occurrence via APS protocol in the data plane.

4.1.  Identifiers

   To simplify association operations, both LSPs (i.e., the protected
   and the secondary LSPs) belong to the same session.  Thus, the
   SESSION object MUST be the same for both LSPs.  The LSP ID, however,
   MUST be different to distinguish between the protected LSP carrying
   working traffic and the secondary LSP.

   A new LSP Protection Type "Shared Mesh Protection" is introduced to
   the LSP Flags of PROTECTION object (see [RFC4872]) to set up the two
   LSPs.  This LSP Protection Type value is applicable only to
   bidirectional LSPs as required in [G808.3].





He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


4.2.  Signaling Primary LSPs

   The PROTECTION object (see [RFC4872]) is included in the Path message
   during signaling of the primary working LSPs, with the LSP Protection
   Type value set to "Shared Mesh Protection".

   Primary working LSPs are signaled by setting in the POTECTION object
   the S bit to 0, the P bit to 0, the N bit to 1 and in the ASSOCIATION
   object, the Association ID to the associated secondary protecting
   LSP_ID.

   Note: N bit is set to indicate that the protection switching
   signaling is done via data plane.

4.3.  Signaling Secondary LSPs

   The PROTECTION object (see [RFC4872]) is included in the Path message
   during signaling of the secondary protecting LSPs, with the LSP
   Protection Type value set to "Shared Mesh Protection".

   Secondary protecting LSPs are signaled by setting in the PROTECTION
   object the S bit and the P bit to 1, the N bit to 1 and in the
   ASSOCIATION object, the Association ID to the associated primary
   working LSP_ID, which MUST be known before signaling of the secondary
   LSP.  Moreover, the Path message used to instantiate the secondary
   LSP SHOULD include at least one PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE object (see
   [RFC4872]) that further allows for recovery resource sharing at each
   intermediate node along the secondary path.

   With this setting, the resources for the secondary LSP SHOULD be pre-
   reserved, but not committed at the data plane level, meaning that the
   internals of the switch need not be established until explicit action
   is taken to activate this LSP.  Activation of a secondary LSP and
   protection switching to the activated protecting LSP is done using
   APS protocol in the data plane.

   After protection switching completes the protecting LSP SHOULD be
   signaled with the S bit set to 0 and O bit set to 1 in the PROTECTION
   object.  At this point, the link and node resources must be allocated
   for this LSP that becomes a primary LSP (ready to carry normal
   traffic).  The formerly working LSP MAY be signaled with the A bit
   set in the ADMIN_STATUS object (see [RFC3473]).

   Support for extra traffic in SMP is for further study.  Therefore,
   mechanisms to setup LSPs for extra traffic are also for further
   study.





He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


   The preemption priority of a protecting LSP that is used to resolve
   the competition for the same shared resource among multiple
   protecting LSPs, is indicated in the TBD1 field of the TBD2 object in
   the Path message of the protecting LSP.  In SMP, the Setup and
   Holding priorities in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object can be used to
   configure or pre-configure a LSP, but is irrelevant to resolving the
   competition among multiple protecting LSPs, which experience failures
   on their working LSPs.

   When an intermediate node on the protection LSP receives the Path
   message, the preemption priority value in the TBD1 field MUST be
   stored for that protection LSP.  When resource competition among
   multiple protecting LSPs occurs, their priority values will be used
   to resolve the competition.  Once the preemption priorities are
   configured, the preemption of the protecting LSPs is fully controlled
   by the APS.

   When an APS request for a lower priority protecting LSP is preempted
   or cannot be confirmed due to existing higher priority APS request
   for another protection LSPs, an intermediate node MAY send PathErr
   and ResvErr with the error code/sub-code "Policy Control Failure/Hard
   Pre-empted" toward the source nodes of Path and Resv, respectively,
   to notify that the lower priority protecting LSP is preempted.

   Upon receiving a PathErr or ResvErr message with the error code/sub-
   code "Policy Control Failure/Hard Pre-empted," the end node that has
   initiated the protection switching for a protecting LSP may cancel it
   (and try with another protecting LPS) or may keep trying until the
   resource is available.

   In SMP, a preempted LSP SHOULD not be torn down.  Once the working
   LSP and the protecting LSP are configured or pre-configured, the end
   node SHOULD keep refreshing both working and protecting LSPs
   regardless of failure or preempted situation.

   [Editor's note: See if it is ok to add the next sentence at the end
   of the previous paragraph.]  The Path_State_Removed flag in the
   ERROR_SPEC object MUST not be set in PathErr and ResvErr messages
   generated due to preemption.

   [Editor's note: Check what should be the behavior to notify the end
   nodes of the lower priority protecting LSP that is no longer
   preempted and therefore it is available for SMP protection switching,
   if needed.]







He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


4.4.  SMP APS Configuration

   SMP relies on APS protocol messages being exchanged between the nodes
   along the path to activate a SMP protecting LSP.

   In order to allow exchange of APS protocol messages, an APS channel
   has to be configured between adjacent nodes along the path of the SMP
   protecting LSP.  This should be done before any SMP protecting LSP
   has been setup by other means than GMPL signaling which are therefore
   outside the scope of this document.

   Depending on the APS protocol message format, the APS protocol may
   use different identifiers than GMPLS signaling to identify the SMP
   protecting LSP.

   Since APS protocol is for further study in [G808.3], it can be
   assumed that APS message format and identifiers are technology-
   specific and/or vendor-specific.  Therefore, additional requirements
   for APS configuration are outside the scope of this document.

5.  Updates to PROTECTION Object

   GMPLS extension requirements for SMP introduce several updates to the
   Protection Object (see [RFC4872]).

5.1.  New Protection Type

   A new LSP protection type "Shared Mesh Protection" is added in the
   protection object.  This LSP Protection Type value is applicable to
   only bidirectional LSPs.

   LSP (Protection Type) Flags:

      0x11: Shared Mesh Protection

5.2.  Other Updates

   N bit and O bit in the Protection object as defined in [RFC4872] are
   also updated to include applicability to SMP.

   Notification (N): 1 bit

      When set to 1, this bit indicates that the control plane message
      exchange is only used for notification during protection
      switching.  When set to 0 (default), it indicates that the control
      plane message exchanges are used for protection-switching
      purposes.  The N bit is only applicable when the LSP Protection
      Type Flag is set to either 0x04 (1:N Protection with Extra-



He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


      Traffic), or 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), or 0x10 (1+1
      Bidirectional Protection).  In SMP, N bit MUST be set to 1.  The N
      bit MUST be set to 0 in any other case.

   Operational (O): 1 bit

      When set to 1, this bit indicates that the protecting LSP is
      carrying the normal traffic after protection switching.  The O bit
      is only applicable when the P bit is set to 1, and the LSP
      Protection Type Flag is set to either 0x04 (1:N Protection with
      Extra-Traffic), or 0x08 (1+1 Unidirectional Protection), or 0x10
      (1+1 Bidirectional Protection), or 0x11 (Shared Mesh Protection).
      The O bit MUST be set to 0 in any other case.

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA actions required by this document will be described later.

7.  Security Considerations

   No further security considerations than [RFC4872].

8.  Contributor

   The following person contributed significantly to the content of this
   document and should be considered as a co-author.

   Yuji Tochio
   Fujitsu
   Email: tochio@fujitsu.com

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [G808.3]   International Telecommunication Union, "Generic protection
              switching - Shared mesh protection", ITU-T Recommendation
              G.08.3, October 2012.

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

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.



He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


   [RFC3473]  Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
              Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
              Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.

   [RFC4426]  Lang, J., Ed., Rajagopalan, B., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
              Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
              Recovery Functional Specification", RFC 4426,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4426, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4426>.

   [RFC4872]  Lang, J., Ed., Rekhter, Y., Ed., and D. Papadimitriou,
              Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
              Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
              Recovery", RFC 4872, DOI 10.17487/RFC4872, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4872>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [G873.3]   International Telecommunication Union, "Optical transport
              network - Shared mesh protection", ITU-T Recommendation
              G.873.3, September 2017.

   [RFC7412]  Weingarten, Y., Aldrin, S., Pan, P., Ryoo, J., and G.
              Mirsky, "Requirements for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
              Shared Mesh Protection", RFC 7412, DOI 10.17487/RFC7412,
              December 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7412>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jia He
   Huawei Technologies
   F3-1B, R&D Center, Huawei Industrial Base, Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen
   China

   Email: hejia@huawei.com


   Italo Busi
   Huawei Technologies

   Email: italo.busi@huawei.com



He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           GMPLS Extension for SMP               July 2019


   Jeong-dong Ryoo
   ETRI
   218 Gajeongno
   Yuseong-gu, Daejeon  34129
   South Korea

   Phone: +82-42-860-5384
   Email: ryoo@etri.re.kr


   Bin Yeong Yoon
   ETRI

   Email: byyun@etri.re.kr


   Peter Park
   KT

   Email: peter.park@kt.com































He, et al.               Expires January 6, 2020               [Page 11]


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