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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-aps-updates

MPLS Working Group                                               J. Ryoo
Internet-Draft                                                 T. Cheung
Updates: 7271 (if approved)                                         ETRI
Intended status: Standards Track                         H. van Helvoort
Expires: September 4, 2016                                Hai Gaoming BV
                                                                 I. Busi
                                                                 G. Weng
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           March 3, 2016


    Updates to MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection in
               Automatic Protection Switching (APS) Mode
                 draft-ryoo-mpls-tp-aps-updates-03.txt

Abstract

   This document contains updates to MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
   linear protection in Automatic Protection Switching (APS) mode
   defined in RFC 7271.  The updates provide rules related to the
   initialization of the Protection State Coordination (PSC) Control
   Logic, in which the state machine resides, when operating in APS
   mode.

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/.

   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 September 4, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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



Ryoo, et al.            Expires September 4, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Updates to MPLS-TP LP in APS mode         March 2016


   (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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Initialization Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  State Transition Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) linear protection in Automatic
   Protection Switching (APS) mode is defined in RFC 7271 [RFC7271].  It
   defines a set of alternate and additional mechanisms to perform some
   of the functions of linear protection described in RFC 6378
   [RFC6378].  The actions performed at initialization of the Protection
   State Coordination (PSC) Control Logic are not described in either
   [RFC7271] or [RFC6378].  Although it is a common perception that the
   state machine starts at the Normal state, this is not explicitly
   specified in any of the documents and various questions have been
   raised by implementers and in discussions on the MPLS working group
   mailing list concerning the detailed actions that the PSC Control
   Logic should take.

   The state machine described in [RFC7271] operates under the
   assumption that both end nodes of a linear protection domain start in
   the Normal state.  In the case that one node reboots while the other
   node is still in operation, various scenarios may arise resulting in
   problematic situations.  This document resolves all the problematic
   cases and minimizes traffic disruptions related to initialization
   including both cold and warm reboots that require re-initialization
   of the PSC Control Logic.




Ryoo, et al.            Expires September 4, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Updates to MPLS-TP LP in APS mode         March 2016


   This document contains updates to the MPLS-TP linear protection in
   APS mode defined in [RFC7271].  The updates provide rules related to
   initialization of the PSC Control Logic, in which the state machine
   resides, when operating in APS mode.  The updates also include
   modifications to the state transition table defined in Section 11.2
   of [RFC7271].  The changes in the state transition table have been
   examined to make sure that they do not introduce any new problems.

   This document does not introduce backward compatibility issues with
   implementations of [RFC7271].  In case a node implementing this
   document restarts, the new state changes will not cause problems at
   the remote node implementing [RFC7271] and the two ends will converge
   to the same local and remote states.  In case a node implementing
   [RFC7271] restarts, the two ends behave as today.

   The reader of this document is assumed to be familiar with [RFC7271].

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.  Acronyms

   This document uses the following acronyms:

   APS     Automatic Protection Switching
   DNR     Do-not-Revert
   E::R    Exercise state due to remote EXER message
   EXER    Exercise
   MS-P    Manual Switch to Protection path
   MS-W    Manual Switch to Working path
   MPLS-TP MPLS Transport Profile
   N       Normal state
   NR      No Request
   PF:DW:R Protecting Failure state due to remote SD-W message
   PF:W:L  Protecting Failure state due to local SF-W
   PF:W:R  Protecting Failure state due to remote SF-W message
   PSC     Protection State Coordination
   RR      Reverse Request
   SD      Signal Degrade
   SF-P    Signal Fail on Protection path
   SF-W    Signal Fail on Working path
   UA:P:L  Unavailable state due to local SF-P
   WTR     Wait-to-Restore





Ryoo, et al.            Expires September 4, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Updates to MPLS-TP LP in APS mode         March 2016


4.  Updates

   This document updates [RFC7271] by specifying the actions that will
   be performed at the initialization of the PSC Control Logic and
   modifies the state transition table defined in Section 11.2 of
   [RFC7271].

4.1.  Initialization Behavior

   This section defines initialization behavior that is not described in
   [RFC7271].

   When the PSC Control Logic is initialized, the following actions MUST
   be performed:

   o  Stop the WTR timer if it is running.

   o  Clear any operator command in the Local Request Logic.

   o  If an SF-W or SF-P exists as the highest local request, the node
      being initialized starts at the PF:W:L or UA:P:L state,
      respectively.

   o  If the node being initialized has no local request:

      *  If the node being initialized does not remember the active path
         or if the node being initialized remembers the working path as
         the active path, the node starts at the Normal state.

      *  Else (the node being initialized remembers the protection path
         as the active path), the node starts at the WTR state sending
         NR(0,1) or at the DNR state sending DNR(0,1) depending on the
         configuration that allows or prevents automatic reversion to
         the Normal state.

   o  In case any local SD exists, the local SD MUST be considered as an
      input to the Local Request Logic only after the local node has
      received the first protocol message from the remote node and
      completed the processing (i.e., updated the PSC Control Logic and
      decided which action, if any, to be sent to the PSC Message
      Generator).

   o  If the local node receives an EXER message as the first protocol
      message after initialization and the remote EXER becomes the top-
      priority global request, the local node MUST set the position of
      the bridge and selector according to the Path value in the EXER
      message and transit to the E::R state.




Ryoo, et al.            Expires September 4, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Updates to MPLS-TP LP in APS mode         March 2016


   Remembering the active path in case of no local request minimizes
   traffic switchovers in cases where the remote node is still in
   operation.  This approach does not cause a problem even if the
   remembered active path is no longer valid due to any local input that
   occurred at the remote node while the initializing node was out of
   operation.

   It is worth noting that in some restart scenarios (e.g., cold
   rebooting) no valid SF/SD indications may be present at the input of
   the Local Request logic.  In this case, the PSC Control Logic would
   restart as if no local requests are present.  If a valid SF/SD
   indication is detected later, this would be notified to the PSC
   Control Logic and trigger state change.

4.2.  State Transition Modification

   In addition to the initialization behavior described in Section 4.1,
   four cells of the remote state transition table need to be changed to
   make two end nodes converge after initialization.  State transition
   by remote message defined in Section 11.2 of [RFC7271] is modified as
   follows (only modified cells are shown):

           | MS-W    | MS-P    | WTR | EXER | RR | DNR  | NR
   --------+---------+---------+-----+------+----+------+----
   N       |         |         | (13)|      |    | DNR  |
   PF:W:R  |         |         |     |      |    | DNR  |
   PF:DW:R |         |         |     |      |    | DNR  |

   The changes in two rows of remote protecting failure states lead to
   the replacement of note (10) with DNR, therefore note (10) is no
   longer needed.  The resultant three rows read:

           | MS-W    | MS-P    | WTR | EXER | RR | DNR  | NR
   --------+---------+---------+-----+------+----+------+----
   N       | SA:MW:R | SA:MP:R | (13)| E::R | i  | DNR  | i
   PF:W:R  | SA:MW:R | SA:MP:R | (9) | E::R | i  | DNR  | (11)
   PF:DW:R | SA:MW:R | SA:MP:R | (9) | E::R | i  | DNR  | (11)

5.  Security Considerations

   No specific security issue is raised in addition to those ones
   already documented in [RFC7271].  It may be noted that tightening the
   description of initializing behavior may help to protect networks
   from re-start attacks.







Ryoo, et al.            Expires September 4, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Updates to MPLS-TP LP in APS mode         March 2016


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Joaquim Serra for bringing up the
   issue related to initialization of the PSC Control Logic at the very
   beginning.  The authors would also like to thank Adrian Farrel for
   his valuable comments and suggestions on this document.

8.  References

8.1.  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>.

   [RFC7271]  Ryoo, J., Ed., Gray, E., Ed., van Helvoort, H.,
              D'Alessandro, A., Cheung, T., and E. Osborne, "MPLS
              Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the
              Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy,
              Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network
              Operators", RFC 7271, DOI 10.17487/RFC7271, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7271>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [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>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jeong-dong Ryoo
   ETRI

   EMail: ryoo@etri.re.kr







Ryoo, et al.            Expires September 4, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Updates to MPLS-TP LP in APS mode         March 2016


   Taesik Cheung
   ETRI

   EMail: cts@etri.re.kr


   Huub van Helvoort
   Hai Gaoming BV

   EMail: huubatwork@gmail.com


   Italo Busi
   Huawei Technologies

   EMail: Italo.Busi@huawei.com


   Guangjuan Weng
   Huawei Technologies

   EMail: wenguangjuan@huawei.com





























Ryoo, et al.            Expires September 4, 2016               [Page 7]


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