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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-use-cases

CCAMP Working Group                                        I. Busi (Ed.)
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Informational                             D. King (Ed.)
Expires: August, 2017                               Lancaster University
                                                        February 7, 2017


    A Service YANG Model for Connection-oriented Transport Networks
              draft-tnbidt-ccamp-transport-nbi-use-cases-00

Abstract

   Transport network domains, including Optical Transport Network (OTN)
   and Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) networks, are typically
   deployed based on a single vendor or technology platforms. They are
   often managed using proprietary interfaces to dedicated Element
   Management Systems (EMS), Network Management Systems (NMS) and
   increasingly Software Defined Network (SDN) controllers.

   A well-defined open interface to each domain management system or
   controller is required for network operators to facilitate control
   automation and orchestrate end-to-end services across multi-domain
   networks. These functions may enabled using standardized data models
   (e.g. YANG), and appropriate protocol (e.g., RESTCONF).

   This document describes the key use cases and requirements for
   transport network control and management. It reviews proposed and
   existing IETF transport network data models, their applicability,
   and highlights gaps and requirements.


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 August 7, 2017.






King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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 (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.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction.................................................2
   2. Conventions used in this document............................3
   3. Use Case 1: Single-domain with single-layer..................3
      3.1. Reference Network.......................................3
         3.1.1. Single Transport Domain - OTN Network..............3
         3.1.2. Single Domain - ROADM Network......................3
      3.2. Topology Abstractions...................................6
      3.3. Service Configuration...................................7
         3.3.1. ODU Transit........................................7
         3.3.2. EPL over ODU.......................................8
         3.3.3. Other OTN Client Services..........................8
         3.3.4. EVPL over ODU......................................9
         3.3.5. EVPLAN and EVPTree Services........................9
         3.3.6. Virtual Network Services...........................9
      3.4. Multi-functional Access Links...........................9
   4. Use Case 2: Single-domain with multi-layer...................9
   5. Use Case 3: Multi-domain with single-layer...................9
   6. Use Case 4: Multi-domain and multi-layer.....................9
   7. Security Considerations......................................9
   8. IANA Considerations..........................................9
   9. References...................................................9
      9.1. Normative References....................................10
      9.2. Informative References..................................10
   10. Acknowledgments.............................................10
   Authors' Addresses..............................................11


1.  Introduction

   A common open interface to each domain controller/management system
   is pre-requisite for network operators to control multi-vendor and
   multi-domain networks and enable also service provisioning
   coordination/automation. This can be achieved by using standardized
   YANG models, used together with an appropriate protocol (e.g.,
   RESTCONF).



King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


   This document assumes a reference architecture, including interfaces,
   based on the Abstraction and Control of Traffic-Engineered Networks
   (ACTN), defined in [ACTN-Frame].

   The focus of the current version is on the MPI (interface between
   the Multi Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC) and a Physical Network
   Controller (PNC), controlling a transport network domain).

   The relationship between the current IETF YANG models and the type of
   ACTN interfaces can be found in [ACTN-YANG].

   The ONF Technical Recommendations for Functional Requirements
   for the transport API, may be found in [ONF TR-527].
   Furthermore, ONF transport API multi-layer examples may be
   found in [ONF GitHub].

   This document describes use cases that could be used for analyzing
   the applicability of the existing models defined by the IETF for
   transport networks

   Considerations about the CMI (interface between the Customer Network
   Controller (CNC) and the MDSC) are for further study.


2. Conventions used in this document

   For discussion in future revisions of this document.


3. Use Case 1: Single-domain with single-layer

3.1. Reference Network

   The current considerations discussed in this document are
   based on the following reference networks:

   - single transport domain: OTN network

   It is expected that future revisions of the document will
   include additional reference networks.

3.1.1. Single Transport Domain - OTN Network

   Figure 1 shows the network physical topology composed of a
   single-domain transport network providing transport services to an
   IP network through five access links.





King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


        ................................................
        :                 IP domain                    :
        :        ..............................        :
        :        :  ........................  :        :
        :        :  :                      :  :        :
        :        :  :      S1 -------- S2 ------ C-R4  :
        :        :  :     /             |  :  :        :
        :        :  :    /              |  :  :        :
        :  C-R1 ------ S3 ----- S4      |  :  :        :
        :        :  :    \        \     |  :  :        :
        :        :  :     \        \    |  :  :        :
        :        :  :      S5       \   |  :  :        :
        :  C-R2 -----+    /  \       \  |  :  :        :
        :        :  : \  /    \       \ |  :  :        :
        :        :  :  S6 ---- S7 ---- S8 ------ C-R5  :
        :        :  : /                    :  :        :
        :  C-R3 -----+                     :  :        :
        :        :  :   Transport domain   :  :        :
        :        :  :                      :  :        :
        :........:  :......................:  :........:

           Figure 1 Reference network for Use Case 1

   The IP and transport (OTN) domains are respectively composed by five
   routers C-R1 to C-R5 and by eight ODU switches S1 to S8. The
   transport domain acts as a transit domain providing connectivity to
   the IP layer.

   The behavior of the transport domain is the same whether the
   ingress/egress nodes in the IP domain, supporting an IP service, are
   directly attached to the transport domain or there are other routers
   in between the ingress/egress nodes of the IP domain and the routers
   directly attached to the transport network.


















King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


                              +-----+
                              | CNC |
                              +-----+
                                 |
                                 |CMI I/F
                                 |
                      +-----------------------+
                      |         MDSC          |
                      +-----------------------+
                                 |
                                 |MPI I/F
                                 |
                             +-------+
                             |  PNC  |
                             +-------+
                                 |
                               -----
                             (       )
                            (   OTN   )
                           ( Physical  )
                            ( Network )
                             (       )
                               -----

         Figure 2 Controlling Hierarchy for Use Case 1

   The mapping of the client IP traffic on the physical link between the
   routers and the transport network is made in the IP routers only and
   is not controlled by the transport PNC and is transparent to the
   transport nodes.

   The control plane architecture follows the ACTN architecture and
   framework document [ACTN-Frame]. The Client Controller act as a
   client with respect to the Multi-Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC)
   via the Controller-MDSC Interface (CMI). The MDSC is connected to a
   plurality of Physical Network Controllers (PNCs), one for each
   domain, via a MDSC-PNC Interface (MPI). Each PNC is responsible
   only for the control of its domain and the MDSC is the only entity
   capable of multi-domain functionalities as well as of managing the
   inter-domain links. The key point of the whole ACTN framework is
   detaching the network and service control from the underlying
   technology and help the customer express the network as desired
   by business needs. Therefore care must be taken to keep minimal
   dependency on the CMI (or no dependency at all) with respect to
   the network domain technologies. The MPI instead requires some
   specialization according to the domain technology.

   In this section, we address the case of an IP and a Transport PNC
   having respectively an IP a Transport MPI. The interface within
   the scope of this document is the Transport MPI while the IP

King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


   Network MPI is out of its scope and considerations about the CMI
   are for further study.


3.2. Topology Abstractions

   Abstraction is defined in [RFC7926] as:

      Abstraction is the process of applying policy to the available TE
      information within a domain, to produce selective information that
      represents the potential ability to connect across the domain.
      Thus,  abstraction does not necessarily offer all possible
      connectivity options, but presents a general view of potential
      connectivity according to the policies that determine how the
      domain's administrator wants to allow the domain resources to be
      used.

   [TE-Topo] describes YANG models for TE-network abstraction.

   [ACTN-Abstraction] provides the context of topology abstraction in
   the ACTN architecture and discusses a few alternatives for the
   methods of abstraction for both packet and optical networks. This
   is an important consideration since the choice of the abstraction
   method impacts protocol design and the information it carries.

   According to [ACTN-Abstraction], there are three types of topology:

      o White topology: This is a case where the PNC provides the actual
        network topology to the MDSC without any hiding or filtering. In
        this case, the MDSC has the full knowledge of the underlying
        network topology and as such there is no need for the MDSC to
        send a path computation request to the PNC. The computation
        burden will fall on the MDSC to find an optimal end-to-end path
         and optimal per domain paths.

      o Black topology: The entire domain network is abstracted as a
      single virtual node with the access/egress links without
      disclosing any node internal connectivity information.

      o Grey topology: This abstraction level is between black topology
       and white topology from a granularity point of view. This is
       basically abstraction of TE tunnels for all pairs of border
       nodes.

       We may further differentiate from a perspective of how to
       abstract internal TE resources between the pairs of border nodes:

         - Grey topology type A: border nodes with a TE links between
           them in a full mesh fashion.


King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


         - Grey topology type B: border nodes with some internal
           abstracted nodes and abstracted links.

   For single-domain with single-layer use-case, the white topology may
   be disseminated from the PNC to the MDSC in most cases. There may be
   some exception to this in the case where the underlay network may
   have complex optical parameters which do not warrant the distribution
   of such details to the MDSC. In such case, the topology disseminated
   from the PNC to the MDSC may not have the entire TE information but a
   streamlined TE information. This case would incur another action from
   the MDSC's standpoint when provisioning a path.

   The MDSC may make a path compute request to the PNC in order to
   verify the feasibility of the estimated path before making the final
   provisioning request to the PNC, as outlined in [Path-Compute].

   Topology abstraction for the CMI is for further study (to be
   addressed in future revisions of this document).

3.3. Service Configuration

   In the following use cases, the Multi Domain Service Coordinator
   (MDSC) needs to be capable to request service connectivity from the
   transport Physical Network Controller (PNC) to support IP routers
   connectivity. The type of services could depend of the type of
   physical links (e.g. OTN link, ETH link or SDH link) between the
   routers and transport network.

   As described in section 3.1.1, the control of different adaptations
   inside IP routers, C-Ri (PKT -> foo) and C-Rj (foo -> PKT), are
   assumed to be performed by means that are not under the control of,
   and not visible to, transport PNC. Therefore, these mechanisms are
   outside the scope of this document.

3.3.1. ODU Transit

   This use case assumes that the physical link interconnecting IP
   routers and transport network is an OTN link.

   The physical/optical interconnection is supposed to be a
   pre-configured and not exposed via MPI to MDSC.

   If we consider the case of a 10Gb IP link between C-R1 to C-R3,
   we need to instantiate an ODU2 end-to-end connection between C-R1
   and C-R3, crossing transport nodes S3, S5, and S6.

   The traffic flow between C-R1 and C-R3 can be summarized as:

      C-R1 (PKT -> ODU2), S3 (ODU2), S5 (ODU2), S6 (ODU2),
      C-R3 (ODU2 -> PKT)

King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


   The MDSC should be capable via MPI i/f to request the setup of ODU2
   transit service with enough information that can permit transport
   PNC to instantiate and control the ODU2 segment through nodes S3,
   S5, S6.

3.3.2. EPL over ODU

   This use case assumes that the physical link interconnecting IP
   routers and transport network is an Ethernet link.

   If we consider the case of a 10Gb IP link between C-R1 to C-R3, we
   need to instantiate an EPL service between C-R1 and C-R3 supported
   by an ODU2 end-to-end connection between S3 and S6, crossing
   transport node S5.

   The traffic flow between C-R1 and C-R3 can be summarized as:

      C-R1 (PKT -> ETH), S3 (ETH -> ODU2), S5 (ODU2),
      S6 (ODU2 -> ETH), C-R3 (ETH-> PKT)

   The MDSC should be capable via MPI i/f to request the setup of EPL
   service with enough information that can permit transport PNC to
   instantiate and control the ODU2 end-to-end connection through nodes
   S3, S5, S6, as well as the adaptation functions inside S3 and S6:
   S3&S6 (ETH -> ODU2) and S9&S6 (ODU2 -> ETH).

3.3.3. Other OTN Client Services

   [ITU-T G.709-2016] defines mappings of different client layers into
   ODU. Most of them are used to provide Private Line services over
   an OTN transport network supporting a variety of types of physical
   access links (e.g., Ethernet, SDH STM-N, Fibre Channel,
   InfiniBand,).

   This use case assumes that the physical links interconnecting IP
   routers and transport network are any one of these possible
   options.

   If we consider the case of a 10Gb IP link between C-R1 to C-R3
   using SDH physical links, we need to instantiate an STM-64 Private
   Line service between C-R1 and C-R3 supported by an ODU2 end-to-end
    connection between S3 and S6, crossing transport node S5.

   The traffic flow between C-R1 and C-R3 can be summarized as:

      C-R1 (PKT -> STM-64), S3 (STM-64 -> ODU2), S5 (ODU2),
      S6 (ODU2 -> STM-64), C-R3 (STM-64 -> PKT)

   The MDSC should be capable via MPI i/f to request the setup of an


King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


   STM-64 Private Line service with enough information that can permit
   transport PNC to instantiate and control the ODU2 end-to-end
   connection through nodes S3, S5, S6, as well as the adaptation
   functions inside S3 and S6: S3&S6 (STM-64 -> ODU2) and S9&S3
   (STM-64 -> PKT).

3.3.4. EVPL over ODU

   For future revision.

3.3.5. EVPLAN and EVPTree Services

   For future revision.

3.3.6. Virtual Network Services

   For future revision

3.4. Multi-functional Access Links

   For future revision


4. Use Case 2: Single-domain with multi-layer

   For future revision


5. Use Case 3: Multi-domain with single-layer

   For future revision


6. Use Case 4: Multi-domain and multi-layer

   For future revision


7. Security Considerations

   For further study


8. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions.


9. References


King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017              [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


9.1. Normative References

   [RFC7926] Farrel, A. et al., "Problem Statement and Architecture for
   Information Exchange between Interconnected Traffic-Engineered
   Networks", BCP 206, RFC 7926, July 2016.

   [ITU-T G.709-2016] ITU-T Recommendation G.709 (06/16), "Interfaces
   for the optical transport network", June 2016.

   [ACTN-Frame] Ceccarelli, D., Lee, Y. et al., "Framework for
   Abstraction and Control of Transport Networks",
   draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework, work in progress.

   [ACTN-Abstraction] Lee, Y. et al., " Abstraction and Control of
   TE Networks (ACTN) Abstraction Methods",
   draft-lee-teas-actn-abstraction, work in progress.

9.2. Informative References

   [TE-Topo] Liu, X. et al., "YANG Data Model for TE Topologies",
   draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo, work in progress.

   [ACTN-YANG] Zhang, X. et al., "Applicability of YANG models for
   Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks",
   draft-zhang-teas-actn-yang, work in progress.

   [Path-Compute] Busi, I., Belotti, S. et al., " Yang model for
   requesting Path Computation", draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-
   computation, work in progress.

   [ONF TR-527] ONF Technical Recommendation TR-527, "Functional
   Requirements for Transport API", June 2016

   [ONF GitHub] ONF Open Transport (SNOWMASS)
   https://github.com/OpenNetworkingFoundation/Snowmass-
   ONFOpenTransport

10. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank all members of the Transport NBI
   Design Team involved in the definition of use cases, gap analysis
   and guidelines for using the IETF YANG models at the Northbound
   Interface (NBI) of a Transport SDN Controller.

   The authors would like to thank Xian Zhang, Anurag Sharma, Michael
   Scharf, Karthik Sethuraman, Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Tara Cummings
   and Hans Bjursrom, for having initiated work on gap analysis for
   transport NBI and having provided foundations work for the
   development of this document.


King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017             [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017


Authors' Addresses

   Italo Busi (Editor)
   Huawei
   Email: italo.busi@huawei.com

   Daniel King (Editor)
   Lancaster University
   Email: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk

   Sergio Belotti
   Nokia
   Email: sergio.belotti@nokia.com

   Gianmarco Bruno
   Ericsson
   Email: gianmarco.bruno@ericsson.com

   Young Lee
   Huawei
   Email: leeyoung@huawei.com

   Victor Lopez
   Telefonica
   Email: victor.lopezalvarez@telefonica.com

   Carlo Perocchio
   Ericsson
   Email: carlo.perocchio@ericsson.com

   Haomian Zheng
   Huawei
   Email: zhenghaomian@huawei.com


















King & Busi, et al.         Expires August, 2017             [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Transport NBI Use Cases          February 2017

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