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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

CCAMP Working Group                                        M. Vigoureux
Internet Draft                                                (Alcatel)
                                                            K. Shiomoto
Expiration Date: December 2003                                    (NTT)

                                                            D. Brungard

                                                              June 2003

        Generalized MPLS Architecture for Multi-Region Networks


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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at


   Most of the initial efforts on Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) have been
   related to environments of single switching capability devices e.g.
   one data plane layer, as such, the complexity raised by such control
   planes is similar to the one expected in classical IP/MPLS networks.
   The fundamental reason being that an IP-based control plane protocol
   suite for Label Switch Routers (LSR) or Optical Cross-Connects (OXC)
   has exactly the same Level (i.e. single data plane layer)

   The present document analyses the various GMPLS signaling and
   routing aspects when considering network environments consisting of
   multiple switching data layers e.g. supporting combined
   Packet/Layer-2 Switching - OXC devices. The examples provide an
   overview of the tradeoffs in using a GMPLS control plane for

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires December 2003                   1

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   combined Ethernet MAC - opaque, service transparent, and/or fully
   transparent data planes. The intent of this memo is also to
   demonstrate that these aspects may not be as straightforward as they
   may first appear.

Table of Contents

   Status of this Memo................................................1
   Table of contents..................................................2
   1. Summary for Sub-IP Area.........................................2
   1.1. Summary.......................................................2
   1.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work...........2
   1.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG.................................2
   1.4. Justification of Work.........................................3
   2. Conventions used in this document...............................3
   3. Introduction....................................................3
   4. Routing over Forwarding Adjacencies.............................5
   4.1. Scalability of Single Region Networks.........................6
   4.2. Scalability of Multi Region Networks..........................6
   4.3. Emulating Data Plane Overlays using FAs.......................7
   4.4. FA Attributes Inheritance.....................................8
   5. Cross-region considerations.....................................8
   5.1. Interface adaptation capability descriptor....................9
   5.2. Interface switching capability descriptor....................11
   5.3. Extended Scope of Switching Capabilities.....................12
   5.3.1. L2SC switching.............................................13
   5.3.2. Waveband switching.........................................14
   5.3.3. Dedicated traffic parameters...............................14
   5.3.4. Example....................................................15
   5.4. Applications.................................................16
   6. Conclusions....................................................17
   7. Security considerations........................................17
   8. References.....................................................17
   9. Acknowledgments................................................18
   10. Authors addresses.............................................19
   11. Contributors..................................................19

1. Summary for Sub-IP Area

1.1. Summary

   See the Abstract above.

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

   This work fits the CCAMP box.

1.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                     2

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   This draft is targeted at the CCAMP WG because it proposes a first
   input on common signaling and routing protocol considerations
   in multi-switching (a.k.a. multi-service) environments.

1.4. Justification of Work

   The CCAMP WG should consider this document as it provides an
   architectural framework for GMPLS-capable multi-switching capable
   devices as initiated in [GMPLS-ARCH] and [GMPLS-RTG].

2. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119.

   In addition the reader is assumed to be familiar with the concepts
   developed in [GMPLS-ARCH], [RFC-3471], and [GMPLS-RTG] as well as
   [MPLS-HIER] and [MPLS-BDL].

3. Introduction

   Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) facilitates the
   realization of seamless control integration of IP/MPLS networks with
   SONET/SDH (see [T1.105]/[G.707]) or G.709 (see [G.709]) optical
   transport networks. In particular, integration of packet/frame
   switching capability and circuit switching technologies under a
   unified GMPLS control plane provides a unified control management
   approach for both provisioning resources and restoration techniques.

   One of the additional advantages driving the construction of a
   unified GMPLS control plane is the desire to support multi LSP-
   region [MPLS-HIER] routing and traffic engineering capability. This
   would enable effective network resource utilization of both the
   Packet/Layer2 LSP regions and the Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)
   or Lambda (Optical Channels) LSP regions in high capacity networks.

   Problem Statement:

   Vertical integration refers (see [TE-WG]) to the definition of
   collaborative mechanisms within a single control plane instance
   driving multiple (but at least two) data planes (also referred in
   the scope of GMPLS as switching layers). Horizontal integration is
   defined when each entity constituting the network environment
   includes at least one common (data plane) switching capability and
   the control plane topology extends over several partitions being
   either areas or autonomous systems (so-called "inter-region"). In
   this latter case, the integration is thus defined between nodes
   hosting the same switching capability. For instance, the control
   plane interconnection between lambda switching capable areas defines
   an horizontal integration whilst an environment in which some
   devices (at least two and at most all) devices include packet and

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                     3

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   lambda switching capability involves a vertical integration within
   the GMPLS control plane. Note here that, the CCAMP Working Group is
   currently actively working on extensions to this horizontal
   integration (the initial iteration being the single area context
   worked out over the past two years) by considering common multi-area
   traffic engineering techniques and protocol extensions. As a first
   phase vertical integration, as proposed in this document, we focus
   on single area only environments. Such multi-switching layer capable
   networks are referred to as Multi LSP-Region Networks or simply
   Multi-Region Networks (MRN).

   From the control plane viewpoint (as defined in [MPLS-HIER]) a data
   plane layer is mapped to an LSP region. Following this approach, a
   Traffic Engineering link or simply TE Link (at the control plane
   level) maps exactly the definition proposed in the canonical layered
   model (see [G.805]) where a link is defined as a link bundle (using
   the IETF terminology). More generically, the TE link notion is now
   recursively defined and accepted implying that the link bundle term
   will be used only when referring to a set of component links or
   ports. Therefore, the TE Link concept opens the door for a clear
   separation between the routing adjacencies and the data plane bearer
   links (or channels). Furthermore, TE Links have been extended to non
   adjacent devices by introducing the Forwarding Adjacency (FA)
   concept enabling in turn to decrease the number of control plane
   instances to control N transport layers. Last, the bundling of FA is
   also defined in [MPLS-BDL] allowing for additional flexibility in
   controlling large scale backbone networks.

   Using the Forwarding Adjacency, a node may (under its local control
   policy configuration) advertise an LSP as a TE link into the same
   OSPF/ISIS instance as the one that induces this LSP. Such a link is
   referred to as a "Forwarding Adjacency" (FA) and the corresponding
   LSP to as a "Forwarding Adjacency LSP", or simply FA-LSP. Since the
   advertised entity appears as a TE link in OSPF/ISIS, both end-point
   nodes of the FA-LSP must belong to the same OSPF area/ISIS level
   (intra-area improvement of scalability). Afterwards, OSPF/ISIS
   floods the link-state information about FAs just as it floods the
   information about any other TE Link. This allows other nodes to use
   FAs as any other TE Links for path computation purposes.

   Rationales for Multi-Region Networks:

   The rationales for investigating vertical integration (and thus
   multi-region networks) in the GMPLS distributed control plane
   context can be summarized as follows:

   - The maintenance of multiple instances of the control plane on
   devices hosting more than one switching capability not only (and
   obviously) increases the complexity of their interactions but also
   increases the total amount of processing individual instances would

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                     4

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   - The merge of both data and control plane addressing spaces helps
   in avoiding multiple identification for the same object (a link for
   instance or more generally any network resource), on the other hand
   such aggregation does not impact the separation between the control
   and the data plane.

   - The collaboration between associated control planes (packet/framed
   data planes) and non-associated control planes (SONET/SDH, G.709,
   etc.) is facilitated due to the capability of hooking the associated
   in-band signalling to the IP terminating interfaces of the control

   - Resource management and policies to be applied at the edges of
   such environment would be facilitated (less control to management
   interactions) and more scalable (through the use of aggregated

   In this context, Hybrid Photonic Networks (HPN) can be
   differentiated from Multi-Region Networks (MRN). The main difference
   between nodes included in an HPN environment and nodes included in
   an MRN environment can be expressed as follows: the former MUST
   include at least for some (but at least two) of its interfaces an
   LSC switching capability with "lambda" (photonic) encoding. The
   latter MAY for some of its interfaces include LSC switching
   capability but MUST at least include two distinct switching
   capabilities taken from the following set {PSC, L2SC, TDM, LSC or
   FSC}. A MRN node MAY host for instance L2SC + TDM switching capable
   interfaces or PSC + TDM switching capable interfaces. Moreover one
   assumes that the supported (LSP) encoding type is the same for all
   of its interfaces as specified in [GMPLS-RTG] and that any internal
   encoding conversion should be opaque at the network level.
   Nevertheless, this assumption  may, in some circumstances, raise
   some issues with respect to the adaptation capabilities between
   switching layers of such devices (see also Section 5.1).

4. Routing over Forwarding Adjacencies

   In order to extend MPLS to support non-packet TE attributes within
   the scope of an integrated (routing) model encompassing several data
   planes, GMPLS needs to support control of several data plane layers
   (or switching layers) using the same protocol instance.

   Forwarding Adjacencies (FAs) as described in [MPLS-HIER] are a
   useful and powerful tool for improving the scalability of
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) capable networks.
   Through the aggregation of TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) this
   concept enables the creation of a vertical (nested) TE-LSP
   Hierarchy. Forwarding Adjacency LSPs (FA-LSP) may be advertised as
   TE link (or simply FA) into the same instance of OSPF/ISIS as the
   one that was used to create, initiate or trigger this LSP, allowing
   other LSRs to use FAs as TE links for their path computation. As
   such, forwarding adjacency LSPs have characteristics of both TE
   links and LSPs.

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                     5

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   While this definition is in perfect alignment for non-packet LSP
   regions and boundaries, the same concept(s) can also be re-used in
   the MPLS LSP context but with a major difference. The mapping goes
   in the opposite direction i.e. from the control to the IP/MPLS
   forwarding plane, since in the packet domain FA-LSPs are purely
   abstract objects that would, if well tailored, provide additional
   scalability within a routing plane instance (i.e. define virtual TE
   links without increasing the number of routing adjacencies). Indeed,
   the use of FAs provides a mechanism for improving bandwidth (or more
   generally any resource) utilization when its dynamic allocation can
   be performed in discrete units; it also enables aggregating
   forwarding state, and in turn, reducing significantly the number of
   required labels. Therefore, FAs may significantly improve the
   scalability of GMPLS TE-capable control planes, and allow the
   creation of a TE-LSP hierarchy.

   From this, and when combining multi-region environments, the
   challenges that arise are related to the combination of both types
   of mappings (and in particular their control) for both super-classes
   of LSPs i.e. packet LSPs and circuit-oriented LSPs (a.k.a. non-
   packet LSPs) from or to the same control plane instance.

4.1. Scalability of Single Region Networks

   The main issue arising with FAs is related to the mapping
   directionality (from the data to the control plane). FAs allow
   avoiding the well-known O(N^2) at the control plane level by using
   the mechanisms defined in [MPLS-HIER] but requires a specific
   policing at the LSP region edges (or boundaries) in order to avoid
   full mesh at the data plane level.

   Currently, and as specified in [MPLS-HIER], it is expected that FAs
   will not be used for establishing OSPF/ISIS peering relation between
   the routers at the ends of the adjacency thus clearly avoiding N
   square problem at the control plane level. On the other hand, at the
   data plane level (FAs only used in Traffic Engineering path
   computations), avoiding full meshes can be accomplished by setting
   the default metric of the FA to max[1, (the TE metric of the FA-LSP
   path - 1)] so that it attracts traffic in preference to setting up a
   new LSP. Such policing clearly states that FA-LSPs are driven by a
   most fit approach: do not create new FA-LSPs as long as existing
   ones are not filled up. The main issue with this approach is
   definitely related to "what to advertise and originate at LSP region
   boundaries". For instance, fully filled FA-LSPs should not be
   advertised (if preemption is not allowed), while, attracting traffic
   should be provided in some coordinated manner in order to avoid sub-
   optimal FA-LSP setup. Moreover, nothing precludes the maintenance of
   several partially filled FA-LSPs that are kept unused indefinitely
   (even if their metric is set optimally) in particular when the
   bandwidth of the FA-LSP can not (due to its discrete bandwidths
   units) be exactly set to the incoming LSP request.

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                     6

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   Note: the latter suggests filtering of the corresponding LSAs at the
   regions' boundaries. In OSPF this can be accomplished by not
   advertising the link as a regular LSA, but only as a TE opaque LSA
   (see [RFC-2370]).

4.2. Scalability of Multi-Region Networks

   The Shortest Path First (SPF) computation complexity is, in
   classical cases, proportional to L Log(N) where L is the number of
   links (here, more precisely TE links) and N the number of address
   prefixes. As such, the full mesh scalability issues can be solved in
   two ways either by improving the computational capabilities of the
   (C-)SPF algorithms or simply by keeping existing Log(N) complexity
   but then by improving collaboration between data planes.
   The former can be achieved for instance by using Fibonacci heaps
   with Log(Log(N)) complexity for instance, which in turn, allows for
   a number of TE links greater than 1E6 (versus 1E3 with classical
   implementations). The latter can be achieved by considering M
   regions, over the same control plane topology and without using any
   heuristics, one increases this complexity to M x L (Log (M x N)).

   However, since TE Links can advertise multiple Interface Switching
   Capabilities (ISC), the number of links can be limited (by
   combination) by using specific topological maps referred to as
   Virtual Network Topologies (VNT). The introduction of virtual
   topological maps leads us to consider the concept of emulation of
   data plane overlays [MAMLTE]. Therefore, the expectation here is to
   reduce the overal computational complexity to L Log(M+1) x Log
   (Log(M+1) x N) (note: with M = 1 it brings L Log(N)).

4.3. Emulating Data Plane Overlays using FAs: Virtual Topologies

   According to [MPLS-HIER] ISC ordering, we can use the following
   terminology: FA-LSP(1) corresponds to TE Links for which the ISC is
   equal to PSC-1, FA-LSP(2) to PSC-2, FA-LSP(3) to PSC-3, FA-LSP(4) =
   PSC-4, FA-LSP(5) to LS2SC, FA-LSP(6) to TDM, FA-LSP(7) to LSC and
   FA-LSP(8) to FSC.

   FA-LSP(i) is routed over the FA-LSP(i+j) with j >= 1. In other words
   a set of FA-LSPs(i+j) with j fixed provides a Virtual Network
   Topology (VNT) for routing FA-LSPs(i). The virtual network topology
   offered by a set of FA-LSPs(i) is denoted by VNT(i) in this
   document. The virtual network topology is changed by setting up
   and/or tearing down one (or more) FA-LSP(i). The change of the
   VNT(i) affects the routing of FA-LSPs(i-1). It is expected that
   boundary LSRs of VNT(i) will behave consistently with respect to any
   internal (LSP/link recovery) or external (LSP/link provisioning)
   triggering event.

   Routing is dependent on the network topology and associated link
   state. Routing stability may be impaired if the Virtual Network
   Topology frequently changes and/or if the status of links in the
   Virtual Network Topology frequently changes. In this context,

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                     7

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   robustness of the Virtual Network Topology is defined as the
   capability to smooth changes that may occur and avoid their
   subsequent propagation. Changes of the Virtual Network Topology may
   be caused by the creation and/or deletion of several LSPs. Creation
   and deletion of LSPs may be triggered by adjacent regions or through
   operational actions to meet change of traffic demand. Routing
   robustness should be traded with adaptability with respect to the
   change of incoming traffic requests.

4.4. FA Attributes Inheritance

   Several FA-LSPs(i) between LSRs over LSP region(i+1) are already
   established, and several FA-LSPs(i-1) have been setup over this
   topology and are partially filled up. One of the latter LSR regions
   sees an incoming LSP request. It can be demonstrated that the TE
   metric (in addition to the Maximum LSP Bandwidth and Unreserved
   Bandwidth see [GMPLS-RTG]) alone is not a sufficient metric to
   compute the best path between these regions. This suggests that the
   inheritence process over which the TE-Metric of the FA is not as
   straightforward as proposed in [MPLS-HIER].

   The best example is a packet LSP (PSC-1) to be multiplexed into PSC-
   2 region that lies over an LSC region. The metric MUST not take only
   into account packet boundaries interface features, properties and
   traffic engineering attributes such as delay or bit-rate but also
   for instance the distance over the LSP region that this LSP will
   have to travel. As such, the TE Metric for the Lambda LSP (in this
   example, FA-LSP(i+1)) must be at least defined as a combination of
   the bit-rate and the distance, classically the bit-rate times the
   distance with some weighting factors. The main issue from this
   perspective is that joined Path TE Metric wouldn't in such a case
   tackle simultaneously both packet and optical specifics.

  This suggests the definition of more flexible TE Metric, at least the
  definition of a TE Metric per ISC. Simply adjust the TE Metric to the
  (TE Metric of the FA-LSP path - 1) is a valid approach between LSP
  over the same region class (PSC-1, PSC-2, ... , PSC-N, for instance)
  but not necessarily between PSC and LSC region.

   Other TE attributes that need a specific processing during
   inheritance are the Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG) (see for instance
   [SRLG]) and Resource Class. The next section will describe the
   specific TE attributes to be considered in multi-region network
   environments, in particular the interface switching adaptation

5. Cross-region Considerations

   In an MRN, as described here above, each LSR would contain, under
   the control of a single GMPLS instance, multiple switching layers
   such as PSC and Time-Division-Multiplexing (TDM) or PSC and Lambda
   Switching Capability (LSC) or LSC and Waveband Switching Capability.

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                     8

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   These LSRs, hosting multiple Interface Switching Capabilities (ISC),
   are required to hold and advertise resource information on link
   states and topology. They also may have to consider certain portions
   of internal LSR resources to terminate hierarchical label switched
   paths (LSPs), since circuit switch capable units such as TDMs, LSCs,
   and FSCs require rigid resources.

   For example, an LSR with PSC+LSC switching capability can switch a
   Lambda LSP but can never terminate the Lambda LSP if there is no
   unused adaptation capability between the LSC and the PSC layers.

   Therefore, within multi-region LSR networks, the advertisement the
   so-called adaptation capability to terminate LSPs (not the interface
   capability since the latter can be inferred from the bandwidth
   available at each layer) provides critical information to take into
   account when performing multi-region path computation. This concept
   enables a local LSR to discriminate remote LSRs (and thus allows
   their selection during path computation) with respect to their
   adaptation capability e.g. to terminate Lambda LSPs at the PSC

   Hence, here we introduce the idea of discriminating the (internal)
   adaptation capability from the (interface) switching capability by
   considering an interface adaptation capability descriptor.

5.1. Interface adaptation capability descriptor

   The interface adaptation capability descriptor can be interpreted
   either as the adaptation capability information from an incoming
   interface or as the adaptation capability to an outgoing interface
   for a given interface switching capability. By introducing such an
   additional descriptor (as a sub-object of the ISC sub-TLV, for
   instance), the local GMPLS control plane can swiftly search which
   LSRs can terminate a certain encoding type of LSP and successfully
   establish an LSP tunnel between two PSCs.

   As an example, consider for instance a multiple LSP-region domain
   comprising simultaneously PSC LSRs, LSC LSRs, PSC+LSC LSRs and
   PSC+TDM+LSC LSRs. The LSRs discriminate the type of the links
   connecting these LSRs by interpreting the interface switching
   capability descriptor included in the TE Link TLV of the TE opaque

   The interface switching capability at both ends of a TE link between
   LSRs for which individual resources (lambdas) are represented by
   wavelength labels shall be [LSC, LSC], [{TDM|PSC}, LSC], or [LSC,
   {TDM|PSC}]. On the other hand, the interface switching capability at
   both ends of a TE link shall be [PSC,PSC] for LSPs "carrying" a shim
   header label, or shall be [TDM, TDM], [TDM,PSC] or [PSC,TDM] for TE
   links whose individual resources (timeslots) are represented by TDM
   labels. Thus, based on the interface switching capability
   descriptor, the LSRs can impose proper constraints in order to
   compute the paths of the LSPs. For example, LSRs can understand that

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                     9

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   a remote TDM LSR with [LSC,TDM] link cannot be a lambda LSP
   intermediate link with the exception that it can initiate or
   terminate lambda LSPs and switch "TDM timeslots".

   However, LSRs cannot infer the internal LSP switching capability of
   remote LSRs, especially if the LSRs have a multi-switching
   capability architecture such as a PSC+TDM+LSC as shown below or more
   generally, more than two ISC capabilities. In the LSR, LSC may have
   a direct inner interface not only to TDM but also to PSC. The LSP
   can be interfaced at both TDM or PSC. This kind of multi-switching
   architecture may become very common in optical networks.

                    ------|       |------
                   |      |  PSC  |      |
                   |    --|       |--    |
                   |   |   -------   |   |
                   |  \|/           /|\  |
                   |   |   -------   |   |
                   |    --|       |--    |
                  \|/     |  TDM  |     /|\
                   |    --|       |--    |
                   |   |   -------   |   |
                   |  \|/           /|\  |
                   |   |   -------   |   |
                   |    --|       |--_   |
                    ------|       |------
                          |       |
                     /|---|       |---|\  Fiber #1
            ========| |---|  LSC  |---| |========
            ========| |---|       |---| |========
                     \|---|       |---|/  Fiber #N

   Referring to this figure, the problem with the use of the interface
   switching capability descriptor at the PSC+TDM+LSC LSR, is the
   shortage of LSP termination capability information. The PSC+TDM+LSC
   LSR provides only switching capability information by abstracting
   the internal node capabilities. Therefore, remote LSRs cannot
   accurately determine which switching capability can be switched
   and/or terminated at the PSC+TDM+LSC LSR. For such a node supporting
   LSC, TDM and PSC switching capability, the determination of the
   resource made available to cross for instance the LSC to PSC region
   boundary (LSC -> PSC) may involve one of the following region cross-
   over: LSC -> PSC and LSC -> TDM -> PSC. This can be represented as
                          |       |
                      ----|  PSC  |----
                     |    |       |    |
                   -----   -------   -----
                  |     |           |     |
                   -----   -------   -----

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    10

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

                    | |   |       |   | |
                    |  ---|  TDM  |---  |
                    |  ---|       |---  |
                    | |   |       |   | |
                   -----   -------   -----
                  |     |           |     |
                   -----   -------   -----
                    | |   |       |  _| |
                    |  ---|  LSC  |---  |
                     -----|       |-----

   In addition, the LSP Encoding Type (representing the nature of the
   link that the LSP traverses) is "lambda". Therefore, as depicted in
   the following figure, this issue become more complex once each
   switching capability supports multiple framing, for instance, at
   PSC, Ethernet-MAC framing and PPP framing.

                          |       |
              ------------|  PSC  |------------
             |        ----|       |----        |
             |       |    |       |    |       |
           -----   -----   -------   -----   -----
          |     | |     |           |     | |     |
           -----   -----   -------   -----   -----
            | |     | |   |       |   | |     | |
            | |     |  ---|  TDM  |---  |     | |
            |  -----------|       |-----------  |
            |       |     |       |     |       |

   Similar circumstances can occur, if a switching fabric that supports
   both PSC and L2SC functionalities is assembled with LSC interfaces
   enabling "lambda" (photonic) encoding. In the switching fabric, some
   interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs and perform frame (or cell)
   switching whilst other interfaces can terminate Lambda LSPs and
   perform packet switching.

   Thus, the interface switching capability descriptor provides the
   information for the forwarding (or switching) capability only. In
   order for remote LSRs to understand properly the termination
   capability of the other LSRs, additional information to the existing
   interface switching capability descriptor is essential in achieving
   seamless multi-region routing. In turn, adequate processing of this
   additional information will allow the signalling of packet LSP set-
   up combined with an automated triggering of new Lambda LSPs between
   LSRs that do not yet have a preferred Lambda LSP to carry the Packet

5.2. Interface switching capability descriptor

   In an HPN context, the lower LSP region provides for the upper LSP
   region, due to the presence of opto-electronic interfaces, a

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    11

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   regeneration/conversion function is present. More precisely a
   regeneration function can deliver conversion (within a given pre-
   determined range or not) while conversion may be delivered
   independently of the existence of any regeneration capability.

   The following classification applies from the definition of the
   regeneration function:

   1. If the regeneration function is defined as an Interface Switching
   Capability (or simply ISC see [GMPLS-RTG] and [MPLS-HIER]), then if
   this ISC value is lower or equal to the incoming LSP switching type,
   the request may be processed by the network. Otherwise if the LSP
   Switching Type > ISC value of the region, the LSP request can not be
   processed and is simply rejected (see [MPLS-HIER] for a definition
   of the relationship between ISC values).

   2. If the regeneration function is not defined as an interface
   switching capability (pure regeneration without any connection
   function defined) then the following alternative applies depending
   on the encoding type defined at its entry points. If the
   regeneration depends on the encoding type of the incoming LSP
   request the latter must be the same as the one provided by the
   regeneration function. Otherwise the LSP request is simply rejected
   or tunneled toward the next hop (if feasible). Notice here that
   forwarding an LSP request to the next hop and expecting the latter
   would provide enough regeneration capacity for this incoming LSP is
   a complex problem, since one can not, with the currently available
   GMPLS tools, guarantee that this request will not itself be
   forwarded to the next hop, and s.o.

   Moreover, by extending the knowlegde of the interface capability to
   terminate (adapt) a given signal, it would be possible for instance
   to characterise more precisely the interfaces (physical) distance
   coverage. This may be achieved by considering information such as
   the transmission distance range (Short Haul, Long Haul, Ultra Long
   Haul, etc.) or even the signal modulation format. This would provide
   dynamic interface resource management (versus the current Network
   Management techniques). In turn, this would decrease the time needed
   for selecting resources during path computation.

5.3. Extended Scope of Switching Capabilities

   When considering multi-region environments, two common examples of
   multi-switching combinations are:
   - Packet(LSR)/Layer-2(Switch) with TDM (SONET/SDH) or LSC (OXC)
   - Multi-Granularity OXC (including opaque and transparent
     switching capabilities at different granularity levels)

   The first implies some considerations with respect to Layer-2
   Switching Capable interfaces and L2SC environments. The latter
   implies further considerations on Waveband Switching aspects.

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    12

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

5.3.1. L2SC Switching

   Layer 2 Switching capable interfaces and Layer 2 LSPs are in the
   scope of GMPLS (see [GMPLS-ARCH], [GMPLS-RTG] and [RFC-3471]). Such
   interfaces are defined as capable to recognize frame/cell boundaries
   and can forward data based on the content of the frame/cell header.
   They include mainly interfaces on Ethernet bridges that forward data
   based on the content of the MAC header. This section provides an
   overview of the issues to be considered when introducing GMPLS in
   Ethernet MAC-based networks.

   In this context, the possible development of a GMPLS signalling
   profile for Ethernet networks, involves the definition of a label
   space. From this perpsective, two questions arise: 1) what the label
   value space represents and is the corresponding label value space
   semanticfull (see [GMPLS-SONET-SDH]) or semanticless (see [RFC-
   3471]) and 2) how is the label value space implemented (i.e.
   associated with data plane or non-associated and therefore exchanged
   over dedicated signalling channels or even a combination of both). A
   contiguous problem arises that the set of potential solutions must
   be backward compatible meaning that non-GMPLS controlled Ethernet
   interfaces should be capable to interwork with GMPLS controlled
   Ethernet interfaces.

   In addition to the label considerations, an additional problem
   appears due to the type of environment in which these Ethernet
   interfaces are considered. These interfaces may be either so-called
   LAN PHY's (thus implying a broadcast capable environment) or WAN
   PHY's (thus implying point-to-point links). On the other side, one
   has to consider MAC-based capable interfaces over Non-Broadcast
   Multiple Access (NBMA) technologies such as MPLS (Ethernet-over-
   MPLS) and over circuit-oriented technologies such as SDH and OTN
   (through different adaptation technologies such as LAPS X.86 and
   GFP). This by taking into account that the MAC Address space is by
   definition non-hierarchical. The latter implies the definition of an
   identification space translating the topological location of the
   ethernet end-points from an IP-based perpective and this optimaly
   independently of the underlying bearer technology of the Ethernet

   The ideal situation would be to define a "one size fits all"
   solution. However, it is clear that inferring label value space from
   the bearer technology implies the development of so-called snooping
   approaches, while on the other side LAN PHY's would not scale such a
   solution implying the transformation of Broadcast Access (BA)
   environment into a NBMA one (using star, hub-and-spoke, or multi-
   tree approaches). Therefore, a heuristic has to be provided to solve
   these problems while avoiding introduction of complex address
   resolution mechanisms for such environments. Broadcasts are mainly
   used in LAN environments for address resolution (ARP) and
   bootstrapping (DHCP) reasons. Thus a potential solution would be to
   let the network operate in a BA mode for such operations and bring

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    13

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   its operational modeback to an NBMA mode for unicast/multicast frame
   processing. The same would apply for unknown unicasts frames.

   Therefore, a first step towards a solution would be reached, if one
   can guarantee a dual operational mode for these environments: 1)
   first mode being backward compatible with the broadcast exchanges as
   defined by the IEEE (using IEEE 802.1d and related, thus using an
   associated control plane) and 2) the second mode being GMPLS
   compatible (thus using a non-associated IP-based distributed control
   plane) for the unicast operations. The next issue relates to the
   realisation of resource reservation over Ethernet interfaces using
   GMPLS signaling techniques and its applicability. Considerations
   related to this are left for further study.

5.3.2. Waveband switching

   The GMPLS protocol suite, as currently defined, supports waveband
   switching through inverse multiplexing or switching of individual
   (contiguous) wavelength components. It may be thus appropriate to
   integrate wavebands in the switching hierarchy in order to reflect,
   at the control plane level, waveband physical components
   (multiplexer/demultiplexer) availability at the data plane [WBEXT].

   Also, depending on the (passive/active) components used in an
   optical network, wavelength spacing in the optical multiplex can
   vary. Some components like multiplexer/demultiplexer impose or
   depend on that spacing. Therefore, it may be appropriate to detail
   the component capability with respect to spacing, and/or to indicate
   the number of supported wavelengths per waveband. Moreover, one may
   also expect in case of (standardized) waveband nominal frequency
   values some simplification during the corresponding wavelength

   In the MRN context, the main issue with Waveband Switching can be
   viewed as follows. If the LSRs support in addition to waveband
   switching an ISC in the set {PSC, L2SC, TDM, FSC} then waveband
   switching can be assumed (from the control plane processing
   viewpoint) as being equivalent to Lambda Switching, if one considers
   labels as described here above. However if the additional switching
   capability within a single device, or even network, includes
   interfaces with LSC capability then either links should have a
   specific resource class assigned or dedicated values should be
   considered for the LSP Encoding Type, Switching Type and G-PID (when
   bands are carried over fibers).

5.3.3. Dedicated traffic parameters

   The remaining point is related to whether or not dedicated traffic
   parameters should be defined for LSPs established in MRN
   environments such as the ones defined for Sonet/SDH (see [SONET-SDH]
   and G.709 (see [GMPLS-G709]).

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    14

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   With respect to spatial routing the LSP Encoding Type, Switching
   Type and G-PID (see [RFC-3471] for the corresponding definitions)
   provides the required information to pertinently setup such LSPs. It
   is nevertheless expected here to see some additional capability
   allowing for intermediate states, in particular when the
   regeneration function is defined as a switching layer (see also
   Section 5.4).

   With respect to spectral routing the main issue raises from the
   passing of external physical constraints between conversion points.
   In addition to the Multiplier usage that may help in establishing/
   deleting parallel LSPs, additional information concerning the
   physical constraint each sub-path MUST fulfill should be considered
   e.g. maximum distance and BER per (sub-path). A parameter equivalent
   to the Transparency level may also help in providing a hop-by-hop
   negotiation of the regeneration capability to be used.

5.3.4 Example

   The following example details the usage of the concepts presented in
   the previous sections of this document in delivering a virtual
   topology for L2SC-over-LSC nodes.

   Consider the following network topology:

           1       2
           |       |
       |   |   |   |
       |   E---F   |
       |   |   |   |
       |       |
       7       8

   In this topology each node identified with a letter is a dual
   switching capable node (L2SC/LSC or L2SC/WBSC) and nodes identified
   with a number refers to L2SC capable devices.

   An Lambda LSP is established covering all dual-switching nodes [A-B-
   C-D-J-I-F-E-G-H], this FA-LSP constitutes the virtual topology for
   the dual switching nodes. This is viewed from the L2SC level as a
   L2SC capable multi-access link that may be accessed (upon local
   policy basis) from each node consituting the topology. Another
   example, would be, for instance, a Lambda LSP routed over [A-B-C-D-
   J] but precluding access to node C.

   Afterwards, each node (more precisely the L2SC region) may trigger
   the establishment of L2SC LSPs on top of this multi-access FA-LSP
   that would allow setting up multi-partitioning of the bandwidth
   capacity made available by the "fat pipe" having a higher ISC value.
   These L2SC LSP's may be for instance, using the above example, [A-B-

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    15

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   C-D], [A-B-D-J-I-G] or [J-I-F-E], even if the latter wouldn't be
   usable by any incoming LSP. Each of these L2SC LSP's are simply L2SC
   FA-LSP's forming a L2SC-capable virtual topology. This topology can
   be subsequently used by external devices to establish L2SC LSP's
   using these FA's as links. Bandwidth accounting is performed on a
   per FA basis, translating into intermediate node bandwidth
   aggregation accounted on a per priority basis. In turn, this
   accounting translates into restriction over the accessibility of
   each of the links constituting the Lambda LSP.

   The above example implies that currently defined ISCs (see [GMPLS-
   RTG]) such as L2SC might be extended to more than one value with the
   following relationship L2SC (=L2SC-1) < L2SC-2 < L2SC-3 < L2SC-4 <
   TDM. The (data plane) flow aggregation mechanisms for L2SC LSPs
   being out of scope of the present document.

5.4 Applications

   In multi-region environments, crossing LSP regions during
   provisioning can occur for two main reasons: grooming or
   regeneration (when delivered by a switching capable layer).

   1. Grooming

   LSP grooming deals with the optimization of network resource
   utilization. Multi-region environments are particularly well adapted
   for this feature as they may provide different switching
   granularities allowing for the tunnelling of several finer grained
   LSPs into a coarser grained LSP. In this context, it can be useful
   from the control plane viewpoint not to terminate the multiplexed
   LSP and simply tunnel this LSP into a lower-region LSP viewed as a
   common segment for each incoming LSPs.

   However, this raises the problem of the representation of the newly
   established LSP at the control plane level. In particular,
   concerning the maintenance of the two LSPs (head-end and tail-end
   LSPs) that forms the newly spliced LSPs. Further consideration on
   grooming are left for further study as it includes aspects leading
   to the definition of multipoint-to-point LSPs (beyond the scope of
   this document).

   2. Regeneration

   Due to the constraints of optical transmission, the optical signal
   may have to be regenerated along the LSP path. Some multi-region
   network may require to cross a region boundary to access the
   regeneration function. This rises the question of the so-called LSP
   integrity when crossing region boundaries.

   Consider for instance a Lambda LSP in a LSC+PSC multi-region
   network. For a given reason the LSP needs to be regenerated at an
   intermediate node. It will thus use the O/E/O interfaces present in
   the PSC region. From the control plane viewpoint either two Lambda

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    16

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   LSPs are seen (ingress to intermediate and intermediate to egress)
   or a single one (ingress to egress).

   Keeping a single Lambda LSP would prevent from maintaining, at the
   control plane level, several entities for a single connection. It
   should be also noted here that one assumes that regeneration is
   delivered between LSPs (from ingress to intermediate and
   intermediate to egress) defined within regions of the same switching
   capability (i.e. LSC-PSC-LSC). This would in turn facilitate the
   processing of both the regenerated entities and the (pool of)
   regeneration resources that would need to be marked.

6. Conclusions

   In this draft, we address the issues when using the GMPLS protocol
   suite as a unified control plane for MRN environments. Several
   proposals for enhancing the current GMPLS mechanisms are presented.
   The proposals are based on current GMPLS mechanisms and in alignment
   with GMPLS architecture (see [GMPLS-ARCH]). This memo analyzes the
   suitability of the GMPLS protocol suite for the MRN environment,
   keeping a strict and full alignment with the current and preferred
   suite of signalling and routing protocols (in particular, OSPF, IS-
   IS, RSVP-TE and LMP).

   By starting from a single area context, the expectations coming out
   from the first release of this memo, are clearly intended to open
   the field to a more detailed description of the collaborative
   processes within the GMPLS protocol suite.

   The main guideline of this work is backward compatibility with the
   current GMPLS protocols suite. The second guideline is limiting and
   efficiently handling the complexity introduced. This memo provides
   an introduction to MRNs and aspects to be considered. We invite the
   CCAMP community to collaborate on progressing this critical GMPLS
   topic: an integrated control plane supporting multiple data layers.

7. Security considerations

   In its current version, this memo does not introduce new security
   consideration from the ones already detailed in the GMPLS protocol

8. References

   [G.707]      ITU-T, "Network node interface for the Synchronous
                Digital Hierarchy", Recommendation G.707, October 2000.

   [G.709]      ITU-T, "Interfaces for the Optical Transport Network"
                Recommendation G.709, October 2001.

   [G.805]      ITU-T, "Generic functional architecture of transport
                networks", Recommendation G.805, March 2000.

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    17

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   [GMPLS-RTG]  K. Kompella (Editor), Y. Rekhter (Editor) et al.
                "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS",
                Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-
                gmpls-routing-05.txt, August 2002.

   [GMPLS-G709]D. Papadimitriou (Editor) et al. "Generalized MPLS
               Signalling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport
               Networks Control", Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
               draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-04.txt, May 2003.

   [LSP-HIER]  K. Kompella and Y. Rekhter, "LSP Hierarchy with
               Generalized MPLS TE", Internet Draft, Work in Progress,
               draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt, September 2002.

   [MAMLTE]    K. Shiomoto et al., "Multi-area multi-layer traffic
               engineering using hierarchical LSPs in GMPLS networks",
               Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-shiomoto-

   [MLRT]      W. Imajuku et al., "Multilayer routing using multilayer
               switch capable LSRs, Internet Draft, Work in Progress,

   [MPLS-BDL]  K. Kompelle, Y. Rekhter and Lou Berger, "Link Bundling
               in MPLS Traffic Engineering", Internet Draft, Work in
               Progress, draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt, July 2002.

   [RFC-1793]  J. Moy, "Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits",
               IETF RFC 1793, April 1995.

   [RFC-2370]  R. Coltun, "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", IETF RFC 2370,
               July 1998.

   [RFC-3471]  L. Berger (Editor) et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
               Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional
               Description", IETF RFC 3471, January 2003.

   [SONET-SDH] E. Mannie and D. Papadimitriou (Editors) et al.
               "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions
               for SONET and SDH Control", Internet Draft, Work in
               Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt,
               February 2003.

   [SRLG]      D. Papadimitriou et al. "Shared Risk Link Groups
               Inference and Processing", Internet Draft, Work in
               Progress, draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-srlg-processing-
               02.txt, June 2003.

   [SURVEY]    L. Berger (Editor), Y. Rekhter (Editor) et al.
               "Generalized MPLS Signaling - Implementation Survey",
               Internet Draft, Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-
               gmpls-signaling-survey-03.txt, October 2002.

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    18

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   [WBEXT]     R. Douville et al., "Extensions to Generalized MPLS for
               Waveband Switching", draft-douville-ccamp-gmpls-
               waveband-extensions-03.txt, Internet Draft, Work in
               Progress, February 2003.

9. Acknowledgments

   We would like to thank here, Sven Van Den Bosch, Richard Douville,
   Olivier Audouin, Amaury Jourdan, Emmanuel Desmet and Bernard sales.

   The authors would like to thank Mr. Wataru Imajuku for the
   discussions on adaptation between regions [MLRT].

10. Author's addresses

   Martin Vigoureux (Alcatel)
   Route de Nozay,
   91461 Marcoussis cedex, France
   Phone: +33 1 6963 1852
   E-mail: martin.vigoureux@alcatel.fr

   Kohei Shiomoto (NTT Network Innovation Laboratories)
   3-9-11 Midori-cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
   Phone: +81 422 59 4402
   E-mail: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Deborah Brungard (AT&T)
   Rm. D1-3C22 - 200 S. Laurel Ave.
   Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
   Phone: +1 732 420 1573
   E-mail: dbrungard@att.com

11. Contributors

   Eiji Oki (NTT Network Innovation Laboratories)
   3-9-11 Midori-cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
   Phone : +81 422 59 3441
   E-mail: oki.eiji@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Nobuaki Matsuura (NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories)
   3-9-11 Midori-cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
   Phone : +81 422 59 3758
   E-mail: matsuura.nobuaki@lab.ntt.co.jp

   Emmanuel Dotaro (Alcatel)
   Route de Nozay,
   91461 Marcoussis cedex, France
   Phone : +33 1 6963 4723
   E-mail: emmanuel.dotaro@alcatel.fr

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    19

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

   Dimitri Papadimitriou (Alcatel)
   Francis Wellensplein 1,
   B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
   Phone : +32 3 240 8491
   E-mail: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    20

draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-02.txt              June 2003

Full Copyright Statement

   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

Vigoureux, Shiomoto et al. - Expires August 2003                    21

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