[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

Network Working Group                                      Y. Weingarten
Internet-Draft                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational                                 S. Bryant
Expires: December 31, 2010                                         Cisco
                                                             N. Sprecher
                                                  Nokia Siemens Networks
                                                           D. Ceccarelli
                                                             D. Caviglia
                                                             F. Fondelli
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                M. Corsi
                                                                  Altran
                                                                   B. Wu
                                                                  X. Dai
                                                         ZTE Corporation
                                                           June 29, 2010


                        MPLS-TP Ring Protection
            draft-weingarten-mpls-tp-ring-protection-03.txt

Abstract

   This document presents an applicability statement to address the
   requirements for protection of ring topologies for Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Label Switched Paths
   (LSP) on multiple layers.  The MPLS-TP Requirements document [TPReqs]
   specifies specific criteria for justification of dedicated protection
   mechanism for particular topologies, including optimizing the number
   of OAM entities needed, minimizing the number of labels for
   protection paths, minimzing the number of recovery elements in the
   network, and minimizing the number of control and management
   transactions necessary.  The document proposes a methodology for ring
   protection based on existing MPLS-TP survivability mechanisms,
   without the need of specification of new constructs or protocols.

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
   defined by the ITU-T.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.




Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   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 December 31, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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.  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.

























Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Problem statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     1.3.  Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  P2P Ring Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Wrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.3.  P2P ring protection with SPME  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.3.1.  Path SPME for Steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.3.2.  Wrapping with segment based SPME . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.3.3.  Wrapping node protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.3.4.  Wrapping for link and node protection  . . . . . . . . 14
     2.4.  Analysis of p2p protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   3.  P2MP protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.1.  Wrapping for p2mp LSP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       3.1.1.  Comparison of Wrapping and ROM-Wrapping  . . . . . . . 18
       3.1.2.  Multiple Failures Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.2.  Steering for p2mp paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   4.  Coordination protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.  Interconnected rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   6.  Conclusions and Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25























Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


1.  Introduction

   Multi-Protocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is being
   standardized as part of a joint effort between the Internet
   Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the International Telecommunication
   Union Standardization (ITU-T).  These specifications are based on the
   requirements that were generated from this joint effort.

   The requirements for MPLS-TP [TPReqs] indicates a requirement to
   support a network that may include sub-networks that constitute a
   MPLS-TP ring as defined in the requirements.  There were no
   requirements specific to a ring topology indicated in the
   requirements document.  However, the requirements state that specific
   protection mechanisms aimed at ring topologies may be developed if
   these allow the network to optimize:

   o  Number of OAM entities needed to trigger the protection

   o  Number of recovery objects needed

   o  Number of labels required

   o  Number of control and management plane transactions during a
      recovery operation

   o  Impact of signaling and routing information exchanged, in presence
      of control plane

   This document will propose a set of basic mechanisms that could be
   used for the protection of the data flows that traverse a MPLS-TP
   ring.  The mechanism is based on existing MPLS and MPLS-TP protection
   mechanisms.  We show that this mechanism provides the ability to
   protect all of the basic conditions within a reasonable time frame
   and does optimize the criteria set out in [TPReqs] as summarized
   above.

1.1.  Problem statement

   Ring topologies, as definied in [TPReqs], are used in transport
   networks due to their ability to easily support both p2p and p2mp
   transport paths.  When designing a protection mechanism for a ring
   topology, there is a need to address both -

   1.  Simple case of a transport path that enters a MPLS-TP capable
       ring at one node, the ingress node, and exits the ring at a
       single egress node possibly continuing beyond the ring.





Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   2.  Case where the ring is being used as a branching point, i.e. the
       transport path enters the MPLS-TP capable ring at the ingress
       node and exits through a number of egress nodes, possibly
       continuing beyond the ring.

   Within the ring segment of the transport path there is the need to
   address the following different cases -

   1.  One of the ring links causes a fault condition.  This could be
       either a unidirectional or bidirectional fault, and should be
       detected by the neighboring nodes.

   2.  One of the ring nodes causes a fault condition.  This condition
       is invariably a bidirectional fault (although in rare cases of
       misconfiguration this could be detected as a unidirectional
       fault) and should be detected by the two neighboring ring nodes.

   3.  An operator command is issued to a specific ring node.  Examples
       of these commands include Manual Switch, Forced Switch, or Clear
       operations.

   The protection domain addressed in this document is limited to the
   traffic that is traversing the ring.  Traffic on the transport path
   prior to the ring ingress node or beyond the egress nodes may be
   protected by some other mechanism.

1.2.  Terminology and Notation

   The terminology used in this document is based on the terminology
   defined in the MPLS-TP framework documents:

   o  MPLS-TP Framework[TPFwk]

   o  MPLS-TP OAM Framework[OAMFwk]

   o  MPLS-TP Survivability Framework[SurvivFwk]

   In addition, we describe the use of the label stack in connection
   with the redirecting of data packets by the protection mechanism.
   The following syntax will be used to describe the contents of the
   label stack:

   1.  The label stack will be enclosed in square brackets ("[]")

   2.  Each level in the stack will be separated by the '|' character

   3.  The bottom of the stack will be denoted by the string "BOS"




Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   4.  The label of an ingress LSP will be denoted by the string "LI"
       and the label of the egress LSP will be denoted by the string
       "LE"

   5.  The label for a SPME will be denoted by Px(y) where x and y are
       LSR identifiers and the intention is to the label for LSR-x to
       transmit to LSR-y over the SPME.

   For example - the label stack [PB(G)|LI|BOS] denotes a stack whose
   top-label is the SPME label for LSR-B to transmit the data packet to
   LSR-G, the packet originated from a LSP that arrived at the ring with
   label LI.

1.3.  Contributing Authors

   Akira Sakurai (NEC), Rolf Winter (NEC)


2.  P2P Ring Protection

   Classically there are two protection architecture mechanisms for ring
   topologies, based on SDH specifications [G.841], that have been
   proposed in various forums to perform recovery of a topological ring
   network - "wrapping" and "steering".  The following sub-sections will
   examine these two mechanisms.

2.1.  Wrapping

   Wrapping is defined as a "local" protection architecture.  This
   mechanism is local to the LSRs that are neighbors to the detected
   fault.  When a fault is detected (either a link or node failure), the
   neighboring LSR can identify that the fault would prevent forwarding
   of the data along the data path.  Therefore, in order to continue the
   data along the path, there is need to "wrap" all data traffic around
   the ring, on an alternate data path, until arriving at the LSR that
   is on the opposite side of the fault.  When this LSR also detects
   that there is a fault condition on the LSP, it can identify that the
   data traffic that is arriving on the alternate (protecting) data path
   is intended for the "broken" LSP.  Therefore, again taking a local
   decision, can wrap the data back onto the normal working path until
   the egress from the ring segment.










Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


                                        ____
                              =========>/ LSR\
                                      * \__B_/ *
                                     * @@@@@@@# *
                                    * @       @# *
                                ___* @         @# *___
                               /LSR\ @          @#/LSR\
                               \_C_/ @           #\_A_/
                                 *  @             # *
                                 *  @              XX
                                _*_ @              #*_
                               /LSR\@             /LSR\
                               \_D_/@            @\_F_/
                                   * @          @#*
                                    * @       @@#*
                                     * @@____@##*
                                       */ LSR\*
                                        \__E_/========>

                   ===> connected LSP  *** physical link
                   ###  working path   @@@ wrapped data path

                Figure 1: Wrapping protection for p2p path

   In this figure we have a ring with a LSP that enters the ring at
   LSR-B and exits at LSR-E.  The normal working path follows through
   B-A-F-E.  If a signal fault is detected on the link A<-->F, then the
   wrapping mechanism decides that LSR-A would wrap the traffic around
   the ring, on a wrapped data path A-B-C-D-E-F, to arrive at LSR-F (on
   the far side of the failed link).  LSR-F would then wrap the data
   packets back onto the working path F-->E to the egress node.  In this
   protection scheme, the traffic will follow the path -
   B-A-B-C-D-E-F-E.

   This protection scheme is simple in the sense that there is no need
   for coordination between the different LSR in the ring - only the
   LSRs that detect the fault must wrap the traffic, either onto the
   wrapped data path (at the near-end) or back to the working path (at
   the far-end).  Coordination would only be needed to maintain co-
   routed bidirectional traffic even in cases of a unidirectional fault
   condition.

   The following considerations should be taken into account when
   considering use of wrapping protection:

   o  Detection of loss-of-continutiy or misconnectivity, should be
      performed at the link level and/or per LSR when using node-level
      protection.  Configuration of the protection being performed (i.e.



Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


      link protection or node protection) needs to be performed
      a-priori, since the configuration of the proper protection path is
      dependent upon this decision.

   o  There is a need to define a data-path that traverses the alternate
      path around the ring to connect between the two neighbors of the
      detected fault.  If protecting both the links and the nodes of a
      LSP, then, for a ring with N nodes, there is a need for O(2N)
      alternate paths.

   o  When wrapping, the data is transmitted over some of the links
      twice, once in each direction.  For example, in the figure above
      the traffic is transmitted both B-->A and then A-->B, later it is
      transmitted E-->F and F-->E. This means that there is additional
      bandwith needed for this protection.

   o  If a double-fault situation occurs in the ring, then wrapping will
      not be able to deliver any packets except between the ingress and
      the first fault location.  This is based on the need for wrapping
      to connect between the neighbors of the fault location, and this
      is not possible in the segmented ring.

   o  The resource allocation for the alternate-paths could be
      problematic, since most of these alternate paths will not be used
      simultaneously.  One possibility could be to allocate '0'
      resources and depend on the NMS to allocate the proper resources
      around the ring.

   o  Wrapping also involves greater latency in delivering the packets,
      as a result of traversing the entire ring.  This could be very
      restrictive for large rings.

2.2.  Steering

   The second common scheme for ring protection redirects the traffic
   from the ingress point to the alternate route around the ring to the
   egress point.  This is illustrated in Figure 2, where if a Signal
   Fault is detected on the working path (B-A-F), then the traffic would
   be redirected by B to the alternate path (i.e.  B-C-D-E-F).

   This mechanism is similar to linear 1:1 protection [SurvivFwk].  The
   two paths around the ring act as the working and recovery paths.
   There is need to communicate to the ingress node the need to switch
   over to the recovery path and there is a need to coordinate the
   switchover between the two end-points of the protected domain.

   The following considerations must be taken into account regarding the
   steering architecture:



Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   o  It is necessary for the ingress node to be "informed" of the fault
      condition in order to perform the protection switching.

   o  The process of "informing" the ingress node adds to the latency of
      the protection switching process, after the detection of the fault
      condition.

   o  While there is no need for double bandwidth for the data path,
      there is the necessity for the ring to maintain enough capacity
      for all of the data in both directions around the ring.

2.3.  P2P ring protection with SPME

   The MPLS-TP Framework document [TPFwk] defines a Sub-Path Maintenance
   Entity (SPME) construct that can be defined between any two LSRs of a
   MPLS-TP LSP.  For MPLS-TP purposes, such a SPME may be configured as
   a bidirectional co-routed path.  A SPME may be used to aggregate all
   LSP traffic that traverses the segment (from ingress LSR to egress
   LSR) that is delineated by the SPME.  This SPME may be monitored
   using the OAM mechanisms as specified in the MPLS-TP OAM Framework
   document [OAMFwk].

   When defining a MPLS-TP ring as a protection domain, there is a need
   to design a protection mechanism that protects all the LSPs that
   cross the MPLS-TP ring.  For this purpose, we associate a (working)
   SPME with the segment of the transport path that traverses the ring.
   In addition, we configure an alternate (protecting) SPME that
   traverses the ring in the opposite direction around the ring.  The
   exact selection of the two SPMEs is dependent on the type of
   transport path and protection that is being implemented and will be
   detailed in the following sections.

   Based on this architectural configuration for ring protection, it is
   possible to restrict the number of alternate paths needed to protect
   the data traversing the ring.  Similarly, we can minimize the number
   of OAM sessions needed to monitor the data traffic of the ring - by
   monitoring the SPMEs, rather than monitoring each individual LSP.

   The following figure shows a MPLS-TP ring that is part of a larger
   MPLS-TP network.  The ring could be used as a network segment that
   may be traversed by numerous LSPs.  In particular, the figure shows
   that for all LSPs that connect to the ring at LSR-B and exit the ring
   from LSR-F, we configure two SPME through the ring (the first SPME
   traverses along B-A-F, and the second SPME traverses B-C-D-E-F).







Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


                                  ____
                       =========>/ LSR\
                               * \__B_/ *
                              * @      # *
                             * @        # *
                          __* @          # *___
                        /LSR\ @           #/LSR\
                        \_C_/ @           #\_A_/
                          *  @             # *
                          *  @              #*
                         _*_ @              #*_
                        /LSR\@             /LSR\========>
                        \_D_/@             \_F_/
                            * @           @*
                             * @         @*
                              * @@____@@*
                                */ LSR\*
                                 \__E_/


           ===> connected LSP    *** physical link
           ###  primary SPME      @@@ secondary SPME

                         Figure 2: A MPLS-TP ring

   In all of the following subsections, we use 1:1 linear protection
   [SurvivFwk] [LinProtect] to perform protection switching and
   coordination when a signal fault is detected.  The actual
   configuration of the SPMEs used may change dependent upon the choice
   of methodology and this will be detailed in the following sections.
   However, in all of these configurations the mechanism will be to
   transmit the data traffic on the primary SPME, while using OAM
   functionlity to detect signal fault conditions on either the primary
   or the secondary SPME.  If a signal fault is detected on the primary
   SPME, then the mechanism described in [LinProtect] shall be used to
   coordinate a switch-over of data traffic to the secondary SPME.

   Assuming that the SPME is implemented as an hierarchial LSP, packets
   that arrive at LSR-B with a label stack [L1|BOS] will have the SPME
   label pushed at LSR-B (i.e. the packet will arrive at LSR-A with a
   label stack of [PA(F)|L1|BOS], arrive at LSR-F with [PF(F)|L1|BOS]).
   The SPME label will be popped by LSR-F and the LSP label will be
   treated appropriately at LSR-F and forwarded along the LSP.  This
   scenario is true for all LSP that are aggregated by this primary
   SPME.






Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


2.3.1.  Path SPME for Steering

   A p2p SPME that traverses part of a ring has two Maintenance Entity
   Group End Points (MEPs), each one acts as the ingress and egress in
   one direction of the bidirectional SPME.  Since the SPME is
   traversing a ring we can take advantage of another characteristic of
   a ring - there is always an alternative path between the two MEPs,
   traversing the ring in the opposite direction.  This alternative SPME
   can be defined as the protection path for the working path that is
   configured as part of the LSP and defined as a SPME.

   For each pair of SPMEs that are defined in this way, it is possible
   to verify the connectivity and continuity by applying the MPLS-TP OAM
   functionality to both the working and recovery SPME.  If a
   discontinuity or mis-connectivity is detected then the MEPs will
   become aware of this condition, and could perform a protection switch
   of all LSPs to the alternate, recovery SPME.

   This protection mechanism is identical to application of 1:1 linear
   protection[SurvivFwk] [LinProtect] to the pair of SPMEs.  Under
   normal conditions, all LSP data traffic will be transmitted on the
   working SPME.  If the linear protection is triggered, by either the
   OAM indication, an other fault indication trigger, or an operator
   command, then the MEPs will select the recovery SPME to transmit all
   LSP data packets.

   The recovery SPME will continue to transmit the data packets until
   the stable recovery of the fault condition.  Upon recovery, the
   ingress LSR could switch traffic back to the working SPME, if the
   protection domain is configured for revertive behavior.

   The control of the protection switching, especially for cases of
   operator commands, would be covered by the protocol defined in
   [LinProtect].

2.3.2.  Wrapping with segment based SPME

   It is possible to use the SPME mechanism to perform segment-based
   protection.  For each link in the ring, we define two SPME - the
   first is a SPME between the two LSRs that are connected by the link,
   and the second SPME between these same two LSRs but traversing the
   entire ring (except the link that connects the LSRs).  In Figure 3 we
   show the primary SPME that connects LSR-A & LSR-F over a segment
   connection, and the secondary SPME that connects these same LSRs by
   traversing the ring in the opposite direction.






Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


                                  ____
                                 / LSR\
                               * \__B_/ *
                              * @      @ *
                             * @        @ *
                          __* @          @ *___
                        /LSR\ @           @/LSR\
                        \_C_/ @            \_A_/
                          *  @              #*
                          *  @              #*
                         _*_ @              #*_
                        /LSR\@             /LSR\
                        \_D_/@             \_F_/
                            * @           @*
                             * @         @*
                              * @@____@@*
                                */ LSR\*
                                 \__E_/


                       *** physical link
           ###  primary SPME      @@@ secondary SPME

                          Figure 3: Segment SPMEs

   By applying OAM monitoring of these two SPME (at each LSR), it is
   possible to affect a wrapping protection mechanism for the LSP
   traffic that traverses the ring.  The LSR on either side of the
   segment would identify that there is a fault condition on the link
   and redirect all LSP traffic to the secondary SPME.  The traffic
   would traverse the ring until arriving at the neighboring (relative
   to the segment) LSR.  At this point, the LSP traffic would be
   redirected onto the original LSP, quite likely over the neighboring
   SPME.

   Following the progression of the label stack through this switching
   operation:

   1.  The data packet arrives at LSR-A with label stack [LI|BOS] (i.e.
       top label from the LSP and bottom-of-stack indicator)

   2.  In the normal case (no switching), LSR-A forwards the packet with
       label stack [PA1(F)|LE|BOS] (i.e. swap the label for the LSP, to
       be acceptable to the SPME egress, and push the label for the
       primary SPME from LSR-A to LSR-F).

   3.  When switching is in-effect, LSR-A forwards the packet with label
       stack [PA2(F)|LE|BOS] (i.e.  LSR-A pushed the label for the



Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


       secondary SPME from LSR-A to LSR-F, after swapping the label of
       the lower level LSP).

   4.  When the packet arrives at LSR-F, it will pop the SPME label,
       process the LSP label, and forward the packet to the next point,
       possibly pushing a SPME label if the next segment is likewise
       protected.

2.3.3.  Wrapping node protection

   Implementation of protection at the node level would be similar to
   the mechanism described in the previous sub-section.  The difference
   would be in the SPMEs that are used.  For node protection, the
   primary SPME would be configured between the two LSR that are
   connected to the node that is being protected (see SPME between LSR-A
   and LSR-E through LSR-F in Figure 4), and the secondary SPME would be
   configured between these same nodes, going around the ring (see
   secondary SPME in Figure 4).

                                  ____
                                 / LSR\
                               * \__B_/ *
                              * @      @ *
                             * @        @ *
                          __* @          @ *___
                        /LSR\ @           @/LSR\
                        \_C_/ @            \_A_/
                          *  @              #*
                          *  @              #*
                         _*_ @              #*_
                        /LSR\@             /LSR\
                        \_D_/@             \_F_/
                            * @           # *
                             * @         # *
                              * @@____  # *
                                */ LSR\#*
                                 \__E_/


                     *** physical link
           ###  primary SPME      @@@ secondary SPME

                      Figure 4: Node-protection SPMEs

   The protection mechanism would work similarly - based on 1:1 linear
   protection [SurvivFwk], triggered by OAM functions on both SPMEs, and
   wrapping the data packets onto the secondary SPME at the ingress MEP
   (e.g.  LSR-A in the figure) of the SPME and back onto the



Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   continuation of the LSP at the egress MEP (e.g.  LSR-E in the figure)
   of the SPME.

2.3.4.  Wrapping for link and node protection

   In the different types of wrapping presented in sections 2.3.2 and
   2.3.3, there is a limitation that the protection mechanism must a
   priori decide whether it is protecting for link or node failure.  In
   addition, the neighboring LSR, that detects the fault, cannot readily
   differentiate between a link failure or a node failure.

   It is possible to combine the link protection mechanism presented in
   section 2.3.2 with the protection mechanism of section 2.3.3 to give
   more complete coverage.  For each segment, we configure both a
   secondary link protection SPME as well as a two secondary node
   protection SPME, i.e. one for each direction of the bidirectional
   segment SPME (see Figure 5).  When a protection switch is triggered,
   the ingress LSR of the segment will examine the packet ring
   destination.  Only if this destination is for the LSR connected to
   the "secondary link" SPME, then the packets will be wrapped onto this
   secondary SPME.  For all other cases, the data packets will be
   wrapped onto the "secondary node" SPME.  In all cases the egress LSR
   for the secondary SPME will wrap the data traffic back onto the
   working LSP/SPME.



























Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


                                  ____
                                 / LSR\
                               * \__B_/ *
                              * @+$   +@ *
                             * @+$     +@ *
                          __* @+$       +@ *___
                        /LSR\ @+$        +@/LSR\
                        \_C_/ @+$          \_A_/
                          *  @+$            #*
                          *  @+$            #*
                         _*_ @+$            #*_
                        /LSR\@+$           /LSR\
                        \_D_/@+$           \_F_/
                            * @+$          $+*
                             * @+$       $+*
                              * @++$+$+$+*
                                */ LSR\*
                                 \__E_/


                        *** physical link
           ###  primary SPME           @@@ secondary node#1 SPME
           $$$  secondary node#2 SPME  +++ secondary segment SPME

                 Figure 5: Segment & Node protection SPMEs

2.4.  Analysis of p2p protection

   Analyzing the mechanisms described in the above subsections we can
   point to the following observations (based on a ring with N nodes):

   o  Number of SPME that need to be configured - for path SPME (sec
      2.3.1) = O(2N^2) [two SPME from each ingress LSR to each other
      node in the ring], for segment SPME (sec 2.3.4) = O(4N) [four SPME
      for each link in the ring]

   o  Number of OAM sessions at each node - for path SPME = O(2N), for
      segment SPME = 4

   o  Bandwidth requirements - for path SPME: single bandwidth at each
      link, for segment SPME: double bandwidth at links that are between
      ingress and wrapping node and between second wrapping node and
      egress.

   o  Special considerations - for path SPME: latency of OAM detection
      of fault condition by ingress MEP [using Alarm-reporting could
      optimize over using CC-V only], for segment SPME: need to examine
      data packet ring destination before selecting bypass SPME.



Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


3.  P2MP protection

   [TPReqs] requires that ring protection must provide protection for
   unidirectional point-to-multipoint paths through the ring.  Ring
   topologies provide a ready platform for supporting such data paths.
   A p2mp LSP in an MPLS-TP ring would be characterized by a single
   ingress LSR and multiple egress LSRs.  The following sub-sections
   will present methods to address the protection of the ring-based
   sections of these LSP.

3.1.  Wrapping for p2mp LSP

   When protecting a p2mp ring data path using the wrapping
   architecture, the basic operation is similar to the description
   given, as the traffic has been wrapped back onto the normal working
   path on the far-side of the detected fault and will continue to be
   transported to all of the egress points.

   It is possible to optimize the performance of the wrapping mechanism
   when applied to p2mp LSPs by exploiting the topology of ring
   networks.

   This improved mechanism, which we call Ring Optimized Multicast
   Wrapping (ROM-Wrapping), behaves much the same as classical wrapping.
   There is one difference - rather than configuring the recovery LSP
   between the end nodes of a failed link (link protection) or between
   the upstream and downstream node of a failed node (node protection),
   the improved mechanism configures a recovery p2mp LSP from the
   upstream (with respect to the failure) node and all egress nodes (for
   the particular LSP) downstream from the failure.

   Referring to Figure 6, it is possible to identify the protected
   (working) LSP (A-B-[C]-[D]-E-[F]) and one possible backup
   (protection) LSP.  This protection LSP will be used to wrap the data
   back around the ring to protect against a failure on link B-C.  This
   protection LSP is also a p2mp LSP that is configured with egress
   points (at nodes F, D, & C) complimentary to the broken working data
   path.













Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


                                          |
                                          |
                                          V  Ingress
                       ___               _V_                ___
                      /LSR\             /LSR\**************/LSR\
                   <@@\_F_/@@@@@@@@@@@@@\_A_/@@@@@@@@@@@@@@\_B_/
                       @ *                                    *
                       @ *                                    *
                       @ *                                  XXXX Failure
                       @ *                                    *
                       @_*               ___                __*
                      /LSR\*************/LSR\**************/LSR\
                      \_E_/@@@@@@@@@@@@@\_D_/@@@@@@@@@@@@@@\_C_/
                                         @                  @
                                         @                  @
                                         V                  V


                       ***  working LSP      @@@ protection LSP

                        Figure 6: P2MP ROM Wrapping

   Using this mechanism, there is a need to configure a particular
   protection LSP for each node on the working LSP.  In the table below,
   "X's Backup" is the backup path activated by node X as a consequence
   of a failure affecting node Y (downstream node with respect to X) or
   link X-Y, and square brackets, in the path,indicate egress nodes.

                   Protected LSP: A->B->[C]->[D]->E->[F]

                       ---- LINK/NODE PROTECTION----

              A's Backup:              A->[F]->E->[D]->[C]
              B's Backup:              B->A->[F]->E->[D]->[C]
              C's Backup:              C->B->A->[F]->E->[D]
              D's Backup:              D->C->B->A->[F]
              E's Backup:              E->D->C->B->A->[F]

   It should be noted that ROM-Wrapping is an LSP based protection
   mechanism, as opposed to the SPME based protection mechanisms that
   are presented in other sections of this draft.  While this may seem
   to be limited in scope, the mechanism may be very efficient for many
   applications that are based on p2mp distribution schemes.  While ROM-
   Wrapping can be applied to any network topology, it is particularly
   efficient for interconnected ring topologies.






Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


3.1.1.  Comparison of Wrapping and ROM-Wrapping

   It is possible to compare the Wrapping and the ROM-Wrapping
   mechanisms in different aspects, and show some improvements offered
   by ROM-Wrapping.

   When configuring the protection LSP for Wrapping it is necessary to
   configure for a specific failure: link protection or node protection.
   If the protection method is configured to protect node failures but
   the actual failure affects a link, this could result in failing to
   deliver traffic to the node, when it should be possible to.

   ROM-Wrapping however does not have this limitation, because there is
   no distinction between node and link protection.  Whether link B-C or
   node C fails, in either case the rerouting will attempt to reach C.
   If the failure is on the link, the traffic will be delivered to C,
   while if the failure is at node C, the traffic will be rerouted
   correctly until node D, and will be blocked at this point.  However,
   all egress nodes upto the failure will be able to deliver the traffic
   properly.

   A second aspect is the number of hops needed to properly deliver the
   traffic.  Referring to the example shown in Figure 6, where a failure
   is detected on link B-C, the following table lists the set of nodes
   traversed by the data in the protection:

                              Basic Wrapping:

   A-B                   B-A-F-E-D-C              [C]-[D]-E-[F]
   "Upstream" segment    backup path              "Downstream" segment
   with respect to the                            with respect to the
   failure                                        failure

                               ROM Wrapping:

   A-B                  B-A-[F]-E-[D]-[C]        ..
   "Upstream" segment   backup path
   with respect to the
   failure

   Comparing the two lists of nodes, it is possible to see that in this
   particular case the number of hops crossed using the simple Wrapping
   is significantly higher than the number of hops crossed by the
   traffic when ROM-Wrapping is used.  Generally, the number of hops for
   basic Wrapping is always higher or at least equal compared to ROM-
   Wrapping.  This implies a certain waste of bandwidth on all links
   that are crossed in both directions.




Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   Considering the ring network previously seen, it is possible to do
   some bandwidth utilization considerations.  The protected LSP is set
   up from A to F clockwise and an M Mbps bandwidth is reserved along
   the path.  All the protection LSPs are preprovisioned
   counterclockwise, each of them may also have reserved bandwidth M.
   These LSPs share the same bandwidth in a SE (Shared Explicit) [RSVP]
   style.

   The bandwidth reserved counterclockwise is not used when the
   protected LSP is properly working and could, in theory, be used for
   extra traffic [RFC4427].  However, it should be noted that [TPReqs]
   does not require support of such extra traffic.

   The two recovery mechanism require different protection bandwidths.
   In the case of Wrapping, the bandwidth used is M in both directions
   of many of the links.  While in case of ROM-Wrapping, only the links
   from the ingress node to the node performing the actual wrapping
   utilize M bandwidth in both directions, while all other links utilize
   M bandwidth only in the counterclockwise direction.

   Consider the case of a failure detected on link B-C as shown in
   Figure 6.  The following table lists the bandwidth utilization on
   each link (in units equal to M), for each recovery mechanism and for
   each direction (CW=clockwise, CCW=counterclockwise).

                  +----------+----------+--------------+
                  |          | Wrapping | ROM-Wrapping |
                  +----------+----------+--------------+
                  | Link A-B |  CW+CCW  | CW+CCW       |
                  | Link A-F |    CCW   | CCW          |
                  | Link F-E |  CW+CCW  | CCW          |
                  | Link E-D |  CW+CCW  | CCW          |
                  | Link D-C |  CW+CCW  | CCW          |
                  +----------+----------+--------------+

3.1.2.  Multiple Failures Comparison

   A further comparison between Wrapping and ROM-Wrapping can be done
   with respect to their ability to react to multiple failures.  The
   wrapping recovery mechanism does not have the ability to recover from
   multiple failures on a ring network, while ROM-Wrapping is able to
   recover, from some multiple failures.

   Consider, for example, a double link failure affecting links B-C and
   C-D shown in Figure 6.  The Wrapping mechanism is not able to recover
   from the failure because B, upon detecting the failure, has no
   alternative paths to reach C. The whole P2MP traffic is lost.  The
   ROM-Wrapping mechanism is able to partially recover from the failure,



Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   because the backup P2MP LSP to node F and node D is correctly set up
   and continues delivering traffic.

3.2.  Steering for p2mp paths

   To take advantage of the ring topology in protecting the data traffic
   over p2mp LSPs, we can configure two p2mp unidirectional SPME from
   each node on the ring that traverse the ring in both directions.
   These SPME will be configured with an egress at each ring node.  For
   every LSP that enters the ring at a given node the traffic will be
   sent through one of these SPME (the working SPME) - pushing the SPME
   label onto the packet label stack.  Each LSR on the ring will forward
   a copy of the packet along the SPME, but check the packet by popping
   the SPME label and examining the underlying LSP label.  If this LSR
   is an egress point for the LSP it will treat the data packet
   appropriately.  If the LSR is not an egress point for the LSP, the
   packet will be silently dropped.

                               ^            ^            ^
                              _|_          _|_          _|_
                       ----->/LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                             \_A_/========\_B_/========\_C_/
                              +*              <+++++++++*||
                              +*                       +*||
                              +*                       +*||
                              +*                       +*||
                              +*_ ++++++++     +++++++++*||
                             /LSR\********/LSR\********/LSR\
                             \_F_/<=======\_E_/========\_D_/
                               |            |            |
                               V            V            V

           ---> connected LSP      *** physical link
           ===  primary p2mp SPME  +++ secondary p2mp SPME

                           Figure 7: P2MP SPMEs

   Using this SPME architecture, we define a 1+1 linear protection
   mechanism [SurvivFwk] for all protected data traffic traversing the
   MPLS-TP ring.  The data for a particular p2mp LSP is transmitted on
   both the working and recovery SPME, using a permanent bridge.  While
   each node detects that there is connectivity from the ingress point,
   it continues to select the data that is coming from the working path.
   If a particular node stops receiving the connectivity messages from
   the working path SPME, it identifies that it must switch its selector
   to read the data packets from the recovery SPME.

   Figure 7 shows the two unidirectional p2mp SPME that are configured



Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   from LSR-A with egress points at all of the nodes on the ring.  The
   clockwise SPME (i.e.  A-B-C-D-E-F) is configured as the working SPME,
   that will aggregate all traffic for p2mp LSPs that enter the ring at
   LSR-A and must be sent out of the ring at any subset of the ring
   nodes.  The counter-clockwise SPME (i.e.  A-F-E-D-C-B) is configured
   as the recovery SPME.  Applying 1+1 linear protection to these two
   SPME - a packet that arrives at LSR-A with a label stack [LI|BOS]
   will be forwarded on the clockwise SPME with a label stack [PA1(F)|
   LE|BOS] and concurrently on the counter-clockwise SPME with a label
   stack [PA2(B)|LE|BOS].

   Assume that the LSP "LI" has egress points at LSR-C & LSR-E.  When
   the packet arrives at LSR-B, LSR-D, and LSR-F, the LSR will forward
   the data packet to continue along the SPME, e.g. at LSR-D the packet
   will be forwarded with label stack [PD1(F)|LE|BOS].  But in addition
   LSR-D will retain a copy of the packet, pop the SPME label and
   examine the underlying LSP label.  Since LSR-D is not an egress point
   for LSP-LI, the packet will be dropped.  At LSR-C the data packet
   will be forwarded along the SPME (with label stack [PC1(F)|LE|BOS],
   but when the retained copy is examined (after popping the SPME label)
   it will determine that the packet is intended for this LSR as an
   egress point and switch the LSP label forwarding this packet with the
   label stack [LE|BOS].

   If a fault condition is detected, then some of the nodes will cease
   to receive the packets from the clockwise (working) SPME.  These LSR
   should then begin to switch their selector bridge to accept the data
   packets from the counter-clockwise SPME (i.e.  A-F-E-D-C-B), using a
   similar logic to that presented in the previous paragraph.

   This architecture has the added advantages that there is no need for
   the ingress node to identify the existence of the misconnectivity,
   and there is no need for a return path from the egress points to the
   ingress.


4.  Coordination protocol

   The Survivability Framework [SurvivFwk] indicates that there is a
   need to coordinate protection switching between the end-points of a
   protected bidirectional domain.  The coordination is necessary for
   particular cases, in order to maintain the co-routed nature of the
   bidirectional transport path.  The particular cases where this
   becomes necessary include cases of unidirectional fault detection and
   use of operator commands.

   By using the same mechanisms defined in [LinProtect], for linear
   protection, to apply for ring protection we are able to gain a



Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   consistent solution for this coordination between the end-points of
   the protection domain.  The Protection State Coordination Protocol
   that is specified in [LinProtect] provides coverage for all the
   coordination cases, including support for operator commands, e.g.
   Forced-Switch.


5.  Interconnected rings

   The Requirements document [TPReqs] states that the ring protection
   must support a single ring that may be interconnected to other rings.
   In addition, traffic that traverses a number of rings within a
   network of interconnected rings must be protected even if the
   interconnection nodes and links fail.

   When interconnecting rings in a network there are two common
   interconnection schemes:

   o  Dual-node interconnect - when the interconnected rings are
      interconnected by two nodes from each ring (see Figure 8)

   o  Single-node interconnect - when the connection between the
      interconnected rings are through a single node (see Figure 9)

   The protection schemes presented in Section 2 are capable of
   protecting each interconnected ring as a separate entity independent
   of the other rings in the network.  This protects the traffic that
   traverses the entire network, as each ring will continue to transfer
   the traffic to the interconnection points, and from there to the next
   ring.

   When the interconnection nodes or links fail, there is the need to
   protect these connection points.  Therefore, it should be noted that
   in the case of single-node interconnect the interconnection node
   (LSR-A in Figure 9) is a single-point of failure and such an
   interconnection scheme should be avoided.  In the case of the dual-
   node interconnect scheme in Figure 8, the connection point over LSR-
   A<-->LSR-6 and LSR-F<-->LSR-5 could use basic linear protection as
   defined in [SurvivFwk] and [LinProtect] .












Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


                      ____                     ___
                     / LSR\                   /LSR\
                   * \__B_/ *                *\_1_/*
                  *          *              *       *
                 *            *            *         *
             ___*              *___      _*_          * ___
            /LSR\              /LSR\****/LSR\          /LSR\
            \_C_/              \_A_/    \_6_/          \_2_/
              *     Ring #1      *        *   Ring #2    *
              *                  *        *              *
             _*_                _*_      _*_            _*_
            /LSR\              /LSR\    /LSR\          /LSR\
            \_D_/              \_F_/****\_5_/          \_3_/
                *              *           *            *
                 *            *             *          *
                   *   ____  *               *  ____  *
                     */ LSR\*                 */LSR \*
                      \__E_/                   \__4_/


                          *** physical link


                 Figure 8: Dual-node interconnected rings


                           ____                ___
                          / LSR\              /LSR\
                        * \__B_/ *           *\_1_/*
                       *          *         *       *
                      *            *       *         *
                  ___*              *___  *           * ___
                 /LSR\              /LSR\*             /LSR\
                 \_C_/              \_A_/              \_2_/
                   *     Ring #1      * *    Ring #2     *
                   *                  *  *               *
                  _*_                _*_  *  ___        _*_
                 /LSR\              /LSR\  */LSR\      /LSR\
                 \_D_/              \_F_/   \_5_/      \_3_/
                    *              *          *        *
                     *            *           *      *
                       *   ____  *            *___  *
                         */ LSR\*             /LSR\*
                          \__E_/              \_4_/


                               *** physical link




Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


                Figure 9: Single-node interconnected rings


6.  Conclusions and Recommendations

   Based on the use of the Path Segment Tunnel construct, defined in
   [TPFwk] and [OAMFwk], it is possible to define a protection mechanism
   for MPLS-TP rings that is based on linear protection [SurvivFwk].
   This mechanism would be based on 1:1 linear protection for
   bidirectional or unidirectional p2p data paths, and 1+1 linear
   protection for unidirectional p2mp paths.  It has been shown that
   this protection architecture and mechanism fulfills the criteria
   defined in [TPReqs] for justification of designing a specific
   protection mechanism for a ring topology.

   It has also been shown that basing the ring protection on the
   existing linear protection mechanisms defined in [SurvivFwk] and
   [LinProtect], the operator has a choice of using either the wrapping
   or steering methodology for protection of both p2p and p2mp data
   traffic.  In addition, there is no need to define any new
   coordination protocol to complete this protection, instead depending
   upon the OAM functionality [outlined in [OAMFwk] and specified in
   various documents] and the coordination protocol specified for linear
   protection in [LinProtect].


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

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


8.  Security Considerations

   To be added in future version.


9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank all members of the teams (the Joint
   Working Team, the MPLS Interoperability Design Team in IETF and the
   T-MPLS Ad Hoc Group in ITU-T) involved in the definition and
   specification of MPLS Transport Profile.






Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


10.  Informative References

   [FRR]      Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Exensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May 2005.

   [TPReqs]   Niven-Jenkins, B., Nadeau, T., and C. Pignataro,
              "Requirements for the Transport Profile of MPLS",
              RFC 5654, April 2009.

   [TPFwk]    Bocci, M., Bryant, S., Frost, D., and L. Levrau, "MPLS-TP
              Framework", ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-12, May 2010.

   [OAMFwk]   Niven-Jenkins, B., Allan, D., and I. Busi, "MPLS-TP OAM
              Framework", ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-06,
              May 2010.

   [SurvivFwk]
              Sprecher, N. and A. Farrel, "MPLS-TP Survivability
              Framework", ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-06,
              June 2010.

   [LinProtect]
              Sprecher, N., Bryant, S., van Helvoort, H., Fulignoli, A.,
              and Y. Weingarten, "MPLS-TP Linear Protection",
              ID draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-02, October 2009.

   [RSVP]     Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) - Functional
              Specifications", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC4427]  Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Recovery (Protection and
              Restoration) Terminology for GMPLS", RFC 4427, March 2006.

   [G.841]    "Types and characteristics of SDH network protection
              architectures", ITU-T G.841, October 1998.


Authors' Addresses

   Yaacov Weingarten
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
   Hod Hasharon,   45241
   Israel

   Phone: +972-9-775 1827
   Email: yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com




Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   Stewart Bryant
   Cisco
   United Kingdom

   Email: stbryant@cisco.com


   Nurit Sprecher
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   3 Hanagar St. Neve Ne'eman B
   Hod Hasharon,   45241
   Israel

   Email: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com


   Danielle Ceccarelli
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova, Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com


   Diego Caviglia
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova, Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com


   Francesco Fondelli
   Ericsson
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova, Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: francesco.fondelli@ericsson.com










Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                 MPLS-TP LP                      June 2010


   Marco Corsi
   Altran
   Via A. Negrone 1/A
   Genova, Sestri Ponente
   Italy

   Email: marco.corsi@altran.it


   Bo Wu
   ZTE Corporation
   4F,RD Building 2,Zijinghua Road
   Nanjing, Yuhuatai District
   P.R.China

   Email: wu.bo@zte.com.cn


   Xuehui Dai
   ZTE Corporation
   4F,RD Building 2,Zijinghua Road
   Nanjing, Yuhuatai District
   P.R.China

   Email: dai.xuehui@zte.com.cn


























Weingarten, et al.      Expires December 31, 2010              [Page 27]


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